ExploreUK is getting a new design. Try the beta site!


ExploreUK home

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

[4] > Image [4] of Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 1991-06-aug20.

Part of Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees

- 4 - In conclusion, he reviewed concerns about property acquisition. He noted that the University has used the power of imminent domain to prevent development of larger scale housing or other commercial activities around the campus. The University has rarely, if ever, used it to take a single family residence, and there is no intention to adopt a different pattern. He said that the administration stands ready to talk with individuals about the university's interest in acquiring their property. Mr. Ockerman asked for questions from the Board, and Professor Bratt expressed concern about the proposed extension of the acquisition area on Columbia. Dr. Clapp said that having access to the area off Columbia would be a significant advantage for the University. He indicated that it would be a green, open space. Mr. Ockerman called for a five-minute recess and said that Mr. Jack Stephenson, an attorney representing the Aylesford Neighborhood Association, who had requested to appear before the Board, would be given 10 minutes following the recess. Upon return from the recess, Mr. Stephenson expressed appreciation for the opportunity to make a brief presentation to the Board. He stated that he is a resident of the Aylesford Neighborhood as well as the attorney for the Aylesford Neighborhood Association. He said that the Association is not negative about the entire Plan. There are some aspects of it that the Association is very excited about; however, they do have a considerable difference with the Plan in closing Rose Street and finding an alternate route. They are also opposed to aspects of the campus extension into the Aylesford area for purposes of additional housing. He then reviewed their reasons for opposing the additional housing and asked the Board to consider the neighborhood, the town and setting of the University, and any plan that is ultimately adopted through the developing stages that reflects the interest of the city and the needs of the neighborhood. In conclusion, he asked (1) that the Board maintain a review authority over the development of the Plan (2) that any proposed development be done in conjunction with city planners and in consultation with the people off campus who are affected by it, and (3) that the Board exercise restraint in the acquisition of additional real property. Mr. Ockerman asked for questions from the Board. Questions were asked regarding planning and zoning regulations and the schedule to review the Plan. Dr. Clapp said that he appreciated Mr. Stephenson's comments and the concerns that he and others in the neighborhood shared with the administration about the Plan. He noted that all the options for addressing the Rose Street problem are before the administration as it attempts to implement the Plan. He said that he accepted the three points presented by Mr. Stephenson for serious consideration. He noted that the University is already addressing the first two points.