Facilities Services
Oregon State University, 130 Oak Creek Building, Corvallis, Oregon 97331
T 541-737-2969 | F 541-737-3013
Campus Planning Committee Meeting Minutes
Monday – September 27, 2010
Members Present: Vincent Martorello, Leslie Burns, Bill Callender, Stella Coakley, Angelo Gomez, Penny
Hardesty, Michael Henthorne, Patty McIntosh, Bob Richardson, Jan Strombeck, Tom
Scheuermann, Paul Doescher
Members Absent: Joe Majeski, Matthew Vogt, John Cheney, Jack Higginbotham.
Ex Officio: David Dodson – Senior Planner
Lori Fulton – Manager of Design & Construction
Brandon Trelstad – Sustainability Coordinator
Andrew Sheridan – Campus Planning
Visitors: David Livingston, Exchange Net
Brian Laird, SSI Facilitator
Prior Meeting Minutes
The committee reviewed and unanimously approved the July 26, 2010 meeting minutes.
New Student Health & Counseling Center
Leslie Burns asked if the committee would be revisiting the New Student Health and Counseling Center.
Patty McIntosh stated that it would be a topic of discussion later on in the agenda.
Student Sustainability Center Land Use Update
Patty McIntosh presented the overview of the Student Sustainability Center. Patty stated that two parties
originally worked together to co-locate their projects, and included some supplemental information for the
committee’s review. She stated that the land was purchased in 2006, and is located close to 15th Street and
Western Boulevard, in Sector G. The size of the original parcel of land purchased with the house was 0.11
acres, and the SSI requested the use of an additional 0.09 acre to install a catchment basin. Patty stated that
Campus Planning is working with SSI to ensure code compliance, and should be compliant with the
screening requirements by the end of October. She stated that UHDS would like to use the block for
housing, but wouldn’t be able to construct anything for next 3 years.
Page 1
Paul Doescher inquired about if there were any long term ideas to use the space for living quarters. He asked
if a proposed change had been discussed.
Patty replied that this Sector is predominantly used for housing. She added that there is also quite a lot of
residential development outside the campus boundary. She added that this site is more desirable for housing
uses than most other locations on campus.
Vincent Martorello opined, how do we address the lack of housing issue, and how do we strategically put a
placeholder on this property for future housing use. He noted that we need to consider some sector
refinement ideas to address buildable lands, and noted that what is left should be allocated to building
additional housing. He stated that with a dwindling land supply, we need to determine the priority of uses.
He added that we look at the available land supply and identify what uses get priority by area on campus.
Tom Scheuermann noted that UHDS was on the verge of issuing an RFP for consulting services to identify
potential sites for new housing. He noted that this site does not appear to be able to accommodate housing
and the SSI simultaneously. He suggested approving the SSI over the next three years, and then considering
adding housing afterward.
Vincent Martorello opined that we need to find an area that is less regulated.
Stella Coakley referenced the narrative on page three listing potential staff needs for the SSI. She
commented that this is a very small program that really should make way for other strategic initiatives such
as academia. She commented to staff that in the future she would appreciate dates for studies being included.
Brian Laird (SSI Program Director) addressed questions about staffing and their roles, and also provided
information about the SSI’s funding sources. He stated that there are 10 paid staff positions and
approximately 20 to 30 core volunteers and at-large members. He added that their budget is student fee
driven, and noted that the total operating budget is just under $100,000.
Stella asked about long-term location of the greenhouse.
Brian responded that he did not know.
Stella asked why there was a three year extension, and inquired why it couldn’t be done within a two year
time frame.
Leslie asked if this was a permanent site for the SSI.
Brian stated that it was not.
Vincent stated that we need to find a place on campus to sustain this program, but added that timing is an
issue.
Leslie asked if we will be asking the same questions in one, two or three years from now.
Vincent opined, could SSI and UDHS share the site, and then stated that they probably could not. He asked
about partnering with other organizations on campus, and asked if these uses could be co-located in this
facility.
Stella asked about the three year window, and asked how much time was really needed.
Michael noted that they were exploring other options.
Page 2
Patty responded noting that the three year window was for planning purposes.
Michael stated that they were not adding any permanent infrastructure, but will meet the screening
requirements. He added that nothing on this site is intended to be permanent.
Paul asked if there was an alternative for the site.
Patty stated that if a new site is found, it would be brought before the CPC. In response to an earlier
comment, she noted that the CPC can suggest a 2-year or 3-year approval.
Tom opined that he was concerned about working with a 3-year or 5-year window, and opined that he
wanted something more definitive.
Patty noted that she was the supervisor of site changes.
Michael noted that there was an investment in the current site, and there would be planning for a future site.
Paul asked if it could be done in one year, as he feels it is important for the campus to have a permanent
home for the SSI.
Michael noted that we could probably have a site identified within one year but probably not the funding.
Vincent suggested that the CPC go with the three year time frame and added a recommendation that we
come back in one year with a design plan and come back again in two years with a funding plan. This would
provide UHDS with some assurances that they can move forward with their plans in 3 years.
Patty suggested adjusting the dates to have the SSI site approval as noted per Attachment A, for 3 years.
Then SSI would come back with a relocation plan by October 1, 2011. The space would be vacated by
October 1, 2013. The plans SSI prepares would be a new site approved by October 1, 2011. UHDS can
utilize this site for programming information to bring back to the CPC.
With no other discussion, Paul made a motion to approve the recommendation outlined in the staff report.
Angelo seconded the motion.
Stella stated she would be opposed to the three year time frame, as she feels that two years is sufficient.
The motion carried by a 9 to 1 vote, with Stella voting in opposition.
Campus Corridor Project – Schematic Design Approval
Dave Dodson presented the staff report, and noted the changes that have occurred between the first plan,
which was approved in 2006, and this revised submittal.
David Livingston made a brief presentation, stating that the intent of the project was to create a connection
between the OSU campus and downtown Corvallis. The intent is to develop a sense of community by
connecting OSU, Madison Avenue cultural features, the downtown experience and the Riverfront. He
provided a brief history of the project, noting that volunteers have been working on this concept for 37 years.
Portions of the project have been constructed, and this plan represents the conceptual design for the
remaining 500 feet of land along Madison Avenue. He added that the intent of the project is to provide a
place for pedestrians to enjoy a slow walk and who might want to learn something about Corvallis and
OSU’s historical beginnings.
Page 3
David Livingston briefly discussed funding sources for the project, and identified a time frame for work to
commence. He stated that the revised estimated project cost for this segment of $350,000.
He completed his presentation by noting that the City’s Parks and Recreation Department and Public Works
Department support the project.
Stella asked how many trees would be retained in the median and what specie of tree were they.
David Livingston responded by stating that in 1981 there were 20 ornamental cherry trees. Today only 5 of
those trees remain. He added that these trees have reached the end of their life, and are dying. This is why
they are being removed. He noted that the ornamental cherry tree is not a good tree for this area.
Paul asked if pedestrians will be able to walk along the entire route.
David Livingston stated that the entire route would be ADA-accessible.
Vincent noted that almost all the property was owned by the City and that the partnership between the City
and OSU is intact.
Penny asked if there was a decision to plant a different type of tree along the pathway.
David Livingston stated that discussions concerning the design of the pathway concluded that trees and other
similar features would impair and block the view corridor from downtown Corvallis to the OSU campus. He
noted that without these obstructions there would be a view corridor of 600 feet west from 9th Street.
Angelo asked if any historical plaques are proposed.
David Livingston stated that a total of 12 historical plaques are proposed, and noted that there was as list of
topics identified to be displayed on the plaques.
Dave Dodson noted that a motion to approve this plan was not needed, but asked for committee
acknowledgement of support.
Paul moved to support the revised plans as submitted. The motion was seconded by Tom, and adopted
unanimously.
Other Business
Patty noted that there was some concern about the due process employed by the CPC at their July meeting
regarding the siting of the Student Health Center.
Lori Fulton stated that the group was outgrowing the present facility, and that it would be impossible to
enlarge the facility. She brought the site to the CPC for review and approval at the July meeting.
Patty addressed the review process and the vote to approve the site at the July meeting. She noted that the
bylaws are not clear about the process for who can cast a vote. She noted that there were 7 voting members
present at the July meeting, and that she became the 8th voting member as co-chair of the meeting, and Dave
Dodson became the 9th voting member as the alternate chair position. She noted that a second issue was
whether the siting of the facility was vetted appropriately. Patty reviewed with the committee the process
that is undertaken to assist in site selection, adding that it was dependent upon several considerations,
including dedicated parking, sector development allocation, ingress and ingress, program needs, etc.
Page 4
Stella commented that there were issues with a short time line for review and the lack of a quorum. She
pointed out that there are 18 voting members, and that even with 8 voting members, that is insufficient for a
quorum. She opined that she has a problem with siting large buildings anywhere on campus. She noted that
in the past, members have stressed the need for strategic planning instead of “buildings dropping out of the
sky with short notices.” She didn’t think that the CPC has the luxury of simply approving everything on a
project by project basis and not looking carefully at the whole picture. She noted that the academic side of
the CPC was largely absent from the July meeting. She also expressed her surprise at the questions and
issues that were raised in the meeting minutes.
Leslie asked if there a 5, 10, 15 or 20 year plan to look at academic buildings that are proposed.
Vincent stated that there was not. He noted that the question before the CPC was, is there a level of comfort
at the review of the site plan, given the number of projects in the queue and the length of delay they would
incur?
Tom commented that there seems to be enough trouble with the quorum issue, and that this project should be
brought back to the committee. He added that it should be brought back in October. He also noted that we
need a long term plan.
Vincent opined that we are under such pressure to get development up quickly.
Tom opined that the campus administration should know that we are the “Campus Planning Committee.”
Stella stated that it is hard to comprehend that a building can be placed on campus without any sort of public
review process. The process needs to be fixed.
Vincent asked what processes should be sustained to address this issue. This needs to be part of that dialog.
He then outlined the current process. He opined that it is not that we are not following established
procedural rules, but rather that the process may need to be updated.
Tom stated that the process to review the Student Health Center was flawed, and that we have not performed
the current process holistically.
Vincent noted that a higher, more strategic vetted-out process leaves us with no room for error. He noted
that what happens is that we consider buildings but do not consider funding sources, as typically funding
does not happen until a donor steps forward or the legislature approves it. Typically when funding is
identified, we have a 3 to 4 week window before groundbreaking happens.
Lori added that if you do not have a site identified, then fund raising is very difficult.
Dave Dodson offered to bring the City of Corvallis notification process to a future CPC meeting for
discussion to help develop a new process for the CPC to follow.
Stella agreed, stating that this might be a good idea.
Vincent discussed the future replacement of Snell Hall. He noted a proposal for a structure to occupy the
Snell hall footprint, but suggested we need to do a mini master plan effort to update the heat plant, and to
discuss potential circulation issues associated with this project. We are currently scoping out the process and
may bring it to the October CPC meeting for a discussion.
David Dodson introduced Andrew Sheridan as the new Campus Planner.
Page 5
Meeting Adjourned
With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 3:22 pm.
Page 6