M e e t i n g     N o t e s     

Meeting Subject:                      Campus Advisory Committee Meeting

Location:                                  UNLV Campus Services Building #164

Meeting Date / Time:                 December 12, 2002 / 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon               

Issue Date:                                January 29, 2003

Participants:                             See Attached Sign-In Sheet

Prepared By:                             SmithGroup JJR

DISCUSSION:

The purpose of this meeting was to present refinements to the Preliminary Master Plan and introduce the Shadowlane Campus.  The session was well attended and the material was favorably received.  SmithGroup JJR initiated the meeting with a brief review of the agenda, material to be presented, and major plan revisions. 

The following comments and ideas were recorded:

• The proposed access road to Swenson (south of the hospitality campus) should remain, given the existing traffic congestion that occurs at Claymont and Cottage Grove.  The traffic patterns in this campus quadrant will need to be studied during Phase III services to ascertain if the relief potential this road affords is beneficial.

• A question was raised whether the proposed parking deck (NW quadrant) could be location between the existing softball and track facilities.  SmithGroup JJR explained that the deck as shown off Harmon was situated closer to the academic core, optimizing pedestrian access.  Vehicular circulation at either location is good, but further analysis by Orth-Rodgers is necessary.  Access/egress issues from Swenson remain serious obstacles.  University representatives noted that if other support services can be accommodated into the ground floor of this structure, the location directly off Harmon would be preferred.

• A concern was raised that the Master Plan set strategies to only accommodate projects earmarked to occur within the next five years.  The consultant team indicated that they are initiating phasing assessments and will continue to establish strategies to implement priority projects well beyond a five-year window.

• Future utilization of the Old Paradise Elementary School site was questioned.  The consultants indicated that this site provides a wonderful asset for the university as surge space and to house autonomous functions that don't require regular student access.  Currently, Educational Outreach and Public Safety are housed here.  In addition, a small business development center is being considered.  It was put forth that 300-500 students access this parcel daily and that Tropicana Avenue is a significant barrier for safely accessing the academic core.  The future uses should minimize student access and maximize autonomous functions.  University representatives indicated that this parcel is now being called the Paradise Campus.

• It was noted that the Master Plan needs stronger champions (both now and in the future).  The idea that individual university groups can make changes within a "flexible" framework can erode the inherent strength of the plan if carried too far.  Critical framework plan directions must be documented and adhered to by all groups.

• An increase in student housing will demand need for organized recreational amenities beyond informal open space.  The Master Plan should address this issue in some manner even if it requires purchasing property to accommodate this need.

• Regarding the Paradise Campus and who is located there (or elsewhere on campus):  it was noted that there is a committee that deals with this issue and it is not a Master Plan issue.

• There was general agreement that the preferred location for the Science, Engineering and Technology building is west of the existing parking deck.

• There was general agreement that the building site south of the proposed Student Services Center and new pedestrian gateway into campus should be reserved for a dining commons or a residential based mixed use that incorporates food service, convenience retail, recreation, etc.

• The Master Plan and its organization of campus should begin looking at "educational communities," where like programs are synergistically located together.

• The Master Plan needs to "think" beyond the university's current land holdings, especially if growth extends beyond the projected 35,000 students.  At some point, this could leverage relocation of the athletic campus or growth into a satellite campus organizational strategy.

• An overlay district along Maryland Parkway should help future redevelopment with university related support-type uses.

The shadow lane campus was discussed with the following notes recorded:

• The property is located within the city of Las Vegas, but the university is sovereign.  This does not require the university to adopt/follow zoning codes, and regulations.  The university is, however, looking to develop the property in an appropriate and contextually sensitive manner.

• The Shadow Lane Campus should be viewed as a graduate research campus.

• Vehicular circulation will be a very important issue, especially with the proposed interchange from I-15 onto West Charleston.  Access and turning movements will be key to locating any proposed parking deck.

• The Dental School is proposed for Building A and part of Building B (building A is not big enough).

Respectfully submitted by:

SmithGroup JJR

 << Back to Products