Tuesday, August 7, 2001

Committee members present: Crawford Thoburn, Erna Coon, Ellen Hall, Melissa Golden, Arthur Bellinzoni, Scott Heinekamp (chair), Terry Martinez, Nan DiBello, Jay Woolford, and Patti Callahan (secretary pro tem.)  Grace Chiang and Tom Hoard of HOLT Architects were also present.

The meeting convened at 1:35. It was agreed that the minutes from the July 17 meeting would be reviewed and approved via email. A copy of a list of questions prepared by Bill Roberts (which had been given to APPC in April) was distributed (additional copies available through Erna Coon). They will be discussed at our next meeting, once all committee members have had a chance to review them.

Tom gave an overview of the building conditions review, which was prepared by HOLT and previously given to the Board of Trustees. At the suggestion of the committee, Tom talked about the academic buildings only, since those are the ones which concern this subcommittee. A copy of the presentation, which includes all campus buildings, is available in Macmillan 317.

Tom explained that he specializes in code enforcement and regulatory review. He emphasized that HOLT’s work on this project summarized existing conditions and made recommendations. The process of reviewing the buildings was not an invasive inspection. Tom Gunderson accompanied HOLT and provided background information. They met with college staff on site and reviewed existing plans for the buildings. He mentioned that Jane Dieckmann’s book, Wells College – A History was used as a resource.

The report was based on the latest New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code. Building codes are designed to protect people who are unfamiliar with a building. Although our buildings are “grand fathered” (still legal without improvements), it is our responsibility to be mindful of safety and access issues. Tom noted that if the cost for renovation to a building is more than 50% of its replacement value, the entire building must be brought up to code. Grace noted that a “protected path of travel” is the major theme of the code. An accessibility audit is often used to provide an alternate plan for accessibility, given the limitations of an older building.

Barler measures up as a 4B building – which means it is a “non-compliant” building, which has unprotected structural members. It has serious accessibility problems with no sprinkler or smoke detection. In the 1960's the layout of this building was referred to as an “open plan” design, because there are no distinct, enclosed exit corridors.  One must walk through one space to get to another. This design also exists in Campbell and Long Library. In Barler, the rooms that particularly have this problem are Classroom 109 and the Listening Room on the second level. Just walking around in the light with eyes wide open is difficult. A person with vision impairments or other physical disability would have major difficulties. In addition, the air conditioning system has not been used for years. Crawford stated that this was a conscious decision by the college, made to save money, though the many musical instruments, especially pianos, housed there have suffered as a consequence. Today the system is in disrepair and no longer functional.

The evaluation of Campbell is very similar to Barler. In addition, because of the studio use for pottery, photography and painting, it needs a much better air filtration and containment system.

Long Library, similar to Barler and Campbell in its open design, has no handicap access as such. Crawford noted that the service entrance does provide access. Tom indicated it is very awkward and Melissa said that it is demeaning to a person with disabilities to be told to use the service entrance. It would be possible to upgrade the existing service entrance to make it handicap accessible and possibly more palatable for those who might use it.

Arthur indicated that he thought the tread of the stairs (their proportions: height and width) is not code compliant. It was noted that at the time they were under construction (Barler, Campbell and Long) the village of Aurora had not adopted a building code and in fact the default code was the “Life Safety Code,” which is traditionally less stringent than state code.

There was discussion regarding sprinkler systems in libraries, understandably resisted by librarians who wish to protect the inventory. However, the type of sprinkler system that would be installed would have individually triggered sprinkler heads in the location of the fire; there would not be a deluge where all sprinkler heads go off at once. This would limit the damage.

Scott inquired about the current state of the library roof. Arthur replied that the roof and its substructure had been replaced in 1987 at a cost of $700,000.

Macmillan is in pretty good shape with a few exceptions. The dead-end corridors on the wings are too long at 60 feet, the maximum allowed being 20 feet. Grace indicated that suites could be created to shorten the corridors. This would avoid a fire/smoke victim becoming lost at the end of a corridor while trying to escape. There is a serious violation in Phipps where the exits at the front of the auditorium are an 18-24 inch drop to the ground outside.

There was some discussion about the state of the elevator. Ellen related a horrific story about bringing a handicapped person to the ladies room, via the elevator. The only handicap accessible bathroom is on the basement floor. Maneuvering in Macmillan between floors is very difficult. The service elevator should be upgraded to a passenger elevator and an H/A bathroom should exist on each floor.

Morgan needs updating for safety and handicap access. The exterior fire escapes are of no use. Crawford noted that the presentation was incorrect regarding the date of the building. It should be 1879, not 1897.

Because Morgan houses a “satellite library,” the idea of central versus satellite was briefly discussed. Arthur stated that three consultants unanimously concluded that the library should be consolidated into one central location. This would help to contain any problems with control of our extensive, valuable library inventory.

Zabriskie also needs updating for safety and handicap access. Given its current configuration, it needs an additional stairway and exit. External fire escapes are not acceptable. It is as yet undetermined what the future use of the building will be once the new science building is finished. Obviously that will determine what upgrades will be necessary.

The conditions and recommendations for the Campus Life buildings were not reviewed for this committee, although Melissa indicated that many students are interested in the status of these buildings, specifically the athletic facility, which needs major improvements.

Before proceeding on our field trip of the academic buildings, there was a discussion. Nan asked what the most serious problems are. Tom replied that the lack of exits and reliance on fire escapes is a major issue. He also indicated that Barler is not as bad as Morgan in case of a fire and that the “Library is a different story.” Melissa stated that this presentation was valuable to her as a student because she was previously unaware of many of the problems and issues.

Patti inquired about cost figures associated with the improvements and upgrades. Grace answered that HOLT began to put some numbers together but stopped because the functions of the buildings were still undetermined. Function will be a major factor in the final costs.

Nan asked what other academic institutions are doing in this situation. Tom replied that at Cornell, their philosophy has been that when a building is renovated, it is brought up to code. Grace suggested that we should identify the serious problems, correct them and make a commitment to upgrading the buildings as they are renovated.

Ellen stated that the accrediting association requires a master facilities plan. Arthur pointed out that once the new science building is completed, Zabriskie will be empty and it can serve as an example for facilities planning which could be used throughout the campus.

Ellen said that the improvements also provide a blueprint for fundraising. She recalled the renovations at Weld, that the final product is up to code, up to date and well funded.

It was generally agreed by the committee that no seriously disabled student could come to Wells today and be effective

We proceeded to tour Long, Barler, Campbell and Morgan. Having heard the HOLT presentation, we observed the facilities with more discerning eyes. The general consensus was that indeed there are serious safety issues which need to be addressed. Discussion about the original design of the buildings included comments from Crawford regarding suggestions from the faculty at that time, some of which were ignored. It seems obvious that the input of faculty is a key ingredient to the success of future academic building renovations.

The meeting concluded at 4 PM. Next meeting TBA based on the yet to be determined composition of the committee for the coming year.

Respectfully submitted,
Patti Callahan, secretary pro tem
 

APPENDIX: INFORMATION PROVIDED BY HOLT ARCHITECTS AFTER THE MEETING:

Regarding Long Library:

For further information regarding the dimensional requirements, see Table C 212-4.1 of the 1964 and 1972 editions of the New York State Building Construction Code which contains the minimum and maximum dimensions for stair components, including tread width and height, riser height, and stair width.  The code used for Tom’s analysis was the current version of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code.  Table IV-765 of that code contains the dimensional requirements for all the components of exit stairs.

The current code sets the minimum number of exits per floor or tier of a C5 occupancy building, based on the occupant capacity of that level or floor.  The code requires that occupancy loads be calculated based on square footage.  Therefore, we have calculated the loads at 185 persons for the lowest level, 382 persons for the intermediate level, and 310 persons to the top level.  Table IX-765 of the current code requires two exits for the lowest level, three exits for the intermediate level, and three exits for the top level. The code also requires that you be able to reach an alternative exit without passing through the first or nearest exit, should the first exit be compromised and unsafe. The three stairways in the building are clustered at the center of the building.  If that area becomes untenable, all three stairways are lost as exits. Similarly, the exits on the lowest level exit at the same platform. We looked at the receiving room in terms of its suitability as an exit.  A receiving room is not a safe exit, because it can be easily obstructed by deliveries and delivery vehicles.  This location could be modified to make it suitable as an exit, and as an accessible entrance, but it currently does not meet requirements for either use. The central stairway is not separated from adjacent areas by fire-resistive construction, so for purposes of code requirements it is not an enclosed stairway.

Regarding handicapped accessibility:

Individuals who use wheelchairs should be able to go from building to building by automobile, by motorized wheelchairs, or with the assistance of other persons.  Many individuals with impaired mobility do this in daily life regardless of the topography (which is challenging at Wells).  However, they do need accessible routes to, into, and within buildings, and dedicated parking spaces on accessible routes to the buildings. These are things we can and must address.