Minutes of the Facilities Planning Committee
for March 3, 2005

Committee Members: Bill Streeter, Chair, Steve McLaughlin, Kate Pietri, Don Cress, Marwan Wafa, Walter Feldt, Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, Jerry Greenfield
Staff Members: John Desch, Don Kolbe
Absent: Vik Bedi, Student

1. Biological Sciences space request.

John Desch explained that the Biological Sciences department has requested additional space in order to have a second anatomy lab. Additionally, it would be advantageous for the anatomy labs to be located together and in a site with adequate ventilation and away from a general hallway. John then explained four different alternatives that had been developed, explaining the pros and cons of each. The only alternative that fits the university’s long-range plan and which gives both biology and physics the needed space would be to move the Physics department from its current location in the south half of the L2 level of Geenquist (rooms 230 – 237). Rooms on the east side of the hall would then be remodeled into two anatomy labs for Biological Sciences. Rooms on the west side would become much needed surge space. Physics would move into Molinaro in rooms currently underutilized by Engineering, as well as into space occupied by Computer Science and PASA. It may be necessary for Physics to share some space with Engineering, but this may be possible due to Engineering’s low number of classes and low enrollment. Two existing digital arts staff offices will need to be replaced in the project. Computer Science will need to consolidate in the current PASA office and adjacent Cybersecurity lab, and the PASA office will need to be relocated.

John discussed the need to submit this plan to the State as an “All Agency Project” since no alternate funds have been identified. This would need to be done soon since funding remains in this biennium, but no funding is anticipated in the next biennium. If it were funded the project could be constructed in the Summer of 2006, for occupancy in the Fall 2006. The committee discussed the proposal and directed John to proceed with submission as an “All Agency Project”.

1. School of Business and Technology conference room replacement.

The School of Business and Technology gave up MOLN 236 for the approved expansion of Geography’s GIS lab, and therefore needs a replacement conference room in which to hold departmental meetings. Marwan outlined a plan to use MOLN 217 for this purpose. This would require the room to be carpeted, painted, and white board installed. Current classroom uses in 217 would relocate across the hall into MOLN 218 which was vacated with the completion of the SEG lab. The committee approved the project as proposed. Bill Streeter will talk with Dave Holle regarding availability of money for this remodeling. Bill also suggested that a study be done regarding useage and availability of conference rooms.

1. Center for Environmental Stewardship.

Jerry Greenfield told the group about the idea of creating the above center, along with the installation of a wind turbine. The center would have solar cells on the roof, and showcase other “green” building technologies. The center could be used as a resource for K-12 students with experiments and displays for them to view. There are grants available from the Kresge Foundation for both planning and construction of a “green” building. Fundraising efforts will be pursued. There are also some obstacles to be overcome in order to do this, i.e. turbine height restrictions. Jerry raised the issue of whether this is the type of building that we would want to put forward a request for - is this the type of building with the highest priority of need? Could we “partner” with another agency or company? John reported that a feasibility study can be done without getting DSF approval. It may be possible to hire an outside firm to do this, or to work with a faculty member at UW-M, and have architecture students work on the study. Costs could be recovered if we get money from the Kresge Foundation. It was also noted that if we leased the land then oversight from DSF can be avoided.

4. Master Plan. John received good feedback from the master plan visit. There will be further meetings the end of April to give feedback to the initial planning concepts that the firm will be bringing forth.

The following are general concepts that were gathered from the firm’s visit:

architecture is sacred, way-finding need to be improved, circulation of traffic needs to be looked at, students want a more residential community and activities, and don’t remove trees or wetlands - keep the beautiful campus.

5. Other Items.

John is conducting a classroom survey in response to a request from the UPC.

Additional projects: shelving in the library archives area, summer paving project - ripping up Inner Loop Road and CommArts Parking lot. When that is complete, work will follow on Outer Loop Road. This work is not expected to extend into the Fall semester but a guarantee is not possible.

Bill distributed a draft of planning principles that was started in 2002. Bill asked committee members to look the document over and bring comments/additions, etc. to the next meeting so that these principles can be finalized in the next month or two. These principles will be used during the construction of the new Union.

A question was raised regarding the closed blinds in the Advising Center, and what could be done to make the Center look more welcoming.