Facilities Master Plan Update Larimer Campus

Transcription

1 Front Range Community College Facilities Master Plan Update Larimer Campus October 2012 Update to the 2007 Master Plan Front Range Community College 4616 South Shields Street Fort Collins, CO

2 Facilities Master Plan Update Larimer Campus An Update to the 2007 Larimer Campus Master Plan Prepared by: JBA 1ncorporated Joe Bilotta Vickie Stimac Front Range Community College 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

3 Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Executive Summary Introduction Existing Master Plan Update Sections Planning Process Building Space Projections Classrooms Instructional Laboratories Office Space Study Space Special Use Space General Use Space Support and Service Spaces Existing Facilities Inventory Functional Diagrams Implementation Requirements Industrial Sciences/Maroon Peak Redcloud Peak Improvements Mount Antero Improvements Blanca Peak Improvements Challenger Point Minor Renovations Implementation Priorities and Schedule Appendix C: Building Inventory 38 Space Projections JBA 1ncorported 2

4 1.0 Executive Summary 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 It will be followed by Redcloud Peak/Mount Antero programming in the winter of JBA 1ncorported 3

5 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 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 Building Space Projections Existing Facilities Inventory 3.1 Functional Diagrams 3.2 Implementation Requirements 3.4 Implementation Estimates of Cost 3.5 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

6 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 persons Group Learning spaces of 15-29, 30-49, and persons Collaborative spaces of 9-14, 15-29, and 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, persons Studio spaces of 15-29, persons Bench spaces of 15-29, persons Custom labs of 15-29, 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

7 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

8 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

9 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 ASF/Stn Lecture Lecture Lecture Group Learning Group Learning Group Learning Collaborative Collaborative Collaborative Lab Space Computer/analytical Computer/analytical Studio Studio Bench Bench Custom labs of varies per dept. Custom lab varies per dept. Offices Large Private offices 180 Medium Private Office 140 Small Private Office 120 Collaborative office environments 120 Single Shared office (for every 5 persons) 140 Open Shared office (for every 5 persons) 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

10 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

11 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

12 2.8 Building Space Projections 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 ,000 50,000 40,000 Existing Area (ASF) Required Area (ASF) 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 JBA 1ncorported 11

13 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 Existing Area (ASF) 60,000 50,000 Required Area (ASF) 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 JBA 1ncorported 12

14 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

15 lecturing collaborative spaces will be necessary in the future and a lower percentage of lecture space will be necessary 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

16 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

17 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% 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

18 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 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

19 Non Assignable Square Feet 33% Assignable Square Feet 67% Existing Facilities Inventory 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. Special Use, 5,137 Assignable vs. Non Assignable Space Distribution General Use, 12,691 Study, 18,668 Support Service, 21,897 Office, 41,762 Existing Space Classroom, 49,762 Class Laboratory, 35,502 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

20 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

21 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

22 3.2 Implementation Requirements 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

23 *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

24 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

25 Redcloud JBA 1ncorported 24

26 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. Industrial Sciences (w/maroon Peak) 2. Redcloud Peak Improvements 3. Mount Antero Improvements 4. Blanca Peak Improvements 5. 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

27 Industrial Sciences JBA 1ncorported 26

28 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

29 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

30 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

31 2 Automotive Technology Welding Technology Clean Energy Programs Veterinary Technology (Project) Interior Design Horticulture NAES JBA 1ncorported 30

32 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

33 3 (Project) JBA 1ncorported 32

34 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

35 4 (Project) JBA 1ncorported 34

36 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

37 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

38 Industrial Sciences/ Maroon Peak (Project) Redcloud Peak Improvements Mount Antero Improvements Blanca Peak Improvements Challenger Point Improvements JBA 1ncorported 37

39 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

40 JBA 1ncorported 39

41 JBA 1ncorported 40

42 JBA 1ncorported 41