Collections: 
0-9 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

[3]

Part of Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees

item | thumbnails | details | text | pdf
Download this image
- 3 - F. Physical Development Plan (PR 3A) President Wethington recommended that the Board approve the University of Kentucky Physical Development Plan. Professor Rhoads so moved, and her motion was seconded by Mr. Burnett. President Wethington then called on Dr. Clapp to make a presentation to the Board on the Plan. Dr. Clapp said that it is important to understand the intent of the project. It is not to articulate each opportunity and to document each solution to a problem. It is to raise the awareness of those who design the future campus, to articulate concern and to instill an understanding of, and sympathy for, the critical issues involved. He emphasized that it is not meant to be a final, definitive, unalterable, end product. It defines guidelines and processes developed from university strategic and planning goals to provide a direction for university land use and development. The Plan is meant to be continuously updated to reflect the university's changing needs and resources. Following a review of the concept of the document, he reviewed the goals and objectives that were established in the Plan: 1. Space needs. 2. Diminish pedestrain and vehicular conflicts. 3. Redirect the university's parking strategy. 4. Develop and integrate pedestrian circulation systems and walkways. 5. Enhance the university's image and historic character and further develop the campus identity. 6. Integrate the Medical Center and Lexington Campus growth patterns. 7. Limit infill in the academic core of the campus. 8-. Develop student service and activity spaces. 9. Maintain and enhance open spaces on the campus. Through a series of slides, Dr. Clapp elaborated on the three basic parts of the Plan: 1. An assessment of the campus as the consultant found it at the time of the study. 2. A concept that the consultant put together to deal with the problems identified as a result of the assessment. 3. Specific recommendations for the implementation of the concepts that the consultant identified. He stated that the most important point about the assessment made by the consultant is that the university has reached the end of the line in terms of the current space available on campus; the alternative is to find a way outside the current boundaries for the continued growth, development and support of programs.