UMW Master Plan by University of Mary Washington

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON

MASTER PLAN DRAFT REPORT MARCH 20, 2013

l a n i f t f a r d

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

C O N S U LT I N G T E A M BURT HILL Amber Luther Anton Germishuizen Emily Putas Scott Sullivan SYMMETRA DESIGN David Nartey Nelson Galeano Nicole White THE ENGINEERING GROUPE Ben Broker, LS Bruce Reese, PE Jason Towery, PE ROSS INFRASTRUCTURE John E. Ross III, PE Ronald M. Haas, PE C O N S T R U C T I O N C O N S U LTA N T S , I N C Martin O’Connell

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

PA R T I C I PA N T S

Significant contributions to this report have been made by members of the University’s administration, faculty, staff and student body. The brief list on this page mentions some of the contributors who have played an exceptional role in this process to date.

FROM UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON Richard Hurley - President Richard Pearce - Vice President for Administration & Finance, CFO CAMPUS MASTER PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE Courtney Chapman Carole Garmon Dave Kolar Doug Searcy Ed Hegman Emma Peck Gregg Stull James Harding Jay Harper Jeff Rountree John Wiltenmuth Kara Cutrona Liane Houghtalin Louis Martinette Nina Mikhalevsky Ray Scott Rebecca Hayes Steve Hanna Torre Meringolo John Morello

SPECIAL THANKS John P. Wiltenmuth, III Anika Wilson Barry Gribe Betty Bradshaw Brooke Kingsley Bruce Blair Cristina Roccini Douglas Sanford Erin Kelleher Erma Baker Gina Bocra Jeff McClurken Jill Sirota John Morello Joshua Kalteider Katherine Antarikso Kelly Sigmond Mathew Wilkerson Paul Nabti Rocco Magrino Sara Moore Steve Newcaster Susan Knick Susan Lafayette Werner Wieland

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON

MASTER PLAN T A B L E

O F

C O N T E N T S

MASTER PLAN PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alum Springs

159

Proposed Non-Residential Recommendations

232

MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stafford Overview

160

Existing Residential Analysis

244

C H A P T E R 1 - M A S T E R P L A N & S T R AT E G I C P L A N G OA L S. . .

Stafford East

162

Proposed Residential Recommendations

250

Stafford West

163

Infrastructure Recommendations

258

Duff Green

164

Landholdings Recommendations

262

Valade Property

165

Campus Standards and Design Guidelines

274

Master Plan Goals Strategic Plan Initiatives

C H A P T E R 2 - C A M P U S O V E R V I E W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2

APPENDIX........................................... 284

University History

Focus Group Process

Non-Learning Environment Utilization

168

Online Survey Questions And Results

284

Campus Characteristics

Utilization of Classrooms and Class Labs

172

Ross Report, TEG Report, Proposed Infrastructure Projects - Burt Hill

378

Statistical Data

Focus Group Responses

412

Demographics Map

Existing Parking Conditions

188

Utilization Base Data

422

Existing Building Use Map

Parking Recommendations

190

Physical Data

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 9 6

Existing Academic Departments

Fredericksburg Campus Master Plan Recommendation Overview 198

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITION ASSESSMENT............ 2 4

CHAPTER 5 - CAMPUS UTILIZATION............. 166

C H A P T E R 6 - PA R K I N G A N A LY S I S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 4

Stafford Campus Master Plan Recommendations Overview

200

Existing Building Condition Map

Planned Projects

202

Building Condition Scoring

Cost Summary

204

Deferred Maintenance

205

Building Conditions - Fredericksburg & Stafford Campuses

30-129

Landscape Fredericksburg Campus

130

Projects Timeline

206

Landscape Stafford Campus

150

Proposed Building Use Map

208

Existing Academic Analysis

210

CHAPTER 4 - UNIVERSITY LANDHOLDINGS........... 1 5 2 Fredericksburg Overview

154

Proposed Academic Recommendations

212

Fredericksburg Campus

156

Temporary / Swing Space Plans

228

Eagle Village

158

Existing Non-Residential Analysis

230

THE

PROCESS

CREATING THE MASTER PLAN

INTRODUCTION

Burt Hill’s higher education experience with over 200 campuses nationwide has allowed for a thorough and developed master planning process that is inclusive and transparent yet flexible enough to accommodate the needs and desires of each University community. The process provides a strong framework that allows each institution to showcase its unique campus culture and administrative philosophy. Typically, Burt Hill proposes that the master planning process physically represents a University’s strategic plan. The University engaged Burt Hill to prepare a comprehensive campus master plan for its Fredericksburg and Stafford campuses.

E S TA B L I S H I N G A S T E E R I N G C O M M I T T E E

Prior to the start of the project, the University of Mary Washington established a Steering Committee, a small group of stakeholders whose role was to advise the President. This group also served as the primary connection between the institution as a whole and Burt Hill. The members represented a diverse cross section of the University that could be engaged throughout the process, including faculty, students, and administration.

E S TA B L I S H G O A L S A N D G U I D I N G P R I N C I P L E S

Once the Steering Committee was established, Burt Hill worked with the group to establish the Goals and Guiding Principles of the project. Burt Hill’s team confirmed that each recommendation of the Master Plan fulfilled the goals and principles of the University of Mary Washington’s Strategic Plan.

C A M P U S W O R K S H O P S A N D I N F O R M AT I O N G AT H E R I N G

The project team spent several days on campus in an effort to become immersed in the University’s culture and gather appropriate baseline information. Burt Hill collected all existing documentation relevant to the planning process, such as surveys, reports, construction documents, and other previously completed plans and studies. This information was catalogued and reviewed with the University for accuracy. Burt Hill then conducted interviews, focus groups, and public forums, using proven methods of information gathering to engage specific audiences and gain information directly from multiple constituencies. In addition to focus groups, Burt Hill also engaged the University at-large with electronic questionnaires to faculty, staff, students and alumni to gain a broader understanding of each campus’ positive and negative aspects.

STEP 1 - CREATING A CAMPUS PROFILE

Burt Hill first became familiar with UMW’s campus history, academic programs, campus and academic vision, enrollment statistics, staffing data, and physical environment. The team reviewed and examined the collection of information and data provided by the University and presented all relevant facts that were used to inform and shape the rest of the Master Plan document. At the conclusion of this phase, Burt Hill understood the aspects that make University of Mary Washington special and why the UMW is one of the top liberal arts colleges in the nation.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

STEP II - ASSESSING CAMPUS CONDITIONS

During Step II, Burt Hill and their consultants then evaluated the physical and operating conditions of the campuses and grounds at UMW through field inspection and discussion with facilities management and operations personnel. The assessment considered the existing campus-wide conditions of land use, circulation, landscape, geography, security, physical conditions, life safety, accessibility, environmental issues, technology, utilities, adaptability, and suitability. All academic, athletic, food service, residential, research, physical plant, and student service buildings were individually examined and analyzed. All buildings on both campuses were assessed considering architectural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection, code compliant, accessible, and technological features. This data aided in informing recommendations regarding adaptability and suitability. Burt Hill identified limitations and opportunities that could be used to shape future campus recommendations. A comprehensive campus survey was also used to confirm the conditional data found in the July 2009 Asset Detail Report.

S T E P I I I - A N A LY Z I N G S PA C E N E E D S

The analysis performed during this step identified current use in the existing facilities and formed the basis for Burt Hill’s final space needs recommendations. This analysis focused on learning environment (e.g. classrooms and class labs) utilization, full time equivalent (FTE) student capacity, non-learning environment benchmarking, and recommended space needs. Burt Hill reviewed the UMW Office of Institutional Research for existing space use and compared it to data from the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) Programming Standards, the Society of College and University Planners (SCUP), and UMW’s peer institutions. Burt Hill recommended changes and or updates to the comparable standards based on experience with similar facilities planning. Chapter 5 explores recommendations for classroom space standards. It is anticipated that UMW will grow to 4,500 FTE students by 2019. Based upon the findings of the utilization report, the University can support an additional 365 students before optimum academic utilization levels are reached. However, there will be a shortage of available academic space once enrollment reaches 4,500. It is recommended that UMW provide new academic, student life, and administrative space in order to accommodate this growth. The analysis provided in Chapter 5 was completed by reviewing departmental FTE per building. Departmental FTE is representative of credits awarded in that discipline and does not equal the majors in that department. For example, sciences (Jepson Hall) currently represent 507.5 FTEs. If every learning environment in Jepson were optimized and met target levels for time use and station occupancy, the sciences could support an additional 365 FTEs within the current space inventory. However, changes to Jepson’s current use of space would have to be made on many levels to achieve this growth. Changes in culture, such as better use of the labs across disciplines and spreading instructional lab needs across rooms to increase individual lab usage, would be required. The science curriculum would also require evaluation to maximize existing room use. A curriculum evaluation may shed light on opportunities for efficiency but will not account for dramatic FTE increases alone.

Chapter 5 illustrates how replicating this space evaluation process for the other academic departments could accommodate a growth of roughly 1,600 FTE students in the existing facilities. It also reviews in more detail the cultural changes that would be required, such as the ability to schedule courses across departments and buildings. Any increase in FTE has a direct relationship with overall head count. Thus, an additional 365 FTE equals approximately 400 more enrolled students, which impacts other areas of the University. Roughly 25 more faculty offices would be required to support the additional students, as well as over 300 dormitory beds, 600 dining hall seats, new structured parking opportunities, and a significant increase to campus administration services. Even though the instructional spaces can support significantly more students, the current limitations of existing auxiliary space at the University will make any growth challenging. Overall, utilization rates at UMW are representative of most four-year public state institutions when all factors are considered, though most rooms do not generally meet the SCHEV targets for utilization - a combination of time used and seats occupied. This finding indicates the University can support a small increase in students within the current learning environment inventory.

STEP IV - REVIEWING DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

As a result of the academic utilization study, peer benchmarking, walkthroughs, campus meetings, and data analysis, Burt Hill determined there is a need for a small increase in academic space on the Fredericksburg campus to accommodate growth for 4,500 FTE students. In addition, the 2009 Strategic Plan’s recommendation for the creation of a new College of Business and College of Education will require additional academic space to accommodate these programs. Academic departmental space requires modest expansions to accommodate growth. This growth can be accommodated within the University’s existing building assets, with the exception of Jepson Hall, which requires a building addition. The Steering Committee was provided with several concept alternatives exploring different methods of implementation. Burt Hill presented several design iterations that each contained a different master plan driver as well as academic recommendations that equally emphasized student life and residential recommendations. Multiple campus growth options were also reviewed to ensure that every potential issue was understood. The Steering Committee weighed the design alternatives to arrive at the optimum solution to meet the goals of the Strategic Plan. Finally, Burt Hill presented The Master Plan recommendations to the University at-large in the form of open forums and digital download for public comment.

STEP V - A FINAL RECOMMENDATION

The final recommendations illustrated in Chapter 7 suggest the highest and best use solutions to the primary needs of both Fredericksburg and Stafford campuses in order to achieve the goals set forth in the Strategic Plan, as well as bring the existing facilities up to a good or excellent condition. The Master Plan makes recommendations that will enhance the small liberal arts experience on the Fredericksburg campus, and provide for the anticipated growth of the Stafford Campus. The renovation of eight residence halls will enhance the on-campus student experience and provide a strengthened sense of community. Construction of five new residence halls, all in place of existing halls in poor condition, will provide the space needed to accommodate enrollment growth within a 15 year period. A performing arts center will provide a state-of-the-art venue for the University and enhanced collaboration with the Fredericksburg community. Extending the Fredericksburg campus walk and creating a pedestrian bridge across William Street will provide a connection between the main campus and the University Apartments and make the daily crossing of William Street safer for students. A new Campus Center and Board Dining facility will bring new life to and strengthen the heart of campus, unite and centralize student life functions and services that are currently scattered across the campus, and provide “right-sized” dining functions. An addition will be provided to Jepson Hall to accommodate growth in the sciences. Finally, although the existing space is adequate for current enrollment, this plan has outlined a location for a future building should the need for additional space arise.

CONNECTING THE DOTS The 2009 University of Mary Washington Strategic Plan (the Strategic Plan) outlines a series of academic and strategic objectives to be achieved or initiated between 2009 and 2014. The Strategic Plan is a plan for the strategy, direction, decision making, and allocation of resources to pursue the University’s strategic mission as it relates to people, capital, accomplishments, and performance. The University of Mary Washington Comprehensive Master Plan (the Master Plan) is a roadmap for the physical development of the University, providing a prioritization of projects within a ten-year period. More importantly, it must follow the guidelines set forth in the Strategic Plan approved by the Board of Visitors on November 20, 2009. Burt Hill has identified several objectives of the Strategic Plan that, along with the Master Plan, aid in strategically transforming the University of Mary Washington as well as identifying opportunities to reinforce progressive learning through improvements to the physical environment.

E N H A N C I N G A N D P R O M OT I N G AC A D E M I C E XC E L L E N C E UMW has made a commitment to offer high quality, rigorous academic programs that prepare students for advanced study, furthering professional development, research, leadership, and service to the region. The development of the Colleges of Education (COE) and Business (COB) are two examples of this commitment. The plan outlined in this document outlines several options for providing the space required to support these new programs, including an additional 30,000 net square feet as a result of renovating Woodard Campus Center for academic space. The renovation of Woodard Hall could also allow the building to serve as a flagship building for the COB.

Another goal of the Strategic and Master Plans is to continue fostering development opportunities for the College of Arts and Sciences. By providing opportunities for students, faculty, staff, and the community to experience the cultural qualities the University will encourage growth in the visual and performing arts throughout the region. A new Arts Center would celebrate the University’s distinctive approach to the arts and serve as a cultural asset for the Fredericksburg campus as well as the community. The Master Plan team explored two potential sites for such a facility: the first at William Street and Sunken Road and the second as an addition / renovation to the existing Arts Complex. This Master Plan provides a baseline option that requires further exploration and a comprehensive programing study. Support of the University’s fastest growing programs in the physical and biological sciences will continue to prepare students for future careers in these areas. An addition to Jepson Hall is a baseline solution to enhancing these programs. An addition could offer the multi-purpose lab, research and additional office spaces needed to support the growth of academic programs, while also offering opportunities to enhance the educational capacity and technological advancement of the existing facility.

C R E AT I N G A C O L L A B O R AT I V E S T U D E N T E X P E R I E N C E UMW recognizes that blending curricular and co-curricular learning environments within a student-centered environment are a high priority. A primary goal of the UMW Strategic Plan is to enhance the quality of student life and identify, design, and create spaces on both campuses that better serve the social, study, and meeting needs of students. Many at the University feel strongly that there is a need for a new, single, campus center building rather than many student-centered precincts throughout campus. The goal of this new building would be to combine the existing functions of Woodard with the functions of Seacobeck, as well as to house student life staff (currently in Tyler House), student organizations (currently in Seacobeck), residence life (currently in Marye House), and a Multicultural suite (currently in Lee Hall) under one roof. A new building would offer greater flexibility in design; centrally located student activities, organizations, and dining; and a larger dining seat capacity within a single building. This building type naturally wants to be near the center of campus. Placing a new student center / board dining on the existing Chandler Hall site is an ideal option that offers many benefits, including a direct connection to Ball Circle, greater transparency between the building and College Avenue adding to the “see and be seen” quality of a campus center, and provides an ideal location for an impressive new campus gateway to attract the many people that travel along that artery. The location along College Avenue also opens the building up for community use, which is highly encouraged throughout the objectives of the Strategic Plan. The primary goal of this facility is to provide students with more space for organizations, offices, and dining to better service their needs.

ENHANCE REGIONAL ENGAGEMENT The University of Mary Washington’s Stafford Campus is a one example of its commitment to regional collaboration and engagement. Continuing to provide leadership and service regionally will create valuable experiences and opportunities for students and contribute to the area’s economy.

In addition to accommodating future academic growth on the Stafford campus, the Master Plan outlines other development opportunities that exist within the University’s existing landholdings. The University of Mary Washington campuses are located within the DC / Baltimore Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The University and the University of Mary Washington Foundation’s current land holdings lie in both the City of Fredericksburg and Stafford County. Despite current economic conditions, Fredericksburg has grown into a DC bedroom community with increasing pressure from suburban sprawl, and the city’s population is expected to continue to grow, offering many opportunities and alternatives for regional engagement. Stafford County is likely to see continued population growth, and eventually there will be increased demand for housing. With its proximity to DC and Richmond, Virginia, Stafford County is an attractive commercial location because of its affordability; and the county is supportive of expanding UMW’s Stafford campus, having highlighted the Foundation’s properties as institutional uses in their land use mapping. All of these factors support collaborative solutions between the region and the University in the future.

STRENGTHEN THE IMAGE AND RECOGNITION OF UMW The University of Mary Washington’s Fredericksburg campus has been nationally recognized as one of the nation’s best small public liberal arts colleges. The University expresses a strong desire to uphold this reputation, enhance, and fortify this reputation. After engaging the University and community in a self assessment of the priorities and vision for its physical facilities, it was determined that future development of the Fredericksburg campus should be based upon minimal enrollment growth over a ten-year period. It was also decided that this development should focus on enhancing the small liberal arts experience. Likewise, development on the Stafford campus should be encouraged to support regional growth. The plan outlined in this document will help meet the University’s needs for physical space, preserve its most memorable buildings and landscapes, and enhance the beauty and utility of the campus. The plan weaves the University’s past, present, and future into a more integrated system of landscape and buildings that are explicitly representative of the University’s historic, small town image.

A M O R E S U S TA I N A B L E C U LT U R E The University has a considerable number of sustainability initiatives underway or in planning phases. A Sustainability Committee has been appointed and has made the commitment to encourage and enhance sustainable practices across the institution. The concept of sustainability involves a thoughtful measure of resources consumed and wastes emitted, and consideration of the long-term effects of these on the Earth’s systems and human health. University sustainability initiatives should include a broad range of actions including energy use, supply, and distribution; material supply and disposal; food supply; water supply and disposal; building design and construction, including mechanical systems; transportation; vegetation and landscape; and education, research, and outreach.

PLANNED PROJECTS E X E C U T I V E

S U M M A R Y

The following proposed projects represent the primary recommendations of the Master Plan that aid in the physical manifestation of the University’s Strategic Plan. The recommendations are the result of regular meetings with the Steering Committee, an understanding of the University’s existing physical attributes, the need for learning and non-learning space as a result of current utilization and anticipated growth, and the objectives of the Strategic Plan. These recommendations will help guide the University to becoming the best public liberal arts institution in the United States. The following projects have been developed to respect the existing University’s scale, architectural character, and open space, while improving accessibility, program efficiency, and flexibility for ever-evolving pedagogies.

JEPSON HALL The Steering Committee defined an addition to Jepson Hall as a high priority to support the fast growing physical and biological science programs. This four-story addition will house classrooms on the first floor, multipurpose labs on the second, labs and classrooms on the third, and faculty offices and meeting rooms on the fourth floor. Small, surgical walkways will need to be made to connect the existing interior corridors with the new addition. Several small lab storage spaces will need to be taken offline to accommodate this connector; however, the spaces will be relocated adjacent to the new connector or within the new addition.

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS Since there are little, if any, on-campus locations for potential new buildings to be constructed, the repurposing of existing buildings is inevitable. The creation of a new campus center on the existing Chandler Hall site allows Woodard to be renovated and repurposed as the College of Business.

CAMPUS CENTER Transformational projects such as the new Campus Center will create a new campus gateway along College Avenue and provide an enhanced facility for all student life as well as centralized board dining functions. A new four-story brick and cast stone structure will replace the existing Chandler Hall to provide a centrally located student life hub featuring right-sized retail and board dining functions, student organizations and student life suites, office space, meeting rooms, ballroom, spirit store, and lounge space. In order to initiate this project, Business and Psychology Departments will have to be temporarily relocated. A plan for this relocation is provided in Chapter 7. Site work will feature plazas off College Avenue and Ball Circle, potential for a rain garden, and a more functional loading dock. SEACOBECK HALL Since campus dining functions will be relocated within the new Campus Center, options for repuposing or reprogramming Seacobeck Hall require further exploration.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

MERCER HALL RENOVATION The renovation of and addition to Mercer Hall is a high-priority project that will hinge on the razing of Chandler Hall to construct the new Campus Center. Located within close proximity to Palmieri Plaza, Mercer Hall has the potential to serve as a flagship building for the Psychology Department. RENEWAL OF EXISTING ACADEMIC BUILDINGS The renewal of existing academic buildings is an important component of the Master Plan as well. Phased renovations in Goolrick, duPont, Pollard, Melchers, and Trinkle Halls are needed to maintain the integrity of these buildings and their efficient operation for future use. The plan will also help meet the University’s needs for physical space, preserve its most memorable buildings and landscapes, and enhance the beauty and utility of the Fredericksburg Campus.

JEFFERSON SQUARE Creating combinations of uses within existing precincts and within buildings that support UMW as an integrated community are goals of both the Master and Strategic Plans. Redeveloping and rejuvenating Jefferson Square is a perfect opportunity for this type of transformation. Replacing Bushnell Hall with a building whose program focuses on celebrating the connections between living and learning would allow for the creation of an honors college or other featured academic experience. Creating these unique academic environments also aids in fulfilling the challenges put forth in the Strategic Plan to promote co-educational development opportunities.

Providing a new academic quad surrounded by a series of new appropriately scaled residence halls toward the south end of Jefferson Square will instill a renewed sense of community while meeting the University’s need for future residential bed space. It will also reclaim and preserve the iconic campus green space of Jefferson Square. R E V I TA L I Z I N G T H E A R T S One of the challenges of this Master Plan has been to mediate between the need to add new facilities and the need to maintain and support existing buildings. Several programming meetings with the Theater, Dance, Music, Studio Art, and Art History Departments as well as UMW administration led to the creation of department-specific programs establishing future space needs. All departments accepted the programs and chose two possible options for physical growth: (1) renovation of the existing Arts Complex with a modern “courtyard” in-fill, or (2) design of a new building for Theater, Dance, and Music Departments on Sunken Road and William Street and moving Studio Art and Art History Departments to renovated space in Pollard and duPont Halls. A more detailed technical study is recommended and should reflect a more detailed analysis of spatial relationships and program needs based on the available budget.

T H E S TA F F O R D C A M P U S The University of Mary Washington Stafford campus has proven to be a valuable asset in providing educational opportunities to the residents of Stafford County as well as programs for graduate and professional studies. The county anticipates continued population growth, and as such, there will be increased demand for professional educational development. Although the current buildings located on the Stafford campus are sufficient to support current needs, this plan has identified a potential location for a future building should the need for additional space arise. The site identified will provide UMW with the opportunity to transform the Stafford campus into a more welcoming academic village.

THE SIMPSON LIBRARY A renovation of the Simpson Library is also recommended as it will provide an enhanced center for teaching and learning complete with group study rooms, enhanced research and special collection areas, and varied groups of comfortable seating throughout the building. The renovation will consist of cosmetic upgrades as well as minor reconfigurations of existing interior spaces to accommodate the needs of a learning commons. The addition of the Information Technology Convergence Center to the Simpson Library should accentuate the need for as well as inform the renovation of the library. It is also recommended that a study be completed to review the structural integrity of the building’s exterior masonry construction. Cracks in the exterior masonry walls were visible after the earthquake that effected the area in August of 2011.

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE A unique quality of the UMW Fredericksburg campus is the strong pedestrian connections that have evolved between buildings and exterior spaces. As the campus continues to grow in a linear fashion (University Apartments to the south, Eagle Village to the north), it is important to continue to maintain these pedestrian connections and keep vehicular traffic flow along the perimeter of the campus. Creating a pedestrian bridge between the new development around Jefferson Square and the renovated University Apartments will extend the Campus Walk while creating a pedestrian-friendly link across William Street .

PARKING Parking availability, although seen as lacking by many constituents, is a compromise the University has had to make to maintain the pedestrian qualities of the Fredericksburg campus. The study documented in this report indicates the Fredericksburg campus provides adequate parking supply to meet current parking occupancy needs. However, there are still parking related issues along the surrounding residential neighborhoods streets, and the inadequacy of oncampus parking supply within the campus core area. These issues, along with projected future enrollment increases, warrant the construction of structured parking along College Avenue. A new parking structure in this location would also provide an opportunity to relocate the University Police to a more centralized and accessible location along College Avenue. INFRASTRUCTURE & DEFERRED MAINTENANCE In addition to these transformational projects, campus-wide recommendations to improve accessibility, life safety, building condition, landscape, and campus infrastructure on both campuses have been addressed. THE UMW HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN The Burt Hill team developed this Master Plan to respond to UMW’s growing need for physical space. Upon its completion, UMW’s Historic Preservation Plan should also inform the recommendations within this document. Our hope, as the University evolves over the next decade, is that both plans will inform physical development to complement a highly progressive, historically unique, and ambitious liberal arts institution.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 1

STRATEGIC PLAN & MASTER PLAN GOALS

The University of Mary Washington engaged Burt Hill to create a Comprehensive Master Plan that will serve as a roadmap for future physical development of the University. This Master Plan must follow the guidelines set forth in the Strategic Plan as well as take into account recommendations made by the Steering Committee. The following goals are a result of this criteria.

G O A L 1 Identify the sequence of projects that will facilitate the 2009 University of Mary Washington Strategic Plan. G O A L 2 Determine the optimum academic classroom utilization to inform the ideal Fredericksburg campus enrollment. G O A L 3 Indicate the proposed physical development of the Fredericksburg and Stafford campuses to enable the implementation of the 2009 University of Mary Washington Strategic Plan. G O A L 4 Understand the required changes to the Fredericksburg campus as a result of the establishment of the Colleges of Business and Education to augment the existing College of Arts and Sciences. G O A L 5 Indicate the needs of the Stafford campus as a result of the changes to the academic programs and curriculum. G O A L 6 Identify recommended student housing typologies for the Fredericksburg campus, and if the existing residence halls should be repurposed, renovated, or razed. G O A L 7 Enhance the student life experience and campus participation through improved and more flexible food service components, the introduction of living / learning concepts in the residence halls, upgraded outdoor recreational opportunities, and an updated campus center with programs and activities. G O A L 8 Identify parking needs based upon future enrollments. G O A L 9 Recommend the highest and best use of the University of Mary Washington Foundationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s property holdings.

CHAPTER 1 - MASTER PLAN GOALS

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON MASTER PLAN

2009 UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON

STR AT EG I C PLAN 2

UMW STRATEGIC PLAN 2009-2014 The following is a synopsis of the 2009 University of Mary Washington Strategic Plan that includes excerpts that tie into and effect the Campus Master Plan. UMW STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The president will work with the Board of Visitors to establish University funding priorities to implement 2009 University of Mary Washington Strategic Plan.

• • • •

GOAL 1: ENHANCE AND PROMOTE ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE

UMW will offer high quality, rigorous academic programs that prepare students for advanced study, further their professional development, and advance their careers. These programs will be provided in an environment that is challenging, studentcentered, and fosters experiential learning, research, leadership, and engagement with and service to the region. • OBJECTIVE 1.A: Recruit, retain, develop, reward, and support a highly qualified, diverse faculty. • OBJECTIVE 1.B: Recruit, enroll, and retain a high-achieving and diverse student body. • OBJECTIVE 1.C: Enhance and enrich the course of study in the liberal arts as a principal and defining character of the University and the foundation for the UMW undergraduate experience. • Engage the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) faculty in a self study, starting in the academic year 2009-2010 to examine the following: • Identify CAS strengths, areas that should grow / develop, areas that need improvement, programs that are no longer relevant or viable. • Consider the role of the CAS in conjunction with the development of the Colleges of Education and Business particularly with regard to the central place arts and sciences must have in defining the University’s undergraduate liberal arts course of study and experience as a whole. • Consider how CAS should continue to address the needs of non-traditional students and engagement in regional issues. • Increase opportunities for students to participate in fine and performing arts and or experience the richness of the cultural life of the University, foster and grow UMW performing arts programs and visibility, ensure that the museums and galleries strengthen their administrative and programmatic ties with the University to involve and serve more of the campus community • OBJECTIVE 1.D: Enhance and enrich the course of study at the graduate level, including programs in the arts and sciences, and expand professional education opportunities in areas responsive to the population of the region and that meet the strategic workforce needs of the Commonwealth. • Continue to expand professional educational and development opportunities. • Building on existing strengths and opportunities, examine the creation of selective, high quality graduate programs in the College of Arts and Sciences. • Conduct a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of the two undergraduate programs aimed at non-traditional students, Bachelor of Liberal Studies and

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

•

Bachelor of Professional Studies, with the goal of strengthening opportunities for non-traditional students. OBJECTIVE 1.E: Realize full university status and implement academic organization, administrative structures, and policies appropriate to a highquality, SACS Master III institution. Establish a College of Education. Establish a College of Business. OBJECTIVE 1.F: Establish an Office of Academic Planning, Assessment, and Analysis, reporting to the Provost, to support and coordinate institutional efforts to measure and improve the quality of educational programs, teaching, and student learning. OBJECTIVE 1.G: Build on the University of Mary Washington’s rich engagement with academic technologies and study of teaching and learning, and ensure that UMW becomes a leader in the fields of pedagogical scholarship, library services, and information resources.

GOAL 2: CREATE AND SUSTAIN AN INTEGRATED AND COLLABORATIVE UMW STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Blend curricular and co-curricular learning environments within a student centered environment. • OBJECTIVE 2.A: Create and implement an integrated first-year experience that incorporates in-class and out-of-class learning. Beyond the first year, create academic and co-curricular programs that promote student development and success in each succeeding year of student enrollment. • OBJECTIVE 2.B: Establish programs and connections that clearly and explicitly link a UMW education to careers, graduate, and professional development. • OBJECTIVE 2.C: Provide a distinctive and engaged student experience • Foster an integrated academic and co-curricular student life, strengthening school spirit, pride, and support for UMW, and encouraging student leadership, wellness, activities, and experiential learning. • Foster and support intercollegiate athletic program. Ensure intercollegiate athletic program maintains state, regional and national prominence in NCAA Division III competition. • Increase UMW student engagement in the Fredericksburg area and broader region. • Include a wellness education component in the University programs. • OBJECTIVE 2.D: Develop and implement administrative policies and services that directly support students’ initiatives and programming; review and, as necessary, modify administrative policies to reduce red tape, redundancy and obstacles; and ensure that staff are informed about and responsive to student needs, that student services are high-quality, and that communication between staff and students is meaningful, timely, and effective. • OBJECTIVE 2.E: Ensure that institutional facilities, buildings, and improvements to the campuses are designed to promote and enhance the quality of student life.

• • • • • •

• • •

Establish a committee to consider the further development of a student center for the Fredericksburg campus, which will: Accommodates all student organization offices and the offices of Student Activities, Residence Life, and Judicial Affairs. Has sufficient meeting rooms, food service, lockers, and lounges to meet the needs of all students. Serves as the heart of the campus for student interaction and involvement. A similar venue to meet the needs of the commuting, adult students should also be considered for the Stafford Campus. Create additional and more comfortable interior and exterior spaces in which students live, learn, and socialize. To promote community spirit, campus buildings and spaces should reflect the UMW identity and encourage school spirit. In order to improve the overall quality of student life, continue systematic improvements to the residence halls, including the evaluation of all building furniture needs and the initiation of systematic replacement program. Evaluate outdoor spaces on the campuses for placement of seating to encourage social interaction and enjoyment of campus beauty. Identify, design, and create spaces on the campuses to better serve social, study, and meeting needs.

GOAL 3: PROMOTE AND ENHANCE A DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY •

• • • •

OBJECTIVE 3.A: Provide leadership to develop and enhance diversity and inclusion as integral components of institutional excellence and to ensure coherence in the University’s academic and programmatic diversity and inclusion efforts. OBJECTIVE 3.B: Create an institutional infrastructure to promote diversity and inclusion. OBJECTIVE 3.C: Increase the enrollment and retention of students from under representative and targeted populations. OBJECTIVE 3.D: Increase hiring and retention of teaching faculty and administrative staff from underrepresented and targeted groups. OBJECTIVE 3.E: Enhance diversity in the curriculum.

GOAL 4: ENHANCE, STRENGTHEN, AND PROMOTE THE FINE AND PERFORMING ARTS, MUSEUMS, LIBRARIES, AND OTHER RICH CULTURAL RESOURCES OF THE UNIVERSITY •

OBJECTIVE 4.A: Develop a Master Plan for the Arts and Cultural Resources that considers the physical and programmatic needs of art, art history, creative writing, dance, music, and theatre, as well as Gari Melchers Home and Studio at Belmont, University Galleries, the James Monroe Museum and Memorial Library, and Germanna 1714 fort settlement and the Spotswood stone mansion sites. This plan should advance the University’s standing as a premier cultural

• • • • •

provider to the campus community and beyond. OBJECTIVE 4.B: Enhance and support student, faculty, staff, and community opportunities to study and participate in the fine and performing arts and other cultural resources of the University. Increase opportunities for students to directly participate in the fine and performing arts as well as experience the richness of the cultural life of the University. Increase artist residencies, presentation of professional arts events, and opportunities for students to collaborate with visiting artists. Determine the resource requirements to adequately support and expand on campus arts and other cultural programming, including the permanent staff in Dodd Auditorium. OBJECTIVE 4.C: Promote the fine and performing arts, museums, libraries, and other cultural resources of the University externally as part of UMW’s regional engagement and broader national identity.

GOAL 5: CREATE AND SUSTAIN A STRONG SENSE OF INSTITUTIONAL COMMUNITY AMONG UMW FACULTY AND STAFF

Provide the infrastructure to advance our mission, ensuring a productive and supportive university work environment • OBJECTIVE 5.A: UMW will become the employer of choice. • OBJECTIVE 5.B: Create an employee organizational structure for administrative faculty, classified, and wage employees that results in broader employee participation; provides employees with information regarding major initiatives and provides opportunities for input and feedback; communicates opportunities for increased employee participation in the design, development, and implementation of UMW programs, projects, and services; and creates a mechanism that involves employees in the budget process as well as making this process more transparent to employees. • OBJECTIVE 5.C: Create a culture of excellence that ensures a high-quality business and administrative infrastructure that promotes organizational effectiveness and efficiency, enhances cross-unit communication and collaboration, maintains meaningful and productive professional and interpersonal relationships, and enhances individual learning and growth. • OBJECTIVE 5.D: Ensure that all UMW campuses and physical facilities are planned, constructed, improved, and maintained to foster student and academic life and support the University’s mission and goals. • Develop and implement a new University Master Campuses Plan; as part of this process, consider the feasibility of the development of a preservation plan for UMW campuses. • Refer to Goal 2.E for an additional six items that are to be included in this objective. • OBJECTIVE 5.E: Design, procure, install, and maintain a superior information and instructional technology infrastructure that supports all UMW organizational functions and provides the technology, tools training, and user support that allows

•

• • •

• • • • •

all members of the institution to use technology effectively and efficiently. Develop an iterative two-to five-year plan comprehensive information technology plan and estimated cost for UMW’s Fredericksburg, Stafford and Dahlgren campuses that is aligned with the institution’s overall strategic plan and operational budget. Implement an automated space-scheduling program. Equip appropriate classroom spaces with a suite of instructional technology resources (equipment and software) adaptable to the needs of a variety of disciplines and pedagogies, and support high quality, innovative teaching. OBJECTIVE 5.F The University of Mary Washington will commit to sustainability, managing its resources to meet the social, economic, and environmental needs of the present without compromising the ability to meet the needs of future generations. Sustainability will be a strong component of our efforts to ensure that our students, faculty and staff take active responsibility for what they do and will be a part of our “scholarship in action” fostering interdisciplinary studies, experiential and service learning, opportunities for research, professional development, and support of our region and its environment. Continue to incorporate sustainability initiatives into ongoing projects, planning, and activity. Continue to incorporate sustainability into planning, performance, and maintenance of University buildings and grounds and into the University academic and business activity, including all offices, classrooms and residences. Continue to reduce UMW’s energy consumption through conservation and efficiency, and by switching to cleaner and more renewable sources of energy. Move toward zero waste by reducing, reusing, and recycling. Conduct a carbon footprint audit.

GOAL 6: PROMOTE AND ENHANCE REGIONAL ENGAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP AND SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC. •

• • •

OBJECTIVE 6.A: Serve as a catalyst for regional collaboration and cohesion, and for identifying challenges and opportunities to enhance connections, inclusion, and participatory engagement with and among members of the entire region; specifically: Establish a center for regional Engagement to serve as a venue for discussion and for collaborative solutions and create partnerships to assist in serving the region’s interests and needs. Connect academic research and teaching at all the campuses with regional challenges. OBJECTIVE 6.B: Serve a leadership role with defense / governmental establishments that are vital to the region as major contributors to the area’s economy

GOAL 7: DEMONSTRATE EFFECTIVE STEWARDSHIP OF EXISTING RESOURCES AND DEVELOP NEW REVENUE STREAMS TO SUPPORT STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVES • • • • •

• • •

OBJECTIVE 7.A: Develop a plan for increasing the University endowment. OBJECTIVE 7.B: Seek expanding state funding for capital projects and operating costs of new facilities coming online. OBJECTIVE 7.C: Develop a plan for internal reallocation of operating dollars in order to support priority projects in the strategic plan. OBJECTIVE 7.D: In conjunction with the Office of the Provost, hire a director to lead an Office of Grants and Research designed to assist faculty in acquiring grants and contracts. OBJECTIVE 7.E: Develop a transition plan between the closing of the current capital campaign and beginning of a new campaign. This plan will serve as a guide for private fundraising for priority initiatives included in the strategic plan. OBJECTIVE 7.F: Evaluate UMW’s tuition rate history to determine the feasibility of future increases in tuition to meet strategic needs of the institution. OBJECTIVE 7.G: Seek expanded state funding for institution’s operating budget. OBJECTIVE 7.H: Hire a full-time staff person responsible for developing institutional relationships with and funding from corporations and foundations.

GOAL 8: STRENGTHEN THE IMAGE AND IDENTITY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON AND EXPAND VISIBILITY AND RECOGNITION OF THE INSTITUTION • OBJECTIVE 8.A: Work with both internal and external constituents to clearly

•

establish UMW’s identity and visibility as a high quality public liberal arts university by focusing on the academic, professional, civic, and cultural values of a Mary Washington education both for the individual student and for the institution. OBJECTIVE 8.B: Actively recruit alumni to participate in University advisory, planning, and other groups, capitalizing on their expertise, involving them in the life of the University, and maintaining a strong, active relation ship with the alumni as invested and on-going partners in the institution’s identity and future. OBJECTIVE 8.C: Develop and implement an integrated and comprehensive communications, public relations, and marketing plan that results in raising awareness of UMW, builds a positive and accurate image of UMW, and raises the level of pride and interest in UMW among all constituents, the Commonwealth, and the nation. OBJECTIVE 8.D: In building the institution’s image and identity, the following elements, at minimum, shall be considered: University website, admissions materials, media relations, campus signage, publications, career services, alumni relations, fundraising efforts, facilities.

CHAPTER 1 - MASTER PLAN GOALS

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 2 C A M P U S

O V E R V I E W

This section summarizes the University of Mary Washingtonâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s history, academic programs, campuses and landholdings, academic vision, enrollment statistics, as well as staffing data. Burt Hill has reviewed and examined the collection of information and data provided by the University and presented all relevant facts that will be used to inform the shape of this document.

CHAPTER 2 - CAMPUS OVERVIEW

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON MASTER PLAN

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON

H I S T O R Y C O L L E G E

A N D

C A M P U S

1924 Ins titu tion be c ome s S tate Te ac he rs C olle g e at Fre de ric k s bu rg.

1908 Th e St at e N or m al an d I ndu st r i al S ch o ol f or Wom en i s f ou n ded.

1900 The University of Mary Washington was founded in 1908 as the State Normal and Industrial School for Women in Fredericksburg, Virginia. It became known as the State Teachers College at Fredericksburg from 1924 until1938, when it was renamed Mary Washington College, after Mary Ball Washington, the mother of George Washington. This was also when the Institution began developing into a strong liberal arts school for women. It became associated with the University of Virginia in 1944 as its Women’s College, supplying an undergraduate education in the arts and sciences. In 1970, due to federal legislation, the Institution transitioned from an all-women’s institution to coeducational, leading to its recognition in 1972 as a separate state supported co-educational institution by the Virginal General Assembly. A 2003 vote by the Board of Visitors led to a final name change for the college, and on July 1, 2004, the name was officially changed to the University of Mary Washington, encompassing both the Fredericksburg and Stafford campuses.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

1910

1920

The University of Mary Washington is currently comprised of two campuses: the Fredericksburg campus, which houses the undergraduate programs of the College of Arts and Sciences, and the Stafford campus, which encompasses the College of Graduate and Professional Studies. The University is also in the process of developing a third campus at Dahlgren that will have programs specializing in training military personnel and members of the community. Today, the University of Mary Washington is the only co-educational institution named after a secular woman. On the Fredericksburg campus there are also several buildings named after women in American history. Willard Hall is named after Frances Willard who helped establish the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and was a crusader of women’s rights. Lee Hall honors Ann Carter Lee, the mother of Robert E. Lee; Mason Hall is named after Mary Sable Mason, the mother of George Mason; and Randolph Hall is named after Martha Jefferson Randolph, a daughter of Thomas Jefferson. These three buildings, along with almost all of the other buildings on campus, were built in the Georgian style of architecture. Other defining characteristics of the Fredericksburg campus are the open spaces, mature trees, and magnificent landscape.

1940 Tri n kl e Ha l l o pen s a s t h e n ew l i bra ry.

1939 Ge org e Was hing ton H all ope ns and hou s e s s c hool adminis tration offic e s .

1929 C ons tru c tion of C handle r H all c omple te d. Ins titu tion formally be c ome s C ampu s Training S c hool for Te ac he rs .

1911 M onr oe H a ll is c omple te d and c l as se s be g in.

1944 I n st i t ut i o n beco mes pa rt o f t h e Un i versi t y o f Vi rgi n i a Syst em.

1938 Ins titu tion is re name d M ary Was hing ton C olle g e .

1930

1940

1950

The location of the Fredericksburg campus on Marye’s Heights was selected due to the historical significance of the area. The site was originally part of the Seacobeck Native American Village and a prominent part of the Battle of Fredericksburg. Ground-breaking of the first building on the campus, originally Russell Hall and later renamed Monroe Hall, occurred on December 14, 1909. During this same time, the first dormitory, Willard Hall, was also constructed. Both buildings were scheduled to be completed for the school opening in the fall of 1911. In 1916, due to increased enrollment, a second dormitory Virginia Hall, was opened. In 1929, Chandler Hall, which was originally known as the Campus Training School for Teachers, was completed. The first part of Ann Carter Lee Hall was dedicated in 1928 and housed an indoor swimming pool. Additional buildings continued to be constructed during the Great Depression in spite of the economic troubles at the time. Seacobeck Hall, the much needed dining hall, opened in 1931, and three additional dormitories – Ball, Madison, and Curtis Halls – were completed in 1935. George Washington Hall was built in 1939 to house all of the administrative offices, along with Dodd Auditorium, an elegant setting for lectures and performances. Westmoreland Hall, an additional dormitory named in honor of Westmoreland County, Virginia, was also built in 1939 The last building built during this period was the original library, Trinkle Hall, which was completed in 1941.

1951 The Fi n e A r ts Co m p le x o f d uPo n t, M e l che r s a n d Po lla r d Ha lls a r e construct e d .

1960 T h e V i r g i n i a G ener al A s sem bl y au t h or i z es t he C ol l eg e t o as su m e adm i ni s t r at i on of B el m ont .

1964 T h e V i r g i n i a Ge ne ral As s e mbly au t h or i z es t he C olle g e to as s u me adm i ni s t r at ion of Jame s M onroe Law O f f i c e M u s e u m and M e morial Li br ar y.

1986 C ampu s D riv e be c ome s C ampu s Walk .

1970 M ar y Washi ng t on C ol l eg e bec om es c o - edu c at i on al .

1960

1970

Construction on the campus slowed down during World War II but quickly ramped back up with the addition of seven buildings during the 1950s, including Mercer Hall (1950), which was the infirmary; Combs Hall (1959), an academic building; and the Fine Arts Complex that included duPont, Melchers, and Pollard Halls (1952). Mason (1954), Randolph (1954), and Bushnell Halls (1959), three additional dormitories, were also constructed during this decade. The 1960s saw construction on the campus of four new buildings, including thee residence Halls (Marshall - 1960, Russell - 1965, and Jefferson - 1967) and the gymnasium (Goolrick Hall - 1969). Also in the early 1960s, the Virginia General Assembly authorized Mary Washington to acquire administrative duties of Belmont Estate, the home, gallery, and gardens of artist Gari Melcher, as well as the James Monroe Law Office, Museum, and Memorial Library.

1992 The R idde rhof M artin G alle ry is bu ilt.

1980

1990

The institution saw extensive construction of new buildings again in the 1980s and 1990s with the addition of Woodard Campus Center (1987), Jepson Science Center (1996), Simpson Library (1988), and the Ridderhof Martin Gallery (1992). Three additional dorms were also constructed at this time: South (1988), Alvey (1990), and Arrington Halls (1993). Another major improvement to the Institution occurred in 1986 when Campus Drive was closed to vehicular traffic and became Campus Walk, a path traveling along the entire length of the campus for pedestrians only.

1999 The Jame s M onroe C e nte r, now the C olle g e of Gradu ate and Profe s s ional S tu die s , ope ns in S tafford C ou nty.

2004 The Ins titu tion ac hie v e s u niv e rs ity s tatu s .

2000

2007 Ca rmen Cul peper Ch a ppel l Cen t en n i a l Ca mpa n i l e i s dedi ca t ed.

2008 The Univ e rs ity cel ebra t es Fou nde rs D ay o n Ma rch 14.

2010

In 1999, the Institution opened the James Monroe Center in nearby Stafford County to meet the need for graduate and professional studies in the expanding surrounding communities. The name was changed in 2004 to the College of Graduate and Professional Studies, which still offers courses that are convenient for non-traditional and adult students. A second building was built on the Stafford campus in 2007, containing a large open meeting space for college and community venues. The college currently offers four degrees: Bachelor of Professional Studies, Master of Education, Master of Business Administration, and Master of Science Management Information Systems.

CHAPTER 2 - CAMPUS OVERVIEW

CAMPUS CHARACTERISTICS

RESPONSES F O C U S

G R O U P S

SUMMARY Burt Hill conducted a total of 27 focus group interviews at the University of Mary Washington Fredericksburg and Stafford campuses in which student, faculty and staff volunteers, or administrative leaders were asked about their thoughts and opinions regarding the physical characteristics of the existing campuses. Questions were asked in an interactive group setting where participants were free to talk with other group members. Group discussions produce data and insights that tend to be overlooked in other formats. The comments here are transcribed directly from conversations held during the focus group meetings. In addition to these forums, 7 decision making steering committee meetings were held; 1060 student, 300 faculty and staff, and 1135 alumni questionnaires were issued and reviewed; and 52 building walkthroughs were conducted, totaling in approximately 522,000 net residential and 813,000 academic, nonresidential, and administrative square footage assessed. In addition to these information gathering exercises, Burt Hill assessed 117 classrooms and class labs to determine their ideal utilization rates and capacity. Based on the feedback Burt Hill received during the focus groups and from the on-line surveys, the firm was able to identify the following common thread issues that will help guide the Master Plan:

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

CORE ISSUES • Maintain the natural beauty and historic architecture of the Fredericksburg campus in all future development. • Build new or renovate Woodard Hall into a more comprehensive Campus Center. • Renovate Goolrick Hall as a multi-use facility. • Create an addition to accommodate growth in the sciences. • Renovate vs raze residence halls. • Allow space for the Colleges of Business and Education on both Fredericksburg and Stafford campuses. • Effect of 2020 enrollment on the Fredericksburg and Stafford campuses. • Address the physical needs of the fine arts. • Improve biology and chemistry lab spaces in order to accommodate growth or diversification. • Improve the information resources in the Simpson Library.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON

CHARACTERISTICS

CORE CURRICULUM THEMES The University of Mary Washington is best known for its academic excellence and strong connection between students and faculty. Except for the occasional large orientation class of 100 students or more, students typically receive a great deal of personal attention in classes that are between 15 and 22 students. The smaller class size allows professors to get to know their students and promotes an intimate community that is vital at UMW.

Another tradition that UMW prides itself on is the Honor System. This system, which is completely run by members of the student body, creates a sense of trust and mutual respect on campus. UMW is conveniently located in between both District of Columbia and Richmond, Virginia. This location provides students with a great opportunity to see guest lecturers, cultural shows, and the arts. There is also a strong gallery and museum presence created on and around the Fredericksburg campus by the Ridderhof Martin Gallery, the James Monroe Museum, and Gari Melchers Home and Studio at Belmont. ACADEMICS The academic curriculum at the UMW offers more than 30 majors and 40 programs of study. Many students double major. If a student has an original academic path in mind, they are encouraged to create their own major by combining coursework and pursuits from different disciplines.

In order to stay true to its liberal arts roots, UMW ensures that students get broad exposure to a range of disciplines and methods of academic inquiry. General education requirements provide the opportunity to explore art, history, communication, science, human behavior, global awareness, and other areas of study. Students also learn how these fields fit together and influence one another, allowing them to make connections vital for promoting responsible decision making. In addition to the $280,000 the University spends annually to support student research and independent projects, UMW provides students with the opportunity to study abroad in over eight countries. The learning process is further enhanced by the efforts and ability of UMW

faculty. Professors are selected not simply for their deep knowledge of and experience in the subjects they teach, but for their commitment to learning. Faculty are decorated scholars, Pulitzer Prize winners, and members of the community who take a hands-on approach to teaching and learning. STUDENT LIFE There are more than 100 clubs and organizations at UMW’s undergraduate campus in Fredericksburg, spanning educational, social, cultural, religious, recreational, political, and community service interests. From the arts to the Baptist Student Union, students have ample opportunity to get involved and enhance student life at Mary Washington. The Community Outreach and Resources Office, also known as COAR, allows students the opportunity to volunteer at a number of community agencies including Habitat for Humanity.

Student life at UMW is also complimented by a strong arts, theater, and dance program. Programs enable students to gain experience in acting, directing, design, management, or technology, giving students the ability to exercise their creative side. With 23 varsity sports, a dozen club sports, and facilities to suit every interest, including a new convocation center, fitness center, and indoor tennis facility, UMW’s athletic programs offer students the opportunity to lead active lifestyles. The University’s proximity to downtown Fredericksburg is a quality that makes UMW extremely unique. Both a historic and contemporary city, Fredericksburg and its community are one of the fastest growing in Virginia and have the advantage of easy access to DC and Richmond. Due to that proximity students are able to take advantage of internships, research excursions, and weekend road trips.

CAMPUS SERVICES UMW’s finest physical quality is the natural beauty of its Fredericksburg campus. The scenic Campus Walk and historic architecture set within a lush landscape are assets the University is proud of. Resource packed learning environments are scattered throughout the Fredericksburg campus landscape and serve as tools to enrich the lives of those who work, and study at or visit the Fredericksburg campus.

The Simpson Library contains nearly 367,000 print volumes, 42,000 electronic books, and millions of magazines, newspapers, journals, maps, and government documents. The Jepson Science Center offers students state-of-the-art laboratories and technology to support contemporary sciences study and research. The Center for Historic Preservation is a unique program that serves as a resource for preservation education and activities for the campus and the nation. The Leidecker Center for Asian Studies supports interdisciplinary study of Asia as well as academic and cultural exchange. The Ridderhof Martin and duPont Galleries are museum-quality exhibition spaces that showcase work across times, culture and genres. UMW has a growing multicultural community supported by the James Farmer Multicultural Center, a resource that promotes cultural awareness on campus and in the community.

CHAPTER 2 - CAMPUS OVERVIEW

D I S T I N C T I V E N E S S

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON

STATISTICAL DATA E

DEMOGRAPHICS The University of Mary Washington’s student population is primarily from the Commonwealth of Virginia, but also includes a small percentage from other states and countries. Just over half of the freshmen enrolling at UMW come from Northern Virginia. Out-of-state enrollments are high from Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut. International students hail from Guatemala, Switzerland, and Nigeria, among others.

F R E S H M A N E N R O L L M E N T S AT U M W B Y R E G I O N Northeast Midwest West International

144 19 8 7

SHENANDOAH VALLEY MTS. 3.8%

NORTHERN 62.1%

SOUTHWEST 4.6%

> 10 STUDENT ENROLLMENTS / STATE < 10 STUDENT ENROLLMENTS / STATE

780 OF THE 959 FRESHMAN THAT ENROLLED AT UMW IN 2009 WERE FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA.

CENTRAL & RICHMOND 17%

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

AREA

EASTERN 12.3%

SHORE

MARYLAND, NEW YORK, AND NEW JERSEY ARE THE TOP THREE STATES WHERE FRESHMAN ENROLLMENTS ARE 20 STUDENTS OR HIGHER.

Enrollment: FTE: Commuting: Women: Men: Student-Faculty Ratio: FT Faculty: Adjunct Faculty:

1999-2009

4,135 3,812 1,678 2,692 1,443 15:1 217 30

2 0 0 9 S TA F F O R D C A M P U S S N A P S H OT All enrollment and FTE numbers identified in this profile were provided by the Office of Information Reporting. All faculty and staff counts were provided by the Office of the Provost. Enrollment: FTE: Commuting: Women: Men: Student-Faculty Ratio: FT Faculty:

FREDERICKSBURG STUDENT FTE

S TA F F O R D S T U D E N T F T E

1999-2009

1,245 540 1,245 883 362 15:1 31

DEPARTMENT PROFILE TRENDS FALL 2009 DEPARTMENT

STUDENT FTE

Engl i sh, Li ng uis t ics a n d Co m m un ica t io n M od e rn Lang ua ge s B usi ne ss Ad m in is t r a tio n Psy chol ogy M athe mati cs B i ol ogy Hi story and A m e r ica n S t ud ie s Classics, Philosophy, Religion, Greek, Latin S oci ol ogy an d A n th r o p o lo gy Pol i ti cal S ci en ce a n d In te r n a tio n a l A ffa ir s Economi cs Ge ograp hy Art Hi story a n d A r t S t ud io Che mi stry Ed ucati on The atre and Da n ce M usi c Ed ucatio n Compute r S c ie n ce Envi ronme nta l S cie n ce a n d G e o lo gy Hi stori c Pre s e r va tio n Phy si cs He al th and Ph ys ica l Ed uca t io n

407 367 256 256 236. 5 235. 5 223 190. 5 178. 5 153 139 130. 5 122 121 114 109 102. 5 99. 5 94 91.5 82.5 59.5

TOTAL

3768

FREDERICKSBURG STUDENT ENROLLMENT 1999-2009

FACULTY BY DEPARTMENT FALL 2009 FREDERICKSBURG D EPAR TM ENT

FACULTY COUNT

Eng lis h Ling u is tic s , and C ommu nic ation

M ode rn Fore ig n Lang u ag e s

B iolog y

Ps y c holog y

H e alth and P hy s ic al Edu c ation

B u s ine s s Admin

H is tory and Ame ric an S tu die s

C las s ic s , P hilos ophy, and R e lig ion

M athe matic s

S oc iolog y and Anthropolog y

Ge og raphy

Politic al S c ie nc e and Inte rnational Affairs

Art and Art H is tory

C he mis try

Edu c ation ( inc lu ding M S )

Env ironme ntal S c ie nc e and G e olog y

Profe s s ional S tu die s

C ompu te r S c ie nc e

M u s ic

Ec onomic s

The atre

H is toric Pre s e rv ation

P hy s ic s

OV ER ALL UND ER G R AD UATE FAC ULTY

216

STAFFORD D EPAR TM ENT

S TA F F O R D S T U D E N T E N R O L L M E N T

1999-2009

FACULTY COUNT

M as te r of Edu c ation

M as te r of B u s ine s s Adminis tration

M as te r of S c ie nc e in Ele me ntary Ed.

M as te r of S c ie nc e in M IS

OV ER ALL GR AD UATE

S TA F F O R D FA C U LT Y & S TA F F 2 0 0 9

FREDERICKSBURG FA C U LT Y & S TA F F 2 0 0 9

CHAPTER 2 - CAMPUS OVERVIEW

2009 FREDERICKSBURG CAMPUS SNAPSHOT All enrollment and FTE numbers identified in this profile were provided by the Office of Information Reporting. All faculty and staff counts were provided by the Office of the Provost.

BUILDING USE F R E D E R I C K S B U R G

C A M P U S COLLEGE

TERRACE

31 SUNKEN RD.

RUSSELL HALL

PARKING GARAGE

MARSHALL HALL

55 18

MARYE

AMPHITHEATRE

MERCER HALL

MONROE HALL

WILLARD

ARRINGTON HALL

LEE HALL

TRINKLE

HALL

CONVERGENCE CENTER (FUTURE)

6 SIMPSON LIBRARY

UMW APARTMENTS

WOODARD CAMPUS CENTER

51 THE ANDERSON CONVOCATION CENTER

BRENT HALL

ALVEY HALL

HALL

GOOLRICK HALL

RANDOLPH HALL

MASON HALL

WILLIAM STREE T

VIRGINIA

FRAMAR

BUSHNELL HALL

HALL

FITNESS CENTER

GEORGE WASHINGTON

DOLLY MADISON HALL

HALL

SOUTH HALL

JEFFERSON HALL POLLARD HALL JEPSON SCIENCE CENTER

DU PONT

HALL

CHANDLER HALL

SEACOBECK

HALL

MARY CURTIS HALL

RIDDERHOFF MARTIN GALLERY

EAGLE VILLAGE 2

COLLEGE

MARY BALL HALL

EAGLE VILLAGE 1

UMW APA

MELCHERS HALL

WESTMORELAND HALL

TYLER

COMBS HALL HAMLET

FAIRFAX

AVE.

1004 1201 1004 COLLEGE AVENUE

HEATING PLANT

32 COLLEGE

HEIGHTS

Building Use Academic

Residential Adminstration Other Non Residential

100 50

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

200 150

300 250

1201 WILLIAMS STREET

UMW APARTMENTS UMW APARTMENTS

ET STRE JEPSON ALUMNI CENTER

UMW APARTMENTS

F R E D E R I C K S B U R G

C A M P U S

The Fredericksburg campus is unique from many other campuses in that its buildings arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t grouped by function, but seemingly scattered in an unorganized fashion along a central organizing element, Campus Walk. However, most residential buildings are offset from Campus Walk, while academic structures are more directly connected, illustrating there is a subtle order to how the campus has evolved that should be respected.

TENNIS CENTER

4 1201 1201 WILLIAMS STREET

ATHLETIC FIELD

ATHLETIC FIELDS

PHYSICAL PLANT BUILDING

ATHLETIC FIELD

V. EARL DICKENSON STADIUM

Building Use ATHLETIC FIELD

BUILDING USE

VER

ATHLETIC FIELD

Academic Residential Adminstration

100 50

200 150

300 250

Other Non Residential

CHAPTER 2 - CAMPUS OVERVIEW

OUTH HALL

HANO

WILLIAM STREE T

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON

P H Y S I C A L D ATA E X IST I N G

C A M P U S

B U I L D I N G S Q U A R E F O OTA G E C A L C U L AT I O N S Building gross and net square footages are based on cad plans and PDFs provided by Facilities Services and cross-checked against square footages listed in the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s asset report table provided by the Office of Information Reporting.

AS S ETS

S TA F F O R D C A M P U S

FREDERICKSBURG CAMPUS

Bldg. #

B l d g. N a m e

Burt Hill Burt Hill N et Squ ar e Gross Feet Square Feet

Burt Hill Net To Gross Ratio

Bldg. #

B l dg. Name

B u rt H ill Burt Hill Ne t S qu are Gross Fe e t Square Feet

Burt Hill Net To Gross Ratio

Bldg. #

B ldg. Name

B u rt Hi l l Burt Hill Ne t Squa re Gross Fe e t Square Feet

Burt Hill Net To Gross Ratio

CGPS South

38,997

43,359

90%

George Washington Hall

39,191

42,464

92%

South Hall

14,144

15,570

91%

CGPS North

54,253

58,783

92%

Tyler House

2,093

2,544

82%

Arrington Hall

32,513

35,496

98%

93,250

102,142

Fairfax House

2,404

2,907

83%

Ridderhoff Martin Gallery

N/A

3,100

Brent House

6,510

7,531

86%

Jepson Science Center

67,229

72,195

93%

Bushnell House

18,298

18,784

97%

Lee Hall

67,246

75,242

89%

Chandler Hall

24,199

27,060

89%

Physical Plant Building

N/A

28,170

Combs Hall

41,341

45,540

91%

V Earl Dickenson Stadium (baseball)

N/A

7,937

DuPont Hall

33,471

37,117

90%

Fitness Center

18,209

20,071

Trinkle Hall

33,698

37,568

90%

UMW Apartment All

N/A

154,011

Framar House

4,847

5,821

83%

The Anderson Convocation Center

33,192

52,000

64%

Hamlet House

3,051

3,647

84%

Jepson Alumni Executive Center

25,508

28,999

88%

Mercer Hall

12,614

14,563

87%

The Convergence Center

N/A

Madison Hall

6,447

7,620

85%

Eagle Village 1 Residences

N/A

206,000

Marshall Hall

35,052

38,200

92%

Eagle Village 2 Retail, Offices & Parking

N/A

221,000

Ball Hall

28,771

31,743

91%

University Tennis Center

N/A

22,937

Custis Hall

12,047

13,468

89%

The Parking Deck

N/A

113,167

Marye House

3,544

4,048

88%

1004 College Avenue

5,129

6,060

85%

Mason Hall

50,304

63,445

79%

1201 William Street

7,377

8,349

88%

Melchers Hall

17,882

19,810

90%

The James Monroe Museum

N/A

5,357

Monroe Hall

40,884

47,853

85%

Annex A

N/A

Pollard Hall

15,183

17,091

89%

Annex B

N/A

Randolf Hall

47,260

52,211

91%

TOTAL SQUARE FEET

1,142,210

2,048,930

Russell Hall

36,948

42,376

87%

Seacobeck Hall

42,930

46,953

91%

Virginia Hall

50,176

54,676

92%

Westmoreland Hall

18,940

21,714

87%

Willard Hall

51,670

56,560

91%

Jefferson Hall

23,427

27,226

86%

Goolrick hall

76,346

80,049

95%

Cornell House

N/A

1,000

Heating Plant

N/A

8,289

Woodard Campus Center

29,668

31,555

94%

Simpson Library

29,374

31,430

93%

Alvey Hall

32,513

33,315

98%

TOTAL SQUARE FEET

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

91%

90%

C A L C U L A T I O N S The existing academic department square footage calculations were formulated to estimate space needs over time. A combination of university room data, scheduling data, and virtual modeling yielded existing department square footage by building. The department square footage totals are generated based on the sum of department office, class lab, and other department specific spaces. In Chapter 7 - Recommendations, these existing square footages are multiplied by a growth factor which assumes uniform growth over a period a decade to determine future space needs by department. Although departmental growth is hardly ever uniform, space allocations can be made for master planning purposes and then, if needed, reassigned to different departments as growth occurs over the 10 - 15-year period this plan covers.

EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGES BY DEPARTMENT Bldg. #

Bldg. Name

Chandler Hall

Department

7,277

Multi

6,042

Combs Hall

Monroe Hall

Leisure and Recreational Activities

56,212

Library and Archival Science

26,296

Goolrick Hall

76,346

Simpson Library

29,374 Multi

1,396 39

Jepson Science Center

286 67,229

Biological Sciences

15,807

Historic Preservation

4,926

Physical Sciences

23,922

Multi

5,303

Mutli

8,531

Visual and Performing Arts

19,603

Business

9,123

686

Education

2,312

34,371

Multi

3,670

33,471

CGPS South

54,253

CGPS North

38,997

Computer and Information Sciences

5,190

Education

2,198

Business

2,449

English

547

Computer and Information Sciences

2,825

Mathematics

2,301

Education

8,030

Classics, Philosophy and Religion

3,871

Mutli

3,712

Multi

5,858

History and American Studies

3,601

Political Sciences and International Affairs

1,852

Multi

1,088

1004 College Avenue

1201 William Street

17,882 13,835 40,884 Geography

4,769

History

7,244

Multi

7,488

Political Science

3,793 2,383 15,183

5,129 Economics

12,614

Sociology and Anthropology Pollard Hall

9,740

6,098

Visual and Performing Arts

7,026

Mercer Hall

Net Square Feet

Foreign Languages

Trinkle Hall

Melchers Hall

Department

English

DuPont Hall

Bldg. Name

41,341

Multi 10

2,721

Psychology

Communications

Bldg. #

24,944 Business

Net Square Feet

3,222 7,957

English, Linguistics, and Communication

5,387

CHAPTER 2 - CAMPUS OVERVIEW

ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

University OF MARY WASHINGTON MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 3 C O N D I T I O N S

This section analyzes the University of Mary Washington’s physical assets, including its infrastructure, utilities, and buildings. This analysis is intended to inform the Master Plan as to whether buildings should be renovated, repurposed, or razed. Burt Hill utilized the 2007 FICAS Asset Detail Report* as the basis of the current deferred maintenance, along with Burt Hill’s building walkthroughs that occurred in November 2009. *UMW FICAS Asset Detail Report, Printed July 28, 2009 © 1998-2009 VFA, Inc.

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

C A M P U S

BUILDING CONDITIONS F R E D E R I C K S B U R G

C A M P U S COLLEGE

TERRACE

31 SUNKEN RD.

24 55

18 13 21 37 30

19 40

33 6

51 26

14 22

29 16

O U

E 1

3 17

COLLEGE

AVE.

1004 1201

32 COLLEGE

HEIGHTS

Building Rating Data Not Available

<0.05 Excellent Condition 0.05 - 0.2 Good Condition 0.2 - 0.3 Average Condition 0.3 - 0.4 Fair Condition >0.4 Poor Condition

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

100 50

200 150

300 250

WILLIAM STREE T

UMW APARTMENTS UMW APARTMENTS

UMW APARTMENTS

F R E D E R I C K S B U R G

TENNIS CENTER

1201 WILLIAMS STREET

ATHLETIC FIELD

As the building condition map to the left indicates, many of these structures, mostly larger academic buildings and residence halls, are in poor condition. This is a common assessment experienced by many universities who took root rapidly in the mid-1900s.

ATHLETIC FIELDS

These issues can be resolved by first prioritizing which buildings continue to maintain their intended highest and best use, then deciding which buildings warrant demolition, renovation, or new construction, and lastly, organizing a phased implementation of these projects. These issues are discussed further in Chapter 7 - Recommendations PHYSICAL PLANT BUILDING

ATHLETIC FIELD

Building Rating

V. EARL DICKENSON STADIUM

Data Not Available ATHLETIC FIELD

C A M P U S

The University of Mary Washington is characterized by a combination of beautifully proportioned Georgian structures as well as its prominent location adjacent to historic downtown Fredericksburg. In 2007, a building conditions assessment was performed, and it provided the base data for this graphic. The assessment calculated a Facilities Condition Index (FCI) for each building under University ownership at that time. The FCI was calculated by taking the value of deferred maintenance projects and dividing it by the overall replacement value by building. Throughout this document, a five-point color rating scale is used to denote various conditions of the building elements / characteristics. A rating of “NR” (not rated) is shown for buildings that do not have an FCI rating or were not part of the original study. Buildings that were not rated are shown in gray.

1201

<0.05 Excellent Condition

ATHLETIC FIELD

0.05 - 0.2 Good Condition 0.2 - 0.3 Average Condition

100 50

200 150

300 250

0.3 - 0.4 Fair Condition >0.4 Poor Condition

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

ET STRE JEPSON ALUMNI CENTER

VER

BUILDING CONDITIONS

HANO

WILLIAM STREE T

BUILDING CONDITION SCORE

C O LO R R AT I N G S Y S T E M

C A L C U L A T I O N S The building score is the value of the deferred maintenance projects divided by the overall replacement value of the building.

C O L O R R A T I N G S C A L E Throughout this document, a five point color rating scale was used to denote various conditions of the building elements / characteristics. A score of greater than .41 would indicate the building is in poor condition and the University should consider removing the building from the campus inventory. A score of .00 would indicate the building is in excellent condition. The Building Condition Key graphic (shown below) uses this scale on the category icon (the checkmark), which also ties in with the corresponding site plans. A rating of “NR” (not rated) will be shown for buildings that do not have an FCI rating.

B U I L D I N G R AT I N G S B l d g. Numbe r

B l d g. N a m e

B u i l di n g R at i ng

B l dg. N u m ber

B l dg. Name

B u ilding R ating

Geo r ge Wa s h in gt o n Ha ll

0. 56

A r r i n g ton H all

0.19

Tyle r Ho us e

0. 30

R i dderhoff M artin Galle ry

0.18

An n e Fa ir fa x Ho us e

0. 29

J eps o n S c ie nc e C e nte r

0.07

B ren t Ho us e

0. 37

Lee Hall

NOT R ATED

B us h n e ll Ho us e

0. 54

Ph y si c al P lant B u ilding

0.52

Ch a n d le r Ha ll

0. 55

NOT R ATED

Co m b s Ha ll

0. 10

V E ar l D ic k e ns on S tadiu m ( base ball)

DuPo n t Ha ll

0. 18

Fi t n ess C e nte r

0.01

Trin k le Ha ll

0. 49

U M W Apartme nt All

0.58

Fram a r Ho us e

0. 25

T he Ande rs on C onv oc ation C ent er

UND ER C ONS TR UC TION

Ha m le t Ho us e

0. 34

J epson Alu mni Exe c u tiv e C e nte r

0.05

M er ce r Ha ll

0. 50

T h e C onv e rg e nc e C e nte r

P R OP OS ED

M ad is o n Ha ll

0. 59

E ag l e V illag e 1

NOT R ATED

M ar s h a ll Ha ll

0. 50

E ag l e V illag e 2

NOT R ATED

B all Ha ll

0. 50

U ni v ers ity Te nnis C e nte r

NOT R ATED

Cus tis Ha ll

0. 51

T h e Park ing D e c k

NOT R ATED

M ar ye Ho us e

0. 24

1004 C olle g e Av e nu e

0.29

M as o n Ha ll

< 0. 05

1201 W illiam S tre e t

NOT R ATED

M elch e r s Ha ll

0. 31

T h e Jame s M onroe M u s e u m

NOT R ATED

M on r o e Ha ll

< 0. 05

A nnex A

NOT R ATED

Polla r d Ha ll

0. 21

C G PS S ou th

.01

Ran d o lf Ha ll

< 0. 05

A nnex B

NOT R ATED

Rus s e ll Ha ll

0. 46

C G PS North

NOT R ATED

S e a co b e ck Ha ll

0. 37

Vi rgin ia Ha ll

0. 54

Wes t m o r e la n d Ha ll

0. 52

Wi lla r d Ha ll

0. 49

Je f fe r s o n Ha ll

0. 47

Goo lr ick h a ll

0. 37

Co r n e ll Ho us e

0. 13

He a t in g P la n t

0. 08

Woo d a r d Ca m p us Ce n t e r

0. 33

S i mp s o n L ib r a r y

0. 17

Al ve y Ha ll

0. 20

S outh Ha ll

0. 18

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

.1 0

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

Poor Fair Good Very

(

>.41

(

.31 (

.21

Good

Excellent

)

to (

(

.40 .30

.06 .00

)

to to

) .20 .05)

)

University OF MARY WASHINGTON MASTER PLAN

BUILDING CONDITION S C O R I N G & H O W-TO C H A R T S

CHAPTER OF THE REPORT (1-7)

BUILDING FAST FACTS USE

MARSHALL HALL BUILDING NUMBER 15 FA S T FA C T S : CON S T R UCT ED: 1960 R EN OVAT ED: N ON E

lounge) are aged, worn, or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building. As for building mechanical infrastructure, the heat exchanger is in need of shell and tube renewal and the heat pumps are aged and corroded. Although the HVAC equipment is aged in general, the exhaust systems in the toilet rooms within Marshall are in particularly poor condition. Sufficient ventilation should also be provided in the laundry, janitorial, and electric rooms.

N ET A S S I GN A B L E S QUA R E F EET: N ET TO GR OS S R AT I O :

C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

Marshall contains an electrical distribution system and wiring that is original to the building and is the cause of most electrical complications. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, the system should be re-wired and lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building.

.50

The domestic water distribution system is lacking a vacuum breaker. A vacuum breaker should be installed to maintain integrity of the domestic water system and to meet current codes. A fire suppression system should be installed in order for the building to meet current life safety codes.

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 239 SF

S PA C E

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 314 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210 SF BATHROOM 55 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 256 SF

USE

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 189 SF

SUPPORT 27 SF ELEV. 43 SF LOUNGE 289 SF

BATHROOM 64 SF

KITCHEN 223 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 192 SF BATHROOM 68 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 190 SF

BATHROOM 64 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 239 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 225 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 248 SF

BATHROOM UNIT TYPE 63 SF 1 DOUBLE 226 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 225 SF BATHROOM 65 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210 SF

BATHROOM 64 SF

SUPPORT 27 SF ELEV. 43 SF SUPPORT 98 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE BATHROOM 190 SF 64 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 239 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 314 SF

BATHROOM 55 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 256 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 189 SF

RA APT 229 SF

BATHROOM 56 SF

BATHROOM 76 SF

STAIRS 256 SF

CORRIDOR 1600 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 194 SF

BATHROOM 67 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224 SF

SUPPORT 229 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 213 SF

BATHROOM UNIT TYPE 64 SF 1 DOUBLE 218 SF

STAIRS 273 SF

STAIRS 256 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 190 SF

LOUNGE 899 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210 SF

RA APT 195 SF

RA APT 229 SF

BATHROOM 56 SF

BATHROOM 76 SF CORRIDOR 1600 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 194 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 239 SF

CODE COMPLIANCE & ACCESSIBILITY Marshall currently lacks a wheelchair accessible exterior entry ramp. In general the building lacks wheelchair accessibility. Directional and life safety signage should be installed to meet accessibility codes and standards. The toilet rooms and drinking fountains are not ADA compliant. Most of the interior doors contain knob style hardware.

RA APT 195 SF STAIRS 273 SF

CO -ED R ES I DEN CE H A L L W I T H I N - SUI T E B AT H R OOMS

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

PAGE NUMBER

EXISTING PLAN

The buildings condensate pump system is beyond its useful life. The domestic water distribution and sanitary waste systems are due for high end renewal. The perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are beyond their useful lives. The steam fired hot water heater is also in poor condition.

GR OS S S QUA R E F OOTAGE : 39, 828

BUILDING USE:

USE

BUILDING CONDITION SUMMARY

BUILDING NAME

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 249 SF

BATHROOM 68 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 260 SF

KITCHEN 233 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 190 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 247 SF

BATHROOM 68 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 241 SF

SUPPORT 175 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 192 SF BATHROOM 68 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 213 SF

BATHROOM UNIT TYPE 64 SF 1 DOUBLE 218 SF BATHROOM 64 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 225 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 248 SF

BATHROOM UNIT TYPE 63 SF 1 DOUBLE 226 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 225 SF BATHROOM 65 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 227 SF

BATHROOM 67 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 227 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system, fire alarm devices, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency lighting and power systems.

BUILDING SUMMARY Marshall Hall, named for Mary Marshall, the wife of U.S. Chief Justice John Marshall, houses approximately 147 upperclass men and women. At the bottom of “the hill” on the south end of campus, Marshall houses students in double and triple occupancy suites. Located next to Russell Hall and behind Bushnell Hall, Marshall Hall is accessible by Sunken Road. The laundry room is located on the east wing of the basement floor along with the vending machines. Marshall also has several study lounges on the first, second, and third floors. The second floor lounge features a balcony.

According to the July 2009 Asset Detail Report the hazardous asbestoscontaining-materials should be safely removed and replaced with clean nonhazardous materials.

B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Although minor modifications have been made to help the building function throughout the years, the building, like many of the other residence halls, is in relatively poor condition. The adhered membrane single ply roofing is in poor condition. There appears to be ponding water on the roof as well. The exterior doors, wood windows, and rainwater drainage system are beyond their useful lives. The hydraulic freight / passenger elevator is also in poor condition. Marshall’s oval entryway attempts to create a welcoming and comfortable entry lounge area, yet it lacks light and flexible furniture. Although the ample natural light in the main parlor makes for a successful lounge space, the interior finishes and furnishings appear dated and uninviting. Other interior finishes, fixtures, and fittings including ACT, VCT, interior doors, ceramic floor and wall tile, drinking fountains, kitchen cabinets, counter and sinks, epoxy painted finish on masonry walls, painted wall finishes, plumbing fixtures, fittings and accessories, as well as furniture (both office and

STAIRS 273 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 194 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 239 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 239 SF

BATHROOM UNIT TYPE 64 SF 1 DOUBLE 218 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 186 SF

HR APT 520 SF

BATHROOM 55 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 171 SF COR. 38 SF

RA APT 229 SF

BATHROOM BATHROOM 56 SF 31 SF

SUPPORT 27 SF ELEV. 43 SF REC. RM 98 SF

LOUNGE 191 SF

UNIT TYPE CORRIDOR 1 DOUBLE 670 SF BATHROOM 190 SF 64 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 213 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE BATHROOM 248 SF 64 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

SUPPORT 36 SF CORRIDOR 150 SF OFFICE 231 SF

STAIRS 273 SF

STAIRS 256 SF

LOBBY 642 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210 SF

SUPPORT 39 SF CORRIDOR 146 SF LOUNGE 231 SF

LOUNGE 195 SF

SUPPORT LOUNGE 24 SF 150 SF

UNIT TYPE UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 1 DOUBLE 195 SF 204 SF BATHROOM 55 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 194 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 190 SF BATHROOM 67 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224 SF

UNIT TYPE CORRIDOR 1 DOUBLE 676 SF 192 SF BATHROOM 68 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 239 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 225 SF

BATHROOM UNIT TYPE 63 SF 1 DOUBLE 226 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 225 SF BATHROOM 65 SF

HK 251 SF

SUPPORT 291 SF

SUPPORT 157 SF STAIRS 263 SF

SUPPORT 151 SF ELEV. 37 SF SUPPORT 127 SF

BATHROOM 64 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 239 SF

LAUNDRY 416 SF

HK 398 SF

MECH. RM 588 SF

CORRIDOR 1249 SF STORAGE 464 SF

BATHROOM UNIT TYPE 64 SF 1 DOUBLE 218 SF

STORAGE 522 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 227 SF

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR

UMW MASTER PLAN

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON

BUILDING PHOTOS

BATHROOM 64 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 195 SF

BUILDING CONDITION SUMMARY

BUILDING CONDITION SCORE

PHOTOS ILLUSTRATING BUILDING FEATURES AND DEFICIENCIES

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

PAGE NUMBER

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

FLOOR PLANS ILLUSTRATING EXISTING SPACE

GEORGE WASHINGTON HALL BUILDING NUMBER 01 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1938

to replacing or renewing the domestic water distribution system in general. Additionally, the building exhaust system is beyond its useful life and should be replaced. The perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are aged and in need of immediate attention. The sanitary waste system is also in poor condition.

R E N OVAT E D : 1985 G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 42,464 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 39,191 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 92%

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

AD M INIS TR ATION P R ES ID ENT’S OFFIC E , V IC E P R ES ID ENTS AND S TAFF,

D O D D AU D I TO R IUM , INFOR M ATION TEC H NOLOGY

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.56

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y George Washington Hall, named for the first President of the United States and son of Mary Washington, flanks Double Drive and the Main Entry to the Fredericksburg campus. The four-level building includes a full basement foundation and the 1500-seat Dodd Auditorium, which is home to the annual Fredericksburg Forum and various cultural events sponsored by the University and regional arts groups. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N George Washington Hall is currently undergoing a small renovation to several of its office spaces, yet remains in poor to fair condition in terms of overall building and infrastructure. The brick clad exterior walls, as well as the building gutters and downspouts, are in need of replacement. Exterior door and wood window assemblies are beyond their useful life and should also be replaced. Interior finishes and fixtures, including ACT, VCT, carpet, kitchen sinks and casework, concrete and wood floors, ceramic tiles on walls, painted plaster ceilings, drinking fountains, restroom fittings and fixtures, light fixtures, and epoxy flooring, are dated and in some cases deteriorating. Renovating the interior two-hour fire-rated wall assemblies is also recommended. A renovation in the mid-1980s outfitted the building with air-conditioning; however, the room currently being used as the data center is in need of a new cooling unit to keep up with current demand. The domestic hot water heater is deteriorating and should be replaced. Consideration should also be given UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

Electrical service distribution and switchgears should be renewed. In order to maintain optimum efficiency and save power, lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building. The existing traction elevator is in poor yet working condition. With the current data center located in the basement of George Washington Hall, technology seems to be fairly good in the building overall; however, emergency power is an issue for the data center itself. Currently there is insufficient infrastructure in place to supply emergency power for more than 30 percent of the data on campus. Several meeting rooms lack installed multimedia and video conferencing technology, though this technology is available upon request through the use of media-carts.

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E A N D A C C E S S I B I L I T Y The building is made wheelchair accessible by an exterior ramp at the Double Drive entryway. George Washington Hall is missing emergency egress lighting required to comply with current codes; the existing egress lighting is not compliant. Additional exit signs should be installed as well to maintain the integrity of the building. Although “grandfathered” compliant, the building lacks a fire sprinkler system.

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

OFFICE 228 SF OFFICE 191 SF

OFFICE 212 SF

OFFICE 233 SF

OFFICE 234 SF

FUNCTION

OFFICE 203 SF

OFFICE 421 SF

FOYER 292 SF

RECEPTION 131 SF

VAULT 86 SF

OFFICE STORAGE 80 SF

CORRIDOR 1223 SF

C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY

JANITOR 29 SF

R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY

MEETING 283 SF

OFFICES

STAIRS 199 SF

OFFICE 299 SF

KITCHENETTE 36 SF ELEV. 79 SF

FOYER 1170 SF

WOMEN'S RESTROOM 166 SF

MENS RESTROOM 167 SF

STAIRS 196 SF

CONFERENCE 197 SF

STUDY CONFERENCE ROOM 479 SF

OFFICE 158 SF

OFFICE 232 SF

OFFICE 361 SF

OFFICE 202 SF

S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S VAULT 86 SF

LOUNGE

OFFICE 293 SF

OFFICE 274 SF

OFFICE 272 SF

OFFICE 182 SF

OFFICE STORAGE 30 SF OFFICE STORAGE 35 SF

DODD AUDITORIUM 7700 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

F O O D FAC I L I T I E S

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE 83 SF

CORRIDOR 1161 SF

HOUSEKEEPING 29 SF

G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

ELEV. 79 SF CONTROL ROOM 227 SF

S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N

OFFICE 127 SF

OFFICE 156 SF

STAIRS 199 SF

OFFICE 180 SF

WOMEN'S RESTROOM 166 SF

B AT H R O O M S

STAIRS 195 SF OFFICE 197 SF

DODD BALCONY 943 SF

STAGE 1425 SF

U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

STAIRS 74 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

N OT E : F LO O R C U R R E N T LY V A C A N T

SERVER ROOM 487 SF

CLOSET 39 SF OFFICE STORAGE 19 SF

OFFICE STORAGE 17 SF

SERVER ROOM 282 SF

STUDENT STUDY AREA 62 SF OFFICE 279 SF

OFFICE 157 SF

OFFICE STORAGE 125 SF

OFFICE 258 SF

RECEPTION 173 SF

OFFICE 589 SF

OFFICE 262 SF

OFFICE 483 SF

OFFICE 181 SF

TECHNOLOGY SERVICES 519 SF

TECHNOLOGY SERVICES 140 SF

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUITE 159 SF

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR/ USER SERVICES 141 SF

CORRIDOR 1309 SF OFFICE 148 SF

BACKBONE EQUIPMENT ROOM 201 SF

OFFICE STORAGE 88 SF

CORRIDOR 1081 SF ELEV. 79 SF

OFFICE 32 SF MEN'S RESTROOM 182 SF OFFICE 127 SF

NETWORK & COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES 819 SF

NETWORK DIRECTOR 158 SF

STORAGE 170 SF

OFFICE 150 SF

STAIRS 199 SF

OFFICE 191 SF

OFFICE 108 SF

OFFICE 363 SF

OFFICE 284 SF

OFFICE 219 SF

COPY/BREAK 148 SF

STAIRS 196 SF

OFFICE 157 SF

BATHROOM 75 SF OFFICE 40 SF

TELECOMMUNICATIONS 278 SF

TECH TRAINING 424 SF

STAIRS 198 SF

USER SERVICES/ REPAIR 424 SF

CONFERENCE 256 SF

BATHROOM 73 SF

STAIRS 196 SF BATHROOM 103 SF

ELECTRIC CLOSET 48 SF

STORAGE 32 SF USER SERVICES REPAIR ROOM 378 SF

EQUIPMENT ROOM B 339 SF

EQUIPMENT ROOM A 221 SF

SWITCHBOARD ROOM 148 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

CIRC. 342 SF

STAIRS 131 SF

BATHROOM 123 SF

MAKE-UP 123 SF

CIRC. 231 SF

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR

MAKE-UP 123 SF

BATHROOM 123 SF

ELEV. 80 SF

SUPPLY ROOM 126 SF

STAIRS 121 SF

ELEV MACH ROOM 114 SF

TYLER HOUSE a wheelchair ramp on the east side of Tyler House, facing the campus, it is not wheelchair friendly and lacks compliant handrails. There is currently no ADA signage in Tyler, nor are the stairs to the second floor code compliant. Currently, both toilet rooms in Tyler are not ADA compliant and lack GFCI receptacles and exhaust systems. The domestic water main, which currently lacks a back-flow preventer, as well as the domestic water sillcocks, are aged and non-compliant. The exterior walls of Tyler lack sufficient insulation to meet current energy standards and codes.

BUILDING NUMBER 03 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1927 R E N OVAT E D : N /A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 2,544 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 2,093 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 82%

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

AD M INIS TR ATION V IC E P R ES ID ENT OF S TUD ENT AFFAIR S, B AC H ELOR

O F LI B E R A L ST UD IES P R OG R AM , NATIONAL LATIN EX AM AND S TAFF OFFIC ES

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.30

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y One in a cluster of three small houses on the south College Avenue side of campus, Tyler House is used for administrative purposes. The two-story structure, with a partial basement and crawlspace, contains offices, bathrooms on both floors, and a kitchen located on the first floor, which is currently being used as kitchenette / file and copy room. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Being a former residence makes Tyler an awkward yet quaint office building. The exterior doors and wood windows are beyond their useful lives. The foundation walls, slab on grade, and multifloor superstructure appear to be in poor condition. The concrete retaining wall also appears to be deteriorating and in need of reinforcement. Interior finishes, including carpeting, kitchenette cabinets, counters and fixtures, painted walls, interior doors and wood flooring, should be replaced.

The perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are aged and in need of immediate attention. Plumbing fixtures, such as the bathtub on the first floor, are abandoned or being used for storage. Tyler contains a light duty electrical distribution system that is original to the building and the cause of most of the electrical complications, including issues with general service distribution within the building. C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Although there is UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

The hazardous lead and asbestos containing materials, according to the July 2009 Asset Detail Report, should be safely removed and replaced with clean, non-hazardous materials.

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

FUNCTION

C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICES STUDY F O O D FAC I L I T I E S S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E OFFICE 170 SF

OFFICE 188 SF

BATHROOM 65 SF OFFICE 146 SF OFFICE 208 SF

BASEMENT 684 SF OFFICE 102 SF

HALL 68 SF BATHROOM 96 SF

STAIRS 59 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

ENTRY 79 SF

OFFICE 177 SF

STAIRS 50 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

LOUNGE

ANNE FAIRFAX HOUSE

Fairfax contains a light-duty electrical distribution system that is in poor condition and the cause of most of the electrical complications, including issues with general service distribution within the building. The existing electrical panel boards lack the capacity for any additional wiring / future growth.

BUILDING NUMBER 04 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1922 R E N OVAT E D : N / A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 2,907 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: 2,404 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 82%

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

AD M INIS TR ATION OFFIC E OF H UM AN R ES OUR C ES

CODE COMPLIANCE & ACCESSIBILITY The attempt at an accessible entry at the rear of the building is non-compliant by ADA standards. The exterior stairs located at the main entry to the building and the interior staircase to the second floor are also non-compliant. Fairfax lacks ADA signage. Currently both toilet rooms in Fairfax are not ADA compliant, and lack both GFCI receptacles and exhaust systems, making them non-compliant with current codes. The domestic water main, which currently lacks a back-flow preventer, domestic water sillcocks are aged and non-compliant. The exterior walls of Fairfax have insufficient insulation and do not meet current energy standards and codes. According to the July 2009 Asset Detail Report, the hazardous lead and asbestoscontaining-materials should be safely removed and replaced with clean, nonhazardous materials.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.29

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y The Anne Fairfax House, or Fairfax, is a twostory structure with a full basement built in 1922. The building has offices and bathrooms on both floors and a kitchen on the first floor. Fairfax is one of the three white houses along the College Avenue side of the campus and serves as the location of the Office of Human Resources. Despite the aesthetic and spacious interior of Fairfax, the building no longer adequately suits current HR functions. BUILDING CONDITION Being a former residence makes Fairfax an awkward yet unique office building, and many of the same problems that exist in the other white houses exist in Fairfax as well. The exterior doors and wood windows are beyond their useful lives. The existing porch structure on the College Avenue side is damaged and showing signs of age. The wood exterior wall material is also in poor condition. The gutters appear to be sloping in the wrong direction and could cause stormwater drainage issues in the future. The foundation walls appear to be in poor condition. Interior finishes, including sheet vinyl flooring, painted walls, plaster ceilings, interior doors, and VCT, are in poor condition and should be considered for replacement. The existing electric water heater should be replaced. Plumbing fixtures, such as the bathtub on the second floor, are abandoned and should be removed. The cast iron sanitary waste pipe is in poor condition as well.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

FUNCTION

C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S

STORAGE 38 SF

L A B O R ATO RY

STORAGE 59 SF

R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY

OFFICE 111 SF

OFFICES

WORKROOM 38 SF

STUDY F O O D FAC I L I T I E S S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

STAIRS 40 SF

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL HALL 49 SF

G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S OFFICE 299 SF

S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S

OFFICE 128 SF

C I R C U L AT I O N FOYER 105 SF

B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

BATHROOM 56 SF CRAWL SPACE 252 SF

OFFICE 184 SF

ENTRY 72 SF

STAIRS 55 SF

OFFICE 265 SF OFFICE 180 SF BASEMENT STORAGE 297 SF BATHROOM 90 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

STORAGE 35 SF

LOUNGE

BRENT HOUSE BUILDING NUMBER 05 FAST FACTS:

also non-compliant. It appears that exit signs and a fire suppression system have been recently installed in the building in order to comply with current life safety codes.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1925 R E N OVAT E D : N /A

According to the July 2009 Asset Detail Report, the hazardous lead and asbestos-containing-materials should be safely removed and replaced with clean, non-hazardous materials.

G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 7,531 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 6,510 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 86%

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

AD M INIS TR ATION C AM P US P OLIC E , LOC K S M ITH, P UR C H AS ING

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.37

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Built in 1925, the Brent House is a threestory structure with a full basement. Brent was purchased in 1944 for $50,000 and, at the time, occupied a commanding site overlooking downtown Fredericksburg. It was named Brent House in honor of Margaret Brent, a Catholic Englishwoman who came to America to escape persecution. Originally a residence hall, Brent currently houses offices and bathrooms on each floor, a kitchen on the first floor, and utilities and workshops in the basement. Brent is a highly utilized building just off the south side of Double Drive.

Brent appears to have been renovated in recent years to address some of its many fire and accessibility code violations. However, this did not address all of the deferred maintenance issues within the building, such as the poor condition of the existing built up roof over what would be the “garage” portion of the building.

BUILDING CONDITION

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Brent’s main entrance is made wheelchair accessible by the use of the exterior ramp and handrail system. Currently, the toilet rooms in Brent are not ADA compliant, nor do they have GFCI receptacles or exhaust systems. The domestic water main, which currently lacks a back-flow preventer, is UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

FUNCTION

C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICES OFFICE/ INTERROGATION 99 SF

OFFICE 203 SF

OFFICE 199 SF

F O O D FAC I L I T I E S

OFFICE 176 SF

OFFICE 158 SF

CLOSET 4 SF

LOUNGE H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL

FOYER 267 SF

OFFICE 251 SF

S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

CORRIDOR 140 SF

STORAGE 60 SF

CLOSET 11 SF

G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

BATHROOM 76 SF HALL 37 SF

BATHROOM 46 SF

S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S

STAIRS 41 SF

OFFICE 229 SF OFFICE 164 SF

C I R C U L AT I O N B AT H R O O M S

CLOSET 11 SF

U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E OFFICE 224 SF

STAIRS 132 SF

OFFICE 159 SF

KITCHEN 229 SF

WAITING AREA 142 SF

VESTIBULE 51 SF

HOUSEKEEPING 18 SF

CLOSET 10 SF

OFFICE/WAITING AREA 132 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

BATHROOM 76 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

EVIDENCE ROOM 84 SF LOCKER ROOM 412 SF

STORAGE 99 SF

CSO OFFICE 229 SF

CONFERENCE 521 SF MECHANICAL 112 SF

LOCKSMITH 377 SF

CORRIDOR 189 SF

FOYER 114 SF KEY SHOP/LOCKSMITH 161 SF

MECHANICAL 80 SF

STAIRS 59 SF

BATHROOM 81 SF

STAIRS 136 SF OFFICE 254 SF

STORAGE 130 SF TELECOMM/FIRE CONTROL 128 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

STUDY

BUSHNELL HALL BUILDING NUMBER 06 FAST FACTS:

distribution units and system are aged and in need of immediate attention. The sanitary waste system is also in poor condition.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1959 R E N OVAT E D : N / A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 20,912 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: 18,298 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 88%

BUILDING USE:

142-B ED, UP P ER- C LAS S R ES ID ENC E H ALL W ITH IN-

SU I T E B AT H R O O M S

The electrical distribution system is original to the building and in poor condition. The domestic water distribution system is also beyond its useful life. In order to maintain optimum efficiency and save power, lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building. Although the building is wired for data, the connections are poor and the power supplied to the building is insufficient for modern standards.

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Bushnell lacks an exterior ramp, making it extremely difficult to enter the building in a wheelchair. On the interior of the building, kitchen casework, toilet rooms, and door hardware do not comply with current ADA codes and standards. Code compliant directional signage is also lacking in the building. Bushnell lacks a fire suppression or sprinkler system, and the domestic water main lacks a vacuum breaker at the hose bib. According to the July 2009 Asset Detail Report,, the hazardous asbestoscontaining-material should be safely removed and replaced with clean, nonhazardous materials. OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.54

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Bushnell is an upper-classmen hall with 142 residents on five floors. Rooms are spacious with large windows, high ceilings and in-suite bathrooms. The fourth-floor lounge has a big-screen TV, pingpong table, and kitchen. The main and third floors contain a resident assistant apartment, office spaces, restroom, and storage. The lower floors include storage, laundry, vending, trash, and electrical and mechanical spaces. BUILDING CONDITION Except for having its roof replaced in 1988, Bushnell has not had any significant renovation since it was constructed in 1959 and, like most of the other residence halls, is in poor condition overall. The building gutters and downspouts are in need of replacement. Exterior doors and wood window assemblies are beyond their useful life and should be replaced. Interior finishes and fixtures, including ACT, carpet, ceramic floor and wall tile, kitchen cabinetry, kitchen counter tops, painted wall finishes, painted plaster ceilings, toilet fixtures, interior doors, toilet partitions, VCT, and drinking fountains, are dated and in some cases deteriorating or not ADA compliant. The large entry with conference room and small floor lounges are a positive feature, but furniture is dated and worn. There is also no elevator in the building nor is there any ADA signage. Of the two kitchens in the building, only one has an oven. Bushnellâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s restroom exhaust and general building exhaust and HAVC systems are dated and beyond their useful lives. The perimeter hot and chilled water UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

S PA C E

USE

RESIDENTIAL LIVING A R E A C O O R D I N ATO R SHARED LIVING / C O M M O N S PAC E KITCHEN

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

B AT H R O O M C I R C U L AT I O N SUPPORT

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 141 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 140 SF

BATHROOM 33 SF

BATHROOM 34 SF

STAIRS 113 SF

STUDY 94 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 126 SF

BATHROOM 32 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 104 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 QUAD 210 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 QUAD 200 SF

COR. 639 SF

BATHROOM 74 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 QUAD 228 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 97 SF BATHROOM 34 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 134 SF

STUDY 101 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 120 SF BATHROOM 34 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 135 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 110 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 117 SF

BATHROOM 74 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 QUAD 214 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 96 SF BATHROOM 32 SF RA 131 SF

STAIRS 114 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 115 SF BATHROOM 31 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 130 SF

EXISTING FOURTH FLOOR

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 131 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 134 SF

BATHROOM 32 SF

BATHROOM 34 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 108 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 104 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 QUAD 210 SF

BATHROOM 34 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 134 SF

STORAGE 101 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 120 SF BATHROOM 34 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 135 SF

MECH RM 284 SF

BATHROOM 28 SF

BATHROOM 30 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 115 SF

BATHROOM 28 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 115 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 113 SF

TRASH 92 SF

STAIRS 113 SF

HK 90 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 140 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 133 SF

STAIRS 113 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 132 SF

VENDING 122 SF

BATHROOM 27 SF

BATHROOM 29 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 109 SF

BATHROOM 27 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 106 SF

LAUNDRY 156 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 107 SF

CONF. RM 86 SF

LOBBY/ LOUNGE 815 SF

LOUNGE 493 SF

AC OFFICE 113 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 QUAD 228 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 97 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 140 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 141 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 QUAD 207 SF

STUDY 137 SF

COR. 639 SF

BATHROOM 74 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 141 SF

STAIRS 113 SF

HK 87 SF

RA 131 SF

BATHROOM 34 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 108 SF

BATHROOM 33 SF

BATHROOM 34 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 110 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 118 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 141 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 140 SF

STORAGE 501 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 QUAD 210 SF

AC OFFICE 107 SF

CLOSET BATHROOM 42 SF 40 SF

KITCHEN 96 SF BATHROOM 32 SF

AC APT 399 SF

STAIRS 114 SF

RA 175 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 115 SF BATHROOM 31 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 130 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

STORAGE 101 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 119 SF BATHROOM 33 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 137 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 97 SF BATHROOM 34 SF

RA 131 SF

COR. 241 SF

STAIRS 114 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 114 SF BATHROOM 33 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 131 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

BATHROOM 76 SF

COR. 648 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 133 SF

KITCEHN 102 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 119 SF BATHROOM 33 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 137 SF

MECH RM 156 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 95 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 100 SF BATHROOM 28 SF

BATHROOM 33 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 137 SF

RA 132 SF SUPPORT 22 SF STAIRS 114 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 114 SF BATHROOM 33 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 131 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

DATA RM 69 SF

CORRIDOR 360 SF

STAIRS 115 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 114 SF BATHROOM 27 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 127 SF

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR

CHANDLER HALL BUILDING NUMBER 07 FAST FACTS:

be considered for immediate replacement. HVAC controls and instrumentation need to be replaced along with the general building and restroom exhaust distribution systems, which are currently causing mold issues in many areas of the building. The current through-wall heat and AC systems are dated and should be removed. Although a rooftop AC system was planned, the installation was never finished. These items should be addressed as priorities if the building is to continue to function as a classroom building.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1928 R E N OVAT E D : 1981 G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 27,060 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 24,199 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 89%

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

AC AD EM IC B US INES S AD M INIS TR ATION, P S YC H OLOGY

Although additional technology would always be beneficial to students in Chandler, the technology seems have been installed recently and is in working condition. Except for Room 206, all classrooms have projector technology.

CODE COMPLIANCE & ACCESSIBILITY Currently, Chandler does not meet current ADA standards for accessibility and directional signage. Attempts have been made to make the building accessible to address current needs, such as the ramp into the College Avenue side of the building; however the public toilet rooms, drinking fountains, door hardware, and areas of refuge in the stairwells are just a few examples of non-compliance in the building. The exit sign and fire alarm system are in need of renewal.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.55

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Located in the center of campus, adjacent to Ball Circle, Chandler Hall features academic classrooms and faculty offices. Chandler is named after the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s second president, Algernon B. Chandler, Jr., and has evolved away from his original programmatic purpose of housing elementary, middle, and high school students in the late 1920s. Although its most recent renovation in 1981 made an attempt at meeting some of the programmatic changes required, Chandler is still in need of a major renovation. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N This brick clad facility has two floors above ground and a full basement foundation that, although both are beyond their useful lives, are not in need of immediate attention. The wood windows, however, are in need of replacement. The exterior doors are beyond their useful life. The interiors of Chandler are in poor condition. The painted finishes, plumbing fixtures, restroom accessories, light fixtures, carpeting and VCT are in poor condition. The hydraulic passenger elevator is no longer reliable and in need of replacement. Overall, the infrastructure of the building is in poor condition. The perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are aged and in need of immediate attention. The domestic water distribution system is well beyond its useful life. Replacement of the general electrical service and distribution systems and wiring, particularly the emergency egress lighting and power system, should UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY

PSYCHOLOGY

FUNCTION

D E PA R T M E N T

D E P T. S . F.

BUSINESS

2 7 2 1 S . F.

PSYCHOLOGY

7 , 2 7 7 S . F.

M U LT I

6 , 0 4 2 S . F.

OFFICE 191 SF

R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICES STUDY

OFFICE 137 SF

PSYCHOLOGY

MULTI

OFFICE 148 SF

COMPUTER LAB 460 SF

CLASSROOM 438 SF

MULTI

CLASSROOM 420 SF

CLASSROOM 439 SF

CLASSROOM 620 SF

OFFICE 113 SF CORRIDOR 136 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 54 SF

OFFICE 119 SF

F O O D FAC I L I T I E S

STORAGE 56 SF

CONFERENCE 110 SF

BATHROOM 236 SF

S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S CORRIDOR 1526 SF

JANITOR CLOSET 34 SF

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S OFFICE 107 SF

RESIDENTIAL G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

OFFICE 105 SF

S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S

AV CLOSET 40 SF

OFFICE 140 SF

OFFICE 162 SF CLASSROOM 610 SF STAIRS 159 SF

STAIRS 181 SF

C I R C U L AT I O N

CLASSROOM 662 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

OFFICE 213 SF

OFFICE 119 SF

LOUNGE

OFFICE 165 SF

OFFICE 142 SF

B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PSYCHOLOGY

PSYCHOLOGY

CORRIDOR 1550 SF OFFICE 181 SF

OFFICE 176 SF

OFFICE 147 SF

OFFICE 161 SF

OFFICE 176 SF

OFFICE 191 SF

OFFICE 161 SF

OFFICE 176 SF

OFFICE 161 SF

OFFICE 147 SF

OFFICE 132 SF

OFFICE 147 SF

OFFICE 133 SF

CORRIDOR 1706 SF OBSERVATION 134 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 74 SF

STORAGE 215 SF

LOUNGE 229 SF

STORAGE 15 SF

BATHROOM 254 SF

OBSERVATION 166 SF

SOCIAL DEV. LAB 211 SF

OBSERVATION 177 SF

OFFICE 145 SF

RECEPTION/CIRCULATION 165 SF

SEMINAR 528 SF

LECTURE 811 SF STAIRS 159 SF

STAIRS 185 SF

BUSINESS

OFFICE 126 SF

BUSINESS

OBSERVATION 53 SF

OBSERVATION 118 SF

MEN'S RESTROOM 85 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 58 SF

OBSERVATION 40 SF OFFICE 126 SF

LECTURE 552 SF

OBSERVATION HALLWAY 153 SF

OFFICE 166 SF

VENDING 89 SF

ELEV. MAC. RM 42 SF

STORAGE 51 SF

JANITOR 51 SF

STORAGE 55 SF

PSYCHOLOGY

COMPUTER LAB 331 SF OBSERVATION 45 SF

STORAGE 33 SF

? 19 SF

OFFICE 38 SF

AV STORAGE/MECHANICAL 244 SF

ANIMAL HOLDING 322 SF WOMEN'S RESTROOM 78 SF

OBSERVATION 46 SF THEATRE/ LECTURE 770 SF

OBSERVATION 101 SF

PROJECTION ROOM 310 SF

STAIRS 209 SF

MULTI

STAIRS 131 SF

SINK SURGERY 43 SF 37 SF

ELECTRICAL 108 SF

MECHANICAL 227 SF

CRAWL SPACE 725 SF

MULTI

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

MAZE ROOM 459 SF

HOUSEKEEPING 79 SF

COMPUTER LAB 414 SF

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR

CLASSROOM 859 SF

ANIMAL HOLDING 45 SF

STAIRS 159 SF

MECHANICAL 165 SF

COMBS HALL BUILDING NUMBER 08 FAST FACTS:

Combs is one of the only buildings on campus that contains three large, tiered classroom spaces with full multimedia capabilities. However it lacks seminar or conference rooms with multimedia and video conferencing capabilities.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1958 R E N OVAT E D : 20 03 G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 45,540 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: 41,341 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 90%

BUILDING USE:

AC AD EM IC AND AD M INIS TR ATIV E

DEPARTMENTS :

ENG LIS H, LING UIS TIC S AND S P EEC H, M OD ER N

F O R E I G N LA N GUAG ES, H IS TOR IC P R ES ER VATION, C ENTER FOR H IS TOR IC PR E SE R VAT I O N

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.10

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Located on Jefferson Square, Combs Hall features academic classrooms, labs, lecture halls, and faculty offices. Combs Hall is named after former University president Morgan Combs and, as a result of a 2003 renovation, has evolved from a science and mathematics to its current functions. Overall, the building is the one in the best condition compared with the other buildings on campus, featuring state-of-the-art instructional technology in every classroom. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N This four-level facility, including a full basement foundation, was renovated in 2003 and is in excellent condition. The exterior wood trim is constantly in need of maintenance and should be replaced. The roof has not been modified since 1996 and should be inspected for signs of aging and disrepair. Interior finishes, such as carpeting, VCT, aged concrete, and painted finishes, are worn and beyond their useful life.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

Excess humidity, a result of the imbalanced HVAC system, needs to be corrected as it may be unhealthy. The perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are aged and in need of immediate attention. Exhaust fans should be installed to properly ventilate the spaces the Historic Preservation Programs uses for conservation labs. Occupancy sensors should be installed to maintain basic operation of the existing lighting and branch wiring in the building. The telephone system is dated and should be rewired or replaced.

CODE COMPLIANCE & ACCESSIBILITY Combs Hall has a wheelchair ramp in the rear, facing the green and handicapped parking spaces are near the ramp. While Combs Hall does not meet current ADA standards for accessibility and directional signage, the egress stairs, elevator, and bathrooms are ADA compliant. The fire alarm system, exit signs, and emergency egress lights are beyond their useful life.

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICES STUDY

FUNCTION

D E PA R T M E N T

D E P T. S . F.

ENGLISH, LINQUISTICS & C O M M U N I C AT I O N S

8 , 4 2 2 S . F.

MODERN FOREIGN LANGUAGES

6 , 0 9 8 S . F.

H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N

4 , 9 2 6 S . F.

M U LT I

5 , 3 0 3 S . F.

S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S LOUNGE

ENGLISH

RESIDENTIAL G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

B AT H R O O M S

CONFERENCE 300 SF

THEATER 921 SF SECRETARY 187 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 141 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 216 SF

STAIRS 227 SF

U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E MFL RECEPTION SUITE 203 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 164 SF

MEN'S RESTROOM 259 SF

WOMEN'S RESTROOM 232 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 120 SF

CLASSROOM 1341 SF

MEETING ROOM MEETING ROOM 102 SF 104 SF

WOMEN'S RESTROOM 232 SF

STORAGE 66 SF

CORRIDOR 1793 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 143 SF

TESTING 163 SF

COMPUTER LAB 1064 SF

CLASSROOM 411 SF

CLASSROOM 454 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 197 SF

MFL CHAIR 202 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 160 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 185 SF

CLASSROOM 541 SF

CLASSROOM 578 SF

STORAGE 123 SF

LOUNGE 279 SF

CLASSROOM 430 SF

LOUNGE 268 SF

STUDENT OFFICE 112 SF

OFFICE 131 SF

ELECTRICAL 144 SF CONFERENCE 324 SF

COMPUTER/WRITING LAB 921 SF

ELS DEPT SECRETARY 176 SF

STAIRS 229 SF SHAFT 17 SF

STORAGE 56 SF

SHAFT 26 SF

STORAGE 28 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 193 SF

SHAFT 31 SF SOUND RECORDING LAB 102 SF

CONTROL ROOM 96 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 132 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 155 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 150 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 130 SF

STORAGE 28 SF FACULTY OFFICE 137 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 125 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 121 SF

STORAGE 20 SF

STORAGE 22 SF

LECTURE 508 SF

RESEARCH LAB 148 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 135 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 121 SF

STORAGE 22 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 134 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 139 SF

COMMUNICATION

MULTI

HISTORIC PRESERVATION 425 SF

CLASSROOM 495 SF

STAIRS 168 SF

CONSERVATION FACILITY 185 SF

ART IFACT PROCESSING AREA 191 SF

FIELD EQUIPMENT 34 SF

ELEV. MAC. RM 55 SF ELEV. 69 SF

CORRIDOR 1888 SF

TELEPHONE 39 SF

ARCHEOLOGY LAB 823 SF

SHAFT 52 SF

HVAC 554 SF

CLASSROOM 977 SF DRAFT ING LAB 773 SF

FIRE PUMP ROOM 237 SF

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR ENGLISH

MEN'S RESTROOM 255 SF SHAFT 17 SF

ARTIFACT ST ORAGE 312 SF CLASSROOM 600 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 158 SF

JANITOR 45 SF

ELECTRICAL 36 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 173 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 144 SF

MDF ROOM 93 SF

SHAFT 26 SF

CLASSROOM 446 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 115 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR ENGLISH

STAIRS 163 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 137 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 139 SF

STORAGE 51 SF

CENTER FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION 308 SF

OFFICE 128 SF

HISTORIC PRESERVATION

STORAGE 67 SF WOMEN'S RESTROOM 220 SF

CLASSROOM 613 SF

HOUSEKEEPING 34 SF

SHAFT 60 SF

BREAK ROOM 162 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 131 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 113 SF

BREAK ROOM 37 SF

CORRIDOR 2689 SF

TELEPHONE 28 SF

OFFICE 140 SF

COMPUTER LAB 433 SF

CLASSROOM STORAGE 63 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 150 SF

ELEV. 69 SF

ELECTRICAL 36 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 131 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 148 SF

MEN'S RESTROOM 259 SF

STAIRS 227 SF

STORAGE 46 SF

COPY 124 SF

MULTI

STORAGE 23 SF

WOMEN'S RESTROOM 232 SF

OFFICE 140 SF

VENDING 112 SF

ENGLISH

FACULTY OFFICE 147 SF

OFFICE 140 SF

STORAGE 32 SF

OFFICE 177 SF

MULTI

FACULTY OFFICE 142 SF

RECEPTION SUITE 148 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

ENGLISH

ELS DEPT CHAIR 249 SF

OFFICE 140 SF

CORRIDOR 2258 SF SHAFT 53 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 127 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

STORAGE 41 SF

ELEV. 68 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 140 SF

CLASSROOM 647 SF

STAIRS 230 SF

OFFICE 199 SF

IT 51 SF

WORKROOM 160 SF

TELE/ELECT 51 SF

STORAGE 81 SF

SHAFT 17 SF

ELECT. CLOSET 36 SF

JANITOR CLOSET STORAGE 38 SF 31 SF

TELE/ELECT 34 SF

OFFICE 129 SF

MEN'S RESTROOM 239 SF

SHAFT 26 SF

RECEPTION 281 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 159 SF ELEV. 69 SF

SHAFT 61 SF

STORAGE 43 SF

OFFICE 117 SF

STORAGE 42 SF

ADJUNCT OFFICE 120 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 161 SF

WORKROOM 122 SF

CONFERENCE 148 SF

STAIRS 227 SF

SHAFT 17 SF

ELECTRICAL 36 SF

CORRIDOR 148 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 163 SF

STAIRS 230 SF

STUDY 84 SF

SHAFT 26 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 141 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 125 SF

HISTORIC PRESERVATION

COMMUNICATION

MULTI

S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N

MULTI

ENGLISH

MULTI

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

F O O D FAC I L I T I E S

DUPONT HALL BUILDING NUMBER 09 FAST FACTS: In general, the communications systems in duPont are in poor condition. Emergency egress lights are beyond their useful life. Aged fire alarm system and devices, exit signs, and power panels should be replaced to maintain the integrity of these emergency systems.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1950 R E N OVAT E D : 1994 G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 37,117 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 33,471 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 90%

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

AC AD EM IC AND AD M INIS TR ATIV E TH EATR E AND DANC E

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.18

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y DuPont Hall contains a 150-seat and small “black box” theaters, stage, workrooms, dressing rooms, general classrooms, faculty offices, and an art gallery displaying student and faculty studio works. DuPont is currently undergoing a partial renovation of the Klein Theatre and surrounding work and support spaces. BUILDING CONDITION Located on the northwestern side of campus, duPont Hall is a three-level brick-clad building. Its location next to Pollard and Melchers Halls, creates a cluster of fine and performing arts buildings. The adhered and ballasted single-ply membrane roofing systems are in need of replacement. Exterior wood windows are in poor condition and should be replaced. The stormwater drainage and sanitary waste systems are in need of immediate attention. Replacement of the carpeting, drinking fountains, utility sinks, painted finishes, and VCT are immediate needs on the interior of the building. In general, the equipment and furnishings in duPont are in poor condition and should be replaced. Although it is not an immediate need, the restroom exhaust systems should be replaced. The reciprocating air cooled renewal system is beyond its useful life. Condensate pump and domestic water distribution systems are in poor condition as well. UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

CODE COMPLIANCE & ACCESSIBILITY DuPont Hall’s raised stage and service counters do not meet ADA height and accessibility requirements; this may be remedied once the current theater renovation is complete. The building also does not meet current ADA standards for directional signage. However, egress stairs, elevator, and toilet rooms are ADA compliant.

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

STAIR 152 SF

STAIR 152 SF LIGHT STORAGE 159 SF

STORAGE 63 SF

TOOL ROOM 112 SF

FUNCTION

STAGE 1144 SF

SCENE SHOP 571 SF

STORAGE DRESSING ROOM/ 52 SF STAGE MANAGER 96 SF SCENE SHOP 610 SF ELECTRICAL 72 SF

C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICES

D E PA R T M E N T

D E P T. S . F.

VISUAL & PERFORMING ARTS

1 9 , 6 0 3 S . F.

M U LT I

6 8 6 S . F.

VISUAL & PERFORMING

STUDY

VISUAL & PERFORMING

ARTS

THEATER 2197 SF

F O O D FAC I L I T I E S S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

MULTI

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S MANAGEMENT OFFICE 166 SF

S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S STAIR 142 SF

C I R C U L AT I O N

CLASSROOM/LAB 365 SF

BATHROOM 218 SF

ELEV. 46 SF

B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

SEMINAR 436 SF

CLASS ROOM 306 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

LOUNGE

STAIR 119 SF CLASSROOM 760 SF

BATHROOM 214 SF

SET DESIGN LAB 422 SF

SHAFT 17 SF CORRIDOR 2719 SF

CLASSROOM 380 SF

CLASSRO 380 SF

STAIR 149 SF

STAIR 151 SF

STORAGE 260 SF

STORAGE 239 SF

OPEN TO BELOW

OFFICE 421 SF

CLASSROOM 380 SF

CLASSROOM 512 SF

GALLERY 1529 SF LOBBY 275 SF STAIR 160 SF

VISUAL & PERFORMING

MULTI

ELECTRICAL 19 SF

ARTS

OFFICE 442 SF

VISUAL & PERFORMING

ARTS

DRESSING ROOM 550 SF

MECHANICAL 319 SF

STAIR 142 SF

DESIGN LAB 399 SF

REHEARSAL ROOM 831 SF

DESIGN LAB 734 SF

SEMINAR ROOM 616 SF

STAIR 142 SF STAIR 119 SF

OFFICE 120 SF

OFFICE 106 SF

OFFICE 105 SF

OFFICE 131 SF

OFFICE 155 SF

OFFICE 151 SF

OFFICE 135 SF

OFFICE 164 SF

OFFICE 167 SF

OFFICE 150 SF

MAIL ROOM 172 SF

HOUSE KEEPING 109 SF

THEATER STORAGE 437 SF

ELECTRICAL 271 SF

ELECTRICAL 256 SF

TEMP. MUSIC ROOM 482 SF

OFFICE 114 SF

OFFICE 178 SF

OFFICE 145 SF

OFFICE 134 SF

OFFICE 148 SF

OFFICE 153 SF

OFFICE 128 SF

OFFICE 90 SF

MECHANICAL 421 SF

STUDIO 778 SF

STAIR 119 SF CONTROL ROOM 60 SF

ELEV THEATER STORAGE STORAGE 275 SF 131 SF 48 SF

CORRIDOR 1688 SF

OFFICE 131 SF

CORRIDOR 1306 SF

OFFICE 125 SF

ELEV ROOM 79 SF

OFFICE 112 SF

LIGHT / SOUND LAB 490 SF

ARTS

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR

OFFICE 246 SF

ELEV. 42 SF

COSTUME SHOP 438 SF

VISUAL & PERFORMING

ARTS

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR OFFICE 1092 SF

STAIR 150 SF

CORRIDOR 597 SF

COSTUME STORAGE 594 SF

VISUAL & PERFORMING

BATHROOM 147 SF

BATHROOM 141 SF

TRINKLE HALL BUILDING NUMBER 10 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1941 R E N OVAT E D : 19 87 G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 37,568 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: 33,698 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 90%

BUILDING USE:

AC AD EM IC , AD M INIS TR ATION, AD M IS S IONS

DEPARTMENTS :

C OM P UTER S C IENC E , C LAS S IC S, P H ILOS OP H Y, AND

R E LI G I O N, E D U C ATION, M ATH EM ATIC S, TH E LEID EC K ER C ENTER FOR AS IAN ST U D I E S, T H E CENTER FOR INS TR UC TIONAL TEC H NOLOGY, M ULTIM ED IA C E N T E R , H E LP D ES K , TH E S TUD ENT W R ITING C ENTER

The existing chiller unit is beyond its useful life, and the central air handling unit is in poor condition as well. The duct system in Trinkle needs to be balanced and cleaned in order for the system to continue to function properly. The HVAC compressor should also be replaced to maintain integrity of the system. Standards recommend installing rooftop light and power near the mechanical equipment in those areas. Replacing incandescent lamps with compact fluorescents and insulating the attic roof would greatly improve the energy efficiency within the building. HVAC controls and instrumentation need to be replaced along with the general building and restroom exhaust distribution systems that are currently causing mold issues in many areas of the building. The heat exchanger, condensate, and heat pumps are in poor condition and beyond the point of being reliable. The cooling units in the computer labs are aged and insufficient for the needs of these rooms. In order to maintain optimum efficiency and save power, lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building. Additional lighting, natural or artificial, should be planned in Trinkle’s entry rotunda to make the entry more welcoming. Most of the classrooms in Trinkle rely on portable multimedia technology, with the exception of a few rooms that have installed technology. Some technological accessories, such as projector screens and lighting, conflict with board space and do not allow for usable learning environments.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.49

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Trinkle Hall is one of the most frequently used academic buildings at UMW, housing the Departments of Computer Science; Classics, Philosophy, and Religion; Education; and Mathematics. It also houses the Leidecker Center for Asian Studies, the Center for Instructional Technology, several computer labs, 24-hour study rooms, the Multimedia Center, Help Desk, and the Student Writing Center. Prior to 1987, Trinkle Hall served as the University library. It is the only building on campus that has the original Mary Washington College seal, currently embedded in the entryway floor directly under the building’s main architectural feature - a large, copper-clad dome. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Trinkle’s time-honored copper-clad dome roof is aged and in need of significant repairs / renovation. The exterior doors and wood window assemblies are in poor condition and should be a priority for replacement, as well as to improve energy efficiency. Trinkle contains a unique structural system that was originally developed to support a 150,000 volume library. The painted finish on the exterior wood trim is worn; in some cases the wood is visibly deteriorating and in need of repainting or replacement. The existing stormwater drainage and sanitary waste systems are also in poor condition. Interior finishes and fixtures, such as the stained ACT ceilings, aged carpeting on all floors, aged carpet tiles in the basement, drinking fountains, epoxy painted finish on masonry walls, interior doors, VCT, utility sinks, painted finish walls, desks, and many of the interior furnishings, are aged and in need of replacement. UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Although it seems most of the building code issues were addressed when the addition was completed on Trinkle, the building lacks directional signage required to meet current accessibility standards. Trinkle’s main entrance is made wheelchair accessible by an exterior entry ramp and automatic door opener, which was not working at the time of our walkthrough. The building’s floors are also accessible by means of a centrally located hydraulic passenger and freight elevator that is beyond its useful life and should be considered for replacement. There is an existing stair at the basement level that does not lead to egress, causing confusion when exiting from that level. The fire alarm, exit signs, and emergency egress lights are dated and should be replaced, in some cases installed, to maintain the integrity of the fire protection system.

EXISTING PLAN BY

FUNCTION

OFFICE 162 SF

OFFICE 95 SF

OFFICE 160 SF

OFFICE 101 SF

MATHEMATICS C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICES STUDY

D E PA R T M E N T

D E P T. S . F.

COMPUTER & INFORAMTION SCIENCES

5 , 1 9 0 S . F.

E D U C AT I O N

2 , 1 9 8 S . F.

ENGLISH

5 4 7 S . F.

M AT H E M AT I C S

2 , 3 0 1 S . F.

OFFICE 159 SF

BREAKROOM 50 SF

OFFICE 146 SF

OFFICE 152 SF

OFFICE 67 SF

SEMINAR ROOM 330 SF

OFFICE 129 SF

MULTI

STAIRS 110 SF

STAIRS 175 SF

RESTROOM 163 SF CLASSROOM 918 SF

LOUNGE

RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE 108 SF

ELEV. 45 SF

SHAFT 92 SF

CLASSICS, PHILOSOPHY & RELIGION

3 , 8 7 1 S . F.

M U LT I

5 , 8 5 8 S . F.

RESTROOM 174 SF

CLASSROOM 464 SF

MULTI

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S

OFFICE 103 SF

CORRIDOR 2005 SF

F O O D FAC I L I T I E S S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

OFFICE 113 SF

ENGLISH ELEC. 78 SF

ELEV. 54 SF

TELE. EQUIP. 54 SF

ELEV. RM. 57 SF

OFFICE 97 SF

OFFICE 165 SF

AV RM. 55 SF JAN. 50 SF

OFFICE 94 SF

G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S

OFFICES 474 SF

C I R C U L AT I O N CLASSROOM 840 SF

B AT H R O O M S

LOBBY 1204 SF

QUIET STUDY RM. 1318 SF

WRITING CENTER 547 SF

U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E OFFICE 59 SF

OFFICE 43 SF

MEETING ROOM 321 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR CLASSICS, PHILOSOPHY & RELIGION OFFICE 102 SF

OFFICE 105 SF

TEXTBOOK RM. 371 SF

OFFICE 222 SF

OFFICE 152 SF

OFFICE 154 SF

OFFICE 95 SF

EDUCATION OFFICE 67 SF

OFFICE 76 SF

OFFICE 87 SF

STAIRS 111 SF

CLASSICS, PHILOSOPHY & RELIGION

CORRIDOR 1859 SF

MULTI

DRAFT 43 SF

JAN. 86 SF

RESTROOM 162 SF

OFFICES 180 SF

ELEC. 78 SF

TELE. EQUIP. 54 SF

SUPPLY STOR. 97 SF

ELEV. 54 SF

TAC STORAGE 61 SF

STAIRS 147 SF

RESTROOM 133 SF

COMPUTER & INFORMATION SCIENCES

RECEIVING 372 SF

SEMINAR RM. 283 SF

ELEC. 78 SF

AUDIO VIS. RM. 212 SF

TELE. EQUIP. 54 SF

ELEV. 54 SF

ELEV. RM. 57 SF

AV RM. 55 SF

OFFICE 155 SF JAN. 49 SF

BALCONY 525 SF

CORRIDOR 1968 SF OFFICE 148 SF

OFFICE 128 SF

SEMINAR RM. 296 SF

OPEN TO BELOW

OFFICES 115 SF

OFFICES 125 SF

OFFICE 62 SF

CLASSROOM 918 SF

OFFICES 90 SF

LOUNGE 676 SF

OFFICES 96 SF

CLASSICS, PHILOSOPHY & RELIGION

RESTROOM 207 SF

JAN. 36 SF

OFFICES 96 SF

RECEPTION 114 SF

ELEC. 49 SF

OFFICE 123 SF

CLASSROOM 918 SF

OFFICE 108 SF

SHAFT 90 SF

ELEV. 35 SF

STAIRS 131 SF

STAIRS 224 SF

OPEN 92 SF

OFFICE 44 SF

SHAFT 90 SF

ELEV. 43 SF

SHAFT 81 SF

OFFICE 103 SF

SEMINAR RM. 425 SF

COMPUTER LAB 308 SF

RESTROOM 141 SF

OFFICE 113 SF

CLASSROOM 718 SF

OFFICE 140 SF

WORKROOM 130 SF

OFFICE 101 SF

OFFICES 94 SF

OFFICE 94 SF

RECEPTION 240 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

CLASSROOM 1771 SF

OFFICE 108 SF

OFFICE 166 SF

MULTI

RECEPTION 213 SF

OFFICE 135 SF

OFFICE 148 SF

OFFICE 248 SF

OFFICE 280 SF OFFICE 178 SF

OFFICE 164 SF

LAB AIDE OFFICE 230 SF COMPUTER LAB 619 SF

CONF. RM. 170 SF

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR

COMP. LAB 281 SF

COMPUTER LAB 604 SF LAB 152 SF

SEMINAR RM. 444 SF

CLASSROOM 514 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

FRAMAR HOUSE BUILDING NUMBER 11 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1929 R E N OVAT E D : N /A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 5,821 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 4,847 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 83%

BUILDING USE:

INTER NATIONAL S TUD ENT R ES ID ENC E H ALL

If this building is to continue to be used in the future for residential purposes, a new HVAC system should be installed and window AC units removed, to decrease energy costs and increase energy efficiency. The existing lightduty electrical service distribution system, which is original to the building, should be replaced for efficiency if the building is to remain operational; it is currently at capacity and could not handle any additional power load. The perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are aged and in need of immediate attention. The sanitary waste system is also in poor condition. C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Framar lacks an accessible entrance and designated handicap parking. There is no ADA signage in Framar nor are the stairs to the second floor code compliant. The toilet rooms in Framar are not ADA compliant and lack GFCI receptacles and exhaust systems, making them non-compliant with current codes. The domestic water main, which currently lacks a back-flow preventer, is also non-compliant. The existing interior door hardware should also be replaced with accessible hardware. The kitchen in Framar should be modified to meet current accessibility codes and standards as well.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.25

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Framar House, known as the International Living Center, provides students an opportunity to live with other students from many different cultures. All rooms within Framar have hardwood floors with dark wood moldings. Rooms vary in size but are generally considered very warm and inviting for students. Framar includes student apartments and bathrooms on all three floors, a kitchen and common area on the first floor, and storage and utility spaces in the basement. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Although Framar has character, it is currently overcrowded. Lounge spaces are being used as additional bed space and there appears to be a lack of bathroom and laundry space. On the exterior of the building, the brick walls, as well as exterior door and wood window assemblies are not only aged but damaged in many places and should be replaced or repaired. The foundation walls and exterior stairs are also in poor condition. On the interior, the single communal kitchen is beyond its useful life and not compliant with current accessibility standards and codes. The kitchen cabinets and sink should be replaced. The existing interior wood stair construction appears to be in need of reinforcement and does not meet current codes Other interior finishes and fixtures, including painted finishes, cast iron bathtubs, interior swinging doors, vinyl sheet, and wood flooring, are dated and showing signs of wear.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

According to the July 2009 Asset Detail Report, the hazardous lead and asbestos-containing-materials should be safely removed and replaced with clean, non-hazardous materials. Although not immediately needed, the emergency battery pack, fire alarm, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency lighting and power systems.

EXISTING PLAN BY

S PA C E

USE

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 219 SF

RESIDENTIAL LIVING A R E A C O O R D I N ATO R SHARED LIVING / C O M M O N S PAC E

UNIT TYPE SINGLE 138 SF

UNIT TYPE SINGLE 113 SF

BATHRROM 180 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 527 SF

UNIT TYPE QUAD 464 SF

CORRIDOR 318 SF

KITCHEN

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 334 SF

B AT H R O O M C I R C U L AT I O N

BATHROOM 88 SF

SUPPORT

BATHROOM 62 SF

CORRIDOR 134 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 173 SF

BATHROOM 30 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 329 SF

ITALIAN LC 114 SF

BATHROOM 45 SF

KITCHEN 129 SF

FOYER 236 SF

LOUNGE 446 SF

BATHROOM 20 SF UNIT TYPE SINGLE 194 SF

SUPPORT 113 SF

LAUNDRY 81 SF

STORAGE 144 SF

BATHROOM 13 SF CORRIDOR 29 SF RA 176 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

HAMLET HOUSE BUILDING NUMBER 12 FAST FACTS:

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Hamlet lacks a wheelchair accessible entrance and ADA signage to meet accessibility codes and standards. The toilet rooms in Hamlet are not ADA compliant and lack GFCI receptacles and exhaust systems, making them non-compliant with current codes. The domestic water main, which currently lacks a back-flow preventer and the domestic water sillcocks are aged and non-compliant. The kitchen in Hamlet should be modified to meet current accessibility codes and standards as well.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1927 R E N OVAT E D : N /A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 3,647 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 3,051 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 84%

BUILDING USE:

AD M INIS TR ATION

DEPARTMENTS :

INFOR M ATION S YS TEM S, FAC ULTY OFFIC ES,

PH O N E - A -T H O N H EAD QUAR TER S

Although not immediately needed, the emergency battery pack, fire alarm system, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems. According to the July 2009 Asset Detail Report, the hazardous lead and asbestos-containing-materials should be safely removed and replaced with clean, non-hazardous materials.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.34

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Hamlet House is currently the home of the Phone-a-thon fundraising program. This building has had a lot of activity due its flexible office spaces. It includes offices and bathrooms on both floors, a kitchen on the first floor, and mechanical equipment in the basement. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Being a former residence makes Hamlet, similar to Tyler and Fairfax, an awkward yet quaint office building. The foundation walls, wood framed exterior wall and stair assemblies, and multi-floor superstructure appear to be in poor condition. Exterior walls of Hamlet lack sufficient insulation to meet current energy standards and codes. The exterior doors and wood windows are beyond their useful lives. The asphalt shingled roofing is aged and in poor condition. Interior finishes, including ACT, carpeting, painted wall and plaster ceiling finishes, restroom accessories and fittings, interior swinging doors, and vinyl sheet flooring, are deteriorating or in poor condition and should be considered for replacement.

The domestic electric hot water heater is aged and in need of replacement. An additional electric water heater is abandoned and should be removed. Plumbing fixtures, like the bathtub, are abandoned or being used for storage and should be removed as well. The sanitary waste system is also in poor condition.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

FUNCTION

C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICES STUDY F O O D FAC I L I T I E S S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

LOUNGE H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

STORAGE 67 SF

OFFICE 65 SF

BATH 46 SF

OFFICE 102 SF KITCHEN 118 SF BATH 59 SF

OFFICE 132 SF

OFFICE 112 SF

OFFICE 111 SF

STORAGE 23 SF

STORAGE 517 SF

STAIRS 25 SF

STORAGE 14 SF

BATH 113 SF OFFICE 104 SF

KITCHEN 102 SF STORAGE 36 SF

OFFICE 164 SF

CORRIDOR 139 SF

STAIRS 33 SF

BATH 12 SF

STAIRS 35 SF

OFFICE 111 SF

CONFERENCE 162 SF

OFFICE 174 SF

STORAGE 282 SF

CORRIDOR 186 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR

MERCER HALL BUILDING NUMBER 13 FAST FACTS:

in poor condition. The domestic water distribution and sanitary waste systems are due for renewal. The perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are beyond their useful lives.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1950 R E N OVAT E D : N /A

Mercer contains an electrical distribution system and wiring that is original to the building and the cause of most electrical complications within the building. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, the system should be re-wired and lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building. To the benefit of the building, there is installed projected technology in all of the seminar rooms.

G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 14,563 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 12,614 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 87%

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

AC AD EM IC AND AD M INIS TR ATION JUD IC IAL B OAR D, H ONOR C OUNC IL , P OLITIC AL

SC I E N C E A N D I NTER NATIONAL AFFAIR S, H IS TORY AND AM ER IC AN S TUD IES

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Although Mercer’s main entrance is made wheelchair accessible by an exterior entry ramp, the building is not necessarily wheelchair friendly. Interior opening widths on many interior doors are smaller than the minimum widths accessibility codes require. ADA signage should be installed to meet accessibility codes and standards. The toilet rooms in the building are not accessible and most of the interior doors contain knob-style hardware. Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, sprinkler flow switches, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.50

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Mercer Hall, located just up the hill from the Woodard Campus Center, was an infirmary then a residence hall. With three floors built upon a partial basement and crawlspace, Mercer has offices carved out of every available space in every shape and size. Offices tend to have shared, in-suite bathrooms leftover from Mercer’s days as a residence hall. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Being a former infirmary and residence hall makes Mercer an awkward office building. Although minor modifications have been made to help the building function throughout its many program changes, Mercer is in relatively poor condition. The exterior doors, wood windows, and rainwater drainage system are beyond their useful lives. The traction elevator is aged, in poor condition, and does not meet accessibility codes for wheelchair turning radius. Interior finishes and fixtures, including VCT, carpeting, ceramic tile floors, ceramic tile walls, drinking fountains, kitchen casework, counters and sinks, utility sinks, interior swinging doors, painted wall and painted plaster ceiling finishes, restroom fixtures, fittings, restroom accessories and furniture (both office and lounge), are aged, worn, or in poor condition; upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic and usefullness of the building. As for building infrastructure, the heat exchanger is in need of shell and tube renewal in order for the system to function properly. The steam fired hot water heater is also beyond its useful life. The building’s condensate pump system is UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

According to the July 2009 Asset Detail Report, the hazardous lead and asbestoscontaining-materials should be safely removed and replaced with clean, nonhazardous materials.

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICES STUDY

FUNCTION

D E PA R T M E N T

D E P T. S . F.

H I S TO RY & AMERICAN STUDIES

3 , 6 0 1 S . F.

POLITICAL SCIENCE & I N T E R N AT I O N A L A F FA I R S

1 , 8 5 2 S . F.

M U LT I

1 , 0 8 8 S . F.

HISTORY STUDIES

AMERICAN

HISTORY STUDIES

OFFICE 139 SF

AMERICAN

BATHROOM 61 SF

F O O D FAC I L I T I E S MULTICULTURAL OFFICE 170 SF

S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S LOUNGE

SHAFT 16 SF

BATHROOM 59 SF

BATHROOM 65 SF JUDICIAL REVIEW BOARD ROOM 181 SF

BREAK ROOM 108 SF STAIRS 152 SF

COPY ROOM 73 SF

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S

JRB COURT ROOM 351 SF

HOUSEKEEPING 52 SF

SHAFT 17 SF

SHAFT 11 SF

RESIDENTIAL G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

CORRIDOR 888 SF

S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N

ELEV. SHAFT 64 SF

STORAGE 51 SF

B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

RECORDS/ STORAGE 182 SF

FILE ROOM 170 SF

OFFICE 151 SF

SHAFT 22 SF

HONOR COUNCIL 174 SF

BATHROOM 70 SF

SHAFT 11 SF

JRB WAITING ROOM 320 SF

STAIRS 144 SF

BATHROOM 67 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

MULTI MEETING ROOM 416 SF

HISTORY STUDIES

AMERICAN

POLITICAL SCIENCE & INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

MULTI

POLITICAL SCIENCE & INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

CORRIDOR 182 SF

PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES OFFICE 170 SF

SHAFT 16 SF

STAIRS 75 SF

BATHROOM 59 SF

BATHROOM 65 SF PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES OFFICE 181 SF

KITCHEN 111 SF STAIRS 156 SF

OFFICE 116 SF

STORAGE 73 SF

GROUP ROOM 351 SF

JANITOR 66 SF

TELEPHONE 11 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 64 SF

BATHROOM 53 SF

BATHROOM 58 SF

STORAGE 91 SF

BATHROOM 53 SF

CORR. 53 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 65 SF

SEMINAR ROOM 320 SF

STAIRS 144 SF

EXAM ROOM 189 SF

BATHROOM 69 SF

EXAM ROOM 177 SF

EXAM ROOM 183 SF

FOYER 42 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR MULTI

BATHROOM 46 SF

SELF-CARE CENTER 147 SF

BATHROOM 67 SF

OFFICE 93 SF

CORRIDOR 826 SF

SHAFT 11 SF

SHAFT 22 SF

PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES OFFICE 181 SF

BATHROOM 50 SF

HEALTH CARE RECEPTION 156 SF

SHAFT 11 SF

SHAFT 17 SF

PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES OFFICE 182 SF

BREAK ROOM 213 SF

EXAM ROOM 215 SF

OFFICE 223 SF

CORRIDOR 727 SF

PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES OFFICE 180 SF

BATHROOM 43 SF SEMINAR ROOM 137 SF

BATHROOM 69 SF

MEDICAL STORAGE 120 SF

STAIRS 148 SF

BATHROOM 66 SF

POLITICAL SCIENCE & INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

OFFICE 247 SF

DOLLY MADISON HALL BUILDING NUMBER 14 FAST FACTS:

The domestic water distribution and sanitary waste systems are due for renewal. The perimeter hot and chilled water distribution system and the steam fired hot water heater are beyond their useful lives. The toilet room exhaust system is in poor condition as well.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1958 R E N OVAT E D : 20 03 ( PAR TIAL)

In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency and provide adequate natural and artificial lighting to the building, the current lighting system should be replaced and lighting sensors installed throughout the building.

G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 7,620 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: 6,447 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 85%

BUILDING USE:

C O -ED UC ATIONAL R ES ID ENC E H ALL W ITH IN- S UITE

B AT H R O O M S

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.59

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Madison Hall is a co-educational residence named for Dolly Madison, wife of the fourth President of the United States. It is one of three buildings that collectively, along with Ball and Custis Halls, comprises the Tri-Units. Centrally located, Madison houses 41 men and women in double rooms with in-suite baths, and is home to the Modern Foreign Language student program and scholarship program. Madison Hall is known for its small community-oriented atmosphere. Kitchens are centrally-located on the first, second, and third floors and are equipped with an oven, a microwave, a refrigerator, cabinets, and counter space. Vending machines and laundry facilities are located in the basement. There is also a large air conditioned lounge and study area in the basement where residents often gather for movies, Hall Council programs, and study sessions. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Madison, like most of the other residence halls on campus, has not seen a significant renovation since its construction. The foundation walls and footings, structural slab on grade, wood framed stair and exterior wall structure, and multi-floor superstructure appear to be in poor condition. The exterior doors, wood windows and gutters and downspouts are beyond their useful lives. Interior finishes and fixtures, including interior swinging doors, ACT, VCT, wood and terrazzo floors, carpet, ceramic tile floors, painted wall and plaster ceiling finishes, plaster walls, toilet room fixtures, fittings and accessories, toilet room partitions, kitchen cabinets, countertop and sinks, utility sinks, drinking fountains and furniture (both office and lounge), are aged, worn UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building.

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Although Madison has made an attempt at a wheelchair accessible entry off Ball Circle, there is a non-compliant exiting level change that makes it non-conforming. The interior opening widths on many interior doors are smaller than the minimum widths accessibility codes require. ADA signage should be installed to meet accessibility codes and standards as well. The toilet rooms in the building are also not accessible. Most of the interior doors contain knob-style hardware. Madison currently lacks a fire suppression or sprinkler system. Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency lighting and power systems.

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

S PA C E

USE

RESIDENTIAL LIVING A R E A C O O R D I N ATO R SHARED LIVING / C O M M O N S PAC E KITCHEN B AT H R O O M C I R C U L AT I O N

BATHROOM 34 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 129 SF

BATHROOM 34 SF

BATHROOM 34 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 109 SF

KITCHEN 92 SF

SUPPORT SUPPORT 9 SF 11 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 108 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 135 SF

BATHROOM 34 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 110 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 129 SF

SUPPORT 12 SF

SUPPORT SUPPORT 10 SF 9 SF

COORIDOR 285 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 122 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 121 SF

STAIR 95 SF

KITCHEN 92 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 135 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 120 SF

SUPPORT Redundant Room

COORIDOR 288 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 119 SF

BATHROOM 32 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 131 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 125 SF

BATHROOM 32 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 116 SF

STAIR 96 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 118 SF

BATHROOM 32 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 131 SF BATHROOM 32 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

KITCHEN 30 SF BATHROOM 34 SF LOUNGE 109 SF

RA 129 SF

OFFICE 62 SF

SUPPORT SUPPORT 11 SF 9 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 107 SF

BATHROOM 34 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 135 SF

LAUNDRY 117 SF

STORAGE 117 SF

TRASH 86 SF

RA OFFICE 69 SF

SUPPORT 13 SF CORRIDOR 189 SF

COORIDOR 288 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 116 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 125 SF

BATHROOM 32 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 131 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 118 SF

STAIR 96 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

BATHROOM 32 SF

BED ROOM 87 SF STAIR 117 SF

STUDY 130 SF

LOUNGE 661 SF

BATHROOM 43 SF

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

SUPPORT

MARSHALL HALL BUILDING NUMBER 15 FAST FACTS:

lounge), are aged, worn, or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1960

As for the building mechanical infrastructure, the heat exchanger is in need of shell and tube renewal and the heat pumps are aged and corroded. Although the HVAC equipment is aged in general, the exhaust systems in the toilet rooms within Marshall are in particularly poor condition. Sufficient ventilation should also be provided in the laundry, janitorial, and electric rooms.

R E N OVAT E D : N /A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 38,200 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 35,020 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 92%

BUILDING USE:

C OED UC ATIONAL R ES ID ENC E H ALL W ITH IN- S UITE

B AT H R O O M S

The building’s condensate pump system is beyond its useful life. The domestic water distribution and sanitary waste systems are due for high end renewal. The perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are beyond their useful lives. The steam fired hot water heater is also in poor condition. Marshall contains an electrical distribution system and wiring that is original to the building and the cause of most electrical complications. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, the system should be re-wired and lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.50

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Marshall Hall, named for Mary Marshall, the wife of US Chief Justice John Marshall, houses approximately 147 upperclass men and women. At the bottom of “the hill” on the south end of campus, Marshall houses students in double and triple occupancy suites. Located next to Russell and behind Bushnell Hall, Marshall is accessible by Sunken Road. The laundry room is located on the east wing of the basement floor along with the vending machines. Marshall also has several study lounges on the first, second, and third floors. The second floor lounge features a balcony. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Although minor modifications have been made to help the building function throughout the years, the building, like many of the other residence halls, is in relatively poor condition. The adhered membrane single-ply roofing is in poor condition. There appears to be ponding water on the roof as well. The exterior doors, wood windows, and rainwater drainage system are beyond their useful lives. The hydraulic freight / passenger elevator is also in poor condition. Marshall’s oval entryway attempts to create a welcoming and comfortable entry lounge area, yet it lacks light and flexible furniture. Although the ample natural light in the main parlor makes for a successful lounge space, the interior finishes and furnishings appear dated and uninviting. Other interior finishes, fixtures, and fittings, including ACT, VCT, interior doors, ceramic floor and wall tile, drinking fountains, kitchen cabinets, counter and sinks, epoxy painted finish on masonry walls, painted wall finishes, plumbing fixtures, fittings and accessories, as well as furniture (both office and UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Marshall currently lacks a wheelchair accessible exterior entry ramp. In general, the building lacks wheelchair accessibility. Directional and life safety signage should be installed to meet accessibility codes and standards. The toilet rooms and drinking fountains are not ADA compliant. Most of the interior doors contain knob-style hardware. The domestic water distribution system is lacking a vacuum breaker, which should be installed to maintain integrity of the domestic water system and meet current codes. A fire suppression system should be installed in order for the building to meet current life safety codes. Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency lighting and power systems. According to the July 2009 Asset Detail Report, the hazardous asbestoscontaining-materials should be safely removed and replaced with clean, nonhazardous materials.

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

S PA C E

USE

RESIDENTIAL LIVING A R E A C O O R D I N ATO R SHARED LIVING / C O M M O N S PAC E KITCHEN

STAIRS 273 SF

C I R C U L AT I O N

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 314 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210 SF

RA APT 195 SF BATHROOM B ATHROO 55 SF

SUPPOR S UPPORT 27 SF 27 ELEV. 43 SF LOUNGE 289 SF

BATHROOM B ATHROOM M 64 SF

BATHROOM B ATHROOM M 56 SF

BATHROOM OM 64 SF

KITCHEN 223 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE BATHROOM ATHROOM 192 SF B 68 SF

UNIT TYPE E 1 DOUBLE 190 SF

BATHROOM OM 64 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 239 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 225 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 248 SF

BATHROOM B ATHROOM M UNIT TYPE 63 SF 1 DOUBLE 226 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 225 SF B BATHROOM ATHROOM 65 SF

UNIT TYPE E 1 DOUBLE 210 SF

UNIT TYPE E 1 DOUBLE 194 SF

LOUNGE 191 SF

UNIT TYPE E 1 DOUBLE 213 SF

BATHROOM B ATHROOM M UNIT TYPE 64 SF 1 DOUBLE 218 SF BATHROOM OM 64 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 186 SF

HR APT 520 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 171 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 248 SF

UNIT TYPE E 1 DOUBLE 210 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

SUPPOR S UPPORT 27 SF 27 ELEV. 43 SF

RA APT 229 SF

BATHROOM B ATHROOM M 56 SF

BATHROOM 76 SF

STAIRS 256 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 249 SF

BA ATHROOM M 68 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 260 SF

KITCHEN 233 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 190 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 247 SF

BATHROOM 68 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 241 SF

SUPPORT 175 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE BATHROOM ATHROOM M 192 SF B 68 SF

COR. 38 SF

BATHROOM B ATHROOM M B BATHROOM M 56 SF 31 SF

SUPPORT RT 36 S SF CORRIDOR 150 SF OFFICE 231 SF

SUPPORT S SU T 39 SF CORRIDOR R 146 SF LOUNGE 231 SF

LOUNGE 195 SF

STAIRS 256 SF

UNIT TYPE UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 1 DOUBLE 195 SF 204 SF BATHROOM BATHROO 55 SF

UNIT TYPE E 1 DOUBLE 194 SF

BATHROOM B ATHROOM M 67 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224 SF UNIT TYPE CORRIDOR OR R 1 DOUBLE 676 SF UNIT TYPE BATHROOM M 192 SF B 1 DOUBLE 68 SF 224 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 225 SF

BATHROOM B ATHROOM M UNIT TYPE 63 SF 1 DOUBLE 226 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 225 SF B BATHROOM ATHROOM 65 SF

BATHROOM B ATHROOM M UNIT TYPE 63 SF 1 DOUBLE 226 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 227 SF

STAIRS 273 SF

SUPPORT SU RT LOUNGE 24 SF 150 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 225 SF B BATHROOM ATHROOM 65 SF

UNIT TYPE E 1 DOUBLE 210 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 190 SF

BATHROOM B ATHROOM M 67 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 225 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 248 SF

RA APT 229 SF

LOBBY 642 SF

BATHROOM B ATHROOM M UNIT TYPE 64 SF REC. RM 1 DOUBLE 98 SF 239 SF UNIT TYPE E CORRIDOR CO 1 DOUBLE 670 SF UNIT TYPE BATHROOM OM 190 SF 1 DOUBLE 64 SF 239 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 189 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

BATHROOM B ATHROOM 55 SF

SUPPOR S UPPORT 27 SF 27 ELEV. 43 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 256 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 213 SF

BATHROOM BATHROOM M UNIT TYPE 64 SF 1 DOUBLE 218 SF BATHROOM OM 64 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 195 SF

BATHROOM B ATHROO 55 SF

SUPPORT 98 SF UNIT TYPE E 1 DOUBLE BATHROOM OM 190 SF 64 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 239 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 227 SF

STAIRS 273 SF

BATHROOM B ATHROOM M 64 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 314 SF

CORRIDOR 1600 SF

UNIT TYPE E 1 DOUBLE 194 SF

BATHROOM B ATHROOM M 67 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224 SF

SUPPORT 229 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 213 SF

BATHROOM BATHROOM M UNIT TYPE 64 SF 1 DOUBLE 218 SF

STAIRS 273 SF

STAIRS 256 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 190 SF

LOUNGE 899 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210 SF

RA APT 195 SF

RA APT 229 SF

CORRIDOR 1600 SF

UNIT TYPE E 1 DOUBLE 194 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 239 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 189 SF

BATHROOM 76 SF

SUPPORT

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 239 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 256 SF

BATHROOM B ATHROOM M UNIT TYPE 64 SF 1 DOUBLE 239 SF CORRIDOR CO 1249 SF F UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 239 SF

LAUNDRY 416 SF

HK 251 SF

SUPPORT 291 SF

STAIRS 263 SF

SUPPORT 151 SF ELEV. 37 SF F SUPPORT S 127 SF

SUPPORT 157 SF

HK 398 SF

STORAGE 464 SF

BATHROOM B ATHROOM M UNIT TYPE 64 SF 1 DOUBLE 218 SF

STORAGE 522 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 227 SF

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR

MECH. RM 588 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

B AT H R O O M

MARY BALL HALL BUILDING NUMBER 16 FAST FACTS:

wood windows, and rainwater drainage system are beyond their useful lives. Interior finishes and fixtures, including ACT, VCT, carpeting, ceramic floor and wall tile, wood flooring, drinking fountains, painted wall finishes, damaged plaster ceilings and partitions, interior doors, kitchen cabinets, counters and sinks, restroom fixtures, fittings and accessories, and furniture (both office and lounge), are aged, worn, or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1934 R E N OVAT E D : N / A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 31,743 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: 28,771 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 91%

BUILDING USE:

ALL-FEM ALE , UP P ER- C LAS S R ES ID ENC E H ALL W ITH

I N - SU I T E B AT H S

Although the HVAC equipment is aged in general, the exhaust systems in the toilet rooms within Ball are in particularly poor condition. Sufficient ventilation should also be provided in the laundry, janitorial, and electric rooms. The domestic water distribution and sanitary waster systems are due for renewal. The perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are beyond their useful lives. The steam fired hot water heater is also in poor condition. Ball Hall contains an electrical distribution system and wiring that is original to the building and serves as the cause of most electrical complications within the building. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, the system should be updated and lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.50

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Mary Ball Hall is an all-female, upper-class residence hall named for Mary Ball, George Washingtonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mother. Centrally located, Ball Hall houses 105 women in double occupancy rooms with insuite baths. The spacious rooms also feature high ceilings and large windows with views of Ball Circle. Ball Hall features a beautiful domed rotunda lobby, complete with a spiral staircase and reminiscent of a grand palatial house, and two time-honored and restored parlors, one of which is provided with a large screen TV. The first floor has a kitchen for each wing, while the second and third floors have a centrally located kitchen and study lounge. Kitchens are equipped with a microwave, an oven, a refrigerator, cabinets, and counter space. Vending machines are located in the kitchens on the first floor. Laundry facilities are found in the basement. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Walking into Ballâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s inviting entry, there is no question as to why it is the most requested female upper-class residence hall. The recently restored parlors are neat and clean and serve their purposes as lounge and study space well. The open rotunda, lounge, and flanking parlors make this one of the most successful community spaces of all residence halls on campus. However, Ball Hall has no elevator, no air conditioning, and aged infrastructure and systems. On the exterior of the building, the brick walls, exterior door and wood window assemblies, foundation walls, structural slab on grade, and multi-floor superstructure are not only aged but damaged in some places and should be replaced or repaired. The exterior doors, UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Ball Hall lacks a wheelchair accessible exterior entry ramp and is not wheelchair-friendly. ADA signage should be installed to meet accessibility codes and standards. The toilet rooms in the building are not wheelchair accessible. A fire suppression system should be installed in order for the building to meet current life safety codes. Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems.

EXISTING PLAN BY

S PA C E

USE

RESIDENTIAL LIVING A R E A C O O R D I N ATO R SHARED LIVING / C O M M O N S PAC E KITCHEN

BATHROOM 115 SF BATHROOM 67 SF

BATHROOM 62 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 275 SF

STAIR 192 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 230 SF

BATHROOM 62 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 209 SF

SUPPORT 44 SF STAIR 129 SF

STUDY 119 SF BATHROOM 60 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 261 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 260 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 227 SF

BATHROOM 60 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 222 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 207 SF

BATHROOM 67 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 226 SF

SUPPORT 20 SF

SUPPORT 18 SF

B AT H R O O M C I R C U L AT I O N

COMMONS 1216 SF

COORIDOR 533 SF

SUPPORT

CORRIDOR 533 SF SUPPORT 22 SF

SUPPORT 21 SF UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 225 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 286 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 275 SF

STAIR 192 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 234 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 212 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 228 SF BATHROOM 63 SF

BATHROOM 63 SF

BATHROOM 72 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 228 SF

RA 292 SF

RA 293 SF

LOUNGE 111 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 275 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 236 SF BATHROOM 72 SF

BATHROOM 63 SF

BATHROOM 63 SF KITCHEN 95 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 235 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 212 SF

LAUNDRY 104 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

BATHROOM 115 SF BATHROOM 67 SF

BATHROOM 62 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 275 SF

STAIR 192 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 230 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 227 SF

STUDY 119 SF

STAIR 129 SF

BATHROOM 62 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 209 SF

SUPPORT 44 SF

BATHROOM 60 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 260 SF

BATHROOM 60 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 261 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 222 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 207 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 226 SF

BATHROOM 67 SF STAIR 192 SF

SUPPORT 18 SF

SUPPORT 20 SF COORIDOR 533 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 225 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 286 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 275 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 234 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 212 SF BATHROOM 63 SF

BATHROOM 72 SF

COORIDOR 533 SF

COMMONS 1215 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 228 SF

RA 314 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 228 SF

RA 314 SF

BATHROOM 63 SF KITCHEN 95 SF

LOUNGE 111 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 235 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 212 SF

BATHROOM 63 SF

BATHROOM 60 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 236 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 275 SF BATHROOM 72 SF

STAFF 104 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

BATHROOM 115 SF BATHROOM 62 SF

BATHROOM 67 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 275 SF

STAIR 192 SF

SUPPORT 18 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 230 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 209 SF

BATHROOM 62 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 227 SF

SUPPORT 44 SF STAIR 129 SF AD APARTMENT 246 SF

HR 260 SF

AD APARTMENT 222 SF

? 15 SF

AD APARTMENT 207 SF

BATHROOM 72 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 234 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 212 SF

SUPPORT 20 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 275 SF

PARLOR 583 SF

BATHROOM 63 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

SUPPORT 17 SF

SUPPORT 22 SF

SUPPORT 22 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 225 SF

AD APARTMENT 226 SF

BATHROOM 67 SF

CORRIDOR 533 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 286 SF

STAIR 192 SF

LOBBY 1657 SF

PARLOR 583 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 235 SF

RA 212 SF BATHROOM 63 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 275 SF

KITCHEN 219 SF BATHRROM 72 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

MARY CUSTIS HALL BUILDING NUMBER 17 FAST FACTS:

and furniture (both office and lounge), are aged, worn or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1934

Although the HVAC equipment is aged in general, the exhaust systems in the toilet rooms within Custis are in particularly poor condition. The domestic water distribution, sanitary waste systems, and the perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are beyond their useful lives. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building.

R E N OVAT E D : N /A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 31,743 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 28,771 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 91%

BUILDING USE:

C OED UC ATIONAL R ES ID ENC E H ALL W ITH IN- S UITE

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Custis lacks a wheelchair-accessible exterior entry ramp and is not wheelchair-friendly. ADA signage should be installed to meet accessibility codes and standards. The toilet rooms are not wheelchair accessible and drinking fountains do not meet ADA standards. A sprinkler system should be installed in order for the building to meet current life safety codes.

B AT H R O O M S

Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.51

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Mary Custis Hall is a coeducational residence hall named for Mary Custis, the wife of General Robert E. Lee. Custis is one of three buildings that collectively, along with Ball and Madison, comprise the TriUnits. Kitchens are centrally located on the second and third floors, and include a microwave, an oven, a refrigerator, cabinets, and counter space. Vending machines and the laundry room are located in the basement. There is also an air conditioned lounge and study area on the basement floor, complete with big screen TV. Custis is home to the First-Year Experience Program and houses 42 first-year men and women on three floors. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Centrally located, Custis has a small community atmosphere. The entry located off Ball Circle, however, lacks an inviting appeal. The lounges, located in the basement of the building, are dark and uninviting. The furnishings are uncomfortable, aged, and worn. The fourstory building also lacks an elevator. On the exterior of the building, the brick walls, exterior door and wood window assemblies, exterior concrete coping, foundation walls, structural slab on grade, and multi-floor superstructure are not only aged but damaged in some places and should be repaired as needed. The exterior doors, wood windows, column trim, and the rainwater drainage systems are rotting or beyond their useful lives. Interior finishes and fixtures, including ACT, VCT, carpeting, wood flooring, drinking fountains, painted epoxy and traditional painted wall finishes, damaged plaster ceilings, interior doors, kitchen cabinets, counters and sinks, restroom fixtures, fittings and accessories, UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

S PA C E

USE

RESIDENTIAL LIVING A R E A C O O R D I N ATO R

SUPPORT 11 SF

SUPPORT SUPPORT 15 SF

UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 229 SF

SUPPORT 15 SF

UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 229 SF

UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 213 SF

BATHROOM 57 SF

UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 206 SF SUPPORT 11 SF

SUPPORT 15 SF

UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 225 SF BATHROOM 57 SF

UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 229 SF

BATHROOM 57 SF

STUDY 209 SF

SUPPORT 14 SF

STORAGE 347 SF

UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 229 SF

SUPPORT 112 SF

STAIR 138 SF

BATHROOM 57 SF

BATHROOM 118 SF

SUPPORT 72 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

LAUNDRY 225 SF

SUPPORT 1583 SF

UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 213 SF STAIR 189 SF

UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 229 SF

UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 213 SF

SUPPORT 15 SF

SUPPORT 535 SF

UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 217 SF

CORRIDOR 536 SF

OFFICE 133 SF

SUPPORT 19 SF

UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 192 SF

UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 225 SF

SUPPORT 15 SF

STAIR 189 SF

BATHROOM 57 SF

RD 230 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

KITCHEN 151 SF SUPPORT 8 SF

BATHROOM 57 SF

SUPPORT 19 SF

UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 217 SF

UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 225 SF

BATHROOM 57 SF

RD 206 SF

OFFICE 74 SF

SUPPORT 11 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

BATHROOM 58 SF

UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 192 SF

UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 225 SF

CORRIDOR 535 SF

STAIR 189 SF

BATHROOM 57 SF

SUPPORT 8 SF

SUPPORT 15 SF

UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 217 SF

RA 225 SF

RD 77 SF

BATHROOM 58 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

C I R C U L AT I O N

UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 225 SF

BATHROOM 57 SF SUPPORT 19 SF UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 206 SF

SUPPORT 8 SF UNIT TYPE 2 DOUBLE 192 SF

KITCHEN B AT H R O O M

KITCHEN 151 SF

BATHROOM 58 SF

SHARED LIVING / C O M M O N S PAC E

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR

BATHROOM 118 SF

SUPPORT 245 SF

MARYE HOUSE BUILDING NUMBER 18 FAST FACTS:

The domestic water distribution and sanitary waste systems are due for renewal. The perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are beyond their useful lives. Plumbing fixtures, like the bathtub on the second floor, are abandoned or being used for storage.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1814 R E N OVAT E D : N / A

Miscellaneous issues with the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing electrical distribution system and branch wiring are the cause of many electrical complications in the building.

G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 4,048 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: 3,544 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 88%

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

AD M INIS TR ATION D EAN OF S TUD ENT LIFE , JUD IC IAL AFFAIR S AND

C O M M U N I T Y R ES P ONS IB ILITY, TH E OFFIC E OF R ES ID ENC E LIFE AND H O U SI N G

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y The building lacks compliant handrails on the exterior stairs. There is currently no ADA signage in Marye or accessible way to get to the second floor as the building lacks an elevator and code compliant stairs. The exterior walls of Marye lack sufficient insulation to meet current energy standards and codes. The interior doors contain knob-style hardware and are not compliant with current accessibility codes. Emergency exit signs, egress lights, and fire alarm system and devices should be checked, and added in some places, to maintain integrity of the emergency system.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.24

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Marye House is a white, wood frame house nestled behind the trees near Trinkle Hall. It has a long history, starting with its days as a high point during the Civil War, and is named for John Lawrence Marye, whose family was prominent in Virginia in the days before and during the Civil War. It is home to the Dean of Student Life, Judicial Affairs and Community Responsibility, and the Office of Residence Life and Housing. There are offices on the first and second floors, bathrooms on each floor, and a kitchenette on the first floor. Mechanical and electrical equipment is located in the basement. BUILDING CONDITION The Marye House appears to have been partially renovated in recent years to create more office spaces. It remains an old building with many deferred architectural maintenance issues, including missing downspouts and a need to replace vinyl siding in various places on the exterior. The concrete retaining wall also appears to be deteriorating and in need of reinforcement. The exterior doors and wood windows are beyond their useful lives. Interior finishes, including ACT, carpeting, ceramic floor and wall tile, wood flooring, kitchenette cabinets, counters, appliances and fixtures, painted walls, and vinyl sheet flooring, are aged and should be replaced. The HVAC system in Marye is in working order but aged. As with most toilet rooms on campus, the restroom exhaust is in poor condition. Upgrading the HVAC system would eliminate the need for the inefficient window AC units currently being used throughout the building. The perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are aged as well. UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

According to the July 2009 Asset Detail Report, the hazardous lead and asbestoscontaining-materials should be safely removed and replaced with clean, nonhazardous materials.

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

FUNCTION

C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICES STUDY F O O D FAC I L I T I E S S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

LOUNGE H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N

OFFCIE 180 SF

B AT H R O O M S

KITCHEN 201 SF

U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

STAIRS 38 SF

OFFCIE 147 SF

STAIRS 15 SF

BATHROOM 71 SF

BATHROOM 51 SF

PRINTING / FAX 70 SF

BATHROOM 50 SF BATHROOM 59 SF

OFFCIE 191 SF

STAIRS/CORRIDOR 248 SF

OFFICE 246 SF

OFFCIE 127 SF

OFFCIE 194 SF

OFFCIE 242 SF

OFFCIE 203 SF

CONFERENCE 225 SF

STAIRS/CORRIDOR 56 SF

FOYER 326 SF

PORCH

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

OFFCIE 223 SF

OFFCIE 235 SF

MASON HALL BUILDING NUMBER 19 FAST FACTS:

and fixtures, including ACT, VCT, concrete floors, carpeting, ceramic floor and wall tile, drinking fountains, painted epoxy and traditional painted wall finishes, damaged plaster ceilings, interior doors, kitchen cabinets, counters and sinks, restroom fixtures, fittings and accessories, and furniture (both study, dorm and lounge), are aged, worn, or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1954 R E N OVAT E D : N /A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 63,445 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 50,304 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 79%

BUILDING USE:

C OED UC ATIONAL R ES ID ENC E H ALL W ITH IN- S UITE

B AT H R O O M S

The mechanical systems in Mason are worn out. The restroom exhaust and distribution system is not functioning properly in the toilet rooms. The domestic water distribution, sanitary waste systems, and the perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are beyond their useful lives. The condensate pump system, water heater, heat exchanger and heat pumps are aged and corroded in some places. Mason contains an electrical distribution system that is original to the building and is the cause of most of the electrical complications, including issues with general service. Electrical rooms are overheated, and tele-data equipment is exposed where it should be protected. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building. Dated exterior lighting should be replaced and incandescent lamps within the building should be replaced with compact fluorescent lamps.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

<.05

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Mason Hall is a coeducational first-year residence hall named for Thompson Mason, whose son George wrote the Bill of Rights. Located just off Campus Walk, Mason is part of the Randolph / Mason complex. Mason, a mirror image of Randolph Hall, is home to approximately 207 students. Mason features in-suite bathrooms. The second, fourth, and fifth floors have kitchens, each including a stove, microwave, refrigerator, counter space, and cabinets. Vending machines and the laundry rooms are located on the second floor. Additionally, the second floor features a lounge with a big screen TV. Study rooms are located on the third, fourth, and fifth floors. Mason offers triple-bed units, some of which are provided with built-in bookshelves and cabinetwork. BUILDING CONDITION Like many of the other residence halls on campus, Mason suffers from dated infrastructure and growing deferred maintenance issues. The built-up roof is beyond its useful life. Termite damage is evident near the vending area. The original waterproofing in the tunnel between Mason and Randolph appears to be failing and in need of replacement. The five-story building lacks an elevator and contains a dead-end corridor adjacent to a fire stair entry that is currently locked. The exterior doors, wood windows, and the rainwater drainage systems are rotting or beyond their useful lives. The lounges and study spaces in the building are generally dark and uninviting. The furnishings are uncomfortable, aged, and worn. In general the study rooms seem too small to be useful and kitchens are dated. Interior finishes UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Masonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s main entrance lacks an exterior entry ramp. Opening widths on many interior doors are smaller than the minimum widths required by accessibility codes. ADA signage should be installed to meet accessibility codes and standards as well. Most of the interior doors contain knob-style hardware. The toilet rooms, drinking fountains, and kitchen casework are also non-compliant with ADA codes and standards. A sprinkler system should be installed in order for the building to meet current life safety codes. Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system, fire alarm devices and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems. According to the July 2009 Asset Detail Report, the hazardous asbestoscontaining-materials should be safely removed and replaced with clean, nonhazardous materials.

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

S PA C E

USE

RESIDENTIAL LIVING

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

BATHROOM 98

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 209

STAIRS 175

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

BATHROOM 102

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224

BATHROOM 100

UNIT TYPE U 1 DOUBLE 202

UNIT TYPE BATHROOM 1 DOUBLE 101 201

LOUNGE 185

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 233

SUPPORT 65 UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 202

BATHROOM 101

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 213

A R E A C O O R D I N ATO R SHARED LIVING / C O M M O N S PAC E

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 212

SUPPORT S 39

BATHROOM 102

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224

ELEVATOR 65

STAIRS 189

CORRIDOR 1867

KITCHEN

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

B AT H R O O M

BATHROOM 99

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 199

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 201

BATHROOM 99

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 207

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 208

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 241

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 197

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 254

BATHROOM 100

BATHROOM 105

C I R C U L AT I O N

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 213

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 205

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 304

BATHROOM 171

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 233

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 282

BATHROOM M 143

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 221

BATHROOM 103

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

SUPPORT

EXISTING FIFTH FLOOR

SUPPORT 65

SUPPORT 65 UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

BATHROOM 98

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210

STAIRS 194

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

BATHROOM 102

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 202

KITCHEN 219

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 201

STUDY 143

LOUNGE 831

BATHROOM 102

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 212

SUPPORT S 39

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 212

BATHROOM 102

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224

ELEVATOR 65

STAIRS 189

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

BATHROOM 98

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 209

STAIRS 175

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

BATHROOM 102

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224

BATHROOM

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 202

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 201

LOUNGE 185

BATHROOM 101

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 233

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 202

BATHROOM 101

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 213

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 212

SUPPORT S T 39

BATHROOM 102

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224

ELEVATOR 65

STAIRS 189

ELEVATOR 73

CORRIDOR 1867

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

BATHROOM 99

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 199

201

BATHROOM 99

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 207

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 222

BATHROOM B ATHROOM M 170

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 311

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 205

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 286 AC OFFICE 109

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210 BATHROOM 101

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 195

BATHROOM 100

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 231

BATHROOM 156

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

STUDY 285

BATHROOM 99

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 199

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 201

BATHROOM 99

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 207

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 241

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 208 BATHROOM 105

BATHROOM 92

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 197

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 213 BATHROOM 100

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 254

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 205

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 304

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 233

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 282

BATHROOM 143

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 221

BATHROOM 103

STUDY 317

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

LOUNGE 267

EXISTING FOURTH FLOOR

SUPPORT 65 UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

BATHROOM 98

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210

STAIRS 194

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

BATHROOM 102

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 201

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 272

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 230

BATHROOM 122

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 207

BATHROOM 92

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 200

BATHROOM 102

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 212

SUPPORT S 39

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 212

BATHROOM 102

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224

ELEVATOR 65

STAIRS 189

AC LIVING RM 272

AC BEDROOM 284

STAIRS 189

BATHROOM 59 LOUNGE 465

CORRIDOR 2599

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210

BATHROOM 99

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 199

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 196

BATHROOM 99

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 207

STUDY 178

SUPPORT 254

SUPPORT S T 13

LOUNGE 935

KITCHEN 371

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 249 BATHROOM 77

BATHROOM 79

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 228

SUPPORT 727

BATHROOM 143 UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 226

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

AC KITCHEN 82

CORRIDOR 164

BATHROOM 64

SUPPORT 280

ELEVATOR 65

Room 249

Room 319

AC BEDROOM 220

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

MELCHERS HALL In order for the HVAC system to function properly, the return air supply vent should be separated from the exhaust. The restroom exhaust and distribution system is not functioning properly in the toilet rooms. The domestic water distribution and sanitary waste systems are beyond their useful lives. The heat exchanger and heat pumps are aged and corroded in some places.

BUILDING NUMBER 20 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1950 R E N OVAT E D : 19 94 G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 19,810

Electrical equipment in Melchers is deteriorated and in need of repair or replacement. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building

N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: 17,882 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 90%

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

AC AD EM IC

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y The entrance to Melchers Hall is at grade, so it is wheelchair accessible. The building is equipped with elevators. Handicapped parking is provided at the rear of the building in the Simpson Lot. Melchers does not meet current ADA standards for accessibility and directional signage. The automatic door openers are faulty and should be repaired. Interior doors do not have the proper hardware in order to be compliant with the current building code; some do not have hardware at all. An eye washing station should also be added to comply with current life safety codes.

AR T AND AR T H IS TORY

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.31

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Melchers Hall, built in 1951 and renovated in 1994, houses the Department of Art and Art History. It is named for internationally known artist Gari Melchers, who lived at Belmont in Falmouth, Virginia. The Gari Melchers Home and Studio at Belmont houses Melchers home, studio, and collection of art, and is maintained by the University. Melchers Hall is one of three buildings that make up UMWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Fine Arts Complex. Studio arts, such as print making and sculpture, are activities conducted in Melchers. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Located on the northwestern side of campus, Melchers Hall is a three-level, brick-clad building. Its location next to Pollard and duPont Halls creates a cluster of fine and performing arts buildings. The building is compartmentalized, requiring the occupants to transfer to the building exterior to gain access to other spaces, making wayfinding difficult. The balustrades on Melchers exterior are in poor condition and in need of replacement. Exterior wood windows and cracked skylights are in poor condition and should be replaced as well. The stormwater drainage system is also in poor condition. The carpeting, ceramic tile floors and walls, toilet partitions, drinking fountains, school equipment and furnishings, painted finishes, stained ACT and VCT are aged, worn, or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building. UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems.

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

VISUAL & PERFORMING

ARTS

FUNCTION

SHAFT 28 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 93 SF

C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY

D E PA R T M E N T

D E P T. S . F.

VISUAL & PERFORMING ARTS

1 3 , 8 3 5 S . F.

PAINTING LAB / STUDIO 1413 SF STORAGE 84 SF

STORAGE / SPRINKLER VALVE 76 SF

OFFICES STUDY

STAIRS 201 SF

STAIRS 176 SF

F O O D FAC I L I T I E S

FRAME MAKING STUDIO 338 SF

S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

PROJECTION ROOM 107 SF

S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N

ELEV. SHAFT HOUSEKEEPING SHAFT 81 SF 48 SF 18 SF

SLIDE LIBRARY 185 SF

B AT H R O O M S

ART HISTORY LECTURE ROOM 717 SF

U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

SEMINAR / CONFERENCE 247 SF

STAIRS 158 SF

PHOTOGRAPY / PRINT-MAKING STUDIO 868 SF

CORRIDOR 370 SF

VISUAL & PERFORMING

ELECTRICAL 36 SF

CORRIDOR 263 SF

EGRESS 52 SF

DARKROOM 502 SF

ARTS TEXTILE LAB / STUDIO 1131 SF

COMPUTER LAB 323 SF

STAIRS 310 SF

STAIRS 286 SF

STORAGE 120 SF

OFFICE 106 SF

DRAWING STUDIO 1498 SF

OFFICE 122 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

KILN LAB 509 SF

OFFICE 249 SF

ELEV. SHAFT ELEV. EQUIP. ROOM 81 SF 48 SF CLASSROOM 779 SF

VISUAL & PERFORMING

SHAFT 20 SF

ARTS

STORAGE 30 SF

CERAMIC LAB / STORAGE 231 SF ELEC. PANEL ROOM 24 SF

STAIRS 158 SF CORRIDOR 263 SF

CERAMICS LAB / STUDIO 1243 SF

CORRIDOR 367 SF

WOMEN'S ROOM 176 SF

MEN'S ROOM 131 SF

CORRIDOR 310 SF

CORRIDOR/ STAIRS 286 SF

DESIGN STUDIO 1178 SF

OFFICE 85 SF

EGRESS 52 SF

OFFICE 106 SF

OFFICE 80 SF

STORAGE 128 SF

OFFICE 102 SF

SCULPTURE STUDIO 1208 SF

STORAGE 144 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

LOUNGE

MONROE HALL BUILDING NUMBER 21 FAST FACTS:

The 1978 renovations replaced selected components, including the exterior doors and windows located within the cast-in-place base of the building. The 1990s re-roofing project made selective repairs to the wood sheathing, slate, copper linings, and flashings to the front and rear porch box-gutters, and installed an EPDM valley flashing at the base of the main roof slopes adjacent to the brick parapets above the wooden cornices.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1910 R E N OVAT E D : 2009 G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 47,853 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 40,884 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 85%

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

AC AD EM IC H IS TORY AND AM ER IC AN S TUD IES, GEOGR AP H Y,

PSC I A ( PO LI T I C A L S C IENC E AND INTER NATIONAL AFFAIR S ) , EC ONOM IC S, SO C I O LO GY A ND ANTH R OP OLOGY

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

< . 05

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Monroe Hall was constructed in 1910 and is one of the three original buildings on campus. Monroe was the first academic building on campus that was multi-functional. It housed classrooms and administrative offices; a swimming pool, dressing room, and gymnasium were located in the basement. At its opening, it was originally referred to as the Administration Building, then it was temporarily named Russell Hall after the schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first president. Later, it was officially named James Monroe Hall, in honor of the Virginia-born fifth President of the United States who served in the Fredericksburg City Council and housed his law office downtown. Monroe Hall is now home to UMWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Departments of History and American Studies, Political Science and International Affairs, Geography, Economics, and Sociology and Anthropology. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Monroe Hall houses a number of classrooms, faculty offices, geography teaching labs, seminar rooms, and miscellaneous support spaces. Recent renovations upgraded the buildings exterior construction, stormwater management system, restored the site walks and lighting, as well as reorganized and upgraded interior spaces so that they can be utilized more efficiently. Monroe Hall has been well maintained and the exterior of the building retains almost all of the elements of the original design, including the original cast-in-place foundations and spandrel beams, brick bearing walls, wooden single glazed double hung windows, load bearing wooden staved columns with terracotta capitals on the front and rear porches, and the original pitch and configuration of the slate roof. UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

The exterior envelope and structure of Monroe Hall remained intact during the renovation, except for those areas that were affected by the new work. Most of the interior partitions were removed. Although the corridor bearing walls remained, some of the plaster lath on these walls was removed and replaced to allow for the installation of new M/E/P systems. Most of the doors were removed and replaced with new wood doors and hardware, a few existing doors remain. Some of the existing historic hardware was salvaged and reused. All of the existing floor finishes, ceilings, and ceramic tile (toilet rooms) was removed. In addition, the toilet fixtures, water fountains, and stair handrails were replaced with fixtures and systems that meet current code and ADA requirements.

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

FUNCTION

HISTORY & AMERICAN STUDIES

GEOGRAPHY

C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S VESTIBULE 70 SF

L A B O R ATO RY R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICE 179 SF

STUDY

OFFICE 139 SF

OFFICE 148 SF

OFFICE 131 SF

S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

GEOGRAPHY SUITE 432 SF

STORAGE 144 SF

P.A. LAB 119 SF

LOUNGE STAIRS 258 SF

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S

G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

OFFICE 110 SF

S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S

STORAGE 28 SF

LAB SUPPORT 175 SF

OFFICE 108 SF

B AT H R O O M S

BREAKRM 86 SF

OFFICE 135 SF

OFFICE 141 SF

CLASSROOM 735 SF

GEOGRAPHY SUITE 481 SF ADJUNCT 91 SF

ADJUNCT 91 SF

SHAFT 50 SF

CLASSROOM SEMINAR 586 SF

OFFICE 156 SF

OFFICE 148 SF

MEN'S ROOM 182 SF

POLITICAL SCIENCE SUITE 410 SF

SHAFT 54 SF ELEVATOR CORE JAN. CLOS. LOBBY WOMEN'S ROOM 177 SF 87 SF 208 SF

OFFICE 115 SF

TIERED CLASSROOM 1594 SF

CLASSROOM 720 SF

OFFICE 117 SF

OFFICE 181 SF

OFFICE 91 SF

OFFICE 153 SF

OFFICE 104 SF

STAIRS 258 SF

SHAFT 36 SF

SHAFT 28 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 69 SF

OFFICE 104 SF

SHAFT 36 SF

OFFICE 166 SF

OFFICE 117 SF

STAIRS 258 SF

SHAFT 46 SF

MEN'S ROOM 180 SF

OFFICE 174 SF

HISTORY SUITE 336 SF

OFFICE 159 SF

STORAGE 36 SF

CORRIDOR 2839 SF

SHAFT 35 SF

OFFICE 113 SF

OFFICE 196 SF

TELECOM. 148 SF OFFICE 76 SF

OFFICE 98 SF

OFFICE 113 SF

OFFICE 237 SF

CLASSROOM 735 SF OFFICE 146 SF

CLASSROOM SEMINAR 439 SF

EXEC. SEC. 68 SF

CORRIDOR 1809 SF

OFFICE SUITE 196 SF

C I R C U L AT I O N

OFFICE 132 SF

STAIRS 258 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 69 SF

EXEC. SEC. 100 SF

OFFICE 141 SF S.A. LAB ANNEX 141 SF

SHAFT 35 SF

RESIDENTIAL

COMPUTER LAB 1002 SF

SHAFT 30 SF

SHAFT 50 SF

F O O D FAC I L I T I E S

PHYSICAL LAB 828 SF

ELEVATOR WOMEN'S ROOM JAN. CLOS. CORE 175 SF 87 SF LOBBY 210 SF

OFFICE 170 SF

CLASSROOM 587 SF

CORRIDOR 102 SF

HISTORY SUITE 555 SF

OFFICE 95 SF

OFFICE 173 SF

OFFICE 128 SF

OFFICE 137 SF

U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E OFFICE 131 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR D E PA R T M E N T

D E P T. S . F.

GEOGRAPHY

4 , 7 6 9 S . F.

H I S TO RY & A M E R I C A N STUDIES

7 , 2 4 4 S . F.

POLITICAL SCIENCE

3 , 7 9 3 S . F.

SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

2 , 3 8 3 S . F.

M U LT I

1 , 0 8 8 S . F.

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

OFFICE 129 SF

VESTIBULE 70 SF

HISTORY & AMERICAN STUDIES

POLITICAL SCIENCE

SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

MULTI

EQUIPMENT PLATFORM 510 SF

OFFICE 130 SF

OFFICE 124 SF

OFFICE 122 SF

SHAFT 19 SF

STORAGE 27 SF

SEATING AREA 36 SF

SEATING AREA 35 SF CORRIDOR 422 SF

SOC/ANTH SUITE 556 SF

STAIRS 177 SF

LIBRARY 36 SF OFFICE 127 SF

SHAFT 22 SF

SECRETARY 63 SF RESTROOM 61 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 64 SF

OFFICE 123 SF

OFFICE 124 SF

OFFICE 128 SF

SOC/ANTH SUITE 369 SF

STAIRS 178 SF

STAIRS 245 SF

SHAFT 28 SF

OFFICE 122 SF

OFFICE 123 SF

STORAGE 34 SF

CORRIDOR 1461 SF

LAPTOP STORAGE 34 SF

BASEMENT STAIRS 73 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 69 SF

STAIRS 245 SF

SHAFT 46 SF

MEN'S ROOM 180 SF

CLASSROOM 735 SF

LECTURE HALL 2127 SF JAN. CLOS. 18 SF

ELEVATOR CORE LOBBY 271 SF

WOMEN'S ROOM 175 SF

MULTI

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR

CLASSROOM 712 SF

STAIRS 48 SF

STORAGE 21 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

SHAFT 35 SF

STORAGE 35 SF

OFFICE 128 SF SHAFT 39 SF

COMPUTER LAB LAPTOP 735 SF

COMPUTER LAB LAPTOP 713 SF

LOUNGE 216 SF SHAFT 28 SF

LIBRARY 36 SF MECH. ROOM 622 SF

CLASSROOM 721 SF

CLASSROOM 735 SF

SHAFT 38 SF

SHAFT 40 SF

STORAGE 85 SF

COMPUTER LAB DESKTOP 753 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

OFFICES

POLLARD HALL BUILDING NUMBER 22 FAST FACTS:

Ventilation in the building is poor and should be addressed to maintain integrity of the HVAC system and provided optimum indoor environmental quality for building occupants. The restroom exhaust and distribution system is not functioning properly in the toilet rooms. The domestic water distribution and sanitary waste systems are beyond their useful lives.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1951 R E N OVAT E D : 19 94 G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 17,091 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: 15,183

In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building. Dated incandescent lamps within the building should be replaced with compact fluorescent lamps. Available technology in the building is poor. There appears to be a need for the computer network system to be upgraded.

N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 89%

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

AC AD EM IC M US IC

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y There is a wheelchair ramp leading to the rear ground-level entrance of Pollard Hall. The building is equipped with elevators. Handicapped parking is provided at the rear of the building in the Simpson Lot. The building does not meet current ADA standards for directional signage.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.21

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y The Fine Arts Complex, consisting of duPont, Melchers, and Pollard Halls, completed construction in 1952. Pollard Hall was named after former Governor of Virginia John Garland Pollard. Renovated in 1994, Pollard Hall is home to the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Department of Music, which has practice rooms for student use and a beautiful recital hall. All of the buildings in the complex are characterized by their long exterior arcades or balconies that face away from the tri-plex. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Located on the mid-northwestern side of campus, Pollard Hall is a three-level, brick-clad building. There are visible cracks in the porch soffit on the exterior of the building that should be investigated further. The existing single-ply roofing membrane is also in poor condition and in need of replacement. The perimeter balustrades while not an immediate concern have some visible wear and tear that could begin to cause issues where the roofing membrane and balustrade meet. Exterior door closers appear to be broken and should be replaced as well. To maintain energy efficiency and integrity of the exterior envelope, the exterior wood window assemblies should also be replaced. The stormwater drainage system is also in poor condition. The carpeting, ceramic tile floors and walls, toilet partitions, drinking fountains, school equipment and furnishings, restroom accessories, painted finishes, stained ACT ceiling and system and VCT are aged, worn or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building. UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system, fire alarm devices and exist signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems. The sprinkler system is leaky and should also be repaired.

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

FUNCTION

STORAGE 54 SF

C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY

D E PA R T M E N T

D E P T. S . F.

VISUAL & PERFORMING ARTS

9 , 7 4 0 S . F.

VISUAL & PERFORMING

STORAGE 57 SF

ARTS

EQUIP. 86 SF

OFFICES

THEATER 1499 SF

STORAGE 84 SF

STUDY

SHAFT 25 SF

F O O D FAC I L I T I E S

ELEV. SHAFT 44 SF

STAIRS 197 SF

S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

STAIRS 245 SF

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

C I R C U L AT I O N B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E (DOUBLE HEIGHT SPACE)

VISUAL & PERFORMING

ARTS LECTURE 1095 SF

STORAGE 56 SF

EQUIP. RM 52 SF

OFFICE 228 SF

PRACTICE 269 SF

OFFICE 184 SF

PRACTICE 86 SF

STAIRS 171 SF

STORAGE 146 SF

SHAFT 13 SF

STAIRS 163 SF

LISTENING LIBRARY / LAB 509 SF

DATA RACK 89 SF

STAIRS 171 SF LOUNGE 81 SF

STUDY ROOM 130 SF

SHAFT 24 SF

OFFICE 179 SF

CORRIDOR 1213 SF

CONFERENCE 277 SF

SHAFT 13 SF

LAB 123 SF

STAIRS 166 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 53 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR LECTURE / PERFORMANCE 1951 SF

VISUAL & PERFORMING

PRACTICE 70 SF

ARTS

MUSIC DEPT. OFFICE 213 SF

PRACTICE 58 SF

COMP. LAB / LECTURE 544 SF PRACTICE 64 SF

STAIRS 164 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

PRACTICE 91 SF OFFICE / STORAGE 181 SF

CORRIDOR 327 SF

STORAGE 125 SF

OFFICE 139 SF

PRACTICE 71 SF

MEN'S ROOM 179 SF

PRACTICE 66 SF

PIANO PRACTICE 46 SF

PRACTICE 88 SF

PRACTICE 72 SF PRACTICE 60 SF PRACTICE 63 SF

STORAGE 156 SF PRACTICE 79 SF

OFFICE 136 SF WOMEN'S ROOM 197 SF

HOUSEKEEPING 42 SF

STORAGE / LOCKER ROOM 167 SF

ELEV. EQUIP. 61 SF

EQUIP. 38 SF CORRIDOR 1240 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 45 SF

SHAFT 9 SF

OFFICE 130 SF

SHAFT 9 SF

STAIRS 166 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

LOUNGE

RANDOLPH HALL BUILDING NUMBER 23 FAST FACTS:

kitchen cabinets, counters and sinks, restroom fixtures, fittings, accessories and partitions, and furniture (both study, residence, and lounge), are aged, worn, or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1954 R E N OVAT E D : N /A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 52,211 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 47,260 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 91%

BUILDING USE:

UP P ER- C LAS S, C OED UC ATIONAL , S UITE - S TYLE

R E SI D E N C E H A LL

Randolph contains an electrical distribution system that is original to the building and the cause of most of the electrical complications in the building, including issues with general service. Electrical rooms are overheated, and tele-data equipment is exposed where it should be protected. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building. Dated exterior lighting should be replaced, and incandescent lamps within the building should be replaced with compact fluorescent lamps. Available technology in the building is poor. There appears to be a need for the computer network system to be upgraded.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

<.05

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Located right off Campus Walk, directly in front of George Washington Hall, and across from Mason Hall, Randolph is part of the Randolph / Mason complex. Randolph is a mirror image of Mason, houses approximately 195 students and featuring in-suite baths. All rooms have newly painted walls, large dressers, and full-length mirrors on the door. Kitchens are located on the second, fourth, and fifth floors. Each kitchen is equipped with a stove, oven, microwave, cabinets, and counter space. Vending machines and laundry rooms are located on the second floor. Also found on the second floor is a lounge, complete with a big screen TV and a ping-pong table. Study rooms are located on the second, fourth, and fifth floors. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Like many of the other residence halls on campus Randolph suffers from dated infrastructure and growing deferred maintenance issues. The built-up roof is beyond its useful life. The original waterproofing in the tunnel between Mason and Randolph appears to be failing and in need of replacement. The five-story building lacks an elevator. The exterior doors, wood windows, and the rainwater drainage systems are rotting or beyond their useful lives. The lounges and study spaces in the building are generally dark and uninviting. The furnishings are uncomfortable, aged, and worn. In general, the study rooms seem too small to be useful and kitchens are dated. Interior finishes and fixtures, including ACT, VCT, CMU wall finish, carpeting, ceramic floor and wall tile, drinking fountains, painted epoxy and traditional painted wall finishes, damaged plaster ceilings, interior doors, UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

The mechanical systems in Randolph are worn out. The restroom exhaust and distribution system is not functioning properly. The domestic water distribution, sanitary waste systems, and the perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are beyond their useful lives. The water heater and heat exchanger are aged and corroded in some places.

CODE COMPLIANCE & ACCESSIBILITY Randolphâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s main entrance lacks an exterior entry ramp and is not handicap accessible. Opening widths on many interior doors are smaller than the minimum widths accessibility codes require. ADA signage should be installed to meet accessibility codes and standards as well. Most of the interior doors contain knob-style hardware. The toilet rooms, drinking fountains, and kitchen casework are also non-compliant with ADA codes and standards. A sprinkler system should be installed in order for the building to meet current life safety codes. Although not immediately needed, fire extinguishers, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems.

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

S PA C E

USE

RESIDENTIAL LIVING

BATHROOM M 105

A R E A C O O R D I N ATO R

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

SHARED LIVING / C O M M O N S PAC E

BATHROOM 99

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE

BATHROOM M 99

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 207

BATHROOM 103

BATHROOM 100 UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 213

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 197

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 241

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 208

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 205

UNIT TYPE E 1 DOUBLE 254

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 304

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 233

BATHROOM 171

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 282

BATHROOM M 143

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 223

CORRIDOR 1867

KITCHEN B AT H R O O M UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

C I R C U L AT I O N

BATHROOM M 98

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 209

STAIRS 175

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

BATHROOM M 102

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224

BATHROOM M 100

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 202

LOUNGE 185

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 201

BATHROOM 101

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 202

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 233

BATHROOM 101

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 213

SUPPOR S RT 39

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 212

BATHROOM 102

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224

STAIRS 189

ELEVATOR 65

SUPPORT

EXISTING FIFTH FLOOR

BATHROOM 92

AC OFFICE 109 UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

BATHROOM 99

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 199

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 201

BATHROOM 99

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 207

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 222

BATHROOM B ATHROOM M 170

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 286

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 311

BATHROOM 101 UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 205

SUPPORT 4 44

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 195

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210

BATHROOM 100

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

BATHROOM 99

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 199

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 201

BATHROOM M 99

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 207

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 241

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 208

BATHROOM M 103

BATHROOM 100

BATHROOM 105

BATHROOM 156

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 231

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 213

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 197

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 205

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 254

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 304

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 233

BATHROOM 171

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 282

BATHROOM M 143

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 225

CORRIDOR 1867 ELEVATOR 73

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

BATHROOM 98

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210

STAIRS 194

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

BATHROOM 102

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 202

LOUNGE 831

KITCHEN 219

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 201

STUDY 143

BATHROOM 102

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 212

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE BATHROOM 102

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224

ELEVATOR 65

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

STAIRS 189

SUPPORT 65

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 199

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 201

BATHROOM 99

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 207

SUPPORT T 13 STUDY 178

SUPPORT 254

SUPPORT 280

LOUNGE 935

BATHROOM 64

KITCHEN 371

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 238

BATHROOM 77 UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 249

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

BATHROOM 98

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210

STAIRS 194

BATHROOM 102

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 201

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 272

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 216

BATHROOM M 102

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224

UNIT TYPE BATHROOM M 1 DOUBLE 100 202

LOUNGE 185

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE BATHROOM 201 101

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 233

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 202

BATHROOM 101

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 213

SUPPOR S RT 39

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 212

BATHROOM 102

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224

ELEVATOR 65

BATHROOM 122

BATHROOM 60

BATHROOM 146

SUPPORT 2905

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 283

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 230

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 207

BATHROOM 92

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 200

BATHROOM 102

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 212

SUPPORT S T 39

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 212

BATHROOM 102

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224

ELEVATOR 65

STAIRS 189

BATHROOM 101

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 207

STAIRS 186

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 213 BATHROOM 101

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 236

BATHROOM B 112

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 214

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE SUPPOR RT R 214 121

BA ATHROOM A 112

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 237

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 212

BATHROOM 101

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE SUPPORT T 213 38

SUPPORT 63

SUPPORT 65

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

AC BEDROOM 169

SUPPORT 671

CORRIDOR 1873

CORRIDOR 1979

LOUNGE 465

STAIRS 175

STAIRS 189

EXISTING FOURTH FLOOR

BATHROOM 79 BATHROOM 99

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 209

SUPPORT 65

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210

BATHROOM 98

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 212

BATHROOM M 101

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 228

ELEVATOR 64

STAIRS 188

AC LIVING RM M 216

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

SUPPORT 65

RUSSELL HALL BUILDING NUMBER 24 FAST FACTS:

at a TV lounge in the space beneath the second floor entry and flanking stairs, the interior finishes and furnishings appear dated, uninviting, and dark. Other interior finishes, fixtures, and fittings, including ACT, VCT, interior doors, ceramic floor and wall tile, drinking fountains, kitchen cabinets, counter and sinks, epoxy painted finish on masonry walls, painted wall finishes, plumbing fixtures, fittings and accessories, and furniture (both office and lounge), are aged, worn, or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1965 R E N OVAT E D : N / A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 41,478 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: 36,948 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 89%

BUILDING USE:

C OED UC ATIONAL , FIR S T-YEAR R ES ID ENC E H ALL

As for the building infrastructure, the heat exchanger is in need of a shell and tube renewal and the heat pumps are aged and corroded. Although the HVAC equipment is aged in general, the exhaust systems in the toilet rooms within Russell are in particularly poor condition. Sufficient ventilation should also be provided in the laundry, janitorial, and electric rooms. The domestic water distribution and sanitary waste systems are due for high end renewal. The perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are beyond their useful lives. The steam fired hot water heater is also in poor condition.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.46

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Russell Hall is a coeducational first-year residence hall named for Edward H. Russell, the first president of Mary Washington College. Russell is home to approximately 173 residents and features a large, split-level lobby and hall bathrooms. There are eight kitchenettes and lounge areas in Russell, one located at each end of every floor. Kitchenette amenities include a microwave, a sink, cabinets, and counter space. However, no ovens are provided. Both the laundry room and vending machines are located on the basement floor. Russellâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s split-level lobby is defined by two sweeping staircases and a TV lounge with a big screen TV. Since Russellâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s beds are designed to double as sofas, its rooms are particularly conducive to a sociable atmosphere. For a first-year residence hall, Russell is fairly remote from the student life hubs of the campus and geographically cumbersome to walk to and from. However, Russell is a five minute walk from Hyperion, the local Fredericksburg coffee house, as well as all the downtown Fredericksburg stores and restaurants. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Although minor modifications have been made to help the building function throughout the years, the building, like many of the other residence halls, is in relatively poor condition. The built-up roofing is aged and should be considered a priority for renewal. The exterior doors, wood windows, and gutters and downspouts are beyond their useful lives. The hydraulic freight / passenger elevator is also in poor condition and is not compliant with current accessibility codes. There is a lack of natural day-lighting and comfortable furniture in the entry lounge areas. Although there is an attempt UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

Russell contains an electrical distribution system and wiring that is original to the building and is the cause of most electrical complications. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, the system should be re-wired and lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building.

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Russell lacks a wheelchair accessible exterior entry ramp and is overall not wheelchair accessible. Exterior door opening widths and door hardware do not meet current accessibility codes and standards. Directional and life safety signage should be installed to meet accessibility codes and standards. Although there is an elevator in Russell, it is not ADA accessible. Toilet rooms and drinking fountains are not ADA compliant. A fire suppression system should be installed in order for the building to meet current life safety codes. Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems. According to the July 2009 Asset Detail Report, the asbestos-containing-materials should be safely removed and replaced with clean, non-hazardous materials.

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

S PA C E

USE

RESIDENTIAL LIVING A R E A C O O R D I N ATO R SHARED LIVING / C O M M O N S PAC E KITCHEN B AT H R O O M C I R C U L AT I O N

KITCHEN 208 82

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

STAIRS 177

SUPPORT 17 SUPPORT 10 UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

BATHROOM 379

BATHROOM 392

LOUNGE 231

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 308

SUPPORT 80

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 313

SUPPORT 93

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

CORRIDOR 1365 UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 205

SUPPORT 33

Room 199

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 258

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 242

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 256

Room 198

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

SUPPORT 17 SUPPORT 10 UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

SUPPORT 200

SUPPORT 249

SUPPORT SUPPORT 33 51

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206 UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

LOUNGE 1131

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 207

SUPPORT 93

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

SUPPORT 22

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 205

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

SUPPORT 33

RA 199

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 258

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 242

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 256

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

RA 198

UPPER LOBBY 1002

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

KITCHEN 82

BATHROOM 392

AC BEDROOM

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

KITCHEN 86

BATHROOM 377

LOUNGE 221

LOUNGE 714

SUPPORT 26

SUPPORT 34

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206 AC BEDROOM 196

LOUNGE 231

LOUNGE 221

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

CORRIDOR 1284 UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

KITCHEN 89

STAIRS 185

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 312

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 313

CORRIDOR 1365

STAIRS 189 SUPPORT 86

SUPPORT 80

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 313

SUPPORT 21

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

KITCHEN 168 86

BATHROOM 380

STAIRS 187 UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

SUPPORT 80

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 313

LOUNGE 238

EXISTING FOURTH FLOOR

BATHROOM 392

KITCHEN 167 82

SUPPORT 17 SUPPORT 10

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 308

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

LOUNGE 231

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

SUPPORT 22

STAIRS 177

KITCHEN 82 UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

BATHROOM 379

BATHROOM 392

LOUNGE 231

KITCHEN 209 89

STAIRS 185

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 312

SUPPORT 21

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

LOUNGE 238

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

STAIRS 179

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

SUPPORT 17 SUPPORT 10

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

SUPPORT 80 SUPPORT 40

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206 UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

SUPPORT 145

STAFF OFFICE 144

STAIRS 182 SUPPORT 86

SUPPORT 15 STAFF OFFICE 51

PARLOR 502

SUPPORT 19

SUPPORT 9

SUPPORT 40

CORRIDOR 1301 UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

AC LIVING RM 206

AC KITCHEN 197

LOWER LOBBY 1000

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 198

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

SUPPORT 16

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 206

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

SUPPORT

SEACOBECK HALL availability of natural light and functional storage and work space. Interior finishes, fixtures and fittings, including ACT, VCT, interior doors, carpeting, ceramic floor tile, kitchen quarry tile, drinking fountains, epoxy painted finish on masonry walls, painted plaster ceilings, painted wall finishes, plumbing fixtures, fittings and accessories, toilet partitions, and terrazzo floors, are aged, worn, or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building.

BUILDING NUMBER 25 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1931 R E N OVAT E D : 2006 G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 46,953 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 42,930 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 91%

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

D INING H ALL S TUD ENT AC TIV ITIES, C OM M UNITY S ER V IC ES,

ST U D E N T O R G A NIZATIONS, D ES IGN S ER V IC ES, TH E D OC UM ENT C ENTER .

Although the HVAC equipment is aged in general, the kitchen exhaust is in particularly poor condition. The through-wall heat and AC units are beyond their useful lives. To maintain optimum indoor air quality in general the duct system should be cleaned out. Sufficient ventilation should also be provided in the offices and mechanical spaces throughout the building. The sanitary waste system is due for high end renewal as well. Seacobeck contains an electrical distribution system and wiring that is original to the building and is deteriorating in some places, causing electrical complications within the building. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, the system should be replaced and lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building. The point-of-sale system also seems dated and should be upgraded.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.37

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Seacobeck Hall has served the dining needs of the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s student body since its construction in 1931. Named for the Native American tribe that once lived at the site of the dining hall, Seacobeckâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s dining area is split into four rooms - Washington Diner, South Market, UMW Bistro, and the Faculty / Staff Dining Room - which extend radially from a central hexagon shaped kitchen. The kitchen has a twostory ceiling with an office mezzanine level surrounding it. Sodhexo provides contracted food service to the restaurants at Seacobeck Hall. The offices of Student Activities, Community Services, student organizations, Design Services, and the Document Center are located in the basement. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Since Seacobeck was renovated in 2006, there are few issues with the building besides some programmatic and special concerns that are a result of campus growth. On the exterior, the perimeter balustrades, while not an immediate concern, have some visible wear and tear that may cause issues where the roofing membrane and balustrade meet. The exterior doors, wood windows, and rainwater drainage system are aged in and in need of replacement. The interior has an interesting arrangement, but entries get crowded at peak periods due to lack of point-of-sale stations, currently there is only one at each entrance. This causes means of egress and transition spaces near the entries to be crowded and hard to navigate through. The interior of the Student Activities / Printing suites are far from desirable, both in terms of location as well as UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Seacobeck Hall has multiple entrances. The wheelchair accessible entrances are located along its southern and eastern sides. Handicapped parking is provided in the Seacobeck Lot, adjacent to College Avenue. Directional and life safety signage should be installed to meet accessibility codes and standards

Although not immediately needed, the fire alarm system and devices and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems.

EXISTING PLAN BY

FUNCTION

RESTROOM 41 SF OFFICE 131 SF

PORCH

C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S

RESTROOM 86 SF

L A B O R ATO RY R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY

OFFICE 419 SF

DINING ROOM 3463 SF

OFFICES

LOUNGE H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S

PORCH

FOOD PREP AREA 335 SF

DINING ROOM 2977 SF

DINING ROOM 172 SF

DISHWASHING / CATERING SUPPLIES 1324 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

CORRIDOR FOOD PREP AREA 310 SF 143 SF

STAIR 237 SF

ELEV. 68 SF

STUDY F O O D FAC I L I T I E S

STAIR

OFFICE 160 SF

DINING ROOM 296 SF

LOBBY 525 SF

LOBBY 530 SF

RESIDENTIAL KITCHEN 3736 SF

G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

RESTROOM 109 SF

RESTROOM 110 SF

DINING ROOM 3309 SF

DINING ROOM 3302 SF

DINING ROOM 1737 SF PORCH

PORCH

UNOCCUPIED 194 SF

STORAGE 202 SF STORAGE 167 SF

STORAGE 287 SF CORRIDOR 168 SF

KITCHEN STORAGE 243 SF

UNOCCUPIED 232 SF

STORAGE 196 SF

UNOCCUPIED 512 SF DOCUMENT CENTER 963 SF

STORAGE 132 SF

REF. ROOM 232 SF CONFERENCE RM. 745 SF

KITCHEN STORAGE 238 SF

OPEN TO BELOW STAIR 271 SF

MECHANICAL 1262 SF

DRY STORAGE 2839 SF

CORRIDOR 123 SF ELEV. 90 SF

COPY CENTER 254 SF

CONFERENCE RM. 719 SF

RESTROOM 178 SF

CIRC. 157 SF

COLD STORAGE 148 SF

STOR. 71 SF

STAIR HALL 466 SF

RESTROOM 189 SF RESTROOM 133 SF

STOR. 118 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

OPEN TO BELOW

OFFICES 220 SF

OFFICES 66 SF

OFFICES 161 SF OPEN TO BELOW

OPEN TO BELOW OFFICES 240 SF

CORRIDOR 234 SF

CORRIDOR 760 SF

MECH. 12 SF

OFFICES 97 SF OFFICES 119 SF WORKROOM 133 SF

RESTROOM 153 SF

CORRIDOR 876 SF

OFFICES 119 SF

OFFICES 95 SF

OFFICES 182 SF

UNOCCUPIED 164 SF

STORAGE 243 SF UNOCCUPIED 1004 SF

JAN. 111 SF

LOBBY 525 SF

OFFICES 94 SF CIRC. 221 SF

RESTROOM 212 SF

JAN. 57 SF RESTROOM 153 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

UNOCCUPIED 236 SF CORRIDOR 186 SF

CORRIDOR 430 SF

HVAC 43 SF OPEN TO BELOW

ELEV. 96 SF

REF. ROOM 310 SF

LOBBY 530 SF

STORAGE 471 SF

UNOCCUPIED 1846 SF

OFFICES 197 SF

UNOCCUPIED 3305 SF

OFFICES 322 SF

STAIRS 216 SF

MECH. 334 SF

UNOCCUPIED 962 SF

OFFICES 214 SF

UNOCCUPIED 236 SF UNOCCUPIED 238 SF

OFFICES 315 SF UNOCCUPIED 1015 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

VIRGINIA HALL BUILDING NUMBER 26 FAST FACTS:

Although the HVAC equipment is aged in general, the exhaust systems in the restrooms within Virginia are in particularly poor condition. Sufficient ventilation should also be provided in the laundry, janitorial, and electric rooms. The existing radiant heaters are in working order, but the system is dated. The domestic water distribution and sanitary waste systems are due for high end renewal and the perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are beyond their useful lives. The steam fired hot water heater is also in poor condition.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1914 R E N OVAT E D : N / A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 54,676 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: 50,176 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 92%

BUILDING USE:

ALL-FEM ALE , FIR S T-YEAR R ES ID ENC E H ALL W ITH

H A LL A N D I N - SUITE B ATH S

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.54

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Virginia Hall is a first-year, all-female residence hall named for the Commonwealth. Virginia is home to approximately 183 women and features both hall and in-suite baths. One of the three original buildings on campus, Virginia is centrally located and has excellent views of the campus from all four sides. Each room offers beautiful hard wood floors. There are three kitchens in Virginia (one on each floor), which include a refrigerator, a stove, an oven, counter space, and cabinets. Vending machines and the laundry rooms are located in the basement. In addition, Virginia features a spacious parlor. With a big screen TV, ample natural light, couches and armchairs. Virginia is less than a minute from the Nest and the Woodard student center. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N The high ceilings, hardwood floors, location on campus, and inviting, active parlor make Virginia an almost perfect living-learning environment for young women in their first year. However, Virginia has no elevator, no air conditioning, and aged electrical, plumbing, and HVAC systems. There appears to be a need for additional hall bathrooms as well as lounge and study space. On the exterior of the building, the brick walls, exterior door, wood window assemblies, and gutters and downspouts are not only aged but damaged in some places and should be replaced or repaired. Interior finishes and fixtures, including ACT, VCT, carpeting (particularly in the parlor), light fixtures, window treatments, wood flooring, drinking fountains, painted wall finishes (including painted epoxy masonry walls), interior doors, kitchen cabinets, counters and sinks, restroom fixtures, fittings and accessories, and furniture, are aged, worn or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building. UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

Virginia contains an electrical distribution system and wiring that is original to the building and the cause of most electrical complications within the building. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, the system should be re-wired and lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building. Adding outlets to the shared hall baths would also make the environment a more functional one, however the existing power load combined with original wiring can not support adding any outlets in the building without providing a new electrical distribution system.

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Virginia Hall has a wheelchair ramp on the north entrance, facing Palmieri Plaza, yet the building is not necessarily wheelchair friendly. Interior stairs are not up to current standards. Interior door opening widths, drinking fountains, and kitchen casework are not compliant with current ADA codes and standards. Interior and exterior door hardware are also non-compliant. ADA signage should be installed to meet accessibility codes and standards. Currently, the restrooms in the building are not ADA accessible. Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems.

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

S PA C E

USE

RESIDENTIAL LIVING A R E A C O O R D I N ATO R SHARED LIVING / C O M M O N S PAC E KITCHEN B AT H R O O M C I R C U L AT I O N

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 273 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 262 SF

RA 214 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 238 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 277 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 214 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 273 SF

RA 257 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 312 SF BATHROOM 64 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 262 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 240 SF

STAIR 233 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 238 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 269 SF

BATHROOM 209 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 273 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 228 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 290 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 250 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 226 SF

BATHROOM 285 SF

RA 285 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 226 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 240 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 226 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 251 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 254 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 238 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 286 SF

STAIR 233 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 209 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 273 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 252 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 258 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 250 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 248 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 226 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 226 SF

BATHROOM 285 SF

RA 285 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 224 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 224 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 249 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 262 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 266 SF

SUPPORT 4307 SF

CORRIDOR 2610 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 271 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 220 SF

STAIR 134 SF SUPPORT 91 SF

BATHROOM UNIT TYPE 194 SF 1 SINGLE 173 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 256 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 258 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 210 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210 SF

BATHROOM 55 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 241 SF BATHROOM 68 SF

BATHROOM 55 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 207 SF

SUPPORT 4266 SF

RA 206 SF

KITCHEN 285 SF

LOUNGE 285 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 205 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 207 SF

BATHROOM 55 SF UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 226 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 190 SF

BATHROOM 47 SF

SUPPORT 97 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 286 SF

RA 286 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 258 SF

BATHROOM 61 SF BATHROOM 61 SF

CORRIDOR 2574 SF UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 286 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 259 SF

BATHROOM 64 SF

CORRIDOR 2574 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 273 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 285 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

SUPPORT

BATHROOM 55 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 207 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 210 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 220 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 264 SF

BATHROOM 37 SF BATHROOM 76 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 211 SF

SUPPORT 24 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 227 SF

KITCHEN 286 SF

STAIR 235 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 194 SF

BATHROOM 76 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 212 SF

SUPPORT 24 SF

BATHROOM 76 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 211 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 227 SF

BATHROOM 76 SF KITCHEN 286 SF

STAIR 236 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 194 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 212 SF

BATHROOM 76 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 211 SF

SUPPORT 24 SF AC OFFICE 207 SF

STAIR 253 SF

LOUNGE 1821 SF

SUPPORT 199 SF

BATHROOM 180 SF

STAIR 202 SF

SUPPORT 158 SF

SUPPORT 142 SF

SUPPORT 307 SF

SUPPORT 1412 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 197 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 190 SF BATHROOM 69 SF

RA 201 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 190 SF BATHROOM 48 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 197 SF

BATHROOM 69 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 197 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 197 SF BATHROOM 69 SF

SUPPORT 1157 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 197 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 198 SF

BATHROOM 69 SF

RA 194 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 190 SF BATHROOM 48 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 201 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 187 SF

BATHROOM 69 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

BATHROOM 69 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 197 SF

AC BEDROOM 197 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 209 SF

AC LIVING RM 217 SF LAUNDRY 333 SF

BATHROOM 69 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR

WESTMORELAND HALL BUILDING NUMBER 27 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1939

The domestic water distribution and sanitary waste systems are due for high end renewal and the perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are beyond their useful lives. The steam fired hot water heater is also in poor condition.

R E N OVAT E D : N /A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 21,714 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 18,940 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 87%

BUILDING USE:

UP P ER- C LAS S, C OED UC ATIONAL R ES ID ENC E H ALL

W I T H I N - SU I T E B ATH S

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

Although the HVAC equipment is aged in general, the exhaust systems in the restrooms within the building are in particularly poor condition. Sufficient ventilation should also be provided in the laundry, janitorial, and electric rooms as well as kitchens. The heat exchanger is in need of shell and tube renewal and the existing heat pumps are aged and corroded.

.52

Westmoreland contains an electrical distribution system and wiring that are original to the building and the cause of most electrical complications within the building. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, the system should be re-wired and lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building. Dated incandescent lamps within the building should be replaced with compact fluorescent lamps.

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Westmoreland Hall is not wheelchair accessible, nor are interior stairs up to current standards. Interior door opening widths, drinking fountains, and kitchen casework are not compliant with current ADA codes and standards. Interior and exterior door hardware are also non-compliant. ADA signage should be installed to meet accessibility codes and standards. Currently, the restrooms in the building are not accessible. Sprinklers should also be installed in the building as, currently, none exist. Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems.

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Westmoreland hall is an upper-class, coeducational residence hall named in honor of Westmoreland County, Virginia, the birthplace of well-known leaders including George Washington, James Monroe, and Robert E. Lee. Westmoreland is located between George Washington and Ball Halls. Completed in 1939, Westmoreland houses 111 upper-class students in double (two per room), triple (three per room), and quad (four per room) rooms with in-suite baths. All the wood floors have recently been refinished. The building has a kitchen, laundry room, and vending machines on the basement floor and another kitchen on the third floor. The lobby on the first floor has a television, while a smaller lounge on the third floor serves as the meeting area. Westmoreland traditions include Roctoberfest, Blarney Ball, and Westfest. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Being one of the oldest residence halls on campus, Westmoreland suffers the same, if not more, hardships as the other dorms on campus face. The building has no elevator, no air conditioning, and aged infrastructure and systems. There appears to be a need for additional lounge and study space. On the exterior of the building, the brick walls, exterior door, wood window assemblies and stormwater drainage systems are not only aged by damaged in some places and should be replaced or repaired. Interior finishes and fixtures, including ACT, VCT, concrete floors, drinking fountains, painted wall finishes (including painted epoxy masonry walls), painted plaster ceilings, interior doors, kitchen cabinets, counters and sinks, restroom fixtures, fittings and accessories, and furniture, are aged, worn, or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building. UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

S PA C E

USE

RESIDENTIAL LIVING A R E A C O O R D I N ATO R SHARED LIVING / C O M M O N S PAC E KITCHEN BATHROOM 60 SF

C I R C U L AT I O N SUPPORT

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 144 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 146 SF

BA ATHROOM ATHROOM 40 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 145 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 139 SF

RA APT 140 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE BATHROOM OM 137 SF 42 SF

SUPPORT S SU SUPPORT 15 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 QUAD 206 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 150 SF

STAIRS 140 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 145 SF

BATHROOM 60 SF

BATHROOM 69 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 138 SF

SUPPORT S UPPORT ORT RT 14 SF UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 210 SF

BA ATHROOM ATHROOM 42 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 210 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 QUAD 217 SF

STAIRS 136 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 146 SF

BAT ATHROOM 38 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 121 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 152 SF

STAIRS 124 SF

UNUSED 191 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 145 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 142 SF

BATHROO OM 41 SF

BATHROOM OM UNIT TYPE BATHROOM 40 SF 1 DOUBLE 143 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

SUPPORT S UPPORT ORT RT 14 SF UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 210 SF

BA ATHROOM ATHROOM 42 SF

LOUNGE 210 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 136 SF BA BATHROOM M 38 SF F UNIT TYPE 1 QUAD 217 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 161 SF

BATHROO OM UNIT TYPE 41 SF 1 DOUBLE 142 SF

CORRIDOR R 646 SF

BATHROOM BA M UNIT TYPE 43 SF 1 DOUBLE 143 SF

STAIRS 136 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 142 SF BAT ATHROOM 38 SF

BATHROOM OM UNIT TYPE BATHROOM 40 SF 1 DOUBLE 160 SF

BATHROOM 69 SF

SU UPPORT U PPORT RT 18 SF F

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 150 SF

BATHROOM 69 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 152 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

LOBBY 997 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 137 SF CORRIDOR C 272 SF

STAIRS 140 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 145 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

B BATHROOM M 47 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 150 SF

CORRIDOR R 646 SF

BATHROOM OM UNIT TYPE BATHROOM 40 SF 1 DOUBLE 160 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE BATHROOM OM 135 SF 42 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 283 SF

SUPPORT S SU SUPPORT 15 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 QUAD 206 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 142 SF

BATHROOM 57 SF

BA ATHROO A THROOM M 40 SF

RA APT 139 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE BATHROOM OM 137 SF 42 SF

BATHROOM BA M UNIT TYPE 43 SF 1 DOUBLE 143 SF

HR APT 121 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 146 SF

RA APT 140 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 136 SF BATHROOM BA M 38 SF F

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 161 SF

BATHROO OM UNIT TYPE 41 SF 1 DOUBLE 142 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 144 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

B AT H R O O M

SUPPORT 115 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE ATHROOM M 147 SF BAT 38 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 140 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 161 SF

HK 197 SF LOUNGE 1378 SF

RA APT 136 SF BAT ATHROOM M 38 SF CORRIDOR R 268 SF

BATHROOM BA M UNIT TYPE 43 SF 1 DOUBLE 143 SF

SUP UPPOR RT 12 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 142 SF BAT ATHROOM 38 SF

STORAGE 913 SF SUPPORT 192 SF

SUPPORT 112 SF

SUPPORT 169 SF

SUPPORT T 64 SF

STAIR 136 SF

STAIRS 211 SF

CORRIDOR R 220 SF

RESTROOM 202 SF

STAIRS 151 SF

SUPPORT 129 SF KITCHEN 148 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 152 SF

UNUSED 151 SF

SUPPORT 151 SF

STUDY 192 SF

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR

LAUNDRY 223 SF

SUPPORT 151 SF

WILLARDHALL BUILDING NUMBER 28 FAST FACTS:

Adding additional roof insulation in the attic would increase energy efficiency. Interior finishes and fixtures, including ACT, VCT, carpeting, light fixtures, wood flooring, ceramic tile, drinking fountains, painted wall finishes (including painted epoxy masonry walls), painted plaster ceilings, interior doors, kitchen cabinets, counters and sinks, restroom fixtures, fittings and accessories, and furniture, are aged, worn, or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1911 R E N OVAT E D : 19 79 G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 56,560 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: 51,670 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 91%

BUILDING USE:

C OED UC ATIONAL , UP P ER- C LAS S R ES ID ENC E H ALL

W I T H H A LL A N D IN- S UITE B ATH S

Although the HVAC equipment is aged in general, the exhaust systems in the restrooms within Willard are in particularly poor condition. Insufficient ventilation is causing mold growth within the building. Sufficient ventilation should also be provided in the laundry, janitorial, and electric rooms. The compressor and condensate pump system are aged and should be replaced to maintain the integrity of the system. The heat exchanger is in need of a shell and tube renewal and the heating and cooling pumps are aged and corroded. The domestic water distribution and sanitary waste systems are due for high end renewal and the perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are beyond their useful lives. The wet sprinkler system and pumps should be tested in order to maintain integrity of the fire protection system.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.49

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Centrally located between Virginia Hall and the Woodard Student Center, and facing the fountain located at the very center of campus, Willard houses 181 upper-class, coeducational students in doubleoccupancy rooms and features small hall bathrooms shared by 8 students each. Additionally, Willard is a centrally air-conditioned building. Completed in 1911, this first building on campus was named for the famous temperance leader and crusader for womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rights, Frances Willard. From the very first days of the school, Willard Hall housed students and many support services including dining rooms, the post office, gift shop, and infirmary. In the 1920s, students enjoyed the Little Red Lane Tea Room located in the basement of Willard Hall. Today, Willard is home to the SYE (Second-Year Experience). B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N The high ceilings, hardwood floors, air conditioned rooms, and location on campus make Willard a nice choice for sophomores. However, Willard has no elevator along with aged electrical, plumbing and HVAC systems. It also lacks a parlor and sufficient lounge and study space. On the exterior of the building, the brick walls as well as exterior door and wood window assemblies are not only aged but damaged in some places and should be replaced or repaired. The existing wood trim, columns, and porches are also rotting in some places. The wood trim on the exterior walls could also use a new coat of paint. Although the cause cannot be specifically identified, the basement is taking on water, which would suggest a more thorough inspection of the stormwater management around the building. UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

Willard contains an electrical distribution system and wiring that are original to the building and is the cause of most electrical complications within the building. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, the system should be re-wired and lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building. Dated incandescent lamps within the building should be replaced with compact fluorescent lamps.

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Willard Hall has a wheelchair entrance at its south facade, facing Palmieri Plaza. It has one wheelchair accessible room on the first floor but no elevator. Handrails at egress stairs are not up to current standards. Interior door opening widths, drinking fountains, and kitchen casework are not compliant with current ADA codes and standards. Interior door hardware is also non-compliant. ADA signage should be installed to meet accessibility codes and standards. Currently, the restrooms in the building are not ADA accessible. Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems.

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

S PA C E

USE

RESIDENTIAL LIVING A R E A C O O R D I N ATO R

KITCHEN B AT H R O O M C I R C U L AT I O N SUPPORT

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 231 SF BATHROOM 37 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 237 SF

BATHROOM 37 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 253 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 198 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 219 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 241 SF

STAIRS 167 SF

RA 233 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 249 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 253 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 261 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 242 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 241 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 257 SF

STAIRS 368 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 231 SF

BATHROOM 33 SF

BATHROOM 37 SF

BATHROOM 63 SF

BATHROOM 37 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 193 SF

CORRIDOR R 228 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 303 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 229 SF

CORRIDOR C ORRIDOR R 315 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 290 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 253 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 237 SF

BATHROOM 33 SF

SUPPORT 23 SF

SUPPORT 17 SF

STAIRS 355 SF

BATHROOM BATHROOM 49 SF 49 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 251 SF

CORRIDOR C ORRIDOR 281 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 248 SF

SUPPORT 16 SF

BATHROOM 38 SF

CORRIDOR 1187 SF

BATHROOM 45 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 242 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 246 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 259 SF

STAIRS 213 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 258 SF

RA 245 SF

KITCHEN 146 SF

BATHROOM 35 SF

CORRIDOR C R 266 SF

STAIRS 167 SF

KITCHEN 303 SF

STAIRS 186 SF

RA 233 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 249 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 253 SF

BATHROOM BATHROOM 49 SF 49 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 261 SF

SUPPORT 16 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 239 SF

BATHROOM 41 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 241 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 257 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 258 SF

STAIRS 374 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 251 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 242 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 246 SF

STAIRS 214 SF

STAIRS 405 SF

BATHROOM 105 SF

BATHROOM 45 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 243 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 241 SF

SUPPORT 23 SF

SUPPORT 17 SF

BATHROOM BATHROOM B 49 SF 49 SF

SUPPORT 16 SF

BATHROOM 36 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 257 SF

STAIRS 368 SF

CORRIDOR C ORRIDOR R 315 SF

CORRIDOR 1187 SF

BATHROOM 44 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 261 SF

STAIRS 355 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 248 SF BATHROOM 39 SF BATHROOM 35 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 237 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 232 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 251 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 242 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 246 SF

STAIRS 213 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 259 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 258 SF

RA 245 SF

SUPPORT S T 101 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 290 SF

BATHROOM 67 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 193 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 257 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 258 SF

CORRIDOR C R 266 SF

BATHROOM 39 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 237 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 162 SF

CORRIDOR 1882 SF

VEST. 97 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 237 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 234 SF

LAUNDRY 1278 SF

STAIRS 283 SF

STAIRS 169 SF

SUPPORT 11483 SF

LOUNGE 770 SF AC LIVING RM 257 SF

BATHROOM 41 SF AC KITCHEN 195 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 241 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 280 SF BATHROOM 40 SF

SUPPORT 21 SF

RA 245 SF

CORRIDOR 281 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 211 SF

LAUNDRY 57 SF

LOUNGE 146 SF

KITCHEN 160 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 315 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 211 SF

BATHROOM 99 SF

HK 220 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 232 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 261 SF

HK 220 SF F

BATHROOM 26 SF

BATHROOM 29 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 189 SF

SUPPORT 11 SF

BATHROOM 35 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 253 SF

CORRIDOR 318 SF

BATHROOM M 58 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 241 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 248 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 249 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 229 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 228 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 241 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 253 SF

RA 233 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 237 SF

BATHROOM 37 SF

KITCHEN 221 SF

BATHROOM 40 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 231 SF BATHROOM 37 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 193 SF

CORRIDOR R 227 SF

CORRIDOR 281 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 280 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 234 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 237 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 232 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 241 SF

HK STAFF OFFICE 101 SF 160 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 315 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 211 SF

BATHROOM 39 SF

BATHROOM 63 SF

STORAGE 119 SF

HK 220 SF F UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 261 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 219 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 241 SF

STORAGE 119 SF KITCHEN 221 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 229 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 198 SF

AC 368 SF

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR

BATHROOM 26 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 237 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

SHARED LIVING / C O M M O N S PAC E

JEFFERSON HALL BUILDING NUMBER 29 FAST FACTS:

deteriorated and should be repaired. The existing elevator is original to the building and should be considered for renewal. Interior finishes and fixtures, including ACT, VCT, light fixtures, ceramic floor and wall tile, drinking fountains, painted wall finishes (including painted epoxy masonry walls), painted plaster ceilings, interior doors, kitchen cabinets, counters and sinks, restroom fixtures, fittings and accessories, and furniture, are aged, worn, or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1938 R E N OVAT E D : N /A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 27,226 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 23,427 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 86%

BUILDING USE:

FIR S T-YEAR , C OED UC ATIONAL R ES ID ENC E H ALL

W I T H I N - SU I T E B ATH S

Although the HVAC equipment is aged in general, the exhaust systems in the restrooms within Jefferson are in particularly poor condition. Sufficient ventilation should also be provided in the laundry, janitorial, and electric rooms. The compressor and condensate pump system are aged and should be replaced to maintain integrity of the system. The heat exchanger is in need of a shell and tube renewal and the heating and cooling pumps are aged and corroded. The domestic water as well as the perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are beyond their useful lives. The steam fired hot water heater is also in poor condition.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.52

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Jefferson Hall is a coeducational first-year residence hall named for Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States and founder of the University of Virginia. Jefferson Hall is adjacent to Combs, where the English, Linguistics, Language, and Speech Departments are housed. Approximately 192 students live in Jefferson. The building features hall bathrooms along with double and triple rooms. The first through fourth floors have two kitchenettes per floor, one in each wing. Kitchenettes include microwaves, sinks, counter space, and cabinets. However, the kitchenettes do not provide ovens or stoves. Both the laundry room and vending machines are located on the basement floor. The first floor includes a lobby with ping-pong table, a plethora of furniture, and a big screen TV. The large field in front of Jefferson is often populated by students soaking up the sun, studying under the large shady trees, lounging in the Adirondack chairs listening to someone strumming their guitar, or just playing a game of football. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Jefferson has potential to be part of a successful living-learning environment; however, its distance from dining halls, large, inactive entry, and lounge spaces do not permit a successful living-learning mode at this time. Upgrading some of the interior finishes listed below, adding more flexible furniture and a dining option on the south end of campus would make this an ideal location for a first-year student to live. The exterior door and wood window assemblies are not only aged but damaged in some places and should be replaced. The mortar joints on the exterior steps are aging and UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

Jefferson contains an electrical distribution system and wiring that are original to the building and the cause of most electrical complications within the building. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, the system should be re-wired and lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building. Dated incandescent lamps within the building should be replaced with compact fluorescent lamps.

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y This building is not wheelchair accessible as Jefferson lacks an exterior entry ramp to comply with current standards. Interior door opening widths, drinking fountains, and kitchen casework are not compliant with current ADA codes and standards. Interior door hardware is also non-compliant. ADA signage should be installed to meet accessibility codes and standards. Currently, the restrooms in the building are not accessible. A fire suppression system should be installed to meet current codes and standards. Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems.

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

S PA C E

USE

RESIDENTIAL LIVING A R E A C O O R D I N ATO R SHARED LIVING / C O M M O N S PAC E KITCHEN B AT H R O O M C I R C U L AT I O N

RA 141 SF

LOUNGE 117 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 101 SF

UNIT TYPE UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 1 DOUBLE 96 SF 102 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 133 SF

K KITCHEN N 9 SF S

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 107 SF

SUPPORT 18 S 18 SF

CORRIDOR 48 SF

ELEVATOR 48 SF

LOUNGE 88 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 87 SF

COR. 76 SF F

STAIRS 71 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 102 SF

BATHROOM 129 SF

COR. 94 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 101 SF

LOUNGE 117 SF

RA 140 SF

LOUNGE 74 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 105 SF UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 98 SF

KITCHEN K ITCHEN N 8 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 102 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 99 SF

CORRIDOR 48 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 134 SF

EXISTING FOURTH FLOOR

LOUNGE 117 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 107 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 101 SF

ELEVATOR 48 SF

LOUNGE 88 SF

COR.. 76 SF F

STAIRS 71 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 102 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 101 SF

COR. 94 SF

LOUNGE 117 SF

RA 140 SF

LOUNGE 74 SF

CORRIDOR 176 SF

RA 141 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 95 SF

LOUNGE 117 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 107 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 101 SF

UNIT TYPE UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 1 DOUBLE 96 SF 102 SF

K KITCHEN N 9 SF S

ELEVATOR 50 SF

SUPPORT 18 S 18 SF CORRIDOR 176 SF

SUPPORT 102 SF

HR 104 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 117 SF

HR 131 SF

HR 111 SF

STAIRS 83 SF ELEVATOR 80 SF

BATHROOM 50 SF

STAFF OFFICE 118 SF

LOUNGE 568 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 105 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 105 SF UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 98 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 134 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

LOBBY 394 SF

CORRIDOR 286 SF

CORRIDOR 795 SF

LOUNGE 465 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 110 SF

LOUNGE 84 SF

SUPPORT 127 SF

STAIRS 71 SF UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 102 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 101 SF

LOUNGE 117 SF

RA 140 SF

STAIRS 71 SF

SUPPORT 22 SF

BATHROOM 115 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 105 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 105 SF UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 98 SF

K KITCHEN N 8 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 102 SF

STORAGE 756 SF

LAUNDRY 245 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 86 SF

CORRIDOR SUPP PORT 230 SF 11 S SF

ELEC / MECH 618 SF

SUPPORT 138 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 105 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 125 SF

SUPPORT SUPPORT 75 SF 71 SF

BATHROOM 22 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 107 SF

ELEVATOR 51 SF

STAIRS 72 SF SUPPORT 115 SF

CORRIDOR 515 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 133 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 95 SF

BATHROOM 111 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 108 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 117 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 94 SF

SUPPORT 40 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 99 SF

SUPPORT 18 S 18 SF

STAIRS 72 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 102 SF

KITCHEN K ITCHEN N 8 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 102 SF

BATHROOM 111 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 108 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 97 SF

KITCHEN K KITCHE EN N 16 SF

BATHROOM 115 SF

K KITCHEN N 9 SF S

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 133 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 134 SF

BATHROOM 129 SF

SUPPORT 22 SF

UNIT TYPE UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 1 DOUBLE 96 SF 102 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 93 SF

SUPPORT S O 19 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 88 SF

CORRIDOR SUPP PORT 230 SF 11 S SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 105 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 95 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 110 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 125 SF

RA 141 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 117 SF

CORRIDOR 176 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 105 SF

SUPPORT 40 SF

BATHROOM 115 SF

SUPPORT 18 S 18 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 94 SF UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 97 SF

KITCHEN K KITCHE EN N 16 SF

SUPPORT 22 SF

BATHROOM 111 SF

STAIRS 72 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 112 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 133 SF

K KITCHEN N 9 SF S

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 108 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 124 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 116 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 82 SF

UNIT TYPE UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 1 DOUBLE 96 SF 102 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 93 SF

SUPPORT S O 19 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 111 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 101 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 117 SF

CORRIDOR 176 SF

STAIRS 72 SF

LOUNGE 117 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 95 SF

BATHROOM 111 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 108 SF

RA 141 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 99 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 134 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 102 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 101 SF

LOUNGE 117 SF

RA 140 SF

CORRIDOR 237 SF

SUPPORT 22 SF

STAIRS 96 SF

AC APT 450 SF

BATHROOM 115 SF UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 98 SF KITCHEN K ITCHEN N 8 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 102 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 99 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 TRIPLE 134 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

SUPPORT 117 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 102 SF

SUPPORT 22 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 105 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 101 SF

BATHROOM 115 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 106 SF

LOUNGE 117 SF

RA 140 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 98 SF KITCHEN K ITCHEN N 8 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 102 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 99 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 134 SF

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

SUPPORT

GOOLRICK HALL BUILDING NUMBER 30 FAST FACTS:

are aged and in poor condition. Interior finishes and fixtures, including metal lockers throughout the building and natatorium, concrete finishes, wood strip flooring, fixed casework, school equipment and furnishings, VCT, light fixtures, carpeting, ceramic tile, drinking fountains, painted wall finishes (including painted epoxy masonry walls), interior doors, kitchen cabinets, counters and sinks, restroom fixtures, fittings, toilet partitions and accessories, and furniture, are aged, worn, or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1969 R E N OVAT E D : N / A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 80,049 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: 76,346 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 95%

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

GYM NAS IUM H EALTH AND P H YS IC AL ED UC ATION

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.37

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Located on the north end of the campus, Goolrick Hall houses the gym, swimming pool, weight room, dance studios, locker rooms, and the Department of Health and Physical Education. Goolrick Hall, built in 1969, was named after the Commonwealth delegate, C. Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Conor Goolrick, whose legislation made possible the founding of the University of Mary Washington in 1908, then known as the State Normal and Industrial School. The new state-of-the-art Fitness Center is immediately adjacent to Goolrick Hall. The Anderson Center, currently under construction, will allow UMW to host 2,000 people for Eagles athletic events and 3,000 for convocation events. Designed to accommodate athletics and physical education programs alike, the facility will for the first time give UMW the ability to host regional Division III basketball championships and ease scheduling of the existing Goolrick Hall gymnasium. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N This brick clad facility has five levels with a full basement foundation and two occupiable roof decks. Although not an immediate need, the ballasted single-ply roof membrane is beyond its useful life and should be replaced. The wood windows and exterior doors, however, are in need of immediate replacement. The mortar joints on the exterior of the building are deteriorating, and parts of the brick wall where foundations are being dug for the Anderson center are causing stress cracks in the brick due to lack of expansion joints along long spans of the exterior wall assembly. Excessive moss growth is occurring on the exterior walls and should be cleared to maintain integrity of the exterior wall assembly. The interiors of Goolrick UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

The HVAC renovation done in 1999 was not sufficient for the buildings needs and acted as temporary solution for a larger problem. The heating and cooling pumps are aged and corroded. The four pipe perimeter units are beyond their useful life. Sufficient ventilation should also be provided for the entirety of the building. The perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are beyond their useful lives. Although supplemental electrical service was provided with a 1999 HVAC renovation, the electrical service and distribution in the building is in poor condition and deteriorating in some places. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency , the system should be re-wired and lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building. Aged exterior lighting should be replaced as well. Dated incandescent lamps within the building should be replaced with compact fluorescent lamps.

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Goolrick Hall provides a wheelchair entrance in the rear, which is currently being blocked by the construction of the Anderson Center. Handicapped parking is provided in the adjacent lot between Alvey and Arrington Halls and planned for in the new site work associated with the Anderson Center. The entrance through the new fitness center is currently the wheelchair accessible entry into Goolrick. The building is equipped with an elevator, but lacks and ADA compliant showers, door hardware, drinking fountains, directional signage, and an accessible entrance to the locker rooms and pool. A fire suppression system should be installed to meet current codes and standards. Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems.

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N B Y D E PA R T M E N T C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY

D E PA R T M E N T

D E P T. S . F.

L E I S U R E & R E C R E AT I O N ACTIVITIES

5 6 , 2 1 2 S . F.

LEISURE & RECREATION

OFFICES STUDY

GYM 11495 SF

F O O D FAC I L I T I E S

OPEN TO BELOW

LOUNGE H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S

MECHANICAL 847 SF

STAIRS 383 SF

STAIRS 380 SF

RESIDENTIAL

STORAGE OFFICE 134 SF 127 SF

OFFICE 143 SF

STAIRS 381 SF

OPEN TO BELOW

COAT ROOM 274 SF

G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

STAIRS 383 SF

POOL SEATING 1224 SF

MECHANICAL 486 SF

ELEV. 29 SF RACQUETBALL 1246 SF

CORRIDOR 4374 SF

STAIRS 381 SF

S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S STORAGE 413 SF

C I R C U L AT I O N B AT H R O O M S

ELEV. 29 SF

WOMEN'S RESTROOM 239 SF

BREAK ROOM 610 SF

MEN'S RESTROOM 207 SF STORAGE 321 SF

KITCHEN 135 SF

OPEN TO BELOW

HOUSEKEEPING 55 SF

CORRIDOR 2806 SF

U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E OPEN TO BELOW TRAINING 606 SF

TRAINING 635 SF

CONFERENCE 612 SF

OPEN TO BELOW

STORAGE 540 SF

TELEPHONE 25 SF

OFFICE 268 SF

OFFICE 155 SF OFFICE 189 SF

OFFICE 101 SF

MEN'S RESTROOM 231 SF

TEAM ROOM 111 SF STORAGE 706 SF

OFFICE 147 SF

STORAGE 504 SF

TEAM ROOM 213 SF WOMEN'S RESTROOM 165 SF

STORAGE 113 SF

HOUSEKEEPING 254 SF

MENS LOCKER 578 SF

WOMENS LOCKER 451 SF

DANCE STUDIO 1722 SF

WOMENS LOCKER 1384 SF

TEAM ROOM 111 SF

GYM 2637 SF MENS LOCKER 1623 SF

TEAM ROOM 111 SF

DANCE STUDIO 1722 SF

EXISTING GROUND FLOOR

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

LEISURE & RECREATION

POOL 7372 SF

OPEN TO BELOW STORAGE 128 SF

OBSERVE 143 SF

STAIRS 383 SF

STAIRS 380 SF

OFFICE 134 SF

ELEV. 29 SF TEAM ROOM 598 SF

OFFICE 127 SF

BATHROOM CORRIDOR 151 SF 790 SF STAIRS 218 SF

HOUSEKEEPING 44 SF

STAIRS 268 SF SHOWER 401 SF

DRYING ROOM 186 SF

BATHROOM 177 SF

TOWELS 148 SF

LOCKER ROOM 1021 SF

MECHANICAL 597 SF

LECTURE 1549 SF

MECHANICAL 634 SF

SEATING AREA 1660 SF

SUN DECK

SUN DECK STAFF LOCKERS BATHROOM 381 SF 188 SF

HOUSEKEEPING 40 SF

OFFICE 210 SF

OFFICE OFFICE 213 SF 198 SF

OFFICE 198 SF

MAILROOM 575 SF

STORAGE 64 SF

STORAGE 767 SF

CORRIDOR 2037 SF

OFFICE OFFICE 198 SF 198 SF

OFFICE 198 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

OFFICE 198 SF

OFFICE 182 SF

WEIGHT ROOM 7318 SF

OFFICE 216 SF

E X I S T I N G N ATATO R I U M F LO O R

SHOWER 114 SF

ELEV. 29 SF CORRIDOR 607 SF

LOCKERS 242 SF

BATHROOM 171 SF

EXERCISE ROOM 646 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

CORNELL HOUSE The HVAC system appears to be sufficient for the house. However, ventilation should be provided for the entirety of the house, particularly the restrooms. The electric water heater is also aged and due for replacement.

BUILDING NUMBER 31 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1946 R E N OVAT E D : N /A

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Cornell is not wheelchair accessible. The house lacks ADA compliant door hardware, restrooms, kitchen and directional signage. The exterior stairs are not compliant with current building codes. Interior level changes require ramps.

G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 1,000 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: N/A N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : N/A

BUILDING USE:

C UR R ENTLY UNOC C UP IED

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.13

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Originally built as an apartment, the Cornell House property, located below the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sunken Road entrance, was leased by Mary Washington to serve first as a residence hall and later to house the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Center for Historic Preservation (now in Combs Hall). Cornell House has also provided a temporary residence for visiting professors and guests of the University. The building was also used for displaced staff during the Lee Hall Renovation. Cornell includes a kitchen, one and a half baths, and two offices that were converted from a bedroom and living room. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N This wood siding clad facility has served the University as a flexible office space and faculty housing for several years. It has never had a renovation, besides the conversion to office space. If it continues to be used in this manner, several small upgrades would increase the efficiency of the house to serve the University for years to come. The wood windows, exterior doors and gutters and downspouts are in need of replacement. Interior finishes and fixtures, including light fixtures, carpeting, painted wall finishes, vinyl sheet flooring, linen wall coverings, and furniture, are aged, worn or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N B Y D E PA R T M E N T C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICES STUDY F O O D FAC I L I T I E S S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. PLANS FOR THIS STRUCTURE WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME THIS REPORT WAS BEING PREPARED.

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

LOUNGE

THE HEATING PLANT Window AC units should be removed and replaced with a more efficient cooling system. The sanitary waste system is beyond its useful life. The electric water heater is also in poor condition.

BUILDING NUMBER 32 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1951 R E N OVAT E D : N / A

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y This building is not wheelchair accessible. Nor are the restrooms. Although not immediately needed, emergency battery pack, emergency eyewash and shower, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency and power systems.

G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 8,289 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: N/A N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : N/A

BUILDING USE:

C AM P US UTILITIES

DEPARTMENTS :

FAC ILITIES S ER V IC ES

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.08

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y The Heating Plant is located along College Avenue across from the Fine Arts Complex. Built in 1951, the single-story structure contains approximately 8,289 square feet of area. The plant houses three steam boilers which supply a steam heating loop on campus. The majority of the buildings on the Fredericksburg campus are supplied by the heating loop. Two of the dual fuel source steam boilers are rated at 40,000 lbs/hr and the third steam boiler is rated at 13,000 lbs/hr (gas only) for summer loads. BUILDING CONDITION The large boiler chimney visible across campus is deteriorating near the top. The built up roof is in aged and should be considered for replacement. Abandoned coal equipment should be removed and disposed of safely. The exterior door and steel window assemblies are not only aged but corroded in some places and should be replaced. The stormwater drainage system is also beyond its useful life and concrete retaining walls around the building are deteriorating. Linear cracks are occurring in the substructure, the cause of this should be further investigated. Interior finishes and fixtures, including drinking fountains, painted wall finishes (including painted plaster and concrete walls), interior doors, restroom fixtures, fittings, and accessories, are aged, worn or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building. UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. PLANS FOR THIS STRUCTURE WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME THIS REPORT WAS BEING PREPARED.

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

LOUNGE

WOODARD CAMPUS CENTER BUILDING NUMBER 33 FAST FACTS:

Time has not been kind to the built-up roof; it should be inspected and repaired as needed. The seals around the exterior windows are in poor condition and should be replaced. The interiors of Woodard are out of date and in need of renovation. Interior finishes and fixtures, including ACT, folding partitions, food service counter tops, parquet flooring, VCT, carpeting, ceramic floor and wall tile, drinking fountains, painted wall finishes (including painted epoxy masonry walls), and restroom accessories, are aged, worn or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1986 R E N OVAT E D : N /A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 31,555 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 29,668 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 94%

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

Although the mechanical systems in the building are some of the newest on campus, the heating and cooling pumps are aged and corroded. The heat exchanger is also in need of a shell and tube renewal. The restroom and kitchen exhaust seems to be lacking and should be renewed to maintain integrity of the distribution system. The perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are beyond their useful lives. The centrifugal chiller and condensate pump system are also aged and should be considered for renewal. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building.

S TUD ENT C ENTER P OS T OFFIC E , EAG LEONE

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.33

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Woodard Campus Center, completed in 1986, has served as the hub of student activities on campus. The center is home to the Eagle’s Nest (UMW’s food court), the campus post office, EagleOne ID Card center, automatic teller machine, the “Washroom” space for games and recreation, commuting student lockers, commuting student lounge (Tan Room), the Great Hall (location for concerts and special events), and several meeting and conference rooms, including the Red Room. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N This brick clad facility is one of the newer buildings on campus, but seems to attract mixed reviews from students, faculty and staff alike. The central location of Woodard is perfect for a student center. The facilities and programs within the building, however, are not as perfect as they could be. First, student activities, government, and organization offices, currently located in Seacobeck, belong in the student center. The food court is over utilized and lacks seating space. The Washroom does not seem to be as occupied as it was intended to be; smaller, more compact gaming spaces may work better for the demographic the school currently serves. Students and others who use this room seem to gravitate toward the computer touchdown stations rather than the recreation equipment and the room is empty, even at peak periods. Many of the spaces including the Washroom, main entry and Great Hall suffer from a lack of natural light, which may contribute to the lack of student activity within these spaces. Students seem to gravitate toward the recently added Patio, where natural light is ample. Great Hall is not ideal aesthetically or functionally as a primary event venue on campus. The building also lacks student study and functional, inviting lounge spaces. UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Both the front and rear entrances of Woodard Campus Center are at grade, so they are completely wheelchair accessible. The building is equipped with an elevator. There are wheelchair-accessible toilet facilities on both floors. Handicapped parking is provided in the Woodard parking lot at the rear of the building. The building lacks ADA compliant food service counters and directional signage. Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems.

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N B Y D E PA R T M E N T C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY

D E PA R T M E N T

D E P T. S . F.

STUDENT LIFE

6 , 2 3 8 S . F.

DINING

4 , 5 1 3 S . F.

R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICES STUDY F O O D FAC I L I T I E S

STUDENT

S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

LIFE

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

LOUNGE H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL VENDING 43 SF

G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

ELEV. 86 SF

ELEV. MAC. RM 72 SF

S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S

CORRIDOR 108 SF

ELEV. MAC. RM 72 SF

STAIRS 204 SF

ELEV. 86 SF

STAIRS 190 SF

CORRIDOR 105 SF

C I R C U L AT I O N STORAGE 56 SF

B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

MEETING ROOM #1 918 SF

SHAFT 46 SF

OFFICE 185 SF

MEETING ROOM #2 936 SF

KITCHEN 408 SF

STORAGE 138 SF FOOD STOR. 48 SF

KITCHENETTE 55 SF

DINING

FOOD STOR. 140 SF LOUNGE/ GAME ROOM 2771 SF

RADIO 141 SF

GREAT HALL 4306 SF

CORRIDOR 673 SF

RADIO 136 SF

THE NEST 4513 SF

ATM 79 SF MEETING ROOM #4 961 SF

COR. 85 SF

STORAGE 148 SF

LIFE

COMMUTER LOUNGE 1315 SF

CORRIDOR 305 SF

STORAGE 54 SF

MEN'S RESTROOM 333 SF

WOMEN'S RESTROOM 351 SF

SHAFT 57 SF

STUDENT

COMPUTERS 70 SF

STORAGE 998 SF

STORAGE 53 SF

SHAFT 121 SF

STORAGE 18 SF

CORRIDOR 393 SF

CORRIDOR 651 SF

SHAFT 41 SF

STORAGE 118 SF

HK COR. STORAGE 50 SF 80 SF

SHAFT 93 SF

MEN'S RESTROOM 239 SF

SHAFT 49 SF

SHAFT 52 SF

WOMEN'S RESTROOM 240 SF

CORRIDOR 645 SF

SHAFT 41 SF

SHAFT 43 SF

HK 186 SF

OFFICE 151 SF

OFFICE 140 SF

STUDENT WELLNESS 114 SF

SHAFT 45 SF

SHAFT 43 SF

RED ROOM 1250 SF

POST OFFICE 773 SF

STAIRS 734 SF

STAIRS 729 SF

SHAFT 35 SF

LOUNGE 363 SF

SHAFT 35 SF

SHAFT 38 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

SHAFT 38 SF

VESTIBULE 264 SF

COMPUTERS/LOCKERS 64 SF

CORRIDOR 498 SF

SIMPSON LIBRARY BUILDING NUMBER 34 FAST FACTS:

interior finishes and furniture. Lounge areas are ample and most are arranged along exterior walls with plenty of natural lighting. However, the furniture is not flexible and some areas do not accommodate the power and technology needs of today’s students. Flexible furniture and additional power / data ports should be made available for students, faculty and staff. Interior finishes, fixtures, and fittings, including ACT, VCT, ceramic floor tile, demountable fabric partitions (“tree-house” lounge areas), drinking fountains, painted wall finishes, restroom accessories, and floor finishes in general, are aged, worn, or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1951 R E N OVAT E D : N / A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 31,430 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: 29,374 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 93%

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

LIB R ARY AR C H IV ES, H UM ANITIES LIB R AR IAN, G OV ER NM ENT

DOCUMENTS

Facilities staff have noted that the HVAC system in Simpson utilizes R-12 and should be replaced. The Direct Digital Controls (DDC) system should be renewed to maintain integrity of the campus system. The exhaust and distribution system is not functioning properly in the restrooms. Sufficient ventilation should also be provided in the offices and mechanical spaces throughout the building. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, the system should be replaced and lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building. Lighting should also be installed near the roof-top mechanical equipment for basic operations purposes.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.17

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Simpson Library, located on Campus Walk, provides students with places to study, work with class groups and teams, and get professional assistance with research for all kinds of assignments. Simpson serves UMW (both Fredericksburg and Stafford) students, faculty, staff, and the community with a collection that includes 367,000 volumes in the social sciences, humanities, and sciences; more than 42,000 electronic books to read online; millions of articles from magazines, newspapers, and scholarly journals; popular reading and “Just for Fun” books; maps; and Federal and Virginia government documents. The future of the library will soon be enhanced with the addition of a technology component, the Information Technology Convergence Center (ITCC). B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Simpson will soon be enhanced with the addition of the ITCC which boasts to provide progressive new learning environments to support both teaching and learning. Programmatically speaking, the library is highly utilized and one of the few buildings on campus that provides small group study rooms, lounge space, computer touchdown stations, and study lounge space. The building does have a several deferred maintenance issues that should be resolved. The ballasted single-ply membrane roof is due for renewal and the EPDM is showing wear / damage and should be repaired as needed. Cracking in the brick walls should be investigated to maintain integrity of the building envelope. The wood windows should also be replaced at some point. The interior of Simpson is spacious but out of date in terms of UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Directional signage should be installed to meet accessibility codes and standards. Although not immediately needed, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems. The library security system should also be renewed for integrity.

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N B Y D E PA R T M E N T D E PA R T M E N T

D E P T. S . F.

LIBRARY & ARCHIVAL SCIENCE

2 6 , 2 9 6 S . F.

R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICES

M U LT I

2 8 6 S . F.

C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY

STUDY

LIBRARY & ARCHIVAL SCIENCE

F O O D FAC I L I T I E S STOR. 72 SF

S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S CUBES 177 SF

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S

STOR. 91 SF LIBRARY 6476 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

LOUNGE

OFFICE 395 SF

RESIDENTIAL OFFICE 44 SF

G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S

OFFICE 56 SF

C I R C U L AT I O N

STAIRS 235 SF

SUPPLY AREA 170 SF

B AT H R O O M S

MULTI

CLASSROOM 286 SF

OFFICE 50 SF

U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

STAIRS 99 SF

CUBES 44 SF

OFFICE 47 SF ARCHIVES 128 SF

TSE 24 SF ELEV. 43 SF

OFFICE 80 SF

CORRIDOR 436 SF

RESTROOM 87 SF

ARCHIVES 128 SF

RESTROOM 110 SF

OFFICE 47 SF

ARCHIVES 60 SF

M W 10 SF 10 SF OFFICE 107 SF

STUDY STUDY 37 SF 38 SF

STUDY 37 SF

JAN. 20 SF ELEV. 43 SF

CONFERENCE 313 SF

OFFICE 74 SF

EXISTING SECOND

ARCHIVES 60 SF

STAIRS 86 SF

FLOOR

LIBRARY 6701 SF

LIBRARY 9127 SF

LIBRARY & ARCHIVAL SCIENCE STAIRS 235 SF

STAIRS 235 SF

STAIRS 99 SF

LIBRARY 41 SF LIBRARY 42 SF

TSE 24 SF ELEV. 43 SF

STOR. 42 SF STOR. 28 SF

LIBRARY 45 SF LIBRARY 46 SF

CONF. RM. 77 SF

RESTROOM 79 SF RESTROOM 115 SF

STUDY STUDY 38 SF 39 SF

STUDY 38 SF

STAIRS 86 SF

STAIRS 99 SF

JAN. 36 SF

OFFICE 124 SF

OFFICE 69 SF

OPEN CUBES 243 SF

REFERENCE RM. 189 SF

JAN. 20 SF ELEV. 43 SF

OFFICE 69 SF ELEV. 51 SF

STORAGE 361 SF

CIRCULATION 192 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

RESTROOM 89 SF

OFFICE 63 SF

RESTROOM 89 SF

STAIRS 86 SF

ELEV. 43 SF

PORCH

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

OFFICE 63 SF

ALVEY HALL The exhaust systems in Alvey are in poor condition and are causing mold growth throughout the building. Sufficient ventilation should also be provided in the restrooms, as well as laundry, janitorial, and electric rooms to maintain the integrity of the system. Insulating the attic properly would also increase the integrity of the building envelope and increase energy efficiency.

BUILDING NUMBER 35 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1986 R E N OVAT E D : N /A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 35,496 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 32,513 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 92%

BUILDING USE:

C OED UC ATIONAL , FIR S T-YEAR R ES ID ENC E H ALL

W I T H I N - SU I T E B ATH R OOM S

The domestic electric water heater is beyond its useful life. The perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are dated and should be considered for renewal. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building. Dated incandescent lamps within the building should be replaced with compact fluorescent lamps. C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Alvey Hall provides a wheelchair entrance in the rear, adjacent to the handicapped parking area in the lot behind the building. This building is equipped with an elevator. Plumbing fittings in the restrooms, however, lack insulation. Directional and life safety signage should be installed to meet accessibility codes and standards. Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices,, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.20

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Alvey is a first-year residence hall, named for Edward Alvey, Dean of the Faculty from 1936-71. The co-educational residence hall houses 145 residents and features in-suite bathrooms. Alvey is located near Simpson Library, Goolrick Hall, the Fitness Center, and the Jepson Science Center. Alvey is also the closest residence hall to the parking deck. Each floor is supplied with a centrally located kitchen, study lounge, and laundry room. The kitchens include a microwave, an oven, a refrigerator, counter space, and cabinets. Vending machines are located on the first floor near the main lobby, which features a TV lounge with a big screen TV. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Although Alvey is one of the newer buildings on campus, it is not aging well. Many problems exist with the overall infrastructure of the building and the exterior envelope. The exterior brick walls and wood trim are stained and make for poor perception of the building. The spaces on the interior of the building feel clinical, and lounges lack ample natural light. Interior finishes, fixtures, and fittings, including VCT, drinking fountains, kitchen cabinets, counter and sinks, painted wall finishes, fixed and flexible furnishings, and equipment, are aged, worn, or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

S PA C E

USE

RESIDENTIAL LIVING A R E A C O O R D I N ATO R SHARED LIVING / C O M M O N S PAC E KITCHEN B AT H R O O M

SUPPORT

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 221 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE BATHROOM 194 SF 76 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 242 SF

RA 243 SF

BATHROOM 90 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 234 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 245 SF

BATHROOM 75 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 200 SF

BATHROOM 64 SF

BATHROOM 63 SF CORRIDOR 1642 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 203 SF

STAIRS 145 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 201 SF

STUDY 355 SF

MECHANICAL 180 SF

KITCHEN 123 SF

LAUNDRY 178 SF

STAIRS 134 SF

ELECTRICAL 88 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 199 SF

ELEVATOR 59 SF

HOUSEKEEPING 29 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 197 SF

BATHROOM 67 SF

BATHROOM 68 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 249 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 223 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 188 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 238 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 242 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 240 SF

RA 233 SF

BATHROOM 77 SF

BATHROOM 91 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 185 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 235 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE BATHROOM 76 SF 194 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 242 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 243 SF

BATHROOM 90 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 234 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 245 SF

BATHROOM 75 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 200 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 199 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 201 SF

MECHANICAL 180 SF

KITCHEN 123 SF

LAUNDRY 178 SF

STAIRS 134 SF

ELEVATOR 59 SF

ELECTRICAL 88 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 197 SF

BATHROOM 67 SF

BATHROOM 68 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 249 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 223 SF

BATHROOM 64 SF

STUDY 355 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 238 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 188 SF BATHROOM 77 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 233 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 242 SF

RA 243 SF

BATHROOM 90 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 234 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 245 SF

BATHROOM 75 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 200 SF

BATHROOM 64 SF

BATHROOM 63 SF CORRIDOR 1673 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 203 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 199 SF

MECHANICAL 180 SF

STAIRS 145 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 201 SF

STUDY 355 SF

KITCHEN 123 SF

LAUNDRY 178 SF

STAIRS 134 SF

ELEVATOR 59 SF

ELECTRICAL 88 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 197 SF

BATHROOM 67 SF

BATHROOM 68 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 249 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 223 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 188 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 238 SF

RA 233 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 242 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 185 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 240 SF

BATHROOM 91 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 235 SF

BATHROOM 73 SF

EXISTING FOURTH FLOOR

CORRIDOR 1673 SF

STAIRS 145 SF

BATHROOM 76 SF

BATHROOM 77 SF

BATHROOM 63 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 203 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 194 SF

BATHROOM 73 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 221 SF

BATHROOM 91 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 185 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 240 SF BATHROOM 73 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 235 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 221 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE BATHROOM 76 SF 194 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 243 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 242 SF

BATHROOM 90 SF

RA 234 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 245 SF

BATHROOM 75 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 200 SF

BATHROOM 64 SF

BATHROOM 63 SF CORRIDOR 1234 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 203 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 199 SF

BATHROOM 68 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 249 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 223 SF

STAIRS 142 SF

ELECTRICAL 133 SF

MECHANICAL 380 SF

LAUNDRY 87 SF

BATHROOM 73 SF

STORAGE 141 SF

BATHROOM 40 SF

KITCHEN 133 SF

AC KITCHEN 89 SF

LOUNGE 1157 SF AC BEDROOM 133 SF

AC LIVING RM 256 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

SUPPORT ELEVATOR 42 SF 61 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 201 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 197 SF

BATHROOM 67 SF

AC OFFICE 126 SF

STUDY 284 SF

STAIRS 134 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 235 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

C I R C U L AT I O N

SOUTH HALL aged, worn, or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building.

BUILDING NUMBER 36 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1988 R E N OVAT E D : N / A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 15,570 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: 14,144 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 91%

BUILDING USE:

C OED UC ATIONAL , UP P ER- C LAS S R ES ID ENC E H ALL

The exhaust systems in South are in poor condition and causing mold growth throughout the building, particularly around exhaust vents. Sufficient ventilation should also be provided in the restrooms, laundry, janitorial, and electric rooms to maintain the integrity of the system. The gas fired water heater, and the perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are dated and should be considered for renewal. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building. Aged exterior lighting should be replaced and dated incandescent lamps within the building should be replaced with compact fluorescent lamps.

W I T H I N - SU I T E B ATH R OOM S

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Directional signage should be installed to meet accessibility codes and standards. Although not immediately needed, the fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems. The library security system should also be renewed for integrity.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.18

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y South Hall, a coeducational, upper-class hall located on the south end of campus behind Jefferson Hall, is home to 32 students. South Hall has in-suite baths and is one of the few residence halls with central air-conditioning. The kitchen, laundry facilities, and a study lounge are located on the first floor. The kitchen contains a stove, oven, sink, refrigerator, and microwave. Relatively new, South Hall is known for its barbecues - bring your own â&#x20AC;&#x153;burger or dogâ&#x20AC;? - and foosball tournaments. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Although South is one of the newer buildings on campus, it suffers the same short-comings as Alvey and Arrington Halls. Many problems exist with the overall infrastructure of the building and the exterior envelope. The asphalt shingled roofing is beyond its useful life and should be replaced. There are also no gutters on the building. The exterior wood doors and shutters are aged and worn and should be considered for replacement. The paint on the stair railing at the exterior entry is peeling and should be sanded down and repainted or replaced. The exterior brick walls and wood trim are stained and make for poor perception of the building. The spaces on the interior of the building feel clinical and lounges lack ample natural light. Interior finishes, fixtures, and fittings, including ceramic floor tile, VCT, drinking fountains, painted concrete floors, restroom accessories, kitchen cabinets, counter and sinks, painted wall finishes, fixed and flexible furnishings, and equipment, are

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

S PA C E

USE

RESIDENTIAL LIVING A R E A C O O R D I N ATO R SHARED LIVING / C O M M O N S PAC E

BATHROOM 131 SF

KITCHEN

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 399 SF

B AT H R O O M

BATHROOM 131 SF

BATHROOM 186 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 406 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 419 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 436 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 395 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 382 SF

SUPPORT

STAIR 272 SF

SUPPORT 31 SF

SUPPORT 28 SF

SUPPORT 31 SF

SUPPORT 28 SF

SUPPORT 33 SF

STAIR 272 SF

CORRIDOR 838 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 407 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 362 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 389 SF

BATHROOM 112 SF

BATHROOM 160 SF

BATHROOM 113 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 347 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 365 SF

RA 405 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

HR 244 SF STORAGE ROOM 550 SF

STAIR 272 SF

MECHANICAL ROOM 376 SF

SUPPORT 13 SF

LAUNDRY 191 SF

HR 636 SF

OFFICE 109 SF

SUPPORT 16 SF

HR 79 SF

STUDY ROOM 519 SF

KITCHEN 204 SF

STAIR 272 SF

SUPPORT 13 SF CORRIDOR 840 SF

SUPPORT 17 SF

SUPPORT SUPPORT 32 SF 16 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 374 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 358 SF

LOBBY 815 SF

BATHROOM 118 SF VESTIBULE 145 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

SUPPORT 15 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 379 SF

BATHROOM 111 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 353 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

C I R C U L AT I O N

100

ARRINGTON HALL provided in the restrooms, laundry, janitorial, and electric rooms to maintain the integrity of the system. Insulating the attic properly would also increase the integrity of the building envelope and increase energy efficiency.

BUILDING NUMBER 37 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1986 R E N OVAT E D : N /A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 35,496 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 32,513 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 92%

BUILDING USE:

C OED UC ATIONAL FIR S T-YEAR R ES ID ENC E H ALL

W I T H I N - SU I T E B ATH R OOM S

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Arrington Hall provides a wheelchair entrance in the rear, adjacent to the handicapped parking area in the lot behind the building. This building is equipped with an elevator. Plumbing fittings in the restrooms, however, lack insulation. Directional and life safety signage should be installed to meet accessibility codes and standards. Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices,, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.37

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Arrington Hall, completed in 1993, is UMWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s newest residence hall. The building was the last hall to have been constructed on campus during the first century of the College. Initially named New Hall, this hall was named for Arabelle Arrington (Class of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;41) in April 2005 for her outstanding contributions to UMW. Arrington Hall is a co-ed, mixed-year residence hall which provides housing to 147 men and women. It also contains suite bathrooms. The hall is particularly popular among students because it features central air-conditioning and an elevator. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Although Arrington is one of the newer buildings on campus, it is not aging well. Many problems exist with the overall infrastructure of the building and the exterior envelope. The exterior brick walls and wood trim are stained and make for poor perception of the building. The spaces on the interior of the building feel clinical and lounges lack ample natural light. Interior finishes, fixtures, and fittings including VCT, drinking fountains, kitchen cabinets, counter and sinks, painted wall finishes, fixed and flexible furnishings, and equipment are aged, worn, or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building.

The exhaust systems in Arrington are in poor condition and are causing mold growth throughout the building. Sufficient ventilation should also be UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

101

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

S PA C E

USE

RESIDENTIAL LIVING A R E A C O O R D I N ATO R SHARED LIVING / C O M M O N S PAC E

B AT H R O O M

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 221 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE BATHROOM 194 SF 76 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 242 SF

RA 243 SF

BATHROOM 90 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 234 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 245 SF

BATHROOM 75 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 200 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 223 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 221 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 194 SF

BATHROOM 76 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 242 SF

RA 243 SF

BATHROOM 90 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 234 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 245 SF

BATHROOM 75 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 200 SF

C I R C U L AT I O N SUPPORT

BATHROOM 64 SF

BATHROOM 63 SF CORRIDOR 1642 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 203 SF

STAIRS 145 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 201 SF

STUDY 355 SF

MECHANICAL 180 SF

KITCHEN 123 SF

LAUNDRY 178 SF

STAIRS 134 SF

ELECTRICAL 88 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 199 SF

ELEVATOR 59 SF

HOUSEKEEPING 29 SF

BATHROOM 67 SF

BATHROOM 68 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 249 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 197 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 188 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 238 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 242 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 240 SF

RA 233 SF

BATHROOM 77 SF

BATHROOM 91 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 185 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 235 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE BATHROOM 76 SF 194 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 242 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 243 SF

BATHROOM 90 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 234 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 245 SF

BATHROOM 75 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 200 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 199 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 201 SF

STUDY 355 SF

KITCHEN 123 SF

LAUNDRY 178 SF

STAIRS 134 SF

ELEVATOR 59 SF

ELECTRICAL 88 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 197 SF

BATHROOM 67 SF

BATHROOM 68 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 249 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 223 SF

BATHROOM 64 SF

MECHANICAL 180 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 238 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 188 SF BATHROOM 77 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 233 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 242 SF

STAIRS 145 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 201 SF

STUDY 355 SF

MECHANICAL 180 SF

KITCHEN 123 SF

LAUNDRY 178 SF

STAIRS 134 SF

ELECTRICAL 88 SF

ELEVATOR 59 SF

BATHROOM 67 SF

BATHROOM 68 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 249 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 197 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 188 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 238 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 242 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 240 SF

RA 233 SF

BATHROOM 91 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 185 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 235 SF

BATHROOM 73 SF

EXISTING FOURTH FLOOR

CORRIDOR 1673 SF

STAIRS 145 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 203 SF

BATHROOM 77 SF

BATHROOM 63 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 203 SF

CORRIDOR 1673 SF

BATHROOM 73 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 221 SF

BATHROOM 64 SF

BATHROOM 63 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 199 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 223 SF

BATHROOM 91 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 185 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 240 SF BATHROOM 73 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 235 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 221 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE BATHROOM 76 SF 194 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 242 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 243 SF

BATHROOM 90 SF

RA 234 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 245 SF

BATHROOM 75 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 200 SF

BATHROOM 64 SF

BATHROOM 63 SF CORRIDOR 1234 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 203 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 199 SF

BATHROOM 68 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 249 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 223 SF

STAIRS 142 SF

ELECTRICAL 133 SF

MECHANICAL 380 SF

LAUNDRY 87 SF

BATHROOM 73 SF

STORAGE 141 SF

BATHROOM 40 SF

KITCHEN 133 SF

AC KITCHEN 89 SF

LOUNGE 1157 SF AC BEDROOM 133 SF

AC LIVING RM 256 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

SUPPORT ELEVATOR 42 SF 61 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 201 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 197 SF

BATHROOM 67 SF

AC OFFICE 126 SF

STUDY 284 SF

STAIRS 134 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 235 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

KITCHEN

102

RIDDERHOFF MARTIN GALLERY Ridderhoff’s mechanical systems are approaching the end of their useful lives and, while none require immediate attention, should be slated for renewal in the near future to maximize efficiency.

BUILDING NUMBER 38 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1993 R E N OVAT E D : N / A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 3,100 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO :

BUILDING USE:

AS S EM B LY ( AUD ITOR IUM , TH EATER )

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y There is a wheelchair ramp at the main entrance to Ridderhoff, as well as handicapped parking spaces in the rear of the building, facing College Avenue. Overall, Ridderhoff does not meet ADA standards particularly with regards to restrooms and drinking fountains. The building also currently lacks ADA-compliant signage. Ridderhoff lacks emergency lighting, which will need to be installed to meet current codes and standards. Egress means are presently blocked an in need of immediate attention. The fire alarm system is beyond its useful life and should be attended to immediately. Exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.18

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Built in 1993, Ridderhoff Martin Gallery is a single-story structure that contains two gallery viewing areas, public restrooms, an office, and a storage room. Ridderhoff presents art exhibitions and educational events of interest to the UMW community and the general public. Exhibitions are brought in from museums around the country, or are drawn from the permanent collection of 5,000 artworks. Mid-20th century American and Asian art make up the largest parts of the permanent collection. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N The built-up roofing and asphalt shingles on Ridderhoff should be inspected and renewed or replaced as deemed necessary. Ridderhoff’s gutters show signs of leakage and should be renewed or repaired along with the building’s downspouts for reliability. The exterior brick stairs of the building show signs of damage and should be repaired or replaced.

Interior finishes and fixtures are aged, worn, or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building. Immediate attention should be given to the ceiling finishes as cracks have begun to show near the expansion joints. Both carpeting and VCT are beyond their useful lives and should be attended to as well.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

103

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. PLANS FOR THIS STRUCTURE WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME THIS REPORT WAS BEING PREPARED.

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

LOUNGE

104

JEPSON SCIENCE CENTER BUILDING NUMBER 39 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1998 R E N OVAT E D : N /A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 72,195 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 67,229

With instructional technology in every classroom, the only thing Jepson will have a problem with is available power for any future technology additions. Jepson is one of the only buildings on campus that contains a large, tiered classroom space with full multimedia capabilities. While it has ample lounge and classroom space at present, the sciences are one of the fastest growing areas of study at UMW. It has quickly outgrown its facility and severely lacks research labs. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building.

N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 93%

BUILDING USE:

B IOLOGIC AL S C IENC ES, ENV IR ONM ENTAL S C IENC E

A N D G E O LO GY, C H EM IS TRY, P H YS IC S

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.07

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Located on the north end of UMWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Fredericksburg campus, between duPont and Goolrick Halls, the Jepson Science Center opened its doors in 1998. The 75,000-square foot, fourstory, on grade structure incorporates state-of-the-art support systems for science research and study. In addition to the Departments of Biological Sciences, Environmental Science and Geology, Chemistry, and Physics, Jepson is also home to the Science Literacy Center. The center enhances the teaching of interdisciplinary and introductory sciences with modern computer technology, as do a number of other computer labs. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N This four-level facility, including a full basement foundation, is in good overall condition. However, the seals for the exterior fiberglass trim are deteriorating. Interior finishes, such as carpeting, painted finishes, and various wall finishes, are worn and beyond their useful life.

The condensate pans for the air handling units in Jepson are leaking. The ductwork covering is also failing in spots around the building. The casings around the chilled water pumps are corroded and should be replaced. Sufficient ventilation should also be provided in the janitorial and electric rooms, and restrooms to maintain the integrity of the system. The fume hoods provided in the building frequently malfunction creating an indoor air quality risk with the chemicals that are used in labs. UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Jepsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s main entrance is at grade, making it wheelchair accessible, with handicapped parking spaces near the entrance along the drive. The building is equipped with elevators. Interior doors have illegible FRR labels and incomplete hardware installation, making them non-compliant with current codes and standards.

Pigeon infestation is an issue, particularly around the roof and dampers, and should be cleared up immediately to avoid any potential health hazards. Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be inspected and identified to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems.

105

EXISTING PLAN

MULTI

C L A S S I F I C AT I O N B Y D E PA R T M E N T

LAB STORAGE 454 SF

C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S SCIENCE LAB 1238 SF

SCIENCE LAB 1266 SF

SCIENCE LAB 907 SF

SCIENCE LAB 1291 SF

SCIENCE LAB 1158 SF

R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICES

SCIENCE LAB 1183 SF

STUDY

S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

LAB STORAGE 498 SF

RESTROOM 184 SF

JAN. 24 SF

LOUNGE

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

ACADEMIC STORAGE 288 SF

STORAGE 199 SF LECTURE 587 SF

SCIENCE LAB 290 SF

RESTROOM 249 SF

RESTROOM 184 SF

ELEV. 79 SF

ELEC. 28 SF ELEC. 27 SF

STAIRS 257 SF

LAB STORAGE 322 SF

CORRIDOR 2928 SF

SCIENCE LAB PREP 171 SF

F O O D FAC I L I T I E S

STOR. 111 SF

SCIENCE LAB 1197 SF LAB STORAGE 592 SF

PHYSICAL SCIENCES

STOR. 163 SF

SCIENCE LAB 200 SF

STORAGE 398 SF

ELEC. 31 SF ELEC. 31 SF

RESEARCH LAB 487 SF

FACULTY OFFICE 238 SF

COMPUTER LAB 296 SF

ELEC. 25 SF ELEC. 22 SF

STAIRS 257 SF

STAIRS 244 SF

MULTI

INSTRUMENTATION ROOM 338 SF

JAN. 24 SF

CORRIDOR 1783 SF

STAIRS 531 SF

STAIRS 383 SF

ELEC. 23 SF ELEC. 25 SF

CORRIDOR 1783 SF

LAB STORAGE 296 SF

OFFICE 345 SF

LAB STORAGE 347 SF

RESTROOM 249 SF

LAB STORAGE 268 SF

MAIL/COPY 193 SF

ELEV. 76 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

L A B O R ATO RY

LOADING 361 SF

S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S CORRIDOR 2928 SF

C I R C U L AT I O N

SCIENCE LAB 398 SF

INSTRUMENT ROOM 494 SF

B AT H R O O M S

SCIENCE LAB 309 SF

U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

STORAGE STORAGE 146 SF 118 SF

OFFICE 121 SF

RADIO COLD ROOM ISOTOPES BIO IMAGE 156 SF LAB 130 SF 131 SF

LAB 155 SF

OFFICE 40 SF

D E PA R T M E N T

D E P T. S . F.

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

1 5 , 8 0 7 S . F.

PHYSICAL SCIENCES

2 3 , 9 2 2 S . F.

M U LT I

8 , 5 3 1 S . F.

OFFICE 168 SF

OFFICE 101 SF

OFFICE 111 SF

OFFICE 115 SF

OFFICE 108 SF

OFFICE 197 SF

OFFICE 115 SF

OFFICE 111 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR MULTI

SCIENCE LAB 633 SF

OFFICE 101 SF

LOBBY 618 SF

LECTURE 1206 SF

LAB 1178 SF

VESTIBULE 312 SF

OFFICE 175 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

PHYSICAL SCIENCES

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

PHYSICAL SCIENCES MULTI

OFFICE 148 SF

SCIENCE LAB 430 SF SCIENCE LAB 776 SF

OFFICE 101 SF

LECTURE 1206 SF

SCIENCE LAB 1166 SF

STORAGE 99 SF

SCIENCE LAB 643 SF

SCIENCE LAB 633 SF

SCIENCE LAB 648 SF

COMPUTER LAB 793 SF

LAB 1158 SF

LAB 1183 SF

COMPUTER LAB 1047 SF

LAB 1197 SF

MECH. 1157 SF

STORAGE 148 SF

DARK ROOM 203 SF

PHYSICAL SCIENCES CORRIDOR 2928 SF

RESTROOM 133 SF

PHYSICAL SCIENCES

GREENHOUSE 258 SF

JAN. 20 SF

STAIRS 209 SF

SCIENCE LAB 291 SF

ELEV. 79 SF

SCIENCE LAB 203 SF

ELEC. 28 SF ELEC. 28 SF

CORRIDOR 99 SF

SCIENCE LAB 405 SF

LOUNGE 902 SF COMPUTER LAB 293 SF

SCIENCE LAB 204 SF

ANIMAL RM. 126 SF

BIO COMP. RM. 211 SF

ELEC. 32 SF ELEC. 32 SF

STORAGE 81 SF

STAIRS 229 SF

STORAGE 284 SF

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

RESTROOM 184 SF

LAB STORAGE 338 SF

JAN. 24 SF ELEC. 25 SF ELEC. 22 SF

STAIRS 257 SF

CORRIDOR 1575 SF

ELEV. 78 SF

STAIRS 531 SF

ELEV. MAC. RM. 242 SF

ELEC. 23 SF ELEC. 25 SF

CORRIDOR 1575 SF

CORRIDOR 2928 SF

STORAGE 287 SF

OFFICE 168 SF

OFFICE 101 SF

OFFICE 121 SF

SCIENCE LAB 286 SF

STORAGE 286 SF

LAB 1166 SF

OFFICE 111 SF

OFFICE 115 SF

EXISTING FOURTH FLOOR

OFFICE 108 SF

OFFICE 197 SF

LAB 60 SF

LAB PREP 482 SF

COFFEE 40 SF

OFFICE 101 SF

LAB PREP 440 SF

STORAGE 287 SF

SCIENCE LAB 717 SF

SCIENCE LAB 267 SF

LECTURE 2509 SF LECTURE SUPPORT 215 SF

OFFICE 115 SF

OFFICE 111 SF

OFFICE 101 SF

STAIRS 265 SF

STORAGE/OFFICE 298 SF

RESTROOM 249 SF

RESTROOM 201 SF

PHYSICS STORAGE 155 SF

ELECTRICAL 293 SF

OFFICE 171 SF

LAB 1176 SF

LAB STORAGE 194 SF

LAB PREP 190 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

LECTURE STORAGE 268 SF

MULTI

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

106

LEE HALL The offices and meeting space are equipped with the latest furniture and technology and receive rave reviews from their occupants. The one complaint is that student services, particularly the Multicultural Center, would be better situated in a campus center environment.

BUILDING NUMBER 40 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1922 R E N OVAT E D : 20 08

Lee has a wheelchair ramp to the ground floor from Campus Walk, leading to the bookstore and elevator bank to the Admissions office, Student Affairs, Multicultural Center, and Ballroom.

G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 75,242 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: 67,246 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 89%

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

AD M INIS TR ATION AD M IS S IONS, FINANC IAL AID, EAGLEONE , S TUD ENT

H E A LT H, J A M E S FAR M ER M ULTIC ULTUR AL C ENTER , JAM ES FAR M ER S C H OLAR S PR O G R A M , D I S AB ILITY S ER V IC ES, INTER NATIONAL AC AD EM IC S ER V IC ES, C O U N SE LI N G A ND P S YC H OLOGIC AL S ER V IC ES ( C AP S ) , B AC H ELOR OF LIB ER AL ST U D I E S ( B LS) , AC AD EM IC S ER V IC ES, R EGIS TR AR , C AR EER S ER V IC ES, C AS H IERâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S O F F I C E , T H E U NIV ER S ITY B OOK S TOR E , TH E UND ER G R OUND

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Lee Hall re-opened after a two-year renovation and now brings several key student services under one roof. The Underground, a casual cafe, provides students with an on-campus venue for concerts, student events, and new alternative food options. Situated near Ball Circle, Lee Hall is the center of the campus and easily identified by the many national flags flying from the balcony. The building is also one of the few on campus that provides large, flexible, and technologically savvy meeting space. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Since it was recently renovated, Lee Hall is fully compliant with current codes and standards. Some say the building feels more like a student center than Woodard with functional and easy to use student service windows, the Underground, several computer touchdown stations, functional meeting rooms, and flexible lounge space throughout the building. Traffic flow through Lee Hall was enhanced by the addition of a central stairway and energy efficiency as well as safety features have also been greatly improved. At the same time, the tradition of the building was respected and preserved. For example, the architectural character of the former Ballroom has been retained (original wood floors, high ceilings and beams, lighting fixtures, wainscoting, etc.); however, the space has been reconfigured to provide two meeting rooms and additional pre-function space to better serve campus needs. UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

107

OFFICE 143 SF

C L A S S I F I C AT I O N B Y D E PA R T M E N T

OFFICE 88 SF

OFFICE 181 SF

OFFICE STORAGE OFFICE 137 SF 72 SF 109 SF

STORAGE 122 SF

OFFICE 119 SF

OPEN OFFICE 1377 SF

L A B O R ATO RY OFFICE 119 SF

R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICES KITCHENETTE 137 SF

F O O D FAC I L I T I E S CONFERENCE 583 SF

LOUNGE

ELEV. SHAFT 66 SF

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S STAIRS 321 SF

RESIDENTIAL

CORRIDOR 400 SF

CLASSROOM 886 SF

SHAFT 49 SF

STORAGE 107 SF

CORRIDOR 131 SF

AV CLOS. 17 SF

G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

OFFICE 171 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 54 SF

RECEPTION 289 SF

OFFICE 138 SF

STAIRS 317 SF

CORRIDOR 334 SF

OFFICE 134 SF

FUTURE OFFICE 132 SF

DISABILITY SERV. RECEPTION 360 SF

OFFICE 136 SF

OFFICE 145 SF

OFFICE 83 SF

OFFICE 130 SF

CORRIDOR 314 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 63 SF

ACADEMIC SERVICES WORKROOM 161 SF

OFFICE 115 SF

OFFICE 170 SF

OFFICE 121 SF WORKROOM 200 SF

STORAGE 92 SF

WORKROOM 355 SF OFFICE 121 SF

RECORDS STORAGE 197 SF

CONFERENCE ROOM 216 SF

CORRIDOR 514 SF

STORAGE 65 SF

CORRIDOR 110 SF OFFICE 89 SF

OFFICE 170 SF

OPEN OFFICE 215 SF

OPEN OFFICE 409 SF

WORKROOM 85 SF

SHAFT 26 SF

OFFICE 92 SF

KITCHENETTE 69 SF

STORAGE 47 SF OFFICE 120 SF

OFFICE 84 SF

GENERAL INFORMATION 982 SF

CASHIER / ACCOUNTS WORKROOM 304 SF

CIRCULATION 1993 SF

WOMEN'S ROOM 189 SF

JAN. 34 SF

ELEC. 36 SF

CORRIDOR 158 SF

STAIRS 317 SF LOUNGE AREA 497 SF

MULTICULTURAL RESOURCE ROOM 605 SF

STORAGE 99 SF

OFFICE 171 SF

OFFICE 138 SF

CIRCULATION / STAIRS 279 SF

STORAGE 64 SF

OFFICE 136 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

ELEV. SHAFT 54 SF

INFO DESK 250 SF

VESTIBULE 111 SF

U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

EXISTING FOURTH FLOOR

MEN'S ROOM 187 SF

TELECOM. 109 SF

STAIRS 306 SF

OFFICE 195 SF

TESTING 1 60 SF

C I R C U L AT I O N B AT H R O O M S

MEN'S RESTROOM 187 SF

OFFICE 171 SF

OFFICE 130 SF

CORR. 118 SF

CONFERENCE ROOM 236 SF

OFFICE 122 SF

JAN. 34 SF

LOUNGE / PREFUNCTION 1138 SF OFFICE 136 SF

WOMEN'S RESTROOM 188 SF

ELEC. 40 SF AV CLOS. 17 SF

WORKROOM 191 SF

OFFICE 100 SF

OFFICE 118 SF

TELECOM. 108 SF

MEETING ROOM 1669 SF

OFFICE 119 SF

STORAGE 89 SF

OFFICE 118 SF

OFFICE 138 SF

WAITING 111 SF

CORRIDOR 398 SF

SHAFT 28 SF

OFFICE 110 SF

OFFICE 116 SF

CORRIDOR 245 SF

OFFICE 126 SF CORR. 124 SF

OFFICE 150 SF

OPEN OFFICE 475 SF

INTERVIEW INTERVIEW SHARED ROOM LIBRARY ROOM 86 SF 211 SF 84 SF

CORRIDOR 58 SF

OFFICE 172 SF

OFFICE 183 SF

STORAGE 115 SF

FILES 170 SF

OFFICE 114 SF

STUDY

S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S

OFFICE 147 SF

CORRIDOR 105 SF OFFICE 126 SF

C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S

S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

OFFICE 112 SF

COAT 42 SF ENTRANCE 48 SF

SERVING COUNTER 290 SF

UNDERGROUND 3468 SF

OFFICE 169 SF

SCHOLARS PROGRAM RECEPTION 327 SF

STORAGE 59 SF

EAGLE ONE 230 SF

WARMING KITCHEN 406 SF

OFFICE / STORAGE 68 SF OFFICE 50 SF

OFFICE 172 SF

BATHROOM 65 SF

OFFICE 139 SF

KITCHEN 72 SF

BREAKROOM 109 SF

BATHROOM PANTRY 61 SF 87 SF

TREATMENT 118 SF

OFFICE 168 SF

CORRIDOR 773 SF

BOOKSTORE 6653 SF

OFFICE 112 SF

EXAM 4 105 SF

EXAM 2 105 SF

NURSES' STATIONS 134 SF

EXAM 3 105 SF

EXAM 1 105 SF

CHANGING 26 SF

BATHROOM 54 SF

OFFICE 120 SF

OFFICE 113 SF

BREAK ROOM 85 SF

OFFICE 137 SF

CORRIDOR 133 SF STORAGE 194 SF

ELEVATOR 65 SF

STAIRS 299 SF

CLOSET 10 SF

OFFICE 113 SF

SHAFT 28 SF INTERVIEW CUSTOMER SERVICE ROOM 90 SF 102 SF

CONVENIENCE STORE 647 SF CIRCULATION 2136 SF

STAIRS 183 SF

VESTIBULE 244 SF OPEN OFFICE 746 SF

OFFICE 141 SF

OFFICE 112 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

WOMEN'S ROOM 189 SF

TERRACE

MEN'S ROOM 187 SF

TELECOM 113 SF

FILING 92 SF

CRAWL SPACE 708 SF

SHAFT 8 SF

STAIRS 317 SF

ELEV. MACH. RM 61 SF ELEV. SHAFT 63 SF

JAN. 34 SF

ELEC 36 SF

BATHROOM 47 SF TREATMENT 2

SHAFT 26 SF

OFFICE 152 SF

GROUP THERAPY 294 SF

OFFICE 155 SF

SECURE STORAGE 154 SF OFFICE 149 SF

SUPPLY STORAGE 212 SF

STORAGE 49 SF

COUNSELING AND PSYCH. 463 SF

BOOKSTORE STORAGE 1558 SF

EAGLE 1 699 SF

WOMEN'S ROOM 188 SF

JAN. 34 SF

STAIRS 317 SF

CORRIDOR 1655 SF MECH. 149 SF

MECH. 218 SF

JAN. 46 SF

MECH. 137 SF

FIRE PUMP 112 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 54 SF RECEIVING 460 SF

CRAWL SPACE 867 SF

MECH. 855 SF

CRAWL SPACE 211 SF

MECH. 405 SF

WATER PUMP 102 SF

MEN'S ROOM 187 SF

TELECOM. 115 SF

ELEC. 46 SF

MARY GILSON SELF CARE 243 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

SHAFT 49 SF

STORAGE 114 SF

ELEC. 18 SF

STAIRS 360 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 54 SF STORAGE 32 SF ADMISSIONS RECEPTION 678 SF

OFFICE 117 SF

RECEPTION 348 SF

SHAFT 49 SF

STORAGE 33 SF

TREATMENT 1 164 SF

168 SF

WAITING ROOM 256 SF STOR. 21 SF

BATHROOM 47 SF

BOOKSTORE RECEIVING 287 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

EXISTING PLAN

108

PHYSICAL PLANT The ducts should be cleaned in order to maintain integrity of the air distribution system. The building exhaust is also due for renewal. Adequate ventilation should be provided in the restrooms as well. The domestic water distribution is due for renewal and the perimeter hot and chilled water distribution units and system are beyond their useful lives.

BUILDING NUMBER 41 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1972 R E N OVAT E D : N / A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 28,170

The Physical Plant contains an electrical distribution system and wiring that is original to the building. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, the system should be renewed and lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building. Fluorescent Fixtures should be refurbished.

N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: N/A N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : N/A

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

AD M INIS TR ATION FAC ILITIES S ER V IC ES

CODE COMPLIANCE & ACCESSIBILITY This building lacks a fire suppression system and is not wheelchair accessible. The domestic water distribution system lacks a vacuum breaker to be compliant with current building codes. Guards and handrails at the mezzanine stair are non-compliant with life safety and building codes. Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be installed or replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.52

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y The Physical Plant building for the University of Mary Washington is located off of the central campus on the Hanover Street Athletic Complex. This single-story building houses the UMW facilities services department and provides warehousing and storeroom functions for the campus. This includes office space, workshops, mechanical work bays for vehicles and equipment, as well as carpenter and plumbing shops. The facility contains meeting and dressing rooms for visiting athletic teams as well. South of the main building is a smaller one-story building that contains the Facilities Services HVAC shop, paint shop storage, electric shop storage, grounds shop, pesticide cage, auto shop, and two offices. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N The Physical Plant is a â&#x20AC;&#x153;work-horseâ&#x20AC;? building and should be maintained since it serves as anything from flexible space for the Theater Department to locker rooms for the athletic department at any given moment. The exterior doors and steel windows are worn and beyond their useful lives. Interior finishes and fixtures, including ACT, carpeting, ceramic floor and wall tile, concrete floors, VCT, drinking fountains, kitchen casework, counters and sinks, utility sinks, painted wall, painted epoxy masonry finishes, restroom fixtures, fittings, accessories and partitions, fixed casework, and furniture (both office and lounge), are aged, worn, or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building. UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

109

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. PLANS FOR THIS STRUCTURE WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME THIS REPORT WAS BEING PREPARED.

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

LOUNGE

110

DICKENSON STADIUM

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y The stadium contains two concrete accessible ramps but lacks accessible signage. There is no designated handicap parking. Electrical circuits are not labeled and access to the service panel is blocked and, therefore, non-compliant with current codes.

BUILDING NUMBER 42 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1995 R E N OVAT E D : N /A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 3,800 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: N/A N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : N/A

BUILDING USE:

C AM P US R EC R EATION, ATH LETIC S

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y The single-story stadium is located off of Hanover Street. The stadium was named after Earl Dickenson, a farmer, owner of a lumber company, and member of the House of Delegates in 1971. As part of the ruling Democratic Party, he worked his way up the leadership ranks, becoming chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee in 1996. Dickenson was known for his ability to bring home funding for local projects, some used to call the University of Mary Washington “Earl’s College” for his patronage of the school. The building contains two gang-style restrooms and a concession stand underneath the stadium seating structure. Stadium seating is constructed of steel and concrete and contains two concrete accessible ramps. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N The stadium is fairly new and in good condition overall. The exterior of the building looks clean and neat, and fencing and seating appear to be in good physical condition. Interior finishes and fixtures, including VCT, drinking fountains, and painted finishes, are slightly aged and upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building.

The building’s packaged electric heaters and electric water heater are beyond their useful lives. Interior lighting fixtures are inefficient and should be replaced with ones that are more energy efficient. UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

111

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. PLANS FOR THIS STRUCTURE WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME THIS REPORT WAS BEING PREPARED.

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

LOUNGE

112

FITNESS CENTER BUILDING NUMBER 43 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 2003 R E N OVAT E D : N / A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 20,071 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: 18,209 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 91%

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

FITNES S C ENTER C AM P US R EC R EATION, ATH LETIC S

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.01

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y The Fitness Center is the flagship of the Department of Campus Recreation. The 18,000-square-foot center serves over 500 guests a day. The upper level contains a variety of cardiovascular equipment that faces a huge wall of windows offering views of Campus Walk. Suspended televisions offer local cable television via wireless entertainment system. The lower level offers free weights and fitness equipment stations and the Wellness Resource Center offering a resource library for wellness information. The center also provides locker areas, washrooms, office, and vending and is open to UMW students, faculty, and staff. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Built adjacent to Goolrick Hall and the future Anderson Center, the Fitness Center is one of the newest buildings on the Fredericksburg Campus. Groundwater infiltration into the building should be addressed to maintain integrity of the buildings superstructure and interior finishes. Painted wall finishes are worn and should be repainted. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building. C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y The Fitness Center has a wheelchair-accessible entrance at grade, elevators, and wheelchairaccessible bathrooms. Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems. UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

113

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N B Y D E PA R T M E N T C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S

OFFICE 181 SF

L A B O R ATO RY R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICES STUDY F O O D FAC I L I T I E S

OPEN TO BELOW

CLOSET 39 SF SHAFT 40 SF

STAIRS 206 SF ELEV. SHAFT 67 SF

LOUNGE

MECHANICAL 656 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 74 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

STAIRS 237 SF

OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW

S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N

STAIRS 104 SF

B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

AEROBIC FLOOR 5463 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

MEN'S RESTROOM 214 SF

RESTROOM ENTRANCE 52 SF

WOMEN'S RESTROOM 221 SF ELEV. CONTROL ROOM 90 SF

ENTRANCE 242 SF STAIRS 180 SF VESTIBULE 212 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 68 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 75 SF

SHAFT 38 SF WEIGHT FLOOR 7218 SF

STAIRS 237 SF

STAIRS 104 SF

WELLNESS RESOURCE CENTER 448 SF

STAFF LAUNDRY 587 SF

OFFICE 184 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

STORAGE 394 SF

MECHANICAL 656 SF

114

UNIVERSITY APARTMENTS

Sufficient ventilation or exhaust should also be provided for the entirety of the restrooms in the complex. The sanitary waste, telephone, through-wall heat, wet-sprinkler, lighting, and computer network systems are all in need of renewal on different levels in most of the buildings.

BUILDING NUMBER 44 FAST FACTS:

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y One apartment is currently wheelchair accessible. There are also four handicapped parking spaces in three different areas of the parking lot. Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be renewed, or installed in some cases, to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems.

C O N ST R U C T E D : 1964-69 R E N OVAT E D : N /A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 154,011 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: N/A N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : N/A

BUILDING USE:

CO -EDUCATIONAL , UPPER CLASS, APARTMENT- STYLE

R E SI D E N C E H A LL S

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.58

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y The Apartments at UMW opened in fall 2003 and offer true apartment-style living for juniors and seniors of the University of Mary Washington. Built between 1964 and 1969, each apartment building is three stories in height, with two of them having partial basements. Each building has an enclosed central stairway that connects all levels and provides the primary entry and exit to the building. Typically, there are four apartments per floor, and each apartment contains either a balcony or concrete patio. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N There are ten apartment buildings total in the complex; some are in worse shape than others, but all need of some form of renovation. Although not an immediate need, the asphalt shingled roofs are beyond their useful lives and should be replaced. The wood windows, screens and exterior doors, are in poor condition and in need of replacement. Interior finishes, fixtures, and furniture are aged, worn, or in poor condition. Interior finishes, including ceramic tile, painted and papered wall finishes, carpeting, kitchen and bathroom casework, fixtures, accessories, and appliances are in need of the most attention. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

115

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N

S PA C E

USE

RESIDENTIAL LIVING A R E A C O O R D I N ATO R SHARED LIVING / C O M M O N S PAC E KITCHEN B AT H R O O M C I R C U L AT I O N

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 194 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 138 SF

SUPPORT 17 SF

COMMONS 334 SF

COMMONS 353 SF

SUPPORT 4 SF

SUPPORT 8 SF SUPPORT BATH RM 35 SF 26 SF

BATH RM 51 SF

KITCHEN 96 SF

SUPPORT BATH RM 35 SF 26 SF

BATH RM 50 SF

KITCHEN 96 SF

CORRIDOR 280 SF

KITCHEN 95 SF

BATH RM 41 SF

SUPPORT 58 SF

KITCHEN 95 SF

BATH RM 41 SF

SUPPORT 58 SF

SUPPORT 8 SF

SUPPORT 4 SF

COMMONS 353 SF UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 194 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 SINGLE 138 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 190 SF

SUPPORT 17 SF

COMMONS 334 SF

SUPPORT 17 SF

UNIT TYPE 1 DOUBLE 190 SF

E X I S T I N G F I R S T- T H I R D F L O O R S ( T Y P I C A L P L A N )

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

SUPPORT

116

JEPSON ALUMNI EXECUTIVE CENTER BUILDING NUMBER 50 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1935 R E N OVAT E D : 2004 G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 28,999 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 25,508 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 89%

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

EV ENTS, ALUM NI S ER V IC ES ALUM NI OFFIC E , UM W D EV ELOP M ENT, UM W

F O U N DAT I O N OFFIC ES

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Built as a private home more than 75 years ago, Trench Hill was acquired by the University in 1948. Located at the corner of Sunken Road and Hanover Street, the building was named to commemorate the Civil War trenches found on the property. During the next few decades, Trench Hill served as a residence hall for various groups of students, a child development center, and finally as offices for the Alumni Association and Advancement staff. By 1999, the idea of renovating and adding to Trench Hill took root. Today, one block away from the main campus, the new Jepson Alumni Executive Center (JAEC) houses the Alumni Office along with the UMW Development and UMW Foundation offices. The building also contains administrative offices, state-of-the-art meeting rooms for governing boards, a ballroom, and courtyard to accommodate University and community events and guest rooms for traveling alumni and UMW affiliates. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N The Jepson Alumni Center is in excellent condition, though painted wall finishes and carpeting are worn and warrant replacement. CODE COMPLIANCE & ACCESSIBILITY Alumni Executive Center is fully ADA compliant.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

The Jepson

117

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N B Y D E PA R T M E N T C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICES STUDY STORAGE 371 SF

F O O D FAC I L I T I E S

LOUNGE

CORRIDOR 585 SF

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S

SUPPORT 31 SF

BALL ROOM 3507 SF

BATHROOM 49 SF

RESIDENTIAL STORAGE ELECTRICAL 101 SF 118 SF

G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

WOMEN'S BATHROOM 321 SF

MEN'S BATHROOM 224 SF

S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N CONCIERGE 124 SF

B AT H R O O M S

OFFICE 102 SF

U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E MINI BALLROOM/ FOYER 821 SF

STAIRS 216 SF

OFFICE 144 SF

STAIRS 213 SF

ELEV. SHAFT SHAFT T 71 SF 27 SF

MEN'S BATHROOM 54 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 72 SF

OFFICE 201 SF MEN'S BATHROOM 130 SF

MECHANICAL 504 SF

SITTING ROOM 162 SF

SHAFT 73 SF

OFFICE 137 SF OFFICE 171 SF ELECTRICAL 184 SF LOBBY 537 SF

CONFERENCE ROOM 241 SF

OFFICE 139 SF

WOMEN'S BATHROOM 61 SF

OFFICE 141 SF CLOS. 17 SF

CLOS. 18 SF

CLOS. 17 SF

OFFICE 151 SF

OFFICE 148 SF

SHAFT 48 SF

OFFICE 183 SF

BREAK ROOM 183 SF

CORRIDOR 887 SF

WOMEN'S BATHROOM 132 SF CORRIDOR 149 SF

TELECOM 185 SF

MEN'S BATHROOM 73 SF

STORAGE 89 SF MECHANICAL 91 SF

OFFICE 178 SF

CLOS. 17 SF

CLOS. 22 SF OFFICE 136 SF

CLOS. 16 SF OPEN OFFICE 120 SF

BREAK ROOM 117 SF

OFFICE 122 SF

CORRIDOR 1061 SF OFFICE 135 SF SLEEPING SUITE 235 SF

SUPPORT 12 SF

STAIRS CORRIDOR 51 SF 319 SF BATHRM 82 SF

BATHRM 67 SF

BATHRM 52 SF

SLEEPING SUITE 260 SF

LIBRARY 133 SF

SITTING ROOM 165 SF

CLOS. 17 SF

SLEEPING SUITE 235 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

SUPPORT 18 SF ELEV. SHAFT CLOS. C 90 SF 23 SF F

STAIRS 235 SF

OFFICE 189 SF

STAIRS 49 SF

KITCHEN 137 SF

STAIRS/ CIRCULATION 203 SF

SUPPORT 8 SF

BATHROOM 68 SF OFFICE 251 SF

OFFICE 134 SF

BOARD ROOM 872 SF

OFFICE 176 SF

BUSINESS CENTER 116 SF

MECHANICAL 377 SF ELEV. SHAFT 88 SF

CORRIDOR 546 SF

MECHANICAL 627 SF

CORRIDOR 552 SF

SALON 267 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

ELEVATOR EQUIP. 109 SF

CLOSET 94 SF

MECHANICAL 479 SF

STAIRS 272 SF

STAIRS 238 SF

PARLOR 445 SF

SHAFT 28 SF

ELEV. EQUIP. 56 SF

CORRIDOR 148 SF

WOMEN'S BATHROOM 52 SF

CLOS. 12 SF

STAIRS 250 SF

ELEV. SHAFT SHAFT 28 SF 72 SF

SHAFT 13 SF OFFICE 141 SF

CLOSET 53 SF

BOILER 225 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

BATHROOM 59 SF

OFFICE 156 SF

OFFICE 346 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

KITCHEN 666 SF

S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

118

JAMES MONROE MUSEUM wall covering, are aged, worn, or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building.

BUILDING NUMBER 70 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1815, 1836, 1850

As for building infrastructure, the restrooms are lacking sufficient exhaust. The sanitary waste systems are due for high end renewal, and the electric water heater is beyond its useful life.

R E N OVAT E D : 19 60 G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 5,357 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: N/A

The museum’s electrical distribution system is dated and should be renewed. Lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building.

N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : N/A

BUILDING USE:

M US EUM

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y The James Monroe Museum and Memorial Library, located in downtown Fredericksburg, is the largest repository in the country of artifacts and documents related to the fifth president of the United States. The museum was opened in 1927 by Monroe descendants as a place to house their own personal collections, which had been handed down through generations of the family. Eventually, the museum and its extensive collections were turned over to the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the museum is now administered by the University of Mary Washington. The museum is on the National Register of Historic Places. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N The museum consists of three small buildings constructed around 1815, 1836, and 1850. A two-story addition and full basement was constructed in 1960. All are served by mechanical systems located within a separate building in the courtyard. Considering the valuable artifacts in the building, including the desk at which the “Monroe Doctrine” was signed, there is very little protection to keep them in good condition. The exterior doors, wood windows, and wood shingled roof are aged and in need of replacement. Gutters on the mechanical building are damaged and should be replaced. The interior wood stair is in poor condition. Interior finishes and fixtures, including carpeting, vinyl sheet flooring, kitchen casework, counters and sinks, utility sinks, painted wall and painted ceiling finishes, restroom fixtures, fittings, accessories, and linen UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y Although the museum’s main entrance has been reoriented to be wheelchair accessible, one must go outside to get to all of the areas of the building. The storage in the basement and the offices upstairs are not ADA accessible, and there is no elevator in the building. The existing interior level change lacks a ramp. ADA signage should be installed to meet accessibility codes and standards. The restrooms in the building are not accessible, and most of the interior doors contain knob-style hardware. The building lacks sprinklers. A fire protection system should be installed to protect these valuable collections.

Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be replaced to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems. According to the July 2009 Asset Detail Report, the hazardous lead and asbestos-containing-materials should be safely removed and replaced with clean, non-hazardous materials.

119

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. PLANS FOR THIS STRUCTURE WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME THIS REPORT WAS BEING PREPARED.

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

LOUNGE

120

1004 COLLEGE AVE BUILDING NUMBER 56 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 1975 R E N OVAT E D : 2005 G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 6,060 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 5,129 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 85%

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

AC AD EM IC , AD M INIS TR ATION EC ONOM IC S

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Purchased in 2008, 1004 College has served as temporary space for offices, lounge spaces, and meeting rooms for various departments. Economics is one of the departments using the space while Monroe Hall is under renovation. The first floor contains a computer room for 30-35 students, a lounge, large kitchen, conference room, and a few office spaces. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N The building is in good condition overall; however, the programmatic functions appear haphazardly temporary and unorganized. If this building is to continue to be used in its current form, it may be best used as an administrative building, with offices and conference rooms available for scheduling if needed. C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y There is a wheelchair ramp at the rear of the building and two ADA parking spots available. However, there is currently no ADA signage in the building, or signage of any kind. The doors contain knob-style hardware, making them non-compliant with current codes.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

121

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N B Y D E PA R T M E N T C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY

D E PA R T M E N T

D E P T. S . F.

ECONOMICS

3 , 2 2 2 S . F.

R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICES STUDY F O O D FAC I L I T I E S S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S COMPUTER LAB 430 SF

C I R C U L AT I O N B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

ECONOMICS

ECONOMICS CLOSET 19 SF

CLOSET 7 SF SHAFT 13 SF

CLOSET 17 SF

CLOSET 12 SF OFFICE 147 SF

CLOSET 17 SF

BATHROOM 38 SF

OFFICE 151 SF

OFFICE 188 SF

BATHROOM 69 SF OFFICE 196 SF

CLOSET 11 SF

CLOSET 10 SF

KITCHEN 267 SF

CLOSET 4 SF

CORRIDOR 149 SF

STAIRS 56 SF

CLOSET 10 SF CLOSET 16 SF

OFFICE 173 SF

STAIRS 41 SF

STAIRS 51 SF

CLOSET 12 SF

CORRIDOR 257 SF

CLOSET 39 SF

ENTRY/CORRIDOR 467 SF

OFFICE 257 SF

BATHROOM 74 SF

BATHROOM 66 SF

OFFICE 158 SF

OFFICE 226 SF

CLASSROOM 306 SF

OFFICE 119 SF

CLOSET 23 SF

OFFICE 146 SF

OFFICE/RECEPTION 144 SF BATHROOM 64 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

MECHANICAL 161 SF

LOUNGE 210 SF

CLOSET 14 SF

CLOSET 6 SF

BATHROOM 54 SF

KITCHEN 66 SF

CLOSET 13 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

CLOSET 9 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

OFFICE 150 SF

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

LOUNGE

122

1201 WILLIAMS ST. BUILDING NUMBER 57 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : N/A R E N OVAT E D : N / A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 8,349 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: 7,377 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 88%

BUILDING USE:

AC AD EM IC , AD M INIS TR ATION

DEPARTMENTS :

C R EATIV E W R ITING, D EB ATE

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Purchased in 2007, 1201 William Street has been serving as office space for both the Creative Writing and Debate Programs. The first floor has an ample lounge / waiting space, a large state of the art kitchen, a conference room, and three office spaces. The second floor has additional office spaces, another large conference / meeting space along with a training room over the garage. There is also a basement that contains an additional open lounge space, offices, and a home theater room. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N The house is in excellent condition and has been renovated to include a sprinkler system and exit signs. There is an attic to the house, but the local code prevents occupants from accessing or storing any items in this space. C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y The house shares the wheelchair ramp at the rear of the building and the two ADA parking spaces with 1004 College Avenue, which is directly next door. The first floor bathroom has been converted to be ADA compliant and the house was originally built with elevator. However, there is currently no ADA signage in the building. The doors contain knob-style hardware, making them non-compliant with current codes.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

123

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N B Y D E PA R T M E N T C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY

D E PA R T M E N T

D E P T. S . F.

ENGLISH, LINGUISTICS & C O M M U N I C AT I O N

5 , 3 8 7 S . F. TRAINING ROOM 364 SF

ENGLISH, LINGUISTICS & COMMUNICATION

OFFICES STUDY F O O D FAC I L I T I E S S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

STAIRS 30 SF JAN. CLST 48 SF

MUD ROOM 66 SF

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

LOUNGE

RESIDENTIAL CONFERENCE RM. 230 SF

G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S

WAITING AREA 453 SF

C I R C U L AT I O N

KITCHEN 311 SF

B AT H R O O M S CLOSET 39 SF

U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

OFFICE 187 SF

STORAGE 576 SF

COR. 57 SF

BATHROOM 42 SF

ELEV. 34 SF

ELEV. 20 SF

MECH. 41 SF

STAIRS 38 SF

STAIRS 53 SF

OFFICE 201 SF

OFFICE 157 SF

COR. 125 SF

CONFERENCE RM. 208 SF

CLOSET 5 SF

EXISTING FOURTH FLOOR

CLOSET 8 SF

OFFICE AREA 267 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

UNOCCUPIED 369 SF

CLOSET 10 SF

BATHROOM 42 SF

UNOCCUPIED 138 SF

STAIRS 92 SF

ENGLISH, LINGUISTICS & COMMUNICATION

UNOCCUPIED 51 SF

OFFICE 111 SF OFFICE 181 SF CLOSET CLOSET 14 SF 4 SF

CONFERENCE RM. 382 SF

CONFERENCE 249 SF

ENGLISH, LINGUISTICS & COMMUNICATION

OFFICE AREA 944 SF

WAITING AREA 234 SF

BATHROOM 48 SF BATHROOM 61 SF

CLOSET 40 SF

CLOSET 44 SF

ELEV. 18 SF

ELEV. 20 SF

BATHROOM 37 SF STAIRS Redundant Room

BATHROOM 197 SF

OFFICE 144 SF

COR. 113 SF

MECH. 41 SF

STAIRS 53 SF

CLOSET 13 SF OFFICE 184 SF

DATA CLOSET 83 SF

CLOSET 59 SF

CLOSET 8 SF

CLOSET 11 SF OFFICE 147 SF

OFFICE 157 SF CORRIDOR 67 SF

EXISTING THIRD FLOOR

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

UNOCCUPIED 172 SF

124

TENNIS CENTER BUILDING NUMBER 54 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 2005 R E N OVAT E D : N /A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 22,937 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: N/A N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : N/A

BUILDING USE:

ATH LETIC S

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Completed in September of 2005, the sixcourt, $4.2 million University Tennis Center is located next to the 12-court outdoor tennis facility at the Battleground Athletic Complex. The site hosted the 2006 NCAA Division III National Championships. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N Overall, the Tennis Center is in good condition. However, in the winter of 2009 - 2010, significant snow and ice accumulation lead to the displacement of significant portions of the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s gutter system as well as a majority of the snow guards. All of the interior finishes, fixtures and accessories appear to be up to date and in good condition, although the furniture is a bit dated in the lounge areas. C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y The indoor tennis facility is fully compliant with ADA accessibility regulations. There are handicapped parking spaces provided in the Battleground Athletic Field parking lot adjacent to the building. The entrance to the Tennis Center is at grade. Currently, the smoke screen seems out of place on the first floor at the main stair and should be relocated above the stair on the second floor to be compliant with current fire codes.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

125

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. PLANS FOR THIS STRUCTURE WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME THIS REPORT WAS BEING PREPARED.

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

LOUNGE

126

STAFFORD SOUTH programs, and the latest business software. Regional organizations use one of CGPSâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, 28-seat, state-of-the-art teleconferencing theaters for meetings, interviews, and training. The rooms can connect to any system that is H.320 compatible. Each room has four monitors, two cameras, a networked PC, a visual presenter, a DVD, and a SMARTBoard. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, the system should be renewed and lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building.

BUILDING NUMBER 90 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 2000 R E N OVAT E D : N / A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAG E : 58,783 N E T A SSI G N A B L E S QUAR E FEET: 54,253 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 92%

BUILDING USE:

AC AD EM IC , AD M INIS TR ATION, LIB R ARY, V ID EO

C O N F E R E N C I N G C ENTER

DEPARTMENTS :

B US INES S, ED UC ATION

C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y The building is ADA compliant. There entrance to the building is at grade. There is an elevator in the building that serves all floors, and all bathrooms appear to be compliant as well. Although there is an ADA door opener at the building entry, its placement is confusing.

Although not immediately needed, emergency egress lights, fire alarm system and devices, and exit signs should be renewed to maintain integrity of the emergency light and power systems. The emergency lights fixtures should also be identified as such.

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

.02

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y Located on the Stafford campus, the College of Graduate and Professional Studies (CGPS) building is known as the James Monroe Center. The building houses Advising, Student Services for graduate and professional staff, Adult and Graduate Admissions, Masters of Education Program (M.Ed.), Masters of Business Program (MBA), Bachelor of Professional Studies Program (BPS), and the CGPS Library. The brick clad, triangular shaped building sits on a sloping lot and was the first structure built on the University of Mary Washingtons Stafford Campus. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N The exterior of the Stafford South building appears to be in good condition. The vault roof hatch is leaking and should be repaired. Some of the interior floor and wall finishes in the building are incomplete and several VCT seams are open. Interior finishes and fixtures, including ACT, carpeting, painted wall, and painted masonry wall finishes, are aged, worn, or in poor condition. Upgrading these items could enhance the interior aesthetic of the building. The ducts should also be cleaned to maintain the integrity of the HVAC system.

Although some equipment is out of date, Stafford South is equipped with adequate amounts of technology available for student, faculty, and staff use. Three computer labs are available during regular hours when not in use for a class. All lab computers provide Internet access, instructional UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

127

EXISTING PLAN C L A S S I F I C AT I O N B Y D E PA R T M E N T C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY

D E PA R T M E N T

D E P T. S . F.

BUSINESS

9 , 1 2 3 S . F.

E D U C AT I O N

2 , 3 1 3 S . F.

M U LT I

3 , 6 7 0 S . F.

R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICES STUDY F O O D FAC I L I T I E S S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

STAIRS 256 SF

STAIRS 313 SF

H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S MEN'S RESTROOM 210 SF

RESIDENTIAL COFFEE 25 SF

G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

JAN. 31 SF

WOMEN'S RESTROOM 287 SF

S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N

MEN'S RESTROOM 187 SF

CORRIDOR 889 SF

JAN. 36 SF

OFFICE 109 SF

SHAFT 49 SF

B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

CLASSROOM 565 SF

LIBRARY 5686 SF

CLASSROOM 584 SF

OFFICE 145 SF

STORAGE 106 SF

OFFICE 104 SF

OFFICE 129 SF

OFFICE 115 SF

OFFICE 92 SF

SECURITY SEC Y/ STG. 60 SF INFO/ SECURITY DESK 260 SF

E D U C AT I O N

ADVISING CENTER 253 SF

VESTIBULE V 90 SF

M U LT I

DEAN'S OFFICE 314 SF

OFFICE 332 SF

PHOTO I.D. ROOM 79 SF

CLASSROOM 590 SF

OFFICE 154 SF

ADMINISTRATION 713 SF

MICROFILM/COMPUTERS 487 SF

CLASSROOM 584 SF

WORK ROOM / STORAGE 513 SF

CIRCULATION DESK 687 SF

AV CLOSET 157 SF

CLASSROOM 572 SF

CLASSROOM 585 SF

COPY ROOM 124 SF

SNACK AREA 500 SF CONFERENCE ROOM 158 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 69 SF

CLASSROOM 583 SF

STORAGE 193 SF

CLASSROOM 563 SF

STAIRS 61 SF RAMP 86 SF

JAN. 45 SF

STG. AREA 87 SF

SHAFT T 89 SF STAIRS 255 SF

FACULTY OFFICES 3466 SF

MEN'S RESTROOM 239 SF

PROJECTION 322 SF

COFFEE 26 SF

WOMEN'S RESTROOM 320 SF

TELECONFERENCE 787 SF

EQUIPMENT ROOM 286 SF

TELECONFERENCE 793 SF

AV CONTROL ROOM 363 SF

WORK ROOM 274 SF

STORAGE 282 SF EQUIP. STG. 83 SF

MEDIA PREPARATION 271 SF

M U LT I

CONFERENCE ROOM 159 SF

CONFERENCE ROOM 158 SF

CORRIDOR 418 SF

STORAGE S O G 63 SF

COMPUTER LAB 1180 SF

M U LT I STORAGE 89 SF

BUSINESS BUSINESS

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

STG.. 6644 SF F COMPUTER LAB 971 SF

COMPUTER LAB 965 SF

E D U C AT I O N

OFFICE 100 SF

STAIRS 61 SF ATM 61 SF

CORRIDOR 702 SF STG. 66 SF

OFFICE 107 SF

SMALL BUSINESS CENTER 352 SF

ELEV. SHAFT 69 SF RECEPTION 114 SF

CLASSROOM 571 SF

WRITING CENTER 628 SF

SHAFT 58 SF

WORK ROOM 204 SF

CONFERENCE ROOM 487 SF

STAIRS 412 SF

ROOF ACCESS 32 SF

CLASSROOM 546 SF

CIRCULATION 5487 SF

CLASSROOM 560 SF

BUSINESS

OFFICE 80 SF

PANTRY 80 SF

HEARTH 494 SF

OPEN N TO BEL BELOW

OFFICE 123 SF

OFFICE 127 SF

STUDENT LOUNGE 397 SF

STAIRS 334 SF

WOMEN'S RESTROOM 199 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

LOUNGE

128

STAFFORD NORTH BUILDING NUMBER 91 FAST FACTS: C O N ST R U C T E D : 2007 R E N OVAT E D : N /A G R O SS SQ UA R E FOOTAGE : 43,359 N E T A SSI G N A B LE S QUAR E FEET: 38,997 N E T TO G R O SS R ATIO : 89%

BUILDING USE: DEPARTMENTS :

AC AD EM IC , AD M INIS TR ATION B US INES S, ED UC ATION, C OM P UTER AND

I N F O R M AT I O N SC IENC ES, S OC IAL S C IENC ES

OVERALL BUILDING RATING

B U I L D I N G S U M M A R Y This second academic building at the growing College of Graduate and Professional Studies (CGPS) campus in Stafford County was implemented to keep pace with steadily increasing enrollment at the six-year-old campus. The new glass and brick building began holding classes in January 2007. Regional organizations are invited to use the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s state-of-the-art multipurpose spaces or teleconferencing theaters for meetings, interviews, and training. B U I L D I N G C O N D I T I O N The exterior of the Stafford North building appears to be in good condition. There appears to be some stormwater drainage issues near the front entry door, but overall the exterior of the building appears to be well maintained. In order to maintain optimum energy efficiency, lighting sensors should be installed throughout the building. C O D E C O M P L I A N C E & A C C E S S I B I L I T Y The building was finished in 2007 and is in compliance with all current ADA requirements for accessibility. There are wheelchair parking spaces at the entry, as well as wheelchair accessible restrooms on each floor. The entryway is equipped with an automatic door opening device.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

129

EXISTING PLAN

MECH./MEZZ 444 SF

OPEN TO BELOW

C L A S S I F I C AT I O N B Y D E PA R T M E N T C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY

OPEN TO BELOW

R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY

CIS

E D U C AT I O N

OFFICES STUDY F O O D FAC I L I T I E S OFFICE 140 SF

OFFICE 155 SF

OFFICE 113 SF

LOUNGE H E A LT H C A R E FAC I L I T I E S RESIDENTIAL G E N E R A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S S U P P O R T FAC I L I T I E S

B AT H R O O M S

OFFICE 128 SF

STAIRS 258 SF

E D U C AT I O N

OFFICE 128 SF

CORRIDOR 2929 SF

SOCIAL SCIENCES

CIS

C I R C U L AT I O N

OFFICE 128 SF

WOMEN'S ROOM 140 SF OFFICE 135 SF

ADMIN. ASST. 160 SF

GROUP STUDY 175 SF

ELEV. 63 SF

OPEN EN N TO BE BELOW B

STUDENT LOUNGE 1154 SF JAN. 33 SF

CLASSROOM 828 SF

SUPPLY 311 SF

PROGRAM OFFICE 131 SF

WOMEN'S ROOM 207 SF

NETWORK LAB 765 SF CLASSROOM 939 SF

MEN'S ROOM 143 SF

MECH. 95 SF

FILE STOR. 99 SF

ADJUNCT FACULTY 365 SF CONF. RM. 442 SF

OFFICE 119 SF

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 263 SF

IDF 150 SF

SERVER 136 SF

STOR. 82 SF

STAIRS 448 SF

CLASSROOM 906 SF

D E PA R T M E N T

D E P T. S . F.

BUSINESS

2 , 4 4 9 S . F.

COMPUTER & INFORMATION SCIENCES (CIS)

2 , 8 2 5 S . F.

E D U C AT I O N

8 , 0 3 0 S . F.

SOCIAL SCIENCES

3 6 5 S . F.

ADJUNCT FACULTY 391 SF

OFFICE 124 SF

OFFICE 133 SF

OFFICE 132 SF

OFFICE 134 SF

EXISTING SECOND FLOOR

OFFICE 123 SF

BUSINESS

CIS

E D U C AT I O N

CATERING KITCHEN 337 SF

BUSINESS M U LT I

OPEN TO B BELOW

MEN'S ROOM 213 SF

U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E OFFICE 187 SF

CIS

STORAGE 408 SF

3 , 7 1 2 S . F.

BUSINESS M U LT I MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM 3848 SF

CIS

COR. 362 SF

E D U C AT I O N

COMPUTER LAB 1135 SF STAIRS 250 SF

CLASSROOM 753 SF

COMPUTER LAB 1327 SF

FOCUS GROUP 336 SF

COMPUTER LAB 1135 SF

CLASSROOM 817 SF

CLASSROOM 820 SF

JAN. 59 SF

ELEV. 67 SF

ELEV. EQUIP. RM. 42 SF

CORRIDOR 2075 SF

SOUND BOOTH 65 SF

VESTIBULE 187 SF

JAN. 50 SF CORRIDOR 864 SF LOBBY 1824 SF

MEDIA CONTROL 211 SF MEN'S ROOM 39 SF MECH./ELEC. 853 SF

CLASSROOM 706 SF

CLASSROOM 723 SF

CLASSROOM 720 SF

CLASSROOM 725 SF

OFFICE 375 SF

MDF 348 SF

CLASSROOM 722 SF

CLASSROOM 702 SF

WOMEN'S ROOM 39 SF

SOCIAL SCIENCES

M U LT I

SOCIAL SCIENCES

M U LT I

SOCIAL SCIENCES

WOMEN'S ROOM 471 SF

MEN'S ROOM 376 SF

STAIRS 536 SF

EXISTING FIRST FLOOR

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

S P E C I A L- U S E FAC I L I T I E S

130

L A N D S C A P E F R E D E R I C K S B U R G C A M P U S

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

L A N D S C A P E EXISTING

CONDITIONS

131

N A R R AT I V E

Among the many strong outdoor spaces on campus, the three largest are the distinguished lawns of the Jefferson Square, the Westmoreland Lawn, and Ball Circle. These areas are utilized by students as informal gathering and activity spaces, and by the University for grand events, including commencement ceremonies on Ball Circle. The current landscaping of these spaces is open and inviting, with optimal density of shade trees. The turf of the lawns is sometimes stressed, as observed in Ball Circle, largely due to inadequate drainage where the lawn experiences areas of ponding water and saturated conditions. This problem can be remedied by installing a network of under drains below the turf, alleviating the wet conditions and strengthening the lawn so that it may be utilized by the students year-round. The University has created several outdoor plazas along Campus Walk and outside academic buildings. These plazas provide opportunities for informal interactions between students, faculty, and staff. Wooden benches and wall seating promote outdoor place making. Perhaps the most notable plaza space is that of Palmieri Plaza, located at the original heart of campus, between Monroe, Willard, and Virginia Halls, along Campus Walk. Areas of historical and cultural importance are plentiful at UMW, such as the Artillery Mound near the corner of College Avenue and William Street. Dating back to the Civil War, the significance of the earthen feature enhances the venerable knoll, creating a truly unique space. Another cultural area is the Amphitheater behind Trinkle Hall, which has hosted many events, including May Day and commencement festivities. As the Amphitheater resides in a natural dell, it sits lower than the surrounding topography and is only accessible via steps or steep ramps that do not accommodate wheelchair access. Having fallen into disrepair in the past decade, significant resources would be necessary to return the Amphitheater to its past prominence while updating it to meet current codes and regulations. There are eight athletic fields, including the V. Earl Dickenson Stadium, an indoor tennis facility, and outdoor tennis courts comprising the Battleground Athletic Complex. All of the athletic fields are natural surface fields that require regular watering and maintenance. The University has expressed interest in replacing one or more of these with a synthetic surface; however, concerns exist with respect to cooling the synthetic surface during hot weather, complicated by the current limitations of the water system serving the Battleground area. The Battleground Athletic Complex has minimal amenities for athletes and spectators. Such amenities will need to be added or expanded as the priority improvements to the complex. A facility housing multiple locker rooms, public restrooms, concessions would enhance the Battleground Athletic Complex. The campus contains many wooded areas, typically found on steep slopes where building placement is not recommended. Among these areas are the eastern slopes that run the length of the campus along Sunken Road. These slopes are wooded with large old growth trees and provide a substantial buffer between the University and the residential community to the east. Many other individual canopy trees have been preserved throughout the campusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; growth. Some of these trees are massive, complementing the grand building columns and Georgian architecture. The sizes of the great trees are of correct scale with the large lawn areas, providing balance and a unique identity to each space.

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

The University of Mary Washingtonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most prevalent Fredericksburg campus asset is the configuration of its outdoor space. The outdoor green spaces provide excellent vistas and complement the arrangement of the academic and residential buildings. One of the most enchanting elements of the campus is Campus Walk, the primary pedestrian artery through campus offering direct access to marquee academic and residential buildings, as well as historical outdoor spaces.

132

U T I L I T I E S F R E D E R I C K S B U R G C A M P U S

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

133

134

WATER SANITARY STORM EXISTING

CONDITIONS

N A R R AT I V E

WATER DISTRIBUTION Water service to the UMW Fredericksburg campus is provided by the City of Fredericksburg. Water lines within the campus are owned and maintained by the University and principally fed via two water meters (6 and 8-inch) connected to a 12-inch city water main that runs along College Avenue and one six-inch meter off Hanover Street. The system is looped through the central campus area between George Washington Hall and the Fine Arts Center by an eightinch line, providing multiple flow paths to reduce pressure losses and provide redundancy. Water lines branch off the main loop and feed Goolrick Hall to the north with 6 and 8-inch lines; and Thomas Jefferson, Bushnell, South Marshall, and Russell Halls to the south with four-, six-, and eight-inch lines. Also, there is a 24-inch city waterline running across campus between the Jepson Science Center and Pollard Hall that the University does not tie into. It is currently not in an easement. The Battleground Athletic Complex is served from a six-inch city water main that runs along Hanover Street. UMW staff indicates that the irrigation system at the athletic fields does not have enough flow to allow all irrigation system to be operated at one time. Most of the water system is fairly old cast iron water pipe in poor condition. Several issues have been reported by UMW staff, including major breaks, pressure loss, and discolored water. Although water pressure at UMW is low, it is generally adequate for domestic water service. There is no overall water model of the University area that analyzes available flow and pressure. For future development, the water system in the vicinity of the development should be analyzed. This may be accomplished by performing flow tests at nearby fire hydrants and using the data to develop a hydraulic model of the system in the vicinity. The model can then be used to analyze possible improvements to the system and determine requirements for the development. PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES • Several major breaks have occurred that have been disruptive to the University. • A loss of flow and pressure due to corrosion reducing the cross sectional area of the pipes. • Discolored water from rust in the pipes. This is often seen after a period of low water use such as when students are on break. When the students return, the increase water use flushes the lose rust out of the pipes. • Because of the low flow and pressure, most buildings are equipped with fire pumps. About half of the buildings have a fire sprinkler system. UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

• • • •

Connect to existing single lines to provide a loop will improve pressure and provide system redundancy in some areas. Provide fire and/or booster pumps. Add valves along existing lines to allow more of the water system to remain in service during water line breaks. Replace sections of the water system with more modern non-corrosive pipe.

S A N I TA R Y S E W E R The sanitary sewer serving the campus, and upstream residential and commercial properties, runs from the City of Fredericksburg, west of College Avenue, down across the main campus toward Sunken Road, with some sanitary lines draining toward William Street and the rest toward Fitzhugh Street. There are no easements on the sewers. More specifically, sanitary sewer serving UMW includes: •

•

• •

• • • •

An eight-inch Transite line serving upstream residential and commercial properties, including McDonald’s and Pizza Hut restaurants along Jefferson Davis Highway, running from Powhatan Street east across the campus between Pollard Hall and Jepson Science Center. DuPont and Pollard Halls, Simpson Library, and Jepson Science Center tie into this sewer with fourand six-inch cast iron lines. An eight-inch terracotta sewer serving residential properties along Dandridge Payne, Parcell, and Rowe Streets, which runs northeast between Chandler and Seacobeck Halls and connects with the previous line north of Mercer Hall and drains to Grove Avenue. Seacobeck , Melchers, and Mercer Halls and the Woodard Center tie into this sewer with four- and six-inch cast iron lines. A six-inch cast iron sewer serving Monroe and Willard Halls drains east to connect with the city sewer that runs along the back yards of residential properties between Sunken Road and Franklin Street. A sewer consisting of eight- and ten-inch cast iron and six- and eight-inch terracotta pipes serves Chandler, Virginia, Lee, Ball, Westmoreland, Trinkle, and George Washington Halls and drains from the campus to Monroe Street. Manson and Randolph Halls drain east through a six-inch cast iron sewer to Cornell Street. A six-inch cast iron pipe from Russell Hall sewers drains east to Mortimer Avenue. Bushnell, South, Framer, and Russell Halls drain east through a six-inch cast iron sewer to Sylvania Avenue. Residential properties along Colony Road and Buckner Street, and Comb and Thomas Jefferson Halls drain via a six-inch RCP to a eight-inch terracotta pipe to William Street.

•

The Battleground Athletic Complex area sewer drains from five-inch cast iron and six-inch terracotta pipes to the south to a 24-inch trunk main along Hazel Run.

Sewer main sizes range from five to eight inches, with the majority of lines six to eight inches. Older lines are cast iron, vitrified clay tile (terracotta), and Transite (asbestos cement pipe); a few newer lines are PVC. Many manholes are brick and may be prone to leakage and potential collapse. The staff rated the campus sanitary sewer system as 1.75 out of 5.0, with 1.0 being bad and 5.0 being good. There is no overall model of the sanitary sewer system that serves UMW. For future development at the University, the condition and capacity of the sewer lines downstream of the area to be developed will need to be determined. Due to the age and condition of much of the sanitary sewer, downstream improvements will most likely be needed.

PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES • Sewers that serve upstream restaurants have grease problems. • Tree roots are a general problem. • Terracotta sewer adjacent to Seacobeck Hall was slip-lined due to integrity issues. • The sanitary run from Seacobeck Hall to Monroe Hall is reportedly failing. • The sanitary sewer around Annex A is reportedly in poor condition. • Sewage overflows on the sewer running along Hazel Run. • An existing sewer runs under Trinkle Hall. • Brick manholes STORMWATER The University of Mary Washington commissioned a comprehensive report, Stormwater Quality and Quantity Management Study (Stormwater Study) prepared by Koontz-Bryant, PC, dated April 20, 2009, updated December 23, 2009. The findings in the report confirmed that the storm drainage system is generally adequate. There are, however, areas of the system that should be addressed in order to meet state and local ordinances. When analyzing the UMW Fredericksburg campus stormwater system, the following must be considered: stormwater conveyance, quantity, and quality. The above referenced stormwater study established a baseline condition for these items that has been approved by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). This baseline is to be used as a basis for their approvals for future development projects on the campus. As areas of the campus are

developed or improved, development plans must demonstrate that there is no increase in the quantity or quality of the stormwater runoff over the baseline condition, and that the runoff is conveyed to an adequate outfall channel so downstream properties are not damaged. Stormwater quality management addresses the phosphorus removal requirements based on the Fredericksburg Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance and Virginia Law as set forth in the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook. Currently, the Best Management Practices provided on campus do not remove the required amount of phosphorus. Further development will add more impervious area, increasing the required phosphorus removal. Deficiencies in the storm drainage system may be addressed on a case by case basis as areas of the University are developed. An alternative solution as outlined by Koontz-Bryant, is to provide three regional facilities to service existing and future development. The proposed locations for these facilities are as follows: • In the Western Drainage Basin, near Simpson Library • Near the Battleground Athletic Fields • In the parking lot at the intersection of William Street and Sunken Road Note: More detail on the amount of phosphorus removal and type of facility is provided in the Koontz-Bryant report. As future development projects are considered within a drainage area of a regional facility, UMW should consider building the facility to provide stormwater quantity and quality controls, particularly if further development in the area is anticipated. It may be more cost effective to construct and maintain one regional facility than several smaller facilities designed for each project on an individual basis. The staff reported multiple natural springs on site, and regional facilities may also serve as an outlet to these problematic springs. Stormwater quantity management will also play a factor in future development and master planning. Key outfall points have been identified by Koontz-Bryant, and the Virginia VDCR at which all post-development discharge flows cannot exceed pre-development flows for each drainage basin on site. Stormwater detention or infiltration facilities may be utilized to reduce to flow at these outfall points. The above mentioned regional facilities may also be designed to provide quantity management as well as quality management. A few of the existing channels on site that lead to the key outfall points are currently problematic. They contain runoff from the ten-year storm within their banks, but runoff from the two-year storm reaches erosive velocities. Proposed

development draining to these erosive channels, will need to correct this issue. The following buildings (or a portion of) currently drain to the erosive channel to the northeast of Simpson Library: • Ball Hall • Chandler Hall • Custis Hall • duPont Hall • Fairfax Hall • George Washington Hall • Hamlet House • Melchers Hall • Mercer Hall • Monroe Hall • Ridderhof Gallery • Seacobeck Hall • Simpson Library • Tyler Hall • Virginia Hall • Westmoreland Hall • Willard Hall • Woodward Campus Center The following buildings drain to the erosive channel to the southwest of the indoor tennis center: • Indoor Tennis Center • Physical Plant • Practice Field • Soccer and Lacrosse Fields The erosive channels can be corrected using methods such as lining the channel with riprap or equivalent, reducing the channel slope, widening the channel, diverting some of the flow to another channel that can accommodate the higher velocities, or by providing stormwater quantity control upstream to reduce the amount of runoff to the problem channel. The type and size of storm drain pipes on the campus include very old terracotta and cast iron pipes, and more modern concrete and reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) and poly vinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. The terra-cotta pipe sizes range from four to 20 inches, and the cast iron pipe ranges from 6 to 12 inches. The concrete and RCP pipe is between 6 and 36 inches, and the PVC is 6 inches. There are outstanding adequacy issues with several storm pipes. As referenced in the Koontz-Bryant report, a storm pipe is considered inadequate

if the hydraulic grade line for the ten-year storm is greater than the elevation of the top of the structure. The following buildings / areas have near inadequate storm pipes: • Chandler Hall • College Avenue (from Dandridge Street to Parcell Street) • George Washington Hall, Marshall Hall, Seacobeck Hall, Sunken Road / Monument Avenue • Trinkle Hall • Virginia Hall • Williams Street (UMW Apartments) • Woodard Campus Center For the Battleground Athletic Complex, inadequate storm pipes may be found in the following buildings / areas: • Hanover Street / Bright Street • Indoor Tennis Center • Physical Plant The inadequate storm pipes may be corrected by increasing the pipe size or slope, diverting the flow to another system with greater capacity, or producing stormwater quantity control upstream to reduce the amount of runoff to the problem pipe.

RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA Using the Koontz-Bryant report entitled “University of Mary Washington Eagles Nest-Woodard Campus Center Resource Protection Area Delineation”, the “RPA Determination Map”, and partial existing electronic documentation of the area provided by the UMW Office of Facilities Services as a basis, Burt Hill has provided a diagram illustrating the conceptual limits of setback from the existing perennial stream. Any development in or around this area would require a further survey of the RPA in that area to accurately document the setbacks as they relate to new construction.

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

135

136

WATER SANITARY STORM F R E D E R I C K S B U R G C A M P U S

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

137

138

ELECTRIC STEAM GAS N

S T E A M G E N E R AT I O N A N D C O N T R O L S The University of Mary Washington Central Heating Plant (CHP) steam generation system serves approximately 1.2 million gross square feet of academic, office and dormitory space on campus. The plant includes three boilers with Boiler Nos. 2 and 3 installed in 1967 and Boiler No. 1 replaced in 1994. The steam plant is well maintained and has sufficient capacity to serve the existing peak load. The existing steam generation system located at the CHP includes three boilers with a total generation capacity of 93,700 pounds per hour (pph), and a firm capacity of 53,700 pph. The firm capacity considers the capacity of the system without the largest boiler. The current steam generation capacity is adequate to support the future load projections as presented in the graph below.

OXYGEN TRIM CONTROLS A heat balance program was developed to evaluate new oxygen trimming controls on the existing boilers. The program incorporates combustion efficiency, system losses, historical testing data, as well as other parameters to develop the boiler / system efficiency for each unit. Several options were evaluated considering new oxygen trimming controls on the boilers under the existing boiler operation. Each option was evaluated at 100, 75, 50, and 25 percent part-load conditions and was evaluated based upon the weighted average boiler efficiency of the part load operations. The relatively low existing flue gas temperatures of Boiler No. 1 and the relatively low natural gas cost results in minimal cost savings. Based on the payback period, it is not recommended to install oxygen trimming controls on the existing boilers at this time

FLUE GAS ECONOMIZERS Similar options were developed to evaluate the use of economizers on the existing boilers. The installation of new economizers is marginally cost effective (approximately ten-year payback period). If the incorporation of economizers is desired by the University, it is recommended to initially install one unit on either Boiler No. 2 or 3 (primary winter boiler). With the fluctuations in the natural gas market, rates may increase over the next few years. An increase in natural gas cost would increase the savings (and reduce payback period) associated with new economizers. If the natural gas rate increases, it is recommended to reevaluate the incorporation of flue gas economizers on the existing boilers. CONDITION ASSESSMENT The University of Mary Washington commissioned a comprehensive report and conditional assessment of the existing CHP boilers and steam auxiliary equipment was performed. The equipment was evaluated for capacity and condition based upon a visual assessment and available log data. The heating plant support systems evaluated include condensate and feedwater pumps, water softeners, hotwell, and deaerator. Equipment age was taken into consideration during the assessment process. The overall reliability, efficiency, and capacity of all auxiliary equipment were ascertained and various improvements and enhancements were identified. The following table indicates the estimated remaining useful life of the equipment.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

NORMAL POWER DISTRIBUTION The near-term recommendation includes the implementation of a Dual Fed Single Loop and Radial Tap Configuration (No Primary Isolation) as a first step to the final recommended system configuration. This would allow loads to be shifted from one feeder to another during an outage event within the capacity of the alternate feeder. This option is a relatively low cost solution to provide a partial level of primary redundancy. It is also recommended that the University provide Loop Thru Primary Isolation switches on all future buildings and these be installed in existing buildings that are scheduled for primary service upgrades. The long-term recommendation includes the implementation of a Dual Fed Single Loop and Radial Tap Configuration (with Loop Thru Primary Isolation). The conversion to this configuration can be performed gradually as time and funds become available. This arrangement significantly improves the fault isolation and recovery times regardless of where a failure occurs. With the addition of fault locator flags at each of the switches it would also significantly improve the fault location identification times as well.

EMERGENCY POWER GENERATION It is recommended that an emergency generator be provided to the CHP. A 200 kW diesel generator is recommended to be installed in an outdoor enclosure next to the existing plant. This would provide sufficient power to support the primary winter boiler operation in the event of a failure. The existing CHP currently has an automatic transfer switch installed and tied into the normal power system of the plant. With the installation of the generator, it is also recommended to add a feeder from the automatic transfer switch to the exterior wall and provide an exterior mounted disconnect switch. This would allow a quick and convenient tie in point for a rental generator in the event of an extended outage. It is also recommended that sufficient spare capacity be provided within the proposed on-site generation system for the new convergence center to also support the existing dining hall. This arrangement provides added redundancy and flexibility in operations of emergency generation in the event of a generator failure. In addition, centralizing the generators for both buildings in one location consolidates the fuel storage and handling. While emergency generation for the dining hall is not a code requirement, it does provide a means to continue to support students in on campus housing during a prolonged utility outage.

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

139

140

ELECTRIC STEAM GAS F R E D E R I C K S B U R G C A M P U S

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

141

142

LIFE SAFETY AND SECURITY F R E D E R I C K S B U R G C A M P U S

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

LIFE SAFETY AND SECURITY

143

F R E D E R I C K S B U R G C A M P U S Emergency â&#x20AC;&#x153;Blue Lightâ&#x20AC;? phones are installed throughout the campus. The phones are prevalent and easily identifiable. It is recommended that the Campus Security make periodic checks to ensure the phones continue to be operational.

The University has incorporated several distinct lighting components and strategies on its Fredericksburg Campus, ranging from traditional globe fixtures to parking lot fixtures in excess of 15 feet tall to low landscape lighting for path illumination. Globe lighting fixtures serve as the primary means of lighting for the campus, being situated along pedestrian walks and adjacent to buildings and plaza spaces. Globe lights provide adequate light to the areas in the immediate vicinity of the fixture without being irritating to the eye. Areas outside of the immediate vicinity of the globe lights do not receive adequate lighting and are fairly dim. It is suggested that these areas receive additional lighting, typically a globe fixture, to create a more continuous level of illumination throughout the pedestrian paths on the campus.

EXISTING UNIVERSITY POLICE HEADQUARTERS AT BRENT HALL

Additional lighting strategies have been implemented, such as low level landscape lighting to illuminate site stairs in several locations. This practice should be expanded to all site stairs and ADA ramps where low light levels exist. Currently, it is also common practice to paint the edge of stairs with a white stripe to assist identification by pedestrians. This technique should be enhanced by using a reflective paint or tape. There are two known locations of sensitive records on campus. The primary location is in George Washington Hall where the records are stored in a security vault. The majority of secure storage and sensitive material is stored here, and the vault has limited access by authorized personnel only. The secondary location of secure record storage is in Lee Hall in a surface mounted safe that houses information for the EagleOne Card.

EMERGENCY PHONE ALONG CAMPUS WALK AT FITNESS CENTER

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

LIGHTING ALONG CAMPUS WALK IN FRONT OF GEORGE WASHINGTON HALL

Located in Brent Hall in the southern portion of the campus, the Campus Security Station is relatively far from the northern zone of the campus. It is recommended that the Campus Security Offices be relocated to a more centralized area on campus.

144

ACCESSIBILITY F R E D E R I C K S B U R G C A M P U S

ADA COMPIANT RAMP ENTRY BEHIND DUPONT HALL

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

NON-ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALK NEAR SEACOBECK HALL

NON-ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALK EAST OF JEFFERSON HALL

DUE

ACCESSIBILITY N

145

Campus-wide ADA access is limited by the natural topography of the site. This topography becomes more problematic as the site progresses north, creating significant accessibility challenges laterally across the site, from Willard to Seacobeck Hall. Further challenges are seen longitudinally through the site, beginning near the corner of Willard Hall where Campus Walk descends to the Woodard Hall Throughway. These challenges isolate major portions of the site so that ADA accessibility is only provided via car. In general, there are handicapped parking spaces located throughout the campus, strategically located adjacent to buildings with associated curb cuts and ramps along the sidewalks. However, most curb ramps do not offer the required four feet of flat area above the ramp. Fredericksburg’s building entrances have a greater difficulty in achieving ADA compliance. Many of the buildings were erected prior to wheelchair accessibility requirements, and, as such, a majority of the buildings contain stepped entry points. Some of these entrances have received a ramp / handrail addition to assist wheelchair access, but most of the entrances remain inaccessible according to ADA requirements. It is recommended that all main building entrances remaining through the ten-year plan be made wheelchair-compliant. The ADA ramps should follow a standardized design aesthetic so that all building entry ramps are of similar design. PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES • Install ADA paths to connect the currently isolated portions of the site. • Install ADA ramps at all buildings. • Incorporate ADA access to multiple locations to enhance site accessibility via new construction or renovation.. • Guide design and assure broad accessibility by using the Seven Principles of Universal Design. These include 1) Equitable use 2) flexibility in use 3) simple and intuitive 4) perceptible information 5) tolerance for error 6) low physical effort and 7) size and space for approach and use. • Opportunities to incorporate Universal Design into the campus include addressing entry and exit points to the campus walk, indoor and outdoor gathering spaces, and community entryways to the campus including public performance settings at George Washington (Dodd) and duPont (Klein).

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

The University of Mary Washington’s historical Fredericksburg campus has advantages and disadvantages to enabling full ADA compliance. Corridors along College Avenue and the central portion of Campus Walk are relatively flat, which makes these paths easily traversed by wheelchair. However, the areas outside these two flat corridors have significant topography that is not conducive to ADA access. Portions of the site are only accessible via steps or by long, steep ramps. Additionally, only a few of the buildings are fully ADA compliant.

146

S L O P E A N A LY S I S F R E D E R I C K S B U R G C A M P U S

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

S L O P E A N A LY S I S N

147

Running south to north and adjacent to College Avenue, the lengthened rectangular site of the Fredericksburg campus has a unique configuration and coinciding topography. At the western ridgeline, College Avenue is representative of the slope and elevation of the western portion of the campus.

Outside this western plateau, the site descends sharply to the east down to the appropriately named Sunken Road. These steep eastern slopes are wooded with large legacy trees that crate a natural buffer between Sunken Road the rear of Randolph, Mason, Trinkle, Lee, Monroe, Willard, and Mercer Halls. The eastern slopes begin lessen slightly and migrate back into the campus south towards William Street. Brent and Bushnell Halls are situated atop the slopes, while Russell and Marshall Halls have been constructed below the slope at a significantly lower elevation than the majority of the campus. The northern part of campus is distinguished by the ravine the traverses the site, starting just northeast of Chandler Hall and continuing northeast through the Woodard Bridge to the parking lot east of Arrington Hall. The parking lot exits to Sunken Road at the head of the ravine. As significant drainage is conveyed by the ravine, it has been identified as a potential area for storm water management. East of the ravine, Melchers, duPont, and Pollard Halls are isolated by natural slopes on three sides, creating a terrace. Extending eastward from College Avenue, this terrace eventually slopes down into the ravine. The Simpson Library, positioned in the middle of the slope, has a second floor rear entry and first floor front entry to accommodate the sloping terrain. The northern most portion of the campus abuts Route 1. Of the buildings located here, Jepson and Goolrick Halls along with the Fitness and Anderson Convocation Centers are clustered at similar elevations, while Alvey and Arrington Halls are lower. The eastern face of Goolrick Hall marks the continuation of the campusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; eastern slopes, which traverse the length of the campus. At the bottom of this slope, the Parking Garage has been constructed such that the top deck is accessed from the access road off of Route 1, allowing for entrances and exits on both upper and lower decks. The University Tennis Center is located south of Hanover Street, directly across from College Avenue, on a level expanse that extends to the south and west to encapsulate three athletic fields and associated parking areas. South of the athletic fields, steep slopes descend to Hazel Run. Five additional athletic fields, as well as the V. Earl Dickenson Stadium and the Physical Plant, are west of the University Tennis Center and gently descend in elevation as they sequence south.

PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES Slopes restrict the available building areas to the east of Campus Walk. Level building sites are limited and located within the western plateau. This area has achieved a desirable building density and balance with open spaces.

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

The southwestern portion of the campus is relatively flat (0-10 percent) from Combs to Chandler Hall and extending east beyond the Campus Walk. Serving as the main plateau of campus, this area contains 19 of the campusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; structures, including marquee buildings and areas such as George Washington, Lee, Randolf, and Mason Halls; Ball Circle; and Palmieri Plaza.

148

CIRCULATION F R E D E R I C K S B U R G C A M P U S

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

CIRCULATION N

149

CAMPUS WALK: THE PEDESTRIAN SPINE

PRIMARY

Double Drive serves as the main entrance of the campus and intersects College Avenue between George Washington and Combs Halls. It also offers parallel visitor parking along the southern side of each lane, which promotes pedestrian access to Campus Walk. Campus Walk is the primary artery of the campus, providing pedestrian access and linking a majority of the more prevalent campus buildings and spaces. Campus Walk runs south to north, from the Bell Tower, through Palmeiri Plaza and past the Woodard Campus Center and Simpson Library, linking several major academic and residence hall buildings. Several secondary, frequently utilized, narrower pedestrian routes connect to Campus Walk, providing access to other buildings and spaces not abutting Campus Walk, including Seacobeck, Chandler, and Westmorland Halls. A number tertiary paths, constructed from the natural movements of students through the site, provide access to Campus Walk as well. The advantage of these paths is that students typically walk along the paved paths, thus limiting damage to groundcover. However, many of the paths have been constructed along the shortest route, and usually traverse significant topography such that steps are required, which can cause maintenance and safety issues and also limit ADA access.

ARCADE IN FRONT STUDENT CENTER

WOODARD

Bicycles are widely used by students to commute between the campus and surrounding area, as well as between locations on campus. The primary bicycle paths mimic the pedestrian paths and periodically cause safety issues at narrow locations. One of the most significant of these locations is at the Woodard Bridge, where Campus Walk descends onto the bridge and constricts the path by eliminating the grass shoulders that exist along the path in most other areas. Fredericksburgâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s other entrances provide access to campus parking lots and loading areas. Parking lots are located primarily along the perimeter of the campus, adjacent to vehicular entrance points, and serve the current population adequately. Two large parking areas bookend the site: the parking garage and the lot east of University Apartments, which provide the majority of student parking. It has been noted by the University that students regularly park in the College Heights community, adjacent to campus and across College Avenue. Residents have asserted that the current parking culture of the students, faculty, staff, and visitors is causing a significant issue in their community.

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

The Fredericksburg campus has several vehicular entrance points, which connect the public vehicular roadways to the campus vehicular routes. There are four primary entrance points: two along College Avenue, one off of northbound Route 1, and one off of Sunken Road. Secondary entrances are located around the perimeter of the site, including those along College Avenue and Sunken Road, each serving parking / loading areas of the following buildings: Jefferson, Chandler, Seacobeck, and Marshall Halls; as well as the Anderson Convocation Center.

150

GRAVITY SEWERS S T A F F O R D

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON

C A M P U S

151

U T I L I T I E S C A M P U S

CHAPTER 3 - CAMPUS CONDITIONS

S T A F F O R D

UMW MASTER PLAN

152

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

153

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 4 UNIVERSITY

LANDHOLDINGS

Over the years, private gifts to the Foundation have supported scholarships, academic programs, student activities, campus buildings, campus enhancements, and special events for University alumni. At times, private gifts to the Foundation have included property. Additionally, the UMW Foundation has acquired and managed other real estate for the benefit of the University. These properties may be used to address immediate functional needs of the University, sold to fund special projects (the UMW Endowment), or even developed. The University of Mary Washington Foundation has a number of holdings that should be considered when planning the continued operation and growth of the University. This section reviews the existing planning and zoning considerations of the real estate holdings. Chapter 7 - Recommendations reviews how they could be developed and provides potential development options for the properties. This section also references the Fredericksburg Comprehensive Plan 2007, the Economic Development Authorityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Jumpstart! Fredericksburg 2010 report, the 2005 Fredericksburg Consolidated Plan, and the Stafford County Comprehensive Plan to ensure our recommendations compliment planning efforts already in place.

CHAPTER 4 - UMW LANDHOLDINGS

U N I V E R S I T Y O F M A RY WA S H I N GTO N F O U N DAT I O N Behind many state-supported universities are organizations that function privately to support the institution through fundraising. In 1975, the University of Mary Washington Foundation was established as a non-stock, nonprofit corporation, with the purpose to accept, manage, and administer private resources supporting the mission and priorities of the University, and to provide opportunities for students and a margin of institutional excellence unavailable with Commonwealth funds.

154

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON

LAND HOLDINGS F R E D E R I C K S B U R G

THE CITY FREDERICKSBURG AND UMW Fredericksburg is located 50 miles from both the District of Columbia (to the north) and Richmond (to the south). Established in 1728 and named after Frederick, the Prince of Wales, the city has a reputation for its charming, historic downtown. It became fully incorporated in 1781, and the population reached 22,818 in 2008. Fredericksburg is well connected to the I-95 corridor and the rest of the DC / Baltimore MSA. In addition to the easy access to I-95, the city is also connected to Stafford County, DC, and beyond via US-1, a major four lane highway. Most of Fredericksburg’s traffic flow is to or from the north (DC Metropolitan Area) during peak commuting hours, primarily via I-95 and US-1. The US-1 bridge over the Rappahannock River is often a traffic bottleneck, and Rt 3 has become increasingly jammed as residential development has grown west. A large percentage of Fredericksburg residents commute to the northern counties of Arlington, Fairfax and Prince William for work. Only 21 percent of Fredericksburg workers work within the city itself. Fredericksburg’s commuting residents are fortunate to have alternatives and can access DC with service on the Virginia Railway Express or Amtrak.

EAGLE VILLAGE

POWER PLANT

UMW FREDERICKSBURG CAMPUS

The University of Mary Washington’s Fredericksburg campus and athletic complex represent 171 beautifully landscaped acres within a short walking distance of the historic downtown. The University and the Foundation also own several other properties in and around the city of Fredericksburg. These properties are illustrated on the map to the right and include the Alum Springs Property to the southwest, Eagle Village to the north, and the Jepson Alumni Property.

JEPSON ALUMNI PROPERTY

THE FREDERICKSBURG COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2007 The Fredericksburg Comprehensive Plan was issued in 2007. With a 20-year planning horizon, it is to be updated every 5 years. The plan included the following Vision Statement for the city:

BATTLEGROUND COMPLEX

“Since the City’s founding in 1728, the citizens of Fredericksburg have overcome many challenges, created the character of the City, and ensured its extraordinary role in our Nation’s history. During our stewardship of this great City, we resolve to build on this heritage and add our mark on the City’s history.” The city council’s vision for Fredericksburg at its 300th anniversary is to be a city:  Animated by a sense of its unmatched, irreplaceable history;  Characterized by the beauty of its riverfront, the vibrancy of its downtown, and its safe and attractive neighborhoods;  Inspired by active arts, cultural, and education communities;  Shaped by civic involvement and economic vitality; and,  Of choice for people of many income levels, cultures, ethnicities, and physical abilities to live, work, and play. UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

ALUM SPRINGS

Legend

EXISTING FREDERICKSBURG LANDHOLDINGS Stafford_UMW_Landholdings

1,000

Feet 2,000

155 2. Identify allowable mixed-use development by addressing issues that should be included in the Fredericksburg-specific mixed-use development definition, especially traffic flow, pedestrian accessibility, and parking management.

HOW FREDERICKSBURG WILL GROW Fredericksburg is experiencing a relatively slow and steady growth rate compared to Stafford County, particularly in regard to the senior population. Persons aged 65 and above will account for 25 percent of Stafford’s population by 2030, compared to 15 percent in Fredericksburg.

2 0 0 5 F R E D E R I C K S B U R G C O N S O L I DAT I O N P L A N The plan recommends that the ideal land use for the property would be for high-density, large floor-plate offices. Figure 45 in the plan illustrates that the intersection of College Avenue and Jefferson Davis Highway is an opportunity to create an entry marker for the University on each side of the street, assisting with wayfinding and anchoring the identity of the University on the corridor.

The Comprehensive Plan anticipated that Fredericksburg would absorb between 35,000 and 70,000 square feet of office space per year between 2005 and 2010, along with the 45 to 70 condominium units and 65 to 100 townhouse units per year.

The city also published the 2005 Fredericksburg Consolidated Plan for Community Development that highlighted other challenges in Fredericksburg. Fredericksburg’s housing and real estate market is affected by the following critical factors:

The Jefferson Davis Highway (US-1), is identified as a major transportation corridor in the Comprehensive Plan and affects the Eagle Village property and the Fredericksburg Campus. The goals for this corridor include: 1. Commercial development 2. Visual character 3. Mixed use 4. Complement other business centers

J U M P S TA RT ! F R E D E R I C K S B U R G 2 0 1 0 Since 1984, much of Fredericksburg’s growth has resulted from Mary Washington Hospital and the University. Growth occurred mostly along the major transportation corridors of US-3 and Interstate 95, following a sprawl pattern that has proven to generate traffic and is itself to be unsustainable. The JumpStart! Fredericksburg 2010 Initiative was started in 2005 by the City of Fredericksburg Economic Development Authority to provide economic development visioning for the community. The plan is intended “to trigger the implementation of appropriate projects identified in past studies as well as initiate new ideas and development opportunities for economic development initiatives.” The JumpStart! Initiative examined 11 corridors, including Jefferson Davis Highway along the length of the Eagle Village property. The Jefferson Davis Highway corridor is considered a long-term planning initiative that will take between 10 - 15 years to complete. The plan emphasized the importance of a comprehensive landscaping / streetscape program to extend from the Riverfront to Cowan Boulevard and proposed a new-urbanist scheme for the development of the Jefferson Davis highway corridor fronting the Eagle Village property. While the Comprehensive Plan structure does not emphasize or promote a connection from the UMW Fredericksburg campus to the Eagle Village property, the JumpStart! Plan does. It illustrates 19 structures on and around the Eagle Village property, with a continuation of the street grid already established on the east side of Jefferson Davis Highway. The Eagle Village Phase I development is a slight departure from the plan’s sketch, but it does not hinder expansion of the concept. The plan had two recommended zoning considerations: 1. Consider additional provisions (form based code, amendment to existing zoning category) to increase building height from 40 to 80 feet with special permit and an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.5 to 2.0 or 3.0 (to allow eight-story buildings); and,

2. 3.

The city is extremely accessible by rail and roadway to the DC metropolitan area and has become a part of the Washington– Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV Combined Metropolitan Statistical Area as a result of tremendous residential and commercial growth. The University of Mary Washington does not have adequate housing for its enrolled student population, which has added to the demand for rental units and caused a strain on adjacent city neighborhoods. The rising cost of local real estate has put housing beyond the economic means of many residents.

In the Consolidated Plan, the Office of Planning and Community Development indicated that, “[the residential capacity of the University of Mary Washington has not kept up with its growing student population. In 2003, residential capacity on-campus was a maximum of 2,185 beds, with another 365 beds in off-campus apartments. This maximum capacity of 2,550 beds accommodates just under 65 percent of the overall enrollment of 3,962 students. Most of the remaining 1,412 students find housing in the neighborhoods that surround the University. This demand for rental housing near the campus strains the nearby neighborhoods as there is a higher demand than available units. In addition, the parking capacity of these older neighborhoods is impacted by the many additional vehicles.”

ISSUES TO CONSIDER There are several issues to be taken into consideration when considering the future of the Foundation’s real estate holdings in the city of Fredericksburg:  The city is likely to see continued population growth and, eventually, there will be increased demand for housing;  Population growth in the city may trend towards more senior residents;  Proximity to DC, and Richmond, Virginia, makes Fredericksburg an attractive commercial location because of its affordability;  A growing healthcare market may present more partnership opportunities for UMW and the Mary Washington Hospital; and,  The city is supportive of growth on the Fredericksburg campus and understands that the University is an important economic engine in the community.  Eventually UMW will have to adapt to this growth.

UMW FREDERICKSBURG CAMPUS & LANDHOLDINGS

CHAPTER 4 - UMW LANDHOLDINGS

The plan identified goals related to 12 issue areas, including Downtown Fredericksburg, the Rappahannock River, major corridors, neighborhoods, suburban business districts, transportation and mobility, public facilities and services, environmental protection, community appearance, historic preservation, housing, and institutional partnerships.

156

FREDERICKSB U R G C A M P U S P A R C E L S I Z E : 171 Acres L A N D U S E D E S I G N A T I O N : Institutional, surrounded by Residential on most sides, Highway Retail Commercial to the west, Light Industrial to the south of the Battleground, Commercial Shopping Center, and Planned Mixed Use Development to the North. Please see pages 262-273 for a more detailed analysis of the existing UMW Fredericksburg Campus.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 4 - UMW LANDHOLDINGS

157

158

EAGLE VILLAGE P A R C E L S I Z E : 25.34 Acres (approximately 18.5 acres remain for development) L A N D U S E D E S I G N A T I O N : General Commercial, surrounded by Institutional, High Density Residential, and Transitional / Office (power substation). Z O N E D : Commercial Shopping Center (C-SC)

EAGLE VILLAGE PROPERTY The Eagle Village property is located across US-1 from the Fredericksburg campus and offers the largest opportunity for physical expansion of the campus. The property is in a location that can improve the overall sense of entry to the campus, increase exposure to the community, and provide opportunities for partnership with other organizations. A portion of the property, which is currently home to the Park & Shop Shopping Center, is being developed to provide student housing for the Fredericksburg campus. The entire property has been previously developed, and, to the west, the property borders the Mary Washington Hospital complex. Eagle Village II is part of the “Fall Hill / Mary Washington Hospital” Land Use Planning District. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the primary goal for this planning area to be the expansion of the Mary Washington Hospital campus. The UMW Frederickburg campus is separated from the planning area by US-1 and is in the “University / College Heights” planning area. There are two recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan that impact the Eagle Village II property: • Provide for the continued development of medical offices and support services on MWH Medicorp / Mary Washington Hospital medical campus. • Support redevelopment of shopping centers along the US-1 Bypass into more productive and efficient mixed use developments, as shown in the JumpStart! report. For the Land Use Planning within the “University / College Heights” District, the plan made the following recommendations: • Continue to work with the University of Mary Washington regarding any adverse impacts on the surrounding community, such as parking and the need for student housing; and, • Improve pedestrian linkages between downtown activity centers and the University and its surrounding neighborhoods. FLEXIBLE USE FIXED USE

EAGLE VILLAGE EXISTING PLAN: 1” = 300’-0” UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

159

ALUM SPRINGS P A R C E L S I Z E : 34 Acres L A N D U S E D E S I G N A T I O N : Low density residential, surrounded by Low Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Transitional Commercial / Office. Z O N E D : Residential (R-2)

LOCATION The Alum Spring site is a 34.7 acre parcel located less than one mile southwest of the Fredericksburg campus. It has frontage on the Route 1 Bypass to the West and Greenbriar Drive to the east. Surrounding uses include transitional office, single family residential, high density residential, and recreational in the cityowned Alum Springs Park. The site is almost entirely wooded.

CHAPTER 4 - UMW LANDHOLDINGS

NATURAL CONDITIONS Development of the Alum Spring property is complicated by extreme slopes and impaired access across a large portion of the site. Topography generally falls from west to east, with three large natural swales with steep side slopes running in this direction and breaking apart otherwise developable portions of the site. Steep slopes also bound Hazel Run, which runs along the southeastern edge of the site and separates it from Alum Spring Park. As a result of the topographical constraints, only a six acre continuous section on the south end of the site and a five acre continuous section on the north end of the site are reasonably developable and accessible. As described previously, slopes below 10 percent a generally preferred for standard development, though slopes between 10 percent and 25 percent may allow for some types of development but prohibit large areas for parking and large building footprints without excessive costs for grading. Following this logic, a third area of about five acres at the center of the site and with slopes generally in the 10 percent to 25 percent range could allow for some development, though access to Route 1 is limited. Further analysis of topography and other natural characteristics of this area should be performed before a recommendation on development potential is made.

LINE DE SI GNAT E S B UI L DA B L E A RE A (Area outside this line represents steep slope)

160

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON

LAND HOLDINGS S

S TA F F O R D C O U N T Y A N D U M W Stafford County is located in northern Virginia, bordered by the City of Fredericksburg and the Rappahannock River to its south. Part of an original British settlement along the Potomac River, it is named for Staffordshire, England. Rich with history, the county claims ties to the Founding Fathers, was occupied by more than 100,000 troops during the Civil War, and also was home to the late-19th century artist Gari Melchers. In 2009, Forbes Magazine listed Stafford County as the 12th Highest Income County in the United States. The estimated population of Stafford County in 2007 was 124,117, a 33 percent increase over its population in the 2000 Census. Stafford County ranks among the fastest growing counties in the US, and since 1960 its population has doubled every 20 years. This growth is troubling because, while it can generate prosperity, it comes with development pressures that affect the community, such as traffic and increased need for public services. Given the current economic conditions and historic recession, it will be very important for the University to monitor the next update to the Stafford County Comprehensive Plan in regards to their Stafford County land holdings.

S TA F F O R D W E S T S TA F F O R D E A S T R O U TE 1

U M W S TA F F O R D C A M P U S

7 (W A R R R E N TO R O A D )

Managing the population growth rate is quite likely an important issue for

S TA F F O R D C O U N T Y C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N The Stafford County Comprehensive Plan was issued in 2009. It has a 20year planning horizon, and the intention is to update the Stafford County Comprehensive Plan every 5 years. The 2009 Plan includes nine basic goals: 1. Manage growth and development in a sustainable manner. 2. Ensure that growth and development is managed in a fiscally responsible manner. 3. Preserve and protect Stafford County’s natural and environmental resources. 4. Ensure the health, safety, and well-being of Stafford County’s residents. 5. Promote affordable and quality housing. 6. Create an intermodal system of transportation that provides a safe, rapid, and affordable means for people and products to move safely in and through Stafford County. 7. Support the economic vitality of Stafford County through land use policies. 8. Support Stafford County as a community for superior education. 9. Promote Stafford County’s heritage and maintain a sense of place by identifying, protecting, preserving, and interpreting Stafford County’s historical and cultural resources.

Legen Legend

Stafford_UMW_Landholdings

Legend

E X I S T I N G S TA F F O R D L A N D H O L D I N G S Stafford_UMW_Landholdings

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

1,000

2,000

Feet 4,000

161



Life Care / Retirement Community – areas for the continuing care of elderly, providing for transitional housing progressing from independent living in various dwelling units, to nursing home care, where all related uses are located on the same lot or adjacent lots (which includes lots separated by a public right-of-way). The community may include life care facilities that provide services integral to the personal and therapeutic care of the residents thereof and shall be licensed and regulations as a home for adults under Section 63.1 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, or any successors legislation. Such districts are to be located only where approved water and sewage are available and where transportation systems are adequate. Institutional – areas designated for development that serves a public or social function, often community-wide or regional in nature. This includes, but is not limited to, hospitals, schools, and public buildings.

The current Stafford County Comprehensive Plan anticipates that Stafford County has land to absorb 7,165 additional housing units within the current Urban Services Boundary. With the addition of the 2019 Expansion another 2,089 housing units could be added. Within rural land uses the plan anticipates that another 11,161 housing units will be constructed. The Foundations land holdings are not expected to provide housing units. The Stafford County Comprehensive Plan also anticipates that over 5.5 million square feet of industrial space will be constructed within the current USA. It expects another three million square feet of industrial space to be added with the 2019 USA Expansion.

There are several issues to be taken into consideration when considering the future of the Foundation’s real estate holdings in Stafford County:  The county is likely to see continued population growth, and, eventually, there will be increased demand for housing;  Proximity to DC and Richmond make Stafford County an attractive commercial location because of its affordability; and,  The county is supportive of expansion the UMW Stafford campus, having highlighted the Foundation’s properties as institutional uses in their Land Use Mapping.

S TA F F O R D E A S T A N D S TA F F O R D W E S T P R O P E R T I E S The Stafford East and Stafford West Properties are located in Stafford County near the Stafford campus, approximately 7.5 miles from the UMW Fredericksburg campus. These two properties offer a host of opportunities for the Foundation and the University. Located near VA State Route 17, they are not part of the current Urban Services Area. These properties may be absorbed into the 2019 USA, if it is adopted as proposed in the Stafford County Comprehensive Plan. It will be important for the Foundation to have a full understanding of the utility services that are available near these properties, as well as the capacities for connections to existing services. The Stafford East and Stafford West properties are not contiguous. Also, the Stafford East property is separated from the Stafford campus by two parcels on the opposite side of Holly Corner Road. M1 District potential uses permitted by-right: • Convenience center / store • Flex office • General office uses • Laboratory, research, and testing • Light industrial / manufacturing Conditional use permit: • Low intensity commercial retail not otherwise listed • Medium intensity commercial retail not otherwise listed • Other light industrial / manufacturing uses not otherwise listed for this district • Place of worship • School

Bulk regulations for the M1 district: Intensity: Ratio Maximum floor area- 0.35, Open space ratio- 0.20 Minimum yards (in feet): • Front: 40 • Side: 15 • Rear: 15 Maximum building height (in feet): 65

CHAPTER 4 - UMW LANDHOLDINGS

Stafford County, especially curbing sprawl and the overextension of public services. One tool that is utilized in the Comprehensive Plan is the Urban Services Area (USA). This boundary establishes the area to which the county is directing growth. Expansion of the USA in the year 2019 will be dependent upon future actions of the Board of Supervisors to extend public infrastructure and services to those areas. The requirements for Urban Development Areas within the USA were adopted in 2011. In order to comply with state guidelines, these areas must be able to accommodate a decade of projected growth and will develop at a density of at least four dwelling units per gross acre and a commercial intensity of at least 0.4 FAR. The actual type mix and maximum intensity recommended will vary from one location to the next. There are two types of Urban Development Areas that may be applicable to the Foundation’s real estate holdings in Stafford County:

162

S TA F F O R D E A S T P A R C E L S I Z E : 183 Acres (East), 209 Acres (West) L A N D U S E D E S I G N A T I O N : Institutional, surrounded by Light Industrial, Agricultural, and Low Density Suburban Residential (East); Institutional and Light Industrial, surrounded by Agricultural, Light Industrial, Urban Commercial, Suburban Residential and Urban Residential - Medium Density Z O N E D : Light Industrial (M1) P A R C E L S : #35-27B, #42-59D, #43-59B, #43-59C, #43-59E (East); #35-23, #35-24, #35-28, and #35-28B (West) Large portions of the Stafford East and Stafford West properties are not suitable for development due to the density of trees and slopes (this analysis does not examine soils, which will also impact the development options). On the Stafford East property, almost 66 acres have slopes of greater than 10 percent, leaving an area of about 117 acres for accessible, economically viable development. While some construction can occur in slopes up to 25 percent, slopes beyond 25 percent will begin to complicate building layout, staging, and road construction, and thus increase the cost of development. On the Stafford West property, a larger percentage of the parcel has characteristics that complicate development. The western border of much of the property is a creek, which may present environmental challenges and is likely bordered by a flood plain. This parcel has areas of grades greater than 25 percent and is densely wooded. The larger buildable area of the Stafford West property lies to the east, with access off of Clark Patton Road. Seventy-seven acres of area with moderate slopes under 10 percent would be an attractive parcel for residential development. However, it appears that this portion of the property cannot be fully accessed without some sort of easement. As well, Parcel 35-23 provides another area of low slopes, but its most viable access comes from the northwest via Jack Ellington Road. It is unlikely that the two buildable portions could be connected and developed as one property, as the linkage would necessitate a costly bridge for vehicular access between them.

S TA F F O R D E A S T P R O P E R T Y S LO P E S T U DY

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

LINE DESIGNATES BUILDABLE AREA (Area outside this line represents steep slope)

S TA F F O R D W E S T

163

CHAPTER 4 - UMW LANDHOLDINGS

P A R C E L S I Z E : 183 Acres (East), 209 Acres (West) L A N D U S E D E S I G N A T I O N : Institutional, surrounded by Light Industrial, Agricultural, and Low Density Suburban Residential (East); Institutional and Light Industrial, surrounded by Agricultural, Light Industrial, Urban Commercial, Suburban Residential And Urban Residential - Medium Density Z O N E D : Light Industrial (M1) P A R C E L S : #35-27B, #42-59D, #43-59B, #43-59C, #43-59E (East); #35-23, #35-24, #35-28, and #35-28B (West)

S TA F F O R D E A S T PROPERTY LINE

S TA F F O R D W E S T P R O P E R T Y S LO P E S T U DY

LINE DESIGNATES BUILDABLE AREA (Area outside this line represents steep slope)

164

DUFF GREEN P A R C E L S I Z E : 11 Acres main property (3 Acres for access easement L A N D U S E D E S I G N A T I O N : Institutional, surrounded by Agricultural zoning Z O N E D : Agricultural (A1) P A R C E L S : #58C-2-6A and #58C-2-6B

DUFF GREEN RIVER PROPERTY The Duff Green River property consists of approximately 11.6 acres of woodland with a 2.8 acres access easement. The property is located in Stafford County along the Rappahannock River approximately 4.5 miles from the Fredericksburg campus. The property is partially wooded but also includes 832 feet of waterfront on the river. Located in the current Stafford County Urban Services Area, the predominant use of surrounding areas is Agricultural and Low-Density Housing. The property is accessed by VA State Route 3, also known as King’s Highway. Near the property access easement is Rappahannock Adult Activities, Inc., an agency which provides adult daycare for individuals with developmental needs. Possible uses permitted by-right: • Agriculture • Aquaculture • Bed and breakfast inn • Club / lodge / fraternal organization • Community use • Park and playground • Place of worship • Plant and tree nursery / greenhouse • Single-family dwelling • Veterinary clinic Conditional uses permitted: • Child care center • Hotel / motel • Nursing home • School Bulk regulations for A1 District: Intensity: • Open space ratio for public works, cemetery, club, lodge, fraternal organization, schools, and places of worship: 0.50 • Open space ratio, other uses: 0.80 ratio Minimum lot area (in acres): 3 Minimum yards: (in feet): • Front: 50 • Side: 20 • Back: 35 Maximum height (in feet): 35 Minimum lot width (in feet) 200

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

165

P A R C E L S I Z E : 20 Acres L A N D U S E D E S I G N A T I O N : Institutional, surrounded by Rural Residential and Agricultural Z O N E D : western half Agricultural (A1); eastern half Rural Residential (A2) P A R C E L S : #59-16

VALADE PROPERTY The Valade Property is located in Stafford County, approximately 5.5 miles from the Fredericksburg Campus. The property fronts County Road 684, or McCarty Road, with 362 feet of frontage. The property serves as a bird sanctuary, and is heavily wooded with little flat area. The property is almost 21 acres. The Foundation has an option to acquire a home and parcel adjacent to the property. Located outside of the Stafford County urban services zone by less than one mile, due to the split zoning, the property is ineligible for the county’s Purchase of Development Rights Program. The property is not suited for development. It should be sold, or maintained as open space for the use as an outdoor lab for the natural sciences. The property could be sold as three lots with conforming lot width of at least 100 feet. Potential Uses permitted by right in A1: • Agriculture. • Aquaculture. • Forestry. • Plant and tree nursery/greenhouse. • Recreational enterprise. • Recreational facility. Conditional use permit in A1 District: • Nursing home. • School. Bulk regulations for A1 District: • Open space ratio for club, lodge, fraternal organization, schools, and places of worship: 0.50. • Open space ratio, other uses: 0.80 ratio Minimum lot area (in acres) 3 Minimum yards (in feet): • Front: 50 • Side: 20 • Back: 35 Maximum height (in feet): 35

ial

nt ide

Potential Uses permitted by right in A2 District: • Accessory dwelling • Agriculture • Aquaculture • Bed and breakfast inn • Community use • Equestrian use and bridle path • Golf course • Home occupation • Park and playground • Place of worship • School • Single-family dwelling Conditional use permitted in A2 District: • Recreational facility • Hospital • Nursing home Bulk regulations for A2 District: • Open space ratio for lodge, fraternal organization, schools, and places of worship: 0.50. • Open space ratio, other uses 0.80 ratio Minimum yards (in feet): • Front: 40 • Side: 10 • Back: 35 Maximum height (in feet): 35 Minimum lot width (in feet): 100

Res l a Rur oning Z A2 e ltur u c gri - A ning 1 A Zo

CHAPTER 4 - UMW LANDHOLDINGS

(McCarty Roa

684 County Road

166

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

167

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 5 C A M P U S

U T I L I Z A T I O N

ROOM UTILIZATION A room utilization analysis seeks to demonstrate how well scheduled rooms (classrooms and class labs) perform in terms of use – measured in both hours scheduled and seats occupied. This quantitative method forms the framework for a more complex understanding of space use and can be applied to make decisions about space needs and renovation priorities. Targets for use have been developed by the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) and are applied to all Virginia public institutions regardless of school size or mission. Given that the University of Mary Washington is a smaller liberal arts university, this study recommends different targets that better relate to UMW’s goals. At UMW, this analysis has shown classrooms and class labs are well used on average, though some programs are more strained for resources than others. The use of classrooms and class labs over time also identifies opportunities in the schedule for higher utilization. Though there is an opportunity for greater utilization levels in current facilities (which translates to more student FTEs added over time), many cultural changes would be required to achieve the targeted performance. The following classroom and class lab utilization results are based upon the Fall 2009 course schedules. This data was the most current when Burt Hill considered the learning environment utilization. Typically, the fall semester receives the greatest stress in class and lab requests by faculty. During the 2009 academic year, Monroe Hall, an original UMW campus structure, was offline due to a major building renovation. The building housed several general teaching classrooms and a two class labs. The University employed the use of two temporary structures (the Annexes) that provided a similar quantity of classrooms and class labs while Monroe was offline. Therefore, the overall campus-wide classroom and class lab utilization during the Fall 2009 academic semester will be fairly consistent if Monroe Hall was online. Likewise, the same methodology can be applied to Fall 2013, with Monroe Hall and the Annexes online, while Chandler Hall will be offline due to the construction of the proposed new Campus Center.

C H A P T E R 5 - C A M P U S U T I L I Z AT I O N

A N A LY S I S O F S PA C E N E E D S In addition to reviewing existing space use, Burt Hill compared the University’s space guidelines with the Society for College and University Planning (SCUP) space standards. SCUP is a national community made up of higher education leaders that facilitate opportunities for its member to share best practices about integrated planning for higher education. The goal of this analysis is to determine space requirements based upon current and projected Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs), compared to the existing space provided. By understanding how the University’s campuses are currently over or under utilizing space, better decisions can be made for future renovations and new construction. This analysis will identify the space use discrepancies and recommend methods to right-size the academic departments and the associated support spaces. In the case of non-learning environments, additional comparisons were made between UMW and its peer institutions.

168

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON MASTER PLAN

UTILIZATION NON-LEARNING

ENVIRONMENTS

NON-LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS UTILIZATION SPREADSHEET

NON-LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS The information used to produce the non-learning environments spreadsheet and narratives was gathered from the 2009 Room Inventory provided Burt Hill by UMW. Additional data and room use information was collected from the Virginia public four-year institution spreadsheet, the Society for SCUP 2007 Campus Facilities Inventory, and the Institute of Education Sciences, Postsecondary Education Facilities Inventory and Classification Manual (FICM) 2006. ROOM USE 100: CLASSROOMS A classroom is defined by FICM as a room that is used primarily for instructional class and is not tied to a specific subject or discipline by equipment in the room or the configuration of the space. Examples of this room type are general purpose classrooms, lecture halls, seminar rooms, and other instructional spaces not set up as teaching laboratories. UMW has an adequate number of classroom spaces as compared to SCUP and their peer institutions. To further maximize utilization of classroom spaces on campus, all classrooms within each academic building should be generic spaces that can be used by all departments. 20 18

JMU

CNU

CWM

SCUP

4 2 0

UMW

16 14 12 10 8 6

R O O M U S E 2 1 0 , 2 1 5 : L A B O R AT O R I E S I N S T R U C T I O N A L ( C L A S S L A B O R AT O R I E S ) FICM defines these laboratories as rooms that are regularly scheduled and require special purpose equipment or a specific room configuration for student participation, experimentation, observation, or practice in an academic discipline. These rooms include computer labs for instruction, science teaching laboratories, graphic design laboratories, dance laboratories, fine arts laboratories, and other spaces that have specialized equipment. UMW is significantly above average in this category from the perspective of both its peer institutions and SCUP. Based on data from similar academic institutions, this larger number is due to the amount of dedicated square footage required for the science labs and specialized lab space required for the fine and performing arts programs. 16 14 12 10

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

JMU

2 CNU

*** This number includes the Fitness Center

CWM

** This number includes the Anderson Convocation Center

UMW

* This number includes Centre Court and the Jepson Alumni Executive Center

SCUP

LEGEND FTE Full Time Equivalent NASF Net Assignable Square Feet SCUP Society for College and University Planning CWM College of William and Mary CNU Christopher Newport University LU Longwood University JMU James Madison University

169

ROOM USE 500: SPECIAL USE FICM defines these areas as rooms for military training, media production, clinical activities, agricultural field activities, and animal and plant shelters. Examples are greenhouses, ROTC buildings / rooms, behavioral health clinics similar to physical therapy, and student counseling centers that are not in a healthcare building.

0.5

0 JMU

2 JMU

1.0

CNU

1.5

CWM

UMW

2.0

SCUP

JMU

2.5

CNU

3.0

CWM

UMW

3.5

UMW has a comparable amount of space dedicated to special use as compared to its peer institutions and SCUP.

SCUP

JMU

C H A P T E R 5 - C A M P U S U T I L I Z AT I O N

On the UMW Fredericksburg campus there is really only one building that has dedicated study space, the Simpson Library. There are no spaces within the Woodard Campus Center devoted to individual or group study and only minimal space within a few of the academic buildings, including Trinkle, Combs, and Pollard Halls. There is also nominal study space dedicated for studying in a few of the residence halls on campus. There appears to be a lack of balanced study space across the Fredericksburg campus.

R O O M U S E 4 0 0 ( A L L ) : S T U DY Study space, according to FICM, is classified into five categories: study room, library stack, open-stack study room, and study service. Examples of this include most library facilities, study areas in student unions, and general help rooms not designated for a specific discipline.

CNU

JMU

CNU

CWM

UMW

CNU

UMW has a lack of space available for independent research projects. Dedicated research lab space that was originally located within Jepson Science Center was converted to instructional lab space and offices. Currently dedicated science labs are scheduled throughout the day for classes. When classes are not in session the rooms are open for unscheduled student use. This leaves no space or time available for independent research projects. Also, there is no additional room within the building to add new research space. In order to gain a small amount of research space for faculty and students, storage rooms have been converted into research space.

CWM

R O O M U S E 2 2 0 , 2 2 5 : L A B O R AT O R I E S R E S E A R C H According to FICM, these rooms are used primarily for laboratory experimentation, research, or training in research methods; professional research and observation; or structured creative activity within a specific program. Examples of these rooms are faculty bench research space (not offices), art production / design space, or rooms equipped for clinical observation.

SCUP

JMU

CNU

CWM

SCUP

UMW

CWM

Even though UMW has an extensive amount of space allocated to athletics, the number is needed to accomplish the strategic plan objective of strengthening school spirit and pride. The University Tennis Center has become an anchor for regional tournaments and the community. Also the addition of the Anderson Center was required to meet the NCAA Division III guidelines for basketball arenas and will allow UMW to host championship games.

UMW

UMW has an extensive amount of square footage on campus dedicated to athletics. The facilities that are included are Goolrick Hall, the University Tennis Center, and the new Anderson Center. Excluded from this calculation are the outdoor recreational, intramural fields or the fields located at the Battleground Athletic Complex.

UMW

Both Lee and George Washington Halls have numerous administrative offices, office services, and conference rooms. Faculty offices can be found within all of the academic buildings as well as 1201 Williams Street and 1004 College Avenue. Also included within the NASF are the office spaces that are located within Centre Court and the Alumni Executive Center. Some of UMWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s peers may outsource their publications, graphic, and web design departments, which in our opinion may be why the office quantity is higher at UMW than some of the other schools.

R O O M U S E 5 2 0 , 5 2 3 , 5 2 5 : AT H L E T I C FICM states that athletic spaces are rooms or spaces used by students, staff, or the public, for athletic or physical education activities; the seating area used by students, staff, or the public to watch athletic events; or a room that directly serves an athletic or physical education facility as an extension of the activities in that facility. Examples of these areas are recreational buildings, indoor swimming pools, fitness rooms, basketball arenas, and other indoor athletic facilities.

SCUP

UMW currently has a lack of open, unscheduled lab spaces on the campus. Teaching science lab spaces are only available for students to use when classes are not in session, which rarely occurs. The largest amount of unscheduled lab spaces are the practice rooms in Pollard Hall and observation rooms in 9 Chandler.

ROOM USE 300 (ALL): OFFICES Office facilities are individual, multi-person, or workstation space specifically assigned to academic, administration and service functions of a college or university. Also included under the Room Use 300 category are office services (reception/copy/fax/mail areas), conference rooms, and conference room services (kitchenettes/breakout areas).

SCUP

R O O M U S E 2 2 0 , 2 2 5 : L A B O R AT O R I E S I N S T R U C T I O N A L ( O P E N L A B O R AT O R I E S ) These spaces are defined by FICM as laboratories used primarily for individual or group instruction that are informally scheduled, unscheduled, or open. Examples of these rooms are open computer rooms that are used by students throughout the day, unscheduled science laboratories or other labs, or digital reproduction spaces not used for general instruction but available for students or instructors on an as needed basis.

170

The Ridderhof Martin Gallery, located on the Fredericksburg campus, is devoted to displaying student and acclaimed artist works of art. In addition, there is a small gallery space within DuPont Hall, also on the Fredericksburg campus. Not included in this calculation are the museum spaces located at the James Monroe Museum and Belmont Estate.

6 4

R O O M U S E 6 3 0 , 6 3 5 : F O O D FAC I L I T I E S Food facilities are defined by FICM as spaces used for eating by students and faculty that include dining halls, cafeterias, snack bars, and restaurants. Also included are the support spaces, kitchen, walk-in freezers, dishwashing rooms, etc. There are two main dining facilities for student on the Fredericksburg campus: Seacobeck Hall and the Eagles Nest in the Woodard Campus Center. Seacobeck Hall is the campus’ traditional “all-you-can-eat” facility that has three themed rooms. The Eagles Nest is an a la carte style facility featuring several food stations. Other options for students are the Underground, located in Lee Hall, and the Eagle Express cart, which is only available during the warmer weather of the spring and fall. At peak times during the lunch and dinner rush it is difficult to find a seat in both Seacobeck Hall and the Eagles Nest. This explains the apparent shortage of space devoted to food service. Flexible course scheduling could alleviate the rush, but any student enrollment increase will require additional dining seats.

0.5

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

JMU

CNU

CWM

0 UMW

JMU

0 CNU

CWM

2 UMW

JMU

1.0

4 5

1.5

CNU

2.0

CWM

CNU

2.5

UMW did not include the bookstore within their Fall 2009 room inventory. The NASF for this category could be slightly higher if UMW made this modification.

3.0

R O O M U S E 6 6 0 , 6 6 5 : M E R C H A N D I S I N G FAC I L I T I E S FICM defines merchandising facilities as a space used to sell products or services, such as bookstores, student supply stores, post office, campus food stores, vending machine spaces, and central ticketing outlets servicing multiple facilities. However, dining rooms, restaurants, snack bars, and vending areas that directly service a dining, lounge, or other primary activity area are excluded from this classification and are categorized under a separate service code.

3.5

CWM

CNU

CWM

UMW

UMW is below average when compared to three of the four benchmarking peer institutions. There are only two assembly spaces on the UMW Fredericksburg campus: Dodd Auditorium in George Washington Hall and the Klein Theater in DuPont Hall, which was recently renovated. The Anderson Center, currently under construction, will help in the future to provide an assembly space for larger events.

UMW has very little dedicated lounge / gathering space within the buildings on campus. There are lounge spaces provided within the residence halls but most are not adequately furnished to provide a friendly environment. Out of the 15 academic buildings only 5 have dedicated lounge space. A dedicated lounge space should be provided in all academic and residential buildings on campus.

SCUP

R O O M U S E 6 1 0 , 6 1 5 : A S S E M B LY FICM defines assembly spaces as large gathering areas used primarily for nonacademic learning events. Some of these spaces include auditoriums, concert halls, theatre spaces, and chapels.

R O O M U S E 6 5 0 , 6 5 5 : LO U N G E FICM defines lounge spaces as areas for rest and relaxation that are not restricted to a specific group.

UMW

JMU

CNU

CWM

UMW

ROOM USE 620, 625: EXHIBITION Exhibition spaces are defined by FICM as a room or area for the displaying of materials, works of art, artifacts, etc., which is intended to be used by students, faculty, staff, and the general public.

SCUP

ROOM USE 600: GENERAL AND CAMPUS USE General Use facilities per FICM are characterized by a broader availability to faculty, students, staff, or the public. General use facilities compromise a campus-wide general service or functional support system for the institutional and participant community population. This category is usually calculated as a whole, but since it covers such a variety of spaces it was determined to separated it into its sub-categories of assembly, exhibition, food facilities, daycare, lounge, merchandising facilities, recreation, and general meeting rooms for easier evaluation against UMW peer institutions and SCUP.

171

R O O M U S E 6 7 0 , 6 7 5 : R E C R E AT I O N Recreation spaces, as defined by FICM, are non-physical education rooms used for amusement type activities. Some of these activities are ping-pong, billiards, arcade games, and Wii stations. Also included are general workout and fitness facilities. Similar to lounge space, UMW has a minimal amount of recreation space. The only spaces that are identified as recreational space for students are the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Washroomâ&#x20AC;? in the Woodard Campus Center and the Fitness Center. Outdoor recreational fields and open spaces on campus where students may toss a Frisbee or play football are not considered in the square foot analysis for recreational spaces. 18 16

ROOM USE 700: SUPPORT Support facilities, as defined by FICM, are centralized spaces for various auxiliary support systems and services of a campus that help keep all institutional programs and activities operational. These areas provide a continuous, indirect support system to faculty, staff, students, and the public, ranging in size from an entire building or organizational unit to the entire campus. This classification includes centralized areas for computer-based data processing and telecommunications, shop services, general storage and supply, vehicle storage, central services (e.g., printing and duplicating, mail, shipping and receiving, environmental testing or monitoring, laundry, or food stores), and hazardous materials areas. Compared to the four peer institutions and SCUP, UMW has a similar amount of space dedicated to support facilities. 7 6

12 10

6 4

UMW has a smaller amount of meeting room spaces as compared to three of the four benchmarking peer institutions. A majority of the meeting rooms on the Fredericksburg campus are located on the second floor of the Woodard Campus Center.

JMU

CNU

CWM

R O O M U S E 7 3 0 , 7 3 5 : C E N T R A L S TO R AG E FICM defines central storage as a space or building used to store equipment or materials that also serves multiple space use categories, organizational units, or buildings. Warehouses, surplus storage, central campus supply or storage, and inactive storage fall under this classification. Additionally, a storage space used to store bulk janitorial supplies would be included in this category, but small janitorial supply closets are not. Also storage spaces that directly support a primary activity room are not included. UMW has an adequate amount of central storage space located within the Physical Plant on the Fredericksburg campus.

JMU

CNU

CWM

UMW

JMU

0 LU

CNU

2 CWM

1 UMW

SCUP

C H A P T E R 5 - C A M P U S U T I L I Z AT I O N

ROOM USE 680, 685: MEETING ROOM FICM defines meeting rooms as a space that is used by the institution or the public for a variety of non-class meetings. There is typically confusion as to whether a room should be labeled as a conference room or meeting room. Meeting rooms are more available and open to various student, faculty, and staff groups along with employees of the institution and community members. Whereas conference rooms are typically restricted service components of an office, or used by office occupants of a specific area, and are generally limited to staff meetings or other department non-class activities.

UMW

JMU

CNU

CWM

UMW

SCUP

2 0

172

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON MASTER PLAN

UTILIZATION CLASSROOMS AND CLASS LABS

PREFACE The following classroom and class lab utilization results are based upon UMW’s Fall 2009 course schedules. This data was the most current when the learning environment utilization was initiated. Typically, the fall semester receives the greatest stress in class and lab requests by faculty. As mentioned previously, Monroe Hall was offline for renovations at this time and the Annexes made up for the lost teaching classrooms and class lab spaces. This substitution allowed Burt Hill to calculate use as if Monroe were still active. Additionally, this philosophy can be applied to Fall 2013 when Chandler hall will be offline during construction of the new Campus Center. HOW UTILIZATION RATES ARE CALCULATED Per room utilization rates are composed of two factors – the amount of time a room is used and the average stations occupied. Target use levels are assigned to each factor as a function of availability. SCHEV has identified an “extended day” timetable, which assumes courses could be scheduled within a 12-hour window (read 8:00 am – 8:00 pm) per day, 60 hours per week. Breaks between courses and other factors prevent a full 60 hours of room use each week; therefore, 50 hours are assumed available for scheduling. Available seats vary per room.

SCHEV has established the following targets for room use:

CLASSROOMS: 40 hours per week (80% of 50 hrs) 60% available seats CLASS LABS: 24 hours per week (48% of 50 hrs) 75% available seats The composite of these factors is Contact Hours per Station – the units Utilization is measured in. Given the above, the target Contact Hours per Station established by SCHEV is the following:

CLASSROOMS: 50 hours (80%) x 60% seats = 24 Contact Hours per Station CLASS LABS: 50 hours (48%) x 75% seats = 18 Contact Hours per Station The above Contact Hours per Station values represent target utilization for each classroom and class lab respectively within the Virginia state system, typically expressed as 100 percent. When these values are measured for each room, they are evaluated as a percentage of these targets.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

These targets are applied to all Virginia public institutions and do not adequately address the needs of a smaller liberal arts university such as UMW. Furthermore, the “extended day” timetable does not accurately reflect the peak use times between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm at UMW. Low evening use will unnaturally deflate utilization rates when rooms may be well used during the day. Planning must deal with the peak conditions and current culture or scheduling habits. The SCHEV targets also do not address the liberal arts model central to UMW’s mission. A liberal arts education is typically inquiry and debate intended to encourage and stimulate critical thinking. The goal is to develop each student’s ability to think rationally using a host of general knowledge. This form of learning usually requires smaller learning groups, more direct contact with tenured faculty, and more choice or freedom in course offerings. Liberal arts models impact use by requiring more small rooms, small class sizes, and flexibility in scheduling. Targeting a high utilization level assumes most variables can be controlled, which limits flexibility in scheduling. Also, high targets assume the current inventory is well suited to meet a university’s curricular needs, which is not always the case. The current inventory is a significant challenge to the liberal arts model as well as campus culture since there is a perception that classrooms are currently overused and more space is necessary to accommodate current demand. This study evaluates the utilization capacity for classrooms to identify the maximized model of use. This may mean slightly larger class sizes to on average better fill current classrooms.

173

CLASSROOMS: 30 hours per week (60% of 50 hrs) 67% available seats CLASS LABS: 20 hours per week (40% of 50 hrs) 80% available seats In classrooms, this study proposes that slightly more seats be occupied on average. Although the University aims for small class sizes, they also hope to maximize their classroom resources while still maintaining student comfort, ease of seat reconfigurations, and instructor movement throughout the space. The target time use has been lowered to reflect a density of room use between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. This concept is expanded for class labs where a lower time use is proposed to allow more prep-time between classes. Typically, class labs have specialty equipment and materials that need to be modified during nonclass times that are greater than the changes required in a standard classroom. Therefore, less time is targeted for class lab scheduled use. This study proposes that class lab seats be better filled on average. Seats in labs generally occupy larger areas than those in standard classrooms and therefore, student comfort is more easily achieved. Also, lab seats are generally more expensive due to the amount of area dedicated and type of specialty work being done in such spaces. Therefore, higher target station occupancy rates in class labs are appropriate. Given the recommended targets above, the Contact Hours per Station can be revised as follows:

CLASSROOMS: 50 hours (60%) x 67% seats = 20.1Contact Hours per Station CLASS LABS: 50 hours (40%) x 80% seats = 16 Contact Hours per Station

UTILIZATION RATES FOR EXISTING CLASSROOMS AND CLASS LABS UMW has 110 instructional spaces: 61 classrooms and 49 class labs. A handful of other spaces (those not listed as classroom or class lab) do hold instruction, though scheduled use of these spaces is minimal and therefore not included. Below is a table identifying the current utilization rates for all classrooms and class labs at UMW as a percentage of the SCHEV target. Also shown is the utilization as a percentage of the recommended target: (Refer to Appendix for table listing all classrooms, the percent of SCHEV target, and percent of the Burt Hill targetâ&#x20AC;Ś) Overall, classrooms are better utilized than class labs. Classrooms more often exceed, meet, or come close to target utilization rates. A couple of class labs greatly exceed all targets, although utilization is lower on average. This is most likely due to high levels of specialization as well as single department ownership of spaces.

CLASSROOMS: Avg 16.72 Contact Hours per station (31% below SCHEV target, 17% below BH target) CLASS LABS: Avg 7.17 Contact Hours per station (60% below SCHEV target, 55% below BH target) These values preliminarily indicate that there is capacity for increased use on campus in the future, though a more detailed analysis identifies some limitations to that finding. Jepson Hall poses one such challenge. Average use in Jepson for both time use and stations occupied appears to be near targets, which is a function of a few over-used rooms balancing out several under-used rooms (in terms of Contact Hours per Station). Jepson 113 and 214 track utilization rates significantly over the target. These rooms handle lab coursework for introductory biology and introductory chemistry, respectively. Introductory biology labs are also held in room 110, which is below target utilization and could take some of the scheduling pressure off of 113. Similarly, like-coursework could be better distributed among the available resources, assuming all other factors (such as faculty availability) could be achieved.

The other challenge facing Jepson Hall rooms is a high level of specialization. Many low-utilized rooms in Jepson serve a specific function and are set up to best address that scientific discipline. For example, Room 310 is used for biochemistry (one course). Room 211 is for physical chemistry (one course). Room 405 is for mineralogy. Anatomy labs are held in Room 102 (two courses). The set-up times, specialized materials, and furnishings layout in the anatomy lab make it ill-suited for any other discipline to use as an instructional space. Due to a lack of dedicated research space, many of these labs are also used for both faculty and student research, which is not an ideal condition. Although there appears to be capacity in under-utilized rooms in Jepson Hall, these rooms cannot accept significant increases in use without a detailed use analysis to combine like-functions, potential curriculum restructuring to increase efficiency, and culture changes. The Jepson Hall example indicates that further detailed analysis should be conducted at the building or program level in conjunction with future campus development. NOTE: Utilization is especially low for class labs because of rooms categorized as class labs and not being scheduled. Utilization improves to 8.57 (47 percent SCHEV, 53 percent BH) when unscheduled rooms are removed, which identifies an underlying underutilization.

C H A P T E R 5 - C A M P U S U T I L I Z AT I O N

A great many variables exist in classroom scheduling, and placing restrictions on flexibility to handle those variables puts strain on the scheduling system at any institution. Therefore, a lower utilization rate is recommended, which better aligns with a flexible liberal arts model and for when UMW has peak scheduling.

CLAV00108

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

BUILDING ROOM NUMBER TRIN00243

TRIN00B39

TRIN00138

TRIN00207

TRIN000B6

TRIN00210

TRIN00119

POLLARD HALL

POLLAR D HALL

TRIN000B7

2400

TRIN0106A

1800

TRIN00B36

TRIN00204

TRIN00140

POLL00304

MERCER HALL

POLL00213

MERC00309

MERC00106

MELCHERS HALL

MELCH ERS HALL

MERC00310

MELC00107

JEPSON SCIENCE CENTER

MELC00207

JEPS00313

JEPS00100

GOOLRICK HALL

G O OL RIC K HA LL

JEPS00219

GW HALL

GE OR GE WA SHI NG TO N H..

GOOL002..

DUPONT HALL

GW00215

DUPN00211

DUPN00324

DUPN00209

COMBS HALL

DUPN00215

DUPN00205

CMBS00237

CMBS00139

CMBS00001

CMBS00004

CMBS00112

CMBS00214

CMBS00215

CHANDLER HALL

CMBS00003

CMBS00111

CMBS00114

CMBS00213

CMBS00322

CMBS00002

CHAN003..

CHAN002..

ANNEX A

CHAN002..

CHAN003..

ANXA00110

ANXA00111

THURSDAY

ANXA00112

WEDNESDAY

10 04 CO LLE GE AV EN UE

ANXA00114

TUESDAY

ANXA00109

MONDAY

1004 COLLEGE AVE

LEGEND: DAYS OF THE WEEK

ANXA00115

MINUTES PER WEEK

174

MINUTES USED PER WEEK CLASSROOMS BY WEEK

TRINKLE HALL

FRIDAY 2600

40 HOURS PER WEEK (SCHEV target)

2200

2000

30 HOURS PER WEEK (BURT HILL TARGET)

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

175 CLASS LABS BY WEEK

1600

24 HOURS H PER WEEK W K (SCHEV TARGET)

C H A P T E R 5 - C A M P U S U T I L I Z AT I O N

1200

20 HOURS H PER WEEK W K (BURT HILL TARGET)

1000

800

600

400

200

BUILDING ROOM NUMBER

TRIN00B52

POLL00108

POLL00127

MELC00212

MELC00219

MELC00102

MELC00209

MELC00111

MELC00131

JEPS00310

MELC00304

JEPS00405

JEPS00407

JEPS00102

JEPS00211

JEPS00213

JEPS00312

JEPS00409

JEPS00107

JEPS00217

JEPS00417

JEPS00203

JEPS00109

JEPS00317

JEPS00210

JEPS00110

JEPS00314

JEPS00214

JEPS00113

DUPN00219

DUPN00321

CMBS00009

DUPN00313

CMBS00011

CMBS00012

CMBS00349

CHAN001..

ANXB00123

0 ANXB00105

MINUTES PER WEEK

1400

CLAV00102

This chart also indicates that use could be better spread among a departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rooms. Often a curriculum study is required to identify potential opportunities for increased efficiency. Purposeful scheduling aimed at improving time use of current facilities can alleviate moments of strain in the schedule and better utilize under-used rooms.

1800

ANXB00106

The remainder of the class labs generally fall below the targets, which indicates under-use across the board except for a couple outliers. High levels of specialization in some spaces may be driving the reduced use, such as labs configured for a particular study or instructional labs also being used for student and faculty research. Many class labs are required for a program to be successful regardless of how often or well they are utilized, such as performance spaces.

MELCHERS HALL

2000

Also of note is consistency of use. The data seems to indicate that rooms scheduled across departments are better used than those owned by any single department. Though a room may be used across similar departments, the effort of coordinating and scheduling different departmental activities in one room leads to better use.

For class labs, the SCHEV target for time use is shown at 24 hours and the Burt Hill recommended target is shown at 20 hours. A couple of science rooms are being used significantly past the SCHEV target. These rooms host primarily lab sections of introductory science courses and are practically in constant use. Jepson 113 is in use for the most minutes per week, which is surprising especially since the room is not even scheduled on Fridays. These high-end outliers are examples of over-use.

JEPSON SCIENCE CENTER

TRI NK POLLAR LE D HALL HA LL

2200

For classroom spaces, the SCHEV target for time use (40 hours) as well as the Burt Hill recommended target (30 hours) are also shown. Note that very few classrooms meet the SCHEV target for time use, though many are performing well against the Burt Hill recommended target.

Often rising to the top are classrooms in Combs Hall. Recent renovations have made these rooms more desirable. The departments housed in Combs use their classrooms fairly well and cannot experience significant growth without access to more classroom space, which could be addressed in more interdisciplinary classroom use.

COMBS HALL

DUPONT HALL

TRINKLE HALL

These charts identify each learning environment and the amount of time scheduled for regular credit-bearing activity in Fall 2009. The rooms are grouped by building then sorted by minutes per week respectively. Classrooms are represented in the chart to the left and class labs in the chart to the right.

ANNEX B

CH AN DL ER HA LL

POLLARD HALL

1004 COLLEGE AVE

10 04 CO LLE GE AV EN UE

CHANDLER HALL

Utilization rates are based on both time used and stations occupied. One reason for some lower utilization rates is low weekly time use, especially on Fridays. The following charts identify how much time a room is used per week, by day.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

DEPARTMENT GROUP/ FACILITY IDENTIFICATION/ DEPARTMENT NAME ECONOMICS

100%

PHYSICAL SCIENCES

MATHEMATICS

60%

MATHEMATICS

70%

MATHEMATICS

COMPUTER SCIENCES

PSYCHOLOGY

HEALTH AND PHYS. ED

GEOGRAPHY

COMPUTER SCIENCES

PSYCHOLOGY

ECONOMICS

MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS

CLASSIC, PHILOSOPHY RELIGION AREA AND ETHNIC STUDIES ART, MUSIC, THEATER, DANCE ART, MUSIC, THEATER, DANCE ART, MUSIC, THEATER, DANCE MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS

ENGLISH, LINGUISTICS COMMUNICATION ENGLISH, LINGUISTICS COMMUNICATION ENGLISH, LINGUISTICS COMMUNICATION MODERN FOREIGN LANGUAGES POLITICAL SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS ART, MUSIC, THEATER, DANCE ENGLISH, LINGUISTICS COMMUNICATION ENGLISH, LINGUISTICS COMMUNICATION MODERN FOREIGN LANGUAGES ART, MUSIC, THEATER, DANCE ART, MUSIC, THEATER, DANCE EDUCATION

ART, MUSIC, THEATER, DANCE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION HISTORY POLITICAL SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS MODERN FOREIGN LANGUAGES HISTORY

HISTORY

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF SEATS USED

CLAV 108

JEPSON 219

TRINKLE B36

TRINKLE 140

TRINKLE 138

TRINKLE 119

TRINKLE 0B6

CHANDLER 201

GOOLRICK 205

ANNEX A 112

TRINKLE 0B7

CHANDLER 205

CHANDLER 206

ANNEX A 110

JEPSON 100

COMBS 237

TRINKLE 210

TRINKLE 106A

DUPONT 209

CHANDLER 304

TRINKLE 204

ANNEX A 115

CHANDLER 204

CHANDLER 203

JEPSON 313

COMBS 112

COMBS 139

COMBS 114

COMBS 111

CHANDLER 301

CHANDLER 202

GW 215

ANNEX A 109

MERCER 309

POLLARD 213

DUPONT 324

POLLARD 304

TRINKLE B39

TRINKLE 243

TRINKLE 207

MELCHERS 207

DUPONT 215

COMBS 215

COMBS 001

COMBS 004

DUPONT 211

ANNEX A 111

COMBS 214

COMBS 002

COMBS 322

COMBS 003

MERCER 310

COMBS 213

ANNEX A 114 MERCER 106

CHANDLER 303

MELCHERS 107

DUPONT 205

176

PERCENTAGE OF SEAT USE AVERAGE PERCENTAGE SEAT USED IN EACH CLASSROOM

110%

100%

90%

80%

67% (BURT HILL TARGET) 60% (SCHEV TARGET)

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

177

C O M PA R I S O N: C L A S S S I Z E S TO R O O M C A PAC I T I E S Another factor in overall utilization performance is average station occupancy rates, or how many seats - on average - are being used when a room is in use. The following charts demonstrate the average station occupancy rates for classrooms (left) and class labs (right). Overall, the rooms are well or over filled on average. Most spaces exceed, meet, or are near the seat use targets, which indicates that when courses are scheduled, they are well enrolled for the size spaces available. Very few classrooms see low seat fill rates on average. When considering the entire classroom inventory, current seat use is meeting target expectations. duPont 205 shows as regularly overfilled. Facility data shows that this room has 25 stations, though courses in this room have 25-30 students enrolled. This indicates that the History Department needs to utilize a larger classroom for this coursework or enroll less students in these courses to achieve better station occupancy rates. When the seat fill surpasses the targets, flexibility is limited. Strain may be felt in scheduling. Personal comfort and fire safety may be compromised as well in such situations.

75% (SCHEV TARGET) 60%

40%

20%

DEPARTMENT GROUP/ FACILITY IDENTIFICATION/ DEPARTMENT NAME

PHYSICAL SCIENCES

ECONOMICS

PHYSICAL SCIENCES

BIOLOGY

PSYCOLOGY

PHYSICAL SCIENCES

BIOLOGY

PHYSICAL SCIENCES

GEOGRAPHY

BIOLOGY

PHYSICAL SCIENCES

BIOLOGY

PHYSICAL SCIENCES

GEOGRAPHY

PHYSICAL SCIENCES

BIOLOGY

MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS

THEATER,

SERVICES

THEATER,

ART, MUSIC, DANCE ART, MUSIC, DANCE ART, MUSIC, DANCE ART, MUSIC, DANCE ART, MUSIC, DANCE

THEATER,

ART, MUSIC, DANCE ART, MUSIC, DANCE ART, MUSIC, DANCE PROTECTIVE

PROTECTIVE SERVICES

ART, MUSIC, THEATER, DANCE ART, MUSIC, THEATER, DANCE ENGLISH, LINGUISTICS, COMMUNICATION

PROTECTIVE SERVICES

C H A P T E R 5 - C A M P U S U T I L I Z AT I O N

JEPSON 405

CLAV 102

JEPSON 417

JEPSON 314

JEPSON 312

CHANDLER 109

JEPSON 217

JEPSON 203

JEPSON 310

JEPSON 107

JEPSON 213

ANNEX B 213

JEPSON 317

JEPSON 210

JEPSON 214

JEPSON 110

JEPSON 113

JEPSON 211

ANNEX B 105

JEPSON 407

JEPSON 102

JEPSON 109

ANNEX B 106

JEPSON 409

TRINKLE B52

POLLARD 217

DUPONT 219

POLLARD 108

DUPONT 321

DUPONT 313

COMBS 009

MELCHERS 111

MELCHERS 131

MELCHERS 304

COMBS 012

COMBS 349

MELCHERS 102

MELCHERS 212

80% (BURT HILL TARGET)

80%

ART, MUSIC, THEATER, DANCE ART, MUSIC, THEATER, DANCE

The science class labs achieving the highest station occupancy rates are those that do not have high time use levels. Jepson 102 and 407 are only used roughly five hours per week, but when they are used, they are overfilled with students. This indicates that the couple courses taught there are in high enough demand to perhaps necessitate extra sections taught at other times. This, of course, relies on the faculty’s ability to increase their teaching load and the program to be flexible enough to add extra sections. As identified for the classrooms, over filled rooms limit flexibility and potentially compromise personal comfort and safety, especially in a lab.

100%

100% AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF SEATS USED

Class labs are also well used on average. Between Arts and Sciences department groups, the Sciences achieve better station occupancies. Arts programs typically require large, multi-functional spaces without clearly delineated “seats” such as ensemble rehearsal rooms and dance studios. The activities that typically take place in arts class labs also tend to require more area per student, so even though more students could fit into a room, the curriculum could not allow for more at certain times. Therefore, we see Visual and Performing Arts rooms in duPont and Pollard showing the lowest station occupancies, though these levels are most likely acceptable for the activities scheduled. Rooms used by multiple departments are consistently well filled.

COMBS 011

Most departments are achieving similar patterns of seat use. The Economics classroom in 1004 College Ave is not well filled, though this space is more remote from the center of campus. Jepson 100 also sees a lower station occupancy on average. Typically, science courses have their lecture component in this room. These courses are enrolled such that they can fit into the labs groups of roughly 20-24. No more than three sections meet for lecture at the same time, which keeps room seat fill rate low since the room can seat just over 100 students.

MELCHERS 219

MELCHERS 209

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE SEAT USED IN EACH CLASS LAB

178

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE SEAT USED IN CLASSROOMS PER BUILDING

100%

90%

90.53 85.53 80.62

80%

76.59 72.92

72.48

71.21

70%

80% (BURT HILL TARGET)

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE SEATS USED

63.92 75% (SHEV TARGET)

58.76

60%

51.00

50%

38.87

40%

30.00

30%

20%

10%

BUILDING NAME UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

1004 COLLEGE AVENUE

POLLARD HALL

JEPSON SCIENCE CENTER

TRINKLE HALL

MELCHERS HALL

COMBS HALL

CHANDLER HALL

DUPONT HALL

GOOLRICK HALL

ANNEX A

MERCER HALL

GEORGE WASHINGTON HALL

179 Pollard Hall (Music Department) tends to have the lowest average station occupancy rate when all the classrooms and class labs are aggregated. The study of music requires large spaces to meet programmatic needs. Instrumental practice requires a significant amount of area, depending on the instrument being practiced. Though a room could support a lot of students during a flute ensemble rehearsal, it cannot support nearly as many during a percussion ensemble rehearsal. Also, nearly half of the courses scheduled in Pollard have not been assigned a specific room as the instructor and student(s) typically negotiate a time and place to meet or practice. This is typical of music programs. Annex A and B are seeing high station occupancy rates. This load is temporary as Monroe Hall was under renovation at the time of data collection. Most of the Annex uses have already transferred back to Monroe now that the renovation is complete.

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE SEAT USED IN CLASS LABS PER BUILDING

The values shown in these charts need to be considered with the count of rooms in a building. Though George Washington Hall is showing the highest station occupancy rate, this value only represents one space that is used fairly infrequently. This also speaks to the importance of evaluating the findings as part of a larger picture: that time use and station occupancy alone do not indicate overall performance.

100%

90% 80% (BURT HILL TARGET)

80%

C H A P T E R 5 - C A M P U S U T I L I Z AT I O N

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

BUILDING NAME

POLLARD HALL

DUPONT HALL

1004 COLLEGE AVENUE

CHANDLER HALL

MELCHERS HALL

JEPSON SCIENCE CENTER

COMBS HALL

TRINKLE HALL

ANNEX B

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE SEATS USED

75% (SHEV TARGET)

180

USE OVER TIME FOR CLASSROOMS AND CLASS LABS Perceptions of how rooms are used or what inventory is required are often based on moments of strain in the schedule â&#x20AC;&#x201C; short periods of time where room availability is low and course offerings are most dense. By identifying these scheduling peaks, the associated valleys become opportunities to flatten the peak and use the available inventory more uniformly across the day and the week. More uniform use leads to less strain on scheduling and better perceptions of room availability.

In order to comfortably schedule more than 75 percent of the inventory, variables need to be under control to minimize the need for flexibility or chance of irregularities. There would need to be less choice in order to regulate use patterns. Curricula would need to be simpler and linear. All of these controls oppose a traditional liberal arts education based on choice and freedom in academic inquiry. The more liberal the educational model, the more space needs to be reserved for flexibility and variation. We feel that 75 percent inventory use is appropriate for UMW and its goals.

The following charts identify the amount of rooms used at any given time throughout the day for each day of the week. This study recommends that no more than 75 percent of the inventory be used during peak schedule hours (8:00 am â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 5:00 pm). When more than 75 percent of the inventory is used, flexibility is limited and strain is felt in the schedule. SCHEV does not have a guideline for how many classrooms should be scheduled at any given time.

At the peak, more than 75 percent of the inventory is used at UMW. Peak use on main campus is between 9:00 am and 12:00 pm on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Opportunities for increased utilization are before 9:00 am, over lunch Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and after 3:00 pm every day. Class labs are better used in the afternoon than the morning, and they are scheduled significantly less on Friday than any other day. Evening use for both classrooms and class labs could be increased, which would increase overall utilization levels.

LEGEND: DAYS OF THE WEEK MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY

CLASSROOMS

CLASS LABS

65 61 CLASSROOMS

40 75% 35

67% 40

30 COUNT OF FACILITY IDENTIFICATION

COUNT OF FACILITY IDENTIFICATION

49 CLASS LABS

35 30

25 20 15

60% 50%

10 5

9 AM

11 AM

1 PM

3 PM

5 PM

TIME UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

7 PM

9 PM

11 PM

9 AM

11 AM

1 PM

3 PM TIME

5 PM

7 PM

9 PM

181

This analysis was done by department FTE in order to recognize departmental control over space. The department FTE is representative of credits awarded in that discipline and does not equal the majors in that department. The sciences (Jepson Hall) currently represent 507.5 FTEs. If every learning environment in Jepson were optimized and met target levels for time use and station occupancy, the sciences could support an additional 365 FTEs within the current inventory. Since the perception is that Jepson is already undersized for the current enrollment, changes would have to be made at many levels to achieve this growth. Changes in culture, such as better use of the labs across disciplines and spreading instructional lab needs across rooms to increase individual lab usage, would be required. The science curriculum would also require evaluation to maximize existing room use. As discussed earlier in this report, many science labs are highly specialized or contain specific materials catered to one area of study, so efforts to use labs across science disciplines or spread the current load among more rooms may not be possible. A curriculum evaluation may shed light on opportunities for efficiency, but will not account for dramatic FTE increases alone. By replicating this process for all departments, the campus could see a growth of roughly 1,600 student FTEs in current facilities. Again, cultural changes would be required, such as the ability to schedule courses across departments. Looking at the whole campus, that cross-departmental scheduling to maximize resources could mean an increase in remoteness from faculty offices to classrooms and a greater potential need to transport educational materials across campus. If all general classrooms were to be scheduled across departments, a centralized scheduling system would need to be installed as well as centralized support for educational technologies, maintenance, etc. Cultural changes are not easily achieved on any campus and should be carefully considered prior to implementation. Any increase in FTEs has a direct relationship on overall head count. 1,600 additional FTEs equals roughly 1,700 more students, which has an impact on other areas of campus. Roughly 100 more faculty offices would be required to support the additional students, as well as over 1,000 dormitory beds, 330 dining hall seats, new structured parking opportunities, and a significant increase to campus administration services. Even though the instructional spaces can support significantly more students, the current limitations on campus as a whole will prevent dramatic growth.

S U M M A R Y: A N A LY S I S / C R I T I Q U E O F U T I L I Z A T I O N Overall, utilization rates at UMW are good when all factors are considered; though most rooms do not generally meet the SCHEV targets for utilization - a combination of time used and seats occupied. This finding indicates, in a broad sense, that the campus can support at least a small increase in students within the current learning environment inventory. The following rooms have been identified in this study as having the lowest utilization rates:

TOP TEN WORST PERFORMING ROOMS 1. 1004 College 108 (Classroom, Economics) 2. Pollard 108 (Class Lab, Music) 3. Dupont 219 (Class Lab, Theater) 4. Dupont 324 (Class Lab, Theater) 5. Combs 9 (Class Lab, Protective Services) 6. Jepson 405 (Class Lab, Physical Sciences) 7. Chandler 303 (Classroom, Business Administration) 8. Trinkle 243 (Classroom, Classics-Philosophy-Religion) 9. Jepson 310 (Class Lab, Physical Sciences) 10. Pollard 127 (Class Lab, Music) Most of these rooms can attribute their low utilization scores to low time use. In the case of music and theater, the low utilization rate is most likely the function of both low time use and low station occupancy rates. At any institution, there will be rooms that do not meet the utilization target due to their high level of specialization, remoteness from the campus center, or programmatic function. Therefore, the above spaces need to be reviewed to assess if the activities taking place there could be accommodated elsewhere and these spaces repurposed, or over-used spaces could alleviate scheduling pressures by placing some coursework in these rooms. Another means of increasing the utilization of these spaces is to consider crossdepartmental use. This means of scheduling is most effective for classrooms since they are typically generic in nature and more easily used between departments.

The following rooms have been identified in this study as having the highest utilization rates:

TOP TEN BEST PERFORMING ROOMS 1. Jepson 113 (Class Lab, Biology) 2. Jepson 214 (Class Lab, Physical Sciences) 3. Combs 213 (Classroom, Modern Foreign Language) 4. Annex A 109 (Classroom, Multiple Departments) 5. Combs 2 (Classroom, ELC) 6. Combs 322 (Classroom, ELC) 7. Chandler 301 (Classroom, Multiple Departments) 8. Combs 3 (Classroom, ELC) 9. Combs 114 (Classroom, Multiple Departments) 10. Combs 111 (Classroom, Multiple Departments) All of the above rooms are surpassing their target Contact Hours per Station values, which renders a utilization rate over 100 percent. Other than the two introductory science labs in Jepson, the rooms with the highest utilization rates are all classrooms, half of which are scheduled by multiple departments. This finding indicates that cross-departmental scheduling has a positive effect on utilization rates. The other classrooms on this list are in departments that have minimal to no use in class lab spaces, meaning more of their curriculum can be scheduled in their generic classroom spaces, leading to better utilization. In the case of the introductory science labs, these rooms are significantly over used and additional inventory or better use of the current inventory is recommended, especially in the case of Jepson 113, which is utilized more than twice its target without being scheduled on Fridays. The following rooms are not scheduled at all and could be better utilized, recoded to meeting/conference room to better represent the actual departmental activity, or removed from the learning environment inventory and repurposed:

ROOMS NOT SCHEDULED IN FALL 09 1004 College 104 (Classroom, Economics) Chandler 101 (Class Lab, Multiple Departments) Chandler 102 (Lecture, Multiple Departments) Combs 13 (Class Lab, Protective Services) Combs 14 (Class Lab, Protective Services) Combs 24 (Class Lab, Protective Services) Combs 101 (Class Lab, ELC) Simpson Library 225 (Classroom, Multiple Departments) Trinkle B12 (Class Lab, Computer Science) Trinkle B13 (Class Lab, Computer Science)

C H A P T E R 5 - C A M P U S U T I L I Z AT I O N

S T U D E N T F T E C A P A C I T Y: W H A T T H E C U R R E N T INVENTORY CAN SUPPORT FTE capacity is based on the current inventory and an understanding of how many FTEs each room can reasonably support. This analysis evaluates, per room, how many seats are currently available, how much time is available, and what the target use levels for time and seats are. This determines the student FTE capacity if the entire inventory were optimized to meet target utilization.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

BUILDING NAME AND ROOM NUMBER

CHANDLER 102

CLAV 104

SIMPSON 225

CLAV 108

DUPONT 324

CHANDLER 303

TRINKLE 243

DUPONT 211

TRINKLE B39

DUPONT 209

MELCHERS 107

POLLARD 304

COMBS 237

GOOLRICK 205

DUPONT 215

GW 215

CHANDLER 206

CHANDLER 203

MELCHERS 207

POLLARD 213

TRINKLE 210

TRINKLE 207

JEPSON 100

TRINKLE 106A

JEPSON 219

TRINKLE B36

TRINKLE 138

ANNEX A 111

MERCER 309

MERCER 106

TRINKLER 119

TRINKLE 204

TRINKLE 0B6

CHANDLER 304

COMBS 001

COMBS 139

CHANDLER 204

ANNEX A 115

JEPSON 313

COMBS 215

ANNEX A 110

DUPONT 205

CHANDLER 004

COMBS 202

ANNEX A 112

COMBS 112

TRINKLE 0B7

CHANDLER 205

MERCER 310

TRINKLE 140

COMBS 214

CHANDLER 201

ANNEX A 114

COMBS 111

COMBS 114

COMBS 003

CHANDLER 301

COMBS 322

COMBS 002

ANNEX A 109

COMBS 213

CURRENT AVERAGE WEEKLY CONTACT HOURS PER STATION

182

C O N TA C T H O U R S

CLASSROOM CONTACT HOURS

SCHEV TARGET - 24 CONTACT HOURS PER STATION

BURT HILL TARGET - 20.10 CONTACT HOURS PER STATION

183

C O N TA C T H O U R S P E R S TAT I O N Utilization shown as Contact Hours per Station aggregates the factors of time use and station occupancy, so each factor must be understood in order to affect change. The target use levels for each factor have been applied equally across the university, which intends to offset the varied needs of each program. As demonstrated with the sciences, this one-size-fits-all model of tracking utilization does not accurately reflect the varied pedagogies, space needs, and curriculums for all programs at a diverse liberal arts university such as UMW and detailed analysis will be required for programs within the scope of future campus projects. When utilization rates are averaged for an institution, generalities can be developed as a starting point for future planning. This utilization study has shown that overall, learning environment use is good on average. When rooms are scheduled, seats are generally being well filled. Though not always meeting the SCHEV targets, use tracks well against Burt Hill recommended targets, which consider UMWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s specific needs and culture. When considering the future and potential growth at UMW, the learning environments can support all growth scenarios described in this report. Other programmatic areas on a campus, such as dormitory facilities, faculty offices, dining halls, and administration are not in a position to support dramatic growth. The campus must be considered holistically in future planning.

SCHEV TARGET - 24 CONTACT HOURS PER STATION BURT HILL TARGET - 20.10 CONTACT HOURS PER STATION 15

BUILDING NAME AND ROOM NUMBER

CHANDLER 101

COMBS 013

COMBS 014

COMBS 024

COMBS 101

TRINKLE B12

TRINKLE B13

JEPSON 310

POLLARD 108

DUPONT 219

COMBS 009 JEPSON 405

POLLARD 127

ANNEX B 123

DUPONT 321

MELCHERS 212

COMBS 011

JEPSON 213 MELCHERS 219

JEPSON 211

JEPSON 407

JEPSON 102

COMBS 212 JEPSON 312 MELCHERS 102

MELCHERS 209

MELCHERS 111

MELCHERS 131

ANNEX B 105

MELCHERS 304

JEPSON 409

ANNEX B 106

JEPSON 417

CHANDLER 109

JEPSON 217

JEPSON 109 CLAV 102

DUPONT 313

JEPSON 203

JEPSON 107

JEPSON 314

JEPSON 317

TRINKLE B52

JEPSON 210

JEPSON 110

COMBS 349

JEPSON 214

C H A P T E R 5 - C A M P U S U T I L I Z AT I O N

JEPSON 113

CURRENT AVERAGE WEEKLY CONTACT HOURS PER STATION

184

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

185

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 6 P A R K I N G

A N A L Y S I S

The following Parking Study has been prepared for the University of Mary Washington as part of an overall Comprehensive Master Plan (Master Plan) for the Fredericksburg campus*. UMW is preparing a Master Plan to determine the existing and proposed physical needs of the campus to successfully address the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s planning objectives. The Master Plan will prioritize projects, including parking projects, for a ten-year period. Thus the planning horizon for this study is 2019, ten years after the Master Plan was initiated in 2009.

It should be noted that the Parking Study prepared as part of a Master Plan should ideally be examined as part of an overall Transportation Study as vehicular accessibility, circulation, multi-modal access and transportation management are all critical topics that should be considered as part of the overall parking needs equation. Thus, in the absence of a more comprehensive Transportation Study, general transportation assumptions were made and engineering judgment was applied. *This parking study is focused on the Fredericksburg campus and does not include parking conditions at any other satellite campus location.

C H A P T E R 6 - PA R K I N G A N A LY S I S

During the early stages of the Master Plan process, the University identified parking deficiencies and illegal parking as primary issues that should be addressed in the Parking Study. Thus, the primary objectives of this Parking Study have been to identify existing parking issues and recommend short-term solutions (if appropriate) and project future parking requirements aimed at addressing long-term parking requirements. This Parking Study also provides best practices information from other Universities that can be helpful to UMW in reviewing parking enforcement strategies and parking control devices to reduce illegal parking. This parking study does not examine parking compliance as part of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

PARKING DEMAND STUDY PARKING S TUDY AREA MA P ( FI G U R E 1 )

COLLEGE

TERRACE

31 SUNKEN RD.

13 11

10 55

PARKING GARAGE

21 WILLARD

ARRINGTON HALL

LEE HALL

TRINKLE

1 VIRGINIA

FRAMAR

GEORGE WASHINGTON

5 20

R O U T E

SEACOBECK

38 RIDDERHOFF MARTIN GALLERY

HALL

MARY CURTIS HALL

HALL

COLLEGE

WESTMORELAND HALL

TYLER

FAIRFAX

26 COMBS HALL

HAMLET

AVE.

1004 1201 1004 COLLEGE AVENUE

HEATING PLANT

29 COLLEGE

HEIGHTS

RESIDENT STUDENT

Building Use Academic

FACULTY STAFF

Residential Adminstration

COMMUTER STUDENT

Other Non Residential

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

MIXED USE POPULATION

UMW APARTMENTS

CHANDLER HALL

JEFFERSON

MARY BALL HALL

HALL

SOUTH HALL

MELCHERS HALL

DU PONT

EAGLE VILLAGE 2

HALL

BUSHNELL HALL

11 DOLLY MADISON HALL

HALL

FITNESS CENTER

POLLARD HALL

UMW APARTMENTS

JEPSON SCIENCE CENTER

EAGLE VILLAGE 1

UMW APARTMENTS

HALL

33 SIMPSON LIBRARY

BRENT HALL

WOODARD CAMPUS CENTER CONVERGENCE CENTER (FUTURE)

51 THE ANDERSON CONVOCATION CENTER

ALVEY HALL

RANDOLPH HALL

MASON HALL

HALL

GOOLRICK HALL

MARYE

MONROE HALL

MARSHALL HALL

AMPHITHEATRE

MERCER HALL

RUSSELL HALL

WILLIAM STREE T

186

100 50

200 150

300 250

1201 WILLIAMS STREET

OUTH HALL

PARKING DEMAND STUDY ET

STRE JEPSON ALUMNI CENTER

32 UMW APARTMENTS

EXISTING

VER

CONDITIONS

187

N A R R AT I V E

STUDY AREA The Fredericksburg campus is generally bordered by Jefferson Davis Highway (north), College Avenue (west), Hanover Street (south) and Sunken Road (east). The Battleground Athletic Complex parking lots (south of Hanover Street), and the Thornton Street parking lots (west of College Avenue) are also included in the study area. Figure 1, provides a graphic map of the campus study area. Figure 1 also illustrates the allocation of faculty / staff, resident student, commuter student, and mixed use population parking facilities throughout the campus.

HANO

WILLIAM STREE T

TENNIS CENTER

Subsequent to initiating the on-campus parking study, the University expanded the parking study area to include on-street parking in the College Terrace and College Heights neighborhoods during/after spring break to address complaints about university related vehicles parking illegally on neighborhood residential streets and to determine the additional demand for parking spaces near the campus core.

1201 WILLIAMS STREET

ATHLETIC FIELD

C A M P U S P O P U L AT I O N A N D S TAT I S T I C S At the time of this study, the Fredericksburg campus has a total population of 4,650 students, faculty and staff and a total supply of 1,664 parking spaces. Table 1, presents a population and parking breakdown for faculty / staff, residential students and commuter students. Table 1 also provides the parking ratio for each population category on campus. A detailed list of existing parking supply per lot number/location and use is included in the Appendix. Table 1 also indicates the parking ratio for each parking user and provides a benchmark comparison to other Universities. A benchmark comparison of UMW parking ratios is included in the “Best Practices” section of this report, pages 197-198.

ATHLETIC FIELDS

As Table 1 indicates parking ratios for the University of Mary Washington population are consistent with other universities as outlined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.

PHYSICAL PLANT BUILDING

ATHLETIC FIELD

TAB LE 1 C AM P US P OP ULATION & PAR K ING S UM MARY (2010) ATHLETIC FIELD

ATHLETIC FIELD

PARKING TYPE

POPULATION

PARKING SPACES

UMW PARKING RATIO

NAT’L PARKING RATIO BENCHMARK*

Faculty Staff

560

410

0.7

Residential Students

2,412

711

0.3

0.25

Commuter Students

1,678

397

0.2

0.3

Visitors

146

TOTAL

4,650

1,664

V. EARL DICKENSON STADIUM

Building Use ATHLETIC FIELD

ATHLETIC FIELD

Academic Residential Adminstration

100 50

200 150

300 250

Other Non Residential

*National Parking Ratio Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Transportation Planning Handbook Second Edition

C H A P T E R 6 - PA R K I N G A N A LY S I S

4 1201

188

PARKING DEMAND STUDY EXISTING

CONDITIONS

N A R R AT I V E

STRUCTURED PA RK ING LOT

PARKING POLICIES AND PERMITS Parking on the Fredericksburg campus is by permit only and is required of all vehicles parked on the campus (faculty / staff and students) and may be obtained through the UMW Parking Management System located on the Eagle Portal*. (Note: First year students are not permitted to have vehicles on campus except with written permission from the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Division of Public Safety). All vehicles using Fredericksburg campus facilities must be registered and display the appropriate decal or parking permit. The cost of parking decal is $200 for students per academic year**. The parking decal for faculty / staff, contractors, and visitors is free. The University identifies each parking lot on campus with a sign posted at the entrance of the lot bearing the lot number and name of parking type allocated to the lot. Table 2 shows the parking type and corresponding lot / decal color. Each parking type has regulations set by the University. For example vehicles belonging to faculty / staff should have a blue color decal to park legally in faculty / staff lots, parking in any other lot will be illegal and subject to a fine. Below are photographs of vehicles with decals and corresponding allocated.

PARKING INVENTORY The Fredericksburg campus has a current parking inventory of 1,664 parking spaces in 26 parking lots (including one on-street parking on Double Drive) and one structured garage across the length and breadth of the campus. The City of Fredericksburg provides on-street (un-metered) parking along College Avenue and Hanover Street. Parking is generally prohibited on most of the residential streets around the Campus. Additional information about parking outside of the campus boundaries is summarized in the Off-Campus Parking Survey section of this report. Below are photographs of vehicles four types of parking available to the campus constituents. CAMPUS LAND USE Figure 1 (previous page) shows a graphical representation of the Fredericksburg campus showing parking lots, academic, residential, sports/recreation buildings and supporting buildings / facilities. As shown in the figure, there is even dispersal of parking lots and other land uses except in the campus core area which is focused on landscape and the pedestrian environment. Parking lots are more concentrated to the north, south, east, and west of the campus, (mostly located at the fringes of the campus). Access to the parking lots is provided along Alvey Drive, Double Drive, Campus Drive, Thornton Street, Sunken Road, William Street, and Hanover Street. Each access road provides access to a limited number of parking lots.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

L E E HA L L S URFAC E LOT

SURFACE LOT WILLIAMS & SUNKEN ROAD

PARKING OCCUPANCY A parking survey was conducted on Wednesday***, January 27, 2010, between 1:00 p.m. â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2:30 p.m. and Thursday, January 28, 2010, between 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. The survey identified parking supply, occupancy and illegal parking****.

As Table 3 indicates, 1,238 parking occupancy representing 74 percent of total parking spaces during the AM peak; and 1,180 representing parking occupancy representing 71 percent of total parking spaces. As indicated on the table 45 vehicles were observed parked illegally during the AM peak and 21 during the PM peak because the decal color on the bumper or dashboard did not correspond with the designated parking lot color. (Note: Parking occupancy numbers include vehicles parked illegally).

The survey days were selected in consultation with representatives from the UMW Fredericksburg campus, and the idea was to select days free from any major campus events, which could have impacted the results of the survey. Generally, there were in incidents during the survey except for some illegal parking.

* Eaglelink Portal enables faculty / staff and students to obtain permits online ** Decals are prorated by the half year. If a student begins classes in the spring semester, the fee is $100. If a student drops during the fall semester and does not return in the spring, the student is refunded $100. *** The University confirmed that Wednesdays are the busiest on campus, when parking occupancies are expected to be highest. **** Illegal parking refers to vehicles parked in the wrong parking lot (i.e. where a vehicle with faculty / staff decal parks in a commuter student lot)

Peak parking occupancy refers to the number of parking spaces occupied during the AM and PM peak periods. Table 3, presents AM and PM peak hour occupancy by parking type. See Appendix 3 for detailed breakdown of parking occupancy by use, lot number and location. TA B LE 2 PA R K I N G TYP E AND LOT/D EC AL C OLOR ( 2010)

PARKING TYPE

LOT

DECAL

Faculty Staff

Blue

Residential Students

Black

Yellow

Commuter Students

Red

Visitors

N/A

Contractor

Blue

Orange

V IS ITO R PAR K I N G O N D O U BLE D R I V E

TA B LE 3 C A M PU S PAR K ING OC C UPANC Y

AM PEAK OCCUPANCY

PM PEAK OCCUPANCY

PARKING TYPE

CAPACITY

SPACES

PERCENT

ILLEGAL USE

SPACES

PERCENT

ILLEGAL USE

Faculty Staff

410

349

85%

360

88%

Residential Students

711

578

81%

557

78%

Commuter Students

397

225

57%

170

43%

Visitors

146

59%

64%

TOTAL

1,664

1,238

74%

1,180

71%

189

As Table 4 indicates, 71 spaces in College Heights and 44 spaces in College Terrace were occupied by UMW related vehicles were parked illegally on neighborhood streets.. On-campus peak parking demand in Table 3 was added to off-campus peak parking demand in Table 4 and the total divided by effective supply (85%) to obtain peak parking requirement as presented in Table 5 at bottom-right. As indicated in Table 5, total parking supply of 1,664 spaces will provide an excess of 72 spaces over current total peak parking requirement of 1,592 spaces. Thus the campus will provide adequate parking to meet peak parking requirement.

TA B LE 4 N E I G H B OR H OOD ( OFF- C AM P US ) PAR K ING OC C UPANC Y

COLLEGE HEIGHTS

COLLEGE TERRACE (INCLUDES SUNKEN ROAD)

PARKING TYPE

DURING SPRING PEAK

AFTER SPRING BREAK

CALCULATED UNIVERSITY DEMAND

DURING SPRING BREAK

AFTER SPRING BREAK

CALCULATED UNIVERSITY DEMAND

UMW (incl. faculty / staff and students)

Neighborhood Residents

Others (without Permit/Decal)

100

Total

157

130

TOTAL

1,664

1,238

74%

1,180

71%

Note: Calculated University Demand is UMW Demand after spring break (i.e. typical demand) plus the difference in “other” demand (i.e. After Spring Break minus During Spring Break). Calculated University Demand does not include Neighbors with Residential Parking

TA B LE 5 E XI ST I N G PAR K ING R EQUIR EM ENT

BASE YEAR 2010 Peak Demand (On-Campus) Calculated UMW On-Street Demand (Off-Campus)

1,238 115

TOTAL PEAK DEMAND

1,353

Peak Parking Requirement (includes Off-Campus demand)

1,592

Note: Total Peak Demand = 85 percent of Peak Parking Requirement BASE YR 2010 Current Parking Supply (On-Campus)

1,664

Peak Parking Requirement (includes off campus demand)

1,592

Additional Spaces Needed (Campus Wide) : Surplus / (Deficit)

Note: Additional Spaces Needed (Campus Wide) = Current Parking Supply minus Total Peak Requirement * A few of the University faculty / staff members are also residents in the neighborhoods

C H A P T E R 6 - PA R K I N G A N A LY S I S

OFF- CAMPUS PARKING SURVEY Additional parking surveys were conducted at the request of University to include the College Terrace and College Heights Neighborhoods. The study area for this survey is included in the Appendix. The parking survey was conducted on Thursday March 4, 2010 (during spring break), and Tuesday March 9, 2010 (after spring break). The survey documented vehicles of neighbors with residential parking, vehicles associated with UMW (including students and faculty / staff*) and other vehicles without any identifiable decal / sticker / label (i.e. construction, trash, cleaning, retail, supplies etc). Table 4, presents a summary of total Peak hour occupancy by parking type. See Appendix for detailed breakdown of parking occupancy by neighborhood

190

PARKING DEMAND STUDY PARKING OPPORTUNITIES MAP (FIGURE 2)

13 10

1 31

4 28 29

5 MINUTE WALKING RADIUS (FROM OPPORTUNITY LOTS)

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

< 85% PEAK OCCUPANCY

> 85% PEAK OCCUPANCY

OPPORTUNITY LOTS/GARAGE (10+ AVAILABLE SPACES)

PARKING DEMAND STUDY

191

PARKING RECOMMENDATIONS EXISTING PARKING ASSESSMENT The overall existing parking assessment as part of this Parking Demand Study indicates that the campus provides adequate parking supply to meet current parking occupancy needs. However, there are still parking related issues regarding complaints about UMW related vehicles parking illegally on residential neighborhoods streets, and the inadequacy of on-campus parking supply especially within the campus core area shown in Figure 2 (left).

OPPORTUNITY LOT/GARAGE

AVAILABLE SPACES

ADDITIONAL DEMAND IN 5 MIN. WALK RADIUS

PARKING SURPLUS

131

TOTAL

189

138

LOT/GARAGE OUTSIDE WALKING AREA

PERCENTAGE OCCUPANCY IN CORE CAMPUS AREA

ADDITIONAL SPACES NEEDED

91% 2, 3, 4, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 28, AND 29

90%

85%

As indicated in Figure 2, the three “opportunity lots” have a total parking surplus of 138 spaces to meet the additional demand required by the 10 parking lots within the campus core area at near capacity. The ten lots (outside the five minute walking radius) have occupancy levels of 85 percent and the three “opportunity lots” have occupancy levels of between 40 percent and 80%. Campus wide parking occupancy was at 74 percent during the AM peak and 71 percent during the PM peak. Faculty / staff had the highest occupancy levels of 85 percent during the AM peak and 88 percent during the PM peak period. The effective parking supply of a parking facility is typically planned as 85 percent to 90 percent of the actual parking supply. Occupancy levels for each parking type (including faculty / staff) is within the effective parking supply of the campus.

SHORT TERM PARKING STRATEGIES • Reassigning parking spaces from the three “opportunity” parking lots (Lots: 10, 30 and 33) at the north and south ends of the campus to manage parking demand. • Parking enforcement by the Fredericksburg Police will serve as a deterrent to UMW students parking on residential neighborhood streets with “No UMW Student Parking” sign • Promoting the use of alternative modes of transportation (e.g., FRED, carpools, biking, walking, etc) may be beneficial to the University in the future.

C H A P T E R 6 - PA R K I N G A N A LY S I S

NOTE: The following lots/garage are shared by more than one population type: Lot 10, Lot 30, Lot 32. Peak occupancy percentages represent the total combined occupancy for each lot.

192

PARKING DEMAND STUDY M A S T E R P L A N PA R K I N G C O N D I T I O N S

CAMPUS PLANS Future parking requirements and strategies were developed for both of the two population growth models. In the future campus population is expected to grow progressively from its current population of 4,650 to 5,356 (14%) by 2015 and to 7,905 (45%) by 2019. Future population growth and accompanying campus wide development in support of this growth may require additional parking to meet future demand. Table 6 below provides a summary of future total parking demand and average percentage growth for the 2015 and 2019 population growth models.

FUTURE PARKING NEEDS Population growth rates for Option 1 and 2 from Table 7 and parking occupancy rates from Table 3 were used as inputs for the parking demand analysis. Combining campus population growth rates with peak parking occupancy rates yields projected parking demand. Table 5 summarizes the results of the AM and PM peak projected parking demand analysis for 2015 and 2019. See Appendix 4 for detailed breakdown of projected parking demand by use, lot number and location. Total parking supply of 1,664 spaces provided by the University currently is inadequate to meet the future parking requirement of 1,780 spaces by 2015 and 2,214 spaces by 2019. Thus the University will experience a deficit of 116 parking spaces by 2015 and 550 parking spaces by 2019 campus wide.

TA B LE 6 C A M PU S P OP ULATION

OPTION 1

OPTION 2

YEAR 2010

YEAR 2015

GROWTH (%)

YEAR 2019

GROWTH (%)

Faculty / staff

560

598

696

24%

Residential Students

2,412

2,746

14%

3,497

45%

Commuter Students

1,678

2,012

20%

2,763

65%

TOTAL POPULATION

4,650

5,356

7,905

AVERAGE GROWTH (%)

14%

45%

TA B LE 7 F U T U R E PAR K ING D EM AND AND R EQUIR EM ENT

CAMPUS POPULATION

2019 (OPTION 1)

2019 (OPTION 2)

PROJECTED DEMAND

AM PEAK

PM PEAK

AM PEAK

PM PEAK

Faculty / staff

373

384

434

447

Residential Student*

658

634

838

808

Commuter Students

270

204

370

280

Visitors

106

124

135

TOTAL

1,398*

1,328

1,767*

1,669

PEAK PARKING REQUIREMENT (CAMPUS WIDE)

1,645

2,078

* - Refers to Peak Projected Demand (worst case for both AM and PM Peak); and is 85 percent of Projected Parking Requirement YR 2015

YR 2019

Peak Demand (On-Campus)

1,398

1,767

Calculated UMW On-Street Demand (Off-Campus)

115

TOTAL PEAK DEMAND

1,513

1,882

Peak Parking Requirement (includes off campus demand)

1,780

2,214

YR 2019

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

(OPTION 1)

YR 2019

Current Parking Supply

1,664

Peak Parking Requirement (includes off campus demand)

1,780

2,214

ADDITIONAL SPACES NEEDED (CAMPUS WIDE) : SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)

(116)

(550)

(OPTION 2)

193

•

• •

Encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation (e.g. vanpools, carpools, biking, walking, etc) by students and faculty / staff to reduce parking demand. A more detailed analysis would be required to determine specific transportation management measures to be recommended for the campus Making faculty / staff pay for parking will compliment future transportation management measures. Currently students are the only population category that pay for parking. Neighborhoods without the Resident Permit Parking (RPP) system should be encouraged to install the system for ease of enforcement. Where the permit parking system exists, for it to be enforceable residents should be encouraged to acquire the residential parking permits.

The best practices review is based on the following parking elements: • Parking Ratio • Walking Distance • Parking Allocation • Enforcement (Fines & Hours) • Parking Pricing • Parking Policies

PARKING RATIO Campus parking supply ratio refers to the number of parking spaces per campus population. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation recommends an average parking supply ratio of 0.33 spaces per school population at suburban sites and 0.22 spaces per school population at the urban sites. The table below indicates that the parking ratios for University of Mary Washington population are consistent with other universities as outlined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.

A reduction of parking demand will free up more land for expanding opportunities for future academic, residential, supporting buildings / facilities and green space.

PARKING TYPE

PARKING BEST PRACTICES The best practices portion of this study is a review of parking practices used in other universities. The universities were selected based on comparable student enrollment and their suburban setting. The best practices also include a review of specific parking elements pertaining to some universities or standards. Comparable universities include University of North Carolina (Asheville), Millersville University of Pennsylvania, Missouri University of Science and Technology, East Carolina University, and Salisbury University (Maryland)

MW PARKING RATIO (PARKING SPACE/ POPULATION)

NAT’L PARKING RATIO BENCHMARK (PARKING SPACE/ POPULATION)

PARKING SURPLUS

Faculty / staff

0.7

Residential Students

0.3

0.25

Commuter Students

0.2

0.3

Compared to the following universities, the UMW provides approximately 27 parking spaces per 100 students: • • • • •

However these numbers should be considered in conjunction with other transportation-related factors including the mix of residential versus commuter students and general parking policies.

W A L K I N G D I S TA N C E Campus parking should be reasonably convenient for users or located as near as possible to major buildings or activity centers (i.e., lecture halls, libraries, etc). Walking is a major form of campus travel, and special attention should be given to pedestrian connections between parking areas and activity centers. Generally a walking distance of approximately 1,050 to 2,100 feet (or five to ten minutes) is recommended for university parking users. • •

National Parking Ratio Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Transportation Planning Handbook Second Edition

Clemson University – Provides 83 parking spaces per 100 students Univ. of Virginia – Provides 66 parking spaces per 100 students Univ. of Georgia – Provides 55 parking spaces per 100 students Virginia State Univ. – Provides 45 parking spaces per 100 students East Carolina Univ. – Provides 36 parking spaces per 100 students

Virginia Tech – 28 percent of campus parking is within five minute walking radius from the central campus, and 72 percent is outside the five minute walk radius. Clemson University – 70 percent of campus parking is within five to seven minutes walk radius, and 30 percent is outside the five to seven minutes walk radius.

PARKING ALLOCATION Most universities allocate parking by use (i.e. faculty / staff, students, visitors, etc). It is important to determine who parks where for ease of managing and enforcement. Generally student parking is at greater distances from the campus core than faculty / staff or visitor parking.

The purpose of this report portion is to provide University of Mary Washington with useful information regarding parking best practices that will be helpful in its parking management practices as part of this campus planning process.

Note: Three universities in the Washington metropolitan area (Virginia Tech, Towson University, Virginia State) and Clemson University were also compared with University of Mary Washington to give the review a broader outlook.

Note: Information obtained from Clemson University Master Plan website

C H A P T E R 6 - PA R K I N G A N A LY S I S

LONG TERM PARKING STRATEGIES Future population growth and accompanying campus wide development in support of these two population growth models may require additional parking to meet future projected demand. The University should consider appropriate measures to expand existing parking facilities and/or build new ones to meet future parking requirements and/or consider specific transportation management measures aimed at reducing campus vehicle trips. The University may consider the following long-term parking strategies:

194

PARKING DEMAND STUDY M A S T E R P L A N PA R K I N G C O N D I T I O N S

PARKING ENFORCEMENT FINES/TIME Parking enforcement fines are used as a deterrent tool by universities for persons or vehicles who flout parking regulations on the campus. The table below shows average enforcement fines for selected parking violations of selected universities. The table at top-right indicates that most universities take some of these violations seriously for example altered or stolen permit attract very high fines. Most of the universities reviewed have a 24 hours, 365 days enforcement routine.

PARKING PRICING According to the Institute of Transportation of Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation (third edition), one of the most significant factors affecting parking demand could be the elasticity of demand to pricing. For example, if parking cost increased from $5/day to $6/day (20 percent increase), parking demand might be expected to decrease by about 6 percent. The table at mid-right shows average permit parking rates (annual) for faculty / staff and students of surveyed universities, including: Virginia Tech, Towson University, Virginia State, and Clemson University. As indicated in the table, student parking permit pricing at UMW is higher than most of the comparable universities except for Towson. Whiles faculty / staff in the other universities pay for parking, they park for free at UMW. Thus UMW has the opportunity to charge faculty / staff for parking to generate additional revenue without having to charge students more for parking.

PARKING POLICIES The regulation of parking is important to manage parking demand and also to shape travel behavior and campus design. It is also important that campus parking does not impact neighborhood residential streets and adjacent public roadways. Parking on most university campuses is by permit only and is required of all vehicles parked on the campus including visitors. All vehicles parked on campus must be registered and display the appropriate parking permit. Where metered parking is provided then the parked vehicles are not required to have a parking permit.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

The following are some of the unique regulations instituted by universities to regulate who gets to park on the campus: • •

•

University of Mary Washington - First-year students are not permitted to have vehicles on campus except with written permission from the University’s Division of Public Safety. University of North Carolina (Asheville) - Freshmen students are NOT permitted to park cars on campus for the duration of their freshman year (fall and spring semesters). This includes transfer freshmen who have less than 25 semester hours. (Note: Freshmen can seek a waiver to this policy by completing a “Freshman Waiver Application”.) Millersville University of Pennsylvania - Resident students with less than 30 credits and less than 21 years of age are given the last priority for resident parking spaces. (Note: Students covered by this restrictions must demonstrate a compelling need to secure a permit to have a car on campus.)

AV E R AG E E N F O R C EM ENT FINES FOR S ELEC TED PAR K ING V IOLATIONS AT S ELEC TED UNIV ER S ITIES

CATEGORY

UMW

UNC ASHEVILLE

MILLERSVILLE - PA

MISSOURI S&T

SALISBURY MD

VIRGINIA TECH.

VA STATE

TOWSON

CLEMSON

Student Parking

$200

$70

$90

$115

$90

$136

$60

$275

$134

Faculty / staff

none

$70

$115

$90

$179

$95

$110

$150

C H A P T E R 6 - PA R K I N G A N A LY S I S

195

196

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

197

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 7 M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

This chapter illustrates solutions to the primary needs of projected enrollment, faculty, and departmental growth; and renovations to facilities on both Stafford and Fredericksburg campuses in order to achieve the goals set for the Strategic Plan; as well as bring facilities to a good or excellent condition. This chapter makes recommendations that will enhance the small liberal arts experience the Fredericksburg campus provides as well as the anticipated growth of the Stafford campus.

Over the years, private gifts to the University of Mary Washington and the Foundation have supported scholarships, academic programs, student activities, campus buildings, campus enhancements, and special events for UMW alumni. At times, private gifts have included gifts of property. This section also reviews the planning and zoning considerations of the universities real estate holdings, how they could be developed, and potential development options for the properties.

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

The following proposed projects are considered transformational to the University: 1. New Campus Center and Board Dining Facility 2. New Living-Learning Environment 3. Jefferson Square Residences 4. Addition to Jepson Science Center 5. Renovation / Addition of Woodard for the New College of Business 6. Renovation of Mercer Hall for the Psychology Department 7. Renovation / Addition and / or New Construction of Arts Complex 8. Renovated University Apartments and William Street Pedestrian Bridge 9. New Parking Deck and Campus Police Station and Offices 10. Renovated Amphitheater 11. Renovation of Simpson Library 12. Re-purpose Seacobeck Hall

198

RENOVATION / ADDITION TO WOODARD HALL (NEW COLLEGE OF BUSINESS) NEW HILLTOP PLAZA

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE / CAMPUS WALK EXTENSION

RENOVATION / ADDITION TO MERCER HALL (PSYCHOLOGY)

NEW JEFFERSON SQUARE RESIDENCE HALLS

SIMPSON LIBRARY RENOVATION

NEW LIVING -LEARNING BUILDING

NEW ATHLETIC RESIDENCES

ADDITION TO JEPSON HALL NEW PARKING DECK & OFFICES RENOVATION / ADDITION TO THE ARTS CENTER RE -PURPOSE SEACOBECK HALL NEW CAMPUS CENTER UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR

THE

199

FREDERICKSBURG C

The renovation of eight residence halls will enhance the Fredericksburg student experience and provide a strengthened sense of community. Construction of five new residence halls, all in place of existing halls in poor condition, will provide the space needed for the renovation of sacred residence halls and to accommodate enrollment growth within a 15-year period. A renovated or newly constructed Arts Center will provide an enhanced performance venue for the campus and community as well as promote collaboration between the academic departments sharing the facility. Extending Campus Walk and creating a pedestrian bridge across William Street will provide a connection between the main campus and the University Apartments and make the daily crossing of William Street safer and accessible to all students. A new campus center and board dining facility will re-image and strengthen the heart of campus, unite and centralize student life functions and services (currently scattered across the campus in remote locations) and provide â&#x20AC;&#x153;rightsizedâ&#x20AC;? dining functions.

Since there are little, if any, on-campus locations for potential new buildings to be constructed, the re-purposing of existing buildings is inevitable. The creation of a new campus center allows Woodard to be renovated and re-purposed as the College of Business. A renovation and addition to Mercer Hall is another high-priority project that hinges on the razing of Chandler Hall to construct a new Campus Center. Located within close proximity to Palmieri Plaza, Mercer Hall has the potential to serve as a flagship building for the Psychology Department. Parking availability, although seen as a nuisance by many constituents of the campus, is a compromise the campus has had to make to maintain the pedestrian qualities of campus. The study documented in this report indicates the campus provides adequate parking supply to meet current parking occupancy needs. However, there are still parking-related issues regarding complaints about UMW related vehicles parking illegally on residential neighborhoods streets, and the inadequacy of on-campus parking supply within the campus core area which warrant the construction of structured parking along College Avenue. This would also provide an opportunity to relocate the University Police to a more centralized and accessible location along College Avenue. The proposed Parking Deck and surface lots at GW and the new Campus Center will accommodate projected enrollment increases through 2019.

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

N E W LOC K E R R OOM FAC IL IT Y

Substantial growth in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields in the past few years has lead to significant enrollment growth in the sciences as well as a need for additional flexible research space. To accommodate this growth, the university is constructing the Convergence Center which will be a technologically rich building with flexible spaces for academic use related to technology and research. This plan also proposes an addition be provided to Jepson Hall to accommodate the growth in the sciences. The Simpson Library should also be renovated with the goal of providing an enhanced center for teaching and learning complete with group study rooms, enhanced research areas, and varied groups of comfortable seating throughout the building.

200

P OT E N T IA L N E W B U IL D IN G S IT E N E W L A N D S C A P E D QUA D R A N G L E

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

201

RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR

THE

S T A F F O R D C

The University of Mary Washington Stafford Campus, located in Stafford County, provides a place for working adults to take night and weekend classes, complete a bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree, and/or earn a masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree. The Stafford campus has proven to be a valuable asset to encouraging and continuing growth within the region. According to the Stafford County Comprehensive Plan the county is likely to see continued population growth and eventually there will be increased demand for professional educational development. Although the current buildings located on the UMW Stafford campus are sufficient to support current needs, this plan identifies a future building site should the need for additional space arise within the next ten years.

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

The option shown on the previous page indicates a new building and lawn. Additional parking for approximately 350 cars would also need to be provided in the form of a parking deck located on the upper lot. A new academic building in this location would provide frontage along Warrenton Road while creating a more intimate, academic quadrangle that could revitalize and connect the other two buildings on campus. This is a subtle gesture in an effort to create a more academic campus feel.

202

PLANNED PROJECTS E X E C U T I V E

S U M M A R Y

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

203

PARKING Parking availability, although seen as lacking by many constituents, is a compromise the University has had to make to maintain the pedestrian qualities of the Fredericksburg campus. The study documented in this report indicates the Fredericksburg campus provides adequate parking supply to meet current parking occupancy needs. However, there are still parking related issues along the surrounding residential neighborhoods streets, and the inadequacy of oncampus parking supply within the campus core area. These issues, along with projected future enrollment increases, warrant the construction of structured parking along College Avenue. A new parking structure in this location would also provide an opportunity to relocate the University Police to a more centralized and accessible location along College Avenue. INFRASTRUCTURE & deferred MAINTENANCE In addition to these transformational projects, campus-wide recommendations to improve accessibility, life safety, building condition, landscape, and campus infrastructure on both campuses have been addressed. THE UMW HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN The Burt Hill team developed this Master Plan to respond to UMW’s growing need for physical space. Upon its completion, UMW’s Historic Preservation Plan should also inform the recommendations within this document. Our hope, as the University evolves over the next decade, is that both plans will inform physical development to complement a highly progressive, historically unique, and ambitious liberal arts institution.

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

204

C O S T S U M M A R Y B Y Proj. Section

B U I L D I N G

P U R P O S E

Proj. No.

Project Name

Academic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Renovate George Washington Hall, Second Floor, for Swing Space Renovate Annex A and B for Swing Space Addition / Renovation to Woodard Hall (Business) Addition / Renovation to Mercer Hall (Psychology) Addition to Jepson Science Center 1 Partial Renovation of Trinkle Hall Renovation / Addition to Arts Complex 1 Renovation of Goolrick Hall New Academic Building at Stafford Campus Renovate Simpson Library

3,060 14,254 17,949 19,180 25,020 37,568 168,745 80,049 34,792 31,430

$282 $78 $282 $84 $252 $136

Residential 1a 1b 2a 2b 3 4 5a 5b 5c 6 7 8 9 10

New Jefferson Square Residence Hall #1 (includes demo of Jefferson Hall) New Jefferson Square Residence Hall #2 (includes demo of Framar House) New Athletic Residence Hall South (includes demo of Alvey Hall) New Athletic Residence Hall North (includes demo of Arrington Hall) Renovate Virginia Hall 1 Renovate Willard Hall 1 Renovate Ball Hall 1 Renovate Custis Hall 1 Renovate Madison Hall1 Renovate Russell Hall Renovate Westmoreland hall Renovate University Apartments New Living Learning at Jefferson Square / Bushnell (includes demo of Bushnell Hall) Renovate Marshall Hall

48,224 77,029 60,285 60,285 54,676 56,560 31,743 13,468 7,620 42,376 21,714 154,011 44,000 38,200

$181 $172 $181 $181 $165 $168 $172 $210 $245 $175 $182 $101 $183 $189

Unit Cost / GSF

123,000 140,586 3,100 8,440 15,926

$260 $57 $269 $135 $182

Building Reno Costs

Site / Utilities Costs

Demolition Costs

Construction Costs

Professional Fees, Equiptment, Contingencies

Total Project Costs

Estimated Year of Mid-Point Construction

Total Project Cost w/ Escalation

Total Escalated Project Cost per Building Typology

$134,856,490 $12,000 $60,000 $2,388,900 $2,253,450 $2,927,231 $18,617,076 $6,694,498

$25,000 $657,475 $1,481,025 $7,064,563 $28,969,014 $8,770,988

$4,274,480

$644,130 $433,625 $725,000 $522,720 $397,674 $350,000

$112,000

$12,000 $85,000 $3,046,375 $3,734,475 $7,708,693 $3,360,856 $48,423,090 $7,217,218 $9,168,662 $4,624,480

$0 $64,000 $1,088,851 $1,151,702 $1,541,739 $672,171 $9,684,618 $1,443,444 $1,833,732 $924,896

$12,000 $149,000 $4,135,226 $4,886,177 $9,250,432 $4,033,027 $58,107,708 $8,660,661 $11,002,394 $5,549,376

2012 2012 2016 2014 2013 2018 2018 2016 2017 2020

$12,480 $154,960 $4,837,630 $5,716,136 $10,005,267 $5,307,188 $76,465,780 $10,537,019 $13,921,539 $7,898,492

$9,783,148 $14,556,676 $12,162,142 $12,162,142 $9,483,762 $9,980,126 $5,773,126 $3,062,827 $1,945,547 $7,832,279 $4,238,425 $16,611,085 $8,844,922 $7,233,830

$1,956,630 $2,911,335 $2,432,428 $2,432,428 $1,896,752 $1,996,025 $1,154,625 $612,565 $389,109 $1,566,456 $847,685 $3,322,217 $1,768,984 $1,446,766

$11,739,777 $17,468,011 $14,594,570 $14,594,570 $11,380,515 $11,976,151 $6,927,751 $3,675,392 $2,334,656 $9,398,735 $5,086,110 $19,933,302 $10,613,906 $8,680,596

2013 2014 2017 2018 2015 2018 2019 2019 2019 2022 2020 2021 2014 2022

$12,697,743 $19,649,136 $18,466,787 $19,205,459 $13,313,593 $15,759,798 $9,481,105 $5,030,028 $3,195,138 $14,468,920 $7,239,120 $29,506,156 $11,939,201 $13,363,379

193,315,565

Non-Residential New Student Center / Board Dining 1 New Parking Deck and Campus Police/Administrative offices (+/- 15,000 gsf office space) 2 Renovation to Ridderhoff Martin Gallery 3 New Locker Room / Restroom facility at Battleground Complex 4 Woodard Hall 1st Floor Renovation 5 Site 1 2 3 4a 4b 5 6 7 8

Area (GSF)

New Building / Addition Costs

$8,734,609 $13,242,355 $10,916,582 $10,916,582 $9,006,408 $9,491,750 $5,445,800 $2,823,172 $1,864,013 $7,426,879 $3,948,469 $15,552,621 $8,059,750 $6,852,860

$830,730 $1,143,265 $961,592 $961,592 $477,355 $488,376 $327,325 $239,655 $81,534 $405,400 $289,955 $1,058,464 $634,900 $380,970

$217,808 $171,056 $283,968 $283,968

$2,708,664 $1,155,675

$331,079

$35,019,743 $8,034,718 $834,000 $1,139,400 $2,898,532

$8,754,936 $1,606,944 $166,800 $227,880 $579,706

$43,774,679 $9,641,662 $1,000,800 $1,367,280 $3,478,238

2013 2015 2020 2013 2020

$47,346,693 $11,279,381 $1,424,450 $1,478,850 $4,950,618

168,421 1,500,000 245,000 978,161 8,745,879 485,520 3,000,000 240,000 3,250,000

125,007

$293,428 $1,500,000 $245,000 $2,134,805

$58,686 $300,000 $49,000 $426,961

$352,113 $1,800,000 $294,000 $2,561,766

2018 2011 2022 2016

$463,357 $1,800,000 $452,599 $3,116,780

$485,520

$97,104

$582,624

2021

$862,426

$240,000 $3,250,000

$48,000 $650,000

$288,000 $3,900,000

2020 2021

$409,914 $5,772,953

$425,290 $295,752 $350,458 $1,538,775

$85,058 $59,150 $70,092 $307,755

$510,348 $354,902 $420,550 $1,846,530

2017 2015 2022 2015

$645,753 $415,186 $647,417 $2,160,179

$269,736,305

$56,627,231

$326,363,536

$150,272

$66,479,992 $31,980,000 $6,879,044 $834,000 $1,139,400 $2,898,532

$12,878,029 Demolish Tyler, Fairfax, Hamlet, new surface parking lot (Parking gsf = 30,622 sf) New Artificial Turf and Lighting on Field "D" (+/- 100,000 sf) New ADA path from Marshall Hall to Jefferson Sq. Residence Halls (800 lf) New Boat Dock/Boat House/Public Toilets/Grandstand (Duff Green) 2 New Outdoor Theater / Parking (600 cars) / Boat Dock / Boat House (Duff Green) New Landscaped Quadrangle at Stafford Campus 3 Renovate the UMW Amphitheater New Hilltop Plaza New Pedestrian Bridge over William Street

9,098 100,000 52,287 69,297 40,460 20,000 152

$15 1,156,644 $12 $12

3,868,535

Infrastructure 1 New Water Service Lateral (1500-1700 lf) 2 Sewer Main Upgrade (1400-1600) 3 Water Service Upgrade (1600 - 1800 lf) 4 New Storm Water Detention Facility

Sub-Total Construction Budget Costs Total Projected Budget Costs Notes: 1 - Construction cost includes surcharge for historic preservation implementation. 2 - This item is indicated for reference only. 3 - Amphitheater renovation will be funded through private fund-raising sources.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

$425,290 $295,752 $350,458 $1,538,775 1,724,584

$103,372,140

$139,968,030

$36,441,857

$1,700,158

411,398,610

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE PROJECTED Area (GSF)

Unit Cost / GSF

2011 Escalated Construction Cost (2011)

Professional Fees, Contingencies

2011 Total Project Cost

A Academic 1 Jepson Hall 2 Combs Hall 3 Stafford South

72,195 45,540 43,359

$18 $29 $34

$1,299,676 $1,341,875 $1,483,881

$1,405,730 $1,451,372 $1,604,966

$281,146 $290,274 $320,993

$1,686,875 $1,741,646 $1,925,959

B Non-Academic 1 George Washington Hall 2 Physical Plant 3 James Monroe Museum 4 Heating Plant 5 Fitness Center

42,464 28,170 5,357 8,289 20,071

$132 $111 $55 $62 $10

$5,605,260 $3,117,795 $293,700 $509,994 $198,642

$6,062,649 $3,372,207 $317,666 $551,610 $214,851

$1,212,530 $674,441 $63,533 $110,322 $42,970

$7,275,179 $4,046,648 $381,199 $661,931 $257,821

$13,850,823

$14,981,050

$2,996,210

Sub-Total Construction Budget Costs Total Project Budget Cost

Project Cost per Building Typology

$5,354,481

$12,622,779

$17,977,260

SUMMARY

During the Summer / Fall of 2009, Burt Hill completed building condition walkthroughs of all the building assets for the UMW Fredericksburg and Stafford campuses. The task included verification of the 2007 FICAS Asset Detail Report made available by the University. Deferred maintenance is the process of repairing or replacing worn building materials, components, or systems. Each building component has a specific lifespan. As buildings age, these materials need to be replaced or repaired to maintain the building as a viable functional facility for continued student, faculty and/or staff use. The assessment and the FICAS Report helped to identify deferred maintenance projects campus-wide. These projects range from minor room paint to the entire replacement of a buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mechanical system. Since the project costs listed in the FICAS Report reflect 2009 dollars, the costs were escalated to reflect 2011 dollars, when this cost analysis was finalized. The project items were then scoped based on the building condition evaluation ranging from poor to excellent. The grading system can be summarized as follows - the items that are rated poor will require attention in the first three to five years, those rated good will require attention in the next five to seven years, while those rated excellent will hold good for the next ten years. Every campus building contains deferred maintenance needs. However, a buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s deferred maintenance needs may be resolved with the incorporation of a proposed programmatic project. For example, Virginia Hall has significant deferred maintenance, but the proposed renovation to Virginia to provide updated hotel style residential units will include completing the deferred maintenance items. Therefore, the deferred maintenance list only shows the buildings that are not anticipated to receive programmatic renovations.

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

Deferred Maintenance Building

2009 FCI Construction Cost

BUDGET

205

206

T I M E L I N E P H A S I N G

Renovate GW / Annexes

JUN

New Campus Center (22 months)

Design/Advertise/Bid/Award

Water/Storm Imp

Relocate Dining/Student Functions to New Bldg. Design/Advertise/Bid/Award

Design/Ad

Renovate Virginia Hall (18 months)

Demolish South and Framar Halls

Demolish Alvey/Arrington Halls

New Jefferson Square Residence Halls (18 months)

Design/Advertise/Bid/Award

Sewer Main Upgrades Randolph/Mason Hall Renovations

MAY

Storm Water Detention

Demolish Chandler

Design/Advertise/Bid/Award

APR

New Parking Deck/Police Station (18 months)

Design/Advertise/Bid/Award

New Convocation Center

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

AUG

JUL

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

Property Demolition

Battleground Lockers/Toilets

Design

SEP

2016 AUG

JUL

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

2015 AUG

JUL

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

2014 AUG

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

AUG

2013

JUL

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

2012 AUG

JUL

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

2011

This timeline will enable UMW to achieve the goals of the CMP by identifying the sequence of projects that will facilitate the 2009 University of Mary Washington Strategic Plan. This timeline also illustrates how the CMP meets the needs of the proposed academic department space needs, student life improvement, and the non-academic growth/upgrades. The projects shown on the schedule can be completed within fifteen years of initiation. The schedule includes subset phased group renovations when temporary department relocations must occur before a building can be renovated. An example of this is the temporary relocation of the College of Business and Psychology Department relocations must occur prior to the demolition of Chandler Hall for the construction of a new Campus Center.

The campus-wide deferred maintenance projects should be administered as the appropriate needs arise, and when the deferred maintenance projects could be administered in conjunction with a large scale project. It is assumed that the deferred maintenance projects listed in this Comprehensive Master Plan (CMP) would be administered continuously for the next 10-15 years.

JUN

New construction and major building renovations often cause disruption to the academic operations of the University. However, the overall campus fabric must remain viable as an educational institution and as a recruitment tool for future students. Therefore, it is recommended that only two to three large scale construction projects be administered concurrently to mitigate disruption to the students, faculty, staff, and visitors. UMW should take advantage of the limited student enrollment during the summer months to accomplish multiple small project renovations, and to relocate academic departments. All departmental relocations should occur between semesters. Therefore, all building renovation projects related to academic and administrative departments need to be timed for completion near the end of the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s spring semester.

JUL

P R O J E C T

New

Demolish Bushnell Hall Water/Storm Improv

Design/Advertise/Bid/Award

Duff Green Boathouse/Toilet

Jepson Science Center Addition (18 months)

Design/Advertise/Bid/Award

Monroe Hall

New Bushnell Living/Learning (18 months)

Partial Goolrick Renovation (8months)

Design/Advertise/Bid/Award

New Convergence Center

Renovate Woodard for School of Business (12 months)

Renovate Woodard Design/Advertise/Bid/Award

Renovate Mercer for Psychology

Design/Advertise/Bid/Award

(12

Battleground Turf Field

Design/Advertise/Bid/Award

2011

2012

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

2013

2014

2015

2016

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

AUG

JUL

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

AUG

JUL

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

AUG

JUL

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

AUG

JUL

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

AUG

JUL

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

AUG

JUL

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

Campus-Wide Deferred Maintenance

207

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

2023 AUG

JUL

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

2022 AUG

JUL

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

2021 AUG

JUL

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

2020 AUG

JUL

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

2019 AUG

JUL

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

2018 AUG

JUL

The timeline for the proposed projects is distributed equally between academic, residential and student life. Therefore, each goal from the 2009 Strategic Plan receives equal weight, and will be supported in the near, medium, and long terms of the master plan.

JUN

The timeline also indicates prioritization for the renovation / new construction of student residence halls. The majority of the residence hall projects have to be staggered such that there remains an adequate quantity of beds to house the residential student population. The first few residential projects are new construction, which will increase the quantity of available beds on campus. This would allow for an existing residence hall to be temporarily taken off-line for renovation without negatively impacting bed availability.

Renovate Ridderhoff Gallery

Design/Advertise/Bid/Award Demolish WoodFrame Houses

Renovate Woodard Hall 1st Floor

Design/Advertise/Bid/Award

provements New Williams St. Pedestrian Bridge

dvertise/Bid/Award

Renovate Willard Hall (18 months)

Design/Advertise/Bid/Award

Renovate/New Construction University Apts. (18 months)

Renovate Westmoreland Hall (18 months)

w Alvey/Arrington Halls (18 months)

Design/Advertise/Bid/Award

Hilltop Plaza @ Mercer / Woodard

Demolish DuPont Theater Design/Advertise/Bid/Award

Design/Advertise/Bid/Award

Renovate Russell Hall (18 months)

Design/Advertise/Bid/Award

Renovate Marshall Hall (18 months)

Renovate Madison/Ball/Custis Halls (18 months)

Renovate and New Arts Center at Pollard/Melchers/DuPont (24 months) Water/Storm Improvements Southeast Campus

Renovate Simpson Library (12 months)

Design/Advertise/Bid/Award Renovate Trinkle (12 months)

Design/Advertise/Bid/Award

Landscaped Quadrangle @ Stafford Campus

New Stafford Campus Academic Building (18 months)

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

AUG

JUL

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

AUG

JUL

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

AUG

JUL

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

AUG

JUL

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

AUG

JUL

JUN

MAY

APR

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEP

AUG

JUL

Campus-Wide Deferred Maintenance

2023

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

vements Central

208

B9 B6 B 1a & b B 10 C3 C8 B8

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON FREDERICKSBURG CAMPUS PROJECTS B3 B4 A 3 & D5 C7 A4 A8

B 2 a& b

A1 A2 A6 C6 COLLEGE

TERRACE

SUNKEN RD.

WILLIAM STREE T

A10

R O U T E 1

A5 COLLEGE

COLLEGE

D1 D3 A7

AVE.

HEIGHTS

B 5b B 5a B 5c A2 C1 B7

Proposed Building Use Academic Residential Non Residential Administration Other

100 50

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

200 150

300 250

209

FREDERICKSBURG CAMPUS PROPOSED PROJECTS PRIORITY CATEGORY DESCRIPTION

Academic 1

Renovate George Washington Hall, Second Floor, for Swing Space

Renovate Annex A and B for Swing Space

Addition / Renovation to Woodard Hall (College of Business)

Addition / Renovation to Mercer Hall (Psychology)

Addition to Jepson Science Center

Partial Renovation of Trinkle Hall

Renovation / Addition to Arts Complex

Renovation of Goolrick Hall

New Academic Building at Stafford Campus

Renovate Simpson Library

Residential 1a

New Jefferson Square Residence Hall #1 (includes demo of Jefferson Hall)

New Jefferson Square Residence Hall #2 (includes demo of Framar House)

New Athletic Residence Hall South (includes demo of Alvey Hall)

New Athletic Residence Hall North (includes demo of Arrington Hall)

Renovate Virginia Hall

Renovate Willard Hall

Renovate Ball Hall

Renovate Custis Hall

Renovate Madison Hall

Renovate Russell Hall

Renovate Westmoreland Hall

Renovate University Apartments

New Living Learning at Jefferson Square / Bushnell (includes demo of Bushnell Hall)

Renovate Marshall Hall

Site 1

Demolish Tyler, Fairfax, Hamlet, new surface parking lot (Parking gsf = 30,622 sf)

New Artificial Turf and Lighting on Field "D" (+/- 100,000 sf)

New ADA path from Marshall Hall to Jefferson Sq. Residence Halls (800 lf)

New Boat Dock/Boat House/Public Toilets/Grandstand (Duff Green)

New Outdoor Theater / Parking (600 cars) / Boat Dock / Boat House (Duff Green)

New Landscaped Quadrangle at Stafford Campus

Renovate the UMW Amphitheater

New Hilltop Plaza

New Pedestrian Bridge over William Street

Non-Academic 1

New Student Center / Board Dining

New Parking Deck and Campus Police/Administrative offices (+/- 15,000 gsf office space)

Renovation to Ridderhoff Martin Gallery

New Locker Room / Restroom facility at Battleground Complex

Woodard Hall 1st Floor Renovation

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

210

AC AD E MI C AN ALY S IS EXISTING

ACADEMIC

BUILDINGS

COLLEGE

TERRACE

31 SUNKEN RD.

RUSSELL HALL

PARKING GARAGE

MARSHALL HALL

55 18

MARYE

AMPHITHEATRE

MERCER HALL

MONROE HALL

WILLARD

ARRINGTON HALL

LEE HALL

TRINKLE

HALL

CONVERGENCE CENTER (FUTURE)

6 SIMPSON LIBRARY

UMW APARTMENTS

WOODARD CAMPUS CENTER

51 THE ANDERSON CONVOCATION CENTER

UMW APARTMENTS

ALVEY HALL

BRENT HALL

WILLIAM STREE T

HALL

GOOLRICK HALL

RANDOLPH HALL

MASON HALL

VIRGINIA

FRAMAR

BUSHNELL HALL

HALL

FITNESS CENTER

GEORGE WASHINGTON

DOLLY MADISON HALL

HALL

SOUTH HALL

JEFFERSON HALL POLLARD HALL JEPSON SCIENCE CENTER

DU PONT

HALL

CHANDLER HALL

U T

SEACOBECK

HALL

MARY CURTIS HALL

RIDDERHOFF MARTIN GALLERY

EAGLE VILLAGE 2

COLLEGE

MARY BALL HALL

EAGLE VILLAGE 1

UMW APARTMENTS

MELCHERS HALL

WESTMORELAND HALL

TYLER

COMBS HALL HAMLET

FAIRFAX

AVE.

1004 1201 1004 COLLEGE AVENUE

HEATING PLANT

32 COLLEGE

HEIGHTS

Academic Building Rating Non-Academic or Under Renovation

<0.05 Excellent Condition 0.05 - 0.2 Good 0.2 - 0.3 Average 0.3 - 0.4 Fair >0.4 Poor Condition

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

100 50

200 150

300 250

1201 WILLIAMS STREET

ACADEM I C A NALYSIS

UMW APARTMENTS UMW APARTMENTS

UMW APARTMENTS

ACADEMICS AT UMW FREDERICKSBURG CAMPUS The University of Mary Washington is known as one of the country’s outstanding public liberal arts universities. As a liberal arts and sciences university, the University of Mary Washington is known for its broad approach to learning designed to help students deal effectively with complexity, diversity, and change.

Faculty, students, and staff share in the creation and exploration of knowledge through a wide-range of programs. The University also has a long-established tradition of undergraduate research wherein students collaborate with faculty members to work on real research projects. UMW’s size, dedicated faculty, and historical commitment to excellence in teaching create an institutional culture where both undergraduate and graduate students benefit from strong connections with their faculty and multiple opportunities for active learning.

TENNIS CENTER

1201 1201 WILLIAMS STREET

ATHLETIC FIELD

To meet the diverse academic goals sought by students in today’s society, the undergraduate curriculum is organized into three colleges – the College of Arts and Sciences, the College of Business, and the College of Education. The various academic departments and disciplines offer more than 30 undergraduate majors. Four undergraduate degrees are awarded: Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science, Bachelor of Liberal Studies, and Bachelor of Professional Studies. The University of Mary Washington also awards several graduate degrees: Master of Business Administration (MBA), Master of Science in Management Information Systems (MSMIS), a combined MBA-MSMIS degree, Master of Education, and Master of Science in Elementary Education.

ATHLETIC FIELDS

EXISTING ACADEMIC BUILDINGS The academic experience at UMW is characterized by the neoclassical, Jeffersonian buildings that are eloquently set within a lush rolling landscape just a short walk from historic downtown Fredericksburg. About half of the existing academic buildings on the Fredericksburg campus are in poor condition and in need of significant renovation. The other half are in good or average condition. The map to the left illustrates these conditions visually and was further explored in Chapter 3 - Campus Conditions.

PHYSICAL PLANT BUILDING

ATHLETIC FIELD

Academic Building Rating

V. EARL DICKENSON STADIUM

Non-Academic or Under Renovation ATHLETIC FIELD

ATHLETIC FIELD

<0.05 Excellent Condition 0.05 - 0.2 Good

0.2 - 0.3 Average

100 50

200 150

300

0.3 - 0.4 Fair

250 >0.4 Poor Condition

As we illustrated in Chapter 5 - Utilization, if every learning environment were optimized to meet target levels for time use and station occupancy, the Fredericksburg campus could support between 365-1,600 FTEs within the current classroom inventory. Since the perception is that academic space is already undersized for the current enrollment, changes would have to be made at many levels to achieve this growth. Changes in culture, such as better use of the labs across disciplines and spreading instructional lab needs across rooms to increase individual lab usage, would be required. The curriculum would also require evaluation to maximize existing room use. Many labs are highly specialized or contain specific materials catered to one area of study, so efforts to use labs across disciplines or spread the current load among more rooms may not be possible.

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

JEPSON ALUMNI CENTER

VER

N A R R A T I V E

STRE

E X I S T I N G

HANO

WILLIAM STREE T

211

AC AD E MI C AN ALY S IS PROPOSED

ACADEMIC

BUILDINGS

COLLEGE

TERRACE

SUNKEN RD.

WILLIAM STREE T

212

R O U T E 1

COLLEGE

AVE.

HEIGHTS

Proposed Building Use Academic

100 50

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

200 150

300 250

ACADEM I C A NALYSIS P R O P O S E D

213

N A R R A T I V E

RENEWAL OF KEY ACADEMIC BUILDINGS

Renewal of existing academic buildings is an important component of the Master Plan. In order to make these recommendations, Burt Hill reviewed UMW’s existing academic spaces, compared our space guidelines with the SCUP space standards, and benchmarked these same space standards against those of UMW’s peer institutions. The goal of this analysis was to determine space requirements based upon current and projected FTEs, compared to the existing space provided. By understanding how the University is currently over or under utilizing its space, better decisions can be made for future renovations and new construction. Since academic departments tend to grow organically and are highly dependant on students personal interests, calculating departmental-specific enrollment growth would require a more in depth study. In order to make recommendations for future space requirements, we have assumed that enrollment growth will be uniform throughout departments, proposed classroom square footage will be shared by all departments, not department-specific, and that enrollment will not exceed 4,500 students by 2019.

JEPSON HALL ADDITION

To support the physical and biological sciences, a four-story addition to the existing Jepson Hall science lab building will house classrooms on the first floor, multipurpose labs on the second, labs and classrooms on the third, and faculty offices and meeting rooms on the fourth floor. Small, surgical connections will need to be made to connect the existing interior corridors with the new addition.

NEW HOMES FOR PSYCHOLOGY

AND BUSINESS

Since there are little, if any, on-campus locations for potential new buildings to be constructed, the repurposing of existing buildings is inevitable. The creation of a new campus center allows Woodard to be renovated and repurposed as the College of Business. Starting with an addition / renovation to the second floor, Woodard Hall will accommodate the spacial requirements of the business program which include technologically rich, classroom space, faculty offices, and collaborative learning areas. Located within close proximity to Palmieri Plaza, Mercer Hall has the potential to serve as a flagship building for the Psychology Department. Renovating and rejuvenating historic buildings such as Mercer affords the campus the ability to provide beautifully renovated and more functional academic space while celebrating UMW’s history. The renovation and addition to Mercer Hall is a high-priority project that will hinge on the razing of Chandler Hall to construct a new Campus Center. Several programming meetings with the Theater, Dance, Music, Studio Art, and Art History Departments, as well as UMW administration lead to the creation of department-specific programs establishing future space needs. All departments accepted the programs and choose two possible options for physical growth: (1) renovate the existing Arts Complex with a modern “courtyard” in-fill, or (2) Provide a new building for Theater, Dance, and Music on William Street and allow Studio Art and Art History to move to renovated space in Pollard and duPont Halls. A more detailed technical study is recommended and should reflect a more detailed analysis of spatial relationships and program needs based on the available budget.

OTHER PROJECTS

Proposed Building Use Academic

The renewal of existing academic buildings is an important component of the campus plan as well. Renovations in Goolrick, Simpson Library, and Trinkle Halls are needed to maintain the integrity of these buildings and their systems for future use. This plan also assumes the Information Technology Center is built. The Information Technology will include fixed and flexible spaces such as a digital auditorium for 200, multimedia presentation spaces, conference rooms, performance spaces, gallery spaces, and a new campus data center to support all campus facilities data processing needs.

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

GROWING THE ARTS

214

WOODARD HALL RENOVATION & ADDITION (COLLEGE OF BUSINESS)

CONCEPTUAL RENDERING OF WOODARD HALL ADDITION

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

215

R ELATED P ROJE CTS :

CHANDLER DEMOLITION, GW RELOCATION, ANNEX A AND

ADDITION

B RELOCATION, NEW CAMPUS CENTER

PR O PO SED US E : ACA DEMIC EXISTIN G BUIL D IN G S QUA RE FE ET: 15, 926 G SF ADDITIO N S QUA RE FE E T: 2 ,0 2 3 G S F TOTAL PR OP OS E D S QUA RE FE E T: 17, 949 G SF TEM PO R ARY S PACE : ANNEX B - CLASSROOMS AND COMPUTER LABS, GEORGE WASHINGTON HALL - FACULTY OFFICES AND COMPUTER LAB (SEE PGS. 222-223).

SU M MARY: Since there are little, if any, on-campus locations for potential new buildings to be constructed, the repurposing of existing buildings is inevitable. The creation of a new campus center near Ball Circle allows Woodard Hall to be renovated and repurposed for academic use. A new addition and renovation make Woodard an ideal location for a new College Of Business (COB). Centrally located and along Campus Walk, the building would accommodate technologically rich classroom space, faculty offices, and spaces related to business programs such as a potential trading room. Since a growth strategy has not been established for the future COB, a scalable programmatic approach has been taken. The existing first floor of Woodard Hall can remain operational, while the second floor functions are converted for academic use. As the department grows, the first floor can be converted accordingly. The new addition will allow for a formal entry to be established for the College of Business within view of the original campus core, now Palmieri Plaza.

L A B O R ATO RY

CO ST AND S CHE D UL E : Renovation / Addition

R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY

S TA R T

F I N I SH

PR O J E C T C O ST

March 2012

July 2017

$4,837,630.00

OFFICES STUDY F O O D FA C I L I T I E S G E N E R A L - U S E FA C I L I TIES H E A LT H C A R E FA C I L I T I E S

RESIDENTIAL LOUNGE S U P P O R T FA C I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

P RO JECT TY P E

C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S

216

M E R C E R

H A L L

RENOVATION & ADDITION (PSYCHOLOGY)

CONCEPTUAL RENDERING OF MERCER HALL ADDITION

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

217

ADDITION

C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S

RE L AT E D P ROJ E C T S :

L A B O R ATO RY

ADDITION RENOVATION, ANNEX A AND B RELOCATION

ADDITION

CHANDLER DEMOLITION, NEW CAMPUS CENTER, WOODARD

G E N E R A L - U S E FA C I L I TIES

P ROP OSE D USE : AC AD EM IC E X I ST I NG ME RC E R SQUA RE F E E T: 14,62 3 GSF A DDI T I ON SQUA RE F E E T: 4,557 G S F TOTA L P ROP OSE D SQUA RE F E E T: 19,180 GSF T E M P ORA RY SPAC E : ANNEX A - CLASSROOMS AND CLASS LABS , ANNEX B -

H E A LT H C A R E FA C I L I T I E S

FACULTY OFFICES AND COMPUTER LAB (SEE PGS. 222-223).

R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICES STUDY F O O D FA C I L I T I E S

LOUNGE S U P P O R T FA C I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N B AT H R O O M S

SUMM A RY: The renovation and addition to Mercer Hall is a high-priority project that will hinge on the razing of Chandler Hall to construct a new Campus Center. Located within close proximity to Palmieri Plaza, Mercer Hall has the potential to serve as a flagship building for the Psychology Department. The addition to Mercer will also accommodate potential growth within the Department of Psychology.

U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

The plan diagrams illustrate conceptual spacial relationships that have been established based on several collaborative meetings the Psychology Department and UMW Administration. The first and second floors will accommodate a new main entry, class labs, classrooms, and the Faculty Chair Suite. The third floor features collaboration space, a student lounge, and faculty office space. Renovating and rejuvenating historic buildings such as Mercer affords the campus the ability to provide beautifully renovated and more functional academic space while celebrating UMWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s history.

C OST A ND SC HE DUL E : P R OJEC T TYP E

Renovation / Addition

S TAR T

FINI SH

PROJE CT COST

Sept. 2012

Nov. 2013

$5,716,136.00

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

RESIDENTIAL

218

JEPSON HALL ADDITION A

R ELATED PROJE CTS : N/A PR O PO SED US E : ACA DEMIC G R O SS SQUA RE FE E T: 2 5 ,0 2 0

N COST AND SCHEDULE PR O J E C T T YPE

GSF

Addition

S TAR T

FINIS H

P R OJEC T C OS T

Jan. 2012

August 2014

$10,005,267.00

SU M MARY: Supporting one of the fastest growing programs at the University, the physical and biological sciences, will continue to prepare students for future careers in the geological, environmental, natural, and social sciences. This four-story addition to the existing science lab building will house classrooms on the first floor, multipurpose labs on the second, labs and classrooms on the third, and faculty offices and meeting rooms on the fourth floor. Small, surgical connections will need to be made to connect the existing interior corridors with the new addition. Several small lab storage spaces will need to be taken offline to accommodate this connector; however, the spaces will be relocated adjacent to the new connector or in the new addition.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

ADDITION

PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR

PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR

ADDITION

PROPOSED THIRD FLOOR PROPOSED FOURTH FLOOR

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

219

220

NEW ARTS CENTER P R O P O S E D

P R O J E C T

SHARED CIRCULATION MUSIC THEATER STUDIO ART AND ART HISTORY

FUTURE CONVERGENCE CENTER

SIMPSON LIBRARY

MUSIC OFFICES

LOADING THEATER SHOPS THEATER STORAGE, CLASSROOMS, AND SPECIALTY

PERC. RM.

LG. PERFORMANCE HALL

O.T.B.

THEATER MED. PERF. HALL

MUSIC CLASSROOMS AND SPECIALTY

FLOOR LOUNGE

THEATER CLASSROOMS AND OFFICES

FLOOR LOUNGE

ART SPECIALTY SPACE

NEW ARTS CENTER CONCEPTUAL PLAN DIAGRAMS

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

O.T.B.

LG. PERFORMANCE HALL LEVEL 2

ART CLASSROOMS

O.T.B.

MUSIC CLASSROOMS

THEATER OFFICES

FLOOR LOUNGE

ART CLASSROOMS

221

P R O J E C T S N A P S H OT R ELATED PROJE CTS : DUPONT, POLLARD, AND MELCHERS HALLS RENOVATIONS PR O PO SED US E : STUDIO ART, ART HISTORY, MUSIC, THEATER, DANCE G R O SS SQUA RE FE E T: 1 1 9 ,7 9 2 G S F N ET SQ UARE FE E T: 7 4 ,8 7 0 N S F

EXISTING AR T S C OM P L E X SQUA RE F OOTAGE S

P RO JECT TY P E

S TA R T

Addition / Renovation August 2017

FI N I SH

PR O J E C T C O ST

July 2020

$76,465,780.00

THE NEW ARTS CE N TE R: The current Arts Complex is undersized for future department needs based on projections and feedback from the Theater and Dance, Music, Studio Art, and Art History departments. Several meetings with members of the Theater, Dance, Music, Studio Art, and Art History Departments, as well as UMW administration lead to the creation of department-specific programs establishing future space needs. All departments accepted the programs and choose two possible options for physical growth: (1) renovate the existing Arts Complex with a modern “courtyard” in-fill, or (2) Provide a new building for Theater, Dance, and Music on William Street and allow Studio Art and Art History to move to renovated space in Pollard and duPont Halls. A more detailed technical study is recommended and should reflect a more detailed analysis of spatial relationships and program needs based on the available budget.

PROGRAM CLASSIFICATION

ASF

NSF TOTAL

GSF TOTAL

33,471

37,117

15,183

17,091

17,882

19,810

DUPONT - THEATER AND DANCE Multi

686

Visual and Performing Arts

19,603

Other

13,182

Subtotal DuPont POLLARD - MUSIC Visual and Performing Arts

9,740

Other

5,443

Subtotal Pollard MELCHERS - STUDIO ART & ART HISTORY Visual and Performing Arts

13,835

Other

4,047

Subtotal Melchers EXISTING ARTS COMPLEX

Net Square Footage 66,536

74,018

TOTAL EXISTING BUILDINGS GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE = 74,018

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

CO ST AND S CHE D UL E :

222

AR TS CEN T E R S A MP L E P ROGRA M No. of Space Criteria Spaces Item No.

Program Room Name

No. of Occ.

Assignable sf/occ

Assignable Square Footage Assignable sf/ room

NEW ARTS CENTER BUILDING

1.00

Subtotal ASF

Total - ASF

74,870

THEATER AND DANCE

Total - NSF

Grossing Factor

Program Gross Square Ft

COLOR

- Major Category within Building Grouping

KEY

- Group Summary Line

Notes

119,792

Grossing Factor

Gross Square Ft

Specialty Space - Theater & Dance 1.01

Flex. Proscenium or Thrust Theater

300

9 sf/occ

2700 sf/rm

2,700

1.02

Stage

2000 sf/occ

2000 sf/rm

2,000

1.03

Prefuntion Space

150

7 sf/occ

1050 sf/rm

1,050

1.04

Black Box Theater

150

9 sf/occ

1350 sf/rm

1,350

1.05

Scene / Paint Shop

4000 sf/occ

4000 sf/rm

4,000

Adjacent to Large Performance Space

1.06

Costume Shop

1200 sf/occ

1200 sf/rm

1,200

Costume storage, upholstery, laundry, dressing area, studio

1.07

Lobby

150

9 sf/occ

1350 sf/rm

1,350

1.08

Orchestra Pit

650 sf/occ

650 sf/rm

650

1.09

Green Room

180 sf/occ

180 sf/rm

180

1.1

Dressing Rooms

110 sf/occ

110 sf/rm

440

Close to each theater space

1.11

Theater Library

110 sf/occ

110 sf/rm

110

Could be shared with music

1.12

Concessions

250 sf/occ

250 sf/rm

250

1.13

Welding Shop

250 sf/occ

250 sf/rm

250

Classrooms 1.14

Rehearsal / Acting Classroom

64 sf/occ

2560 sf/rm

2,560

1.15

Lighting Lab / Shop

700 sf/occ

700 sf/rm

700

1.16

Large Lecture Classroom

20 sf/occ

1200 sf/rm

1,200

1.17

Rehearsal Room

150 sf/occ

150 sf/rm

300

1.18

General Classroom

20 sf/occ

640 sf/rm

1,280

1.19

Computer Lab

30 sf/occ

600 sf/rm

600

1.2

Seminar Room

20 sf/occ

320 sf/rm

320

8x8 mats, could be shared with music

Faculty Offices 1.21

Faculty Offices (Full Time)

120 sf/occ

120 sf/rm

1,440

1.22

Adjunct Suite

80 sf/occ

480 sf/rm

480

1.23

Admin Suite

80 sf/occ

240 sf/rm

240

1200 sf/occ

1200 sf/rm

1,200

Support / Storage Area 1.24

2.00

Theater & Dance Storage

for scene shop, costumes and props

Subtotal Theater and Dance

25,850

1.60

41,360

MUSIC

Total - NSF

Grossing Factor

Gross Square Ft

Specialty Space - Music 2.01

Percussion Room

70 sf/occ

2100 sf/rm

2,100

2.02

Orchestra Pit

650 sf/occ

650 sf/rm

650

2.03

Large Auditorium

900

9 sf/occ

8100 sf/rm

8,100

2.04

Medium Recital hall

400

9 sf/occ

3600 sf/rm

3,600

2.05

Small Recital Hall

100

9 sf/occ

900 sf/rm

900

2.06

Small Rehearsal Space

25 sf/occ

1250 sf/rm

1,250

Choral adjacent to large perf. space.

2.07

Large Rehearsal Space

100

20 sf/occ

2000 sf/rm

2,000

Orchestra and band adjacent to large perf. space.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

could share with theater

223

No. of Space Criteria Spaces Item No.

Program Room Name

Assignable Square Footage

No. of Occ.

Assignable sf/occ

Assignable sf/ room

Subtotal ASF

30 sf/occ

600 sf/rm

600

Grossing Factor

Total - ASF

Program Gross Square Ft

Notes

Classrooms 2.08

Computer Lab

2.09

Student Library

30 sf/occ

600 sf/rm

600

2.10

Ensemble Library

30 sf/occ

600 sf/rm

600

2.11

Teaching Studios

50 sf/occ

400 sf/rm

2,000

2.12

Sm. Practice Rooms

75 sf/occ

75 sf/rm

975

2.13

Lg. Practice Rooms

200 sf/occ

400 sf/rm

2,800

2.14

Media Resource Room

200 sf/occ

200 sf/rm

200

Traditionally attached to rehearsal spaces

For pianos and large choral groups

Faculty Offices 2.15

Faculty Offices (Full Time)

120 sf/occ

120 sf/rm

840

2.16

Adjunct Offices

80 sf/occ

1280 sf/rm

1,280

800 sf/occ

800 sf/rm

800

Support / Storage 2.17

3.00

Instrument Storage

Next to Recital Halls, could share with theater

Subtotal Music

29,295

1.60

46,872

STUDIO ART & ART HISTORY

Total - NSF

Grossing Factor

Gross Square Ft

Specialty Space - Visual & Fine Art Painting Studio

60 sf/occ

1500 sf/rm

1,500

3.02

Mixed Media Studio

55 sf/occ

1100 sf/rm

1,100

3.03

Photography Studio

134 sf/occ

2010 sf/rm

2,010

3.04

Ceramics Studio

90 sf/occ

1350 sf/rm

1,350

3.05

Kiln Shed

500 sf/occ

500 sf/rm

500

3.06

Open Studio Faculty

200 sf/occ

200 sf/rm

800

3.07

Open Studio Grad

50 sf/occ

750 sf/rm

750

3.08

Sculpture Studio

60 sf/occ

1500 sf/rm

1,500

3.09

Outdoor work space

25 sf/occ

250 sf/rm

250

3.10

Student Art Gallery

1500 sf/occ

1500 sf/rm

1,500

includes darkroom, finishing, film processing and studio

Faculty / Student studio spaces w/ storage + table

Classrooms 0.01

Classrooms

20 sf/occ

1000 sf/rm

2,000

0.02

Lg. Lecture Classroom

20 sf/occ

1500 sf/rm

1,500

0.03

Slide Library

185 sf/occ

185 sf/rm

185

0.04

Seminar room

20 sf/occ

400 sf/rm

400

0.05

Computer Lab

30 sf/occ

750 sf/rm

1,500

Faculty Offices 0.01

Faculty Offices (Full Time)

120 sf/occ

120 sf/rm

1,080

0.02

Adjunct Offices

80 sf/occ

160 sf/rm

160

0.03

Admin. Suite

120 sf/occ

240 sf/rm

240

Support / Storage 0.01

Supply Storage

400 sf/occ

400 sf/rm

1,200

0.02

Ceramics Storage

200 sf/occ

200 sf/rm

200

Subtotal Studio Art and Art History End

NEW ARTS CENTER BUILDING

Mixed media, and misc. art storage rooms

19,725 NSF

1.60

31,560

74,870

GSF

119,792

TOTAL PROPOSED GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE = 119,792

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

3.01

224

SIMPSON LIBRARY R

EXISTING SIMPSON LIBRARY EXTERIOR

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

225

PR O PO SED US E : ACA DEMIC EXISTIN G BUIL D IN G S QUA RE FE ET: 31, 430 G SF TOTAL PR OP OS E D S QUA RE FE E T: 31, 430 G SF SU M MARY: A renovation of the Simpson Library is recommended as it will provide an enhanced center for teaching and learning complete with group study rooms, enhanced research and special collection areas, and varied groups of comfortable seating throughout the building. The renovation will consist of cosmetic upgrades as well as minor re-configurations of existing interior spaces to accommodate the needs of a learning commons. The addition of the ITCC connected to Simpson Library should accentuate the need for as well as inform, the renovation of the library. It is also recommended that a study be completed to review the structural integrity of the buildings exterior masonry construction. Cracks in the exterior masonry walls were visible after the earthquake that effected the area in August of 2011. The photos provided to the right are illustrations of various libraries that have been converted into learning commons and innovation centers. Notable trends for these building renovations include incorporation of:

• • • •

Multiple, flexible classroom spaces that can be used as meeting rooms Small group study rooms supporting student collaboration Open, dedicated computer research areas Dedicated computer lounge areas used for non-research activity and casual interaction Cafe’s Reduced stack space and enhanced special collection areas Multiple Lounge-like spaces for casual study Combing library with IT help-desks

CO ST AND S CHE D UL E : P RO JECT TY P E

Renovation

S TA R T

F I N I SH

August 2019 May 2021

PR O J E C T C O ST

$7,898,492.00

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

• • • •

226

S TA F F O R D C A M P U S NEW ACADEMIC BUILDING R ELATED PROJE CT:

NEW, LANDSCAPED QUADRANGLE, ADDITIONAL PARKING

SU M MARY: The University of Mary Washington Stafford campus has proven to be a valuable asset in providing educational opportunities to the residents of Stafford County and, at the same time, provide programs for graduate and professional studies. The county anticipates continued population growth, and as such, there will be increased demand for professional educational development. Although the current buildings located on the UMW Stafford campus are sufficient to support current needs, this plan has identified a potential location for a future building should the need for additional space arise. The site identified will provide UMW with the opportunity to transform the Stafford campus into a more welcoming academic village.

POTEN T I A L N E W BUI LDI N G S I T E NEW LA N DS CA PE D Q UA DR A N GLE

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

227

228

T E M P O R A RY S PAC E B U S I N E S S D E P A R T M E N T EXISTIN G D E PA RTME NT S QUA RE F EET: 2, 721 G SF TEM PO R ARY D E PA RTME N T S QUA RE F EET: 3, 025 G SF EXISTIN G LOCATION: CHA N DL ER HALL TEM PO R ARY LOCATION: G EOR G E WA SH I N GTO N H A LL , A N N E X LO N G -TERM LOCATION: W OODA R D H A LL + A D D I T I O N

SU M MARY: The construction of a new Campus Center on the existing Chandler Hall site will require the existing building functions to be permanently relocated. Also, as part of a larger effort to enhance and promote academic excellence, a new College of Business will be created. Once the Campus Center is completed, Woodard Hall can be renovated and repurposed as a new permanent location for the Business department. In Spring of 2011 the second floor of George Washington Hall (GW) was vacated by the Sociology and History Departments that relocated to renovated space within Monroe Hall. This vacated space is available for immediate occupation by Business Department’s faculty offices. Although several new walls should be constructed to subdivide existing, larger office space, no other renovations are needed for GW to accommodate this temporary move. In addition to the office spaces provided in GW, Business programs will share classroom and computer lab space with Psychology in Annex A and B (see the following page). Once Woodard Hall’s second floor is renovated and the addition is complete, faculty in the temporary space in GW will move into permanent spaces in Woodard.

TEM PO R ARY S PACE COS T A ND S CH EDULE P RO JECT TY P E

Renovation

S TA R T

F I N I SH

PR O J E C T C O ST

Aug. 2012

April 2013

$12,480.00

C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY OFFICES STUDY F O O D FA C I L I T I E S G E N E R A L - U S E FA C I L I TIES H E A LT H C A R E FA C I L I T I E S

RESIDENTIAL LOUNGE S U P P O R T FA C I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

T E M P O R A RY S PAC E

229

PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT EXISTIN G D E PA RTME NT S QUA RE F EET: 7, 094 N SF TEM PO R ARY D E PA RTME N T S QUA RE F EET: 7, 955 N SF EXISTIN G LOCATION: CHA N DL ER HALL TEM PO R ARY LOCATION: A N N EX A , A N N E X B LO N G -TERM LOCATION: MER CER HALL + A D D I T I O N SU M MARY: As previously stated, the construction of a new Campus Center on the existing Chandler Hall site will require all existing building functions to be permanently relocated. Once the Campus Center is completed, Mercer Hall can be renovated and repurposed as a new permanent location for the Psychology Department.

Mercer hall has been used as an infirmary and a residence hall, and most recently as temporary space during the renovation of Monroe Hall. A full renovation and addition to this building would provide the space needed to permanently accommodates the Psychology Department. In Spring of 2011 most of Mercer was vacated by departments moving into permanent space in Monroe. The remainder of the functions currently occupying space within Monroe Hall, including the Judicial Board and Honor Council, will be moved to the second floor of George Washington Hall, as the College of Business will have vacated the space by that time. Once the addition and renovation is completed at Mercer, psychology programs being temporarily housed in the Annexes can be moved into this permanent location.

TEM PO R ARY S PACE COS T A ND S CH EDULE : P RO JECT TY P E

Renovation

S TA R T

F I N I SH

PR O J E C T C O ST

Aug. 2012

April 2013

$154,960

C L A S S R O O M FAC I L I T I E S L A B O R ATO RY

OFFICES STUDY F O O D FA C I L I T I E S G E N E R A L - U S E FA C I L I TIES H E A LT H C A R E FA C I L I T I E S

RESIDENTIAL LOUNGE S U P P O R T FA C I L I T I E S C I R C U L AT I O N B AT H R O O M S U N O C C U P I E D S PAC E

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

R E S E A R C H L A B O R ATO RY

NON-RESIDENTIAL E X I S T I N G B U I L D I N G A N A LY S I S

COLLEGE

TERRACE

31 SUNKEN RD.

RUSSELL HALL

PARKING GARAGE

MARSHALL HALL

55 18

MARYE

AMPHITHEATRE

MERCER HALL

MONROE HALL

WILLARD

ARRINGTON HALL

LEE HALL

TRINKLE

UMW APARTMENTS

WOODARD CAMPUS CENTER

CONVERGENCE CENTER (FUTURE)

6 SIMPSON LIBRARY

UMW APARTMENTS

HALL

51 THE ANDERSON CONVOCATION CENTER

BRENT HALL

ALVEY HALL

HALL

GOOLRICK HALL

RANDOLPH HALL

MASON HALL

WILLIAM STREE T

230

VIRGINIA

FRAMAR

BUSHNELL HALL

HALL

FITNESS CENTER

GEORGE WASHINGTON

DOLLY MADISON HALL

HALL

SOUTH HALL

JEFFERSON HALL POLLARD HALL JEPSON SCIENCE CENTER

DU PONT

HALL

CHANDLER HALL

U T

SEACOBECK

HALL

MARY CURTIS HALL

RIDDERHOFF MARTIN GALLERY

EAGLE VILLAGE 2

COLLEGE

MARY BALL HALL

VILLAGE 1

UMW APARTMENTS

MELCHERS HALL

WESTMORELAND HALL

TYLER

COMBS HALL HAMLET

FAIRFAX

AVE.

1004 1201 1004 COLLEGE AVENUE

HEATING PLANT

32 COLLEGE

HEIGHTS

Student Life Building Rating Non-Student Life or Under Renovation

<0.05 Excellent Condition 0.05 - 0.2 Good 0.2 - 0.3 Average 0.3 - 0.4 Fair >0.4 Poor Condition

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

100 50

200 150

300 250

1201 WILLIAMS STREET

NON-RESIDENTIAL

UMW APARTMENTS UMW APARTMENTS

OUTH ALL

STRE

E X I S T I N G

JEPSON ALUMNI CENTER

UMW APARTMENTS

N A R R A T I V E

STUDENT LIFE FACILITIES Currently student life functions are scattered throughout several buildings across campus. Woodard Hall, the existing campus center, provides retail dining, meeting space and lounge space at the campus core. Lee Hall, houses the bookstore, student services, multicultural offices, the Underground, UMWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s late night dining venue, lounge and meeting space just off Ball Circle. Seacobeck, whose primary function is board dining, houses student organizations and OSACS offices along with printing services and the UMW newspaper. Student Life offices are located in Tyler house.

VER

HANO

WILLIAM STREE T

231

TENNIS CENTER

4 1201

ATHLETICS & FITNESS FACILITIES UMW has an extensive amount of square footage on campus dedicated to athletics. Goolrick Hall, the Fitness Center, the University Tennis Center, the stadium, and the new Anderson Center support athletics programs at UMW.

1201 WILLIAMS STREET

ATHLETIC FIELD

Even though UMW has an extensive amount of space allocated to athletics, it is needed to accomplish the strategic plan objective of strengthening school spirit and pride. The University Tennis Center has become an anchor for regional tournaments and the community. Also the addition of the Anderson Center was required to meet the NCAA Division III guidelines for basketball arenas and will allow UMW to host championship games.

ATHLETIC FIELDS

ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT FACILITIES Both Lee and George Washington Halls have numerous administrative offices, office services, and conference rooms. Faculty offices can be found within all of the academic buildings as well as 1201 Williams Street and 1004 College Avenue. Additional office spaces are currently located at Eagle Village and the Jepson Alumni Executive Center. PARKING The Fredericksburg campus has a current parking inventory of 1,664 parking spaces in 26 parking lots (including one on-street parking area on Double Drive) and one structured garage across the length and breadth of the campus. The City of Fredericksburg provides on-street (un-metered) parking along College Avenue and Hanover Street. Parking is generally prohibited on most of the residential streets around the campus. The University is also planning to provide additonal surface parking at the former Pizza Hut site at the corner of Snowden St. and the Jefferson Davis Hwy. Additional information about existing parking demand and policies on the Fredericksburg campus are summarized in Chapter 6 - Parking Analysis.

ATHLETIC FIELD

Student Life Building Rating

V. EARL DICKENSON STADIUM

Non-Student Life or Under Renovation ATHLETIC FIELD

ATHLETIC FIELD

<0.05 Excellent Condition 0.05 - 0.2 Good

0.2 - 0.3 Average

100 50

200 150

300

0.3 - 0.4 Fair

250 >0.4 Poor Condition

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

PHYSICAL PLANT BUILDING

NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

COLLEGE

TERRACE

SUNKEN RD.

WILLIAM STREE T

232

R O U T E 1

COLLEGE

AVE.

HEIGHTS

Proposed Building Use Non Residential Administration Other

100 50

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

200 150

300 250

NON-RESIDENTIAL P R O P O S E D

233

N A R R A T I V E

A NEW CAMPUS CENTER Transformational projects such as the Campus Center will create a new campus gateway along College Avenue and provide an enhanced center for all student life and dining functions. A new four-story, brick and cast stone structure will replace the exiting single story dining hall to provide a centrally located student life hub featuring right sized retail and board dining functions, student organizations and student life suites, office space, meeting rooms, ballroom, bookstore, and lounge space. In order to initiate this project, dining functions will need to be relocated and temporary kitchen facilities will need to be provided in the rear of Woodard Hall. Additional infrastructure to support these facilities will need to be provided before dining functions can be accommodated. Site work will feature an elevated, landscaped plaza area with trellis-work, an entry â&#x20AC;&#x153;porchâ&#x20AC;? complete with colonnade, potential for a green roof or roof garden, and more functional loading dock. The creation of a new campus center allows Woodard to be renovated and re-purposed for academic use. ADDRESSING NEEDS AT THE BATTLEGROUND New locker room and public restroom facilities will be provided at the battleground complex to support the many, year-round athletic programs offered by UMW. Lighting and artificial turf will also be provided on Field D to provide teams with a well lit field for athletic functions that tend to extend into the evening hours.

OTHER PROJECTS A unique quality of the UMW Fredericksburg campus is the strong pedestrian connections that have been maintained between buildings and exterior spaces. As the campus continues to grow in a linear fashion (University Apartments to the South, Eagle Village to the North), it is important to continue to maintain these pedestrian connections and keep vehicular traffic flow along the perimeter of the campus. Creating a pedestrian bridge between the new development around Jefferson Square and the renovated University Apartments will extend campus walk while creating a pedestrian friendly link across Williams Street. An addition to The Ridderhoff Martin Gallery will also encourage growth in the arts and help UMW form a stronger connection with the community.

Proposed Building Use Non Residential Administration Other

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

PARKING Parking availability, although seen as a nuisance by many constituents of the campus, is a compromise the campus has had to make to maintain the pedestrian qualities of campus. The study documented in this report indicates the campus provides adequate parking supply to meet current parking occupancy needs. However, there are still parking related issues regarding complaints about UMW related vehicles parking illegally on residential neighborhoods streets, and the inadequacy of on-campus parking supply within the campus core area which warrant the construction of structured parking along College Avenue. This would also provide an opportunity to relocate the University Police to a more centralized and accessible location along College Avenue. The proposed Parking Deck and surface lots at GW and the new Campus Center will accommodate projected enrollment increases through 2019.

234

NEW CAMPUS CENTER P R O P O S E D

P R O J E C T

NEW CAMPUS CENTER CONCEPTUAL RENDERING FROM CAMPUS WALK

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

P R O J E C T S N A P S H OT R ELATED PROJE CTS : WOODARD RENOVATION PR O PO SED US E : S TU DEN T L I FE , DI N I N G, B O O K STO R E ,

235

B A LLR O O M ,

AND M EETING S PACE

G R O SS SQUA RE FE E T: 1 2 3 ,0 0 0 N ET SQ UARE FE E T: 7 8 ,2 0 0 N S F

GSF

Campus Walk

CO ST AND S CHE D UL E : S TA R T

FI N I SH

PR O J E C T C O ST

New Construction & Renovation

Sept. 2013

June 2015

$47,346,693

Virginia Hall

C E N T R A L I Z I N G S T U D E N T L I F E A N D R I G H T- S I Z I N G D I N I N G Many at the University feel strongly that there is a need for a new single campus center building rather than student-centered precincts throughout campus. The goals of this new building would be to combine the existing student life functions of Woodard Hall with the dining functions of Seacobeck, house student life staff (currently in Tyler House), student organizations (currently in Seacobeck), residence life (currently in Marye House), and multicultural suite (currently in Lee Hall) all under one roof. Additional program elements that could be moved under this roof are the bookstore, convenience store, a ballroom to replace great hall, and more functional lounge space.

Madison Hall Ball Circle

A new building would allow more flexibility in design, greater efficiency of resources, and more capacity in certain areas of the building. This building type naturally wants to be near the center of campus. Placing a new campus center / board dining on the existing Chandler Hall site is an ideal option that offers many benefits including: • •

• • • •

A direct connection to Ball Circle. Greater transparency between the building and College Avenue adds to the “see and be seen” quality of the building, and provides and ideal location for an impressive new campus gateway, attracting the many that travel along that artery. The location along College Avenue also opens the building up for community use. Service is easily accomplished off College Avenue. More space can be provided for organizations and offices. Dining space will be ample and able to accommodate future growth.

The renderings in this section illustrate a conceptual option for a new campus center in this location.

Ball Hall

New Campus Center

Custis Hall

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

P RO JECT TY P E

236

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON NEW CAMPUS CENTER CAMPUS CENTER PROGRAM STUDY

P R O G R A M

A N A L Y S I S

EXISTING STUDENT SERVICES SQ. FT.

EXISTING STUDENT LIFE SPACE PROGRAM OUTLINE PROGRAM CLASSIFICATION

ASF

NSF TOTAL GSF TOTAL

WOODARD CAMPUS CENTER Lounge Meeting space Office Space Ballroom (Great Hall) UMW Radio Station Eagles Nest (Retial Dining) Eagles Nest Kitchen Eagles Nest Dining Office Space Mailroom Other

4,449 4,065 291 4,661 277 2,666 2,451 185 773 0

Subtotal Woodard

19,818

20,004

33,051

33,352

23,582

23,801

992

1,000

SEACOBECK HALL BOARD DINING Board Dining Board Dining Kitchen Board Dining Office Space Student Activities Offices Student Organizations Newspaper Shared Conference Room Printing Services

16,311 10,775 710 571 2,003 719 745 1,217

Subtotal Seacobeck

LEE HALL Multi Cultural Suite C-Store Bookstore Student Services (General Info) Eagle One Card Counseling The Underground Subtotal Lee Hall

1,149 647 8,483 6,558 1,129 1,586 4,030

TYLER HOUSE Student Affairs Offices Subtotal Tyler House

EXISTING STUDENT LIFE TOTAL

992

Net Square Footage 77,443

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

78,157

TOTAL EXISTING GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE = 78,157

237

CAM PU S CE NTE R S A MP L E P ROG RAM*

START

Program Room Name

Num. of Spaces

Assignable Square Footage Subtotal ASF Total - NSF

Notes Item No.

Program Room Name

Num. of Assignable Square Footage Spaces Subtotal ASF Total - NSF

Notes

UMW CAMPUS CENTER

1.00

STUDENT SERVICES AND LOUNGE AREAS

1.01 1.02

Lounge Lounge Commuter Touchdown Lounge

1 1

1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13

Student Services Information Desk Reception Student Affairs Office Student Organizations Copy Center Newspaper Collaboration / Shared Space Lockers Storage Post Office/Mailroom Lounge

1 1 25 20 1 1 1 15 1 1 2

Total - NSF

3.00

MEETING ROOMS

4,600 900

3.01

Ballroom Ballroom

300 300 120 80 300 1,000 2,000 10 300 1,700 400

300 300 3,000 1,600 300 1,000 2,000 150 300 1,700 800 16,950

Subtotal Student Services and Lounge

2.00

FOOD SERVICE

2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06

Retail Dining Retail Dining Venue Seating Kitchen Storage Grab and Go Coffee Shop

2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12

Board Dining Servery Seating Kitchen Dish Room Storage Faculty Dining

3.02 3.03 3.04

700 5,500 1,400 200 600 500

1,400 5,500 1,400 200 600 500

5,800 10,600 4,000 900 200 3,000

7,400

1 1 1

2,500 1,000 500

Meeting Rooms Large Meeting Room Medium Meeting Room Small Meeting Room

2 4 4

1,000 600 300

2,000 2,400 1,200

3.08 3.09 3.10

Theater Theater Green Room AV Room

1 1 1

5,500 250 200

4.00

BOOKSTORE

4.01

Bookstore Spirit Store

3,000

Subtotal Building Support

End

UMW CAMPUS CENTER

3,000 3,000 Total - NSF

STORAGE Program Storage

300 seats

Total - NSF

Subtotal Bookstore

5.00

450-500 seats banquet style, 600 seats theater style

22,950

Subtotal Meeting Rooms

5.01 1 1 1 1 1 1

3.05 3.06 3.07

Total - NSF

2 1 1 1 1 1

Pre-function Storage - Tables and Chairs Catering Kitchen

Total - NSF

300

1,200

Net Square Footage 78,200

Subtotal Food Service

Gross Square Footage 123,000

34,100

TOTAL PROPOSED GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE = 123,000 - Major Category within Building Grouping

* DR AFT PROG RA M ONLY. OFFICI AL PROGRAM TO BE APPROVED BY TH E STUDE NT B ODY.

- Group Summary Line

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

Item No.

238

PARKING DECK & OFFICES P R O P O S E D

P R O J E C T

N E W PA R K I N G D E C K , C A M P U S P O L I C E S TAT I O N, A N D A D M I N I S T R AT I V E O F F I C E S PA C E C O N C E P T U A L R E N D E R I N G

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

P R O J E C T S N A P S H OT R ELATED PROJE CTS : NONE PR O PO SED US E : PARKING, CAMPUS POLICE, LOCKSMITH, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES G R O SS SQUA RE FE E T: 1 4 5 ,3 6 3 G SF ( 2 STO RY D E C K ) 215,248 GSF (3 STORY GARAGE RECOMMENDED)

CO ST AND S CHE D UL E : P RO JECT TY P E

S TA R T

F I N I SH

C O ST

New Construction

May 2014

Dec. 2016

$11,279,381.00

239

PARK ING DEC K A ND OF F I C E S SA MP L E P ROGRA M Existing Department Name Existing Department Existing Department Location NSF

Proposed NSF Change

Proposed Dept. NSF

Floor Level

Parking Spaces (340-510)

N/A

178,916

1,2,3

Office Space Police

Brent Hall

3,687

3653

7,340

1,2

Office Space Other

N/A

5930

1,2

Mechanical & Lobby Space

N/A

1458

1,2

3,687

3,653

192,186

Grossing Factor

1.1

Total Gross Area

4,018

215,248

Total NSF

ADDITIONAL PARKING AND CENTRALIZED POLICE COMMAND CENTER During the early stages of the Master Plan process, the University identified parking deficiencies and illegal parking as primary issues that should be addressed in the Parking Study provided in Chapter 6 of this report. The primary objectives of this study were to identify existing parking issues, recommend shortterm solutions, and project future parking requirements aimed at addressing long-term enrollment projections. The study indicated that the total parking supply of 1,664 spaces provided by the University currently is inadequate to meet the future parking requirement of 1,780 spaces by 2015 and 2,214 spaces by 2019. Thus the University will experience a deficit of 116 parking spaces by 2015 and 550 parking spaces by 2019 campus-wide. The conceptual plan diagrams indicate a deck that can accommodate 340-510 cars on either two or three levels, approximately 10 spaces dedicated for police vehicles, and administrative space for police and general university use. The advantages of a deck in this location includes:

• •

The location will significantly decrease illegal parking in the College Heights neighborhood Provide a more centrally located parking option for students faculty and staff Provide University Police with a more accessible location along College Avenue for both emergency deployment to opposite ends of campus and for university / community visibility.

A technical study is recommended and could provide alternatives based on university priorities, including an additional level for a higher parking yield.

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

•

240

A M P H I T H E A T E R P R O P O S E D

P R O J E C T

AMPHITHEATER RENOVATION CONCEPTUAL RENDERING

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

P R O J E C T S N A P S H OT

241

R ELATED PROJE CTS : NONE PR O PO SED US E : PERFORMING ARTS, MUSIC, DANCE, STUDENT LIFE, EVENTS G R O SS SQUA RE FE E T: N /A

CO ST AND S CHE D UL E : P RO JECT TY P E

S TA R T

F I N I SH

C O ST

Renovation

$3,000,000

REVITALIZATION OF A CAMPUS ICON The UMW Amphitheater is a unique and secluded place just off Campus Walk. This outdoor amphitheater has been has the potential to be used for performing art and student life events, outdoor classes or meetings, as well as a rentable venue for other community events. Currently, the Amphitheater cannot be scheduled for use as it is not wheelchair accessible.

1955

2009

1923

2009

DATE UNKNOWN

2009

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

In order to use this space for programmed activity an accessible pathway to the seating and stage area must be added. This can be achieved by creating a meandering path along the southwestern side of the Amphitheater, beginning at the path that connects Trinkle Hall and Marye House and ending at the stage platform. It appears that many of the concrete benches and metal seat backs have been removed. The remaining concrete benches should be inspected to determine whether restoration or full replacement is required. New metal seat backs should be reinstalled to recreate the look of the original seating system. Additional columns and pergola element should be added to enhance the stage platform and serve as a backdrop for performances. A technical study is recommended and could provide various alternatives for site lighting and power based on University priorities.

H I L L TO P P L A Z A P R O P O S E D

P R O J E C T

Mercer Hall Merce r Ha Additio ll n

242

Willard Hall

Woodard Hall

HILL TOP LANDSCAPED PLAZA CONCEPTUAL RENDERING UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

College Of Business Addition

P R O J E C T S N A P S H OT

243

R ELATED PROJE CTS : MERCER HALL ADDITION, WOODARD HALL ADDITION PR O PO SED US E : LANDSCAPED PLAZA, SERVICE, HANDICAP PARKING G R O SS SQUA RE FE E T: N /A

CO ST AND S CHE D UL E : P RO JECT TY P E

S TA R T

F I N I SH

C O ST

Landscape

$409,914.00

ENHANCING OUTDOOR PLACE-MAKING OPPORTUNITIES The existing road that connects Sunken Road with Woodard Hall, Mercer and Willard Halls is currently utilized by service and delivery vehicles as well as traditional vehicular traffic for those who take advantage of the limited amount of parking within the hill-top area.

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

Although the retail dining functions will be relocated to the new Campus Center off College Avenue, a small retail dining component has the potential to remain in this building and will require deliveries. Service to Woodard, Mercer, and Willard Halls will still be needed after the Woodard Hall is re-purposed for academic use and Mercer receives its renovation / addition. Providing a new landscaped plaza, vehicle turnaround, optional handicap parking, and a functional loading area for Woodard Hall presents an opportunity to add another outdoor place to UMWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s already abundant campus landscape. Using pavers instead of pavement at the vehicle turnaround, infusing the center with lawn and a circular pathway, and connecting building addition entries to existing pedestrian pathways are just a few strategies that can help make this outdoor place part of a large academic village.

244

RESIDENTIAL ANALYSIS EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

COLLEGE

TERRACE

31 SUNKEN RD.

RUSSELL HALL

PARKING GARAGE

MARSHALL HALL

55 18

MARYE

AMPHITHEATRE

MERCER HALL

MONROE HALL

WILLARD

ARRINGTON HALL

LEE HALL

TRINKLE

33 6 SIMPSON LIBRARY

HALL

WOODARD CAMPUS CENTER CONVERGENCE CENTER (FUTURE)

51 THE ANDERSON CONVOCATION CENTER

UMW APARTMENTS

ALVEY HALL

UMW APARTMENTS

5 WILLIAM STREE T

BRENT HALL

HALL

GOOLRICK HALL

RANDOLPH HALL

MASON HALL

VIRGINIA

FRAMAR

BUSHNELL HALL

HALL

FITNESS CENTER

GEORGE WASHINGTON

DOLLY MADISON HALL

HALL SOUTH HALL

JEFFERSON HALL POLLARD HALL JEPSON SCIENCE CENTER

O U

DU PONT

HALL

CHANDLER HALL

SEACOBECK

HALL

MARY CURTIS HALL

RIDDERHOFF MARTIN GALLERY

EAGLE VILLAGE 2

COLLEGE

MARY BALL HALL

GLE VILLAGE 1

UMW APARTMENTS

MELCHERS HALL

WESTMORELAND HALL

TYLER

COMBS HALL HAMLET

FAIRFAX

AVE.

1004 1201 1004 COLLEGE AVENUE

HEATING PLANT

32 COLLEGE

HEIGHTS

Residential Building Rating Non-Residential or Residential Under Renovation

<0.05 Excellent Condition 0.05 - 0.2 Good Condition 0.2 - 0.3 Average Condition 0.3 - 0.4 Fair Condition >0.4 Poor Condition

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

100 50

200 150

300 250

1201 WILLIAMS STREET

RESIDENTIAL ANALYSIS

UMW APARTMENTS UMW APARTMENTS

JEPSON ALUMNI CENTER

The legend explains that a building score of 0.05 or less is in great shape, while a building rating of greater than 0.4 means the building is in extremely poor condition. The actual numerical score for each residence hall can be found on the housing charts in the building condition column on page 28 of Chapter 3 Campus Conditions.

TENNIS CENTER

1201 1201 WILLIAMS STREET

ATHLETIC FIELD

To further illustrate the importance of the building score, Burt Hill has incorporated a five-color â&#x20AC;&#x153;temperature rating.â&#x20AC;? The coloring begins with red (extremely poor conditions) and gradates through orange to light yellow (excellent condition). The site plan shows that 10 of the existing 17 residence halls are in extremely poor condition: University Apartments, Willard, Virginia, Custis, Ball, Madison, Bushnell, Jefferson, Russell, and Marshall Halls. All of these buildings are colored red and have scored a 0.04 or greater. A majority of the problems within these residence halls stem from the age of the buildings and the installed systems. Although Alvey, Arrington, and South Halls are ranked as good condition, they have ventilation and HVAC issues that compromise the usefulness of the facility. It has been noted by the Facilities Department on campus, that these buildings, though newer, were built with materials that do not have the longevity of materials used in the older residence halls.

ATHLETIC FIELDS

PHYSICAL PLANT BUILDING

ATHLETIC FIELD

Residential Building Rating

V. EARL DICKENSON STADIUM

Non-Residential or Residential Under Renovation ATHLETIC FIELD

ATHLETIC FIELD

<0.05 Excellent Condition 0.05 - 0.2 Good Condition

0.2 - 0.3 Average Condition

100 50

200 150

300

0.3 - 0.4 Fair Condition

250 >0.4 Poor Condition

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

UMW APARTMENTS

The residential building rating site plan (shown on the left) indicates the building rating score for each residence hall on the Fredericksburg campus. This rating system was established from the FICAS report completed for the University of Mary Washington in July 2007. The scores were derived by taking the value of the deferred maintenance projects and dividing them by the overall replacement value of the building.

VER

N A R R A T I V E

STRE

E X I S T I N G

HANO

WILLIAM STREE T

245

246

RESIDENCE LIFE E X I S T I N G

C O N D I T I O N S

EXISTING HOUSING SUMMARY The University of Mary Washington houses approximately 60 percent of the 4,090 Fredericksburg campus students in 16 residence halls and campus apartments. Eagle Landing, a new 650-bed, apartment-style residence, for predominately upperclassmen and graduate students, opened in August of 2010. A new UMW requirement states that all sophomores must live on campus, which will increase the total student population living on campus to between 65 and 70 percent. The strength of the Fredericksburg campus is its historical quality that is carried through in the Georgian style of architecture of the 16 residence halls on campus. Seven of the residence halls were built between 1911 and 1946, while an additional five where built during the 1950s and 1960s. Only 3 of the 16 residence halls (South, Alvey, and Arrington Halls) were completed slightly more recently, between 1988 and 1993. It is also important to note that the current campus apartments were constructed between 1964 and 1969. It is unanimous among students, staff, and faculty that the residence halls need to be renovated. Many have not been refurbished or upgraded since they were constructed, and only a few currently have air conditioning. Every residence hall has a variety of maintenance and code issues throughout, such as: • • • • • • • • •

Wood doors and windows are rotting or in poor condition and need to be replaced. Exhaust and ventilation systems are not functioning properly, causing mold growth. Chilled water distribution systems and steam fired hot water heaters are inadequate and need to be replaced. Heat pumps are old and corroded. Roof assemblies need replacement. Electrical distribution centers are antiquated and should be replaced to avoid power failures. Interior finishes and furniture are dated and in need of upgrading. Fire alarm systems and devices, including exit signs, need to be updated.Sprinkler systems need to be installed. Elevator installation and/or replacement.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

The age of the buildings also contributes to their lack of ADA accessibility. Many of the buildings were built prior to accessibility codes and do not have elevators or the appropriate door widths to accommodate a handicapped student. There is also a lack of ADA compliant directional signage, ramps, door hardware, drinking fountains, millwork, and toilet rooms. Along with the maintenance and code issues described above, the existing residence halls lack the modern amenities that the average student is looking for today when selecting a college or university to attend. The quality of student housing is a critical factor for both students and their parents. Parents want safe, intellectually stimulating environments for their children, while students want, in addition to a fulfilling learning environment, all of the comforts of home and more. Today many of the incoming freshmen come from homes where they have their own bedroom and/or bathroom. This was not the case when a majority of the current residence halls were built over 50 years ago. At that time, the typical dormitory configuration consisted of a double-loaded corridor with double-occupancy rooms on both sides the corridor and a common toilet room at the end of hall. The current housing trend is to have a double-loaded corridor with either hotel-style or suite-style accommodations on either side, where the bathroom is in-suite and services two to four people depending on the design. Although the traditional dormitory configuration is slightly more efficient in terms of bed capacity and forces residence to socialize, it is less desirable and can have negative impacts on student recruiting and retention. Other amenities that are important to incoming freshmen are: • Wireless internet connections • Air conditioning • Laundry facility • TV lounge • Large activity / game room • Meeting / study rooms • Full kitchen on each floor • Secure, covered bike storage

A typical new or renovated residence hall should have a resident coordinator apartment on the first floor and a residential assistant on each floor, or one residential assistant per forty students. This depends on the size of the residence hall and the number of occupants. Each floor should be equipped with a centrally located kitchen, laundry facility, vending area, janitor’s closet, and small lounge space for residents to gather in a group. The lounge space on the ground floor needs to be large enough to accommodate all of the occupants of an individual floor for larger meetings. Mailboxes are not required to be included in the residence halls, since all mail delivery is centralized in the Woodard Hall. Burt Hill recommends that freshmen live within a hotel-style residence hall that has a lounge on each floor. This requires the students to interact and “meet their neighbors”. It also helps students improve their social skills and transition into living on their own after graduation. Upper classmen, who have previously made lasting friendships, can live in suite-style residences that have a living room within each suite. Some single units should be provided for students who do prefer to have their own room. Burt Hill, however, does not recommend that freshmen students live within single units since this environment provides the least amount of social interaction opportunities.

247

EXISTING FRESHMAN/SOPHOMORE HOUSING PHOTO

EXISTING MIXED USE HOUSING BUILDING NAME

YEAR CONSTRUCTED

UNIT TYPE

GROSS SQ. FT.

BEDS

OCCUPANTS

SQ.FT./ BED

BLDG. CONDITION SCORE *

0.20

Ball Hall

1935

Female Suites

31,743

102

102 Females

311

0.50

299

0.51

Bushnell Hall

1959

Co-ed Suites

20,912

148

98 Females 50 Males

141

0.54

118 Females 71 Males

144

0.47

Madison Hall

1935

Co-ed Suites

7,620

31 Females 7 Males

201

0.59

144

104 Females 40 Males

265

0.50

Randolph Hall

1954

Co-ed Suites

52,211

192

121 Females 71 Males

272

0.71

63,445

212

109 Females 103 Males

299

0.60

South Hall

1988

Co-ed Suites

15,570

10 Females 20 Males

519

0.18

41,478

175

91 Females 84 Males

237

0.46

Westmoreland Hall

1939

Co-ed Suites

21,714

115

78 Females 37 Males

189

0.52

BUILDING NAME

YEAR CONSTRUCTED

UNIT TYPE

GROSS SQ. FT.

BEDS

OCCUPANTS

SQ. FT./ BED

BLDG. CONDITION SCORE *

Alvey Hall

1990

Co-ed Suites

35,496

146

94 Females 52 Males

243

Custis Hall

1935

Co-ed Suites

13,468

25 Females 20 Males

Jefferson Hall

1967

Co-ed traditional (doubles & triples)

27,226

189

Marshall Hall

1960

Co-ed Suites

38,200

Mason Hall

1954

Co-ed Suites

Russell Hall

1965

Co-ed traditional (doubles & triples)

Virginia Hall

1915

Female mixed traditional/suite

54,676

Total Number Beds

180

180 Females

304

PHOTO

Misc. University Leased Off Campus Housing

0.54

Total Number of Beds

1091

678

PHOTO

BUILDING NAME

YEAR CONSTRUCTED

UNIT TYPE

GROSS SQ. FT.

BEDS

OCCUPANTS

SQ.FT./ BED

BLDG. CONDITION SCORE *

Arrington Hall

1993

Co-ed Suites

35,496

148

106 Females 42 Males

240

0.19

Framar House

1946

House

5,821

11 Females 9 Males

291

0.25

Willard Hall

1911

Co-ed Traditional

56,560

177

147 Females 30 Males

320

0.49

University Apartments

1964-1969

141,395

340

233 Females 118 Males

416

0.58

Eagle Landing

2010

211,531

624

Females Males

339

N/A

Co-ed 1 bed/double occ. 2 bed/3 person occ. 3 bed/4 person occ.

Co-Ed 2 bed/4 person occ.

Total Number of Beds

1309

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

EXISTING JUNIOR/SENIOR HOUSING

248

EXISTING ROOM TYPES S I T E

P L A N

C O M P A R I S O N

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

249

EXISTING RESIDENTIAL ROOM TYPES DESCRIPTION This existing housing site plan indicates the typical room, suite, or apartment layout – drawn at the same scale – of each residence type on the Fredericksburg campus. This site plan clearly shows that students who reside in Russell, Bushnell, and Jefferson Halls are living in extremely cramped quarters. The rooms within Jefferson Hall are so small that there is no other possible configuration for the furniture than is currently used. This lack of space and flexibility limits how a student can personalize the room for a sense of ownership. Out of these three extremely small residence halls, two are freshman housing, which could have a negative impact on a student’s first-year experience and affect the University’s overall retention of students.

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

On the other hand, students who are fortunate to live in Alvey, Arrington, Custis, Ball, or South Halls, or the University Apartments have a significant amount of space as compared to those who live in other residences. The two other larger floor plans that are shown here represent the renovated rooms of Randolph and Mason Halls.

RESIDENTIAL ANALYSIS PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

COLLEGE

TERRACE

SUNKEN RD.

WILLIAM STREE T

250

R O U T E 1

COLLEGE

AVE.

HEIGHTS

Proposed Building Use Residential

100 50

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

200 150

300 250

RESIDENTIAL ANALYSIS P R O P O S E D

251

N A R R A T I V E

One of the challenges of this Master Plan has been to mediate between the need to add new facilities and the need to maintain and support sacred University buildings. This report has made recommendations based on a thorough analysis of building condition and rating, building walkthroughs, capacity analysis based on minimal enrollment growth, our experiences with residential housing and student preference (see appendix for survey results). At the time this Master Plan was conducted, the residence halls, Eagle Landing, and University Apartments existing housing bed count for 2009 was 3,025 (this number excludes 53 temporary off-campus beds not owned by UMW). Based on the analysis of the existing residences, Burt Hill recommends renovating 10 of the existing 18 residence halls which would result in a total of 1,668 renovated beds, which breaks down to 892 hotel-style, 152 suite-style, and 624 apartment style beds. Additionally, Burt Hill recommends that the remaining residence halls (Bushnell, Framar, Jefferson, South, Alvey, and Arrington) and the University Apartments be taken off line and demolished or partially demolished. By doing this, the University has the potential to provide approximately 1,610 new beds on campus. Burt Hill recommends demolition over renovation of these buildings because their existing shells are not adequate to accommodate the new hotel and suitestyle rooms and would result in a significantly reduced overall bed count. These buildings are also in poor condition making renovation more costly per bed as well as impractical financially and programmatically.

For the purposes of this analysis, Burt Hill will identify new residence halls that accommodate the maximum growth potential of 270 additional residential students within a ten year period (based on the existing on-campus residential student percent of 65 percent of total enrollment). This assumes that enrollment will not exceed 4,500 students within that time. By renovating and adding new residential halls to the campus, the following long-term Master Plan goals will be accomplished:

Proposed Building Use Residential

• • • • • • • • •

Maintain the “small liberal arts” residential experience Help to maintain a better on-campus bed capacity Attract and retain students Provide adaptable spaces for future change of use Improve the living / learning environment Meet ADA accessibility requirements Provide state-of-the-art-facilities Support growth within the City of Fredericksburg and UMW Provide the residential amenities demanded by students

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

Although there is currently no bed shortage, taking residence halls offline to be renovated will result in bed count shortages. Therefore, it is important to construct a new, higher yield residence hall before any renovations begin in order to prevent any significant housing shortages. Based on our residential growth model, there will be bed shortages beginning in 2025 (15 years) once again, after this plan has been fully implemented. Because there are minimal options for growth within the Fredericksburg Campus proper, these beds could be accommodated at Eagle Village II or another site off campus.

252

HOUSING UNIT TYPES P R O P O S E D

O P T I O N S

PROPOSED HOUSING UNIT TYPES NARRATIVE In order to develop options for renovating the existing residence halls on the Fredericksburg campus, Burt Hill reviewed the housing types, located in the chart to the right. After this analysis, Burt Hill developed two proposed housing options â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a hotel-type and a suite-type â&#x20AC;&#x201C; each with variations. The variations are needed due to the existing building constraints; some existing residence halls are wider while others are much narrower. The housing types proposed take this into consideration. The types within both categories also differ in the square foot allotment per bed. For example, Hotel-Type 1 has a lower square foot per bed calculation due to the fact that there are four people sharing one bathroom, while Hotel-Type 2 has only two people sharing one bathroom. The same is true for Suite-Type 2 verses SuiteTtype 1 and 3. Burt Hill is proposing that freshmen and sophomore students live within hoteltype housing. This type of housing requires more social interaction among all residents within a building. Junior, senior, and graduate students would have the option of living on campus within a suite-type of residence that would each have a living room. Suite-Type 1 also proposes the possibility of residences having a kitchenette within their suites. The hotel types require the use of floor lounges to encourage student interaction and provide areas for recreative or reflective events.

HOTEL TYPE 1 HOTEL TYPE 2

SUITE TYPE 1

SUITE TYPE 2

SUITE TYPE 3 UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

H O U S I N G A N A LY S I S

253

RENOVATIONS VS. NEW CONSTRUCTION

ENROLLMENT

RESIDENT STUDENT COUNT

AVAILABLE BED COUNT

BED SURPLUS / DEFICIT

EXISTING (2009)

4,090

2,659

3,025

367

PROPOSED (2019)

4,500

2,925

2,600

-325

PROPOSED (2025)

4,758

3,093

2,600

-493

NEW CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATIONS

H O U S I N G R E N O V AT I O N A N A LY S I S BUILDING NAME

EXISTING BED COUNT

PROPOSED BED COUNT

NET DIFFERENCE

BED COUNT PERCENTAGE

UNIT TYPE

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL TYPOLOGY NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF HOTEL STYLE SUITE STYLE APARTMENTS

Alvey Hall

146

150

103%

Hotel 2

150

Arrington Hall

148

114

-34

77%

Suite 3

114

Ball Hall

102

-3

97%

Hotel 2 & Suite 3

Bushnell Hall

148

-62

58%

Hotel 1

Custis Hall

-18

60%

Suite 2

Framar House

-2

90%

Hotel 1 & Hotel 2

Jefferson Hall

189

105

-84

56%

Hotel 1 & Hotel 2

105

Madison Hall

-16

58%

Hotel 1

Marshall Hall

144

-55

62%

Hotel 1

ENROLLMENT

RESIDENT STUDENT COUNT

AVAILABLE BED COUNT

BED SURPLUS / DEFICIT

EXISTING (2009)

4,090

2,659

3,025

367

PROPOSED (2019)

4,500

2,925

3,025

100

Mason Hall

212

194

-18

92%

Hotel 1

194

PROPOSED (2019)

4,500

2,925

3,025

100

Randolph Hall

192

198

103%

Hotel 1

198

Russell

175

153

-22

87%

Hotel 2, Suite 1 & Suite 3

South Hall

100%

Hotel 1

Virginia Hall

180

108

-72

60%

Hotel 1

108

Westmoreland Hall

115

-43

63%

Hotel 1

Willard Hall

177

171

-6

97%

Hotel 1

171

University Apartments

340

100%

Apartment

340

Misc. University Leased Off Campus Housing

-53

Eagle landing

624

100%

624

3,078

2,600

478

84%

1,370

266

340

TOTAL

Apartment

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

RENOVATIONS ONLY - NO NEW CONSTRUCTION

254

PROPOSED HOUSING R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

CONCEPTUAL RENDERING OF PROPOSED JEFFERSON SQUARE ENHANCEMENTS

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

255

The primary goal of this study is to provide options and space recommendations to accommodate existing and projected enrollment growth over the next 10-15 years. The following recommendations fulfill that goal.

J EFFER SO N S QUA RE RE S ID E N CE S Two new residence halls will be constructed on the current footprint of Jefferson, Framar, and South Halls on the south end of campus, forming a new quadrangle adjacent to an already prominent outdoor quadrangle, Jefferson Square. Drawing upon another goal of the University Strategic Plan to enhance the student life experience through the introduction of living / learning concepts in the residence halls, Burt Hill is also proposing a new living-learning community at the Bushnell Hall site. This community will consist of enhanced, multi-purpose learning environments and lounges on the first floor with potentially honors student housing on the upper three floors. NEW RESIDENTIAL QUADRANGLE AT ALVEY AND ARRINGTON Alvey and Arrington Halls require a major renovation. The existing inefficient building footprints create a higher renovation cost per bed that would likely exceed the cost of new construction. Therefore, it is recommended that Alvey and Arrington Halls be razed, and two new residence halls with greater bed capacity be constructed on the same site. This location also provides an opportunity to create a residential community with an athletic focus, as both halls will be located next to the fitness center and new Convocation Center. CAM PU S RE S ID E N CE HA L L RE N OVATIONS Burt Hillâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s facility condition analysis indicated that 15 of 18 existing residence halls on the Fredericksburg campus require a major renovation. As several of these will be razed to build newer residence halls, we are recommending the remaining nine be renovated. The need for renovation includes the recommendation to upgrade the student living amenities that are prevalent in todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s housing market. These upgrades will have an impact on the quantity of beds in each building. NEW PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND RENOVATED UNIVERSITY APARTMENTS The development around Jefferson Square will be the first phase in extending Campus Walk to create a better pedestrian connection between the University Apartments and the main campus. The second phase of this will be the construction of an arched pedestrian bridge followed by a partial renovation of the University Apartments. The bridge extends the Campus Walk while providing safe pedestrian access to residents of the University Apartments.

F REDERIC K SBURG C A M P US RE SI DE NT I A L P L A NNE D P ROJ E C T C OST S* DESCRIPTION

AREA (GSF)

NO. OF BEDS

SQUARE FOOT PER BED

COST

COST / SQUARE FOOT

COST PER BED

New Jefferson Square Residence Hall #1 (includes demo of Jefferson Hall)

48,224

190

254

$11,739,777

$243

$61,788.30

New Jefferson Square Residence Hall #2 (includes demo of Framar House)

77,029

240

321

$17,468,011

$227

$72,783.38

New Athletic Residence Hall South (includes demo of Alvey Hall)

60,285

220

274

$14,594,570

$242

$66,338.95

New Athletic Residence Hall North (includes demo of Arrington Hall)

60,285

220

274

$14,594,570

$242

$66,338.95

Renovate Virginia Hall

54,676

108

506

$11,380,515

$208

$105,375.14

Renovate Willard Hall

56,560

171

331

$11,976,151

$212

$70,035.97

Renovate Ball Hall

31,743

321

$6,927,751

$218

$69,977.28

Renovate Custis Hall

13,468

499

$3,675,392

$273

$136,125.63

Renovate Madison Hall

7,620

346

$2,334,656

$306

$106,120.73

Renovate Russell Hall

42,376

153

277

$9,398,735

$222

$61,429.64

Renovate Westmoreland Hall

21,714

302

$5,086,110

$234

$70,640.42

Renovate University Apartments

154,011

400

385

$19,933,302

$129

$49,833.26

New Living Learning at Jefferson Square / Bushnell (includes demo of Bushnell Hall)

44,000

150

293

$10,613,906

$241

$70,759.37

Renovate Marshall Hall

38,200

429

$8,680,596

$227

$97,534.79

* C O S T S S H O W N I N 2011 D OLLARS - SE E COST SUMMARY ON PAG E 204 FOR COSTS WI TH E SCALATI ON

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

OV ER V IEW As previously stated, one of the challenges of this Master Plan has been to mediate between the need to add new facilities and the obligation to maintain and support sacred buildings. These recommendations are based upon many factors which include, but are not limited to, the limited size of the Fredericksburg campus, the size and condition of existing residential buildings, the need and desire of many students to have updated residential options on campus, among others. After meeting with many UMW constituents, consensus was gained that the most sacred residence halls on the Fredericksburg campus are Virginia, Willard, Ball, Custis, and Madison Halls. Since renovating these buildings, among several others, will yield a lower bed count, bed shortages will eventually accumulate, even if enrollment only grows slightly. The need for on-campus student housing is compounded by the lack of available, affordable, off-campus housing in and around the city of Fredericksburg.

256

B U R T H I LL RE C OMM E ND E D RE SI D E NTI AL ST RAT EGY BUILDING NAME

EXISTING BED COUNT

PROPOSED BED COUNT

NET DIFFERENCE

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL TYPOLOGY NUMBER OF NUMBER OF

NUMBER OF

HOTEL STYLE

APARTMENTS

SUITE STYLE

STATUS

Alvey Hall

146

-146

DEMOLISHED

Arrington Hall

148

-148

DEMOLISHED

Ball Hall

102

-3

RENOVATION

Bushnell Hall

148

-148

DEMOLISHED

Custis Hall

-18

RENOVATION

Framar House

-20

DEMOLISHED

Jefferson Hall

189

-189

DEMOLISHED

Madison Hall

-16

RENOVATION

Marshall Hall

144

-144

DEMOLISHED

Mason Hall

212

194

-18

194

RENOVATION

Randolph Hall

192

198

RENOVATION

Russell

175

153

-22

RENOVATION

South Hall

-30

DEMOLISHED

Virginia Hall

180

108

-72

108

RENOVATION

Westmoreland Hall

115

-43

RENOVATION

Willard Hall

177

171

-6

171

RENOVATION

University Apartments

340

-340

RENOVATION

Eagle Landing

624

EXISTING - NEW

3,025

1,668

-1,357

892

152

624

Bushnell Living Learning

150

NEW CONSTRUCTION

Jefferson Square Residence 1

190

NEW CONSTRUCTION

Jefferson Square Residence 2

240

NEW CONSTRUCTION

Amphitheater Residence Hall

190

NEW CONSTRUCTION

Athletic Residence 1

220

NEW CONSTRUCTION

Athletic Residence 2

220

NEW CONSTRUCTION

University Apartments

400

NEW CONSTRUCTION

EXISTING SUB-TOTAL

PROPOSED SUB-TOTAL

TOTAL

3025

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

1,610

1,210

400

3,278

253

2,102

152

1,024

257

B U RT HI LL RE SI D E NTI AL PHASI NG MO DEL BY ACADEMIC YEAR ACADEMIC YEAR SEMESTER

)

ENROLLMENT

NO. RESIDENTIAL STUDENTS

NO. AVAILABLE BEDS

BED SURPLUS / DEFICIT

RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS

2009 2010 2010

FALL SPRING SUMMER

4135 4135

2688 2659

2454 2454

2010 2011 2011

FALL SPRING SUMMER

4129 4129

2684 2684

2621 2621

2011 2012 2012

FALL SPRING SUMMER

4169 4169

2710 2710

2621 2382

-89 -328 Framar / South / Jefferson off-line

2012 2013 2013

FALL SPRING SUMMER

4208 4208

2735 2735

2480 2480

-255 Randolph / Mason on-line, Alvey / Arrington Off-line -255

2013 2014 2014

FALL SPRING SUMMER

4248 4248

2761 2761

2730 3170

-31 Virginia off-line, Jefferson Square on-line 409 Alvey / Arrington on-line

2014 2015 2015

FALL SPRING SUMMER

4288 4288

2787 2787

2985 3093

198 Ball / Custis / Madison off-line 306 Virginia on-line

2015 2016 2016

FALL SPRING SUMMER

4329 4329

2814 2814

2916 3064

102 Willard off-line 250 Ball / Custis / Madison on-line

2016 2017 2017

FALL SPRING SUMMER

4370 4370

2841 2841

2772 2943

-69 Bushnell / Marshall off-line 102 Willard on-line

2017 2018 2018

FALL SPRING SUMMER

4412 4412

2868 2868

2768 3007

-100 Russell off-line 139 Bushnell / Marshall on-line

2018 2019 2019

FALL SPRING SUMMER

4454 4454

2895 2895

2892 3045

2019 2020 2020

FALL SPRING SUMMER

4496 4496

2922 2922

2705 2777

-217 University Apartments off-line -145 Westmoreland on-line

361

235 -173 427 University Apartments on-line

Total Growth 10 Years Out

-205

-63 Eagle Village online, Randolph / Mason off-line

-3 Westmoreland off-line 150 Russell on-line

2020 2021 2021

FALL SPRING SUMMER

4539 4539

2950 2950

2777 3377

2021 2022 2022

FALL SPRING SUMMER

4582 4582

2978 2978

3377 3377

399 399

2022 2023 2023

FALL SPRING SUMMER

4625 4625

3007 3007

3377 3377

370 370

2023 2024 2024

FALL SPRING SUMMER

4669 4669

3035 3035

3377 3377

342 342

2024 2025 2025

FALL SPRING SUMMER

4714 4714

3064 3064

3377 3377

313 313

2025 2026 2026

FALL SPRING SUMMER

4758 4758

3093 3093

3377 3377

284 284

Total Growth by 2025

623

405

923

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

(

258

WATER-SANITARY-STORM P

N CONNECT TO MUNICIPAL

NORTH CAMPUS LOOP

CONNECT TO MUNICIPAL 24” SYSTEM

SYSTEMS RELOCATE EXISTING LINE

CONNECT TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS SUBSURFACE DETENTION FACILITY (BMP)

ADD TO CENTRAL CAMPUS LOOP

PROPOSED WATER SERVICE LATERAL PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM (LOOP) NEW PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM (LOOP) EXISTING / UPGRADE PROPOSED SANITARY LATERAL POTENTIAL SEWER MAIN REPLACEMENT / UPGRADE PROPOSED STORM LATERAL

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

259

P R O P O S E D W AT E R , S A N I TA R Y A N D S T O R M N A R R AT I V E Although water pressure at UMW is less than ideal, it is generally adequate for domestic water service at this time. There is no overall water model of the University area that analyzes available flow and pressure. For future development, however, demand will be increased significantly with the addition of a new Campus Center, Arts Center, and significant residential development around Jefferson Square. Coordinating a looped system with adjacent municipal lines at the intersection of Sunken Road and William Street should be explored to allow for expansion and improved performance. A redundant municipal water distribution system (six-inch dia.) would allow for expansion and improved performance of the South Campusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s infrastructure. In general, adding localized building meters for tracking of water usage and identification of potential leaks or failures and providing new 6â&#x20AC;? water service laterals that connect to the existing campus main would be recommended for all new and renovated buildings. Adding valves along existing lines to allow more of the water system to remain in service during water line breaks and replacing sections of the water system with more modern, non-corrosive pipe should also be considered.

MANAGED DISCHARGE CONNECT TO EXISTING SYSTEM

CONNECT TO EXISTING SYSTEM

As areas of the campus are developed or improved, development plans should demonstrate that there is no increase in the quality or quantity of the stormwater run-off over the baseline condition, and that the run-off is conveyed to an adequate outfall channel so downstream properties are not damaged. Presently, run-off from existing buildings to key outfall points reach erosive velocities. It is recommended that a regional drainage facility be constructed. One option is near the existing power plant and proposed parking deck, another is at the Battleground Complex near the physical plant facility. A regional, subsurface detention facility is more cost effective than several smaller facilities designed for each project on a piecemeal basis. Many existing buildings on campus also have inadequately sized and dated terra cotta and cast iron storm pipes. In general, inadequate pipes should be corrected by increasing the pipe size, the slope, diverting the flow to another system with greater capacity or producing stormwater quality control upstream to reduce the amount of runoff to the problem pipe. NOTE: The Stormwater Quality and Quantity Management Study, dated 12-23-09, prepared by Koontz-Bryant PC was used as a reference in the Master Plan Study.

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

PROVIDE STORM WATER BMP FOR DETENTION &

The sanitary sewer serving the campus and upstream residential and commercial properties runs from the City of Fredericksburg, west of College Avenue, down across the main campus, towards Sunken Road with some sanitary lines draining towards William Street and the rest toward Fitzhugh Street. There is no overall model of the sanitary sewer system that serves UMW. Due to the age and condition of much of the sanitary sewer, downstream improvements will most likely be needed prior to any new development. Based upon previous assessment reports, conducted for the University, the sewer main may be experiencing failures due to degradation and capacity overburden. Added flows as a result of any new development may dictate the need to upgrade or upsize the portion of the main branch traversing through the campus. For example, the potential add of one of the Jefferson Square Residence Halls and the Living-Learning at Bushnell facility will place added burden to the existing six-inch cast iron sewer system. Replacing the south campus sewer main infrastructure (six-inch cast iron) with eight-inch minimum PVC sewer line is highly recommended. Since main line branch services non-university (municipal) facilities and functions as a shared municipal main (to be confirmed), an opportunity of a collaborative effort for the infrastructure improvements with the local municipality may exist. Any new development will require, in most cases, a connection to the sewer main via a eight-inch diameter PVC lateral.

260

ELECTRICAL AND EMERGENCY POWER P

N POSSIBLE FEEDER INTERCONNECTION

T T

T M

TR T

TR TR

POSSIBLE FEEDER INTERCONNECTION

GOOLRICK FEEDER SUNKEN ROAD FEEDER MARSHALL FEEDER FED FROM STREET SERVICE M

UTILITY METER

UTILITY TRANSFORMER

T R A N S F O R M E R E X P E C T E D TO B E R E P L AC E D D U E TO M A S T E R PLAN CHANGES

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

T T

TR T

261

PROPOSED ELECTRICAL AND EMERGENCY POWER NARRATIVE The main campus area in Fredericksburg is served through three primary connection feeders for electrical power from Dominion Power. These feeders are known as Marshall, Sunken Road, and Goolrick and each is equipped with a service meter. Each feeder is configured in a radial distribution arrangement with a single main connection to the utility grid. Transformer taps are provided from the radial feeds at selected locations to provide power to buildings. The transformers typically do not have independent isolation switches. Electrical power to the athletic complex portion of the campus is provided from multiple feeders located along Hanover Street. Most primary feeders on campus are direct buried cable.

The University Facilities Group has been working with Dominion Power to upgrade the existing infrastructure and provide improvements for serviceability and power restorations. Improvement projects that included work with the electric utility service have added primary isolation switches to transformer taps from the campus feeders. Additionally, the university is working with the power company to interconnect the three main campus feeders. Providing disconnect switches between the feeders and at selected locations on campus will assist in isolating feeder segments for work and power restoration in the event system problems occur.

The main campus area is expected to see approximately 600kW increased load on each feeder from the master plan changes. Dominion Power is responsible for providing the power necessary for university operations and will generally assess infrastructure needs as projects are presented. Providing dual connections for each feeder will require evaluation by the utility company to determine the extent to which each feeder can supply campus loads as well as the surrounding grid connections. Load increase at the athletic complex and parking deck will need to be coordinated with the local feeders in those areas. Presently, only two buildings on the main campus are provided with permanently installed engine driven electric generators for emergency and backup electrical power. George Washington Hall which houses the campus network operations center and the Public Safety office at Brent House are the facilities provided with the generators. Plans for the Convergence Center also include the installation of permanent backup generators. The University has identified that generator backed power will be provided with upgrades to the Dining facilities as well as for the central heating plant to maintain boilers operational during power outages.

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

Master Plan proposed changes for campus buildings will result in a net increase in load of approximately 2,100 kW over the life of the plan. These changes will require service upgrades at each main campus building site as well as possibly primary feeder upgrades for the distribution circuits. The feeders are provided from the electric utility system serving the city of Fredericksburg and therefore are managed with respect to loads adjacent to the University.

262

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON

LAND HOLDINGS F R E D E R I C K S B U R G

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R F R E D E R I C K S B U R G LANDHOLDINGS The Master Plan explores the development alternatives possible for all major existing landholdings. It also explores potential land acquisitions. Currently the University of Mary Washington and the University of Mary Washington Foundation have the potential to acquire several properties in close proximity to the Fredericksburg campus. Potential acquisitions include the existing Stratford Apartments site, the parcel to the west of the existing Power Plant, as well as the parcel just south of the University Apartments, in the vicinity of University Heights.

S T R AT F O R D A PA RT M E N T S

PA R C E L W E S T O F POWER PLANT

REGIONAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The University of Mary Washington campuses are located within the DC / Baltimore Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The Foundation has land holdings in both the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, and Stafford County. Any development effort will need to be informed by current market research, as the available market data is several years old and does not take into account the current economic recession. In December 2009, the unemployment rate in Fredericksburg rose to 9.9 percent, higher than the overall rate for the state of Virginia (6.7 percent). Nationally, the recession has brought a significant slowdown in the housing market along with a credit crisis that has made financing for new development difficult to secure. This is certain to have an impact on the growth trends affecting the market; however, both Fredericksburg and Stafford campuses are likely to continue to grow after the recession has ended and the economy begins to rebound.

UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS PA R C E L

Despite current economic conditions, Fredericksburg has grown into a DC bedroom community with increasing pressure from suburban sprawl, and the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population is expected to continue to grow. Prior to 2005, the population of low-income families increased in the city, while it decreased in the surrounding counties of Spotsylvania and Stafford. At 42 percent, a very high percentage of Fredericksburg families fall into the low-income range (50 percent or less of the median income), but this could be a statistical result of being part of the DC / Baltimore MSA. Young faculty and students who compete for affordable housing in the community are the demographics most likely affected by this trend.

Legend Legend

EXISTING FREDERICKSBURG LANDHOLDINGS Stafford_UMW_Landholdings

P OT E N T I A L AC Q U I S I T I O N S Stafford_UMW_Landholdings

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

1,000

Feet 2,000

ALUM SPRINGS

263

P A R C E L S I Z E : 25 Acres (approximately 18.5 Acres remain for development) L A N D U S E D E S I G N A T I O N : General Commercial, surrounded by Institutional, High Density residential, and Transitional / Office (power substation). Z O N E D : Low Density Residential (R-2)

The 2007 Fredericksburg Comprehensive plan specifically recommends “university housing, other institutional uses, or parkland” for this site. One option is to rezone the property to C-T (Transitional Commercial/Office), which would allow for office type classroom and research buildings and student housing. The purpose of this land use classification is to “provide for the location of predominantly non-retail commercial uses in a low intensity manner such that they can be employed a transitional land uses between residential neighborhoods and higher intensity uses.” With offices included as a byright use under this designation, colleges and universities, establishments for scientific research and development, residential dwellings at up to eight units per acre, and institutional housing are all permitted by special use permit. In the hypothetical development scenario provided, 125 housing units could be developed in the form of garden style apartments in the northern portion of the site. This keeps the housing closer to the Fredericksburg Campus, and is compatible with other uses along Greenbriar Drive. The southern portion of the site is developed with classrooms/research space, which is compatible with some other uses along the Route 1 bypass. As an example, this facility could supplement existing environmental science or sustainable research programs as well as provide outreach for others to utilize the facility and grounds for a more holistic research experience. The developable land area can accommodate about 40,000 square feet of space with a surface parking lot, or 80,000 square feet of space with a three-story parking garage (this assumes one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area per Fredericksburg City code). If left undeveloped, the center portion of the site could serve as a habitat research area for the University or public open space. In addition, a publicly accessible trail could traverse the topography of the central area to provide a link between the commercial and residential portions of the site, and provide a pedestrian/ bike friendly connection to the Main Campus via Greenbriar Drive and William Street.

HOUSING

R E S E A R C H FA C I L I T Y

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL The property is currently zoned Low Density Residential (R-2) with up to two units per acre. A clustering provision is included in the code that unlike the Stafford County code, does not allow for a gross increase in density, only a decrease in the minimum lot size from 15,000 square feet to 13,000 square feet. With these requirements, the developable area of the site could hold about 30 single family homes, with about 20 accessing the Route 1 side of the site and 16 accessing the Greenbriar Drive side. Given the site frontage on Route 1, however, as well as surrounding higher density uses, a rezoning to a higher intensity use seems reasonable.

266

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON

LAND HOLDINGS S

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R S TA F F O R D L A N D H O L D I N G S Large portions of the Stafford East and Stafford West properties are not suitable for development due to the density of trees and slopes (this analysis does not examine soils, which will also impact the development options). On the Stafford East property, almost 66 acres have slopes of greater than 10 percent, leaving an area of about 117 acres for accessible, economically viable development. While some construction can occur in slopes up to 25 percent, slopes beyond 25 percent will begin to complicate building layout, staging, and road construction, and thus increase the cost of development. On the Stafford West property, a larger percentage of the parcel has characteristics that complicate development. The western border of much of the property is a creek, which may present environmental challenges and is likely bordered by a flood plain. This parcel, too, has areas of grades greater than 25 percent and is densely wooded. The larger buildable area of the West property lies to the east, with access off of Clark Patton Road. Seventy-seven acres of area with moderate slopes under 10 percent would be an attractive parcel for residential development. However, it appears that this portion of the property cannot be fully accessed without some sort of easement. As well, Parcel 35-23 provides another area of low slopes, but its most viable access comes from the northwest via Jack Ellington Road. It is unlikely that the two buildable portions could be connected and developed as one property, as the linkage would necessitate a costly bridge for vehicular access between them.

S TA F F O R D W E S T S TA F F O R D E A S T R O U TE 1

U M W S TA F F O R D C A M P U S

7 (W A R R R E N TO N R O A D )

The current zoning designation of these two properties seems inappropriate. Limited access and hilly terrain do not make them suitable for industrial development, unless there is some resource that can be mined. The Foundation might consider pursuing a rezoning of the property to the predominantly surrounding A2 Rural Residential designation, R1 Suburban Residential being another suitable use, or possible R2 Urban Residential. The surrounding landscape is predominantly rural, but an R2 designation would yield the highest and best use. Increased density can be achieved while preserving much of the property and the rural character. Stafford County has created a mechanism for clustered development that would be a beneficial tool for these properties, but this tool can only be applied to R1 or R2 zoning. The Foundation has a number of other options to pursue if they choose to seek rezoning of the parcels. Looking at the surrounding area and the characteristics of the sites, although it is most likely that these parcels would be developed as residential. If the properties were rezoned as A-2 Agriculture, the development would likely be restricted to the buildable area with lots defined by a new access road. Minimum frontage would be 80 feet, and the lots would have to be a minimum of one acre. A simple approach may yield about 85 housing lots on the Stafford East property. A similar yield may be possible on the Stafford West property. A more detailed study of the slopes and soil conditions could result in more efficient use of the properties, yielding more lots. However, if the properties would be rezoned as R-1 Suburban Residential, cluster development

Legen Legend

Stafford_UMW_Landholdings

Legend

E X I S T I N G S TA F F O R D L A N D H O L D I N G S Stafford_UMW_Landholdings

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

1,000

2,000

Feet 4,000

267

would be allowed. An overall open space ratio of 25 percent would require at about 46 acres of open space on Stafford East and about 52 acres on Stafford West. Allowing three dwelling units per acre in cluster housing, each property is entitled to several hundred housing units, many more than is likely to be absorbed from growth in the housing market. Updated market studies will be important in determining what zoning district to consider. However, one important difference to note between the R-1 Suburban Residential district and the R-2 Urban Residential district is that R-2 allows multi-family housing, retirement communities, and assisted living. These are possible markets that could be well served by the Stafford East and Stafford West properties. Also, should a study indicate an expected strong rebound and an increased demand for mixed-use development, both properties meet the minimum 150 acre threshold for a PD-1 Planned Development District. This type of development would offer the most flexibility and opportunity. A thorough review of the available utility connections and capacity would need to be executed before considering this type of development.

Conditional use permitted: • Bed and breakfast inn • Nursing home • Place of worship • Recreational facility Bulk Requirements: • Allocated density: 1.5 du/ac • Open space ratio: 0.50 ratio Minimum yards (in feet): • Front: 30 • Side: 10 • Back: 35 Maximum height (in feet): 35 Minimum lot width (in feet): 80

A-2 RURAL RESIDENTIAL The purpose of the A-2 district is to provide a transition between rural and urban areas, in residential areas adjacent to the growth areas which allow increased densities from the A-1 district when public water or sewer are provided. • Open space ratio, other uses 0.80 ratio • (2) Minimum lot area (in acres) 1 • Minimum lot width (in feet) 100 R- 1 S U B U R B A N R E S I D E N T I A L The purpose of the R-1 district is to provide areas which are in close proximity to existing or future development of equivalent or higher densities, and which are intended for low density residential development were public water and sewerage facilities are available. Development in the R-1 district is intended to be characterized by single-family dwellings. • Cluster development, duplex units in cluster development, and single family housing; nursing home • Allocated density:1.5 du/ac • Open space ratio: 0.50 ratio, Minimum lot width (in feet) 80 • Cluster development allows three units per gross acre R1 District potential uses permitted by-right: • Cluster development • Community use • Duplex in approved cluster development • School • Single-family dwelling

R- 2 U R B A N R E S I D E N T I A L - M E D I U M D E N S I T Y The purpose of the R-2 district is to provide areas of medium-intensity residential uses designed and intended to be primarily characterized by townhouses, duplexes and single-family homes. Such districts are to be located near centers of urban concentrations, only where approved water and sewerage are available and where transportation systems are adequate. • Cluster development, duplex units in cluster development, multifamily, and single family housing, assisted living and retirement housing • Allocated density: 3.5 du/ac • Open space ratio: 0.25 ratio • Cluster development allows seven units per gross acre P D - 1 P L A N N E D D E V E LO P M E N T - 1 The purpose of the PD-1 district is to provide areas of the county of not less than 150 acres nor more than 500 acres which are suitable for a planned, mixeduse suburban development with a variety of housing types and commercial uses intended to serve the immediate community. This district should be located only where approved water and sewerage are available or planned and where transportation systems are adequate.

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

Cluster development (3 DU per acre)

268

S TA F F O R D E A S T RECOMMENDED

OPTIONS

INDEPENDENT LIVING

S TA F F O R D E A S T O P T I O N 1 :

SENIOR LIVING

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

ASSISTED LIVING & CLUBHOUSE

NURSING & MEMORY CARE

S TA F F O R D E A S T O P T I O N 2 : C O N C E P T U A L S I N G L E FA M I LY H O U S I N G S U B D I V I S I O N

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

269

270

S TA F F O R D W E S T RECOMMENDED

OPTIONS

LODGES SUPPORT OFFICES ENTRY FROM C L A R K PAT TO N R OA D

CLASSROOMS

CHILD CARE

CENTRAL PLANT & MAINTENANCE GYM & COMMONS

S TA F F O R D W E S T O P T I O N 1 :

REGIONAL CONFERENCE CENTER

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

S TA F F O R D W E S T O P T I O N 2 :

C O N C E P T U A L S I N G L E FA M I LY H O U S I N G S U B D I V I S I O N

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

271

272

DUFF GREEN RECOMMENDED

OPTIONS

P A R C E L S I Z E : 11 Acres (main property), (2 acres for access easement) L A N D U S E D E S I G N A T I O N : Institutional, surrounded by Agricultural Zoning Z O N E D : Agricultural (A1) P A R C E L S : #58C-2-6A and #58C-2-6B

DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS The remoteness of this parcel does not support regular use by students, though it is only a short drive from the Fredericksburg campus. Potential ideas include: • Use as an outdoor venue for the performing arts. This would have seasonal uses only, which does not work well with the typical school year. This would require the removal of a stand of trees, and the size and species are unknown. • Sell the property or manage it as a bed and breakfast. • Sell the property or manage it as a single-family home. • Under a multi-department project (collaboration between the business school, biology / ecology departments), operate the property as a for-profit working organic farm.

PA R K I N G

B OAT H O U S E A N D D O C K V I E W I N G P L AT F O R M

B U S D R O P- O F F A N D LOADING OFFICES AND RESTROOMS CONCESSIONS

A M P H I T H E AT E R

PICNIC AREA

S TA G E S TO R AG E

DUFF GREEN OPTION 1: PUBLIC PERFORMANCE SPACE

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

RESTROOMS

273

BOAT HOUSE AND DOCK Duff Green’s close proximity to the Rappahannock River makes it ideally situated for use by UMW’s rowing team. An appropriate facility would include a boat house with sufficient scull storage, launch, toilets, parking, and grandstands situated close to the waters edge. A storm water management system, power, sanitary lines, benches, trash receptacles, and exterior lighting will also need to be provided.

PA R K I N G RESTROOMS

V I E W I N G P L AT F O R M

DUFF GREEN OPTION 2: BOATHOUSE AND DOCK

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

B OAT H O U S E A N D D O C K

274

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

275

S TA N D A R D S

A F E W N O T E S O N D E S I G N

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

This section reviews recommended standards and guidelines for future modification to the physical environment at the University of Mary Washington. These recommendations will aid UMW in achieving its goal of being the best small liberal arts college in the United States. The university has already created campus standards for outdoor furniture and signage. These standards have been very successful for its campuses. The following recommendations for sustainability, historic preservation, learning environments, and office space will also contribute to the success of UMW.

276

S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y

I N I T I AT I V E S A N D O P P O R T U N I T I E S

G R E E N I N G A N D C A M P U S S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y Greening is a process of transforming space, lifestyle or image to a more environmentally friendly version. The act of greening involves incorporating green products and processes into ones environment and surroundings. Broadly speaking, the concept of campus sustainability involves thoughtful measurement of resources consumed and wastes emitted, and the consideration of long-term effects of these on earths systems and human health. Campus sustainability initiatives include a broad range of actions including assessment and planning of: • Energy use, supply and distribution • Material supply and disposal • Food supply • Water supply and disposal • Building design and construction, including mechanical systems • Transportation • Vegetation and landscape • Education, research and outreach The University has a considerable number of stainability initiatives underway or in planning phases. A sustainability committee has been appointed and has made the commitment to encourage and enhance sustainable practices across the institution. In this section we list some of The University’s ongoing sustainability efforts describe how the fundamental framework of the campus plan could contribute to a more sustainable Mary Washington and recommend some additional avenues for consideration as the plan is implemented.

E N E R G Y U S E , S U P P L Y, A N D D I S T R I B U T I O N In 2005, the University entered into a performance contract with NORESCO. The contract included an energy audit and outlined Energy Conservation Measures (ECM) to be put in place through a partnership of NORESCO contractors and UMW Facilities Services. The first ECM addressed energy efficient lighting systems. This initiative has resulted in multiple changes to lighting systems that has produced reductions in energy consumption, maintenance, waste production and environmental pollutants. In addition to energy audits, The University should consider setting target dates and interim milestones for becoming climate neutral, take immediate steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by creating a list of short-term actions, integrate sustainability into the curriculum and make it part of the educational experience, and to make an action plan, inventory and progress reports publicly available. The State of Virginia does not currently have a system in place to enforce these actions; however, The University’s sustainablity committee has the opportunity to be an integral part of enforcing accountability of such plans as well as aiding in establishing and executing them. Although the University has purchased new Energy Star washers and dryers, participating in the Environmental Protection Agencies voluntary Energy Star and Green Light programs would provide ongoing benefits and discounts that could make buying and supporting these types of appliances profitable for UMW. UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

Plans for building-automation and energy management analysis are in progress on campus. Such analysis will increase operational efficiency throughout the campus.

W AT E R C O N S E R V AT I O N & S TO R M W AT E R M A N A G E M E N T The second Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) undertaken by UMW in the performance contract with NORESCO was water conservation. The contract included an energy audit and outlined ECMs to be put in place through a partnership of NORESCO contractors and UMW Facilities Services. The water conservation measure or ECM2 has resulted in multiple changes to our water fixtures and water usage throughout the University. While the efforts of NORESCO address conservation, there is still a bigger issue on campus regarding storm water management. Simply stated, the campus is overbuilt. The Stormwater Quality and Quantity management Study, dated 12-23-09 prepared by Koontz-Bryant PC was used as reference in this Master Plan report and provides several options for addressing the many stormwater management problems on the Fredericksburg campus. Plants can be highly effective in removing many of the toxins and pollutants that can be carried in stormwater. Vegetated swales, constructed wetlands, rain gardens, and vegetated strips can be used to slow and filter runoff, allowing stormwater to be cleaned, detained or infiltrated and for the groundwater to be recharged. The retention and infiltration of stormwater on site can minimize water quality degradation, erosion and flooding, as well as eliminate the expense associated with artificial stormwater conveyance systems (pipes, sewers, etc). Traditional piped systems should be used as a backup when natural systems become saturated. Possible conservation and management strategies include: • • • •

Minimize impervious surfaces and increase pervious surfaces Incorporate biofiltration systems such as bioswales or planting strips in parking lots to filter and remove pollutants from stormwater Minimize curbs where possible (curbs allow for the concentration of pollutants) Minimize hardscape where possible and use landscape, rain gardens or green roofs.

OUTREACH Like many American campuses, UMW has demonstrated a commitment to promoting sustainability on campus. University of Mary Washington currently offers recycling of corrugated cardboard, printer ink cartridges, mixed paper, newsprint and co-mingled plastic, glass, and aluminum to faculty, staff, and students. Designated bins are located in each academic building and collection containers are located in all residence halls. Promoting everyday sustainable strategies and quick-tips to students, faculty and staff, showcasing energy reduction efforts such as retrofitting campus appliances, and implementing behavior change programs helps UMW create a campus strongly rooted in conservation and the principles of sustainability.

DINING SERVICES Dining Services at UMW is one of only five colleges and universities in Virginia to achieve the environmental certification “Virginia Green.” Virginia Green is the Commonwealth of Virginia’s campaign to promote environmentally friendly practices and establish “core activities” specific to each market sector. It also encourages participants to reduce their environmental impacts in all aspects of their operations. Customers of these establishments then know what to expect when they visit a facility with this certification, as the assessments and criteria are published publicly. Dining Services only purchases food which comes from the state or the region and have implemented the use of Bagasse containers, which compost in four months time T R A N S P O R TAT I O N The University is fortunate to have a strong relationship with Fredericksburg Regional Transit (FRED) buses which offer FREE service to University students. Several convenient stops are located in and around campus with service to historic downtown and major shopping areas and movie complexes along Route 3. The City of Fredericksburg recognizes the need to expand this system and is currently reviewing options to do so. The campus is also in close proximity to the Greyhoud bus and Amtrack train stations as well. Biking around campus and the surrounding area is also fairly common. Although there are no dedicated bike lanes at the time of this report, there are plans in motion to create bike lanes and paths within the Fredericksburg Comprehensive Plan as well as the Pathways plan. UMW currently provides ample bike racks on campus, however some are not located near the entries on buildings, causing students, faculty and staff to chain bikes to other grounded objects. As a general rule of thumb, bike racks should be placed convenient to the buildings most prominent entry. Bicycle shelters are also an option and offer convenience and added security to students, faculty, and staff who commute regularly by bike. A campus standard should be developed for the design of these shelters to complement the historic nature of buildings on campus. The University also has a perceived parking problem. As Chapter 6 - Parking Analysis revealed, there is currently ample parking on the Fredericksburg campus; however, parking is limited at the campus core. With growth, there will be a parking shortage. Until then, shifts in culture, such as offering and promoting preferred parking for carpooling and environmentally friendly vehicles, adding bike lanes, promoting alternative means of transit, and restructuring perceptions through education could help alter this perception.

BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Almost half of the energy consumed in the US is related to buildings. The way institutions build, heat, and cool their buildings has a large impact on energy consumption. Beyond setting the requirement for LEED certification, UMW should consider setting specific goals related to particular credits. Achieving specific goals in

277

WHITE

The University should also consider the guidelines in the Sustainable Sites Initiative when siting new buildings and developing landscape. This organization has developed guidelines and a rating system which is incorporated into the newest LEED Green Building Rating System. Pilot projects are being tested and a reference guide is expected to be published around 2012. The groups interim report titled “ Standards & Guidelines: Preliminary Report” provides useful points of reference. Also, the USGBC has released a “Roadmap to a Green Campus”. This a resource which would help UMW to develop a sustainability plan. It is also provides useful information on long term efforts. The Roadmap contains case studies of what other schools have already done to address a sustainable master plan. Some of the case studies/schools include Harvard, Boston College, Emory University, Spelman College, SUNY, Miami University, Princeton University, Loyola University, Colorado State University, and Duke University. More information can be found at www.centerforgreenschools. org/roadmap. This plan calls for the renovation of over 17 on campus buildings. Setting energy use reduction targets before renovating each building should be considered as buildings typically end up using more energy after being renovated as a result of adding new heating and cooling equipment and elevators. Aesthetically and historically appropriate storm windows should be used as replacements on existing buildings to reduce energy consumption. Installing “Vending Misers” on vending machines in all campus buildings is a quick-fix to reducing building energy consumption on buildings who are not receiving a full renovation.

PERVIOUS PAVER WITH “GRASS -BLOCKS”

PERM EA B LE COM POSITE PAVERS

VIRGINIA

WILLOW

ENHANCE THE CAMPUS WITH LANDSCAPE BMP’S A N D N AT I V E P L A N T I N G A N D V E G E TAT I O N While efforts at increasing building efficiency should be a part of any development efforts, there is also a wide range of landscape efforts which can be undertaken to improve sustainability and create a green campus. Wherever possible these “best management practices” should be incorporated into the UMW landscape in the future: Existing ecosystems should always be protected, such as the existing perennial stream Resources should be conserved. Lost or damaged ecosystems should be regenerated. Take advantage of site conditions such as solar, airflow, lighting, soil, vegetative, and topographic conditions. Create an open space framework within campus. Use natural drainage ways whenever possible. Provide incentives for walking, busing, bicycling, and ride sharing. Consider human safety above all other factors. All development should be planned with the intent to improve the local economy. Create designs that are responsive to social, economic, and cultural conditions. Provide regenerative systems for the use of future generations. Re-establish the integral natural processes between natural processes and human activity. UMW should also encourage sustainability and landscape diversity that celebrates the native Virginia’s Coastal Plan landscape. Native plants are those which naturally occur in a particular region. These plants have evolved over time in response to the conditions of that region. These responses are derived from chances in climate, soil rainfall, pests, and disease. As a result, native plants have traits which make them uniquely adapted to a given area. Moreover, native plants can be used to create a beautiful and culturally appropriate landscape, and they are typically better suited than non-natives to resist periods of drought, weather extremes, and local insects and disease. The use of native plants should be encouraged as there are many ecological and practical benefits to their use. For instance, plants native to a particular region tend to be low maintenance, and require little or no irrigation. When appropriately placed, hedgerows and shrubbery help to channel cool summer breezes into buildings. Small trees native to the Coastal Plain Region and appropriate in a higher education setting include the Red Mulberry, and American Holly, which bears dark green leaves and round red berries. Medium to Large trees include Scarlet Oak, great for shade, acorns to feed the UMW squirrels, and brilliant red colors which appear in the fall, the White, Scarlet and Post Oaks, and Atlantic White Cedar. Native vines include Carolina Jasmine, whose small, fragrant, blooms last an entire season or two, trumpet honeysuckle and Atlantic Wisteria. Shrubs native to the Coastal Plain and attractive enough to use as accents across campus include New Jersey Tea, black huckleberry, winterberry, and the Virginia Willow.

SCARLET

RED

OAK

MULBERRY

TRUMPET

FALL

HONEYSUCKLE

AMERICAN

NEW

HOLLY

JERSEY

CAROLINA

TEA

JASMINE

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

energy performance, waster water reduction, and regional, recycled content material use will establish sustainable goals early on in the project.

CEDAR

278

HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN PRESERVING CAMPUS HISTORY WHILE EVOLVING AN INSTITUTION

The University of Mary Washington has an exceptionally rich history. It is also fortunate enough to have one of the largest historic preservation programs in the country, whose mission is to “provide opportunities for students to gain a better understanding of America’s cultural and ethnic diversity and the ramifications of technological innovation and social change on the quality of life.” Thusfar this report has considered possible locations to accommodate campus growth, the size of these facilities, and how they may fit and enhance the existing organizational structure of the campus. This section is meant to address what the campus should look like. The campus should honor its long history while reflecting its evolving identity as a forward thinking institution.

PHYSICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL IDENTITY Important campus buildings such as Monroe, Virgnia, Willard, Trinkle, Ball, Custis, Madison, DuPont, Pollard, and Melchers halls should be preserved, not as time capsules or as museum pieces, but as revitalized links to UMW’s past, present, and future identity. Monroe Hall, for example, is emblematic of UMW’s early days; and the proliferation of 1940’s and 50’s buildings on campus tells the story of the great number of returning soldiers attending UMW post WWII. New buildings, likewise, should reflect their own times, and the contemporary image of UMW as a forward thinking, modern institution while respecting the architectural heritage of the campus and the region.

BALL CIRCLE AND PALMIERI PLAZA Ball Circle is the large, sunny campus green located at the heart of UMW and is home to many campus-wide activities from frisbee games to Commencement. Likewise, Palmieri Plaza is surrounded by the three original campus buildings, Monroe, Virginia, and Willard Halls. Both places have a hierarchical importance that should be acknowledged by future building and development.

A D D I T I O N S A N D R E N OVAT I O N S TO O L D B U I L D I N G S Generally, properties eligible for listing in the National Register are at least 50 years or older. None of the buildings on the UMW Fredericksburg campus are on the National Register, however many are over 50 years of age. Preserving integrity of historic buildings encompasses aspects of design, maintenance, and repair. The replacement of deteriorated building elements, or the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of an entire building can significantly affect the architectural character and appearance of both a building and its surrounding district. Therefore, these changes must be done in a manner that is sensitive to the architectural design of the building.

FLUTED COLUMNS, WHITE CORNICES, BRICKS, AND BALUSTRADES These elements, along with dentils, wrought iron railings, and entry porticos, are visible on most buildings throughout campus and are important, not only as architectural elements and materials, but as symbols of the University’s mission and history. These simple details make up a truly American architectural style characterized by a combination of Greek, Roman, Georgian, and 17th Century Colonial architectural details. Thomas Jefferson advanced the style by combining his knowledge of the work of Andrea Palladio with his interest in The Orders to create his Academic Village , better known as the University of Virginia. It was also shaped by the bricklayers who settled in Virginia after leaving England and has become a welcome standard in the state of Virginia, the City of Fredericksburg and the surrounding area. Elements that characterize the modern Colonial American Georgian style include the front porch, anchoring chimney masses, sash windows, large exterior symmetrical staircases, dormers, pedimented doorways, large square rooms, a central interior axis, and classical proportions on the interior and exterior.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

The National Park Service has developed the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction projects. The Standards address issues as diverse as building materials, building elements, building interiors, building site, setting (district / neighborhood), and special considerations, such as additions, energy conservation, handicapped accessibility, and fire/life safety. The Secretary of the Interior Standards can serve as a great resource when renovating or maintaining historic buildings and structures. The standards provide guidance for maintenance, repair, alteration and demolition of historic structures.

279

The Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines on historic preservation provide sound suggestions for building renovations. They include the following: •

•

• • •

• •

A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Where a treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate, and conserve existing historic materials and features will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the appropriate level of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair or limited replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material will match the old in composition, design, color, and texture. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

C R E AT I N G A H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N P L A N The Historic Preservation Department expressed a need and desire for The University to create a Historic Preservation Plan that would develop guidelines for the maintenance existing and development of future university physical assets. UMW recognized the importance of such a plan in order to understand the institutions historic architecture, landscape, and archaeological resources, they commissioned a Preservation Plan to be created. A plan of this kind would provide suggestions for respecting the universities history, alumni, and traditions by emphasizing the historical qualities and integrity of campus architecture, landscape and resources. The Historic Preservation Plan for the University of Mary Washington will: • • • • • •

Establish preservation goals, policies, and implementation strategies Develop a set of historic design guidelines for the campus Assist with seeking out aid for ongoing campus preservation projects Develop and expand appropriate mechanisms for the identification, evaluation, and protection of historic and cultural resources Integrate preservation into the city’s planning, land use, and property management codes and policies Increase awareness of historic preservation and the University’s program

Recommendations within this Master Plan document should be informed by the recommendations within UMW’s Preservation Master Plan. C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

Care should be taken to use compatible materials and building components while renovating existing building fabric. Older buildings need not be static; significant change is often necessary for them to remain vibrant and useful. For example, the plan indicates renovation of Virginia Hall, one of the older buildings on campus. This renovation will provide improved residential living space, including hotel-style rooms and lounge space, and reflect and support the needs of incoming students while attempting to preserve the architectural integrity of the existing structure and the surrounding buildings.

280

DESIGN STANDARDS LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS OVERVIEW The University of Mary Washington is currently inefficiently utilizing classrooms on their Fredericksburg Campus. The average square foot per student FTE for classrooms is lower than SCUP standards, but is average among its peers. UMW has an adequate number of classroom spaces as compared to SCUP and their peer institutions. To further maximize utilization of classroom spaces on the Fredericksburg Campus, all classrooms within each academic building should be generic spaces that can be used by all departments. As stated in Chapter 5 - “Utilization”, both technological upgrades and centralized scheduling by the registrar of existing classrooms will improve utilization. IDEAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT ATTRIBUTES Although the ideal classroom is constantly evolving, time tested constants remain; flexible room configurations, sightlines to board and screen space, proper acoustics and ample daylighting. Boards should be raised, slanted to avoid glare from the windows, and lighted to maximize viewing. Single-loaded corridors allow shaded natural daylight and fresh air with cross ventilation into both sides of the classroom. Design standards or sustainability goals should dictate the ratio of window area to floor area, the location of windows, the width and height of the window wall, and the distance between the ceiling and window top rail for proper light distribution and no direct sunlight. By considering and planning for student health, safety, performance, comfort and room aesthetics, UMW can create an “ideal” classroom environment that testifies to the value they place on student education. The layouts on the opposite page illustrate some guidelines for properly sizing proposed classroom / class lab spaces. Many other variations are possible. However these guidelines provide good benchmarks for sizing space within a proposed architectural program.

IDEAL CLASS LABORATORY ATTRIBUTES The layouts on the opposite page illustrate some guidelines for properly sizing proposed classroom / class lab spaces. Many other variations are possible. However these guidelines provide good benchmarks for sizing space within a proposed architectural program.

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

C L A S S R O O M & C L A S S L A B S PA C E S TA N D A R D S ROOM TYPE

SQUARE FEET

Instructor

75 - 100 sf

Classroom

25 sf / student

Biology Lab

55 sf / student

Physics Lab

45 sf / student

Organic Chemistry Lab

60 sf / student

Art Classlab / Studio

40 - 60 sf / student

Music Classlab

30 sf / student

281

DESIGN STANDARDS LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

P H YSI CS LAB 2 4 STATI O N S 4 5 SF P E R S T U D EN T 1 0 8 0 NSF

O RG ANIC CHEMISTRY LAB 6 0 S F PER STUDENT 1 3 6 0 NSF

GENER AL BIOLOGY LAB 55 SF PER STUDENT 1344 NSF

S C REEN S HO ULD N OT COMPLETELY BLO C K BOARD S PAC E ADDITIO N AL BOARD S PACE

AMPLE N ATURAL LIG HT SUPPOR TS MEN TAL ALERTN ES S

2 4 PER S ON C L A S S R OOM 2 5 S F PER S T U D EN T 600 NSF

30 PER SON CLASSR OOM 25 SF PER STUDENT 725 NSF

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

INTER IOR GLAZING FILTER S LIGHT INTO HALLWAYS OR ADJACENT SPACES

282

DESIGN STANDARDS O

OVERVIEW Office facilities are individual, multi-person, or workstation space specifically assigned to academic, administration and service functions of a college or university. Also included under the Room Use 300 category are office services (reception / copy / fax / mail areas), conference rooms, and conference room services (kitchenettes/breakout areas). Both Lee and George Washington Halls have numerous administrative offices, office services, and conference rooms. Faculty offices can be found within all of the academic buildings as well as 1201 Williams Street and 1004 College Avenue. Also included within the NASF are the office spaces that are located within Centre Court and the Alumni Executive Center. Some of UMW’s peers may outsource their publications, graphic, and web design departments which may be why the office quantity is higher at UMW than some of the other schools.

IDEAL OFFICE SPACE ATTRIBUTES Over 50 percent of working professionals in the US spend the workday in office buildings and spaces, and employers today are increasingly bearing the responsibility of providing a quality workspace. Thus the office space type is typically a flexible environment that integrates technology, natural light, comfort and safety, and energy efficiency to provide a productive, cost-effective, and aesthetically pleasing working environment. Typical features of office space types include: • • •

•

UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

Integrated Technology: Thorough understanding of the technological requirements of the space, including anticipated future needs. Occupancy: Office space types fall into the B2 occupancy classification, with sprinklered construction. Flexibility: The office space type is durable and adaptable, and may include features such as a raised floor system for the distribution of critical services (power, voice, data, and HVAC) and mobile workstations to accommodate changes in employee, equipment, and storage needs over time. Comfort and Safety: The health, safety, and comfort of employees is of paramount concern to employers. For this reason, the office space type should be designed with increased fresh air ventilation, the specification of non-toxic and low-polluting materials and indoor air quality monitoring. Non-quantifiable benefits such as access to windows and view, and opportunities for interaction should also be taken into account. Energy Efficiency: As energy costs increase with higher reliance on technology, strategies such as the specification of high-efficiency lighting and lighting controls; the application of daylighting; the use of occupancy sensors; and the installation of high-efficiency HVAC equipment should be considered.

283

DESIGN STANDARDS O

O F F I C E S PA C E S TA N D A R D S OFFICES

ROOM CRITERIA

Faculty department head

180 SF/occ

Faculty department chairman

180 SF/occ

Faculty office

120 SF/occ

Temporary or adjunct office

80 SF/occ

Staff office

120 SF/occ

Staff technician office

100 SF/occ

Faculty conference room

240 SF min.

Faculty waiting room

180 SF

For office spaces, the layout and space requirements vary greatly depending on each individual’s needs. The shape and size of an office, door, and window locations, columns and other architectural features also influence the arrangement of furniture within the space. Beyond these considerations, the basic layouts shown demonstrate how much furniture can reasonably fit in an office of a given square footage. INTER IOR GLAZING FILTER S LIGHT INTO HALLWAYS OR ADDITIONAL LIGHT INTO OFFICES O FFICE TYPE 1 12’ X 10’ = 120 SF

OFFICE TYPE 2 8’ X 10’ = 80 SF

WINDOWS PROVIDE N AT U R A L L I G H T

PROJECTION WALL WAITING AREA

PRIN T / S TOR AGE

CONFERENCE ROOM

RECEPTION AREA 15’ X 19’ = 285 SF

FAC U LT Y O F F I C E 10’ X 12’ = 120 SF

FACULTY DEPT. CHAIR. / HEAD 13’ X 14’ = 182 SF

C H A P T E R 7 - R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

The layouts shown illustrate some guidelines for properly sizing proposed spaces. Many other variations are possible. However, these guidelines provide good benchmarks for sizing many of the spaces within a proposed architectural program.