Campus Planning Committee Meeting

Transcription

1 Campus Planning Committee Meeting Present: Mercedes Benton John Cheney Tina Chovanec Larrie Easterly Justin Flemming Mark Floyd Lori Fulton Ken Gibb Penny Hardesty Michael Henthorne Jack Higginbotham Robin Hlobeczy Michael Olson (ASOSU President) Todd Stansbury Brandon Trelstad Agenda 1. Reser updates Lori Fulton 2. Vet Med conceptual Master Plan, Sector E 3. Intramural field improvements, Dixon, Athletics continued 4. Review annual report 5. New business; People s Park, Goss Stadium improvements, 2 banners at 30 th /Western, 26 th St. Parking Structure update (Tom S.) 6. Adjourn Reser Updates Lori: We are not going to redo the north stands, but there will be a weight facility by the gill annex. That is where three practice basketball

2 courts were approved in the past. Other priorities overrode this. Now we would like to use it for wrestling and a weight facility. Wrestling is the only athletic that does not have its own space. The cost estimating would not work next to the valley football center; we would have had to redo the north ramp; it would have been too much complicated, and the cost beyond our reach. The weight training is for all students, not just football. It is a nice central location for everyone. About 170,000 sf plus some office space. Above it would be wrestling facility 7000 sf. Total 34,000 sf. This should ease up the crunch in Gill. Lori presented concept drawings that were sent out over already. The look is a modern build that will fit in with Reser and the Practice Facility. There will be room to gather outdoors. There will not be too many windows because it is not public. There will be lots of natural light. It is included in the CMP for square footage, and there are no conflicts with the City. We are a little behind schedule, and expect it will be complete by January Michael: On the back of the site there is room for volleyball practice facility. That will help ease transportation pick up site for Reser. What is the impact during construction? Lori: The gravel lot is scheduled to be paved next year. That will not be the free lot anymore.

3 We will fence it off during contruction. We may need to close down the Ralph Miller Road a few days at a time. We will make alternate routes and signage. Patty: You will create an area for people to walk, especially ADA, right? Lori: The crosswalk will be in the same location and visible. We will be building in more safety at 26 th. Tina: With all the new buildings, Gill is looking a bit shabby. Any plans? Lori: There has been some talk, nothing official yet. But what we are looking at, I think you will be pleased with. It will fit in with the new buildings. Patty: There will be a Historic Preservation Committee that will be discussing the historic elements on campus. It will be there to safeguard interests. We do have to be mindful, especially of the exteriors. The Historic Resources Commission will need to review with the City. We will present about the HP plan in a future meeting. Penny: In Indianapolis, they have done a great job of preserving the old alongside the new. They do have historic districts. Patty: The Olmstead plan was not to make buildings identical, but to have building harmony.

4 Tina: Will the new structure feature primarily red brick? Lori: Yes. At this stage we do not have quite as much detail. There will be some landscape elements, maybe some seating walls, historic lighting, softening the edges. We have looked at a turf roof in the past, but that will not work on this particular project. Patty: There is no need for approval since it fits within the CMP. Lori will keep us updated. Vet Med conceptual MP, sector E Patty: The boundary has been redefined from what they proposed at the last meeting. We outlined what they have existing. The boundary now excludes 35 th to the housing services. That was of concern to the Ag folks. Notes from Stella: Conceptual Vet Med, not a sector E plan. That would need to include all the other entities. Do we really want to do that for each sector? We can discuss at a later time. How is open space impacted by development in each sector. For the expansion, how does it impact the overall allocation?

5 Patty provided a graph for the committee that shows the percentage of open space available and the amount left after this development. We can develop up to 120,000 sf. That would bring the open space down to 80%. We have about 90,000 sf of developable land in our open space calculation it is still within the Campus Master Plan. We can provide development impacts for you. Sector E cannot go below 70%. Penny: Part of Sector E is not on the map. The Foundation originally had plans to have building additions. Is that still in the plans? Patty: We opted not to include actual placements of buildings, we just calculate the total build-able area. We just want to finalize the conceptual plan for Vet Med. It is a proposed area for Vet Med. Larrie will modify the overlay to show what area they are proposing to develop. Stella opposed expanding the Vet Med footprint without others in the sector weighting in. She also said maybe long term tracking could show on the map the expansion tracking. We can do that. Patty: There is no approval needed, as this fits within the CMP guidelines.

6 The mapping project will be presented in October. Intramural Field improvements John: We met with the architect last week. We were going to coordinate with the cross country/track coach. But the needs of the track program would not be able to coexist on that site with us. These are becoming two separate projects. The funding is still commingled and we are working that out. They are moving forward on designing their project. We are reconsidering our needs, perhaps in the South Farm area. For them the ASOSU funds are in place, but they have some ways to go, and are working out financial issues. They would like to have this within a year or so. Ours will take awhile to fund raise for. We will come back to you at a later date with our proposal. Patty: The 15 th /Western is an area Athletics was interested in. That is Sector H. South Farm is just a feasibility study. Other uses are considered for that location as well.

7 Regarding open space, synthetic fields are not excluded and they are within our CMP definition. Stella s comments on this: Allowing Rec Sports students is fine, but if these are installed, people need to know the likelihood they will need to be abandoned in the future because of the core location, and concerns about restricted access. Other locations may be more beneficial. In Sector C, the main focus is for research and teaching initiatives. We have given conceptual planning approval. We would need to revisit the target use of Sector C. They can do it but there may need to be a sunset date. Any field is subject to future development. Any other comments? Penny: Sector C recreational facilities with instructional functions may be a bit different. If they are used for instructional they could fit long term use, though still may not be the best choice. Without Athletics teaching classes, that changes it a bit. Patty: HHS is involved; there is faculty staff, intramural, PAC. They feel it is part of the college. Education and general funded would be teaching and research. Penny: How do you give more detailed description and definition to that?

8 Michael: I have a problem with restricted access and still calling it open space. John: Rec Sports was still talking about some fencing for protection, but not to limit access. The property is currently managed by HHP. They would need to work with that college. It got rather complicated. Tina: What is minimum open sf for that sector? Patty: That is 36% to remain as open space. It has the least of all the sectors. Jeff: Is anyone talking to the residence hall folks? They seem to use it a lot and their uses may not be compatible with artificial turf. People sun bathe, sit on the grass, and it is not the same experience as sitting on artificial turf. We may want to build some areas of passive use. Michael O: I will talk to them about it. Tom: My understanding is that the turf is a softer sort. We need to consider lighting issues. It is very close to the residence halls. If there is a night game people may have a problem with athletic lights on. Patty: It is important to bring these things up especially to relative adjacent usage.

9 Tom: For the record, as we look at other options we need to remember that South Farm a good chunk of that is Housing & Dining land. We hope to locate family housing in another area, but none of that has been determined. Annual Report Patty: The annual report will be a summary of the year, approvals, not approved, reviews, attendance summary, considerations, etc. It will be forwarded to you later. Let me know if you have any input on what you would like to see included. We would like to keep it simple. Tom: A summary of what are the types of things we talk about, etc. may be helpful, especially for new members. New Business: Banner Approval Patty: We (the CPC) approved a sign plan that includes a banner plan. We have basic corridors we improved. We had some improvements done on 30 th St. including historic light fixtures at 30 th /Western. We would like temporary approval to post two banners there. Tina and I have reviewed this already. Through December 31, It can be eventually considered a secondary portal to campus. We are looking to identify with good signage the portal areas of campus. It would meet city standards, height, etc.

10 Tina: It would be really nice to have something like that at every secondary portal. Patty: It is actually kind of a 3 rd level portal. Jefferson is actually that main line through campus. We are starting to build on that. Tom: We would like to see a sign at 6 th /Western. Patty: That has to be a monument, we don t have the funds for that at this point. Penny motioned. Mercedes seconded. Unanimously approved. New Fencing by Goss John: We would like to propose new fencing by the Goss parking lot near 3rd base line. It would be a 20 foot tall fence. It is near the batting cages. We are concerned that the exterior fence will fall. It was not properly installed. We would like to replace it with shorter one and extend the interior fence to be taller. It becomes a pitchers park. The reason behind this is mostly for appearance, but also for safety. We would also like to place a roof structure, open on the sides to the batting cages. We would also do some maintenance to that area.

11 Penny: Is that pretty standard for fence height? John: Yes. The opportunities for home runs will be less. Patty: We did a campus planning staff review. There are no conflicts or impacts. We recommend approval. Parking may be temporarily affected and they will need to work with Parking Services. This is not considered future development. We do ask that the safety of the ball be studied as part of the project, as a condition of moving forward. They will need to provide screening (slats) with the replacement. Jeff moved. Jack seconded. Comments? Tom: This could be an opportunity for marketing goodwill and interest, Can we post a project sign with drawings about what is going on? Seems there is a real opportunity here for that. Motion was Unanimously approved. People s Park Brandon: We are moving forward on the People s Park project. This project is actually several years old. Many of you may remember that the

12 old People s Park was displaced where Kelley Engineering Center is. Eric Johnson was hired to do some work on it. Eric: The new location will be west of Gilke Hall diagonal from Kelley Engineering. It will be at Campus Way/Memorial place. (A hand sketch was passed around.) Eric is the student project manager for park relocation. He gave an update on the plan. Eric: We are in conversation with people at Facilities Maintenance to confer on our ideas. We would like to take out a few unhealthy trees, remove some shrubs for a path we plan to install. There would be a raised permeable paver path and a plaza for a small gathering area. In addition we are looking at a raised berm area similar to the past park and a lower area for drainage. Questions? Patty: Which trees? Brandon: None of what the City would consider significant is being removed. A weeping cherry has some lichen and moss issues. Landscape has been consulted and the 3 would not last more than 5 years anyway. The spruce tree is on the north side. It is damaged, not healthy, not rare. All of this is subject to approval and an official arborist review the cherry

13 will be removed also. The tree structure is not very sound. We would like to use the wood and integrate with the project if it is possible. Eric: We are looking at mulch trails in the park as well and the wood chips could be used in those. Tine: Is there a particular sort of spirit you are trying to create for this place? Eric: I was not one of the original students working on this project, but I have access to their files. We are not trying to recreate the old park. We gathered many ideas from the OSU community and also there will be an environmental responsibility attached to this park. Brandon: It would be culturally diverse for plant species as well. This was drawn up by the Landscape Club. It is an opportunity for a teaching; learning tool as well. Patty: The CPC has not had a chance to review this yet. Planning will review this. For this meeting, this is informational as a first step. We will bring this back to the next meeting and make a formal adoption, make sure it meets criteria, etc. This will be after we have a staff review. Brandon: We will go through a more detailed plan with CPC. Penny: How are you going to involve the rest of the OSU community?

14 Eric: There has been a lot of work done in the past on this. ASOSU has been involved. Ba352 class was involved this fall; the Landscape Design class will integrate this design into their class. We are advertising and have a web site for feedback. Penny: I just would like to see campus informed. Brandon: I will be in touch with Mark Floyd to make announcements. We hope that MUPC will coordinate with sound permits, etc. Jeff: The original park was for public speaking, freedom of speach and was very contemplative. The area you are working with now is quite a bit smaller. At the back of Gilke, there is a trash pile that will need to be screened. Update on 26 th St. Tom: We initially planned to get out of Arnold and into the 26 th St. Parking Structure. The architect came back with over budget cost estimates. We went back to them. They will come back with reduced scope project that will hopefully fit and still be a good dining facility. Our hope is that it will be around $8 million. We will have dining there, and our known partner for the facility would be a Transit and Parking office. We think it fits well. We are also working with closely with the cultural center. We would like to get on the agenda for the next meeting on the 25 th. In order to come up with this plan, we will reduce the

15 ground floor square footage and renovate the kitchen in Arnold and keep it as a catering kitchen. That will reduce the projected cost. There will be multipurpose use in Arnold in the future. We are just in the brain storming stage. Patty: The 26 th St. and Madison Ave. improvement plan will be on the agenda next time. Also the redesign in front of Benton Hall at lower campus. Adjourn.