Campus Planning Committee

Campus Planning Meeting
April 10, 2008 - ILR Building Rm 225
Meeting Notes

Present: Barbara Knuth, Mina Amundsen, Phil Cox, Julianne Kwon, Stephen Schmidt, Kim Lewis, John Gutenberger, Steve Erber, Randy Wayne, David Cutter, Dennis Osika, Laurie Kimball Don Rakow

Barbara Knuth and Stephen Schmidt co-chaired the meeting and opened with a brief review of the agenda and requested introductions around the table.

Campus Master Plan Precinct Plans

Mina Amundsen explained the format that was chosen for the Campus Master Plan (CMP) and how it related to the Precinct Plans. The CMP provides a broad, comprehensive examination of campus while the Precinct Plans are meant to go into finer detail and this document will be used as a guide for development. She explained that the Consultants gave a presentation to the Working Committee last week and she showed the group the boundaries as proposed by Urban Strategies and boundaries as modified by the Campus Planning Office. She requested that if anyone from the Campus Planning Committee had comments or concerns about the precinct plans to please forward them to her by April 17th and copy your comments to Barbara and Stefan. Their e-mails are mma29, bak3 and sjs96.

The Precincts were then discussed on an individual basis and the following comments were made:

Landscape Guidelines

o How do the open spaces and quads fit in with the buildings around them, transportation routes, utilities, etc. and what was the rationale for explaining the greenways separately. o Landscape guidelines need to mesh better with both the Precinct Plans and Zone Plans o Overview of how all open spaces work together is needed o Pg 19 - Unlabeled photographs with no references to the document need labels and explanatory text to illustrate their intent. Clarification is also needed in regard to non-Cornell Campus photos, how do they relate to the text and the guidelines being presented. o ”Botox” — before and after analogy to the illustrations. o Pg 23 - Many of the simulated drawings that have been included in the document have not been thoroughly explained, clarification is needed to distinguish what is existing and what is proposed. Suggestion of using a red border around other images or “proposed” work may help in differentiating images. o Images of “existing” settings need to be focused, they are fuzzy and dull looking. o If the recommendations are followed the campus will be nice and very green. o Pg 37 - Discussion of safe pedestrian crossing on Rt 366 if there is increased use on south side of that roadway. The text should have strategies or more specific information about how to cross. If overpasses are not recommended, mention other options such as tunnels, pavement treatments or signals and explain why options are appropriate or not to be used. o Plantations concerns about Cascadilla Meadow will be submitted separately. o Include recommended widths for sidewalks according to the levels of use, distances for building setbacks and setbacks for trees. o Pg 38 — Gateways - No design or visualizations were used within this section, seemed like an add on. o Sidebar needed explaining the gorges and UNAs and Cornell UNAs.

Precinct Plans - Overview

o Pg 46 - The primary legend needs to have clear descriptions and explanations of each notation. The smaller keys can have an asterisks noting that you can refer back to pg 46 for more detail. Right now the legends/keys are not consistent across images in the document.

Core Campus

o Pg 66 — The text is not clear about development intent o Pg 92 — Notations (Kennedy/Roberts — Legends, diagrams and text should be consistent. There is an indication that a pedestrian route goes through Roberts Hall, the concept of passing/cutting through building atrium spaces as part of an established path system was not explained. o Service/emergency access routes and loading areas are not clearly defined. The area behind Warren Hall was noted. o The demolition of part of Warren Hall was questioned - it would eliminate the Dean’s garden. o Can there be a page included showing all of the gardens. o Removal of parking along Tower Road is good and long over due. o Pages 18, 26 & 27 — The graphics depict mono-species plantings along the sides of the roadways, we should be clear that we avoid mono-species (lolli-pop) plantings of this kind.

West Campus

o Concern over private residences being within the boundary and there is no mention of the historic neighborhood in the overview section

North Campus

o Black boundary should be clearer — the precinct boundaries were selected to reflect property that is either owned or influenced by Cornell and clearer text is needed indicating the existing conditions and privately owned properties (possibly shaded in a different color). o Chi Omega is no longer part of the Greek system at Cornell and Alpha Chi Omega has moved to a new location in Cayuga Heights. Please refer to our Campus map for the correct names of buildings. o Pg 132- Helen Newman and the observatory are not included in the boundary — should be clearer.

South Campus

o Parcels with parenthesis? o Pg 138–39 Poor photograph of the area. o Pg 140 Misspelling of Maplewood on plans. o Pg 143 NYSEG substation doesn’t appear in drawings, is the corridor shown as being buried or was it forgotten. The Maple Avenue extension and powerlines should be mentioned (14c and 14f ). o Reis Tennis Center needs to be added o Pg 145 — Several of the project areas ie — 13(2) and 13(3) are shown on the plan but there is no reference to them in the text or on the project matrix. o Where in the document should there be a discussion explaining enabling projects? o Swine barns appear to be in place on Pg 140 but are missing on Pg 150. There is no indication in the projects matrix or text that they are moved, removed, or relocated. o Vision maps seem to be of several vintages. Need one consistent map as background.

Orchards

o Pg 168 — Highlight easy and safe pedestrian access across Rt 366, both in text and visuals. o Pg 168 — questions about greenhouses below BTI (?). o There needs to be acknowledgement of existing uses that need to be relocated. The concern was that the grounds maintenance facility would be displaced completely by the incorporation of greenhouses in this sector and the land is an ideal site for a centralized maintenance area. o Explain why the buildings in the Orchards are more compactly organized than in the McGowan Zone.

Appendices

o Very difficult to comprehend and digest all of the information, to much and not well organized. o An index is needed.