Front Range Community College Larimer Campus Master Plan

Transcription

Front Range Community College
Facilities Master Plan Update
Larimer Campus
October 2012
Update to the 2007 Master Plan
4616 South Shields Street
Fort Collins, CO 80526-3812
OCTOBER 2012
FRONT RANGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
LARIMER CAMPUS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Facilities Master Plan Update
Larimer Campus
An Update to the 2007 Larimer Campus Master Plan
Prepared by:
JBA 1ncorporated
Joe Bilotta
Vickie Stimac
Phyllis Abt
Ron Baker
Kris Binard
Danielle Carnes
Lisa Donaldson
Andy Dorsey
Karl Dukstein
Jamie Hahn
Dana Kester
Marla Manchego
Melissa Martinez
Scott McKelvey
Rachel Pokrandt
Blair Oliver
Leslie Schmidt
Jennifer Sobanet
Bruce Walthers
Charles Watt
JBA 1ncorported |
1
OCTOBER 2012
Table of Contents
Section
1.0
2.8
Page
Executive Summary
1.0.1 Introduction
1.0.2 Existing Master Plan Update Sections
1.0.3 Planning Process
Building Space Projections
2.8.1 Classrooms
2.8.2 Instructional Laboratories
2.8.3 Office Space
2.8.4 Study Space
2.8.5 Special Use Space
2.8.6 General Use Space
2.8.7 Support and Service Spaces
3
4
4
11
13
14
15
16
16
17
17
2.10.2 Existing Facilities Inventory
18
3.1
Functional Diagrams
19
3.2
Implementation Requirements
3.2.1 Industrial Sciences/Maroon Peak
3.2.2 Redcloud Peak Improvements
3.2.3 Mount Antero Improvements
3.2.4 Blanca Peak Improvements
3.2.5 Challenger Point Minor Renovations
21
27
29
31
33
35
3.5
Implementation Priorities and Schedule
36
4.3
Appendix C: Building Inventory
Space Projections
38
JBA 1ncorported |
2
OCTOBER 2012
1.0
Executive Summary
1.0.1
Introduction
Since the previous Master Plan in 2007, Front Range
Community College’s Larimer Campus has grown over
25%. This enrollment increase, numerous program
changes, and economic constraints over the past five
years warranted the college revisiting the facility
solutions identified in the 2007 plan. JBA 1ncorporated
was retained to work with the campus to update the
space needs identified in the 2007 Master Plan.
The previous plan identified substantial space needs
even before the recent enrollment increase, and
proposed several projects to meet the need. One
project, the Sunlight Peak science building, was
completed in 2011, but the remaining projects
proposed in that plan have not been funded.
The new analysis not only updates the space needs
analysis, it also recommends a more sustainable
approach to meeting space needs through a series of
relatively small capital investments. Those projects are
consistent enough with the former plan that only a plan
update is necessary.
This Master Plan Update describes five sets of
improvements which meet a majority of the 59,000
assignable square foot space deficit. The improvements
are phased in a way that aligns with potential funding
options. Minor continuous improvements will be
necessary throughout the campus using maintenance
and operating funds, however the following five
projects will require a larger capital investment. These
are:
Industrial Sciences Center
Redcloud Peak Renovations and Addition
Mount Antero Addition and Renovations
Blanca Peak Infill and Renovation
Challenger Point Minor Renovation
Programming for the Industrial Sciences Center began
in the summer of 2012. It will be followed by Redcloud
Peak/Mount Antero programming in the winter of 2013.
JBA 1ncorported |
3
OCTOBER 2012
Initial estimates in the Master Plan have set these
budgets to be $5.5M and $11.3M respectively with
Redcloud phased between renovations and a new
addition. Mount Antero and Blanca Peak are both
estimated at $4.5M. Finally, Challenger Point
renovations are estimated to cost $500,000; for a total
capital plan of $26.3M. Funds are available for the
Industrial Sciences Center and the renovation phase of
Redcloud Peak. Funding strategies are being developed
to address the remaining improvements.
1.0.2
Existing Master Plan Update Sections
Many parts of the 2007 Front Range Community College
(FRCC) Larimer Campus Master Plan are still valid. The
intent of this update is to focus on the space needs
associated with today's programs and enrollment. The
following sections of the 2007 plan have been impacted
by the new study and updated within this report. This
report is intended to be an inclusive summary of the
space study with recommendations on addressing the
space deficits and improving spatial relationships. Titles
and format of each section within this document appear
to be somewhat out of order but are intended to be
consistent with that of the 2007 study so the college
can replace those sections if desired. Sections updated
from the 2007 plan are:
2.8
2.10.2
3.1
3.2
3.4
3.5
1.0.3
Existing Facilities Inventory
Functional Diagrams
Implementation Estimates of Cost
Implementation Schedule
Planning Process
There were over 30 meetings and 225 people engaged
in the planning process. JBA 1ncorporated and college
staff held planning sessions with all college programs.
These were organized by department and included each
department head and/or a member of the Master Plan
steering committee. These sessions help identify the
appropriate planning strategies associated with space
needed for each program. The amount of space was
not a topic of discussion. The sessions focused on how
the programs operate and potential changes in the
JBA 1ncorported |
4
OCTOBER 2012
programs for the future. These discussions helped
create planning variables specific to the various physical
environments necessary for programs to operate. The
analysis did not use national standards that in most
cases are out of date. The following are some of the
most influential planning variables used for classrooms,
instructional labs, and offices:
Classroom Space
In lieu of a simple area per student for classrooms,
the analysis defined actual pedagogies used by
each program and created space variables
accordingly. Space types included:
Lecture spaces of 15-29, 30-49, and 50-79 persons
Group Learning spaces of 15-29, 30-49, and 50-79
persons
Collaborative spaces of 9-14, 15-29, and 30-49
persons
Each of the above space types support different
teaching and learning styles. Each has varying
space requirements.
Lab Space
In lieu of a simple area per student for
laboratories, the analysis defined actual
pedagogies used by each program and created
space variables accordingly. Space types included:
Computer/analytical spaces of 15-29, 30-49
persons
Studio spaces of 15-29, 30-49 persons
Bench spaces of 15-29, 30-49 persons
Custom labs of 15-29, 30-49 persons
Each space type supports different teaching and
learning styles. Each has varying space
requirements.
Office Space
Instead of counting employees and providing a
standard office size based on seniority, the campus
defined how each program operated relative to
office needs. The campus determined there were
three basic office types that were necessary.
These are as follows:
JBA 1ncorported |
5
OCTOBER 2012
Private offices
Collaborative office environments
Shared office spaces
Each of the above space types support different
ways in which employees work with each other
and with patrons. Each space type has varying
space needs but are dependent on how the office
operates.
Campus leadership established appropriate policies by
which the space analysis was driven. Together the
policies and pedagogies developed in the programming
sessions improved the space analysis, thus providing a
framework for facilities development both short- and
long-term. The planning team created an interactive
space model not only to address the Master Plan Update
needs, but also to be used in years to come. The
campus will keep the planning tool up to date on a biannual basis.
During the six-month study, campus forums also were
held to present progress and gather feedback
throughout the process. Three forums gathered input
from 175 persons on campus.
A cross-departmental group of faculty, staff,
administration, and student representatives constituted
a steering committee that provided guidance
throughout the process. Members of the steering
committee included:
Phyllis Abt
Ron Baker
Kris Binard
Danielle Carnes
Lisa Donaldson
Andy Dorsey
Karl Dukstein
Jamie Hahn
Dan Kester
Marla Manchego
Melissa Martinez
Scott McKelvey
Rachel Pokrandt
Blair Oliver
JBA 1ncorported |
6
OCTOBER 2012
Leslie Schmidt
Jennifer Sobanet
Bruce Walthers
Charles Watt
The new space analysis challenged the traditional
methods used in the previous Master Plan. A new space
planning model was developed to assure space needs
are directly related to how the college's programs
operate today and, more importantly, into the future.
The space planning model allows the campus to
evaluate space needs continually, based on any number
of planning scenarios.
Space Planning Model
Levels of Space Planning - Space planning in higher
education consists of two levels of planning. The first is
macro scale planning which supports the campus
Master Plan Update. This level of space planning
identifies the overall space needs associated with
college programs. The second, more detailed level of
space planning is called “programming.” Programming
is the planning process that studies the space issues at a
more detailed, room-by-room level. This is necessary
when preparing for a major renovation, building
addition, or new construction. The intent of the space
planning model is to understand the macro scale space
needs for the Master Plan Update. In some cases,
however, the planning goes into detail at the
departmental level. Front Range Community College
will begin programming for the highest priorities
identified in this Master Plan Update
Space Planning Variables
The space planning model is driven by two major areas
of study: people, and the amount of space people need
for various functions. People include students, faculty,
staff, and visitors, both existing and projected.
Projections are based upon the academic planning
assumptions, the college’s Strategic Plan, program
needs, and Master Plan Update goals and objectives.
Other planning variables include architectural space
guidelines specific to programs at the College. Given the
current high utilization rates at the Larimer Campus as
well as limited funds, FRCC has had to adhere to space
standards that are more restrictive than CCCS
guidelines. During the development of the model, the
JBA 1ncorported |
7
OCTOBER 2012
planning team worked with the campus to adopt FRCCspecific policy, data sets, and planning modules for each
space type as discussed section 1.03, Planning Process.
There are literally thousands of variables in the model.
The following are examples of some of the major ones.
Classrooms
Lecture 15-29
Lecture 30-49
Lecture 50-79
Group Learning 15-29
Collaborative 9-14
Collaborative 15-29
Collaborative 30-49
ASF/Stn
20
18
15
22
20
17
25
22
20
Lab Space
Computer/analytical 15-29
25
Computer/analytical 30-49
22
Studio 15-29
80
Studio 30-49
65
Bench 15-29
60
Bench 30-49
55
Custom labs of 15-29
varies per dept.
Custom lab 30-49
varies per dept.
Offices
Large Private offices
Medium Private Office
Small Private Office
Collaborative office environments
Single Shared office (for every 5 persons)
Open Shared office (for every 5 persons)
180
140
120
120
140
100
For details regarding all the variables used, reference
the space planning model.
General Concept to Space Projections
The space model is complex and very diverse.
Although this is the case, the intent, regardless of space
type, is to ensure the proper mix of facts, policy, and
operating methodologies, aligned in a way that best fits
program needs. The Facts typically determine how
much of a certain space is necessary. These are
provided by official data sources such as Institutional
Research. Facts are imputed by Campus Policy. FRCC
JBA 1ncorported |
8
OCTOBER 2012
leadership helped establish appropriate space use
policy. The planning team worked with all programs to
gather programmatic information relative to operating
strategies and academic and research methodologies.
This College/School Input provided program-specific
space planning variables to help align space guidelines
with how programs actually operate. This approach
produces program-driven results. The space
requirements generated by the model are then
compared to the existing space to identify the space
needs for the Master Plan Update.
The space requirements described in Section 2.8 are the
result of the major Facts, Policy, and Input that drives
the majority of the space in that category. There are
hundreds of different Standards that can be found in
the space model. These are typically national standards
or accepted architectural space guidelines.
Facilities Planning Goals and Objectives
In addition to the space planning model, a series of
goals and objectives was established to assure space
needs and facilities plans were align with programmatic
goals and strategic direction of the campus. The
planning team, and all persons involved in the process,
reviewed, approved, and adopted the goals and
JBA 1ncorported |
9
OCTOBER 2012
objectives. The planning team assured that these were
met at each step during the process and continue to be
included in the implementation planning from this point
forward. These were discussed in depth during the
campus forums and supported by all those who were
present during those sessions.
Goals and Objectives
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Student centered
Enhance spaces to support new learning
pedagogies
Professional environment indicative of quality
education
Collaborative environments that promote
engagement
Be more efficient with our physical resources
(more sustainable)
Flexible and adaptable
Increase amount of natural light
Increase the amount of learning space outside
the classroom
Be safe, secure, clean, and comfortable
Increase interdisciplinary opportunities
Create a sense of place
JBA 1ncorported |
10
OCTOBER 2012
2.8
Based on the planning variables described earlier in this
document, it's evident that the college has a major space
deficit, even after the addition of Sunlight Peak since the
previous Master Plan. The Larimer Campus has a current deficit
of over 59,044 assignable square feet. The majority of this
deficit resides in the three primary space types; classrooms,
laboratories, and offices. These three types of space account
for almost 55% of the space needs. The remaining amount is
spread among a variety of spaces. This deficit is actually slightly
lower than the 2007 Master Plan balance after Sunlight Peak.
This is true even though enrollment has grown by 25%. The
campus has adopted aggressive concepts for space efficiency
which include higher classroom and lab utilization rates and
shared office concepts that exceed CCCS guidelines. These are
described in further detail in the subsequent sections.
Larimer Campus Space Needs - 2012
60,000
50,000
Existing Area (ASF)
40,000
Required Area (ASF)
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
JBA 1ncorported |
11
OCTOBER 2012
The space planning model allows the campus to test a
variety of planning scenarios. The scenarios can include
anything from additional programs, reductions or
increases in current programs, new partnerships, new
policies, varying space utilization criteria, faculty and
staff growth, and numerous other potential operating
adjustments. This scenario planning allows the campus
to understand the facilities implications and costs
associated with programmatic decisions. Scenarios can
be tested at a level of detail as far as the prefix level.
An example of a macro-scale scenario may be
enrollment growth. Assuming the programs do not
change drastically or operate differently from desired
pedagogies, a simple enrollment growth of 15% spread
evenly across the programs result in the need for an
additional 20,216 assignable square feet beyond the
need of 59,004 assignable square feet. This 15%
enrollment increase would require an additional 79,260
assignable square feet on the main campus alone.
Space Needs with 15% Enrollment Increase
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Existing Area (ASF)
Required Area (ASF)
JBA 1ncorported |
12
OCTOBER 2012
2.8.1
Classrooms
FRCC has determined that there are three basic types of
classroom spaces needed on campus. These include
lecture, group learning, and collaborative learning
spaces. A variety of room sizes were planned for each
of these three major classroom types.
Academic programs within departments determined
what types of instructional classrooms best fit their
respective teaching and learning pedagogies. The
amount of classroom space each department needs
access to is based upon the amount of classroom
contact hours the department produces. The contact
hours are spread across planned utilization criteria and
distributed across the room types. The College
determined that the planned utilization criteria are to
use classrooms an average of 35 hours a week (65%
utilization during a 54-hour week) and fill those rooms
an average of 75% capacity when in use. This standard
puts FRCC’s Larimer Campus in the top three most
efficient classroom utilization rates in the State of
Colorado.
Based on the above planning criteria, and aggressive
utilization targets, the campus still has a deficit in
classroom space of about 6,892 assignable square feet.
Although rooms are scheduled to near capacity, the fill
rate for rooms appears to be slightly inefficient. This is
due to a lack of varying classroom sizes on campus.
Smaller classes are being scheduled in larger rooms
because there aren’t enough smaller rooms available.
One of the campus’s issues is the lack of diversity
among its classrooms. The one-size-fits-all model has
outlived its usefulness. A balance of consistency among
a reasonable diversity in room types is necessary.
It is also clear in the classroom analysis that much of the
square footage is simply the wrong type. Many of the
current spaces hold class sizes of 20 to 35 persons and
are designed for lecture or didactic teaching. There is a
demand on rooms that promote more collaboration and
interaction among students and between students and
faculty. This requires spaces that promote teaming
within the class setting. A higher percentage of group
JBA 1ncorported |
13
OCTOBER 2012
lecturing collaborative spaces will be necessary in the
future and a lower percentage of lecture space will be
necessary
2.8.2
Instructional Laboratories
Laboratories were determined to be in four basic
categories or types. They include Instructional
Computer, Studio, Bench Type, and Custom Spaces. The
instructional labs include both the laboratory space and
service spaces to operate the labs for equipment,
collection space to store materials or other support.
Each prefix within a Department can have its own
planning variable for laboratory space in the custom lab
category. This assures lab space requirements align
with the specific needs of each program
The College determined that the planned utilization
criteria are to use instructional labs an average of 21
hours a week and fill those rooms an average of 80%
capacity when in use. This is 35% higher use than the
latest Colorado Department of Higher Education’s set of
use criteria.
Based upon the utilization criteria described in the
previous paragraph, and the percent of classroom
versus laboratory space needed by each program, the
campus has a deficit of instructional laboratories of
11,228 assignable square feet. The biggest pressures
reside in the art programs, Automotive Technology,
Welding, Music, Theater, Veterinary Technology, and
health-related programs.
JBA 1ncorported |
14
OCTOBER 2012
2.8.3
Office Space
Office space is the second biggest assignable space use
at FRCC. It's the common denominator among all
persons working at the College, regardless of respective
roles.
When evaluating office space needs, the College
determined there were three basic office types
necessary to support all programs. These include the
traditional individual office for privacy, shared offices
for those that do not require an office 40 hours per
week, and interactive offices that promote
collaboration and communication among workers.
The amount of office space is determined by the
number of employees each department has. Full-time
employees, for purposes of space planning, are those
that work more than 20 hours per week. Those that
work less than 20 hours are considered part time, as are
part-time instructors. It was determined part-time
employees should share office space at a ratio of
approximately 5 employees to 1 office.
Once the main office space was analyzed, additional
space for conference rooms, reception areas, mailroom,
work rooms, mail-in copy areas and storage was
determined.
The campus has a 14,360 assignable square foot office
deficit. Much of this is for part-time employees and the
support space outside the actual person’s desk space.
There is a significant lack of conference space,
workroom, file room, reception, and gathering areas
promoting collaboration among workers and, more
importantly faculty and students.
JBA 1ncorported |
15
OCTOBER 2012
2.8.4
Study Space
The study space planning category consists of library
space and resource centers to store materials and study
spaces for use of those materials. Academic support
and service space associated with operating library
collections is also within this space category.
Spaces needed to support campus library materials and
collections are not as pressing as in the past, due to the
increased use of technology in higher education. The
Larimer Campus library is a joint effort with the Poudre
River Public Library District so space needs are not
solely driven by College requirements. At this time, it
appears the amount for shelving and stack space is
adequate to support the College.
The 2,970 assignable square foot deficit indicated by
the planning model is related to study space. The
Library building itself has ample study space, however
there is a lack of study areas intermixed throughout the
facilities on the campus. This space should be
distributed according to the location of the academic
programs, not necessarily in one location such as a
library. The 2,970 assignable square feet deficit will
provide enough study space for approximately 7.5% of
the student body. This is relatively low considering the
FRCC Larimer Campus is a commuter campus. The 7.5%
program target is an increase from today of
approximately 2%. The planning model can be adjusted
accordingly if it is found the demand increases over
7.5%.
2.8.5
Special Use Space
Special use space includes athletic and physical
education related space, clinic space, and greenhouse
space. The largest percentage of space needed in this
classification is for physical education and recreation. A
small gymnasium space or activity center is planned but
not mission critical. The 8,127 assignable square feet
deficit in Special Use is driven primarily by this larger
open space. Although not a major priority, as smaller
campuses grow, there is typically a demand for this type
of space for both academic and student life purposes.
JBA 1ncorported |
16
OCTOBER 2012
2.8.6
General Use Space
General use space includes food facilities, faculty and
student lounges, retail space for merchandise, small
amounts of exhibit/display space, tutoring space, and
meeting rooms.
The majority of the campus deficit in this space
classification resides within Student Life and Dining
Services. The Longs Peak Student Center is very popular
and is at capacity. It is used for a variety of activities
such as meetings, special events, day-to-day operations,
dining, study, and a variety of ad hoc uses. The space
analysis indicates a need for another 10,870 assignable
square feet of this type space to support both the
academic and student life communities.
2.8.7
Support and Service Spaces
Support and service space includes telecommunications,
computer support, shop space, central storage area,
service spaces, and hazardous material storage. Most of
the space is required to support all parts of the
academic communities.
There is a 4,597 assignable square foot deficit in a
variety of support and service spaces. The deficit is
primarily related to shop space in the industrial science
programs, campus central storage, and to support
technology.
JBA 1ncorported |
17
OCTOBER 2012
2.10.2 Existing Facilities Inventory
Non
Assignable
Square Feet
33%
Assignable
Square Feet
67%
Assignable vs. Non Assignable
Space Distribution
General
Use, 12,691
Special Use,
5,137
Support
Service,
21,897
Study,
18,668
Office,
41,762
Classroom,
49,762
Class
Laboratory,
35,502
Existing Space
During the 2012 space analysis and campus Master Plan
Update, JBA 1ncorporated worked with campus
personnel to establish the College's first space
inventory. The inventory is a detailed room-by-room
accounting of every square foot on the Larimer Campus.
The inventory describes each room’s location, size
number of stations within the room current use, and
program occupant.
The main campus consists of 151,116 assignable square
feet and 225,731 gross square feet. This constitutes
191,428 gross square feet on the main campus and
34,303 net square feet in leased space in Fort Collins
and Loveland. The assignable to gross ratio indicates
that 67% of the space on campus is being occupied and
utilized by programs. This is a slightly higher
percentage than many community colleges and small
universities throughout the country. Although this may
appear to be a positive use of facilities due to higher
efficiency, it is creating negative effects within public
spaces. The space planning model improves this ratio
and is specific to each space type so that ample space is
being planned for circulation, public gathering, building
service, special events, and overall quality of life within
the facility. Today, most of the non-assignable space is
designed as a minimum and is very crowded in most all
instances. Using the minimum guideline, or building
code requirements for this space type is typically not
recommended in higher education because of the
program use of non-assignable spaces.
Sixty-eight percent of the existing assignable square
feet consist of classrooms, laboratories, and office
space. The remaining 32% consists of support, service,
general use, special use, and library/study spaces.
Almost 46% of the entire campus is made up of
classroom and laboratory space and indicates an
unusually high percentage of the total assignable square
footage. As seen in the space analysis, a higher
percentage of the campus’s space needs are in
classroom and laboratory support spaces.
JBA 1ncorported |
18
OCTOBER 2012
3.1
Functional Diagrams
In order to meet the goals and objectives of the College’s
Master Plan Update, and provide the space necessary for
campus programs, the planning team first established
functional working concepts for planning. Functional diagrams
were developed to describe how the Larimer Campus plans to
organize its buildings and spaces. This promotes a high quality,
safe, efficient collegiate atmosphere.
The highest priority is to be student centric. This means putting
the most common student use spaces in the center of campus
whenever possible. This includes Student Life, Student Services,
and central academic support programs. These programs should
take a priority over classrooms and academics units. The more
common the space, the more centrally located it should be. The
more specific or unique the program, the further from the
center it should be. This concept was considered during the
implementation phase of the planning process when
determining what programs should be located in what areas of
campus.
Another set of adjacency concepts provided an additional layer
of detail regarding how the academic units should be
assembled. The most common spaces such as classrooms and
shareable labs should be centrally located within the various
disciplines (prefixes or departments) since these are the most
common needs to the academic units. Offices and laboratories
should be at a perimeter of an academic neighborhood due to
their program uniqueness.
When combining these two concepts, a final functional diagram
was created. This acts as a general land-use plan for how the
campus should be organized. The concept is to keep the
student center and any services as centrally located as possible.
Administrative services and campus operations/services will be
"back door" but somewhat central. Although these are central,
they can more remote due to their support role. Adjacent to the
student center, or “social center,” of the campus will be the
most commonly used academic spaces. These are the
classroom hubs in the adjacency diagram. Surrounding these
spaces are traditional academic programs offices and laboratory
spaces more specific to each discipline. During the
implementation phase of planning, the planning team used this
concept to recommend long-term locations of programs
throughout the campus. In some cases, programs were in ideal
JBA 1ncorported |
19
OCTOBER 2012
locations, but in other cases, programs will be relocated over
the long term to improve how the campus is laid out.
”
Program Adjacency Diagram
Program Location Concepts
JBA 1ncorported |
20
OCTOBER 2012
3.2
Program Neighborhoods
After the campus determined the appropriate planning
scenario, and finalized its space needs, it determined it
would implement a plan to address those needs in a
strategic manner that promotes collaboration and
interdisciplinary learning. The general concept is to colocate like programs within academic neighborhoods.
The campus established a series of 16 different
neighborhoods (10 academic, 3 student, and 3 general
campus and administrative). These were incorporated
into the functional planning diagrams and program
adjacency diagrams described in the previous section to
provide a foundation to plan and organize space by.
The space model was then expanded to determine the
space requirements per neighborhood. The amount
and type of space per neighborhood was then applied
to the existing buildings. This helped determine the
best locations, space available, and space required in
each area of campus.
The following Neighborhood Space Needs Chart
indicates the space requirements per neighborhood.
Classroom spaces are not included in the chart below
because these are considered shared spaces and not
dedicated to specific neighborhoods or programs.
Because of this, some areas are slightly skewed, such as
the health professions and the physical natural science
programs. In many cases these programs have a higher
number of dedicated instructional spaces included
within their existing space inventory. The important
factor is providing the projected amount of space in the
appropriate area on campus resulting in the highest and
best use of campus facilities.
JBA 1ncorported |
21
OCTOBER 2012
*Neighborhood space needs do not include classrooms
New Space Opportunities
Before recommending any solutions to the space issues,
the planning team studied the building capacity of the
Larimer Campus site. It was determined that there is a
potential to almost double the size of the current
campus within the property bounded by Shields Street,
Harmony Road and north of the current parking lots.
The site capacity study takes into account appropriate
open space concepts and density ratios to create a
collegiate atmosphere promoting collaboration. It was
determined that some facilities can be as high as three
stories but a majority would be two stories tall in the
future.
The amount of parking will be a major concern. If
adding facilities requires additional faculty, staff, and
JBA 1ncorported |
22
OCTOBER 2012
students, parking demand will increase. Parking and
building space are already beginning to compete for
land use. At this time, it was determined that it is not in
the best interests to locate any off-site programs to the
Larimer Campus site. In addition to the parking issue, it
didn’t appear to be any strong programmatic reason to
bring any off-site programs back to the main campus.
Campus Adjacencies
After identifying where there are opportunities to add
space to the campus, the program adjacencies were
applied. By converging space needs, program adjacency
requirements, and site opportunities, a conceptual land
use or long-term program location plan was
established. The Campus Adjacencies Map on the next
page indicates the long-term plan for desired
neighborhood locations.
JBA 1ncorported |
23
OCTOBER 2012
Redcloud
JBA 1ncorported |
24
OCTOBER 2012
Capital Planning
The Master Plan Update will require a series of capital
improvements throughout the campus. Although all
facilities require continuous maintenance and minor
improvements, there are five major projects envisioned
as funds become available.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Industrial Sciences (w/Maroon Peak)
Redcloud Peak Improvements
Mount Antero Improvements
Blanca Peak Improvements
Challenger Point Minor Renovations
The above projects are different from the previous
Master Plan due to the improvements completed since
the last Master Plan and the further study accomplished
through this update. There have been academic
advancements in the classrooms, new ways of
operating administratively, and a more aggressive
approach in utilizing our facilities. These reasons,
complemented by the fact this update involved many
more faculty and staff, resulted in a more detailed look
at space use and our limited resources
Each of the five sets of capital improvements are
described in the following pages. Each planned capital
improvement will be programmed individually. The
Master Plan concepts will likely change slightly during
the programming phase as further detail is studied and
individual programs are consulted.
JBA 1ncorported |
25
OCTOBER 2012
5
2
4
1
3
Industrial Sciences
JBA 1ncorported |
26
OCTOBER 2012
3.2.1
Industrial Sciences/Maroon Peak
The Industrial Sciences Center is a new facility that will
house the technology oriented programs such as auto
service, welding, HVAC clean energy and others
requiring large high-bay equipment intense space.
Initial studies indicate a facility of between 25,000 and
30,000 gross square feet will be necessary. It will be a
combination of a two-story space and single-story highbay space. The programs specific to this academic
neighborhood, and the associated programs within it,
make it ideal to be outside the central core and located
to the east of Starflower Drive. Initial concepts are to
locate the facility as far north in the current parking lot
as possible to reduce the impact and loss of parking on
the site. This is adjacent to the current facilities building
on the eastern edge of the campus site. The site is ideal
for programs that require outside storage, vehicular
access, and use of the campus site to be successful.
Included in this project is the reuse and renovation of
Maroon Peak. The location, size, and current quality of
Maroon Peak will lend itself to minor renovations in
support of the Veterinary Technology programs.
Classrooms in Maroon Peak will be relocated to the
central academic core near or within Redcloud Peak.
JBA 1ncorported |
27
OCTOBER 2012
1
Industrial Sciences/Maroon Peak
Industrial Sciences
25,000-30,000 GSF
(Project)
Automotive Technology
Welding
Clean Energy Programs
Veterinary Technology
(Maroon Peak)
JBA 1ncorported |
28
OCTOBER 2012
3.2.2
Redcloud Peak Improvements
Following the construction of a new Industrial Sciences
Center, the College plans to renovate and potentially
add a new wing to Redcloud Peak. This can be done in
multiple phases as funds are available. Current funds
are available for the renovation phase but not for the
addition. The intent is to reinvent Redcloud Peak as the
center to many of the arts, social sciences, and
humanities programs, supplemented with campus
support units. The facility is a high-bay facility ideal for
many of the performing arts and visual arts programs.
Its central location is ideal for classroom facilities and
many the instructional laboratories for the programs in
the arts, humanities, and some social sciences.
A new addition will act as a prominent entry icon into
the campus at Starflower Drive. The addition, and the
relocation of many of the technology-support sheds,
will also help create a courtyard for gathering, special
events, and study. The addition and renovation will
greatly enhance the campus image to the community as
well as provide space in a sustainable, cost-effective
manner.
JBA 1ncorported |
29
OCTOBER 2012
2
Automotive Technology
Welding Technology
Clean Energy Programs
Veterinary Technology
(Project)
Interior Design
Horticulture
NAES
JBA 1ncorported |
30
OCTOBER 2012
3.2.3
Mount Antero Improvements
Following improvements to Redcloud Peak, and the
construction of the Industrial Sciences Center, Mount
Antero can be reinvented in support of student life
programs, student services, and other central academic
support for students. Its location as the central
gateway into the campus makes it ideal for addressing
the space needs associated with central student
programs. A small addition on the northeast and south
central sides will improve the ability to revitalize the
facility, providing much-needed space and create a
main pedestrian gateway into the academic core. The
adjacency to the Student Center and its central location
make it ideal for general student- oriented programs
(not academic specific). It's ideal for renovation and is a
key to completing the overall reorganization of program
relationships and campus land use. This will have the
biggest impact on improving the relationships among
program, buildings, open space, parking, and access to,
from, and within campus.
Mount Antero Concept
JBA 1ncorported |
31
OCTOBER 2012
3
(Project)
JBA 1ncorported |
32
OCTOBER 2012
3.2.4
Blanca Peak Improvements
Blanca Peak is the most centrally located facility at the
Larimer Campus. This is ideal for common academic
programs as well as Student Life programs. The intent
is to enclose the western courtyard and provide student
study and gathering space. The existing facility will be
renovated in a way that engages that courtyard while
providing additional space for central academic units.
The concept would be to create a multipurpose space
that is academically oriented, used for quiet study or
small group gatherings during the day and potentially
for special events or larger group gatherings in the
evenings/weekends. This helps mitigate the lack of
student study and gathering areas on the campus as
well as distribute them away from both the dining
center and the library. This improves poorly used
campus real estate while also improving the connection
between the wings of the existing facility.
Blanca Peak
JBA 1ncorported |
33
OCTOBER 2012
4
(Project)
JBA 1ncorported |
34
OCTOBER 2012
3.2.5
Challenger Point Minor Renovations
Minor improvements are necessary to Challenger Point
so it can become the new home for many of the healthrelated programs. Creating a new neighborhood for the
health professions will improve the adjacencies
between the health programs and sciences. A number
of general assignment classrooms will be relocated to
the centrally located Blanca Peak and Redcloud Peak.
Besides the improved adjacency between the health
and science programs, this consolidates many of the
health-related programs. It may be determined during
the programming that all programs may not want to be
co-located in Challenger but this is a safe concept from
a Master Planning perspective. Challenger Point is at
the northern edge of campus so it is ideal for more laboriented programs in lieu of general assignment
classrooms.
5
(Project)
JBA 1ncorported |
35
OCTOBER 2012
3.5
Implementation Priorities and Schedule
The planning team and campus leadership developed a series of
metrics to help decide the priorities of the planned
improvements. It is clear there is more need than funding
available, and it was important to determine the priorities
based on fact. The planning team developed the following list of
criteria used to evaluate the priority of each of the five major
improvements.
The team weighted each of the above prioritization factors,
placing an emphasis on issues that range from health and life
safety issues to campus- wide strategic issues. Campus
leadership used the metrics to help determine the capital
priorities. It was clear that creation of the Industrial Sciences
Center provided space by which their existing space could be
repurposed for others. The sequencing needed to begin with
the new Industrial Sciences Center, thus making it a priority to
all programs and easily supported by the campus community.
The following is a summary of the five major projects cost
estimates. As the campus does a program plan for each project,
further detail will be available to determine exactly how each
budget will be utilized. Current project budgets are based on
the assumed program changes, local construction market,
current economy, and recent projects of similar type. This
provides sound planning budgets for Master Planning purposes.
JBA 1ncorported |
36
OCTOBER 2012
(Project)
Industrial
Sciences/
Maroon Peak
Redcloud Peak
Improvements
Mount Antero
Improvements
Blanca Peak
Improvements
Challenger Point
Improvements
JBA 1ncorported |
37
OCTOBER 2012
4.3
Appendix C:
Building Inventory
Space Analysis/Projections
The following pages include the existing space inventory
organized by building and the space analysis by
program. Programs are scattered among a variety of
buildings, so space evaluations are done by program.
Building Inventory
This is for assignable space only. Restrooms, corridors,
building service, and other building support spaces are
not included, but is available.
Space Analysis/Projections
The space analysis was done on a prefix or program
level. Each prefix was organized under academic and
student life neighborhoods for facility planning
purposes due to the necessity of programs collaborating
and working together. For consistency purposes this is
assignable spaces only.
JBA 1ncorported |
38
OCTOBER 2012
JBA 1ncorported |
39
OCTOBER 2012
JBA 1ncorported |
40
OCTOBER 2012
JBA 1ncorported |
41

Front Range Community College Larimer Campus Master Plan

Transcription

Similar documents

A Whole New World: Welcome to Michigan Tech

this is a school worth visiting because james madison high school

LPU Batangas vicinity map - Lyceum of the Philippines University

Campus SBB

File - Indus International School, Hyderabad

June 2015

NexDine Catering Information

Springfield Technical Community College, Building 19

The Soft Skills of Nursing

revised hurrican - University of Mobile