program plan - colorado state university · 2015-05-05 · the program plan for the aggie village...

Colorado State UniversityAggie Village North Redevelopment

28 June 2013 4240 Architecture Inc

PROGRAM PLAN

i 4240 Architecture Inc

ii Acknowledgements

The Program Plan for the Aggie Village North Redevelopment was developed through collaborative programming and review. The project includes the following programming committee members:

Programming Committee Members

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT • Mike Rush, AIA, University Architect • Fred Haberecht, Facilities Planning/ Landscape Architect • Per Hogestad, Assistant Director • Cass Beitler, Project Manager HOUSING AND DINING SERVICES • James Dolak, Executive Director • Mari Strombom, Associate Executive Director • Rick Pott, Facilities Planning & Project Support

• Nancy McDonald, Manager, HDS Administration • Tonie Miyamoto, Director, Communications • Lew Sutphin, Director, Operations Management • Deon Lategan, Director Residential Dining

RESIDENCE LIFE • Laura Giles, Director

• John Malsam, Assistant Director

APARTMENT LIFE • Christie Matthews, Director • Hosam Ahmad, Assistant Director

DESIGN CONSULTANTS FOR PROGRAM PLANNING 4240 Architecture Inc. • Lou Bieker • Tracy Hart • Izabela Rydel • Marc Snyder • Ian Wilson • DJ Gratzer • Michele Decker Brailsford & Dunleavy Inc. • Daniel Durack • Kirsten Freiberger Cator Ruma & Associates • Dennis Rudko • Jackie Rudko KL&A, Inc. • Greg Kingsley • Jake Hohmann JVA Consulting Engineers • Jason Claeys Russell & Mills Studios • Craig Russell Cumming • Stefan Coca

iii Table of Contents

Section Subject Page

I. Executive Summary 09

Programmatic Justifi cation 11 Funding 11 Site 12 Schedule 12 Project Description 12 Conclusion 13

II. Existing Conditions 15 Existing Conditions 16 Existing Site Analysis 16 Equipment Requirements 17 Acquisition of Real Estate Property 17 Previous Improvements 17 Site Photos 18

III. Relation to the Master Plan/Other Projects 21

Physical Master Plan 22 Flood Mitigation Analysis 22 Parking and Biking 22 Utilities 22 Landscaping 23 Information Technology 23 Relation to Academic or Institutional Strategic Plans 23 Relation to Other Programs or Agencies 23 Existing Programmatic / Operational Defi ciencies 23

IV. Program Information 25

Vision/Mission Statement/Overall Description of Program 27 Staff 27 Program Summary 27 Role and Mission 28 History 28 Program Needs and Trends 28

iv Table of Contents

Section Subject Page

Survey Analysis Summary 28 Benefi ts of the Project 29 Program Alternatives 30

V. Facilities Needs 31

Total Space Requirements 33 Apartment Unit Opportunities 34 Floor Plan Opportunities 34 Exterior and Interior Materials 35 Health, Life Safety and Code Issues 35 Code Review 36

VI. Project Description 39

Concept Narrative 41 Civil Narrative 42 Site and Landscape Narrative 45 Structural Narrative 46 Mechanical Narrative 48 Plumbing Narrative 49 Electrical Narrative 50 Electrical Lighting Narrative 50 Electrical Special Systems Narrative 52 Sustainability Narrative 53 CSU Standards 55 Project Cost Estimate 55 Project Budget 55 Project Schedule 55

VII. Appendix 57 Appendix A - Project Schedule Appendix B - Competitive Context Analysis Appendix C - Survey Analysis Appendix D - Program Development Appendix E - Concept Exploration Appendix F - Project Cost Estimate Appendix G - LEED Scorecard

9 I. Executive Summary


Programmatic Justifi cationThe proposed project supports the University’s strategic goals of increasing enrollment by offering additional student housing; more specifi cally, on- campus apartment living. Prospective students typically know whether or not they would like to attend a particular university within minutes of their arrival on campus.

The following information highlights the reasons why this project is both necessary and timely.

Enrollment increases projected for the next • 5-10 years translates to additional Housing beds required;The existing apartments have had minor • renovations and provide basic housing which is below our current quality and operational housing standards;The existing Aggie North site location is ideal for • extending the CSU & HDS brand to the south and establishing a welcoming fi rst impression and campus gateway;Site location provides a strategic advantage for • HDS in student apartment housing by being in near proximity to the main academic core;With the successful delivery of this new • apartment project, CSU & HDS will have a greater ability to attract and retain students on campus;The existing Aggie North site is under-utilized • and can support approximately 3 times the current density and still remain within the current and projected scale of the surrounding context;The project will serve the needs of three • distinct student communities: ICC (Intercultural Connections Community), unaffi liated undergraduate students and graduate / post doc / scholar students with a focus on providing a unique residential learning community.

If there are remaining funds available at the end • of the construction phase due to favorable bid / construction climate, we will look at options of using the money to fund additional needed projects, such as the remodel of Corbett/Parmelee Dining Facility.

FundingThis cash-funded project, including fi nancing costs, will be fi nanced through a revenue bond supported entirely by the Department of Housing and Dining Services revenue.

The University is in the process of determining the best way to accommodate the academic space and additional property acquisition that has been identifi ed in the project. There are several options in regards to how the project will ultimately be developed. These include the $101.5 M base scope as documented in this plan. We are in discussions with the City of Fort Collins to determine the required Plant Investment Fees ( PIFS) that will be assessed against the project. At the time of this writing we are carrying an additional $2M to support these anticipated PIF’s. There is also an option to purchase property adjacent the development that might be carried in this project. This would equate to an approximate $3M expenditure. For the purposes of requesting cash spending authority, we are requesting the $114M which includes all of the options for project development. The options are outlined below: 1. $101.5M = Base Scope as programmed and documented.2. $103.5M = Base + the $2M in potential CFC PIFS.3. $106.5M = $103.5 + $3M in site improvements.4. $111M = $103.5M+ $7.5M in academic space.5. $114M = $103.5M+$3M +$7.5M – CFC PIFS, site improvements and academic space.

Aggie Village North is well positioned to present a fi rst impression that will attract and retain students and further position CSU as a leader in providing innovative, integrated apartment living.


SiteThe overall study area seeks to expand the experiential campus edge by introducing an integrated, walkable community with an architectural brand identifi cation built around the CSU / HDS palette. Located along Center Avenue, between Lake Street and Prospect Road, the Aggie Village North site is ideally located to become the formal gateway to the main campus core. Further, the Aggie Village North site will be designed to engage the public edges in order to begin to articulate a pedestrian friendly, animated village street-scape; specifi cally along Center Avenue and Lake Street.

The existing site is approximately 8.4 acres (365,000sf) and is bound to the west by 8 single family residences which front Whitcomb Street. Within this project’s base scope, there are no immediate plans for redevelopment of these residences. The primary grade of the site slopes from southwest to northeast with the 100 year fl oodplain encroaching slightly on the northeast corner of the site. However, no new building development is contemplated within this area. Along the south edge, fronting Prospect Rd., exist a mature line of evergreen trees which are to remain to provide visual and noise separation for the site. Site work will be required to comply with CSU landscape standards.

ScheduleDepending upon project approval and spending authority, it is the request and recommendation to proceed with the Aggie Village North Apartments design commencing August 2013. The entire design, documentation and permitting duration is estimated to be 14 months. Aggie Village North construction is targeted to begin during the Fall of 2014 and be completed by late Spring of 2016 - a total of 20 months construction duration. See Appendix A for detailed graphic schedule.

Project DescriptionThe project will consist of a comprehensive site redevelopment of the existing Aggie Village North Apartments. The existing buildings and hardscape will be deconstructed to allow for the development of approximately 408,000 gross square feet of new student apartment housing. Additionally, the site will accommodate up to 250 garage parking spaces and 50 surface parking spaces integrated in strategic ways to allow for a range of pedestrian focused plazas, courtyards, lawns and exterior programmed spaces. Signifi cant open space will be preserved to maintain and celebrate the residential experience and leverage the favorable Colorado climate.

The completed project will accommodate and primarily serve the needs of 3 distinct student communities; the Intercultural Connections Community (ICC), the unaffi liated undergraduate community and the graduate / post doc / scholar community. The 1000 beds will be dispersed between a variety of unit types; studio through 4 bedroom confi gurations. To help support the vitality of the residential experience, the project will also provide amenity and community programming spaces, such as student lounges, group kitchens and large fl ex rooms. Further, modest retail shell space will be programmed along Center Avenue in an effort to maintain the energy fl owing from campus and encourage life, vitality and community interaction along the public edges.

As part of an alternate to the base program, 25,000gsf of general classroom and academic offi ce space is being considered on this site. Currently, the cost of the academic alternate is not being carried within this project’s proforma, but is outlined in the Program Alternatives section of this document.

1000 Beds


ConclusionBy redeveloping the existing Aggie Village North Apartments,

The focus of this redevelopment shall:Provide 1000 new, on-campus beds to our • apartment portfolio for 3 distinct student communities: ICC, unaffi liated undergraduate and graduate students;Provide fl exibility in unit types / confi gurations • to be able to accommodate long term evolving student housing needs;Provide a variety of unit types and confi gurations • thus appealing to a wide range of students; Provide up to 300 vehicle parking spaces and 800 • bicycle parking spaces on site;Establish a strong “front door” for the southern • edge of CSU’s main campus by building on CSU and HDS brand identifi cation;Provide the catalyst for extending an integrated, • student friendly campus connection between the main campus and south campus;Incorporate high performance, functionally • appropriate strategies within the project to help CSU move towards our carbon neutral goals.

The overall Base Project Budget is estimated at approximately $101,500,000 including design, project management and construction. This budget also includes the Fixtures, Furnishings and Equipment needed to furnish the completed student housing project. In order to maximize the available project budget and realize the complete project scope, as outlined herein, as well as, manage anticipated cost fl uctuations in the construction market, a number of “cost / scope safety valve” strategies have been envisioned for this project. These strategies are discussed in greater detail later in the Project Budget narrative section of this document.

Colorado State University will be able to increase student housing capacity on the main campus and expand the desirability and options of our campus housing portfolio.

15 II. Existing Conditions

Aggie Village North Site

Lake Street

Prospect Road

Whi

tcom

b St

reet

Cen

ter

Aven

ue

16 II. Existing Conditions existing 2-bed unit layout

Existing Conditions Aggie Village North sits strategically at the southern edge of the CSU core campus between Lake Street and Prospect Road to the north and south, respectively, and Center Avenue to the east. To the west of the site are 8 privately owned single family lots which, at this time, will remain during the revitalization of Aggie Village North. Current layout of the apartment buildings has allowed for the development and growth of signifi cant vegetation (specifi cally trees) that provide shade throughout the site and noise and view buffers along Prospect Road. The existing Aggie Village North apartments are exterior load bearing masonry walls with concrete fl oor / wood roof structure. The structure, exterior skin, functional layouts and aesthetic contribution are all well beyond their useful life and have little continued value.

Existing Site Analysis The existing Aggie Village North site is approximately 8.4 acres and is comprised of signifi cant vegetation growth, asphalt surface parking lots, 17 one and two-story residential buildings and turf lawns. The site currently provides bike parking, pedestrian access and vehicle parking. Two curb cuts provide vehicular site access along Lake Street.

• The MV electric service is from the City and the new installation supersedes the original E-site. The services the city utilizes are under a ‘use agreement’ and can be moved without legal changes.

• Steam/Condensate lines will be abandoned. The original loop steam system running under the buildings was abandoned in place and the new steam condensate runs through the middle of the complex

and then to mechanical rooms at various locations. Service comes in off Center Ave. and will be cut, capped and abandoned at the intersection of Lake and Center as the extension to South Aggie site has already been abandoned.

• Pneumatic control air distribution system will be abandoned.

• Sanitary will connect to (E) inverts as they leave the site. Capacity will be reviewed during the design phase with the projected fi xture counts.

• An existing 42”storm water line runs along the west edge of the property and will remain in place. The new design will target to stay within the existing amount of impervious surface to avoid the need for any upgrades to existing capacity.

• Natural gas service will be new to the site. It is a goal to establish ‘use agreements’ and not grant easements with Xcel.

• Fiber optics and CATV service is CSU owned and enters from Center Avenue.

• All existing buildings are slab on grade with the exception of a small utility basement in the center of each of the 10 two-story buildings.

365,700 sf8.4 Acres

LAKE ST.

PROSPECT RD.

WH

ITC

OM

B S

T.

CEN

TER

AVE

.

existing utility map


Equipment RequirementsThe new Aggie Village North facilities will be equipped with a similar elevator confi guration to Laurel Village and will serve the accessible and operational requirements for all 3 residential communities and supporting functions. This project does not anticipate a central plant to be provided within the scope of work. See Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing project description for detailed information on the equipment requirements, system integration and optimization goals for the new construction.

Acquisition of Real Estate PropertyNo land acquisition is necessary. CSU owns the proposed buildings and project site.

Previous ImprovementsMinor improvements have been observed or recorded for the Aggie Village North site, beyond the original year construction and ongoing facility maintenance requirements.

Proposed Stadium Program

Positive Existing Vegetation

Solar Path

Pedestrian / Bicycle

Vehicle Traffi c

Site Analysis


Center Avenue looking south

Looking into Aggie Village North from Prospect Road Looking west along Lake Street

Center Ave looking north into campus spine

2 3

4

1

1

3 4

2

Looking from the Outside-In:Initial impressions of the site reveal an apartment complex with little to no interaction with the surrounding campus context. The buildings are low profi le, the edge conditions are inconsistent, and there is no distinguishable front door to the community. The site, however, does have many opportunities inherent within it’s location to help CSU and HDS establish a

Located along Prospect Rd., Center Ave. and Lake St., Ag-gie Village North can implement porous edges to allow the campus energy (and informal boundary) to fl ow south through the site.

Gateway to campus and continue to build a Marketable Brand.

Lake St.

Prospect Rd.

Whi

tcom

b St

.

Cen

ter

Ave.


Aggie Village North courtyard

Aggie Village North courtyard from Prospect Road Aggie Village North courtyard

Aggie Village North apartments and parking

1

1

3

3

4

4

2

2

Looking from the Inside-Out:The existing site is highlighted by large, open courtyards that provide a natural oasis to the residential community.

The existing buildings are unremarkable and prominently show their 50+ year age.

The new design will strive to preserve the quality and sense of place inherent within the “in-between” spaces.

Lake St.

Prospect Rd.

Whi

tcom

b St

.

Cen

ter

Ave.

III. Relation to the Master Plan / Other Projects 21

Campus and Community Connections

Prospect Road is a signifi cant 4 lane arterial road which connects I-25 to the foothills and bisects CSU’s campus. Center Avenue runs north and south, and is the primary link between CSU’s Main Campus and South Campus. The Aggie Village North Site is ideally positioned at the northwest corner of Prospect Rd. and Center Ave. and has the potential to articulate an arrival gateway for CSU, while extending Main Campus growth to ultimately connect with South Cam-pus. Furthermore, with the Prospect Station for the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit project located less than a 10 minute walk away, the Aggie Village North Site is prime to attract students interested in connecting with the greater Fort Collins community.


Physical Master PlanThe goals of this project fi t within the guidelines of the Colorado State University Housing and Dining Services Master Plan of 02 January 2009, by providing a housing option that

Flood Mitigation AnalysisThe fi rst Master Drainage Plan for CSU was completed by Ayres Associates in June 1996. On July 28, of the following year, Fort Collins experienced a signifi cant storm event that caused approximately $150 million in damages to campus facilities. Very few of the master planned facilities were constructed prior to the 1997 fl ood. A draft Master Plan Update was completed in January 2001 with the purpose of identifying the best possible drainage improvement alternatives. The current Master Plan Update was completed by Ayres Associates in April 2003 and includes the as-built analysis of the Phase I and II improvements that were constructed. The existing fl oodplain on the CSU campus is the result of the following:

• Off-site fl ows entering the CSU campus from the City of Fort Collins Canal Importation Basin. These fl ows enter campus from the west side of Shields with a particular concentration at the Shields and Elizabeth Street intersection.• CSU campus encompasses approximately 375 acres of mixed use development. Much of the campus is developed and highly impervious (which generates a lot of runoff) with the exception of the open space and recreation fi elds. • Existing storm drainage system is small and complex, and provides very little conveyance capacity during large storm events, so most of the storm fl ows travel via overland or surface fl ow. • The current Master Drainage Plan document is a summary of the work that has been done, and also provides a guide for additional work that still needs to be done. This Master Plan also serves as a warning

as to the complexity and sensitivity of CSU’s storm drainage system. No additional work of any kind should be done without looking at the impacts to the storm drainage conveyance and fl ooding elevations. • The Aggie Village North site encroaches slightly (see inset image) on the 100 year fl oodplain at the northeast corner of the site. All future structured development on site will stay out of this area.

Parking and BikingThe Program Plan execution will bring roughly 700 incremental beds to Campus which will create immediate parking demand as several existing on-site parking lots will be redeveloped. The immediate Aggie Village North site parking loss is estimated at 140 spaces. Also, with the potential for additional campus development (i.e. the stadium) more adjacent surface lots could be lost to development. New construction for the project will provide roughly 300 new surface and podium garage parking spaces. Additional site parking needs, should future demand warrant, will be accommodated through off-site surface lots that have excess capacity. Further study will be needed to develop comprehensive campus parking solutions.

Bike parking will be ample and will provide a targeted rack space to resident ratio of 80% (roughly 800 spaces for 1000 beds). Some of these spaces could be covered or indoors as part of a rental or bike sharing program.

UtilitiesAll necessary utilities (electric, water, sanitary sewer and fi ber optics) already exist coming to the site, except forgas. A newconnectionwill be made withthe service lineat Aggie Village South.

fosters a strong sense of community while helping to recruit and retain students.

fl oodplain map

lake street


LandscapingThe proposed landscape improvements envision the complete revitalization of the Aggie North site.

Other campus initiatives under the Campus Housing Landscape Master Plan will mesh the proposed Aggie Village North redevelopment into a cohesive, inviting student environment. It is anticipated that the mature vegetation along Prospect Road will be maintained to provide sound and view mitigation.

Information TechnologyThe proposed Aggie Village North apartments, including community spaces, will also be served with both hard-wired and wireless network connectivity. Existing campus single and multi-mode fi ber optic networks have ample capacity for expansion.

Relation to Academic or Institutional Strategic PlansAs identifi ed in the “Housing and Dining Services Master Plan” of 02 January 2009, the Colorado State University Strategic Plan has set a goal of adding new and retaining existing students. The projected increase in student population will create a demand for up to an additional 1400 beds. The revitalization to New Aggie Village North supports this growth trend by providing an additional 700 on-campus apartment beds and strengthens the CSU branding vernacular on the southern edge of campus.

Relation to Other Programs or AgenciesThe Housing and Dining Services Department is not directly related to any academic program. It does, however, provide a necessary service to students desiring on-campus housing. It is highly supportive of residential learning communities that encourage and enhance retention of upper class students on campus.

This project has a unique opportunity to vastly improve the desirability of CSU apartment living on campus.

Existing Programmatic / Operational Defi cienciesExisting programmatic defi ciencies include an existing student bed-base shortfall to support higher University enrollment projections, coupled with the goal to provide a high quality on-campus apartment product desirable to upperclassmen, graduate and international students. Operational defi ciencies within the existing Aggie Village North buildings are incurred due to outdated facilities and limited interior renovations throughout the +50-year life of the buildings. Poor thermal performance, relatively high operating costs, limited life safety upgrades and increased maintenance costs are all areas of defi ciency to be addressed within the project scope. Within the Aggie Village North site, aging student apartments are well beyond their useful lifespan and provide little value (functional or aesthetic) to be maintained. Continued operation and/or improvements are deemed non-economical for these structures.

A wide-range of outdoor spaces will help create varieties of scale, activity, and refl ection in both the public and private realms of the site.


Housing and Dining Services Masterplan

Aggie Village North Apartments

25 IV. Program Information


Vision / Mission Statement / Overall Description of ProgramConsistent with the University’s strategic plan of increasing new student enrollment, the Housing and Dining Services Master Plan (HDS Master Plan) of 02 January 2009, identifi es a demand for additional options for campus housing. The plan for the expansion must be fl exible to accommodate fl uctuations in enrollment, volatility in the construction market, and variations on available funding. The HDS Master Plan establishes the building and site design character as well as the maximum acceptable density on the main campus sites within the Housing and Dining portfolio.Apartment Life at Colorado State University strives to foster personal growth, to provide educational opportunities, and to increase global awareness in their communities. Specifi cally, Aggie Village North will provide:

• Student choices and variety of apartment types; • Flexible and student focused amenity and support spaces centered around learning and community buildings; • Informal “village” site concept to encourage community and student interaction; • Near proximity to existing campus to develop academic synergies and student density to establish active and vital village.

StaffResident students are anticipated to be engaged to help staff the multiple buildings and provide services to the multiple communities. Student staff members will be encouraged to serve as leaders in their communities, while providing a service based in effi ciency, convenience and positive relationships. It is also anticipated Aggie Village will employ a fully functioning maintenance and operations staff who will leverage the resources of the adjacent university.

Program Summary AGGIE VILLAGE NORTHBase program:The base program will include a minimum of 1000 new beds (490 units), ranging from studios to 4-br apartments - see space program for allocation. All apartments will have shared access to a range of stu-dent amenity spaces; large community lounges (with kitchens), small fl oor lounges, group study rooms, laundry, mail and support services. Additionally, a staff offi ce suite will be provided on site for up to 4 staff members. Modest retail shell space will also be provided and will serve the residential community as well as the adjacent student population. Parking will be included in the program at a ratio of 1 car per 4 students; in other words, 250 spaces. A key part of the success of the program will be the diversity and activation of the “in-between” spaces.

Alternate Program:As an alternate to the base program, 25,000 gsf of academic space is being considered for the project. The academic space would serve a dualistic purpose; accommodating campus general purpose classroom needs during the day and providing valuable fl ex programming space for the residential community during the evening and weekends.

The variety of courtyard and pedestrian streetscapes will provide a multi-layered and animated outdoor amenity that will contribute to the overall success of the program.

ICC CommunityUndergraduateGraduate / ScholarResident AssistantCommunity Support

Base Space Allocation


Role and MissionHousing and Dining Services is a cash-funded auxiliary enterprise operating under the umbrella of Vice President for Student Affairs within the Colorado State University System.

Vision: The best living and learning experience in higher education.

Mission: We create housing and dining experiences that enhance personal growth and global engagement.

Values: Customer First Service • Commitment to Students and Staff • Integrity • Respect and Teamwork • Inclusiveness and Diversity • Innovation • Stewardship.

HistoryHousing and Dining Services is responsible for the management, fi nance, administration, and program development of all University housing facilities, including thirteen residence halls that house about 5,300 students, 836 apartment units, and the facilities on the Pingree Park Mountain Campus. Major areas of the Department include Residence Life, Apartment Life, Conference Services, Dining Services, Operations Management, Pingree Park, and University ID and Vending. More than 1,300 people are employed annually in the department, with about 400 of these being full-time.

Program Needs and TrendsThe needs of the project include the creation of new upper class apartment housing to meet the growing needs of the ICC (Intercultural Connections Community), unaffi liated upperclassmen and graduate/scholars student communities. The new Aggie Village North program is designed around

creating a durable, lasting and desirable apartment housing product which will provide CSU and HDS with an attractive student housing option and round out their housing portfolio. The program

also serves the need for multi-purpose spaces that are fl exible enough to accommodate and adapt to future housing demands and student use trends.

Survey Analysis Summary(see Appendix C for complete survey analysis)

Objective:Brailsford & Dunleavy (B&D) reviewed the survey results provided by Colorado State University’s Offi ce of Off-Campus Life in the annual “Student Housing Rental Survey” for 2013. The goal was to gather information on current student desires and housing trends in an effort to facilitate forward-thinking programming decisions. These results are one of the resources that will help shape the decisions surrounding the redevelopment of Aggie Village North.

Summary of Findings:During Fall 2012 and Spring 2013, B&D was part of a project plan team for the redevelopment of the Aggie Village North site. Part of this project involved the assessment and potential for new on-campus apartments. In lieu of a survey conducted by B&D, CSU provided access to their annual “Student Rental Survey” results and the opportunity to add a few project-specifi c questions. The results were used as a tool to help support decisions on demand, unit mix, pricing, and other preferences. Based on results discussed in this section, several conclusions can be drawn from the student responses to the survey:

Figure: Students who selected very to extremely important (combined) - private bed or private bath

Extr

emel

y

2013 Student Housing Survey Highlights

Private Bedrooms

Utilities Included

Apartment Style Living

Proximity To Campus

Affordable

Importance

Not

at a

ll


Survey Results:84% of students rent off-campus and most rent • apartments (38%) and houses (34%).Seniors (87%) and international students (87%) • are more likely to be renters than other groups.78% of students live within 2 miles of campus, • while only 9% live farther than 4 miles from campus.Only a 1/3 of students drive to campus, while the • rest take alternative modes of transit.There is a higher preference for private bedrooms • (87%) than there are for private bathrooms (52%).Juniors and Seniors are more likely to stay in Fort • Collins during the summer months (59% & 60%).Overall, a 12-month lease was slightly more • preferred by student (39% vs. 24%). However, international students (38% vs. 30%)) and those who were interested in on-campus apartments preferred an academic year lease (45% vs. 35%).Only a 1/3 of students were “very to extremely • interested” in new on-campus apartments. Overwhelmingly, the international student population was 56% “very to extremely interested” in new on-campus apartments.CSU students expressed some unique concerns • in the comments section of the survey: pet-friendly rentals, dishonest landlords, over 21 policies, and high cost of on-campus housing.

Figure: Interest in new on-campus apartments

Benefi ts of the ProjectBenefi ts of the project are numerous. The primary benefi t will be increasing the number of beds for Apartment Life to accommodate projected enrollment growth with a variety of new unit and programmatic options. The desirable location of this new student housing will focus on upper-class student retention. Providing a unique, fi nancially competitive living experience immediately adjacent to the academic core will be very attractive to current and potential students. The project will also serve as a necessary “front door” gateway for the University.

Additional Benefi ts:• This project will provide a unique product to the CSU housing portfolio which will distinguish the University as an innovative, forward-thinking and desirable housing option;• A fl exible design solution will accommodate future student housing needs and the potential for residential community re-allocation;• Common, individually scaled open-space areas will create added amenities for students to gather, interact and connect with nature. The village approach of layering scaled habitats will enhance the sense of community;• Strategically located student amenity space will encourage living synergies between different residential communities which would otherwise never connect; • High-performance design goals will reduce operating costs on a per student basis and will help serve as a model for future campus building projects;• Build on the success of Academic Village & Laurel Village with new buildings that continue to evolve to meet the needs of students.

The campus profi le along Prospect Road is sporadic and undefi ned and the Aggie Village North redevelopment will help revitalize and defi ne this important edge of campus.


Program AlternativesWithin the Housing and Dining Services Master Plan, several sites and structures have been identifi ed for improvement to existing buildings, additions to existing buildings, and / or new construction. Alternates for additional beds include redevelopment of the existing Newsom Hall, Allison Hall, Aylesworth Hall and Aggie Village South site, and/or doing nothing with the Aggie Village North apartments at this time. Another option would be the modernization of the Corbett / Parmelee Kitchen and Dining Facility at an estimated cost of $9.6 million. This project, however, could directly benefi t by becoming an additive alternate to the base scope of the Aggie Village project or use remaining funds from a positive bid / construction climate.Potential scope for this project would include: • Renovation of the entire ‘back of the house’ servery;• Construction of new serving venues on the Parmelee side of the combined facility;• New seating and interior fi nishes on both the Corbett and Parmelee dining centers;• Building envelope improvements;• Fire suppression expansion throughout the kitchen and both dining centers and lower basements;• Electrical system upgrades;• Mechanical system upgrades;• Building code upgrades as applicable for the intended use.

With that said, Aggie Village is the only CSU controlled apartment complex currently under consideration for redevelopment. While there are other available options, new construction provides the most logistically simple solution to increasing the level and quality of on-campus apartment housing. Located next to a key core campus location, the Aggie Village North redevelopment would provide a new product without substantial interruption to the existing apartment housing bed base, and would build upon and add value to the currently under utilized southern edge of campus.

pp


Project Outline ProgramSpace Unit Net SF Quantity Total SF Beds per Unit SF / Bed Total Beds % of Community

ICC CommunityStudio 315 20 6,300 1 315 20 4%1 Bedroom 390 20 7,800 1 390 20 4%2 Bedroom 580 50 29,000 2 290 100 20%3 Bedroom 730 50 36,500 3 243 150 31%4 Bedroom 960 50 48,000 4 240 200 41%

Total: 490 100%

Unaffiliated Undergraduate CommunityStudio 315 10 3,150 1 315 10 4%1 Bedroom 390 10 3,900 1 390 10 4%2 Bedroom 580 25 14,500 2 290 50 20%3 Bedroom 730 25 18,250 3 243 75 31%4 Bedroom 960 25 24,000 4 240 100 41%

Total: 245 100%

Graduate / Post Doc / Scholars CommunityStudio 315 85 26,775 1 315 85 35%1 Bedroom 390 20 7,800 1 390 20 8%2 Bedroom 580 70 40,600 2 290 140 57%3 Bedroom 730 0 0 3 243 0 0%4 Bedroom 960 0 0 4 240 0 0%

Total: 245 100%

RA Studio (1 per 50 beds) 350 20 6,860 1 350 20

Total Program: 1,000

Student Amenity SpacesBuilding/Project Communal Lounge 3,500 1 3,500Building Communal Lounge 1,500 2 3,000ICC Secondary Lounge 250 10 2,500Bridge Lounge 1,500 1 1,500Group Study Room 225 3 675Group Kitchen 250 3 750Laundry/Lounge 500 3 1,500

FOH / Staff OfficesEntry Lobby 400 3 1,200Reception/Security Desk 140 1 140Administrator Office 150 1 150Assignments Office 150 1 150RD Office 150 1 150ARD Open Office 240 1 240Conference Room 200 1 200Staff Work Room 150 1 150

Additional Community SpaceRetail 895 1 895Mail & Storage 500 1 500

% of Program

Total Net Square Footage 290,600 71%

Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/IT 18,500 5%

Building Core & Circulation at Effeciency of: 71.2% 98,900 24%

Gross Square Footage 408,000

Total Quantity of Occupants (Beds) 1,000

Gross Square Footage Per Occupant (Bed) 408

Total Space Requirements

The scope of the program development was to determine the unit typology and mix for the Aggie Village North project, as well as additional non-revenue spaces that should be included in the project. The program development process included strategic discussions with Housing and Dining Services (HDS) staff, an understanding of trends in on-campus student apartment communities across the country, a review of the off-campus housing market offerings, the defi nition of key target demographics, and a thorough review and audit of non-revenue spaces to be included in the project.


Apartment Unit Opportunities

Aggie Village North apartment layouts will be designed to maximize effi ciency and experience while assuring fl exibility in room space allocation (i.e. furniture confi guration). Designed around a 10’ bay spacing, the highly effi cient apartment layouts will take advantage of the entire volume of space, not just the fl oor square footage. Some of the strategies include built-in vertical storage, effi cient kitchen layouts, partial height partition walls, and providing large exterior window glazing down to the fl oor level. Further effi ciency gains will be accomplished through modularity of space types and eliminating circulation. Functionality and fl exibility expand when a space is designed to accommodate more than one use.

Functions are arranged and optimized within the unit to provide useful, productive layouts. “Service” zones are aligned vertically through the building to maximize effi ciency, thus minimizing construction costs.

Floor Plan Opportunities

In an effort to provide a unique product to CSU, while maximizing overall building effi ciency, stacking unit types and strategic amenity spaces combine to provide smart building layouts that are both functional and provoking.

Building corners and bridges will erode to reveal a delicate, transparent aesthetic and top fl oors will step back to relieve persistent massing.

Building entries will be celebrated and easy to fi nd for the residents and their respective visitors. Ground fl oor spaces along Center Avenue will respond to the energy fl owing between the main campus and the south campus. Program amenity space will be thoughtfully located to activate outdoor public realms while providing a convenient service to the building residents.

All of this will be continuously evaluated under the direction of the project economic constraints.

Common Corridor

Service Zone

Service Zone

Living Zone

Living ZoneApartment

STUDIO

1 STORY UNIT - MIDDLE BAY

LEG

END

:

Relaxing Zone

Sleeping Zone

Services

Bathroom

Kitchen

Entry/storage

Legend:

Live (Residential)Learn (Academic)Engage (Community)

The buildings will strike an inviting balance between building effi ciencies and amenity space in student living by designing dual functionality into building elements.


Exterior and Interior MaterialsAs identifi ed in the recommendations of the Campus Aesthetic Guidelines,

This project shall comply with the Campus Aesthetic Guidelines as best applied to the goals of the renovation. Materials shall also comply with the CSU Design and Construction Standards Manual, Current Revision, 01 October, 2009.

AGGIE VILLAGE NORTH- Exterior Materials

Facade components of the new construction are comprised of stone, brick veneer, metal panel and/or cementitious panel, stucco and glazing; potentially as pre-fabricated modular systems. The majority of the site parking will be incorporated into a concrete podium condition underneath the buildings. With the parking mass “tucked under” the residential fl oors as partially below grade, the parking garage will take advantage of natural ventilation with integrated architectural louvers at the perimeter walls. Key building joints, horizontal connections and vertical circulation components will employ a light, tectonic aesthetic helping to reduce the scale, bulk, mass and visual impact of the buildings. The buildings will strike a balance between mass and tectonics that are inspired by the energy and patterns of the campus. Integration with the material palette of the existing Campus and Residence Halls will be a key design goal, though the use of new, high-performance materials will help create a unique personality for Aggie Village North, ultimately, providing CSU with a distinctive, contemporary product. Exterior materials will also include:

• Sloped roof areas at the residential wings will utilize simulated slate shingles;• Exterior sun-control devices at strategic south, east and west exposures, based on energy models & ROI

• As part of the program alternate, the academic façade and character would draw from the vocabulary of the campus buildings, specifi cally embracing existing patterns while evoking a modern extension of the CSU palette through transparent / light materials.

AGGIE VILLAGE NORTH- Interior Materials

The interior fi nishes will be hard surface and require low maintenance. Sustainable materials or materials with sustainable components shall be considered with priority. Finishes for the public spaces will primarily be the same as the Laurel Village interiors. The construction of interior fi nishes for the apartments will be typical and are proposed to include:

• Painted gypsum board on metal studs• Impact resistant walls • High grade carpet • Hard surface fl ooring materials at the entries, kitchens and bathrooms• Hard surface (tile) shower surrounds• Solid surface at casework.• Other interior fi nishes such as hardware, doors, and specialties will be consistent with the CSU and Housing requirements.

Health, Life Safety and Code IssuesAs a State institution, Colorado State University holds overall jurisdiction for this project and will provide fi nal interpretation on building code issues. Within its authority, Colorado State University will employ the services of an independent third party code consulting fi rm to be responsible for the review of the design and construction documents for compliance with applicable codes and standards. State Inspections will be required during construction for elevators, electrical and plumbing work. This project will be designed and constructed in accordance with the applicable codes in effect at the time the design phase is commenced.

the proposed design will strengthen CSU’s unique sense of place, reinforce the campus built framework by sharing a common palette of material aesthetics, provide new opportunities to expand the CSU & HDS brand and optimize sustainable opportunities in materials, construction operations, and energy consumption.


Code ReviewA brief description of code review criteria for the project is included below:

Building: Aggie Village North Apartments

Location: Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado

Proposed Construction Type: Type II-B* Type I-A (at parking garage and fi rst fl oor concrete podiums) Proposed Stories: Maximum 5 total Option 01: 5 stories of Type II-B steel stud and joist framed. Option 02: 4 stories of Type II-B steel stud frame over Type 1A concrete podium.

Fire Protection: Automatic fi re sprinkler throughout NFPA 13 at Option 01 (5 stories steel stud) and Option 2 concrete podium. NFPA 13R should be considered for residential portion of Option 02 (4 stories steel stud over concrete podium).

(NFPA 13 / 13R required to achieve area and story modifi cations in IBC Chapter 5)

Occupancy: R-2 Residential A-3 Assembly spaces more than 750sf and/or 50 occupants per section 303. S-2 Low-Hazard Storage (Parking Garage Only)

Occupancy Separation: 1HR between A and R occupancies. 0HR between S and A/R 1/2 HR between Apartment Units (exception 2 of section 709.3 with NFPA13) 1/2 HR between Apartment Units & Corridors Fire Separation: 0HR or as modifi ed by Occupancy 3HR between Type 1A concrete podium and 4 stories of Type IIA steel stud (if using NFPA13R)

Accessibility: As required by ANSI 117.1 Provide 13 Type A accessible units (based upon 1000 new beds / 490 total units) with a minimum of 4 of these accessible units shall have roll-in shower. Remaining units Type B as defi ned by ANSI.

Egress: 2 Required Exits per Floor

* Type IIB: (achievable and least restrictive)


Code Review cont.

Area Analysis by Construction TypeAGGIE VILLAGE NORTH

Type IIB Construction: Height: 55 feet (Non-Sprinklered) 75 feet with NFPA 13; 60 feet with NFPA 13R. Stories: 4 (Non-Sprinklered) 5 stories with NFPA 13; No add with NFPA 13R. Area per Story: 16,000 sf. Area Increases: Assume 5 Story Building / Maximum ‘Open Frontage Increase’ / NFPA 13: 60,000 sf per fl oor, max.; 180,000 sf total for entire building. 45,000 sf per fl oor of 4 stories 36,000 sf per fl oor of 5 stories Assume 4 Story Building / Maximum ‘Open Frontage Increase’ / NFPA 13R: 28,000 sf maximum for single story; 112,000 sf total for entire building. 28,000 sf per fl oor of 4 stories 5 stories not allowed.

Reference: 2012 IBC / Table 503 – Allowable Building Heights & Areas Group R-2


Concept Narrative

Prospective students typically know whether or not they would like to attend a particular university within minutes of their arrival on campus. Aggie Village North is well positioned at the corner of Prospect Road and Center Avenue to become the gateway into the south part of campus, providing a fi rst impression that will attract and retain students and further position CSU as a leader in providing innovative, integrated apartment living.

In preparing the Aggie Village program, we see the inter-connectedness of scale; rooms are part of a building, the building part of a village, the village part of CSU, CSU part of Fort Collins. All entities sharing resources and potentially thriving off of symbiotic relationships. Apartments are designed around small scale building blocks that are smart, effi cient, stylish and unique. Courtyards and pedestrian streets are actively programmed as unique, “in-between” amenities to this project. Project edges and thresholds are articulated to engage the surrounding context and evoke a unique CSU and HDS brand.

Designed around the concept of solutions grow from place, the Aggie Village North architectural character appropriately addresses the micro and meso contexts with active ground fl oors, more public active facades at street edges and more private, passive facades at residential courtyards. All of this to be interwoven with nature.

Students have expectations of their habitable spaces that are similar to those at home and/or that provide a transition to independent residential living.

Project Highlights:• The project will serve three separate student communities; ICC (Intercultural Connections Community), unaffi liated undergraduate students and graduate / post doc / scholar students with a total of 1000 beds.• The ICC community will be home to 400-500 students (200 units) and will be located in the southwest corner of the site to take advantage of a more passive context.• The undergraduate community will be home to 200-250 students (100 units) and wants to take advantage of the synergistic relationship with the academic part of campus and the potential academic space to be located on the Aggie Village site. • The graduate community will be home to up to 250 students (180 units) and will embrace the east edge of the site along Center Avenue.• The site will also accommodate 250 parking garage stalls for the 1000 bed community with a partial or fully below-grade parking condition located underneath the buildings. The majority of the parking will be designed partially below grade to take advantage of the natural slope of the site as well as to reduce costs by allowing for natural ventilation. The site will also accommodate 40-50 short-term surface parking stalls.• Additional space for large and small Community Activities will encourage interaction and synergies between different residential communities and campus.• Highly-effi cient residential units will fully utilize fl oor space as well as three dimensional volume.• High-performance design goals will reduce operating costs on a per student basis.• The project will build on the success of Laurel Village with new buildings that better meet current needs and trends of the student residents.• As part of a program alternate, 25,000sf of academic space would be located at the northeast corner of the site setting up synergistic relationships between the academic core of the campus and the Aggie residential community.

A student’s decision to remain on campus after their freshman year is largely infl uenced by location, quality and uniqueness; everything that the Aggie Village North redevelopment embodies.

Solutions Grow From Place


Civil Narrative

General Description The site work associated with the Aggie Village North includes extending new water and fi re service connections, gas lines, irrigation, sanitary sewer, electric and communication lines. The associated demolition of the existing utilities and Aggie Village North Apartments will be addressed under a separate phase. New utilities services will be extended to the proposed buildings, which include but is not limited to, an 8” water main loop to accommodate the facilities, and re-connection of the existing sanitary sewer service. Coordination with CSU utility services along with the mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineers will be necessary to locate and size all utilities services connections. Coordination with the geotechnical engineer will be necessary to verify the pavement design for the driveway and parking. An ALTA survey of the entire site is recommended in order to more accurately evaluate the site and determine exact location and depth of existing utilities and tie-in locations. Fire access will also have to be considered throughout the site and a fi re lane may be required to access the buildings within the center of the site. Design Criteria Design of the above mentioned improvements will be directly coordinated with CSU Facilities and Housing staff utilizing CSU’s design criteria and standards. City of Fort Collins and CDOT standards will be utilized for the service drive and curb & gutter designs. Coordination with Poudre Fire Authority may be needed to review fi re access and the design will address PFA requirements. Construction erosion control design will reference Urban Drainage, City of Fort Collins standards in collaboration with CSU Facilities Staff.

The project will comply with the City of Fort Collins’ requirements for Low Impact Development.

Earthwork

Work in this Section includes grading associated with the proposed buildings and service drive improvements. The recommendations for earthwork elements will be based on the geotechnical engineer report and will be limited to the Aggie Village North improvements.

The site topography appears to generally drain west to east. The surrounding site has been previously improved with paved pedestrian access areas and pavement associated with parking. The proposed buildings will require modifi cations to the adjacent grades to ensure positive drainage away from the building foundation and to the existing drainage conveyance system. Flexible Paving

This section includes the asphalt paving for all proposed service drives and parking. A composite section of asphalt over an aggregate base course will be used. Heavy duty areas including drive lanes will required thickened sections.

Rigid Paving

This section includes the concrete paving for all proposed service drives, loading dock if applicable, sidewalks, and curb and gutter with jointing and reinforcement as specifi ed and scheduled. A composite section of concrete over an aggregate base course will be used in depths of 6“ over 6”. Heavy duty areas including the loading dock and dumpster areas will require an 8” – 10” concrete section and be reinforced with welded wire fabric.


Signage

Signage for the proposed parking and directional signage will be provided with CSU recommendations.

Site Water System

The existing Aggie Village North Apartments is currently being fed from an 8” meter off of the existing 16” city main located within Lake St. for both domestic and fi re services. An 8” water main loop is proposed to connect to the existing water main in Lake St. and loop between proposed buildings connecting back to the existing water main. This loop will prevent a dead and provide adequate fl ow for both domestic and fi re needs. Each proposed building would tee into the proposed 8” loop with a 6” combined fi re and domestic water service.

CSU is also considering connecting to the main campus water system and is currently coordinating with the City of Fort Collins to determine if the water allocation can be transferred to the campus master meter. If this option is considered a new tap would be required off the campus main located on the north side of Lake St. and loop through the site and connect back to the campus main. This option would eliminate the existing 8” meter for Aggie Village Apartments.

Sanitary Sewer Systems

There is currently one 8” sanitary line at the southwest corner of the site within West Prospect Rd. and a 10” line at the southeast corner of the site. The existing sanitary from Aggie Village North Apartments appears to be split between these two connections with a majority of the fl ows draining to the 10” at the southeast corner of the site.

Two options are currently being considered for the proposed sanitary connections from the buildings.Option 1Utilize the same connections along West Prospect Rd. and split the fl ows between the existing 8” and 10” to the south. Option 2Tie into the existing 12” sanitary sewer to the north in Lake St. which may help eliminate a future confl ict with a proposed underpass.

The capacity of these lines for both options will require verifi cation to ensure adequate capacity for the proposed buildings.

Storm Drainage

Work in this section includes all drainage relative to the proposed building, sidewalks, drive and parking. Drainage around the proposed buildings will be conveyed via surface drainage through curb and gutter, inlets, storm piping and sheet fl ow away from the buildings. Storm water is anticipated to be conveyed through storm piping to an existing 42” storm line located along the western properly line. Flows from the 42” line are eventually conveyed to the Spring Creek, south of the site. On-site detention and water quality facilities are anticipated and will have to be incorporated into the site layout. Caution will have to be taken at the northeast corner of the site as this is within the CSU 100-year fl oodplain. Preliminary estimates show an increase in impervious surface area of approximately 90,000-100,000 sf.


CSU has adopted the City of Fort Collins Low Impact Development Standards (LID) which will require:

1. A minimum of 50% of new impervious surface must be treated using Low Impact Development (LID)

2. At least 25% of new parking area must be designed to be pervious.

Pervious parking could be achieved by installing permeable pavers and an underdrain system. Further coordination between the CSU landscape architect and project architect is necessary to determine fi ne grading and use of surrounding and proposed stormwater infrastructure.

Steam, Condensate, Gas, Irrigation and Dry Utilities

Coordination with CSU and the dry utilities designers will occur in order to show the horizontal line work on the utility plan and to coordinate utility crossings. Detail design of the dry utilities will be performed by others.

Steam line abandonment and capping will be coordinated with CSU and the mechanical engineer.

Most of the existing irrigation on site appears to be PVC with a section of 4” asbestos pipe along Center Ave. If the existing asbestos line is disturbed during construction this line would have to be abated in accordance with State regulations.

The primary heat for the proposed buildings will switch from steam to natural gas. A gas line would need to extend from the existing Aggie Village South, north across West Prospect Rd.. to the site.


Site and Landscape Narrative

Five potential site programmatic areas have been identifi ed for the Aggie Village Residential Community. These include: 1) Plaza- Northeast Entry/Aggie Arcade 2) Residential Gardens 3) The Park 4) South Buffer 5) Streetscape

Following are functional/experiential goals and design objectives for each programmatic area:

Plaza – Northeast Entry Plaza • Campus gateway from Prospect Rd.. – refl ect campus identity • Primary site arrival from south and Campus Spine – open circulation arrival plaza w/seating • Gathering and congregation – allow for fl exibility in use • Facilitate events for game days (potential) • Celebrate spirit of Aggie Village as a unique residential community • Celebrate ‘Aggie’ heritage at CSU – potential iconic sculpture • Ground fl oor activation at Center and Lake St.. – multi-purpose seating, shade, festive feeling

Plaza – Aggie Arcade • Central circulation spine for overall community • Congregation, meeting and people watching • Sense of permanence and timelessness – variation on traditional campus character elements • Community activity/event center – fl exibility for events

Residential Gardens • Privacy for ground fl oor residences – emphasis on softer landscape feel • Contemplative, intimate spaces • Gathering and congregation of residential groups • Indoor lounge extension to outdoor environment • 4-seasonal and evening enjoyment

The Park • Activities and informal recreation core – allow for informal recreation – i.e. frisbee, etc. • Circulation corridor from ICC south to Campus spine • Opportunities for shade and sun • Privacy for ground fl oor residences • 4 seasons landscape, emphasis on usable lawn area

South Buffer • Mitigation and transition from Prospect Rd. • Express University identity with public edge landscape • Well-developed tree canopy and park-like landscape • Privacy for residences

Streetscape • Canopy tree and lawn emphasis • Facilitate bike and pedestrian circulation • Create overall project ‘edge’ and defi ne pedestrian domain • Transition to open plazas at project entry points


Structural Narrative

FoundationsFoundations are expected to be drilled pier foundations or spread footings. Pier sizes are likely to range from 18”diameter thru 30” diameter.

Substructure FramingBelow grade construction will be cast-in-place reinforced concrete walls and grade beams with slab-on-grade fl oor systems. There is a possibility that structured slabs at grade may be required pending fi nal geo-technical investigation, however this is judged to be not likely based on other structures completed in the area.

Superstructure Floor FramingBased on preliminary architectural information, the superstructure is anticipated to be a Type IIB non-rated construction for the residential spaces and Type I construction for the parking and the program alternate classroom spaces.Separation between the residential levels and the parking or program alternate classroom space below will be provided by a cast-in-place reinforced concrete podium. This system provides a transfer level to distribute loads from columns and walls on the residential grid to an effi cient parking or academic space grid below. It also provides the fi re separation necessary between the differing uses. Based on the effi ciency of the units above, it is likely the podium above the parking would have to be wider (60’ – 64’) than the anticipated residence width (46’ – 50’) to fi t standard drive aisle and parking spaces.For conceptual pricing purposes a 12-14” deep concrete slab with drop caps could be assumed for this structure. Reinforcing requirements would be similar to that for the Laurel Village project currently under construction.

· Floors: 3” concrete slab over 12” composite bar joists. Joists are typically spaced at 4’ OC, but spacing can vary as needed. Based on preliminary layouts joists are assumed to span from exterior wall to corridor wall. o System depth: 15” (3” concrete slab + 12” bar joists) o Max span = 29’ o Spans near the maximum span may be susceptible to perceptible vibration issues · Bearing walls: Exterior walls and corridor walls are 6” load bearing cold formed steel studs. o Openings in exterior walls should be limited to 12’ widths to allow economical use of cold-formed lintels. o Interior bearing walls can be replaced with steel beams and columns at 18’ o.c. maximum, to provide fl exibility for change of use, but it seems unlikely that such fl exibility would be necessary. o Bearing walls should stack thru the full height of the building if possible. · MEP systems: Ducts up to 7” diameter can easily be run through joists, along with other pipes etc. In order to maximum structural economy, it is recommended that units and ductwork within sloped roof areas be minimized. If larger units are desired by the ownership to minimize maintenance needs, we recommend the units are placed on a fl at roof area to allow for easy access and removal if required. · There are no real structural limitations on unit width with this system.


· Lateral systems would be a combination of: o Concrete or CMU elevator and stair cores. (We recommend that architectural layouts should conservatively accommodate either 12” CMU or concrete walls.) o Steel braced frames

Alternate Superstructure FramingThe proposed system is based on the stated building type assumptions, and supported by the understanding that wood framed systems are not preferred by CSU for this particular project.On units without parking below,

Such a system would leave a relatively open plan, but would still have columns near the corridor above in order to remain reasonably effi cient. Structural cost savings would be in the range of 8-10% of the blended structural cost per square foot of all levels. Costs that may counter this savings include the cost of exterior cladding on additional fl oor-to-fl oor height that would be required to accommodate steel girders, fi reproofi ng, acoustic treatment, and measures toaccommodate MEP systems within steel construction.

Obviously, continuing the structural system from the upper levels down to the foundation would be the most structurally effi cient and cost effective solution, but it is not likely that such a system would accommodate reasonable program requirements at the ground fl oor.

Roof FramingThe roof framing will consist of fl at or gabled, pre-manufactured cold-formed steel trusses. Scissor trusses may be necessary to utilize the full volume of the roof for residential spaces.

Special FramingLocal areas may be selected for a more transparent architectural effect with exposed of structure. These might include exit stairs held to the building exterior, bridge connectors between buildings, and selected ground level retail or common areas. These areas will likely be framed with structural steel with composite concrete fl oor slabs on metal deck. Long spans may be addressed with exposed trusses with tension rods.

Future RemodelIt is assumed that the residential and parking areas are not likely to be remodeled to the point of shifting corridor wall locations or column locations. However, it is assumed that fl exibility is required to accommodate varying future uses in the program alternate classroom space. The concrete podium currently under consideration allows for regular column spacing that can typically be accommodated during future remodels.

Assumed BudgetReview of the budget targets for this project indicates that we feel it is likely that the proposed systems will be accommodated in the budget if complexity of the residential spaces is kept to a reasonable level.

a less expensive alternate would be to eliminate the podium and frame the ground level fl oor with structural steel girders in place of bearing walls.


Mechanical Narrative

System Description:

The project consists of three community buildings composed of student housing with some fl oor space devoted to offi ces and lounge space. There are four proposed HVAC systems for all three buildings. Ventilation air is delivered to the individual spaces via an energy recovery ventilator (ERV) that collects restroom and general exhaust from the space and pre-conditions the outside air drawn into the building with a total energy wheel. The ERV’s will have heating and cooling (the source will depend on which HVAC option).

HVAC System Options

Option 1: Four pipe fan coil system with chilled water from campus loop. Condensing boilers for heat (boiler room in each building). ERV’s with heating, cooling and heat recover for ventilation. ERV’s will be ducted separately to each bedroom, living room, lounge and offi ce.

Option 2: Two pipe water source heat pump system with cooling “injected” via heat exchanger to heat pump loop and heating “injected” via heat exchanger to loop. Cooling source will be campus chilled water loop and heating source will be condensing boilers (boiler room in each building).

ERV’s with heating, cooling and heat recovery for ventilation. Each ERV will have a heat pump to provide heating and cooling. ERV’s will be ducted separately to each bedroom, living room, lounge and offi ce.

Option 3: Geothermal heat pump system, ERV’s will be same as Option 2. Each building will have a pump room to connect to a well fi eld. The combined well fi eld will be approximately 280,000 SF (630 wells) at 450’ deep.

Option 4: Geothermal heat pump system, ERV’s will be the same as Option 2. Each building will have a pump room to connect to a reduced size well fi eld (approximately 190,000 SF with 480 wells at 450’ deep). The campus chilled water system will be connected to each of the three systems via a heat exchanger to accommodate the “reduced heat exchange” of the smaller fi eld. The chilled water loop will be providing extra cooling as the loop temperature gets high (approximately 90°F) and extra heating as the loop temperature gets low (approximately 35°F). This assumes a campus chilled water supply loop temperature of 43°F (or higher).

This will require CSU acceptance prior to system selection. Cooling of the geothermal loop via a heat exchanger is obvious, however heating of the geothermal loop is less obvious. This strategy will effectively cool the chilled water return temperature during “heating” mode thus coordination with CSU plant personnel is critical.

Description of Solar Hot Water System Alternate The solar hot water system will consist of three major components: Solar Hot Water Collectors (fl at panel type), distribution piping and heat exchanger/tank/pump system. The collectors would be mounted on the roof with distribution piping routed back to the heat exchanger in a mechanical room where the condensing water heater is located. There will be approximately 3000 sf of panel area to meet the requirements of 1000 beds. There will need to be one system per building with 3 sf of panel per bed in each building.

Note: This option is unique in that it uses the campus chilled water loop to heat and cool the building.


Parking Garage HVACProvide 1.5 CFM/SF of exhaust for the underground portion (where applicable) of the garage, activated by CO sensors. Each of the three buildings will be supplied with domestic water by its own individual service entrance with meter and backfl ow preventer with double check valve. Each building will contain a domestic hot water plant potentially composed of semi-instantaneous condensing gas water heaters. Plumbing fi xtures will be ultra high effi ciency.

Project goals include the following: 1. Sustainability a. LEED version 4 NC Gold b. Energy Effi ciency c. Water Effi ciency 2. Budget a. See probable construction cost section of report.

Sustainable Design Strategies

Sustainable design strategies at the Programmatic level of the project include the following. Further study will be required during the design to fi nalize what will be included in the project.

1. High performance building envelope 2. High performance HVAC System 3. Ultra High Effi ciency plumbing fi xtures

Plumbing Narrative

The domestic water service for the project is sized using the ASHRAE modifi ed Hunter’s curve for residential buildings (Curve B). The domestic hot water for the buildings will be provided by condensing natural gas fi red hot water boilers. Primary roof drains are to be provided on all fl at roofs of the buildings. Overfl ow roof drainage in all areas will be accomplished by scuppers. Natural gas service is to be provided to the condensing boilers (see HVAC narrative) and unit heaters, and all clothes dryers. A separate natural gas service will be provided to each building. Condensate drains are to be provided for all fan coil units by gravity drainage.

Fire ProtectionThe building is designed to be a residential occupancy NFPA 13-R except the offi ce areas NFPA 13. A dry pipe system will be designed for the underground portion (where applicable) of the parking garage with dry stand pipes for the above ground portion.


Electrical Narrative

System Description

The project consists of three residence buildings composed of student apartments with some ground fl oor space devoted to lounge space and parking. The proposed Electrical system for all three buildings is a 480Y/277V distribution system fed from a campus medium voltage distribution loop. The medium voltage service will feed pad mounted transformers, one to serve each building.

The higher mechanical loads will be fed at 480V. Step-down transformers will be provided to serve the general lighting and plug loads throughout the buildings.

Project goals include the following: 1. Sustainability a. LEED version 4 NC Gold b. Energy Effi ciency 2. Budget a. See probable construction cost section of report.

Major Components

1. Generala. Electrical power to the buildings will be provided by a 13.2kV – 480Y//277V, 3PH exterior pad mounted transformer located immediately outside each building. The transformers will be right sized to serve the calculated building load.

b. Back-up power to the buildings will be provided by a natural gas powered generator set located outdoors in a sound attenuated weatherproof enclosure. Stand-by loads will be served by a separate service run into the building from the pad mounted transformer.

c. Service entrance equipment for each building will be located in the respective building main electrical room. Emergency transfer switches and distribution from the back-up generator will be located in a separate emergency electrical room in each building.

Electrical Lighting

System DescriptionAll interior and building-mounted exterior lighting shall be new. Lighting control systems in public / common space areas will be used to control and shut-off lighting based on a schedule or in unoccupied spaces using sensors.

Project goals include the following: 1. Sustainability a. LEED version 4, Gold Rating b. Energy Effi ciencyLighting systems will be designed to provide appropriate illumination levels within each space, in accordance with IESNA criteria and recommendations. Each lighting system will be designed to: 1. Provide appropriate illumination levels for the particular environment or task(s) to be performed. 2. Control brightness ratios. 3. Enhance visual comfort. 4. Minimize direct glare and refl ections. 5. Accent the architectural details of the building. 6. Enhance and accent merchandising displays. 7. Maximize building occupant safety.

Interior lighting levels shall be designed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the Lighting Handbook, tenth edition, produced by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA).


Design CriteriaLighting Control Devices

Lighting Control Strategies (Manual Controls and Automatic Vacancy Sensors)

1. Provide vacancy sensor lighting controls for all studies, lounges, offi ces, meeting rooms, work rooms, conference rooms, academic area, public restrooms, laundry rooms, BOH spaces, shared & common bathrooms and resident rooms. Corridors will employ bi-level lighting strategies.

This credit requires controls for occupied spaces that allow users to modify lighting levels within space to meet task needs. Individual rooms will be provided with dual level lighting control. In rooms with wall mounted vacancy sensors, the dual level manual controls shall be integrated into the same device as the sensor.

Network Lighting ControlsNetwork lighting controls shall be panel based relay switching controls that will provide control over lighting in public lobbies, corridors, group kitchen, studies and lounges. Network lighting controller will turn lighting in these areas on and off based on time clock input using Owner’s time schedule. Controller shall also have a photocell input and connection to external photocell for outdoor lighting control. System shall be programmed to provide fl icker warning prior to scheduled time off events. Lighting controller shall include connections to multiple manual low voltage momentary contact over-ride switches.

Sustainable Design Strategies

1. All illumination sources are high effi ciency, long life type. Linear lighting fi xtures utilize CSU standard lamps and premium effi ciency program start ballasts and down lights utilize compact fl uorescent lamps. All lighting equipment in public circulation spaces, offi ces, classrooms and meeting rooms have high performance optical systems.

2. Exit signs shall match CSU standards for solid state LED lamps and Energy Star Rating.

3. All fl uorescent lamps are low mercury content type.

4. Automatic vacancy sensor controls are provided for occupancies that are due to have a transient occupancy loading factor, including offi ces, restrooms, classrooms and meeting rooms.

5. Network lighting control system will control lighting levels for occupied mode and unoccupied mode with manual override.

6. Manual multi-level illumination controls have been included for all daylight zones per 2009 IECC requirements.

2. Project design intent is to meet the requirements of LEED Credit IEQ 6.2 for controllability of lighting systems.


Electrical Special Systems

System DescriptionsThis section addresses the low voltage and special systems required for facility operations.

Major Components:

1. Fire Alarm System

a. A digital communication fi re alarm system will be provided for the facility with speakers installed throughout.

b. The fi re alarm control panel (FACP) will be located in an electrical closet in each building with grade level access with a graphic remote annunciators located adjacent to select entrances.

c. The FACP will communicate with the main campus fi re alarm network control system.

d. Detection devices including but not limited to smoke, heat and required pull stations will be located in corridors and other select locations throughout the facility in accordance with all applicable codes.

e. Detection devices in dwelling units will be supervised by the building main fi re alarm panel.

f. Annunciation devices will include wall and ceiling mounted strobe and strobe horn annunciation devices located throughout the facility in accordance with all applicable codes.

2. Voice and Data System

a. Equipment for the main incoming services shall be located in an entrance facility room located on a grade level or access level. This room can double as the Telecom main Equipment Room (ER)

b. There shall be a minimum of one Telecom Room per fl oor. These Telecom Rooms (TRs) shall have adequate space, power, cooling, and lighting to meet CSU’s current standards as well as support the growing demand to house other low voltage systems equipment in the same spaces. The rooms should be stacked where possible.

c. The building shall have a dedicated wireless system to support the increasing demand for data access throughout the building.

Additional special electrical systems to be included are:

Access Control System• Video Surveillance System• Television Distribution• Audio / Visual Systems•


Sustainability Narrative

Senate Bill 07-051 directs that state buildings undergoing new construction conform to the High Performance Certifi cation Program. The Offi ce of the State Architect has stated that

The most current LEED publication at the time of design will be used. The inclusion of high performance standards is an integral part of the project, beginning at the program plan stage.

It is anticipated that the LEED (NC) New Construction Certifi cation Path will be pursued on the project.

The City of Fort Collins provides technical support and should be included to provide input to the design team. The City provides funding for High Performance Buildings through its Integrated Design Assistance Program (IDAP). City staff must be involved in the design effort from the beginning in order to qualify for any incentives. The program offers two approaches designed to accommodate varied projects.

The Whole Building Approach is for projects • with a normal schedule. This program provides funds for design work to reduce energy use and performance incentives for long-term energy savings. The Prescriptive Approach can be used for a fast • track schedule. Some incentives are available, but they are not as extensive as for the Whole Building approach.

USGBC LEED-NC Gold is the targeted minimum standard of this program.

Laurel Village Pavilion Katabatic Cooling Tower

Pavilion Computational Fluid Dynamics


AGGIE VILLAGE NORTH sustainable strategies

Through the program process and beyond, Aggie Village (North and South) is ideally positioned to embrace a regenerative based design methodology that responds to

The Aggie Village North design will strive to provide effi cient, performance based solutions that enhance the human spirit, share resources, embrace the natural environment and protect the project’s economic constraints; all the while minimizing waste.

Design solutions, such as passive solar interfacing and smart footprints, will add signifi cant value without adding cost. Specifi cally, there is a fi rst cost savings and operational savings. Through the fi lter of performance based design, we can engage the architecture in terms of space and operation in such a way that one element can contribute to multiple project benefi ts; in other words, doing more with less. Which is the essence of sustainable design.

Under the direction of the CSU Climate Action Plan, Aggie Village has the potential to be a signifi cant, marketable example of CSU moving towards carbon neutrality.

Metrics and Methods

Early team commitments on project goals;• Parametric, real time performance analysis of • assumptions; Solutions grow from place. A thorough analysis • and understanding of natural and contextual site fl ows / amenities will provide the most inclusive solution; Cradle to Cradle thinking and acting. Evaluating • the life cycle cost, embodied energy, compatibility and durability of system and material solutions;Utilize sustainable metrics which include, but are • not limited to, the Living Building Challenge, 2030 Challenge and LEED.

Sun Wind

light / warmth / energy fl ora / open space / food / soils

Water Land Community Movement Beauty Inputs / Outputs

g ////////// / gy/ gy//// g/ gy/// / p/ p/ p// pppppp/ p p / /p / /p / /p / /p / /p /

June 21 Sunrise5:30 am

June 21 Sunset 8:35 pm

March 21 Sunrise6:25 am

12:00pm

12:00pm

12:00pm

March 21 Sunset6:38 pm

Dec 21 Sunrise7:21 am

Dec 21 Sunset 4:40 pm

Signifi cant Vegetation

Solar Path

Signifi cant Shadow

Site Flows

Sun Wind

ventilation / protection / energy contours


precip / fl oodplain/ service/ p/ p// p// pp / g// g// gyyy p p / pp p / pp /p p /// ////

5018

5018

50185020

5014

5014

5020 5011

SUMMER / WINTER AFTERNOONS

SUMMER / WINTER MORNINGS

Water Flow

Floodplain

Wind Flow

Site Flows

Deriving innovation and inspiration from site characteristics, Aggie Village would be an integrated, enduring model that ultimately shifts behaviors and future expectations towards a more comprehensive environmental stewardship.

natural and contextual fl ows, and, ultimately, contributes an inimitable, intrinsic value to the residential offering of CSU.


CSU StandardsThe CSU Housing Standards are to be used as guidelines for design. They are divided into 3 parts for use by Architects and Engineers: the fi rst part is administrative; the second part discusses requirements for design and deliverables at each stage of the design process; the third part consists of the technical standards arranged by CSI division. The Standards are a work in progress, and as such, any question about the applicability of a standard should be discussed with the project manager. The Standards should never be referenced or copied in Contract Documents - the design is expected to embody and conform to the Standards. Contractors are not to be directed to review the Standards as a contract requirement.

Project Cost EstimateThe total cost of construction, including escalation, for the base scope is approximately $78,200,000 and is included in Appendix F.

Project BudgetThe total estimated base project budget is 101,500,000. This cash-funded project, including fi nancing costs, will be fi nanced through a portion of a revenue bond supported by the Department of Housing and Dining Services revenue.

In order to maximize the available project budget and realize the complete project scope outlined herein, as well as, manage anticipated cost fl uctuations in the construction market, a number of “cost/scope safety valve” strategies have been envisioned for this project. These strategies include:

Design-Bid-Build Delivery Method due to a • favorable and competitive bid climate;Potentially divide the project into phases or • multiple prime contracts in order to solicit interest from a wider range of the mid-tier General and Sub-Contractor community;

Develop the design around a series of Project • Additive Alternates that allow for program components to be added into the project scope at varying intervals throughout the construction phase, without negatively impacting the overall project schedule and / or requiring re-design;Implement a series of design/cost/value • building systems that improve overall building performance / life cycle costs and maximize the available initial project budget.

Project ScheduleThe success of the project requires student apartment units to be available August at the start of the fall term of 2016. Pending State and University approvals, the project design could begin as early as August 2013. Aggie Village North construction is targeted to begin during the Fall of 2014 and be completed by late Spring of 2016 - a total of 20 months construction duration. See Appendix A for detailed graphic schedule.

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecess1

2 Contract Negotiation / Execution 1 mon Thu 11/1/12 Wed 11/28/12

3

4 Program Planning Phase (5.5 mo) 87 days Thu 11/29/12 Mon 4/1/13 25 Programming 4 mons Thu 11/29/12 Wed 3/20/13 2

6 Site Test Fit - Prelim. Planning 1.75 mons Mon 12/17/12 Fri 2/1/13

7 Conceptual Design Initiation 1.5 mons Mon 2/4/13 Fri 3/15/13 6

8 PP Document Finalization 2 wks Mon 3/18/13 Fri 3/29/13 7

9 Submit PP to CSU 0 days Mon 4/1/13 Mon 4/1/13

10

11 Board of Governors Approvals (1 mo) 26 days Mon 7/1/13 Mon 8/5/13 512 Submit PP to BOG 0 days Mon 7/1/13 Mon 7/1/13

13 BOG Approvals 2 days Fri 8/2/13 Mon 8/5/13

14

15 Design/Documentation/Permitting (12 mo) 270 days Mon 8/19/13 Fri 8/29/1416 Schematic Design 3.5 mons Mon 8/19/13 Fri 11/22/13 11

17 Design Development 3.5 mons Mon 11/25/13 Fri 2/28/14 16

18 Construction Documents 4.5 mons Mon 3/3/14 Fri 7/4/14 17

19 Permitting 2 mons Mon 7/7/14 Fri 8/29/14 18

20

21 Bid & Award (1.75 mo) 1.75 mons Mon 9/1/14 Fri 10/17/14 19

22

23 Environmental Mitigation and De-construction 6 mons Mon 5/26/14 Fri 11/7/14

24

25 Construction Phase (20 mo) 400 days Wed 10/22/14 Tue 5/3/1626 Project Construction (single phase) 18 mons Wed 10/22/14 Tue 3/8/16 21

27 Construction Float 2 mons Wed 3/9/16 Tue 5/3/16 26

28

29 Project Start-up / Owner Move-in 31 days Tue 5/3/16 Wed 6/15/16 2730 Contractor Complete 0 days Tue 5/3/16 Tue 5/3/16

31 Owner Move-In 1.5 mons Thu 5/5/16 Wed 6/15/16 30

4/1

7/1

5/3

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Junuarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter

Aggie Village Site Redevelopment4240 Architecture, Inc.

Preliminary Project Schedule 01

Mon 6/24/13 Page 1 program plan schedule 01

Appendix A -Project Schedule

Appendix B -Competitive Context Analysis

C O L O R A D O S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y A g g i e V i l l a g e N o r t h S i t e R e d e v e l o p m e n t

B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E . E M P O W E R . A D V A N C E . A p r i l 2 0 13 1

COMPETITIVE CONTEXT ANALYSIS O B J E C T I V E

The objective of the competitive context analysis is to understand Colorado State University’s market position among its peer institutions. The analysis identifies the overall student body demographics, surveys the current housing stock offered at the different institutions, and highlights the costs associated with on-campus housing.

M E T H O D O L O G Y

Senior administrators at CSU, along with B&D, selected six peer institutions to use as a basis of comparison. The peer institutions included two in-state institutions and four out-of-state institutions. The following is a list of the six peer institutions analyzed:

In--State Institutions Out--of--State Instituutions

University of Colorado –– BBoulder Washington State University

University of Northern Colorado University of Illinois at Urbana––Champaign

Iowa State University

Michigan State University Exhibit 1: Peer Institutions for CSU

B&D sought to understand the quality, quantity, and price of the housing stock at each peer institution. Housing administrators at each school were contacted and asked a series of questions pertaining to the housing options and pricing at their respective institutions. The subsequent quantitative research relied on documentation readily accessible and typically used by prospective students researching the schools. In order to remain consistent with information available to the student market, B&D used these publicly available sources even when minor inaccuracies in the data were evident.

While B&D is confident that the information gathered through these telephone interviews and email correspondence is accurate (as of January 2013), none of the information was validated by physical inspection of the facilities. Additional floor plans and photographs were reviewed when they were readily available.

The full competitive context analysis is included in AAppendix: Competitive Context Charts.




F I N D I N G S

T U I T I O N & F E E S / R O O M & B O A R D

A c c o r d i n g t o t h e N a t i o n a l C e n t e r f o r E d u c a t i o n S t a t i s t i c s ( N C E S ) , C S U ’ s i n -

s t a t e t u i t i o n , r o o m & b o a r d , a n d o t h e r c o s t s a r e a l l b e l o w t h e b e n c h m a r k

a v e r a g e c o m p a r e d t o p e e r i n s t i t u t i o n s ( S e e E x h i b i t 2 ) .

R o o m & B o a r d a n d O t h e r C o s t s a t C S U a r e c l o s e t o t h e b e n c h m a r k a v e r a g e .

T h e t o t a l c o s t o f a t t e n d i n g C S U i s o n l y m o r e t h a n I o w a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y a n d

t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f N o r t h e r n C o l o r a d o . I t i s v e r y s i m i l a r t o W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e

U n i v e r s i t y .

T h e p e r c e n t a g e c h a n g e f r o m t h e 2 0 10 - 2 0 11 a c a d e m i c y e a r t o t h e 2 0 11- 2 0 12

a c a d e m i c y e a r i n c o s t s f o r o n - c a m p u s s t u d e n t s i s b e l o w t h e b e n c h m a r k

a v e r a g e . I t w a s l e s s t h a n a l l p e e r s e x c e p t U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s a t U r b a n a -

C h a m p a i g n .

University In--State Tuition

Room & Board

Other Costs

Total Cost of Attending

% Change '10--'11 to ''11-112

Colorado State University $7,952 $9,172 $3,358 $20,482 3.1%

University of Colorado - Boulder $9,152 $11,278 $6,806 $27,236 3.6%

Washington State University $10,799 $9,662 $4,478 $24,939 4.5% University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign $13,838 $10,080 $3,710 $27,628 2.7%

Iowa State University $7,486 $7,621 $3,414 $18,521 3.6%

Michigan State University $12,202 $8,204 $2,796 $23,202 6.3%

University of Northern Colorado $6,623 $9,550 $3,490 $19,663 3.5%

Benchmark Average $10,017 $9,399 $4,116 $23,532 4.0%

Exhibit 2: Tuition, Fees, and Room & Board Comparison

S T U D E N T D E M O G R A P H I C S

T h e t o t a l s t u d e n t b o d y e n r o l l m e n t a t C S U i s c o m p a r a b l e t o a l l t h e p e e r

i n s t i t u t i o n s . W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y a n d I o w a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y a r e t h e

m o s t s i m i l a r ( s e e E x h i b i t 3 ) .

C S U h a s o n e o f t h e l o w e s t f u l l - t i m e u n d e r g r a d u a t e e n r o l l m e n t s c o m p a r e d t o

t h e p e e r i n s t i t u t i o n s .

T h e t h i r d l a r g e s t o u t - o f - s t a t e u n d e r g r a d u a t e p o p u l a t i o n i s a t C S U .

C S U h a s t h e s e c o n d h i g h e s t f e m a l e p e r c e n t a g e o f u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s .




UUniversity TTotal

EEnrollment UUndergraduate

EEnrollment GGraduate

EEnrollment

UUndergrad Gender FFull--TTime UUndergrads

OOut--oof--SState UUndergrads %% Male %% Female

CColorado State UUniversity

330,467 223,075 77,392 448% 552% 887% 118%

University of Colorado - Boulder

32,558 26,530 6,028 53% 47% 91% 40%

Washington State University

27,329 22,763 4,566 49% 51% 87% 9%

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

44,407 32,256 12,151 55% 45% 97% 7%

Iowa State University 29,611 24,343 5,268 56% 44% 95% 31%

Michigan State University 47,825 36,557 11,268 51% 49% 91% 10% University of Northern

Colorado 13,038 10,414 2,624 38% 62% 89% 9%

BBenchmark Average 332,461 225,477 66,984 550% 550% 992% 118% EExhibit 33: Student Demographics Comparison

H O U S I N G C O S T S

T h e c o s t o f a c o m m u n i t y d o u b l e a t C S U i s a b o v e t h e b e n c h m a r k a v e r a g e a n d

t h e c o s t o f a c o m m u n i t y s i n g l e i s b e l o w t h e b e n c h m a r k a v e r a g e ( S e e E x h i b i t

4 ) .

C o m p a r e d t o t h e p e e r s , C S U d o e s n o t c h a r g e a h i g h p r e m i u m f o r s i n g l e u n i t s .

EExhibit 4: Academic Year Rates for Residence Hall - Community

T h e c o s t o f a s u i t e d o u b l e o r s i n g l e a t C S U i s a b o v e t h e b e n c h m a r k a v e r a g e

( S e e E x h i b i t 5 ) .

T h e p r e m i u m f o r a s i n g l e s u i t e a t C S U i s m u c h h i g h e r c o m p a r e d t o a p r e m i u m

f o r c o m m u n i t y s i n g l e s .

$5,

414

$6,

281

$6,

241

$5,

428

$4,

244

$3,

450

$4,

914

$$5,

093

$5,

817

$8,

112

$6,

822

$6,

776

$5,

330

$5,

090

$5,

914

$$6,

341

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

Community Double Community Single




EExhibit 55:: Academic Year Rates for Residence Hall - Suites

S i n g l e s t u d e n t a p a r t m e n t s a t C S U a r e w e l l b e l o w t h e b e n c h m a r k a v e r a g e a n d

t h e s e c o n d l o w e s t r a t e c o m p a r e d t o a l l t h e p e e r s t h a t o f f e r a t w o - b e d r o o m

s i n g l e s t u d e n t a p a r t m e n t ( S e e E x h i b i t 6 ) .

C S U i s a t t h e b e n c h m a r k a v e r a g e a n d t h e t h i r d h i g h e s t f o r f a m i l y a p a r t m e n t

r a t e s f o r a t w o - b e d r o o m u n i t c o m p a r e d t o p e e r s .

EExhibit 66:: Monthly Rates for Apartments Note: Single-Student per bed per person; Family Apts per unit

H O U S I N G P R O G R A M

C S U i s b e l o w t h e b e n c h m a r k a v e r a g e f o r p e r c e n t a g e o f s t u d e n t s i t c a n h o u s e

o n c a m p u s ( S e e E x h i b i t 7 ) .

$5,

974

$7,

495

$7,

636

$5,

900

$5,

487

$3,

771

$2,

822

$$5,

518

$7,

466

$9,

339

$7,

681

$7,

250

$6,

310

$5,

090

$2,

679

$$6,

391

$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000

$10,000

Suite Double Suite Single

$443

$870

$444

$760

$412 $626 $$622

$760

$1,112

$659 $638 $606 $815 $716 $$758

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800

$1,000 $1,200

2 Bed Single-Student 2 Bed Family Apts




I o w a S t a t e h a s o n e o f t h e h i g h e s t o c c u p a n c y r a t e s , h i g h e s t d e s i g n c a p a c i t y ,

a n d h i g h e s t p e r c e n t a g e o f s t u d e n t s i t c a n h o u s e o n c a m p u s . I t a l s o d o e s n o t

h a v e a f i r s t y e a r l i v e o n r e q u i r e m e n t .

UUniversity DDesign

CCapacity %% Can HHouse

## of RResidents

OOccupancy RRate

FFirst Year RRequirement

CColorado State University 77,558 225% 77,180 995% YYes

University of Colorado - Boulder 8,289 25% 7,957 96% Yes

Washington State University 7,006 26% 6,590 94% Yes University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign 10,264 23% 10,059 98% Yes

Iowa State University 10,564 36% 10,426 99% No

Michigan State University 16,807 35% 15,280 91% Yes

University of Northern Colorado 3,274 25% 2,662 92% Yes

BBenchmark Average 9,367 28% 8,829 95% - EExhibit 77:: Housing Program Comparison

C S U h a s t h e m o s t b a l a n c e d m i x o f u n i t t y p e s o f a l l t h e p e e r s ( S e e E x h i b i t 8 ) .

C S U h a s t h e t h i r d h i g h e s t p e r c e n t a g e o f s u i t e s n e x t t o M S U a n d U N C O , f a r

m o r e t h a n t h e r e m a i n i n g p e e r s .

C o m m u n i t y s t y l e u n i t s a r e f a r b e l o w t h e b e n c h m a r k a v e r a g e a t C S U . T h i s

p r o v i d e s m o r e m a r k e t a b i l i t y f o r s t u d e n t s w h o w a n t m o r e p r i v a t e r o o m s a n d

b a t h r o o m s o f f e r e d i n s u i t e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s c o m p a r e d t o o t h e r p e e r s .

EExhibit 8: Housing Program Percentage of Unit Types

336% 774% 775% 882%

661% 330% 224%

558%

441% 44% 33%

77%

110% 662% 557%

225% 222% 223% 222% 111%

229% 99% 119% 117%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

% Community % Suites % Apartments




F U T U R E H O U S I N G / N E W D E V E L O P M E N T S

In addition to analyzing the current housing conditions at the respective peer institutions, B&D researched plans for new housing or improvements to the housing systems at each school.

U n i v e r s i t y o f C o l o r a d o - B o u l d e r : A n a d d i t i o n a l r e s i d e n c e h a l l w i l l b e a d d e d

t o W i l l i a m s V i l l a g e . A d d i t i o n a l r e n o v a t i o n s w i l l o c c u r o n m a i n c a m p u s t o

s t u d e n t h o u s i n g a s w e l l .

W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y : T h e N o r t h s i d e R e s i d e n c e H a l l i s u n d e r

c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d s c h e d u l e d t o o p e n i n F a l l 2 0 13 . A n a d d i t i o n a l 3 0 b e d s w i l l

b e a d d e d t o a n e x i s t i n g s i n g l e - s t u d e n t a p a r t m e n t c o m p l e x t o b e c o m p l e t e d

i n F a l l 2 0 14 .

U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s a t U r b a n a - C h a m p a i g n : I k e n b e r r y C o m m o n s w i l l s e e

a d d i t i o n a l r e s i d e n c e h a l l s i n F a l l 2 0 13 a n d 2 0 15 . A n a d d i t i o n a l 4 8 0 s u i t e a n d

s e m i - s u i t e b e d s a n d 5 0 4 t r a d i t i o n a l b e d s w i l l b e a d d e d , r e s p e c t i v e l y .

I o w a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y : F r e d e r i k s e n C o u r t a p a r t m e n t s w i l l e x p a n d t o a d d 7 2 0

t o t a l b e d s i n s i x b u i l d i n g s . T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n w i l l b e p h a s e d w i t h 2 4 0 b e d s i n

F a l l 2 0 13 a n d 4 8 0 b e d s i n S p r i n g 2 0 14 .

M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y : T w o r e s i d e n c e h a l l s i n t h e B r o d y C o m p l e x a r e

c l o s e d f o r r e n o v a t i o n u n t i l F a l l 2 0 13 . T h e f i n a l B r o d y C o m p l e x h a l l w i l l

u n d e r g o r e n o v a t i o n s s t a r t i n g i n J u l y 2 0 13 . I n F a l l 2 0 14 , L a n d o n h a l l i n W e s t

C i r c l e w i l l u n d e r g o a r e n o v a t i o n o f t h e r e s i d e n c e h a l l a n d d i n i n g h a l l . T h e r e

a r e n o p l a n s f o r n e w c o n s t r u c t i o n o f r e s i d e n c e h a l l s , o n l y a s y s t e m a t i c

r e n o v a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g h a l l s .

U n i v e r s i t y o f N o r t h e r n C o l o r a d o : T h e r e a r e n o h o u s i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n o r

r e n o v a t i o n p l a n s a s o f J a n u a r y 2 0 13 .

S U M M A R Y O F F I N D I N G S

B&D compared CSU to six peer institutions (two in-state and four out-of-state schools) on categories such as cost of attending, student demographics, room and board, and on-campus housing program. The major findings from this analysis are summarized below:




T h e t o t a l c o s t o f a t t e n d i n g C S U i s b e l o w t h e b e n c h m a r k a v e r a g e . I t i s a l s o

t h e s e c o n d l o w e s t p e r c e n t a g e c h a n g e f r o m 2 0 11- 2 0 12 t o 2 0 12 - 2 0 13 a c a d e m i c

y e a r . T h e s e f a c t o r s a r e v e r y c o m p e t i t i v e c o m p a r e d t o p e e r i n s t i t u t i o n s .

C S U h a s o n e o f t h e l o w e s t f u l l - t i m e e n r o l l m e n t s a n d h i g h e s t o u t - o f - s t a t e

e n r o l l m e n t s . T h e r e i s a l s o a h i g h e r p e r c e n t a g e o f f e m a l e s t u d e n t s a t C S U

c o m p a r e d t o p e e r s e x c e p t U N C O .

T h e p r e m i u m c h a r g e d f o r s i n g l e o c c u p a n c y u n i t s a t C S U i s m u c h l e s s t h a n

p e e r i n s t i t u t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y f o r c o m m u n i t y s t y l e u n i t s .

C S U r a t e s f o r s i n g l e - s t u d e n t a p a r t m e n t s a r e w e l l b e l o w t h e b e n c h m a r k

a v e r a g e c o m p a r e d t o p e e r s , b u t a t t h e b e n c h m a r k a v e r a g e f o r f a m i l y

a p a r t m e n t s .

T h e h o u s i n g c a p a c i t y a n d o c c u p a n c y i s v e r y c o m p a r a b l e a t C S U c o m p a r e d t o

p e e r i n s t i t u t i o n s .

T h e o v e r a l l d e s i g n p e r c e n t a g e a n d m i x o f u n i t t y p e s a t C S U i s b e t t e r

b a l a n c e d t h a n p e e r i n s t i t u t i o n s .

M a n y p e e r s a r e c o n s t r u c t i n g n e w r e s i d e n c e h a l l s o r r e n o v a t i n g e x i s t i n g

h o u s i n g . H o w e v e r , o n l y t w o a r e m i n i m a l l y e x p a n d i n g t h e i r a p a r t m e n t s t y l e

u n i t o f f e r i n g s ( I S U a n d W S U ) .


Colorado State UniversityAggie Village North Site RedevelopmentCompetitive Context AnalysisGeneral Information

University Location CampusSetting (1) Affiliation Total Cost of

AttendingTotal

Enrollment Website

Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO City: Midsize 4-year, Public $20,482 30,467 housing.colostate.edu

Peer Institutions

University of Colorado - Boulder Boulder, CO City: Small 4-year, Public $27,236 32,558 housing.colorado.edu

Washington State University Pullman, WA Town: Distant 4-year, Public $24,939 27,329 housing.wsu.edu

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Champaign, IL City: Small 4-year, Public $27,628 44,407 housing.illinois.edu

Iowa State University Ames, IA City: Small 4-year, Public $18,521 29,611 housing.iastate.edu

Michigan State University East Lansing, MI Rural: Fringe 4-year, Public $23,202 47,825 liveon.msu.edu

University of Northern Colorado Greeley, CO City: Small 4-year, Public $19,663 13,038 unco.edu/housing

Benchmark Average $23,532 32,461

Notes:(1) Based on National Center for Education Statistics definitions: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/app_b.asp


Colorado State UniversityAggie Village North Site RedevelopmentCompetitive Context AnalysisDemographics

% Male % Female

Colorado State University 30,467 23,075 7,392 48% 52% 87% 18% 0%

Peer InstitutionsUniversity of Colorado -

Boulder 32,558 26,530 6,028 53% 47% 91% 40% 2%

Washington State University 27,329 22,763 4,566 49% 51% 87% 9% 3%

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 44,407 32,256 12,151 55% 45% 97% 7% 13%

Iowa State University 29,611 24,343 5,268 56% 44% 95% 31% 6%

Michigan State University 47,825 36,557 11,268 51% 49% 91% 10% 9%

University of Northern Colorado 13,038 10,414 2,624 38% 62% 89% 9% 1%

Benchmark Average 32,461 25,477 6,984 50% 50% 92% 18% 6%

Notes: Data is reflects information of the National Center for Education Statistics for Fall 2011.

(1) Residence data are reported for first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates.

ForeignCountries

Undergrad Gender Out-of-StateUndergrads (1)University Total

EnrollmentGraduate

EnrollmentUndergraduate

EnrollmentFull-Time

Undergrads


Colorado State UniversityAggie Village North Site RedevelopmentCompetitive Context AnalysisAdmissions

University # of Applicants % Admitted % Admitted who

EnrolledStudents in Top 10%

of HS Class (1)1st-Year

Retention (2)Average ACT Composite (3)

6-Year Graduation Rate (4)

Colorado State University 16,559 76% 36% 22% 83% 25 64%

Peer InstitutionsUniversity of Colorado -

Boulder 20,506 87% 32% 24% 84% 26 68%

Washington State University 13,904 84% 38% 26% 84% 23 67%

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 28,751 68% 37% 52% 93% 28 82%

Iowa State University 15,066 81% 38% 25% 88% 25 68%

Michigan State University 28,416 73% 39% 28% 91% 26 77%

University of Northern Colorado 8,169 73% 38% 14% 70% 22 46%

Benchmark Average 19,135 78% 37% 28% 85% 25 68%

Notes: Data apply to first-time degree/certificate-seeking students in Fall 2011

(1) College Board(2) First-time, full-time students pursuing Bachelor's degrees from Fall 2010 to Fall 2011 (NCES)(3) Peterson's College Search(4) Percentage of full-time, first-time students who began their studies in Fall 2005 and received their degree within 150% of "normal time" to completion for their program.


Colorado State UniversityAggie Village North Site RedevelopmentCompetitive Context AnalysisCosts

University Affiliation In-StateTuition (1)

Out-of-StateTuition

Room & Board (2)

Other Costs (3)

Total Cost of Attending

% Change '10-'11 to '11-12 (4)

Colorado State University 4-year, Public $7,952 $23,652 $9,172 $3,358 $20,482 3.1%

Peer Institutions

University of Colorado - Boulder 4-year, Public $9,152 $30,330 $11,278 $6,806 $27,236 3.6%

Washington State University 4-year, Public $10,799 $22,077 $9,662 $4,478 $24,939 4.5%

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 4-year, Public $13,838 $27,980 $10,080 $3,710 $27,628 2.7%

Iowa State University 4-year, Public $7,486 $19,358 $7,621 $3,414 $18,521 3.6%

Michigan State University 4-year, Public $12,202 $31,148 $8,204 $2,796 $23,202 6.3%

University of Northern Colorado 4-year, Public $6,623 $18,145 $9,550 $3,490 $19,663 3.5%

Benchmark Average $10,017 $24,840 $9,399 $4,116 $23,532 4.0%

Notes:(1) 2011/12 Tuition & fees for in-state undergraduates enrolled full time for academic year (according to NCES ).

(3) For on-campus students. Includes various student fees, books, and supplies (according to NCES ).(4) For in-state, on-campus students. * Iowa State University of Science and Technology - other costs (not books and supplies) dropped by 31%, not included in % change

(2) 2011/12 Cost for a standard double residence hall room and full board plan for undergraduates enrolled full time for academic year (according to NCES ).


Colorado State UniversityAggie Village North Site RedevelopmentCompetitive Context AnalysisHousing Costs - Community-Style

Low High

Colorado State University $5,414 $5,817 $4,720 $6,108

Peer Institutions

University of Colorado - Boulder $6,281 $8,112 $6,128 $8,310

Washington State University $6,241 $6,822 $5,142 $7,756

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign $5,428 $6,776 $2,639 $3,463

Iowa State University $4,244 $5,330 $3,915 $5,609

Michigan State University $3,450 $5,090 $3,500 $5,140

University of Northern Colorado $4,914 $5,914 $4,914 $5,314

Benchmark Average $5,093 $6,341 $4,373 $5,932

Notes: Rates are per academic year.

CSU: Rates include technology and cable fees.MSU: No distinction is made between community and suite-style room rates.

UniversityCommunity-Style

DoubleRoom

Price RangeSingle Room


Colorado State UniversityAggie Village North Site RedevelopmentCompetitive Context AnalysisHousing Costs - Suite-Style

Low High

Colorado State University $5,974 $7,466 $5,536 $8,118

Peer Institutions

University of Colorado - Boulder $7,495 $9,339 $6,806 $9,432

Washington State University $7,636 $7,681 $6,796 $8,456

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign $5,900 $7,250 $2,950 $3,625

Iowa State University $5,487 $6,310 $2,649 $3,263

Michigan State University $3,771 $5,090 $3,400 $5,140

University of Northern Colorado $2,822 $2,679 $2,679 $2,972

Benchmark Average $5,518 $6,391 $4,213 $5,481

(1) Suites include a full bath and with or without a designated living area.

MSU: No distinction is made between community and suite-style room rates. Suites include Akers Hall.UNCO: Suites may include kitchenette and living room.

Single Room

UIUC: Only three different rate categories: traditional non-air-conditioned, traditional air-conditioned, and Nugent Hall.

UniversitySuite-Style (1)

DoubleRoom

Price Range

Notes: All rental rates are per academic year.


Colorado State UniversityAggie Village North Site RedevelopmentCompetitive Context AnalysisHousing Costs - Single-Student Apartments

Colorado State University $660 $443 -

Peer Institutions

University of Colorado - Boulder $1,395 $870 $733

Washington State University - $444 $273

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign $810 $760 -

Iowa State University $513 $412 $584

Michigan State University - - $690

University of Northern Colorado $595 $626 -

Benchmark Average $828 $622 $570

Single-Student ApartmentsUniversity 1 Bedroom

MSU: University Village Apartments are four bedroom, two bath. Van Hoosen Hall is a female only studio apartment for up to four students with optional meal plan.UNCO: Arlington Park Apts has individual contracts, fully furnished, cable, wireless internet, washer/dryer, private bedrooms, and shared bathrooms.

2 Bedroom 4 Bedroom

CSU: International House includes all utilities, trash, phone, cable, internet, and furniture.CU: Bear Creek has individual contracts, fully furnished, private bedrooms, shared bathrooms, satellite tv, and internet. Offers two bedroom, private and shared options.WSU: Rent includes cable, internet, water, sewer, and trash. Rent at Chinook, Columbia, and Nez Perce does not include electric. Rent at Chief Joseph includes electric.UIUC: All apartment rates include water, trash, sewer, Internet, cable, and parking. Only Goodwin-Green also includes heat.ISU: Frederiksen Court Apartments include all utilities and University Village Apartments include all utilities except phone, gas, and electric.

Notes: Rates are per person per month.


Colorado State UniversityAggie Village North Site RedevelopmentCompetitive Context AnalysisHousing Costs - Family Apartments

Colorado State University - $760 $903

Peer Institutions

University of Colorado - Boulder $913 $1,112 $1,307

Washington State University $566 $659 $750

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign $625 $638 -

Iowa State University - $606 -

Michigan State University $683 $815 -

University of Northern Colorado - $716 -

Benchmark Average $697 $758 $1,029

MSU: Spartan Village Apartments includes gas, water, heat, electricity, trash, and phone.

CSU: Aggie Village and University Village include all utilities, trash, phone, cable, internet, and furniture.

Notes: All rental rates are based on a 12-month lease per unit.

2 Bedroom 3 BedroomUniversityFamily Apartments

1 Bedroom

WSU: Rent includes cable, water, sewer, and trash. Internet is included in all except Yakama. Rent in Valley Crest includes heat, hot water, and electric. Rent in Steptoe includes heat and hot water. Rent in Kamiak and Terrace includes heat.

CU: Athens, Faculty/Staff Court, Newton, Smiley, and Marine include all utilities, cable, phone, internet. Expansion Units and Athens North include cable, water, and trash.

ISU: Schilletter Village Apartments include all utilities except phone, gas, and electric.


Colorado State UniversityAggie Village North Site RedevelopmentCompetitive Context AnalysisMeal Plans

Colorado State University $2,149 $2,322 $2,500 $2,779 $427 Y

Peer Institutions

University of Colorado - Boulder $2,602 - $2,801 - $418 Y

Washington State University $1,714 $1,949 $2,134 - - Y

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign $2,095 $2,409 $2,576 $2,576 $1,080 Y

Iowa State University $3,549 $3,628 $3,989 - $477 Y

Michigan State University - $2,488 $2,638 $2,788 $340 Y

University of Northern Colorado - $2,405 $2,565 $3,075 $536 Y

Benchmark Average $2,490 $2,576 $2,784 $2,813 $570

Notes: Information provided by University websites. Based on 2012-2013 rates per person per semester.(1) Meal plan requirement in traditional residence halls.

WSU: Meal plans are a la carte with no all you care to eat options. Off-campus meal plan is limited to CougarCash.

University MandatoryMeal Plan (1)

Meal Plan Unlimited/

Max

Meal Plan Low

Meal Plan Mid

Off-CampusMeal Plan

UNCO: Mid plan is 14 meals, High is 19 meals, Max plan is 250 block plan, and off-campus is 50 meals/semester.

Meal Plan High

MSU: All meal plans are unlimited all-you-care-to-eat. Mid and High plans include meal exchange, Spartan cash, and guest meal passes. Off-campus block plan is 40 meals. Meal plans are not required for some on-campus residents.

ISU: Low is 175 block/11 meals, Mid is 225 block/14 meals, High is 304 block/19 meals. All block plans include dining dollars. Off-campus meal plan is a 50-meal block plan. Not required for university apartments, Wallace Hall, or Wilson Hall.

CSU: Low is 10 meals, Mid is 14 meals, High is 21 meals, and off-campus is 48 meals. All plans include Ram Cash.CU: Low is 10 meals, High is 15/19 meals, and off-campus is 50 meal block plan. All plans include Munch Money.

UIUC: Meal plan not required for Daniels Hall, Sherman Hall, and University Apartments. Off-Campus meal plan is 6 meals per week.


Colorado State UniversityAggie Village North Site RedevelopmentCompetitive Context AnalysisHousing Program

UniversityDesign

Capacity(1)

% Can House (2)

# of Residents

% of Undergrads

Who Live On-Campus (3)

OccupancyRate

First Year Requirement

CommunityCapacity

SuiteCapacity

ApartmentCapacity (4)

Colorado State University 7,558 25% 7,180 24% 95% Yes 2730 3128 1700

Peer Institutions

University of Colorado - Boulder 8,289 25% 7,957 28% 96% Yes 5754 278 2257

Washington State University 7,006 26% 6,590 36% 94% Yes 5281 200 1525

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 10,264 23% 10,059 50% 98% Yes 8449 694 1121

Iowa State University 10,564 36% 10,426 39% 99% No 6483 1062 3019

Michigan State University 16,807 35% 15,280 42% 91% Yes 5013 10355 1439

University of Northern Colorado 3,274 25% 2,662 31% 92% Yes 770 1877 627

Benchmark Average 9,367 28% 8,829 38% 95% 5292 2411 1665

Notes: University statistics are based on the universities' own world wide web sites and telephone interviews with the universities' administrators.(1) Total capacity of housing program(2) Design Capacity / Total Enrollment(3) Peterson's College Search(4) Family and Single-student apartments are based on number of beds not number of units.

MSU: Two residence halls are under renovation and not inlcuded in the total design capacity (-1,1011 beds).UIUC: Illinois did not provide a breakdown of single-student vs. family apartments.

Appendix C -Survey Analysis


B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E . E M P O W E R . A D V A N C E . D E C E M B E R 2 0 12 5 . 1

SURVEY ANALYSIS O B J E C T I V E

B&D reviewed the survey results provided by Colorado State University’s Office of Off-Campus Life in the annual “Student Housing Rental Survey” for 2013. B&D was able to add a couple questions to the 2013 survey to gauge interest in on-campus apartments for undergraduate students. These results are one of the resources that will help shape the decisions surrounding the redevelopment of Aggie Village North.

S U R V E Y R E S U L T S

S U R V E Y S I G N I F I C A N C E

A total of 1,048 students responded to the survey between January 31st, 2013 and March 31, 2013. Based upon a student population of 22,500 undergraduates, the margin of error was +/- 3% with a 95% confidence level. With 1,048 total respondents, the survey captured approximately 21% of the total population. The total number of international students enrolled at CSU is approximately 1,600 with 39 students self-identifying as international in the survey response, resulting in only 2% of the population being captured. The low percentage is not advised to use as a base for preferences and needs for this group, but merely as rough guidelines.

S U R V E Y D E M O G R A P H I C S

The survey demographics consisted of 34% male, 65% female, and 1% transgender. The overrepresentation of females is consistent with student surveys although a little higher than usual. There was a fairly even split between sophomore (28%), junior (28%), and senior (40%) of students who responded. A heavier response from seniors and only 3% responding as post baccalaureate students.

A couple notes on the analysis of the survey: The demographics of the 4,000 students that were randomly selected to receive the survey are not known. Therefore, a comparison of whether the demographics of respondents are similar to the selected participants is not possible. The number of international students that self-identified was 39. However, the total number of international students that were contacted to participant is not known.




L I V I N G P R E F E R E N C E S

The housing demographics consisted of 11% on-campus housing, 38% off-campus apartment, 16% off-campus condo/duplex/townhome, and 34% off-campus house. While this survey was sent to only student who live off campus, there were still some students that were coded incorrectly and live in the residence halls. This can influence the responses to questions further in the survey.

The vast majority of students currently rent (84%), some own (4%), some live with family (5%), and the rest live in the residence halls (6%). The survey was filtered by each demographic group based on class level, international status, and interest in on-campus apartments. FFigure 1 shows that a large percentage of students who live off-campus are renters with seniors and international students with the highest percentages.

FFigure 1: Students who rent

The majority of students live within 2 miles of campus (78%), while only 9% live more than 4 miles from campus. FFigure 2 shows the proximity of students who live off-campus to campus. The vast majority live within 2 miles of campus with the largest percentage in international, sophomores, and those interested in on-campus.

881% 887%

773%

885% 887%

778%

660%

880%

1100%




FFigure 2: Percentage of students who live within 2 miles of campus

The modes of transportation to campus are split fairly evenly between driving (30%), biking (24%), taking the bus (19%), and walking (23%). This shows that parking is an important factor for students in their commute to campus, but a majority us alternative modes of transit to reach campus.

H O U S I N G P R E F E R E N C E S

The Off-Campus Life survey tested many factors or preferences of students for living when they choose a rental property. B&D asked to add “private bedroom” as a factor in order to determine the importance of this feature when choosing a rental. FFigure 3 shows that private bedrooms for students are very important and private bathrooms are less important. This was consistent across all groups of students.

FFigure 3: Students who selected very to extremely important (combined) –– pprivate bed or pprivate bath

773% 990%

777% 774% 669% 777%

00% 220% 440% 660% 880%

1100%

887% 886% 883% 889% 889% 992%

552% 449% 447% 552% 553% 556%

00%

220%

440%

660%

880%

1100%

PPrivate Bedroom PPrivate Bathroom




Other important factors in determining demand include whether students stay in Fort Collins in the summer and what kind of lease length student prefer. FFigure 4 shows these factors and their importance based on each of the group demographics. About half of all the students staying in Fort Collins during the summer with a continuous increase the longer the student is enrolled.

FFigure 4: Percentage of students who stay in Fort Collins over the summer months

FFigure 5 shows student preference for lease length is split between academic year and 12-month with very few choosing the other options (month-to-month, 3-month, 6-month, 9-month). All students seem to prefer a 12-month lease compared to an academic year lease, this is very prevalent for juniors and seniors. The only demographic group where the preference was reversed was for international students and those interested in on-campus apartments. This shows that those interested in on-campus apartments and students who are in town only during the academic year are looking for the academic year lease, which is not widely available in the off-campus market. For the rest of the off-campus population the results show that the flexibility of an option of lease length is an important factor to consider with new apartments on-campus.

554% 550% 440%

559% 660% 448%

00%

220%

440%

660%

880%




FFigure 5: Percentage of students who prefer each type of lease length

B & D A D D I T I O N A L Q U E S T I O N S

B&D had the opportunity to add two questions to the Off-Campus Life annual rental survey. These questions were as follows:

How interested would you be in living in new CSU-owned, on-campus, undergraduate apartments built near the academic core?

Which academic years would you be willing to live in new CSU-owned, on-campus, undergraduate apartments built near the academic core?

FFigure 6 shows overall only 27% of students said that they were “very to extremely interested” in living in new on-campus apartments, 27% “moderately interested” / undecided, and 30% definitively were “not interested at all”. Compared to the different demographic groups, international students were by far the most interested in living in new on-campus apartments compared to others.

334% 338% 442% 331% 330%

445% 449%

330% 442%

555% 551%

335%

00%

220%

440%

660%

AAcademic Year Lease 112--mmonth Lease




FFigure 6: Interest in new on--ccampus apartments

When asked which academic year students would prefer to live in new on-campus apartments, the results were evenly split +/- 1% based on the response percentage (based on total number of responses) and the respondent percentage (based on total number of respondents). Therefore, the preference for students is inconclusive. The international student population preferred the senior year (36%), while only 13% who were not interested at all.

S T U D E N T C O M M E N T S

The last part of the survey analysis is the open comments section provided to students to share any thoughts, questions, or comments regarding the survey topic. These can be helpful as a broad brushstroke of issues concerning students. These comments provided some interesting and unique issues to CSU:

1. A large number of students who require pet-friendly rentals, which are few and far between according to the survey comments.

2. The over 21 alcohol policy is a typical topic on most campuses. Students were requesting a policy change in new on-campus apartments to allow students who are over 21 to consume alcohol in the privacy of their own apartment.

3. The landlord-tenant relationship was a source of many negative comments regarding dishonest landlords in Fort Collins, which was more prevalent than other surveys.

227%

556%

229% 229% 224%

331%

112%

226% 227% 336%

00%

220%

440%

660%

VVery to Extremely Interested NNot Interested




4. The cost of living on-campus is too high for students, which is why they choose to live off campus. This is typical for most campuses and students must weigh this as a factor in their housing choices.

S U M M A R Y O F F I N D I N G S

During Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 B&D was part of a project plan team for the redevelopment of the Aggie Village North site. Part of this project involved the assessment and potential for new on-campus apartments. In lieu of a survey conducted by B&D, CSU provided access to their annual “Student Rental Survey” results and the opportunity to add a few project-specific questions. The results were used as a tool to help support decisions on demand, unit mix, pricing, and other preferences. Based on results discussed in this section, several conclusions can be drawn from the student responses to the survey:

S U R V E Y S I G N I F I C A N C E

T h e s u r v e y t h a t w a s s u m m a r i z e d o n l y t a r g e t e d a n d r e c e i v e d r e s p o n s e s f r o m

a s m a l l p o r t i o n o f t h e s t u d e n t b o d y . T h i s w a s m o s t l y o f f - c a m p u s s t u d e n t s

w h o h a v e d i f f e r e n t p r e f e r e n c e s f o r o n - c a m p u s l i v i n g t h a n o n - c a m p u s

s t u d e n t s a n d v i c e v e r s a .

W h i l e t h e m a r g i n o f e r r o r w a s b e l o w t h e t h r e s h o l d , a f u l l s u r v e y o f a l l

s t u d e n t s w o u l d p r o v i d e m o r e d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g p r e f e r e n c e s a n d

p r i c e p o i n t s u p p o r t f o r n e w o n - c a m p u s a p a r t m e n t s .

T h e n u m b e r o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l s t u d e n t s c o n t a c t e d w e r e n o t k n o w n a n d v e r y f e w

r e s p o n d e d . I f t h e n e w o n - c a m p u s a p a r t m e n t s a r e t a r g e t e d f o r t h i s

p o p u l a t i o n , t h e n a m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e s u r v e y s h o u l d b e i m p l e m e n t e d t o

g a u g e p r e f e r e n c e s a n d p r i c e t o l e r a n c e .

S U R V E Y R E S U L T S

8 4 % o f s t u d e n t s r e n t o f f - c a m p u s a n d m o s t r e n t a p a r t m e n t s ( 3 8 % ) a n d h o u s e s

( 3 4 % ) .

S e n i o r s ( 8 7 % ) a n d i n t e r n a t i o n a l s t u d e n t s ( 8 7 % ) a r e m o r e l i k e l y t o b e r e n t e r s

t h a n o t h e r g r o u p s .

7 8 % o f s t u d e n t s l i v e w i t h i n 2 m i l e s o f c a m p u s , w h i l e o n l y 9 % l i v e f a r t h e r t h a n

4 m i l e s f r o m c a m p u s .

O n l y a 1/ 3 o f s t u d e n t s d r i v e t o c a m p u s , w h i l e t h e r e s t t a k e a l t e r n a t i v e m o d e s

o f t r a n s i t .




T h e r e i s a h i g h e r p r e f e r e n c e f o r p r i v a t e b e d r o o m s ( 8 7 % ) t h a n t h e r e a r e f o r

p r i v a t e b a t h r o o m s ( 5 2 % ) .

J u n i o r s a n d S e n i o r s a r e m o r e l i k e l y t o s t a y i n F o r t C o l l i n s d u r i n g t h e s u m m e r

m o n t h s ( 5 9 % & 6 0 % ) .

O v e r a l l , a 12 - m o n t h l e a s e w a s s l i g h t l y m o r e p r e f e r r e d b y s t u d e n t ( 3 9 % v s .

2 4 % ) . H o w e v e r , i n t e r n a t i o n a l s t u d e n t s ( 3 8 % v s . 3 0 % ) ) a n d t h o s e w h o w e r e

i n t e r e s t e d i n o n - c a m p u s a p a r t m e n t s p r e f e r r e d a n a c a d e m i c y e a r l e a s e ( 4 5 %

v s . 3 5 % ) .

O n l y a 1/ 3 o f s t u d e n t s w e r e ‘ ‘ v e r y t o e x t r e m e l y i n t e r e s t e d ’’ i n n e w o n - c a m p u s

a p a r t m e n t s . O v e r w h e l m i n g l y , t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n w a s 5 6 %

‘‘ v e r y t o e x t r e m e l y i n t e r e s t e d ’’ i n n e w o n - c a m p u s a p a r t m e n t s .

C S U s t u d e n t s e x p r e s s e d s o m e u n i q u e c o n c e r n s i n t h e c o m m e n t s s e c t i o n o f

t h e s u r v e y : p e t - f r i e n d l y r e n t a l s , d i s h o n e s t l a n d l o r d s , o v e r 2 1 p o l i c i e s , a n d

h i g h c o s t o f o n - c a m p u s h o u s i n g .

Appendix D -Program Development



PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT S C O P E

The scope of the program development was to determine the unit typology and mix for the Aggie Village North project, as well as additional non-revenue spaces that should be included in the project. The program development process included strategic discussions with Housing and Dining Services (HDS) staff, an understanding of trends in on-campus student apartment communities across the country, a review of the off-campus housing market offerings, the definition of key target demographics, and a thorough review and audit of non-revenue spaces to be included in the project.

S T R A T E G I C A S S E T V A L U E ( S A V ) A N A L Y S I S

O B J E C T I V E

Colleges and universities nationwide recognize the important role that student housing plays in meeting institutional enrollment, educational goals, and in enhancing campus life. B&D acknowledges the Administration’s objective to develop residential facilities that serve as strategic assets and enhance enrollment management goals through improved recruitment, retention, and satisfaction among students, faculty, and staff. Although many factors impact the University’s ability to meet institutional goals, the following information provides evidence that carefully planned housing and other “quality of life” facilities are an important component of the overall strategy. As a result, B&D identified strategic goals with the HDS Planning Committee to provide evidence that on-campus student housing contributes to overall CSU objectives.


B&D uses a “Destination Value” approach to facility development to respond to the constant challenge of assuring that student housing improvements respond to the University’s current strategic objectives.

B&D conducted a working session with the Project Committee to develop strategic project objectives for the Aggie Village North Site Redevelopment on November 30th, 2012. The Strategic Asset Value worksheet in AAppendix A: Strategic Asset Value Worksheets was used by the committee to discuss independent strategic objectives for student housing.




Multiple strategic objectives were evaluated during the visioning session. For each objective, the group identified a value between 1 and 10 representing the University’s goal, which was denoted with an “O.” The group also identified a value between 1 and 10 representing how CSU as a whole and HDS are currently supporting each goal; these selections were marked with an “X.” Wherever there was a gap between the “X” and the “O,” it signaled an opportunity to identify the programmatic and physical solutions that may be available to close those gaps.

The gap analysis focused on Apartment Life goals and objectives and is around the following categories of strategic outcomes:

Enhancement of Educational Outcomes

Enrollment Management

Campus/University Community Creation

Financial Performance

Sustainability

The gap analysis results were then synthesized and translated into a “Strategic Asset Value Story” (“SAV Story”) that articulates the housing asset attributes that the Plan must strive to accommodate.

O U T C O M E S

Three major strategic priorities related to the project and HDS Apartment Life emerged during the session:

1) Strong need to improve and expand apartment-style housing options to serve upperclassmen and graduate students.

The Project Committee outlined the need to serve a broader range of students with facilities that were more responsive to the housing market. Current on-campus apartment facilities were perceived to be unappealing to many students and did not match the standards for on-campus housing set by recent renovation and new construction residence hall projects. Newer apartment-style housing facilities are needed to retain upperclassmen in on-campus housing and expand the range of offerings to CSU undergraduate and graduate students. In addition,




new on-campus apartment facilities are a key recruitment tool for attracting undergraduate and graduate students to CSU.

2) Ensure sufficient bed space to house growing population of CSU students who will live in on-campus housing.

CSU has experienced significant enrollment growth in recent years, and is projecting continued growth in both undergraduate and graduate student populations in the future. In addition, international students are expected to be a key component of sustaining these growth trends. CSU is committed to maintaining its status as a residential campus and to providing housing to a broad range of students that choose to live on campus. In addition, the recent demolition of an on-campus apartment facility has reduced the system bed capacity. As a result, the Project Committee views the Aggie Village North project as a key element of maintaining apartment-style bed capacity in on-campus housing, as well as serving the expanding student population.

3) Provide new facilities to expand successful Apartment Life living/learning programs.

The Project Committee described the success of the Intercultural Connections Community (ICC) program and its ability to successfully bring international and domestic communities together. However, the scope of this program is currently limited by existing facilities. As a result, the Aggie Village North project is seen as an opportunity to provide larger, more appealing space to housing this growing community and increase its impact throughout campus.

N A T I O N A L O N - C A M P U S A P A R T M E N T T R E N D S

The development of new on-campus apartment housing is becoming more common across the country. In order to help inform the Aggie Village North program development process, B&D presented and discussed several national trends that are taking place in on-campus apartment housing. Three of these trends are described as follows:

1) Academic programs in apartment housing

Academics and living-learning communities have become a common feature of residence halls across the country. However, some campuses are now expanding these programs to apartment communities that house higher percentages of sophomores, juniors, and seniors. These programming options are successful in helping students achieve success in their academic and social lives, as well as connect students to the larger campus community. These programs are critical for students who have matured beyond the residence hall environment, but may not be ready to live off campus in non-university housing.




2) Multiple student populations housed within one community.

Campuses across the country are encouraging intergenerational engagement by mixing multiple student populations within one community. These efforts are meant to encourage graduate students to mix with undergraduates, and seniors and juniors to mix with sophomores and even freshmen. These mixed populations result in higher levels of student satisfaction and success. While certain populations may tend to self-segregate within their living areas, shared social spaces and community amenities provide opportunities for extensive interaction.

3) Graduate housing as a recruiting tool.

Research institutions across the country are in competition to attract the best graduate students and researchers possible. As a result, new graduate student housing projects have become a popular tool to help with recruitment and transition individuals to a new campus community. Graduate housing projects are characterized by low-occupancy unit types (e.g. studio and one-bedroom units) and increased privacy.

T A R G E T M A R K E T S A N D U N I T M I X

At the start of the project, HDS outlined the need to build 1,000 beds of on-campus, apartment-style housing. With this number in mind, B&D conducted a demographic analysis of the CSU student population and worked with HDS to define the target markets for the project.

The primary target market of the Aggie Village North project is single, full-time undergraduate students. This market primarily consists of juniors and seniors who are looking for an academically-friendly community that is close to the campus core. These students will likely be residents of CSU residence halls, and will transition into on-campus apartment living.

In addition, HDS has considered relocating the ICC community from their existing location in the University Apartments to the new Aggie Village North project. This move would allow for significant expansion of the ICC program, as it is constrained right now within its current facility.

Lastly, HDS outlined the need for on-campus apartments that would be available to graduate students, postdoctoral (postdoc) scholars and visiting scholars. Located near the academic core or campus, these apartments would meet the need of students who value proximity to lab and classroom spaces, as well as the ability to have CSU as their landlord.

During the strategic discussions, it was determined that 75% of the project, or 750 beds, should be programmed for undergraduate students. These units would be available to students within the ICC program, projected to grow to 500 beds, as well as undergraduate students that are not




affiliated with any DHS Apartment Life program. The undergraduate apartment program consists of the following:

• Studio Apartments – 30 units totaling 30 beds

• One-Bedroom Apartments – 30 units totaling 30 beds

• Two-Bedroom Apartments – 75 units totaling 150 beds

• Three-Bedroom Apartments – 75 units totaling 225 beds

• Four-Bedroom Apartments – 75 units totaling 300 beds

• RA Studios – 15 units totaling 15 beds

In general, undergraduate students prefer larger units that house a higher number of students. These living units provide more socialization opportunities between students and are considered more appealing. As a result, 70% of the beds within the undergraduate community are contained within units that have three or more bedrooms.

The graduate, postdoc and visiting scholars community consists of the following:

• Studio Apartments – 85 units totaling 85 beds

• One-Bedroom Apartments – 20 units totaling 20 beds

• Two-Bedroom Apartments – 70 units totaling 140 beds

• RA Studios – 5 units totaling 5 beds

In general, graduate students prefer living conditions that afford a high degree of privacy and personal space. As a result, 42% of the beds within the graduate community are individual studio and one-bedroom units that will afford the maximum level of privacy.

All of the units contained within the project are single-occupancy units, in which there is only one student per bedroom. In addition, there will be no meal plan requirement associated with living in the housing facility, although meal plans will be offered to interested students.




PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT S C O P E

The scope of the program development was to determine the unit typology and mix for the Aggie Village North project, as well as additional non-revenue spaces that should be included in the project. The program development process included strategic discussions with Housing and Dining Services (HDS) staff, an understanding of trends in on-campus student apartment communities across the country, a review of the off-campus housing market offerings, the definition of key target demographics, and a thorough review and audit of non-revenue spaces to be included in the project.

S T R A T E G I C A S S E T V A L U E ( S A V ) A N A L Y S I S

O B J E C T I V E

Colleges and universities nationwide recognize the important role that student housing plays in meeting institutional enrollment, educational goals, and in enhancing campus life. B&D acknowledges the Administration’s objective to develop residential facilities that serve as strategic assets and enhance enrollment management goals through improved recruitment, retention, and satisfaction among students, faculty, and staff. Although many factors impact the University’s ability to meet institutional goals, the following information provides evidence that carefully planned housing and other “quality of life” facilities are an important component of the overall strategy. As a result, B&D identified strategic goals with the HDS Planning Committee to provide evidence that on-campus student housing contributes to overall CSU objectives.


B&D uses a “Destination Value” approach to facility development to respond to the constant challenge of assuring that student housing improvements respond to the University’s current strategic objectives.

B&D conducted a working session with the Project Committee to develop strategic project objectives for the Aggie Village North Site Redevelopment on November 30th, 2012. The Strategic Asset Value worksheet in AAppendix A: Strategic Asset Value Worksheets was used by the committee to discuss independent strategic objectives for student housing.

Appendix E -Concept Exploration Designing

theProgram

Inside-Outthefrom Outside-In

table of contents

01 Contextual Infl uences

02 Site Drivers

03 The “In-Between”

04 Unit Optimization

05 Brand Identifi cation / Components of Placemaking

Appendix E -Concept Exploration


4240 begins each project with a fl urry of “busy sketches” - we draw to uncover design ideas and explore alternates. For the Aggie Village North Redevelopment, we began by asking ourselves, “How much program fi ts the site? What are the challenges and opportunities inherent to this place? What are the infl uences in the surrounding context? and How do we embrace the diverse program?” For this project, we asked the question...

...If I were a New Residential Village...

01 Contextual Infl uencesAppendix E -Concept Exploration

I would begin by analyzing contextual

infl uences

...If I were...


Contextual Infl uences

I would ask what the macro contextual infl uences are to

see what challenges and opportunities

lie outside the site boundaries and into the greater campus

and Fort Collins community.

Aggie Village North is located at the southern edge of CSU’s main campus along Center Avenue between Lake Street and Prospect Road. Less than a 10 minute walk from a Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit station and the Lory Student Center, the site is ide-ally located for quick multi-mode connections to campus and the greater Fort Collins community.



I would study the immediate context to

see what synergies might already

exist and ask what opportunities present themselves along the

site boundaries.

Positioned along the primary academic spine which connects the main campus to the south campus, the southeast corner of the site sets itself up as a primary campus gateway. The “pub-lic” movement and activity of Lake Street and Center Avenue present a unique threshold opportunity between residential and academic uses.



Sun Wind

light / warmth / energy fl ora / open space / food / soils


g /////// // g/ g/// yy / p/ p/ ppppp p /pppp /p //////

June 21 Sunrise5:30 am

June 21 Sunset 8:35 pm

March 21 Sunrise6:25 am

12:00pm

12:00pm

12:00pm

March 21 Sunset6:38 pm

Dec 21 Sunrise7:21 am

Dec 21 Sunset 4:40 pm

Signifi cant Vegetation

Solar Path

Signifi cant Shadow

Site Flows

Sun Wind

ventilation / protection / energy contours


precip / fl oodplain/ service

5018

5018

50185020

5014

5014

5020 5011

SUMMER / WINTER AFTERNOONS

SUMMER / WINTER MORNINGS

Water Flow

Floodplain

Wind Flow

Site Flows

I would try to understand the

natural and contextual site fl ows

which would infl uence planning decisions around movement, access, orientation

and operation.

The existing site provides for good solar access throughout the year with potential optimization in daylighting and solar harnessing. Signifi cant vegeta-tion (primarily deciduous trees) occur throughout the site and will be studied for contribution to future development. A mature row of evergreen trees exists at the southern edge of the site screening the sights and sounds of Prospect Road.

The current 100 year fl oodplain encroaches slightly on the northeast corner of the site. As a general condition, the site (and therefore water) fl ows from west to east. The primary wind fl ow will come from the north (during the mornings) and south (during the afternoons).


Site Plan Study

I would ask how big is the site in terms

of developmental boundaries and use-able square footage.

The current Aggie North site is approximately 8.4 acres. CSU owns the land up to the bounding streets to the north, east and south. A storm water utility easement divides the current site and 8 single family residential parcels to the west.

Single Family ResidentialAggie Village SiteUtility Easement

365,700 sf8.4 Acres

LAKE ST.

PROSPECT RD.

WH

ITC

OM

B S

T.

CEN

TER

AVE

.


Site Plan Study

Testing a fi ve story bar scheme with a parking garageYield: 900 beds / 650 parking spaces

Testing a fi ve story bar scheme to the limits of the site boundariesYield: 1,235 beds

Maximizing Densities

Testing a fi ve story courtyard scheme to the limits of the site boundariesYield: 1,550 beds

Testing a fi ve story courtyard scheme with a parking garageYield: 1,070 beds / 650 parking spaces

I would ask what is the carrying capacity

of the site; making code and placemaking

assumptions on height and density.

02 Site DriversAppendix E -Concept Exploration

I would ask how our site could be a good

neighbor

...If I were...


“boundary”extend campus

Site:Design Drivers

greenenergy spine preserveengage

I would ask how the new residential

development can become a positive

infl uence to it’s neighbors and

thrive as a diverse community.

Aggie Village North is ideally positioned to open up its edges and receive the academic campus, thereby intuitively and physically moving the perceived campus edge to Prospect Road.

Center Avenue is a central artery that connects the main campus to the south campus. The east edge of the site would embrace the stu-dent energy fl owing north/south creating moments of engage-ment, excitement and vitality while sustaining community. By building diversity into public and private spaces, Aggie Village North will enhance the resident experience.

Currently, Aggie Village has in-ternal open space and vegetation which provide a valuable reprieve from the more public edges of the community. By interweaving nature in the planning, the rede-velopment will strive to preserve and regenerate new opportuni-ties for repose and engaging the outdoors.


Center Avenue is a relatively high volume throughway for both cars and pedestri-ans. Aggie North new development should be held back from the street edge to minimize a “canyon effect” between buildings on both sides of the street, as well as, provide a welcoming, pedestrian friendly streetscape for this campus gateway.

1

Site:Design Drivers

I would ask what external forces are

adjacent to or coming into the site that will

start to infl uence site planning strategies.

Lake St.

Prospect Rd.

Whi

tcom

b St

.

Cen

ter

Ave.

1AA

135’55’ 26’

54’

54’37’ 50’

Center Ave. Parking Garage

Section A-A


Lake St.

Prospect Rd.

Whi

tcom

b St

.

Cen

ter

Ave.

Prospect Rd.

Center Ave.

Connecting the main campus to the south campus with a future overpass / underpass will alleviate pressures and provide a safe and effi cient means for student movement across Prospect Rd. Even though building this grade separation is not a part of the project scope, the redevelopment of the Aggie North site should allow for this to happen by holding the new buildings off of the corner of Center Ave. and Prospect Rd.

2

Site:Design Drivers




underpass overpass

2

Prospect Rd.

Center Ave.


Lake St.

Prospect Rd.

Whi

tcom

b St

.

Cen

ter

Ave.

Site:Design Drivers

The 8 single family parcels are zoned “HMN” and have the poten-tial to be developed into a 5 story building. If CSU decides to acquire the land in the future, careful study will need to happen to ensure high-est and best use of site.

The corner of Lake St. and Center Ave. is an entryway into the academic core of campus and will very likely require future traffi c improvements. The Aggie Village North redevelopment should be held back from this corner to allow for a gracious and vibrant entry plaza into the residential village.

Large evergreen trees buffer the south edge of the site from the visual clutter and noise of Prospect Road. Careful attention must be paid to not disturb this natural screen.




5

3

4

3

5

4

need imageneneneneneeeneeeneneneeneneeneeneeenneeneeneeeeneneeeeeeeeeneeeenneneeeeneneeeennneneeeeeeeennnnnnnnneeneeneeeennnnnneenneeennneeeenneeeeeneeeeenneeeeennneeeeneeenneennneenneeeeeeedededddeddddededdeeedeededdeeeddddeedddeddedeedddedededededddddedddddeeeededdddedeeeeeedddeedeeddededdddddededdedeeedededdddeeedddeedddddeeedddedddeeeedeededeedededdeedddeddeeeddddeeeedeeddddddeeeeeddddedeeeeeddddeeeeddddeeedddddeeeeeeeeddddeeeeeddd ii i ii mmmmmmmmmmmmmmamamammmmmmmammmmmmmammmmmmmmmmmmmmmammmmmmmmmmmamaammmmmmmaaammmaammmaaaaaamaamaaamammammmmam geggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

Lake St..

Cen

ter

Ave.


Site:Design Drivers

Formal Active EdgesInternal Interaction

Passive Edges

Prospect Rd.

Whi

tcom

b St

.

Cen

ter

Ave.



start to infl uence project mass and

character

The north and east sides of the Aggie North site are transition zones between the academic and public campus infl uences. These specifi c site edges should respond to the character and feel of this more active, public condition. The south and west edges are more passive and private due to the density of trees and “park like” setting and should be woven together with residential spaces. Somewhere on the interior of the site should be a connective zone that transitions the public and private, active and passive, urban and residential; thus mak-ing for a diverse residential experience.

Lake St.


Site Plan Study

“Community Zipper”

“Porous Edges”

“Gateways”

Internalized energy that splits residential into diverse public and private experiences thus creating spatial interest.

Soft edges to invite movement and porosity between the activity and energy of the campus to create a “village-like” atmosphere; ultimately maintaining mixed use communities.

Using the destination resort and old town square concepts as models, a main pedestrian street book-ended by centers of arrival and activity help organize a uniform residential experience.

I would ask, knowing all of the contextual and site infl uences,

what would a site plan want to be to

successfully realize an on-campus

residential apartment experience.


I.C.C. Community

Academic Alternate

Undergraduate Community

Graduate Community

Parking Podium

Whitcomb St.

Lake St.

Program Infl uences

I would ask what community program

elements will infl uence the planning and

massing of the site.

The programming process has identifi ed 3 distinct residential communities to be allocated on this site. Through conversations with CSU Housing and Dining Services / Apartment Life, we realized the idiosyn-cratic needs of each and brainstormed how synergies could be developed. The ICC community will be home to 500 students and should take advantage of the more passive aspects of the southwest corner of the site. The Graduate community, home to 250 students, should be plugged into the “energy spine” along Center Avenue. The Undergraduate community, also with 250 students, wants to take advantage of the synergistic relationship with the academic campus core. Further, on site parking and an alternate for academic space will infl uence the massing and site planning strategies.


Program Infl uences-Parking

Parking Underneath Footprint Only

Parking Podium w/ Light Extensive Courtyard Roof

Building Footprint Above

Entry / Exit

Below Grade Parking

Building on Grade

I would ask how would parking

most effi ciently and effectively be

accommodated on site.

The programming process has identifi ed a need to accommodate 250 garage spaces and 50 surface spaces in the Aggie Village North planning. We propose partially tucking the parking garage below the footprints of the buildings in order to maximize the potential to connect the residents to indoor / outdoor habitable spaces. Further, by tucking the parking underneath the buildings, we can leverage the existing slope of the site to minimize excavation costs and provide natural ventilation and daylight to the garage.

Entry Options


Program Infl uences-Academic

Option 1 Diagram - Base Program Option 1 Diagram + Academic Program

Relocated Residential Living

Possible New Academic Program

I would ask where would classroom space want to be

located in order to take advantage of

existing and proposed synergies. As part of a program alternate to the base scope, we studied

the massing and spatial impacts of adding potential general classroom / academic offi ce space to the Aggie North site. As a means to extend the existing campus boundary south to Prospect Rd. and relate back to the academic campus core, the alternate program space should ideally be located at the northeast corner of the site. This space would be located on the fi rst fl oor, thus relocating the residential space to an additional fl oor above. Also, locating general classroom space on the site gives the residential community increased fl exibility in programming this space for evening and week-end activities.

Section through classrooms - “Experiential Benefi ts”


The public / private dual nature of the Aggie North site provides great opportunities for the massing and char-acter of the project to embrace and evolve CSU / HDS brand identifi cation. The northeast corner of the site sets up as a unique transition zone between the aca-demic / public infl uences and the residential experience beyond.

Conceptual diagram of public entry plaza Character sketch of public entry plaza

Program Infl uences-Public Corners

I would ask how the Aggie Site can begin

to open itself to local synergies


In an effort to provide variety (in scale and type) of pedestrian spaces, we begin to see specifi c nodes of activity that respond to different active and passive movements. A tapestry can be woven full of moments of pause as well as engagement that begin to inform building character and development.

Program Infl uences-Pedestrian Flows

I would ask how pedestrians should

engage the public realm of this project

Activating the public realm

Hierarchy of public realm

Character feel of pedestrian arcade


The residential experience (both outside and inside) should refl ect, as well as articulate, an intimate un-derstanding of scale, materials and the human spirit. We see buildings opening up, shifting horizontal and vertical planes and becoming passive in an effort to fl ood the residential experience with light, nature and texture.

Aerial perspective of passive residential experienceConceptual diagram of passive residential experience

Program Infl uences-Residential Palette

I would ask how the more private

residential elements of the project can

begin to infl uence space and building

design


Site Plan Study

Prospect Rd.

Lake St.

Cen

ter

Ave.

Whi

tcom

b St

.

I would ask what do I look like so far...

03 The “In-Between”Appendix E -Concept Exploration

I would ask how the spaces found “in-

between” can further infl uence the site

and space planning and begin to inform the character of the

project.

...If I were...


Placemaking - The In-Between

RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIALZIPPER LANE

95’

26’

52’

Section B-B

Aggie Village Option 1 - ZipperntsRESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIALRESIDENTIAL QUAD

100’

28’

Existing Aggie Village Courtyard

I would ask what are the outdoor

spaces that can bring diversity in activity

to the site while providing added

amenities for the residents.

The Arrival Portal and Entry Plaza are critical to establish a welcoming fi rst impression for the community. The Aggie Arcade serves as the “mix-ing pot” for the community bringing together all three communities in a public realm where people can interact as well as observe. The private residential uses of the community are served by the Passive Landscape Zone, Residential Courtyard and the Green Commons. The three scales of “in-between” space provide the residents a multi-layered outdoor ame-nity entrenched in natural elements.


Placemaking - The In-Between

By studying the sections through the site we can begin to see opportuni-ties of stepping buildings horizontally and vertically to create places for interaction and relaxation. We can also begin to see how buildings and parking can be sculpted into the site in effi cient ways. The existing site cross slope can be utilized to tuck parking underneath the buildings while minimizing excavation.

PROSPECT RD. RESIDENTIAL GREEN COURTYARD LAKE ST.MIXED USE ZONEPEDESTRIAN MAIN STREET

N

Main Street Enlarged Section

Site Section

I would ask how do the spaces interact in

the vertical dimension


Placemaking - Active / Passive

Classrooms: “See & Be Seen”Student Lounges: Connected Views

Retail: Indoors / outdoors

Residential - Passive

Links - Public / Interactive Spaces

We studied how architectural program elements can establish linkages and activate the “In-Be-tween” spaces, therefore creating multipurpose amenities.

Lake

Str

eet

Center Avenue

I would ask how community

programming elements could

be intertwined & celebrated to create

places for one & places for many


Character Study:Evolution

Entry Plaza

Aggie ArcadeMixing pot of the site that frames views and has soft / porous edges that lead people into spaces beyond. Enhance the pedestrian experience with integrated and interactive landscapes.

Important entry corner that provides a direct link between the academic campus core and Aggie Village. Community functions and interesting spaces will help animate this cor-ner. Design studies are necessary to address how to appropriately relate to context without making the buildings too imposing on the streetscape. Design needs to articulate the HDS residential brand.I would ask how the

site infl uences and “in-between” spaces

begin to inform the built character

and detailing of the project.


Character Study:Evolution

Passive Landscape

Residential Courtyards

The private community courtyards will take cues from the existing “park-like” setting with ample open space, varied vegetation and private areas for moments of repose. A goal will be to present a soft campus edge along Prospect Rd. The building courtyards should be open to the south to maximize solar ac-cess and views.

The buildings should be held back from Pros-pect Rd. to preserve the existing trees and the soft edge in an effort to mitigate street infl u-ence on the site. The buildings should present themselves as a visual expression of the CSU campus edge and HDS residential brand.

I would ask how the site infl uences and

“in-between” spaces begin to inform

the built character and detailing of the

project.


Program Allocation

Program Distribution Approach(es)

I would ask how the program can

best fi t on this site and how it might be

distributed between the communities.

With the majority of program comprised of residential living space, it is important to strategically place amenity space and require “gross up” space (such as corridor ends) to serve multi-purposes.

Level 2 Floor Plate

Community gsf: 2,500Residential gsf: 101,570

Total Level 2 gsf = 104,070

Level 1 Floor Plate


Academic gsf: 25,000



Level 4 Floor Plate

Community gsf: 625Residential gsf: 76,300


Level 3 Floor Plate



Program Allocation





+ Academic Alternate gsf: 25,000

Total Project gsf = 433,000

Site Density Analysis

Community gsf: 26,625 (6%)Residential gsf: 381,375 (94%)

Total Level gsf = 408,000 (100%)

Level 5 Floor Plate

Community gsf: 200Residential gsf: 41,935


Program Allocation





Unit Program Distribution

Level 1 Floorplan Level 2 Floorplan

Building in fl exibility for future re-allocation of communities or uses is important when con-sidering the layout mix and adjacencies of unit types. The long term success of this project will lie in it’s ability to adapt.

Program Allocation

I would ask what are the inherent

adjacencies within the program and how

the program can be distributed to allow

for future fl exibility.

Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Stacked 4 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Stacked


Level 3 Floorplan Level 4 FloorplanProgram Allocation





Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Stacked 4 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Stacked


Program Allocation





Level 5 Floorplan

Unit Program AnalysisUnit Count

490 Units 1000 BedsGrand Total

Bed Count

Studio 148 1481 Bedroom 54 542 Bedroom 138 2763 Bedroom 75 2253 Bedroom Stacked 3 94 Bedroom 33 1324 Bedroom Stacked 39 156

04 Unit OptimizationAppendix E -Concept Exploration

I would ask how does programming and planning from the

inside out inform the program and design

strategies.

...If I were...


Units:Optimization

?

?

Sleeping

Bathroom

Entry/Storage

Relaxing

Kitchen/Dinning

Twin Bed Twin Bed

Desk

Desk

Bathroom

10’-6”

Storage Storage

Bathroom

Twin Bed

Desk

Bathroom

6’-6”

9’-6”

3’-0”

Storage

Bathroom

Twin Bed Desk

Bathroom

6’-6”

3’-0”

2’-0”

7’-0”

Storage

6’-6”

9’-6”

3’-0”

Bathroom

19’-0”

Single bedroom with ONE bed - CONFIGURATION 1

Single bedroom with ONE bed - CONFIGURATION 2

Single bedroom with TWO beds CONFIGURATIONI would ask how do I

design a unit module around the most

important resident space: the bedroom.

In an effort to maximize effi ciency and func-tion, we started by looking at optimizing the width and depth of the bedroom module. As the student’s sanctuary, it is necessary to pro-vide space that is three dimensionally ample and fl exible.


Units:Optimization

Building Circulation

Double loaded corridor with fl at units on either side / stacked fl oor plans

Double loaded corridor with fl at units on either side with two story top units

Two story unit stacked over thru unit (walk up )

Two two story units interlocking

I would ask about how the units can be stacked to maximize

building sectional effi ciencies.

By overlapping units, providing double height spaces and shifting functions, we can ab-sorb general circulation space into the units, thereby giving more space to the student living experience while maximizing effi ciencies.


2 BEDROOM APARTMENT



1 BEDROOM APARTMENT


STUDIO


4 BEDROOM APARTMENT

2 STORY UNIT - UPPER FLOOR

2 STORY UNIT - LOWER FLOOR


3 BEDROOM APARTMENT


THRU UNIT (WALK UP)


1 STORY UNIT - BUILDING END

1 STORY UNIT - BUILDING END

LEG

END

:

Relaxing Zone

Sleeping Zone

Services

Bathroom

Kitchen

Entry/storage

Units:Optimization

I would ask how do you organize

the modules of the apartment to provide

an effi cient and desirable home for

the students.

By creating typical modules of the common apartment space types (i.e. bathroom, kitchen, etc...), we can utilize a “kit-of-parts” that maximize building effi ciency and eliminate internally wasted space.

05 Brand Identifi cation / Components of Placemaking


I would ask how does the project begin to build the CSU / HDS

Housing brand within the character of the

built spaces

...If I were...


Spaces

visual lanterns to animate, intrigue and provide safe / intuitive wayfi nding

vibrant community spaces to encourage user interactions

connecting bridges to link communities

I would ask what components are vital

to making a vibrant residential community


Spaces

take cues from campus aesthetic

evoke the Colorado landscape

celebrate common spaces / entries

I would ask what components help

articulate sense of place and movement


Character Study

pitched roofs and gables

high performance glazed cornersshifting material planesextended eaves

brick stone horizontal shading devices

Incorporate materials that refl ect the Housing and Dining brand and celebrate innovation

I would ask what materials are

appropriate to the regional context and

help articulate the CSU / HDS Housing

brand.


Aerial from the Southeast

I would ask what do I look like now...



Aerial from the Northeast


Aerial from the Northwest



Aerial from Southwest



I would ask what are the next steps...

Entry Plaza Perspective



Perspective of Aggie Arcade from Residential Bridge



Aerial Perspective of Residential Courtyards

Appendix F -Project Cost Estimate

Fort Collins, Colorado

6901 S. PIERCE STREET, SUITE 301 • LITTLETON • COLORADO • 80128PHONE: 303-948-7224 • FAX: 303-948-7230

CSU Fort CollinsAggie Village North Housing Project

Concept Budget Revision Development CostJune 24, 201313-00145.00

Prepared for CSU/4240 Architects


Prepared by: Cumming Corporation

Project Information Sheet

A) General InfoClient: Colorado State University

Project Name: Aggie Village North Housing ProjectLocation: Fort Collins, Colorado

Estimate Date: 06/24/13Job #: 13-00145.00

Milestone / Stage: Concept Budget Revision Development Cost

B) Indirect CostsGeneral Conditions (%): 7.5%Bonds & Insurance (%): 1.5%

General Contractor Fee (%): 3.5% Contingency (%): 1.0%

Contractor's Contingency (%): 0.0%

C) Construction Dates

Start Date: 01/01/14Completion Date: 01/01/16


Prepared by Cumming, LLC Sheet 3 of 20

CSU Fort Collins13-00145.00Aggie Village North Housing ProjectConcept Budget Revision Development Cost 06/24/13

Criteria: Region: ColoradoEstimate Date 06/24/13Construction Start 01/01/14Construction Completion 01/01/16

Derived:Construction Duration: 730 Days Calendar daysConstruction Duration: 24 monthsConstruction Midpoint: 01/01/15

Year Time Rate Total Compounded Rate1/1/2013 2013 0.52 2.0% 1.0%1/1/2014 2014 1.00 3.0% 3.0% 4.08% Midpoint Year Rate1/1/2015 2015 0.00 3.5% 0.0% 4.08%1/1/2016 2016 0.00 4.0% 0.0% 4.08%1/1/2017 2017 0.00 5.0% 0.0% 4.08%1/1/2018 2018 0.00 5.5% 0.0% 4.08%1/1/2019 2019 0.00 5.5% 0.0% 4.08%1/1/2020 2020 0.00 5.5% 0.0% 4.08%

Total Escalation: 4.08%


Prepared by Cumming Sheet 4 of 20


Construction Cost Summary



CSU Fort Collins Project No: 13-00145.00Aggie Village North Housing Project Date: 06/24/13Fort Collins, ColoradoConcept Budget Revision Development Cost

TotalDescription SF Cost / SF Construction

1. Housing Buildings and Parking 408,000 SF $177.10 $72,255,913

2 Building Sitework 224,000 SF $12.59 $2,819,837

3 Total Construction Cost 408,000 SF $75,075,750

Escalation to Mid-Point-Construction 4.08% $3,061,568

TOTAL $78,137,318

Program Cost including Soft Cost

1 Aggie Village Program Cost Base Scope $101,500,000

2 Aggie Village Program Cost Base Scope with Potential CFC PIFS $103,500,000

3 Aggie Village Program Cost Base Scope CFC PIFS and Land $106,500,000

4 Aggie Village Program Cost Base Scope Additions and Academic Space $111,000,000

5 Aggie Village Program Cost Base Scope Additions, Land and Academic Space $114,000,000

Potential CFC and PIFS Cost $2,000,000

Adjacent Property Cost $3,000,000

Academic Space Project Cost 25,000 SF $7,500,000

Construction Cost Summary




Schedule of Areas & Control Quantities



CSU Fort Collins Project No: 13-00145.00Aggie Village North Housing Project Date: 06/24/13Schedule of Areas & Control QuantitiesConcept Budget Revision Development Cost

TotalSchedule of Areas SF SF

1. Enclosed areas (x 100%)Lower level garage 55,762 55,762Floor 01 105,500 105,500Floor 02 104,500 104,500Floor 03 104,500 104,500Floor 04 76,300 76,300Floor 05 17,200 17,200

Subtotal - enclosed areas 408,000 408,000

2. Academic Space 25,000 25,000

3. Total Gross Floor Area 433,000 433,000

Podium garage 250 spaces 74,362 74,362Roofscape 18,600 18,600Under building footprint 55,762 55,762

Site 224,000 224,00050 surface parking spaces

Community Space 26,625Residential Space 381,375 408,000Academic Space 25,000

433,000

Unit Count Bed Count

Studio 156 1561 Bedroom 54 542 Bedrooms 139 2783 Bedrooms 75 2253 Bedrooms Stacked 3 94 Bedrooms 33 1324 Bedrooms Stacked 39 156

499 1,010




Housing Buildings and Parking


Prepared by Cumming Corporation Sheet 9 of 20

Aggie Village North Housing Project Project No: 13-00145.00Housing Buildings and Parking Date: 06/24/13Fort Collins, ColoradoConcept Budget Revision Development Cost

Housing Buildings and Parking Construction Cost Summary

Concept System OverallElement Subtotal Total Cost/SF Cost/SF

A) Shell (1-5) $24,539,969 $60.151 Foundations $1,733,083 $4.252 Vertical Structure $4,172,200 $10.233 Floor & Roof Structures $6,570,387 $16.104 Exterior Cladding $10,367,175 $25.415 Roofing and Waterproofing $1,697,125 $4.16

B) Interiors (6-7) $11,907,189 $29.186 Interior Partitions, Doors and Glazing $6,573,482 $16.117 Floor, Wall and Ceiling Finishes $5,333,707 $13.07

C) Equipment and Vertical Transportation (8-9) $3,347,250 $8.208 Function Equipment and Specialties $1,738,650 $4.269 Stairs and Vertical Transportation $1,608,600 $3.94

D) Mechanical and Electrical (10-13) $23,619,600 $57.8910 Plumbing Systems $4,182,000 $10.2511 HVAC $9,870,000 $24.1912 Electrical Lighting, Power and Communications $8,466,000 $20.7513 Fire Protection Systems $1,101,600 $2.70

Subtotal $63,414,008 $155.43Gen'l Cond, Bonds and Ins. 9.00% $5,707,300 $13.99

Subtotal $69,121,308 $169.41General Contractor's Fee 3.50% $2,419,200 $5.93

Subtotal $71,540,508 $175.34Contingency 1.00% $715,405 $1.75

Subtotal $72,255,913 $177.10Escalation

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $72,255,913 $177.10

Total Area: 408,000 SF




Housing Buildings and Parking Detail Elements

Unit Cost TotalElement Quantity Unit Total Cost

1 Foundations

Standard FoundationsGrade beam foundation 105,500 sf $4.15 $437,825Mat foundation 800 sf $30.55 $24,440Miscelaneous 1 ls $50,000.00 $50,0004" void form 800 sf $4.35 $3,480Excavation 3,500 cy $12.00 $42,000

Special Foundations18" diameter drilled piles 3,000 vlf $48.75 $146,25024" diameter drilled piles 2,500 vlf $56.75 $141,87530" diameter drilled piles 4,750 vlf $68.75 $326,563Spoils removal 1,350 cy $12.00 $16,200Parking excavation and removal 13,850 cy $12.00 $166,200Excavation support system 8,500 sf $26.25 $223,125

Elevator pit 8 ea $9,500.00 $76,000Perimeter drainage system 105,500 gsf $0.75 $79,125

Total - 1 Foundations $1,733,083

2 Vertical Structure

Parking concrete walls 12" reinforced concrete 25,600 sf $25.25 $646,400Core walls 12" CMU 18,500 sf $18.50 $342,250Stair walls 12" CMU 17,500 sf $18.50 $323,750Exterior structural metal studs back-up 6" 206,500 sf $4.75 $980,875Corridor structural metal studs 6" bearing walls 144,300 sf $4.75 $685,425Structural steel columns and bracing 250 ton $3,550.00 $887,500Miscelaneous metals 408,000 gsf $0.75 $306,000

Total - 2 Vertical Structure $4,172,200

3 Floor & Roof Structures

Slab on Grade5" concrete over 6" gravel and vapor barrier 105,500 sf $5.45 $574,975

Elevated slabsConcrete 12" elevated slab over parking 55,762 sf $13.25 $738,847Drop panels 10'X10'X12" 24 ea $1,050.00 $25,200Cast-in-place reinforced concrete podium 12" 104,500 sf $13.25 $1,384,625Drop panels 10'X10'X12" 50 ea $1,050.00 $52,500






3" concrete slab over 12" composite bar joist 198,000 sf $9.36 $1,853,280Parking roofscape

Concrete 12" elevated slab over parking 18,600 sf $13.25 $246,450Waterproofing 18,600 sf $4.85 $90,210Hardscape 18,600 sf $4.50 $83,700

Roofing framingPre-manufactured flat cold-formed steel trusses 62,000 sf $7.25 $449,500Pre-manufactured gabled cold-formed steel trusses 75,000 sf $8.50 $637,500

BridgesConnecting bridges 2 ea $125,000.00 $250,000

Rough carpentry 408,000 sf $0.45 $183,600

Total - 3 Floor & Roof Structures $6,570,387

4 Exterior Cladding

Glazing curtain wall 29,500 sf $62.75 $1,851,125Glazing windows and storefront 59,000 sf $51.25 $3,023,750Brick 118,000 sf $21.50 $2,537,000Stone veneer 59,000 sf $42.00 $2,478,000Stucco 29,500 sf $7.50 $221,250Metal panel accents 1 ls $25,000.00 $25,000Entrances 1,100 sf $48.00 $52,800Exterior caulking 295,000 sf $0.35 $103,250Exterior upgrades 1 ls $75,000.00 $75,000

Total - 4 Exterior Cladding $10,367,175

5 Roofing and Waterproofing

Garage wall waterproofing 25,600 sf $3.25 $83,200Elevator pit waterproofing 8 ea $450.00 $3,600Roof insulation R=40 105,500 sf $2.75 $290,125Roof plywood 105,500 sf $1.05 $110,775Synthetic slate tile roofing system 75,000 sf $7.15 $536,250Thermoplastic membrane roofing 62,000 sf $4.65 $288,300Soffit vent 5,250 lf $4.25 $22,313Ridge vent 5,250 lf $4.25 $22,313Snow cleats 5,000 sf $4.00 $20,000Roof gutter 5,250 lf $12.00 $63,000Roof downspouts 2,500 lf $15.00 $37,500Roof accessories 105,500 sf $0.55 $58,025






Flashings 105,500 sf $0.75 $79,125Roof hatch 8 ea $950.00 $7,600Miscelaneous 1 ls $75,000.00 $75,000

Total - 5 Roofing and Waterproofing $1,697,125

6 Interior Partitions, Doors and Glazing

Interior PartitionsInterior non-bearing partitions 361,430 sf $7.55 $2,728,797GWB and insulation for bearing corridor partitions 144,300 sf $3.75 $541,125Plumbing wall 35,000 sf $8.75 $306,250Shaft wall 12,500 sf $6.75 $84,375

Interior GlazingInterior glass 3,500 sf $38.00 $133,000

Interior DoorsWood door, HM frame, hardware 3'x7' 1,475 ea $985.00 $1,452,875HM door, HM frame, hardware 3'X7' 345 ea $775.00 $267,375Unit entry doors 499 ea $1,175.00 $586,325Roll-down Security Grille 8'X6'-6" 6 ea $4,200.00 $25,200Roll-down Security Grille 6'-2"X7'-0" 6 ea $3,750.00 $22,500Add for fire rating 1,200 ea $75.00 $90,000Accees card for residential doors install only 499 ea $200.00 $99,800Access doors 45 ea $225.00 $10,125Paint doors 2,319 leaf $65.00 $150,735Miscellaneous 1 ls $75,000.00 $75,000

Total - 6 Interior Partitions, Doors and Glazing $6,573,482

7 Floor, Wall and Ceiling Finishes

Floor FinishesFloor finishes carpet 34,907 sy $35.00 $1,221,733Floor finishes ceramic tile 30,600 sf $10.85 $332,010Floor finishes VCT 28,560 sf $4.75 $135,660Floor finishes sealed concrete 30,600 sf $2.15 $65,790

Base FinishesRubber base 28,750 lf $3.50 $100,625Carpet base 23,000 lf $4.15 $95,450

Wall FinishesPaint gypsum board 783,700 sf $0.62 $485,894






Wall covering 7,500 sf $4.50 $33,750Ceramic tile 12,500 sf $10.85 $135,625

Ceiling Finishes1-5/8" GWB at roof 105,500 sf $1.55 $163,525New ACT drop ceiling, 2'-0" x 2'-0" 25,000 sf $3.05 $76,250GWB ceiling with support framing 353,500 sf $5.25 $1,855,875GWB soffit ceiling 4,500 sf $12.00 $54,000Exposed ceiling 25,000 sf $0.85 $21,250Ceiling insulation 4" 353,500 sf $1.22 $431,270

Finishes upgrades 1 ls $125,000.00 $125,000

Total - 7 Floor, Wall and Ceiling Finishes $5,333,707

8 Function Equipment and Specialties

Building SpecialtiesSignage / miscellaneous specialties 408,000 sf $0.45 $183,600Fire extinguishers 80 ea $350.00 $28,000Window coverings 59,000 sf $7.50 $442,500Buletin board 1,200 sf $35.00 $42,000Toilet accessories 575 set $250.00 $143,750Toilet partitions 12 ea $950.00 $11,400Lavatory top and cabinet 499 ea $450.00 $224,550Shower base and enclosure 450 ea $800.00 $360,000Shower rod 450 ea $45.00 $20,250

CaseworkWall cabinets 450 lf $185.00 $83,250Base cabinets 450 lf $195.00 $87,750Countertop 450 lf $125.00 $56,250Window seat 24 ea $300.00 $7,200Security desk 6 ea $4,500.00 $27,000Mail and storage 6 ea $2,500.00 $15,000Entry mats 6 ea $1,025.00 $6,150

Total - 8 Function Equipment and Specialties $1,738,650

9 Stairs and Vertical Transportation

Metal pan stairs with concrete fill 62 flt $7,500.00 $465,000Stair finishes 62 flt $800.00 $49,600Interior unit stair 42 flt $6,500.00 $273,000






ElevatorsHydraulic levator 38 stop $19,500.00 $741,000Elevator cab allowance 8 ea $10,000.00 $80,000

Total - 9 Stairs and Vertical Transportation $1,608,600

10 Plumbing Systems

General plumbing systems target cost 408,000 gsf $10.25 $4,182,000

Total - 10 Plumbing Systems $4,182,000

11 HVAC

Four pipe fan coil with tie to campus chill water system 408,000 gsf $23.75 $9,690,000Parking area ventilation 24,000 sf $7.50 $180,000

Total - 11 HVAC $9,870,000

12 Electrical Lighting, Power and Communications

Electrical systems 408,000 gsf 19.25 $7,854,000AV systems 408,000 gsf 1.50 $612,000

Total - 12 Electrical Lighting, Power and Communications $8,466,000

13 Fire Protection Systems

Automatic Sprinkler System 408,000 sf $2.70 1,101,600

Total - 13 Fire Protection Systems 1,101,600



CSU Fort CollinsAggie Village North Housing ProjectCSU/4240 ArchitectureConcept Budget Revision Development Cost

Sitework



Aggie Village North Housing ProjectFort Collins, ColoradoConcept Budget Revision Development Cost 06/24/13

Project Summary - Sitework

Element Subtotal Total

A Service Site Development Cost $1,285,983A1 Site Clearance $50,000A2 Demolition and Removal $67,050A3 Removal and Rerouting of Existing Utility $36,250A4 Rough Grading $401,395A6 On-Site Drainage $35,000A7 Erosion Control $50,000A8 Outside Stairways, Ramps, and Retaining Walls $130,000B1 Curbs, Gutters and Paving $116,625B2 Sidewalks $304,050B3 Street Lighting etcB5 Storm Drains $95,613

C Utility Services Cost $510,692C1 Water $87,505C2 Sewage $69,840C3 Gas $31,997C4 Electric $254,500C5 Communication Systems $66,850

D General Site $669,475

Subtotal $2,466,149General Conditions 7.5% $184,961

Subtotal $2,651,110Bonds & Insurance 1.8% $46,394

Subtotal $2,697,505General Contractor Fee 3.5% $94,413

Subtotal $2,791,917Contingency 1.0% $27,919

Subtotal $2,819,837Contractor's Contingency

Subtotal $2,819,837Escalation

Subtotal $2,819,837

TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $2,819,837




Detail Elements - Sitework

Element Unit Unit Cost Total

A1 Site ClearanceSite clearance 1 ls $50,000.00 $50,000

Total - A1 Site Clearance $50,000

A2 Demolition and Removal

Remove existing asphalt paving and curb 100,500 sf $0.35 $35,175Remove existing concrete paving 23,500 sf $1.25 $29,375Miscelaneous demo 1 ls $2,500.00 $2,500

Total - A2 Demolition and Removal $67,050

A3 Removal and Rerouting of Existing Utility

Utilities removal 750 lf $15.00 $11,250Utilities relocation 1 sf $15,000.00 $15,000Protect utilities to remain 1 ls $10,000.00 $10,000

Total - A3 Removal and Rerouting of Existing Utility $36,250

A4 Rough Grading

Site cut to fill +/- 0.2' 224,000 sf $1.25 $280,000Fine grade 224,000 sf $0.33 $73,920Building pad earthwork 105,500 sf $0.45 $47,475

Total - A4 Rough Grading $401,395

A6 On-Site Drainage

Triplex storm pump 2 ea $17,500 $35,000

Total - A6 On-Site Drainage $35,000

A7 Erosion Control

Erosion control install maintain and remove 1 ls $50,000.00 $50,000

Total - A7 Erosion Control $50,000

A8 Outside Stairways, Ramps, and Retaining Walls

Boulder amphitheater wall 500 lf $75.00 $37,500






Boulder seat wall 1,000 lf $75.00 $75,000Trash enclosure 140 lf $125.00 $17,500

Total - A8 Outside Stairways, Ramps, and Retaining Walls $130,000

B1 Curbs, Gutters and Paving

Asphalt pavement 17,500 sf $3.45 $60,375Curb and gutter 2,500 lf $22.50 $56,250

Total - B1 Curbs, Gutters and Paving $116,625

B2 Sidewalks

Standard concrete paving 6" 20,000 sf $5.85 $117,000Regular concrete paving 6" 10,500 sf $5.85 $61,425Standard concrete paving 8" 5,000 sf $7.25 $36,250Concrete sidewalk 4" 12,500 sf $5.35 $66,875Bike parking area crushed fines 7,500 sf $3.00 $22,500

Total - B2 Sidewalks $304,050

B3 Street Lighting etc

Total - B3 Street Lighting etc

B5 Storm Drains

Storm drainage10" PVC storm pipe 150 lf $45.00 $6,75012" RCP storm pipe 250 lf $68.25 $17,06314"X23" HERCP storm pipe 200 lf $85.25 $17,05018" site inlet 24 ea $250.00 $6,0004' sidewalk chase 100 lf $275.00 $27,5003' sidewalk chase 50 lf $225.00 $11,250Connections 4 ea $2,500.00 $10,000

Total - B5 Storm Drains $95,613

C1 Water

8"PVC fire service loop line 645 lf $65.00 $41,9256"PVC fire water line 255 lf $52.00 $13,2604" water service 120 lf $36.00 $4,320






Fire hydrant 4 ea $4,500.00 $18,000Connection 4 ea $2,500.00 $10,000

Total - C1 Water $87,505

C2 Sewage

8" PVC sewer service 500 lf $62.00 $31,0006" PVC sewer service lateral 192 lf $45.00 $8,640Connection 2 ea $2,500.00 $5,000Manhole 6 ea $4,200.00 $25,200

Total - C2 Sewage $69,840

C3 Gas

Natural gas line 655 lf $48.85 $31,997

Total - C3 Gas $31,997

C4 Electric

Site Service and DistributionGenerator 25kw natural gas 120/208v 3ph 4w 3R enclos 1 ea $13,600.00 $13,600Conduit (2) 4" pvc south building primary feeder 520 lf $16.70 $8,684Conduit (2)-4" pvc primary 430 lf $16.70 $7,181Conduit (2) 3" pvc pavilion building primary feeder 200 lf $15.28 $3,056Conduit 2" pvc pavilion building primary feeder 200 lf $3.80 $760Conduit (2) 4" pvc north building primary feeder 380 lf $16.70 $6,346Conduit (4) 4" pvc secondary feeder 60 lf $33.40 $2,004Conduit 2" pvc generator feeder 830 lf $4.20 $3,486Conduit 1" pvc generator power and control 830 lf $1.70 $1,411Concrete transformer slab box 2 ea $3,200.00 $6,400Trenching,backfill and compaction 500 lf $20.00 $10,000Interrupter 600a 15KV 3p 4w 3R 2 ea $21,500.00 BY OwnerPad mount transfer 300kva 277/480v 3ph 4w 2 ea $16,500.00 BY OwnerCopper wire #2/0, thhn 10.0 clf $265.22 BY OwnerMV Cable 15kv 3C#2, epr shielded 1,190 lf $31.00 BY OwnerConcrete Pull box 5x6x6 elect vault 1 ea $9,600.00 $9,600SF5 MV switch modified existing Vault B8 1 ea $29,600.00 BY OwnerSF3 MV switch modified existing Vault A10 1 ea $29,600.00 BY OwnerConcrete Encasement 120 cyd $196.00 $23,520Intercept existing MV pull box section 3 ea $1,200.00 $3,600

Site Lighting and ControlFixture EP1, 15' pole 73w post top 48 ea $2,150.00 $103,200Trenching,backfill and compaction 2,500 lf $8.00 $20,000






Conduit 1" pvc 3,510 lf $1.70 $5,967Copper wire #6, thhn 40.8 clf $84.17 $3,434Copper wire #4, thhn 210.0 clf $105.96 $22,251

Total - C4 Electric $254,500

C5 Communication Systems

Site Telephone Data conduit onlyTrenching,backfill and compaction 500 lf $20.00 $10,000Conduit (3) 2" pvc Fiber Optic 500 LF $18.00 $9,000Conduit (3) 2" pvc Fiber Optic 600 LF $18.00 $10,800Conduit (3) 2" pvc Fiber Optic 600 LF $18.00 $10,800Concrete pull box 2x3x3 traffic rated 4 $4,200.00 $16,800Fiber Optic Jack and Bore conduit only 630 $15.00 $9,450Backbone by CSU Excluded

Total - C5 Communication Systems $66,850

D General Site

Site furnishingsCovered bike racks 3,000 sf $22.00 $66,000New bike rack OFOI 92 ea $750.00New trash receptacle OFOI 8 ea $795.00Table and chairs OFOI 12 set $1,500.00

LandscapingLandscaping area 168,500 sf $1.75 $294,875Deciduous trees 80 ea $495.00 $39,600Ornamental trees 75 ea $550.00 $41,250Shrubs 1 ls $125,000.00 $125,000Irrigation system 75,000 sf $2.25 $168,750

Total - D General Site $669,475

Appendix G -LEED Scorecard

LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major RenovationProject Scorecard

Project Name: Aggie Village NorthProject Addres Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO

Yes ? No

20 4 2 SUSTAINABLE SITES 26 Points

Y Prereq 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required1 Credit 1 Site Selection 15 Credit 2 Development Density and Community Connectivity 5

1 Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 16 Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation - Public Transportation Access 61 Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation - Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms 13 Credit 4 3 Alternative Transportation - Low Emitting and Fuel Efficient Vehicles 33 Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation - Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles 32 Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation - Parking Capacity 2

1 Credit 5.1 Site Development - Protect or Restore Habitat 11 Credit 5.2 Site Development - Maximize Open Space 1

1 Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design - Quantity Control 11 Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design - Quality Control 1

1 Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect - Nonroof 11 Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect - Roof 1

1 Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction 1Yes ? No

6 4 WATER EFFICIENCY 10 Points4

Y Prereq 1 Water Use Reduction Required2 2 Credit 1 Water Efficient Landscaping 2 to 4

2 Reduce by 50% 2No Potable Water Use or Irrigation 4

2 Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 24 Credit 3 Water Use Reduction 2 to 44 Credit 3 Water Use Reduction 2 to 4

Reduce by 30% 2Reduce by 35% 3

4 Reduce by 40% 4

14 14 7 ENERGY & ATMOSPHERE 35 Points

Y Prereq 1 Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems RequiredY Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance RequiredY Prereq 3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required10 6 3 Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance 1 to 19

Improve by 12% for New Buildings or 8% for Existing Building Renovations 1Improve by 14% for New Buildings or 10% for Existing Building Renovations 2Improve by 16% for New Buildings or 12% for Existing Building Renovations 3Improve by 18% for New Buildings or 14% for Existing Building Renovations 4Improve by 20% for New Buildings or 16% for Existing Building Renovations 5Improve by 22% for New Buildings or 18% for Existing Building Renovations 6Improve by 24% for New Buildings or 20% for Existing Building Renovations 7Improve by 24% for New Buildings or 20% for Existing Building Renovations 7Improve by 26% for New Buildings or 22% for Existing Building Renovations 8Improve by 28% for New Buildings or 24% for Existing Building Renovations 9

10 Improve by 30% for New Buildings or 26% for Existing Building Renovations 10Improve by 32% for New Buildings or 28% for Existing Building Renovations 11Improve by 34% for New Buildings or 30% for Existing Building Renovations 12Improve by 36% for New Buildings or 32% for Existing Building Renovations 13Improve by 38% for New Buildings or 34% for Existing Building Renovations 14Improve by 40% for New Buildings or 36% for Existing Building Renovations 15p y g g gImprove by 42% for New Buildings or 38% for Existing Building Renovations 16Improve by 44% for New Buildings or 40% for Existing Building Renovations 17Improve by 46% for New Buildings or 42% for Existing Building Renovations 18Improve by 48%+ for New Buildings or 44%+ for Existing Building Renovations 19




Yes ? No

3 4 Credit 2 On-Site Renewable Energy 1 to 71% Renewable Energy 13% Renewable Energy 2

3 5% Renewable Energy 37% Renewable Energy 49% Renewable Energy 511% Renewable Energy 613% Renewable Energy 7

2 Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning 22 Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning 22 Credit 4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management 2

3 Credit 5 Measurement and Verification 32 Credit 6 Green Power 2

Yes ? No

5 2 7 MATERIALS & RESOURCES 14 Points

Y Prereq 1 Storage and Collection of Recyclables Required3 Credit 1.1 Building Reuse - Maintain Existing Walls, Floors and Roof 1 to 3

Reuse 55% 1Reuse 75% 2Reuse 95% 3

1 Credit 1.2 Building Reuse - Maintain Interior Nonstructural Elements 12 Credit 2 Construction Waste Management 1 to 2

50% Recycled or Salvaged 175% Recycled or Salvaged 2

2 Credit 3 Materials Reuse 1 to 2Reuse 5% 1Reuse 5% 1Reuse 10% 2

1 1 Credit 4 Recycled Content 1 to 210% of Content 120% of Content 2

1 1 Credit 5 Regional Materials 1 to 210% of Materials 120% of Materials 2

1 Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 11 Credit 7 Certified Wood 1

Yes ? No

12 3 INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 15 Points

Y Prereq 1 Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance RequiredY Prereq 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Required

1 Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 11 Credit 2 Increased Ventilation 1

1 Credit 3 1 Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan During Construction 11 Credit 3.1 Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan - During Construction 11 Credit 3.2 Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan - Before Occupancy 11 Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials - Adhesives and Sealants 11 Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials - Paints and Coatings 11 Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials - Flooring Systems 11 Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials - Composite Wood and Agrifiber Products 11 Credit 5 Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control 11 Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems - Lighting 11 Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems - Thermal Comfort 11 Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort - Design 1

1 Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort - Verification 11 Credit 8.1 Daylight and Views - Daylight 11 Credit 8.2 Daylight and Views - Views 1




Yes ? No

Yes ? No

6 INNOVATION IN DESIGN 6 Points

5 Credit 1 Innovation in Design 1 to 5Innovation or Exemplary Performance 1Innovation or Exemplary Performance 1Innovation or Exemplary Performance 1Innovation 1Innovation 1Innovation 1

1 Credit 2 LEED® Accredited Professional 1Yes ? No

2 2 REGIONAL PRIORITY 4 Points

2 2 Credit 1 Regional Priority 1 to 4Regionally Defined Credit Achieved 1Regionally Defined Credit Achieved 1Regionally Defined Credit Achieved 1Regionally Defined Credit Achieved 1

Yes ? No

65 22 23 PROJECT TOTALS (Certification Estimates) 110 PointsCertified: 40-49 points Silver: 50-59 points Gold: 60-79 points Platinum: 80+ points