Tuesday, July 17, 2001 in the Henry Wells Room
Present: Ellen Hall, Erna Coon, Scott Heinekamp, Crawford Thoburn, Patti Callahan, C.J. Koepp, Terry Martinez, Susan Ryan, Nan DiBello, Arthur Bellinzoni, Jay Woolford, Grace Chiang, Ann Rollo (secretary pro tem)
S. Heinekamp called the meeting to order at 1:40 pm.
Review and discussion of June 26, 2001 minutes. Approved with changes. Agreed that handouts shared at meetings should accompany the minutes of that meeting.
Update on parking lot green space needs
E. Hall opened the discussion by sharing a vegetation report that was prepared in June and noting that she had consulted with others, including M. Flowers, D. Hutchinson, C. Thoburn, G. Chiang. There was agreement that it was important to balance the need to complete projects with following an appropriate process. That is, the college must move forward in summer to meet student needs; at the same time, the expectation is that SLRP will take in information and make recommendations about changes, yet many faculty are out of town and are not yet in a position to discuss teaching needs for the coming year.
Discussion of specific treed areas for academic use followed. E. Hall will ask faculty to be specific about describing ideal needs. There may also be many other areas on campus with woods that could be used, such as the west side of the lot and behind the campus ball fields. The vegetation report suggests that the value of that specific lot may be minimal. At this point, some areas of woods already compromised due to litter, poison ivy, etc. It might be possible to clean those areas and return them to a state to meet needs which are identified. When we identify environmentally valuable areas, the college should actively manage and preserve them for future use. For example, it was noted that L. Schwab has said that she can use trees by McGordon house and doesn’t "need" trees by parking lot. It was also suggested that the endangered plant(s) could be transplanted, and there may be much more in this area than has been previously documented. A. Bellinzoni cautioned the group to differentiate obstructionist behavior from legitimate concerns. It was also noted that this committee/APPC should only be concerned about teaching needs with respect to this particular project and the discussion returned to possibilities for expanding the woods lot with minimal disruption to the woods or encroaching on that specific outdoor laboratory space. G. Chiang clarified that expansion of the Leach lot would be necessary in order to do that.
Westward expansion of the woods lot was questioned and G. Chiang noted that the size of the buffer -- dense planting between parking lot and road – could be altered to gain more spaces.
10 feet of expansion to the North, East, and West, combined with shrinking the center, asking students not to drive, and redrawing lots sizes could get us to an ideal number. C. Thoburn also suggested considering the lot next to Dodge which could be connected to Leach at the north. J. Woolford responded that grading concerns, electrical service, and the number of spaces available could make that a very high cost per space area.
There was some discussion surrounding the issue of increased costs that would be incurred if the Leach and woods lots are undertaken a separate projects (it may be possible to link work on the woods lot with earth moving for the science building). However, it was generally agreed that the different needs of each project – Leach to be completed in a timely manner so as to have parking available when students return, and woods to be studied more thoroughly allowing time for faculty input and determination of academic impact – would require that they be done separately. E. Hall plans to ask 4 faculty members to work on plan for environmental areas on Wells property by end of October.
Draft Master Plan
J. Woolford recapped the June 26 discussion of goals and objectives and shared diagrams. He pointed to three major areas of focus: 1.) site conditions; 2.) building conditions; and 3.) program – academic, administration, residential, and student activity. He recommended this as a process for moving through discussion and suggested using the site conditions report as the starting point. G. Chiang will distill the building conditions report for next phase of discussion. The group agreed to this process.
Starting with site, and working from the vehicular circulation diagram #1 of colored maps, it can be seen that the presence of cars is foremost on this campus. Vehicles are primarily served by largest blue loop with secondary and tertiary routes and there is no circular, complete path or route. Service vehicles present different challenges as some require getting deeper into campus.
The number of total parking spaces was discussed (341 total areas). The are found in Zones 1 – 4 and include grades -- walking up and down hills, crossing Route 90, and spots that are integrated with driving paths. In addition some students were assigned to golf course lot (30 stalls) in spots near the cul-de-sac that are not shown on diagram.
According to M. Carter’s report: there are 260 faculty and staff registered cars (requiring 130 spaces); 230 resident students have cars; and 45 non-resident students have cars registered. Thus, 130 + 45 + 230 = 405 required spaces. While there is an attempt to concentrate faculty and staff parking, then t consolidate student parking, people want parking convenient and close.
There was discussion of the concept of a "ring road" that would put parking around the outside with limited inside parking, and primarily pedestrian traffic inside the loop.
The discussion then moved to pedestrian circulation. J. Woolford pointed out that diagrams show that campus pedestrian and vehicle paths tend to overlap, while a "ring road" would separate those types of movement. Pedestrian traffic includes gathering, meeting, and interacting as well as getting from one location to another.
There was discussion as to how to use pedestrian paths to mitigate the (perceived) isolation of specific buildings or areas. Significant nodes, actual usage areas, such as the north (not main) entry of Macmillan, rear entry of Zabriskie, esophagus area of Main were identified as most-used, although not formally designated, main entries and points of intersection.
There was a brief overview of the building site constraint analysis. J. Woolford noted that there are open spaces on campus that either look like easy places to build or important spaces onto which buildings open that could/do serve as "quad type" spaces and should likely be preserved. He pointed out that this is an important area to consider as, for example, it was originally thought that pines were a significant buffer area on the end of campus – and beyond the lot was "just woods." Many now understand that pines not as important as once thought and the woods have previously unknown-about value. In addition, the ravines serve as important delineators, although previously, some have been filled -- Cleveland built on a ravine.
One of the campus site constraints is slope, which generated discussion. Some pointed out that slope prevents many students from accessing, or wanting to walk to, areas of campus such as the athletic building and the woods lot. This led to discussion of the ease and comfort of walking around campus, especially in inclement weather and in the dark. It was suggested that lighting could be a partial solution that might enhance feeling of inviting atmosphere for young women. If environment is compelling, people will tend to enter it. The college should be attentive to making the environment feel safe for students who walk as young women are taught specific concerns for their safety and comfort in walking. The group concurred that although the sloping environment in multiple directions with difficult grades makes Wells a very complex campus in terms of land configuration, it is also this complexity that makes it quite charming.
The last topic to be covered was the building functions & facilities. Information is gathered so that it can be used with program part of planning, i.e., are there the right number, kind of spaces. The architects recorded classroom sizes and types to assure the right mix of facilities for program. This information has been revised to reflect faculty input and augment the registrar’s information. It has been an ongoing process to identify actual usage of spaces – because of after hours work (art, music, language labs, others) the registrar’s information does not reflect full scope of usage. G. Chiang suggested using a sign-in, sign-out log in rooms. Faculty advisors would know about some uses, although not all groups have advisors. Seniors and student art majors have assigned studio spaces, but this past year there was not enough space in Campbell, so they were assigned to work in the3rd floor of Morgan and basement of Leach. Campbell was also cleaned to find more space.
At this point Tom Hoard walked in, G. Chiang introduced him and noted that we might invite him to discuss code issues re: building conditions. It was agreed that building conditions would be the subject of the next meeting and that a walking tour of buildings to see conditions would be helpful.
NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, August 7 at 1:30 pm. Room TBD.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 pm.