M e e t i n g     N o t e s

Meeting Subject:                    Community Advisory Committee Meeting

Location:                                UNLV Foundation Building

Meeting Date / Time:              April 18, 2002 / 1:30 - 3:30 p.m.                

Issue Date:                             May 7, 2002

Participants:                          See Attached Sign-In Sheet

Prepared By:                          SmithGroup JJR

DISCUSSION:

The purpose of this meeting was to review the preliminary analysis conclusions and three alternative framework concepts.  The committee was asked to identify preferred elements from each alternative that could be combined into a consensus plan.  The consensus plan will be developed for the May 21, 22, and 23, 2002 campus visit.

The following comments were recorded:

·         Will there be enough parking spaces at the new Cottage Grove parking deck when performances are occurring and the new Crest building is being built / finished?  Is the current parking deck over capacity during performances?  UNLV representatives stated that it was not over capacity during performances.

·         The loop circulation concept is a good idea.  They (the loops) will relieve congestion on Maryland Parkway.

·         Alternative "B" is a good concept; particularly the completion of the major ideas of the original master plan.  The vehicular circulation loop concept and parking structures are good ideas.

·         The open space and image ideas of Alternative "C" are valid.  Bringing the open space to the perimeter is preferred.  Add landscape at the Thomas & Mack Center.  Coordinate the Thomas & Mack Center improvements with the proposed fixed guideway system (break up parking, add shade, etc.).

·         Consolidating the Physical Plant facilities into a parking structure or singular facility is preferred.

·         Is the potential loss of Maude Frazier Hall worthwhile?  Would it be noticed?  What is its benefit to the campus and community?

·         The current entrances to campus are not clear.  New entrances need to get the visitor to a parking structure and provide signage to their final campus destination.

·         The demolition of Maude Frazier Hall is a good idea.  The development of several well-defined, clear entrances is necessary.

·         None of the concepts (shown) significantly alter the Thomas & Mack Center parking lot.  What about a superstructure or elevated walks, etc.  Is this area off-limits?

·         How has the plan addressed commercial / retail components of campus?  What about concessions, vendors, etc.?  The blue (academic) zones on the three alternatives need to have these components added.  SmithGroup JJR and the university are in the framework planning part of the master plan process.  These detailed ideas will be refined later during the process.

·         The School of Architecture building is not connected to the rest of campus.

·         How has "Las Vegas" influenced our thinking about the UNLV Master Plan and resultant forms / spaces?

·         Can Maryland Parkway be realigned?  A precedent project was cited at the Las Vegas Convention Center. 

·         Elongate (and consolidate) the Physical Plant functions along Swenson with good architecture, and screen the Thomas & Mack Center parking lot.

·         Alter Alternative "C" to reflect the vehicular spine that UNLV controls.  Move the vehicular / entry corridor (north / south corridor).

·         Connect the Fulton Building and associated activities (and expansion) back to the core of campus.

·         Signage!

·         A point of concern:  the proposed two-way loop at Brussels will isolate the School of Architecture building.  Add the loop concept east of the building.

·         Don't block (visually) the Thomas & Mack Center with structures.

·         Is the IM field sacred ground?  Is there an opportunity for Physical Plant functions here?

The following summary comments (preferences) were noted:

·         The loop circulation schemes with decks are preferred.

·         Extend campus image / identity via open space to the periphery.

·         Infill the center of campus with academic, preserve / complete the "original" master plan node concept.

·         Consolidate the Physical Plant functions.

·         Alternative "B" pedestrian scheme is preferred

·         Alternative "C" entrance identity scheme is preferred.

Our summarization of this meeting is transcribed as above.  Please notify the writer within five (5) business days of this transcription of any disagreement as the foregoing becomes part of the project record and is the basis upon which we will proceed.  

Respectfully submitted by:

SmithGroup JJR

 << Back to Products