2004-05 Update = of the Clarion University Facilities Master Plan

2006-07 Update of = the=20 Clarion=20 University = Facilities=20 Master Plan

April 16,=20 2007

Process

Each year, = Pennsylvania=20 State System universities provide a capital request detailing their = major=20 facility needs. These are = supported=20 by an update to the University=92s Facilities Master Plan outlining = significant=20 changes in the conditions and assumptions of the University=92s = facilities, most=20 significantly for 2007 the completion and approval of the University=92s = Strategic=20 Plan. =

The Facilities = Master Plan,=20 like the Strategic Plan, had to reflect budget constraints and = challenges. Equally important however were = changes=20 in the auxiliary sector which had major implications, at minimum, for = the pace=20 of renovation to E&G buildings and underlying=20 infrastructure.

A. Assumptions, Themes, and Space = Needs

In=20 constructing the April 1998 Master Plan, the committee and consultant = worked=20 with a number of initial assumptions and themes. While the University has made some striking = improvements, the=20 underlying conditions in 1998 still determine many of today=92s=20 decisions.

1. =20 The landscape = appearance is=20 currently diminished by converted fragmented collections, domestic = residential=20 or utilitarian buildings, and mismatched furnishings handrails and = guardrails=20 which need to be upgraded to current ADA standards.

2. =20 While the = features provide=20 panoramic views and natural settings, the steep slopes impede vehicle = and=20 pedestrian flow, are difficult to maintain, and provide few level = building=20 sites.

3. =20 New facilities = should link=20 people and functions, define open spaces, and establish visual, = programmatic,=20 and physical connections. = They=20 should be incremental and independent of other changes.

4. =20 Academic offices = &=20 support facilities should be close to classroom space. Faculty should be provided = with private=20 office space and adequate support space. =20

5. =20 Academic uses = should be=20 clustered in one education core area and administrative departments = should be=20 located where they can best serve their student, faculty, staff, or = public=20 constituents. =20

6. =20 To enhance = community=20 relations the Main=20 Street face of campus should be upgraded, the = natural=20 setting where University land connects with the river should be = preserved and=20 enhanced, and campus expansion should be limited.

This qualitative = analysis=20 was buttressed by a quantitative analysis of the University=92s space = needs in the=20 context of State System of Higher Education based on a projection of = 5,900 FTE=20 enrollment (Clarion Campus) for the year 2016.

The University = has a=20 total of 54 buildings with 1,087,486 assignable square feet (asf); 49 = of the=20 buildings are on the Clarion campus and 5 are on the Venango = campus. Academic and support use = aacounts for=20 66% of this area, 31% is used for student residences, dining, and = recreational=20 purposes and 3% of the space supports facilities maintenance = needs.

The State = System=20 specifies criteria for ideal allocation of space. The current surplus of = 10,823 asf of=20 classroom space would be reduced to 5,198 asf with the demolition of = the=20 Peirce=20 Science Center. The Becht Hall renovation = would=20 further reduce this surplus to 1,919 asf.

In 2005 = classrooms were=20 only used 5.2 hours/day.

Critical = shortages were=20 identified for library, food service, and athletic/recreational space. = Research lab space shortfalls were also identified but may not be = support by=20 State System measurement.

B. Near-Term=20 Issues

Since the = Facilities Master=20 Plan was finalized in 1998, a number of elements under consideration = have been=20 completed. The list = includes the=20 renovation of Founders Hall, Harvey Hall, Keeling, Carlson Library, and = the=20 newly-constructed Recreation Center. These completed projects have = allowed=20 Founders to accommodate the departments of History and Political = Science,=20 Sociology, and Philosophy, and office of the Dean of Arts & = Sciences; Davis=20 to house English and Modern Languages; Harvey to house Psychology; = Keeling to=20 house the Communication Sciences and Disorders program and the Health = Center;=20 and Carlson to house the Library Science Department and all library=20 functions. Additionally, = the Center=20 for Advancement at Clarion University was constructed, = allowing=20 vacation of Haskell House.

Even with the = successes=20 cited above, the Master Plan diverges from the current status of = facilities in a=20 number of ways. First, = Becht Hall=20 has been listed as a potentially funded System capital project for = 2008. However, this delays = relocation of the=20 Academic=20 Enrichment Center to this ostensibly = permanent=20 location until that time. = Second,=20 with the commissioning of Reinhard Villages, Campbell Hall was vacated = after=20 Spring 2004 in accordance with the Residence Hall Plan. Consequently, Commonwealth = approval was=20 obtained for demolition, and the Academic Enrichment Center moved from Campbell to the first floor of = Ralston Hall as=20 students began the transition to Reinhard Villages. Funding has now been allocated = for the=20 demolition of Campbell Hall, and planning is underway. The next step will be to = replace=20 Campbell with a parking deck and expand = the=20 ground-level parking near Campbell.

While this = addresses the=20 needed relocation of the Academic Enrichment Center, the delay in = Becht=92s=20 completion impacts Financial Aid, Accounts Receivable, and Accounts = Payable, all=20 part of the planned Becht =93one-stop shopping=94 concept. Moreover, the one-stop = shopping concept=20 itself needs a fresh look in light of a recent Enrollment Management = study and=20 changes in the student service field. =20

Early in = discussions of the=20 Master Plan update, it became obvious to members of the update committee = that=20 separate groups needed to examine one-stop shopping to see if the = original=20 concept still provided the most desired method of improving student=20 services. Essentially, = the=20 Facilities Master Plan must address one-stop shopping in the context of = the=20 University=92s academic plan and its strategic plan. As an interim measure, a = virtual=20 one-stop center was set up as an extension to the University=92s = website, and an=20 entr=E9e to an actual one-stop shopping facility.

The Master Plan = originally=20 advocated Alumni and Advancement=92s move from Haskell House to Moore = Hall and a=20 move of the University Relations Department from Alumni House to = Moore as = well. Funding considerations and the = inability=20 of Moore Hall to accommodate the functions and the people therein, led = to=20 postponement of these relocations. =20 Subsequently = however,=20 funding for the replacement of the Science and Technology = Center and the expansion on the = south side=20 of campus suggested that a new free-standing alumni and advancement = building at=20 the corner of Corbett and Greenville Avenues would be preferable. Accordingly, a new building to = house the=20 Center for the Advancement of Clarion University was constructed and = occupied in=20 2004.

Although this = construction=20 accommodated the space and accessibility needs of Alumni and = Advancement, the=20 master plan committee noted that these moves left behind the University=20 Relations Department. = According to=20 the Master Plan, this Department would need to be relocated to = facilitate the=20 demolition of both Haskell and Alumni Houses. Given the proximity of these = structures=20 to underground lines and piping, and the need to accommodate potential = new=20 on-campus student residences, implementation of that recommendation = seems more=20 proximate and University Relations will move to Ralston awaiting = completion of=20 the Becht renovation.

C. The Near-Term Plan=20 (2004-2009)

(Refer = to Tables=20 5.2-1 for accompanying summary table.)

Consolidating the = above=20 into an updated Master Plan begins with shifting the timelines for = near-term,=20 mid-term, and long-term five years out, starting with the current year,=20 2005. =

As=20 noted above, the new building on Corbett Street for the Center for = the=20 Advancement of Clarion University allowed the functions of Alumni = Affairs and=20 Development to be moved from their current location at Haskell = House. Both Alumni and Haskell House = will be=20 demolished as one project allowing lower demolition costs and securing = utilities=20 concurrently.

Minimal = renovations at the=20 Ceramics Studio and the Foundry make these facilities serviceable for=20 classes. However, space = needs for=20 Ceramics, Sculpture, and other art activities not currently located in=20 Marwick-Boyd continue to be assessed. =20 While we have sought opportunities for leased space for these = programs,=20 current budget constraints have precluded this option while the = long-term desire=20 to consolidate these programs in Marwick Boyd still holds true. To this end, a capital project = for the=20 renovation and expansion of Marwick Boyd was approved in Act 40 of 2004 = and now=20 awaits placement in the PASSHE funding plan. Recent concerns about the = structural=20 envelope of the Tippin Gymnasium facility and the high ongoing = operational costs=20 of maintaining it lead us to make this facility a higher capital funding = priority at this time. =20

A=20 feasibility plan will be necessary to assess the need for possible = near-term,=20 renovations to Tippin Gymnasium and the Marwick-Boyd Fine Arts = Center. This is particularly important = in the=20 case of Marwick, if funding for its renovation and addition is = delayed.

Academic Enrichment Center has moved into the first floor of = Ralston Hall,=20 with other Academic = Enrichment Center grant programs now moved from the = modular=20 building adjacent to the Science and Technology Center parking lot to the second floor of = Ralston to=20 facilitate Science and Technology Center = construction.

D. Mid-Term = Issues

Two key = recommendations of=20 the original master plan, relocation of student services to Becht and=20 construction of a parking deck have been re-considered in light of = favorable=20 alternatives. Becht has = been=20 discussed above in the near-term section, and the parking alternative is = provided in a separate parking plan attached as Appendix=20 B.

The renovation of = Becker=20 Hall to provide more usable space was mentioned in the mid-term section = of the=20 original Master Plan (now the near-term). =20 To date this renovation has not been programmed in detail, and = the future=20 needs of Becker need to be defined in a feasibility study, particularly = in light=20 of increased activity on the south end of campus.

Finally, several = other=20 elements of the original Master Plan require in-depth re-examination, = possibly=20 through separate or combined feasibility studies. For example, in light of the = current=20 environment, it has become apparent that some areas of Stevens Hall need = to be=20 reassessed to determine that facility=92s capability of supporting = programs in the=20 College of=20 Education and = Human=20 Services. =

In=20 addition to this, the Master Plan also targets the Health = Center to move out of Keeling, = thereby=20 freeing up more space for the CSD Department. The change in the timeline for = Becht=20 complicates this proposed relocation, and it should also be re-examined. =

E. The Mid-Term Plan=20 (2009-2014)

(Refer = to Tables=20 5.2-2, Phases I & II for accompanying summary = tables.)

The Mid-Term Plan = will=20 begin just after completion of the new Science and Technology Center and the subsequent demolition of the = existing=20 Peirce = Science Center.

Because so many = of the=20 recommended changes take place in the mid-term 2009-2014, this period = has been=20 split into two phases: =20 Mid-Term-Phase I (2009-2011) and Mid-Term Phase II = (2011-2014). The distinguishing = characteristic of=20 Phase I is the renovation of Becht. =20 As shown in the summary Table 5.2-2 and the Residence Hall Master = Plan,=20 students presently occupying Becht Hall will relocate to a newly = constructed,=20 suite style residence hall. = Faculty=20 presently occupying the first floor of Becht Hall will be relocated to = temporary=20 offices in Ralston Hall during the renovation.

Phase II is = distinguished=20 by the relocation of a number of offices into Becht from Ralston after=20 conclusion of the Becht renovation. =20 This relocation, incidentally, would facilitate the closer = relationships=20 among these offices that the traditional one-stop shopping concept would = require.

Of=20 particular note is that Admissions is presently located in a small=20 residential-style building. = Current=20 plans for the One-Stop Shopping concept in Becht Hall now includes space = for=20 Admissions. In view of = lost parking=20 due to the siting of the new dining hall, the Admissions building is = presently=20 programmed for demolition with parking proposed to occupy the cleared = area. This will regain some of the = parking=20 stalls lost and also service the One-Stop Shopping activities in the = renovated=20 Becht Hall nearby.

F. Long-Term = Issues

The long-term = aspects of=20 the master plan generated a great deal of discussion by the committee as = well as=20 recommendations which diverged from the original plan. Leading the way was discussion = of=20 Carrier. =

In=20 the master plan, many of the administrative functions including the = President=92s=20 office, the Provost=92s office, the office of the Vice President for = Finance and=20 Administration, the office of Social Equity, and the Comptrollers Office = would=20 be relocated to Egbert Hall. =20 Egbert, in turn would relocate Student Affairs, Career Services,=20 Counseling, and Housing to Becht. =20 From a practical perspective, Becht would not be available for = renovation=20 or relocation until at least 2010. =20 Beyond that though, moving administrative operations with minimal = student=20 contact to the center of campus and relocating student functions to the = edge=20 appeared to the committee to run counter to one of the primary tenets of = the=20 plan: keeping =93academic = offices=20 & support facilities . . . close to classroom space for their=20 programs=94. A = straightforward and=20 cost effective solution suggests itself: =20 to keep these functions where they are. The strategy of avoiding two = moves or=20 even one unnecessary move underlies this update and future facility=20 plans.

Correspondingly, = discussion=20 of Public Safety, Facilities Planning, and Admissions currently located = in small=20 residential-style buildings on the edges of campus concluded that they = served=20 their customers best in their current locations. Moreover these structures look = to have=20 extended useful lives, where the Master Plan recommended that they be=20 demolished. Of course, = the=20 perspective ten-years out may come back to the original Master Plan=20 conclusion. Nevertheless, = the other=20 key factor to consider for these buildings and residence halls that will = eventually be vacated is the significant costs for demolition of these=20 buildings. Conversely we = may be=20 able to generate revenue to fund facilities needs by renting out = residential=20 properties.

Also under = discussion in=20 the long-term section was a permanent home for the Siler Children=92s = Learning=20 Complex. Current thinking = has this=20 relocating to a permanent site on the edge of campus which would address = parking=20 and vehicular safety concerns. = This=20 would depend on the availability of funding to support a stand-alone=20 facility.

Another long-term = element=20 of the master plan concerned the relocation of the Small Business = Development=20 Center (SBDC) and Computing Services out of Still Hall. A pressing issue is the need = to renovate=20 Still Hall to accommodate space needs, remedy acoustic problems, and = repair the=20 HVAC system. Current = thinking has=20 SBDC and other applied research functions moving to the Trinity Point=20 facility.

Also at the north = end of=20 campus, are the Ceramics and Sculpture Laboratories. These two functions have been = housed in=20 older buildings not originally intended for these uses, and the costs of = upgrading the facilities to meet these new purposes have been = prohibitive. Rather than continuing to = invest=20 resources in buildings ill-suited to these functions, it is envisioned = that they=20 will move to a large open warehouse style = building.

G. The Long-Term Plan=20 (2015-2019)

(Refer to=20 Table 5.2-3 for an accompanying summary = table.)

As=20 the Residence hall plan that follows suggests, when Ralston is no longer = needed=20 as swing space during the Becht Hall renovation, it may be scheduled for = demolition. At this time = there are=20 no plans for the use of this space. =20 The original Master Plan also suggests moving Health Services = from=20 Keeling and SBDC from Still. =20 Enrollment trends in these out-years will clarify whether this is = necessary.

H. The Revised Residence Hall=20 Plan

Findings from the = residence=20 hall feasibility study that was conducted in April of 2001 by STV = Architects=20 point out the following:

1. =20 Student = expectations for=20 housing have changed significantly in recent = years.

2. =20 Clarion=92s six = residence=20 halls not longer offer the diversity of housing types and amenities to = fulfill=20 the needs of the student population.

3. =20 77% of the = residence hall=20 students expressed a preference in having single rooms or apartment = style=20 housing and expressed a willingness to pay a little more for=20 this.

4. =20 New residence = hall=20 construction could negate the need for reconfiguration of the current = residence=20 halls.

Based on the = feasibility=20 study and on the decision to maintain the designed housing capacity of = 2171 beds=20 between the Reinhard Villages and the on-campus = residence halls=20 a long range plan for university housing was developed. Implementation = of some=20 of the early stages was accomplished in the fall of 2004. Another factor that influenced = the=20 following plan was the PASSHE=92s determination that upgrading, = renovating, or=20 replacing most of the residence halls on the campuses utilizing = traditional=20 State System bond financing would not be cost effective. In order to address this = situation and=20 meet the demand a cooperative approach between the universities and an=20 affiliated entity is being utilized.

FALL=20 2006

1. =20 Ralston Hall was = taken off=20 line as a residence hall

2. =20 Educational = Talent Search=20 was moved to the second floor of Ralston

SUMMER=20 2007

1. =20 University = Relations moves=20 from Alumni house to Ralston Hall

2. =20 Alumni and = Haskell house=20 demolished to make room for new suite style residence=20 hall.

FALL=20 2007

1. =20 Construction will = begin on=20 two new suite style residence halls with a total of 360 beds. One will = be=20 located next to Ballantine at the present site of the Alumni and Haskell = houses=20 and the other between Chandler and Ralston Hall parallel = and adjacent=20 to campus drive.

2. =20 The project is to = be funded=20 by the Clarion University Foundation serving as the affiliated=20 entity.

SPRING=20 2009

1. =20 Becht Hall is = taken off=20 line as a residence hall

2. =20 The suite style = residence=20 halls are open for occupancy.

3. =20 Approximately 40 = rooms in=20 other halls are converted from double rooms to single=20 occupancy.

FALL=20 2009

1. =20 Approximately 40 = rooms in=20 other halls are converted from double rooms to single=20 occupancy.

2010 AND=20 BEYOND

1. =20 Ballantine Hall = goes off=20 line as a residence hall and is demolished to create space for the = construction=20 of two new suite style residence halls with occupancy of=20 350.

2. =20 The planning for = the new=20 residence halls includes the creation of approximately 240 single rooms = by=20 reassigning double occupancy rooms in the other halls. This will allow the = flexibility of=20 converting these rooms back to double occupancy in the event of an = enrollment=20 increase.

3. =20 Becht Hall is = converted one=20 stop student services facility.

4. =20 Present E & G = offices=20 in Becht will move to Ralston.

5. =20 When renovations = are=20 complete and all E & G functions move from Ralston to Becht Hall, = Ralston=20 may be demolished.

I. Food = Service

Fall=20 2004

A=20 feasibility study conducted in January 2003 revealed the need to = renovate the=20 Gemmell snack bar. = Students were=20 dissatisfied with the long lines, limited seating space, variety of=20 entrees. The limited = kitchen area=20 prevented the food service from offering a variety of entrees without = the proper=20 equipment, and the area did not provide the space for additional = equipment. Taking into consideration all = the above=20 factors and the fact that more students chose to eat their meals at the = snack=20 bar instead of the main dining facility in Chandler, a decision was reached to = renovate=20 the snack bar area into a food court. Renovation project was = begun in=20 December, 2003 and completed by August 13, 2004 for the opening of the = fall=20 semester. =

FALL=20 2006

Based on the cost = to=20 renovate Chandler Hall and to update the antiquated and inefficient food = service=20 equipment a feasibility study was commissioned to study the possibility = of=20 constructing a new dining facility. The study was concluded and a new = dining=20 hall utilizing the latest equipment and featuring a new way to serve and = prepare=20 meals for the students was proposed. =20 Due to the changing eating habits of our student body and the = popularity=20 of our food court in Gemmell it was decided that Chandler was oversized for our needs. = This=20 facility is a little over half the size of Chandler and will result in a = considerable=20 savings to our operations expenses, especially utilities and = maintenance. The site selected by the = committee and=20 supported by the study is the corner of Wood Street and Ninth = Avenue. An=20 RFP was issued to solicit proposals for design services for this = facility and a=20 firm was chosen in late November.

Spring=20 2007

1. =20 Design phase of = new dining=20 facility

FALL=20 2007

1. =20 Begin = construction of new=20 dining facility on the corner of Wood Street and Ninth=20 Avenue.

SPRING=20 2009

1. =20 New dining = facility=20 opened.

2. =20 Chandler Hall = demolished to=20 make way for second phase of new suite style residence=20 halls.

J. Parking and the Master=20 Plan

Currently there = are 1689=20 parking spaces within the Main Campus area. Individual lots on the campus = are=20 grouped into one of three use-permitting categories: employee lots, commuter = student lots,=20 and resident student lots. = 34 per=20 cent or 568 spaces are assigned to commuter student parking. Resident = student=20 parking accounts for 510 spaces or 30 per cent. Employee lots utilize 605 = spaces or 36=20 per cent.

The concept of = separating=20 lots for commuting students and resident students was implemented in = 1999. The goal of this = re-organization of lot=20 assignments was to discourage resident students from utilizing their = vehicles to=20 travel throughout the campus. = This=20 reduction in vehicle traffic was a goal identified in the master plan, = thus=20 reducing the potential vehicle-pedestrian conflict.

A=20 key recommendation in the April 1998 master plan regarding parking was = to expand=20 parking at the stadium and connect it with transportation which was = subsequently=20 provided by the Clarion Area Transit Service. In addition to the 1,689 = spaces on=20 campus, the 442 stadium spaces are being utilized for long-term parking, = allowing for the limiting of resident permit sales. The result has been a = consistent 85%-90%=20 occupancy in residential lots, despite increasing demand for resident=20 permits. Over the past = three years,=20 the increase in demand for resident permits has required more and more = students=20 to park at the stadium. = In the year=20 2000, there were virtually no vehicles parking long term at the = stadium. In 2003, approximately 150 = vehicles are=20 consistently parked long-term at the stadium. As an incentive to use the = stadium, both=20 commuter and resident students are offered a stadium permit free of = charge, in=20 comparison to the $100 per year fee for an on-campus permit. Most of the 150 = vehicles=20 parked at the stadium are not there by choice, however.

Master Plan = Recommendations=20 Implemented

1. =20 Growth Scenario = projected=20 1,657 parking spaces by 2003. =20 Available space totals 1,689 though Lot P is leased space, with = the lease=20 to expire in 2011.

2. =20 The Plan called = for reduced=20 parking next to residence halls. = As=20 a result, Lot 5 (Nair) has been converted to commuter parking and = Nair/Wilkinson=20 residents are parking in Lot P (Receiving) or Lot 15 (North of 322).

3. =20 The Plan = recommended=20 prohibition of campus parking for students living within one-half mile = of=20 campus. As a result, = approximately=20 25% of off-campus students have purchased commuter permits (1,000 out of = 4,000).

Remaining=20 Issues

1. =20 There is still a = widespread=20 feeling that there is not enough parking =93on campus=94. Based on the industry standard = for=20 available parking of 10%, it would appear that the Clarion campus has = adequate=20 parking however there are shortages depending on the time and type of=20 permit.

2. =20 The new Science = and=20 Technology=20 Center will cause = a major,=20 though temporary reduction in parking.

3. =20 The Reinhard = Villages will=20 likely change traffic patterns significantly, but we do not know how or = how=20 much. It has already = changed the=20 bus routes, thereby parking needs.

4. =20 We continue to = implement=20 the fringe parking solution, moving student parking and some parking in = general=20 to the edge of campus. =20

5. =20 The current = proposal to=20 solve issues one through four would be to build a parking deck on the = site of=20 Campbell Hall. This = function will=20 need to be self-sufficient however, and funding models to accomplish = this are=20 currently being considered.

UpdateDraft070413.doc