MINUTES FROM FACILITY MASTER PLAN KICK-OFF MEETING
HELD SEPTEMBER 23, 2004
PRESIDENT'S CONFERENCE ROOM
PARKS HALL
GCSU Representatives Present: Michael J. Whitfield, Todd Shiver, Stephen B. Curry, Lorene Flanders, Richard Lou, Beth Rushing, Thomas Toney, Bruce Harshbarger, Mark Pelton, Linda Irwin-Devitis, Jimmy Ishee, Mike Augustine, Jim Wolfgang, Pamela Glover, Rick Ruark, Stan Aldridge, Ken Vance, Robert Haney, Katherine Fuller, Neil Jones, Charles Martin, Dale Young, Harry Keim, Harold Mock, Dorothy Leland, Bob Wilson, Lindy Ruark, and Dayna Brown.
GCSU Representatives Absent: Martha Colvin and Mary Jane Phillips
Sasaki Representatives Present: Dick Galehouse, Greg Havens, Matthew Brownell and Carol Moyles.
Lord, Aeck & Sargent Representative Present: Jon Buono
Introduction: Dr. Bob Wilson, chair of the GCSU Facility Master Plan Committee opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. He informed everyone of refreshments in the hall and binders in the back of the room for documents that were sent via email earlier in the week.
Dr. Wilson stated that GCSU facility needs, according to faculty and staff interviewed at the Sasaki work session in July, have been thoroughly documented by Sasaki and the "Kick-off Work Session" will be systematic discussions of direction that need to be taken. Dr. Wilson went on to say that there are two defining moments of coherent planning for this space in the last 200 years:
1 – When John Clarke, head of the commissioners who founded the town of Milledgeville and was later governor of Georgia, decided with Governor John Milledge to locate the State Penitentiary on this sight defining the campus' current configurations. The penitentiary has not been here since the 1870's but early campus construction reflected the lines and bounds of the Penitentiary and is still with us; and
2 – When it was decided to locate Atkinson Hall where it is and under President Marvin Parks, visualizing the neoclassical facade that defines the beautiful front lawn. This is really the trademark of the college.
Dr. Wilson explained that since Marvin Parks' passing in 1925, the university has not had a great deal of intentional planning on the campus; it has basically been working with space available for new buildings - there are a couple of exceptions but not many. Dr. Wilson said that this initiative is a welcomed one, particularly with the continued growth and expansion of the university. Dr. Wilson added that this project will have meaning for the community as well as the campus.
President Dorothy Leland welcomed everyone and thanked Dr. Wilson for leading the group. President Leland then asked that everyone make self-introductions to include name and area represented. She stated that she agrees with the recommendation of the University System of Georgia Board of Regents to proceed with the Facility Master Plan and added that GCSU has a few extra things in the Master Planning process that will be very important to the future of this university.
Sasaki Presentation: Dr. Wilson turned the meeting over to Greg Havens with Sasaki. Havens informed the group that this type of process is necessary for everyone to understand the university's mission and move forward in planning for the campus. He explained that the 9:00 – 10:30 portion of the meeting will be focused on the planning committee. The two items to be reviewed are:
1) the process and schedule that will be carried out over the next few months, and
2) planning issues and themes heard during the work sessions on campus in late July.
Havens stated there may be other things that will be added to this list and encouraged feedback and comments from everyone. Havens said specifics that will be covered in the meeting are:
- Space Use - Sasaki will be looking at the amount of space the university has now and using national guidelines to suggest what would be needed to support the academic programs and mission. Sasaki has been asked to look at two growth enrollment targets: 6000 headcount and 8000 headcount and the repercussions on the campus environment in terms of new classroom space, office space, library, etc.
- Signage - Brian Pearce (not present) with Sasaki met with Paul Jones, Pam Glover, Mitch Clarke, and John Webb regarding university signage and way finding task of the project. This portion of the process will involve addressing strategically, how people find the university when they enter the town, how they orient themselves to the visitor's services, admissions, etc. Greg also said that Susan Turner (not present) with Lord, Aeck and Sargeant, who has been involved with the landscaping aspect of the Governor's Mansion, will be involved landscaping portion of the project.
Havens stated that at 10:30 there will be a Cross Team meeting. This meeting will include the GCSU committee and representatives from the University System of Georgia Board of Regents to include Alan Travis, Michael Miller and others. The Cross Team meeting will bring the Board of Regent's perspective to the meeting.
With regard to process, Havens explained:
- The Overall Assessment phase of the project began in July;
- The Historic Building Condition assessment is currently underway. This involves reviewing the condition of the historic buildings and strategic plan in preservation and use of these buildings in the future;
- The Master Plan Development Phase will evaluate various alternatives and how the campus might evolve. This work will begin after this work session and should be complete in November;
- The documentation on the Facility Master Plan will be complete toward the end of January.
Havens reviewed the issues and themes recorded by Sasaki during the July meeting with faculty and staff. A copy of these issues and themes and a copy of the Powerpoint presentation done by Sasaki is included with these minutes.
The following comments were made on individual items listed in the Sasaki documents:
- Computer labs and technology - Jim Wolfgang agreed with the concept; he asked that the term "lab" be changed to "resource" because of early connotations. Wolfgang said that other forms of technology will be used in the technology resource areas and the words "computer labs" are giving the wrong perception. In conclusion, Wolfgang stated that "Technology Resource Areas" reflects the appropriate tone for the University's mission.
- Classrooms - President Leland stated that she has asked the Deans of the four schools to work on a proposal for a more collaborative scheduling process. Dick Galehouse commented that everyone will see Sasaki's assessment of the space use on campus, and theoretically, GC&SU has plenty of classroom space that is not being properly utilized.
- Conference Center – Mark Pelton stated that his division is involved with most conferences offered on campus and the 100 person conference is not the problem – the larger conferences, 200 to 300 people, is where the problem lies. Havens asked how these were accommodated. Pelton said that the few rooms remaining in Chappel Hall and other auditoriums (A & S or Russell) on campus are used. President Leland asked what was meant by a conference center. Using the School of Education as an example, Havens said he understood it to be an area where the School of Education would conduct one or two day seminars and teachers from the region would be brought in. Linda Irwin-Divitis stated that SOE does have induction conferences and are talking about others. Irwin-Divitis stated that others on campus need this type space because the SOE has had to rearrange classes to accommodate conferences from other areas on campus. President Leland asked Irwin-Divitis if she was referring to an auditorium. Irwin-Divitis said she was referring to a place with a large meeting area and break-out rooms. Jimmy Ishee stated that a facility that can facilitate meetings in the day, dinners at night, and maybe even lodging accommodations – a space dedicated to meeting and everything that supports the meeting. Pelton stated that at this time, conferences had to be divided into several buildings because of lack of space. Bob Wilson asked if anybody in the meeting was familiar with anything similar to this on other campuses. President Leland said these facilities were all over the country and added that this was the first time she had heard of this need. Dick Galehouse said this should be drawn from the deans in terms of the kind of academic programs that they are trying to carryout. Galehouse said it would be helpful to Sasaki, et al. if the deans would articulate with an email the kinds of programs they are running now or would like to run - this would help build the idea. Charlie Martin added to what had already been said about the conference center stating that summer camps and outside groups wanted to use GC&SU building and were turned away because they could not be facilitated (no rooms large enough to hold three groups of 100 people). Galehouse asked that someone make a list of how many inquiries were made in one year that could not be facilitated; Galehouse asked that the size and nature of the program and space needed be listed. President Leland asked that the deans to create a list for each of the school's need. Robert Haney added that given the state's current budget situation, facilitating conferences may be a way to generate revenue.
- Student Center – Harry Keim stated that there are four Intramural Fields at West Campus providing recreation facilities for the students. Havens said that he had heard concerns from faculty and staff about recreation space in the Centennial area. Stan Aldridge said that there is a great deal of demand on the Centennial Center (east and west courts particularly) and it always hard to find a time for students to have occasional recreational play. Charles Martin commented that with the closing of the weight area in the Centennial Center that faculty used and the capacity problems at the Train Depot, there is not a place for the faculty to go. Dick Galehouse said that with the student population increasing, there will be no places on campus for "pick-up play" in terms of a field space for students. Matthew Brownell with Sasaki said he noticed spaces between Parkhurst and Foundation are being used for "pick-up play." Dick Galehouse said any space near residence should be consciously programmed into the building design. Stan Aldridge said that there should be a cooperative effort between the city and the county concerning Bonner Park which has basically been abandoned. Dick Galehouse agreed that was a great point. Harold Mock said that personal safety is an issue at Bonner Park in the evenings. President Leland asked how well lighted the area was. Stan Aldridge said that was part of the problem but could be an outstanding facility with a cooperative effort. Bruce Harshbarger stated that requiring some group of student to park at Irwin Street (which is adjacent to Bonner Park) may be a necessity which will be the ultimate solution to the parking crisis. Bruce said this was another reason for making the area as safe as possible. Dick Galehouse said that a triage of GC&SU, the City of Milledgeville and Baldwin County could involve GC&SU investing in the lighting in return for the ability to use the space and also program it jointly with the community. Lorene Flanders stated that it is difficult for residents to utilize the area because of lack of parking (most of the parking is used by students) and the route is not "walker friendly" from the residential area. Lorene also said that private residences need to be considered when having recreational areas programmed into the residence hall areas because of lighting, noise, etc.
- Institutional Research – Dr. Leland stated it is not necessary for Institutional Research needs to be near the President's Office but it is a function that is so closely allied to Enrollment Management so that it needs to be more integrated with them.
- Vacant Facilities – Harry Keim stated that Terrell needs to be added to the vacant list because it will be an academic building in January 2005. Mike Whitefield pointed out that the issue is lack of funds to renovate vacant facilities that the university already has. Keim added that there needs to be definition of what the vacant facilities will be used for and used the courthouse as an example.
Stan Aldridge stated he had seen nothing about athletic facilities at West Campus. Aldridge said that he thought there was a need for a multi-purpose, multi-sport facility for in-door practice facilities and office space; Stan added that Rick Ruark has already done preliminary work on such a facility.
Todd Shiver said that he had seen nothing about a theatre on campus. Shiver stated that while he sees other programs lacking adequate space, music is lacking adequate rehearsal space and space on the main campus to build sets. Also, access to Russell Auditorium is extremely limited because of other programs and is not an ideal performance space (acoustics, backstage room, no wings, and other problematic problems). Dick Galehouse said that it would help Sasaki if there could be a definition, in specific terms, of the academic program that is wanted by Theatre and Music and a list of the type and number of practice rooms needed; this same kind of definition is needed for a small theatre and/or a black box theatre.
Dick Galehouse re-emphasized the fact that GCSU has plenty of space, the issue is availability of money to renovate what is already here; because many of the buildings are historic in nature, there may be priority given in funding or other sources of funding that can be obtained to restore these buildings. Galehouse stated that the Master Planning effort is going to be fitting programs into space that exists or space made available, rather than building new buildings. Stan added that there is currently a building at West Campus that is shared by Health Sciences and Athletics that needs a major facelift. Havens asked about relocation plans for tennis courts. Aldridge said he did not think that would happen anytime in the near future, but it might be an idea to create space on the main campus. Harry Keim stated that a new indoor pool should be added to the list.
- New Programs – Tom Toney added that the Environmental Science Program is not a new program; it is a growth program. Toney also said he did not see anything about a performing arts center and stated that this was desperately needed.
Rick Ruark stated that if enrollment continues to increase, housing needs will need to be addressed; if GCSU is to reach the 6000 to 8000 goal, additional housing will be needed. Harold Mock commented that if enrollment is going continue to increase, there will be a need for additional integrated academic and residential spaces with breakout rooms or areas.
- Pedestrian Circulation - Linda Irwin-Divitis asked that Montgomery Street be added to the list. Harry Keim informed the group that the university has obtained funding to make pedestrian crossings safer and the project will be done this year. Rick Ruark added that the mid-crossing sections on four blocks of campus will be done and negotiations have begun with DOT.
Jim Wolfgang stated the importance of the group focusing on the support structure of the campus; Wolfgang said there was not enough emphasis given to this in the last Facility Master Plan.
Mike Whitfield informed the group that the School of Business voted to de-activate the Hospitality and Tourism career plan.
Stephen Curry stated that he would like to see more areas in buildings similar to the Kilpatrick atrium where students can just "hang out."
Richard Lou re-enforced the need for a theatre; Lou stated that the arts, in general, provide a nice way of finding the community and the institution and creates those organic collaborative situations by bringing people from all over the country with a specific goal. Dr. Leland added that this is one of the reasons that she is interested in exploring space for arts in the downtown area because it is collaborative and helps the university tap other sources of funding by seeing it as an economic development initiative by bringing more people into the downtown. Dr. Leland informed everyone that the university is looking at places for a black box theatre with studio space. Richard Lou also suggested the idea of public art on campus and throughout the community. With regard to public art, Dr. Leland stated that one of her objectives as president was for outcomes of the Facility Master Planning process to include collaborative and imaginative spaces.
Stan Aldridge told the group that athletics has had preliminary, informal discussions with the county officials about the possibility of GCSU acquiring Little Fishing Creek Golf Course. Stan said that this could be a tremendous asset to the university. There could also be promotions through marketing opportunities, as well as, another source of revenue.
- Graduate Education Center - Macon – Mark Pelton stated that he had recently been told that Fort Valley will no longer be on the Warner Robins Campus. Dr. Leland said that she has discussed the growth of the graduate programs in Macon/Warner Robins area with the Chancellor and the Regents is fully on board with GC&SU retaining the graduate programs in Macon and Warner Robins. Dr. Leland added that Fort Valley will not have much of a presence at Macon State and GCSU is the only public institution that serves that area. In closing, Dr. Leland said that GCSU might want to explore at using the vacated space and asked Mark Pelton to forward the information to her.
Dick Galehouse stated that Sasaki's role is about the physical planning. This planning process will assist in creating an environment that functions well and enables the university to fulfill the academic mission with which it is charged; the more information that is given to Sasaki regarding the mission, the program, and needs, the better Sasaki will be able to understand how all of this fits together. Galehouse stated GCSU has the most extraordinary resource, in Milledgeville, not only the campus but the community GCSU is in and Sasaki's challenge is to understand that, respect it and see if Sasaki can make the resource work for the university's programs.
Programming/Space Needs Analysis Task (Included In Attachments)
Dick Galehouse informed everyone the Programming/Space Needs Analysis assesses the space relative to the current mission and grew out of the Albany State process where the idea was introduced. Galehouse said that the space standards have been revised for Georgia so they are more flexible, relaxed and suited to current temporary teaching needs. Galehouse also said that Sasaki is working with Rick Ruark to assess the quality of space; when this information is received, it will be pulled out as well so that when the standard is applied, Sasaki will have a more accurate picture of the space available. Matt Brownell presented the data on enrollment. Dr. Leland told Sasaki that the ratio presented are not the ratios given to the Board of Regents. Dick Galehouse said the ratios were based on the information given to them and Sasaki needs to make sure they have the correct information. Dr. Leland suggested that when information is requested, that Robert Haney, President's Executive Assistant, be shown the information so that the President's Office can track what is happening. Dr. Leland said the University had some corrupt data sources. Havens said that no university calculates these ratios the same way. Dick Galehouse said that they were using standard methodology in all of the systems. Dr. Leland just re-emphasized that there is an issue here that will need to be resolved. Havens and Dick both acknowledged this discrepancy.
- Criteria for Space Analysis: Matt reviewed the information in the Power Point Presentation. Bob Wilson asked about the numbers next to the categories. Matt explained that the number represents the HEGIS code (Higher Education Guideline Information Survey).
Mike Whitfield stated that he had never heard of an 8000 enrollment figure. Dr. Leland said that she supplied the two figures as model figures and the figures are divorced from the academic mission. Galehouse said Sasaki likes to test for physical capacity of a campus so both figures will be useful. Matt continued his presentation and explained that a graph for each area will be viewed individually (included in Power Point presentation attachments).
Stan Aldridge asked if the recreation space shown in the presentation includes any allocation for athletic practices because the charts show that the university is way out of proportion; the centennial center is primarily a basketball facility that is used primarily for varsity basketball practice. The upper portion is used for other activities. Stan went on to say that on rainy days, the other university sports come in for practice. Brad said they did count centennial center in their figures because that is where most of the indoor space recreation is located. Stan said that the main basketball court is used for basketball practice and special events and not recreational play because of the composition of the floor and the wear and tear on it. Stan clarified his questions by asking if the main arena floor was included in recreational space. Brad said it was and that was the reason he included the Miller analysis as well as the CEFPI analysis. Havens said that the Miller analysis is better fine tuned for GCSU.
- Campus Center - Bruce Harshbarger asked if the campus center was the current MSU and the Methodist Church. Brad said that was correct and added that the food service area is not included.
- Work Storage – Harry Keim asked what was meant by work/storage. Dick Galehouse said it was plant operations. Rick further explained that it meant plant operations, mechanical closets and janitorial closets.
- Classroom Space – Todd Shiver pointed out that Table 6, Page 7 of the handouts, did not show a deficit in classroom space even with 8000 students. Brad explained that Table 6 showed Classroom space only and following charts show a need for lab and office space.
- Weekly Student Contact Hours – Todd Shiver asked if they were considering the time frame of classes because on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, from 12:00 – 2:00, there are not classes. Galehouse said that a typical class day is from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. and the 65% shown in the Weekly Student Contact Hours chart, is the utilization of all the hours in that typical day. Lindy Irwin-Divitis said that they had been told not to schedule classes during the noon to 2:00 timeframe. Dr. Leland stated that that was not the issue; there can be better space utilization report even holding certain hours off line so faculty are available for meetings. Havens said that section sizes could make the difference given that you have 17 students in a class and given the size of many of the classrooms; if you have 15 students in a classroom that hold 30 students, one-half of the classroom is being under-utilitized. Mark Pelton asked if other activities were being considered in the figures for space usage. Matt explained the factors used in calculating space usage. Galehouse added that if non-credit classes are being taught during the typical class day, Sasaki need to be informed of that. Harry Keim said that he was assuming that Sasaki was using the Academic Year not the whole year. Galehouse said they were using a typical academic week.
- Teaching Labs – Tom Toney asked about an interpretation on the statement shown with the Weekly Student Contact House Chart regarding labs (80% occupancy). Galehouse said the information presented was correct. Toney stated that there are very few science labs that are not 100% occupied.
- Office Space – Galehouse asked Matt if he introduced the headcount issue into the FTE issue in determining office space. Matt said that part-time faculty had not been included in these figures. Dr. Leland said that adjuncts and graduate assistants need to be factored into our space needs and asked if Sasaki needed the information. Galehouse explained that they were not sure of the nature of the part time faculty and they will need feedback from GCSU on this.
- Recreation – Galehouse said that they are now aware of the lack of fitness space the university has and the larger the residential population, the more that kind of space will be needed.
- Campus Center - Havens pointed out that food service was not singled out in the chart. He explained that GCSU has 18,000 square feet dedicated to that and the guidelines suggest 29,000 – 30,000 square feet.
Galehouse said that the issues addressed require that the question, "What are our priorities now?" be asked. The Student Center issue is a major priority and the Arts, Theatre and Science are also a priority.
The group took a ten minute break before the Cross Team Meeting.
CROSS TEAM MEETING
Board of Regents Officials Present: Alan Travis, Michael Miller, Susan Wright and Tom Maier
Greg Havens explained that during the Cross Team segment of the meeting, a brief review of the previous meeting will be presented. After the review, Lord, Aeck & Sargent will present the Historic Building Conditions Assessment that has been occurring over the last month.
Matt Brownell briefly reviewed the Programming/Space Needs Assessment from the first segment of the Kick Off Meeting. Dick Galehouse stated that Rick Ruark was doing a Quality of Space Assessment for Sasaki which has not yet been introduced into the assessment figures presented; Galehouse said that art program labs are being counted as existing space. This is an issue to be considered because the art labs are quite inadequate.
Regarding the library, Brownell noted that the figures include the old section of the library which is currently being renovated. The assessment figures show that the university has plenty of space in the library and may want to ask if all the space is necessary. Lorene Flanders said that part of that space is museum and Brownell said that will be considered in the planning.
President Leland asked if the Governor's Mansion was included in the assessment. Brownell said the Governor's Mansion was not included; neither were the top two floors of Ennis Hall, Beeson Hall, Terrell Hall. Alan Travis asked if there would be a break-down, at some point, on this. Galehouse said there would not be, but it is important to understand that there are several hundred thousand square feet of space that is waiting to be renovated that is not included and would be an available resource. Havens clarified that the amount of space was in the 125,000 square foot range.
Brownell summarized that the greatest needs are in campus center and audio visual space; Office, recreation, and work storage appear to be satisfactory; classroom, library, assembly, and lounge space (which is not on the chart) suggest a slight surplus in space. Future guideline space would introduce lab and office as growing space needs.
President Leland asked how this squared with the former statement that there is a need for all of the arts (performing, visual, etc.) because it does not break down to office, lab, etc. Galehouse stated that this was the reason for requesting a more definitive statement of need from the deans in areas like this. Galehouse also said that the challenge is not to identify new space that is needed, but to utilize the space already available, especially the four major buildings - what are the possibilities for future use if there was renovation money and how that would relate to the needs identified.
Brownell requested maps of the GC&SU Library or square footage. He said that they were using the previous master plan, but would like to verify that the space is being used as planned. Brownell added that Macon and Warner Robins should be reviewed for any anticipated growth. Brownell said the courthouse and Terrell need to be added to the space inventory.
Regarding the student:faculty ratio, Galehouse said there was a mistake in those numbers because off-campus student were not included in the current ratio. Brownell said that when the off-campus students were included it made the ratio 13:1 rather than 12:1. President Leland stated that those figures were not accurate and the methodology would be reviewed and accurate figures will given to the planners.
Alan Travis asked about strategic vision and if a course had been laid out to get to 8000 students. President Leland explained that she wanted to look at the university's physical capacity which is a different question from what is appropriate for our mission. Galehouse explained that to maintain the percentage of residential population, at the 8000 student level, you would have to double the amount of housing that GC&SU currently has. Alan said that it was his understanding that GC&SU would like for the housing ratio to go up and not down and President Leland concurred.
Jim Wolfgang asked for definition of what Rick Ruark was being assigned to do as far as quality assessment. Rick explained that he would be going building by building, describing the building in relation to the mechanical systems, electrical systems, finishes, and the physical building itself – not really evaluating space usage – just, evaluating the building physically and updating Sasaki on current information regarding compliance with codes and fire codes, etc. This information will help Sasaki determine the usability of the building. Wolfgang stated that there are buildings that cannot be accommodated technologically because of the structure, age, exhaust systems, etc. Greg Havens said they will look for opportunities to make recommendations on how a building can be best used based on the needs as stated by faculty and staff. Havens said they would be looking at the historic assessment component and how Sasaki can best respond to those conditions. Rick Ruark stated one question on the assessment was about adaptability of buildings. Rick said that some buildings are very flexible and others that are very strained which will play a big part in the assessment. He added that thought needs to be given to building usage seven years into the future. Michael Miller asked for clarification about the process asking if the team will be giving specific recommendations for potential future use of some buildings that do not offer as much flexibility as they do now.
Mark Pelton asked a variation of President Leland's question on the artistic spaces. He stated it was hard to make a case for the need for a continuing education/conference center if it is not a category in the calculations. Brownell said that they will look at different classroom space or office space. President Leland explained that there was a difference in available space and how the university is utilizing the space or how that space is configured; one of the outcomes will be addressing the university needs to reconfigure space that we do have in terms of gross square footage to better fit our current and future needs. Galehouse said that it was a fair statement that Sasaki does not have a clear of picture of Continuing Education, the CE programs that are being carried on, what programs CE would like to carry on, and when CE will carry them on and the space implications for that. Galehouse requested help from Pelton so that it can be reflected in the plan.
Susan Wright asked if enrollments were tied to a specific date. Matt said that no, they are just target enrollments that are being considered for speculation of the university's capabilities.
Greg Havens introduced Jon Buono with Lord, Aeck & Sargent, who has been working on the historic assessment phase of the Facility Master Plan. Buono stated that it is clear to him that GC&SU embraces and understands its history and that has created a legacy that is special and difficult to quantify in dollars and cents. The presentation by Buono is included in the copy of the Power Point presentation attached with these minutes. Buono stated that GC&SU is unique because its campus lies entirely within the boundaries of a national registered historic district and it is also a campus that has a national historic landmark within its collection of buildings; these are factors which are very rare, especially among State schools.
Buono gave an overview of the archeological assessment that Lord, Aeck and Sargent will be conducting with Southern Research as a subcontractor, stating that the goal of this exercise is to create a predictive model for the campus map in terms of where the potential places that archeological resources may exist. The study not only covers the Native American period of activity, but also covers the early history of the city. Jon stated that Southern Research has done literature reviews and some field assessment and are also considering the Lake Laurel property.
In terms of the Lord, Aeck and Sargents research, Buono thanked Nancy Davis-Bray in the GCSU Library Archives Department for her help obtaining information, Dr. Wilson for use of his existing text, and Pam Glover and Rick Ruark in Facilities Office for use of office files and entrance to buildings. Buono stated that information acquired leads to LA&S synthesis of context statements for the history of the school. At present, the context statements are focusing on three themes:
History of the site and its connection to the founding of Milledgeville.
History of the campus development itself.
Relationship with Milledgeville's residential district.
Buono said that LA&S is reviewing Resource Inventory in terms of architectural resources. The summary of the inventory (shown in the attached Power Point presentation) follows:
35 Historic Structures to be reviewed (Main Campus & Lake Laurel)
2 of the 35 structures are individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places (shown in red on map)
26 of 35 structures have been previously identified and surveyed by a State Historic Preservation Office (shown in yellow on map)
2 structures outside the district have been surveyed by State Historic Preservation Office (Lake Laurel Lodge & The Dam).
5 structures have been identified which have not been surveyed before but are currently 50 years or will become 50 years old within the lifespan of the Master Plan.
Buono said LA&S are being assisted by a mechanical and structural engineer to assess the historic fabric left in each building, which has been quite encouraging thus far. Buono said that the assessments will yield a preliminary or Class C estimate for their preservation, restoration and rehabilitation; the capacity of each building's adaptive use or rehabilitation will be considered. Buono went on to say that after the completion of that data, LA&S will be developing recommendations for treatment and use in concert with Sasaki, which will be based on the Secretary of the Interior standards as adopted by the Board of Regents. Following that exercise, LA&S in concert with Sasaki, will develop priorities for the treatment and use of the buildings and that will be based on historic significance and specific university criteria (the type of issues discussed in the first half of the meeting).
Dick Galehouse added that one of the challenges, particularly those President Leland has put before us, is to develop a set of architectural and landscape design standards to guide any future building or development. Galehouse said that he has posed within Sasaki's team the interesting challenge that is posed, in a legal sense; it is one thing to develop standards, and it is another thing to use them and carry out an implementation program. Galehouse said it was an fascinating case study – we are within an historic district with historic landmark buildings on the campus – can we give this the power of law or zoning on a campus within the USG which is unknown at this point. Michael Miller, project manager with BOR, stated that about one year ago, Linda Daniels, Vice Chancellor for Facilities, incorporated a Board of Regents policy making a provision to encourage University System of Georgia campus' to develop a pallet of architecture to follow. Miller explained that the idea encourages buildings and landscape to blend to the historic character and value of the campus, i.e. GCSU and Valdosta State University. Miller also said that, as far as following Department of Interior standards, it is important to proceed with caution and strike a balance in design.
Alan Travis stated that he believed that whatever guidelines are established, need to be policy and both the campus and the Board of Regents need to be bound to the extent that the process established must be followed. Travis said that he was pleased about Sasaki's awareness of the challenge of having a policy that has "teeth" to it, yet is something that everyone can agree to adhere to, even as we all go away and other people take our place.
Galehouse stated that, as an architect, the challenge is to strike a balance where we can have modern buildings on the campus which fit beautifully, but are within the context of the beautiful environment present at GCSU.
Jim Wolfgang asked that, in Sasaki's assessment, do you consider reduction in value of a historical facility by the building surrounding it, i.e. Chappel Hall and how does that play into Sasaki's assessment of historical perspective. Buono stated that Chappel Hall is in the collection of buildings that are not currently 50 years old and not typically eligible for inclusion into the National Register for consideration or will become 50 years old in the lifespan of this Master Plan. Galehouse said that as far as quality of space, Chappel is one of better buildings on campus. Rick Ruark commented that it was built as a bomb shelter. Galehouse said it would take minor modifications to bring it into a form that the university would be happy with.
Lorene asked if Master Plan would include furnishings and maintenance of the overall design concept of the furnishings. Greg Havens stated that the scope is limited to the interior and is based on the Secretary of Interior standards which are mostly focused on the exterior. Michael Miller added that as the university progresses in getting funding for some of the other buildings, he could envision, as part of the project team, acquiring a more in-dept look at some of the interior issues, i.e. finishes and furnishings, to make sure the buildings are a candidate for rehabilitation and restoration, and that proper attention is giving to these issues once funding is secured for renovations. Alan Travis stated that plan level recommendations are fine, but it is the project level that will determine what is necessary for a project to be done correctly; it will take stewardship and insight to make sure things turn out the way the university would like them to. Harry Keim said the real problem is the "overriding" that takes place. Dick Galehouse explained that Keim was talking about "process" – how do you decide these things and what is the mechanism on campus in the future for making these decisions. President Leland agreed and stated that just as the university does not have a good space allocation process, a bedded process is currently not in place for design of new buildings and does not have the guidelines to follow; but this is easy to do. Once GC&SU has the guidelines, there are standard ways campuses construct committees to make sure that proper decisions are made.
Keim expressed frustration with the latest building on campus and many of the problems the University is going to have in maintaining various aspects of the building. Miller stated that when the University interviews the shortlist of architects for a project, make sure the architects being interviewed are going to accomplish what the campus wants to do. Travis added that you can't get the right answers if you don't ask the right questions stressing that focusing on the questions and answers desired by the University when interviewing the architects for a project. Dr Leland reassured Keim that he could trust her on this because past experience on a 17,000 student campus. Greg Havens said that he was familiar with institutions that have non-university design review committees that are brought in to be an objective third party. Miller stated that this process is being used in a couple of institutions in Georgia; this gives an objective view on the project. Havens stated that the historic preservation element will have important representation on such a committee.
Galehouse commented that the landscape will have the same issue; as designers, they are advocates of grass and trees and not a lot of fussy planting and other high maintenance items which also raise security issues. GCSU has a historic landscape, and that is Carol Maeir's assignment. Galehouse said University representatives have expressed a need for outdoor spaces that will create a more cohesive environment and places where people can gather. Many of the nice spaces have been pushed to the periphery and filled with buildings except for the beautiful front lawn. Carol said they will bring the landscape assessment relative to the historic significance that Jon Buono has offered and added the importance of doing this and establishing guidelines for the future in the master plan. Carol stated that often times landscape can be the thread that weaves between the uniqueness of the buildings and the community; the university's landscape aspect should work with the town's historic preservation initiatives. Bob Wilson asked if the landscape assessment had begun. Carol replied that it had and said that a historic preservation consultant will also do research as it relates to landscape and inform Sasaki regarding strategies to be taken in the master plan. Havens said that Carol raises an interesting point; trying to link the Centennial campus with the Main Campus will part of the landscape objective.
Mike Whitefield, GCSU committee member, asked if the landscape will have a negative impact on the budget. Galehouse said that a price tag will be placed on everything in the Master Plan. Whitfield then asked if the maintenance cost was included in the Master Plan. Galehouse said no. Whitfield asked if there are recommendation on the amount of green space needed for the number of students figured into this plan; the maps shown in the presentation show almost no green space accept for the front lawn. Havens said that it has been pointed out by Galehouse that over time the green space has been filled in with buildings which has created a periphery condition on the campus with the lawn being the last bold gesture of open space. Havens again emphasized that it is a balancing act; future guidelines need to set up a framework that provides landscape between the conditions present now. The campus may need to focus on more linear green space rather than large, open areas. Galehouse asked Whitefield if he was suggesting that buildings be removed. Whitfield clarified that Galehouse had suggested that Chappell Hall could be renovated but there has been discussion of removing Chappell Hall. Galehouse stated that idea was in the previous Master Plan. Whitfield wanted to know if that was something Sasaki had thought about. Galehouse stated that issue of the traditional quad on the main campus, is something that Carol and the team will be thoroughly reviewing because the campus does lack the more intimate, outdoor spaces which will be part of the plan. Stephen Curry committee member stated that with the removal of the Terrell Annex, there is also a nice space that could be used for green space. Galehouse and others in the meeting agreed. Galehouse added that the Parks Parking Lot may present an opportunity for green space. Also, the construction lot in front of Russell Auditorium may be considered.
Keim said that Bell Hall will soon be renovated and consideration may be given to doing something with the parking lot beside Bell Hall, especially if there is consideration to closing down part of Wilkinson Street to end up with a nice pedestrian walkway between the campus and the new county courthouse. Lorene Flanders pointed out that many spaces along Liberty Street and Wilkinson Street near campus go into paved public right-of-way which is an assault on the town plan and look and "walkability" of those areas. An example given by Lorene was the Peabody parking lot where the right-of-way has been paved for parking spaces or pull-off areas. Often times the sidewalk is diminished presenting the "walkability" issue and also presents a visibility issue because of the intrusion of side parking.
Alan Travis with the BOR, asked if the Sasaki team had done an assessment on parking availability. Havens said that was a work in progress. President Leland stated that the question at hand is not "where did you park;" the question is, "is there a logical designation to parking areas?" This is different from how close to the walking portion of the campus do people really need to be unless you have a mobility or handicapped disability. Leland stated that if the committee wants to think of the University as a pedestrian/cycling type of campus, then we need to think of the parking so that it does not compete with the green space.
President Leland informed the group that she has asked a small group of people to help her think outside the box with respect to parking to include color coded lots and designated freshmen parking lots. Galehouse said they have asked for help in identifying faculty and staff population by building because in Sasaki's methodology, parking should be geographically convenient. Galehouse stated that deciding parking spaces is difficult but they were anxious to address this in order to give them a clear understanding of need. After that is decided, priorities can then be sorted. President Leland stated that this will provide a much more coherent way of managing parking than the current method.
Harshbarger pointed out that now the University has the Irwin Street and Clark Street Parking Lots providing nearly 700 parking spaces. In addition to that, the Centennial will soon be open for parking. Once these spaces are utilized, will that meet the need for parking. Ken Vance answered that it would, if Bobcat Village was included in the scenario. Vance stated that having faculty park near there work space is vital; sectioning students may help. During basketball games, there is no parking at the Centennial Center; the train depot parking lot was full before it actually became a lot. Harshbarger stated that with the Freshmen Residency Requirement, 900 of the parking spaces will be freshmen and if GCSU require Freshmen to park at West Campus or at the Irwin Street Lot, approximately 900 cars will leave the historic district and main campus area. President Leland redirected the discussion by restating that she has a "think tank" addressing this transportation, not just parking, issues to generate options that will be taken through the normal discussion processes of the University. Havens stated that the University is a pedestrian environment. Lorene Flanders emphasized the importance of working with the city to establish the parking ordinance, since there is not one present; all plans and regulations will collapse if there nothing to help regulate the street parking which can only be done by looking to the Department of Transportation, the city and the residents around the campus. Galehouse stated that Flanders was raising a critical issue because not having parking ordinances can be destructive of the historic environment and primary residents. It is extremely important for the University to work very closely with the community in code enforcement, not only in parking but how the houses are being used. President Leland stated that she has asked Mark Pelton to lead a "think tank" to look at the historic district initiatives that would provide incentives of various types for GCSU faculty and staff to buy into the neighborhood. This could also present a community service component - faculty/staff/student teams could go out to help with restoring of some of the property around the campus. President Leland stated that she was meeting in a few weeks with representatives from Mercer University who have worked on the initiative in Macon. Katherine Fuller stated that it would also be important to work with Department of Transportation to get some type of by-pass so that semis dissect the campus creating a true hazard for pedestrians, especially students.
Regarding the parking impact on the neighborhood, Travis stated that one of the goals of the process is for GCSU and the city to become more integrated and to help downtown Milledgeville become more viable. Obtaining this goal, however, may lead to more parking problems. Havens stated it becomes a management and resource problem.
Dick Galehouse thanked everyone and encouraged them to email the Sasaki team with thoughts and ideas. President Leland also encouraged the sharing of information with constituents. Bob Haney and Mitch Clarke are working on a website where information from Sasaki and others will be posted in order to maximize opportunities for fresh ideas. Havens said that they have developed a template used in master plans that can be added to the website. Bob Wilson asked that any ideas or input that is sent to Sasaki be copied to him since he is developing his own file.
Havens stated the next cross team meeting will be in early December. Travis with the BOR, asked that the date be set as soon as possible because the calendar at the Board of Regents fills quickly.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lindy M. Ruark
Recorder
