|
Meeting
Subject:
Overview Committee
Location:
Lied Library, 3rd Floor Conference Room
Meeting Date / Time:
June 13, 2002 / 10:00 - 11:00 a.m.
Issue Date:
September 30, 2002
Participants:
UNLV
Consultant Team
President Carol C. Harter
Doug Kozma (SmithGroup JJR)
Fred Albrecht
Tim Rorvig (SmithGroup JJR)
Juanita Fain
Steve Troost (SmithGroup JJR)
Tony Flores
John Gallagher
Tom Hagge
Susan Hobbes
Dick Jensen
Rebecca Mills
Schyler Richards
Bill Wood
Prepared By:
SmithGroup JJR
The purpose
of this meeting was to review and discuss the Framework Plan and discuss
materials/format for the upcoming University Planning Retreat in August.
In general, the committee endorsed the Framework Plan and the
refinements from the May meeting. The
Preliminary Framework Plan will be revised for the August 19-21 campus
visit (#6).
The
following comments and ideas were recorded.
·
SmithGroup
JJR provided an overview of the planning process to date and summarized
the major principles of the refined Framework Plan.
The
Overview Committee raised the following comments, questions, and
observations.
·
What is the
significance of the 5-minute walking radius as shown on the plan?
The 5-minute radius, as described by the consultant team, is a
planning tool utilizing 1200' (4' per second or 2.7 mph) to provide
relative walking distances from the academic core. These radii help establish new building distribution,
relative density, and distances between facilities as a function of time
change between classes.
·
Are
"demolition candidate" buildings included in the Preliminary Framework
Plan metrics? The consultant
team will incorporate demolition candidate buildings in the next iteration
of the proposed gross square feet (GSF) calculations.
·
Will there
be a bicycle transportation component with this plan? The Overview Committee referenced the University of
California-Davis example. Yes.
This material will be developed in Phase II as the transportation
system plan is refined.
·
The FDH and
Chemistry building should be considered as building demolition candidates
in this plan.
·
The Overview
Committee suggested considering a campus police station in one of the new
parking structures.
·
It was noted
that the apartment units at the corner of Harmon and Tarkanian are in the
proposed right-of-way of the monorail.
No action was taken on this item.
·
Could or
should the "monorail deck" (west of the Thomas & Mack Center) be
used to park cars for destinations other than campus?
It was suggested that a park-and-ride fee system could generate
revenue. Other ideas included
a joint venture with the McCarran Airport.
The consultant team reiterated the need for as many parking spaces
on campus as possible to replace the "displaced" surface spaces.
No further resolution was made on this item.
·
Is the
Campus Master Plan addressing signage hierarchy and uniformity? Yes. Phase II
and/or III will address this level of detail.
·
The Overview
Committee encouraged a dialog with the Athletic Director regarding
potential changes to the athletic quadrant of campus.
SmithGroup JJR will begin critically evaluating this area of campus
in preparation for the August Retreat and/or October meetings.
·
The
consultant team was directed to bring a digital 3D model of campus for the
upcoming University Planning Retreat in August and the State of the
University in September. The
Overview Committee reiterated the need for strong graphics for the Regents
meeting (in Las Vegas December 2002).
Respectfully
submitted by:
SmithGroup JJR
|
