Committee on Campus Facilities Environment and Planning

 Minutes – January 21, 2004


Attendees:

Members –

Dick Siemer, Co-Chair (Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration)

Michael Karpf (Executive Vice President for Health Affairs)

Steven Hoch ( College of Arts and Sciences Representative)

David Mohney (College of Design Representative)

Horst Schach (Department of Landscape Architecture)

John Gambill (Staff Senate Executive Committee Representative)

Alternate Members –

Dave Watt, (Provost)

Donn Hancher (College of Engineering Representative)

ex officio members

Bob Wiseman (Associate Vice President for Facilities)

Warren Denny (University Architect)

Patsy Todd (First Lady)

Others

Jack Applegate, Ed McClure, Ken Clevidence, Jerry Hart, Dall Clark, Ben Crutcher

 

Dick Siemer (EVPFA) opened the meeting and briefly explained the agenda.

 

Dick Siemer requested and received approval for the December 3, 2003 minutes.

 

The future quarterly meeting dates were finalized: March 4th 2004 , June 3rd 2004 , September 2nd 2004 , and December 2nd 2004 . An email will be sent to members to when the locations are confirmed.

 

A list of the members and alternates was provided to the committee. Dick Siemer requested that those members who have not already named an alternate to let him know their choice of an alternate in the next few days.

 

Discussion:

Bob Wiseman explained that there were two items needing committee action; the Main building landscaping and the Linden Walk Parking lot. Mr. Wiseman began by presenting the landscaping issues concerning the Main Building . At issue is retaining 4 trees due to the building design and a conflict with the surrounding landscape. The locations were shown and involve 2 trees on the front of the building and 2 trees on the rear south side. Originally the plan was to retain all trees at the site; however, the tree in front at location “A” has been so severely damaged due to its location in conflict with the various on-going construction activities/utilities, etc. that there is no choice but to remove the tree. The tree in front at location “B” is in the future roadway and will also have to be removed. The committee agreed on the removal of tree “A” and tree “B”. Bob Wiseman then explained the issues regarding two trees in location “C” and location “D” pointing out that several sources indicate the best guess life span for the two trees is 5 to 7 years. These include a tree report from Dave Leonard, Registered Consulting Arborist, discussions between Warren Denny and arborist Bill Fountain, the landscape design recommendations and comments from Shavaun Towers of Towers/Golde Landscape Architects and Site Planners as well as from Horst Schach of Landscape Architecture a committee member. Mr. Wiseman explained the issues regarding the design. Essentially the question before the committee is to protect these trees with rock walls at a project cost of about $50,000 and not achieve the open plaza effect envisioned by the design landscape architect. If the trees die within 5 to 7 years will we wish then that we had taken a longer view and created the plaza the correct way. Wiseman then asked Horst Schach to explain his views. Horst Schach discussed the issue regarding tree “C” and tree “D” pointing out it is not an easy question and depending on who looks at this you may get a different answer. Personally, Mr. Schach noted that these trees have been growing under tough circumstances all their life and that it is difficult to determine the projected lifespan of these trees. He also states it would be very difficult to say if the trees would in fact live longer than five to seven years. Dr. Mohney suggested we should consider what could be put in place of the trees and asked about the long-term campus plan. Dick Siemer explained he had met with the project landscape designer and further described her view. Noting; either way is ok with the designer, but there are physical spaces and walls for the short-term that would need to be built to accommodate the trees or do we want to design the space for long-term. David Watt asked about the cost of retaining the trees versus removing the trees. Bob Wiseman noted that retaining the trees is already in the budget but the project could see some savings if the decision to remove the trees was made. Dick Siemer pointed out that people are emotionally attached to physical elements at UK . Mr. Wiseman discussed the Master Plan stating that as it is further implemented, these types of conflict issues are going to come up more often. Dr. Mohney stated that was all the more reason to move fast with the campus landscape plan. Wiseman reported that an overall master plan was envisioned to begin in late spring or early summer. There was additional discussion and questions about what is happening with the other landscape around the Main building. Dall Clark explained that the front lawn effect for the Main Building is still in place with trees along the walk. Dick Siemer asked that the next meeting address more in depth the other landscaping issues/plans at the Main Building . Steven Hoch suggested that Art could be placed instead of trees since the budget is already in place and suggested that if we do put trees that the size would need to be large to help the landscape design. Mr. Wiseman and Horst Schach pointed out the replacement trees would be 4 or 6 inches in diameter and about 12 to 20 feet tall, depending on the variety/species. Donn Hancher pointed out he had designed and built a house several years ago to accommodate a tree and soon after the house was built, the tree died and the house was never the same. Patsy Todd commented that spending money to improve the campus image is important. John Gambill asked that as we think about trees we need to also consider the effect on lighting on campus. Dick Siemer said he agrees, and we possibly could put accent lights to improve the lighting in this area. Dr. Watt asked if the issue was just the cost now or later. Bob Wiseman noted the issue goes beyond cost and that we need to focus on the space we create. We will not have that opportunity later. Bob Wiseman suggested the art issue be brought back with the discussion of Kiosks a later meeting.

Decision:

The Committee approved the proposal to remove all four trees mentioned at the Main Building . Tentative plans are to take the trees down in the summer and plant new ones in the fall.

 

Discussion:

Bob Wiseman presented a proposed Linden Walk Parking lot. The parking lot as designed is to develop this lot as a well landscaped lot with an eye toward the future should the rental houses ever be removed. Ken Clevidence commented on the income from the houses at this site. Dick Siemer suggested the view as traffic approaches the campus would be improved by the proposed trees added along Euclid .

Decision:

The Committee approved the proposed Linden Walk parking lot.

Discussion:

Bob Wiseman briefly explained a need for proposed banner policy mentioning a recent request for the new 24 hour operation of the Little Fine Arts Library. He stated that banners are appearing more and more on campus and many are taking a more permanent nature. Wiseman handed out discussion paper on this topic and indicated that this would be discussed in detail at a future meeting.

Decision:

The committee took no action.

 

Discussion:

The process of bringing issues to the committee was discussed. Bob Wiseman encouraged members to simply let him know and he will add issues to the agenda. Dr. Karph discussed the new Facilities committee he has put together to look at long-range (approximately 15 yrs), the Bed-Tower in the near-term, and the Hospital lobby update in the immediate future.

Decision:

The next committee meeting will include; other landscape issues at the Main Building , Kiosks and Art on campus, a proposed RFP for a Master Campus Landscape Plan. The committee will also be presented the UK Master Plan presentation of Ayers/Saint/Gross at a future meeting

 

Dick Siemer adjourned the meeting asking members to let them know of any interim ideas, concerns, and questions for further committee action.