PNNL Campus Master Plan

PNNL Campus Master Plan Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington January 2009 Prepared by Approved by PNSO & PNNL 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SITE HISTORY DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 3.0 3.1 Assumptions Site Organization Table of Contents 2 3 4 MASTER PLAN CONCEPT 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Introduction Primary Concepts Influencing Physical Plan Arrangement Site Organization Proposed Development 5 PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND EXISTING SITE ASSESSMENT 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 Introduction Campus Master Plan Zoning Local and Regional Relationships Open Space Campus Entry / Staff & Visitor Circulation Site Safety & Security Parking Common-Use Space Service Circulation Sustainable Development Site Infrastructure Image and Identity 6 APPENDICES Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s l page i 1. E XECUTI VE SUM M ARY 1.0 Executive Summary l page 1 Executive Summary PNNL is a national laboratory with a presence at multiple locations across the United States (see Figure 1.1.1). This Campus Master Plan focuses on the Richland, Washington, PNNL Core Campus Area (defined in Figure 1.1.2). The Richland PNNL Core Campus Area is unique from a land ownership perspective. Property is held by multiple entities including Federal and various private entities (See Figure 1.1.3). Figure 1.1.1 PNNL - A National Laboratory Introduction The PNNL Campus Master Plan is focused on optimizing the growth potential of Federally-owned land within the Core Campus Area (See Figure 1.1.2). The Plan also looks at the development of the private land adjacent to the federally owned land within the Core Campus Area. This look provides PNNL with flexible growth opportunities that include the development and leasing of third-party owned facilities. Third-party ownership enables PNNL to enter both short and long-term lease arrangements that provide “flex-space” for business expansion and contraction. 1.0 Executive Summary l page 2 Figure 1.1.2 - Core Campus & Relationships The Plan is focused on optimizing the development potential of Federally-owned land within the Core Campus Area. 1.0 Executive Summary l page 3 Figure 1.1.3 - PNNL Richland - Land Ownership 1.0 Executive Summary l page 4 Purpose The purpose of this document is to update the 2005 PNNL Campus Master Plan by incorporating current Capability Replacement Laboratory (CRL) construction, including the Physical Science Facility (PSF), Biological Science Facility, and Computational Science Facility (CSF), planned facility actions described in the PNNL FY 2009 Annual Laboratory Plan, expansion and development opportunities to meet future mission requirements, and identifying the key planning principles to result in a new 2009 PNNL Campus Master Plan. The revised Plan describes and illustrates a 20 year and beyond development and improvement strategy for growth that accounts for: the exit from the 300 Area of the Hanford site, the consolidation of the PNNL Richland facilities and space, the continued expansion of the North Core Campus Area (Federally-owned land North of Horn Rapids Road), and increased development in the South Core Campus Area (Federal and private land south of Horn Rapids Road). In addition, the plan describes the importance of the privately-owned land located east of George Washington Way to business and facilities planning strategies. The Plan also acknowledges the need to coordinate the Core Campus Area development with adjacent areas; e.g., the proposed Tri-Cities Research District (TCRD) (See Figure 6.0.2). The Plan addresses quantitative site capacity, illustrates potential expansion options, and describes qualitative issues related to Campus character, image, and identity. Goals Strategic development goals, defining the purpose and intended results of the 2009 Master Plan effort, were established by project leadership. The goals serve as the basis for the definition of Planning Principles that establish guidelines for the review and assessment of future development at PNNL Richland. Goals 300 Area Transition. Develop criteria and layout options that accommodate the eventual exit from the Hanford 300 Area facilities. PNNL Development. Update and expand planning criteria, and layout options that address the needs of PNNL’s growth. Prioritize expansion and optimize the development potential of federally-owned land. Consolidate and centralize activities to support key research adjacencies and to create a campus-style, pedestrian-oriented environment. Plan a campus arrangement that optimizes R&D function by creating building, support services, infrastructure, and amenity zones; and improves the efficiency of campus operations. Establish a planning strategy that enhances the research environment and staff interaction by promoting sociability, proximity, accessibility, comfort, and identity. Identify a development strategy that is adaptable to potential change in the business environment while retaining a basic framework for development. Establish planning principles that provide a consistent, integrated, and sustainable vision for the development of PNNL Richland. Strategic long-term alliances with off-campus entities, such as Washington State University Tri-Cities, are also identified. 1.0 Executive Summary l page 5 Planning Principles A series of principles crafted from discussions with PNNL and PNSO Leadership, will serve to guide long-term growth of the PNNLRichland Campus. Topics, described in detail in Section 5, include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Campus Master Plan Zoning Local & Regional Relationships Open Space Campus Entry: Staff & Visitor Circulation Site Security 6. Parking 7. Common-Use Space 8. Service Circulation 9. Site Sustainability 10. Site Infrastructure 11. Image & Identity The principles will serve as a guideline for the review, assessment, and decision making pertaining to future development at PNNL Richland. Adherence to the principles will ensure compliance with the Campus-wide development strategy, which addresses a wide range of topics including but not limited to the physical organization of buildings and grounds, establishing primary campus entry, creating a pedestrian-oriented campus, and security issues. Figure 1.1.4 - North and South Core Campus Areas 1.0 Executive Summary l page 6 Development Strategy Planning Sectors The Campus Master Plan identifies development opportunity in the following plan sectors (See Figure 1.1.4): North Core Campus Area: A sector planned for a mix of radiological and non-radiological science and support facilities located north of Horn Rapids Road on Federal Property. South Core Campus Area: A Federal and privately-owned sector planned for general science and support facilities located between Horn Rapids Road and Battelle Boulevard (North-South), and George Washington Way and Stevens Road (East-West), as well as privatelyowned lease space located East of George Washington Way occupied by PNNL staff for office and research use. This sector provides expansion and contraction potential to PNNL based on program and facility need. This area also provides a mix of commercial use and off-campus amenities in close proximity to PNNL staff. Enhanced pedestrian connections to this area are planned to more fully integrate the sector with the Core Campus Area. The Master Plan establishes a planning principle to ensure that PNNL Campus planning is coordinated with adjacent areas to promote planned pedestrian, vehicular, and mass transit routes. Conclusions The Campus Master Plan prioritizes and optimizes development potential in Federally-owned property within the Core Campus Area noted on Figure 1.1.3. To that end, the carrying capacity of Federal land is projected to be 1,750,000 - 2,000,000 Gross Square Feet (GSF) of research capability, support, and amenity space with accompanying parking in the 3,500 - 4,000 vehicle range. In addition, the development potential of privately-owned land within the Core Campus Area is anticipated to range from 800,000 - 1,000,000 GSF with the requisite 1,100 - 1,500 parking spaces. These figures represent growth in addition to PNNL projects (PSF, BSF, CSF) that are currently under construction. All numerical values are based on a set of planning assumptions that are described in Section 3 - Development Potential. The plan can accommodate the full 300 Area exit, which includes 350,000 GSF of occupied space. The PNNL Richland pattern of development -- portraying the relationships of building, open space, parking, service, and amenity zones -- is illustrated in Figure 1.1.5. Figure 1.1.6 illustrates conceptual building placement options, and visually demonstrates the capacity of the Campus when fully developed in accordance with this Plan. 1.0 Executive Summary l page 7 Figure 1.1.5 - Plan Organization Diagram 1.0 Executive Summary l page 8 Figure 1.1.6 - Illustrative Master Plan Figures 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 diagramatically portray the Master Plan organization, and illustrate a conceptual, systematic building arrangement, the open space network establishing campus connections, shared service zones, and perimeter parking. Note: Building configurations portrayed on this and other Master Plan Graphics are for illustrative purposes only, and do not represent specific design projects. 1.0 Executive Summary l page 9 Plan Organization The primary organizing element of the Campus Master Plan is a hierarchical series of interconnected campus ‘open spaces’ that are defined by existing facilities and site features, as well as proposed building zones. The open space zones provide structure for the systematic placement and ordering of scientific building sites, and support/service functions. They establish the location of the interior and exterior commons/amenity space, and define pedestrian circulation. The interconnection of these spaces promotes interaction, and assists in establishing identity and a sense of community through common frontage and the sharing of space. The planned development will concentrate and amass sufficient campus population to support additional common use/support space. Interior and exterior commons/amenity space serving PNNL staff and visitors is planned for central locations in both the North and South Core Campus Areas. Minimization of travel time and distance, attention to user comfort, and high visibility will promote use and spur interaction. Diagrammatic plan organization and the resulting conceptual plan arrangement are illustrated in Figures 1.1.5 and 1.1.6. Primary Campus Entry The Horn Rapids Road corridor is designated as the primary campus entry. This location is equidistant to the North and South Core Campus Areas, and is central to both existing and projected staff population centers. Development in this corridor provides PNNL the opportunity to present a unique laboratory image and identity to the public and staff. Proposed central badging, visitor reception, and conferencing/training space will provide a future point of destination and sense of arrival to PNNL. Additional enhancements are to include streetscape and landscape improvements, the implementation of a PNNL-branded signage system to assist in wayfinding, the provision of mass-transit opportunities, and establishing safe pedestrian crossings of Horn Rapids Road to promote the pedestrian-oriented campus character, and ease of movement between North and South Core Campus Areas. Pedestrian-Oriented Campus Expansion of the North and South Core Campus Areas with research capability, support, and amenity space will strengthen the heart of the Campus, by centralizing staff and enhancing the opportunity for collaboration and connectivity. This strategy will maximize development of Federally-owned land while maintaining facility options on privatelyowned property. The development of a pedestrian-oriented campus will be achieved in the following ways: Implementing a high-volume perimeter/low-volume interior Campus parking strategy that caps, and ultimately reduces parking quantity at the Campus interior while developing a perimeter parking zone. Expansion of the North and South Core Campus Areas with research capability, support, and amenity space will strengthen the heart of the Campus, by centralizing staff and enhancing the opportunity for collaboration and connectivity. 1.0 Executive Summary l page 10 Promoting pedestrian safety by creating a low-speed/low-volume road system at the interior of the Core Campus Area, and instituting traffic control measures that reduce the potential for pedestrian/ vehicle conflict. Establishing a network of pedestrian routes that provide ease of connection within and between Core Campus Areas. Enhancing the Campus landscape character to improve pedestrian comfort or aesthetics, and to create a collegial atmosphere. Process The process involved the following: A critical review and recommendations for change to the 2005 Campus Master Plan Update. The incorporation of current Capability Replacement Laboratory (CRL) design and construction, and other recently approved facility actions described in the June 2007, Ten Year Site Plan, as well as the PNNL FY 2009 Annual Laboratory Plan. A review and revision of plan goals to meet potential PNNL development objectives. The development of plan description in the form of narrative and graphics illustrating development opportunity and planning principles. Coordination of Core Campus Area development with adjacent areas. Vetting planning principles, plan strategy, and development capacity during a series of workshops involving representatives from PNNL Scientific Leadership, Facilities and Operations, including Campus Architects and Engineers, and staff from Environment, Safety & Health (ES&H), and security groups, the Pacific Northwest Site Office (PNSO), PNNL management, and the PNNL liaison for the Tri-Cities Research District (TRD) planning project. Campus Security The Campus Master Plan establishes a site security strategy that is additive in nature. PNNL currently operates at a ‘low’ threat level based on current PNNL security assessments. In the event of increased security concern, the plan allows for implementation of progressively stringent measures of deterrence. Plan strategy includes maintaining a low volume of staff and visitor parking in the Campus interior, and locating additional parking to support expansion at the perimeter of the Campus. In addition, the plan seeks to consolidate service drives to existing facilities and proposed building zones, and to minimize the number of campus entries from public roadways. A common ‘standoff’ distance between vehicle and building face for new construction is identified. These measures have the added benefit of minimizing the potential for vehicle/pedestrian conflicts, reinforcing the interior of campus as a primary pedestrian/secondary vehicle zone, and providing a unified, consistent appearance and landscape character at building zone frontage. 1.0 Executive Summary l p a g e 11 1.0 Executive Summary l page 12 2. SITE HISTORY 2.0 Site History l page 13 Site History In 1963, General Electric, which had operated the Hanford Laboratories since 1946, announced that it wished to end its contract, citing potential conflict with its desire to pursue work in the commercial nuclear field. In 1964, the Atomic Energy Commission decided to split the Hanford Site operating contract among several different contractors. On May 28, 1964, Battelle was awarded the contract to operate the Hanford Laboratories. When Battelle took over in 1965, the research facility was separated from Hanford Site operations and renamed the Pacific Northwest Laboratory. The Hanford Laboratories worked on nuclear-related projects including protecting the environment, designing reactors, and fabricating reactor fuel. Initially the Pacific Northwest Laboratory included the 300 Area facilities, other Hanford site facilities, and the initial facilities constructed just north of Battelle Boulevard between Stevens Drive and Q Avenue. Three decades later, the official name of the multi-program laboratory became Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is recognized worldwide and valued nationally and regionally for leadership in science and for rapidly translating discoveries into solutions for challenges in energy, national security, and the environment. The initial buildings were constructed on the PNNL campus in the late 1960’s soon after the Pacific Northwest Laboratory was established. These buildings included: the Research Operations Building (ROB), the Math Building, the Auditorium, and the Physical Sciences Laboratory (PSL), a cluster of buildings sited north of Battelle Boulevard and west of Q Avenue. In 1975, the Life Science Laboratory II (LSLII) facility was completed adjacent to the ROB. Originally designed as a health sciences facility with animal research capabilities, the LSLII Building contains the only vivarium space on campus. Figure 2.0.1 – View of Sycamore Trees Along Q Avenue, Looking South Towards Battelle Boulevard. 2.0 Site History l page 14 The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is recognized worldwide and valued nationally and regionally for leadership in science and for rapidly translating discoveries into solutions for challenges in energy, national security, and the environment. Figure 2.0.2 - Aerial View - PNNL Richland 2.0 Site History l page 15 A seminal Lab Campus improvement dating to the establishment of the main campus in the mid-1960s was the planting of sycamore trees at the campus perimeter, as well as on both sides of Battelle Boulevard and Q Avenue. (See Figure 2.0.1). These tree rows have matured to become a very significant and attractive feature of the site today (See Figure 2.0.2). The Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL), a Department of Energy (DOE) national scientific user facility, was completed and occupied in 1997. In combination with EMSL, Informational Sciences Buildings 1 and 2 (ISB-1 and ISB-2) and the National Security Building (NSB) [formerly the Energy and Environmental Sciences Building (EESB)], and the Environmental Technology Building (ETB), all constructed in the early 1990’s, form the current population center of PNNL. In August 2004, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science established the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Site with the reassignment of approximately 130 acres (including the 30 acres that EMSL is located on) from the DOE Office of Environmental Management (EM) Program to Office of Science (as the Cognizant Secretarial Officer, CSO, or Landlord). The Site was expanded in June 2007 with another land reassignment of approximately 220 acres from EM to Science. This property is bounded on the south by Horn Rapids Road, the Columbia River on the east and Stevens Drive on the west, and Hanford 300 Area on the north. Construction began on the Physical Science Facility (PSF) on this Federal land, and the Biological Sciences Facility (BSF) and Computational Sciences Facility (CSF) on private land west of EMSL in 2008 (See Figure 2.0.3). Figure 2.0.3 - PSF/BSF/CSF Construction, 2008 Milestone events and documents that have particular relevance to the continuing development of the Master Plan for PNNL are described in the following text. 2.0 Site History l page 16 In 1990, PNNL joined Washington State University’s Tri-City Campus to become a member of the 4,000-acre incorporated TriCities Science and Technology Park, a resource for regional business development. This is now known as the Tri-Cities Research District. The district encompasses the area from Cypress Street in the 300 Area south to Sprout and Spangler Streets and bounded by Stevens Drive on the west and the Columbia River on the east. Among the goals of the Tri-Cities Science and Technology Park Association, as stated on its website, is to “maintain standards that ensure an attractive and productive environment.” A Facility Strategic Plan was published by PNNL in 2001, projecting PNNL’s vision for 2010. This document expressed PNNL’s goals, which included: establishment of the best-in-class DOE Office of Science multi program national laboratory (of only nine in existence); global recognition of capabilities for systems biology and biotechnology research; and the delivery of solutions solving critical, global scientific problems by operating at the interfaces of the biological, computational and physical sciences. In 1994, a Master Plan was created in part to accommodate the Department of Energy Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL), along with an associated transfer of private land to DOE, and remains one of the most significant building complexes on the campus. In March, 2002, the North Richland Complex Pedestrian Safety Study was presented by SCM Consultants. This study was performed in response to concerns about pedestrian safety particularly with regard to Q Avenue and the parking lots east of the NSB and ETB. In July 2002, the Pacific Northwest Campus Master Plan 2002 was produced by Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partnership (ZGF). This report described its main objectives as follows: In 1999, the PNNL Campus Landscape Master Plan was developed by Murase Associates. Its key objective was to unify the image of the campus in terms of its landscaping, further reinforcing existing advantageous features such as the mature sycamore trees in their parklike setting. Newer enhancements would include: the development of campus gateways, the placement of landscape buffers for screening purposes, and steetscape and pedestrian walkway enhancements. “This update to the Campus Facility Master plan is driven by EMSL’s success and PNNL’s 2020 vision. This revised plan acknowledges changes on the campus precipitated by the construction of EMSL and other recent building additions to the campus, and anticipates the needs of a number of planned new facilities. It acknowledges the stated business values of objectivity, creativity, integrity and impact; and commitment to growth, refreshment, renewal, and sustainability.” 2.0 Site History l page 17 The 2005 Campus Master Plan Update, produced by CUH2A, integrated the conceptual design of the Capability Replacement Laboratories (CRL), and included planning for the Physical Science Facility (PSF) in the “Horn Rapids Triangle” (North Core Campus Area), and the Biological Science and Computational Science (BSF and CSF) on the South Core Campus Area. The Annual Ten Year Site Plan (June 2007) was prepared by the DOE to describe vision and mission activities, and real property asset strategies for PNNL operations. The 2008 EMSL Strategic Plan was completed in August 2008. With regards to this Campus Master Plan, the Strategic Plan provides this national scientific user facility the research facility and infrastructure planning to meet emerging scientific needs. 2.0 Site History l page 18 3. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 3.0 Assumptions 3.1 Development Capacity 3.2 Site Organization 3.0 Development Potential l page 19 Development Potential The Campus Master Plan for PNNL Richland is focused on identifying the development potential of the Core Campus Area. The goal is to organize, consolidate and centralize development in order to create a campus-style, pedestrianoriented environment. 3.0 Assumptions In order to effectively identify a potential development direction for the PNNL Core Campus Area, the PNSO and PNNL Management and Design Teams identified and agreed upon the following assumptions: Architectural character of proposed buildings/building zones should be similar to the EMSL and PSF facilities. Square footage calculations are based on 2.5 story buildings. Parking ratio for lab and office buildings to be 1 parking stall per 500 GSF of building. Parking ratio for support buildings to be 1 parking stall per 1,000 GSF of building. One parking stall = 350 SF (See Figure 6.0.1) George Washington Way and the George Washington Way Extension north of Horn Rapids Road can be closed and/or re-routed to allow future development. Access to remaining facilities in the 300 Area must be retained. Primary entry to PNNL will occur at Horn Rapids Road between George Washington Way and Stevens Drive with secondary entry at Battelle Boulevard. The potential closure of Q Avenue to vehicular traffic in order to optimize pedestrian circulation between buildings on campus would preclude vehicular access to the campus heart on Horn Rapids Road from Battelle Boulevard. 3.0 Development Potential l page 20 Figure 3.0.1 - Context Diagram City of Ri chland Riverwalk Core Campu s Area PNNL Bldg. Typ. Privately Owned WSU Tri Cities Primary Entry Corridor Spine George Washington Way. PNNL Campus Master Plan Focus Research District Pedestrian Corridor Gateway Stevens Dr. KEY South Core Campus Battelle Blvd. North Core Campus Horn Rapids Rd. BUILDING ZONE SERVICE ZONE PARKING ZONE OPEN SPACE ZONE PEDESTRIAN ROUTE This context diagram (See Figure 3.0.1) outlines existing physical features of campus that have had significant influence in the potential development options presented in this document. The North and South Core Campus Areas identify federal land holdings and are the focus of potential development options. Horn Rapids Road, Stevens Drive, Q Avenue, and Battelle Boulevard provide an existing vehicular circulation network that will effectively support future development of the Core Campus Areas, while Q Avenue functions as the connective spine to privately-owned land and facilities to the South. The existing arrangement of PNNL buildings and open space provide an organizational framework for development. N 3.0 Development Potential l page 21 3.1 Development Capacity Figures 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 identify development potential within the North and South Core Campus Areas, and illustrate growth capacity within each area. North Core Campus Area Building: 1,750,000 – 2,000,000 GSF* Parking: 3500 – 4000 Spaces *Development potential in addition to existing facilities, and current construction - PSF, BSF & CSF. Land Use Strategy Accommodates Land Density Requirements, (Stormwater Management, Amenity & Open Space). Provides Expansion Opportunities to Meet Future Mission Requirements Exhibits Density and Land Use Pattern Consistent with Existing PNNL Campus Phased Development Approach Adheres to the Hanford Site Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 1999. PNNL will follow all appropriate NEPA Regulations as the campus is developed. The “Preservation” area adjacent to the Columbia River will be protected from development per the PNSO Cultural & Biological Resources Management Plan. Figure 3.1.1 - Development Potential - North Core Campus 3.0 Development Potential l page 22 South Core Campus Area Building: 800,000 – 1,000,000 GSF* Parking: 1,100 – 1,500 Spaces *Development potential in addition to existing facilities, and current construction - PSF, BSF and CSF. Land Use Strategy Accommodates Land Density Requirements (Stormwater Management, Amenity & Open Space) Provides “Expansion Opportunities” to Meet Future Mission Requirements Exhibits Density and Land Use Pattern Consistent with Existing PNNL Campus Figure 3.1.2 - Development Potential - South Core Campus 3.0 Development Potential l page 23 3.2 Site Organization Goals The Campus Master Plan for PNNL Richland is focused on the growth potential of the Core Campus Area, recognizing the desire to focus development around a newly realized campus heart located at Horn Rapids Road. This campus heart should be a location that is highly-used by both staff and visitors for a mixture of scientific, amenity, and support functions. In order to promote interaction and an increased sense of community, this area should be located in close proximity to both existing and future staff core areas (See Figure 3.2.1). This campus heart at Horn Rapids Road helps to establish a sense of arrival to the campus and reinforce its unique identity through consistent architectural character and development density. Additional site organization goals should be: Centralize staff in and around the identified location of the campus heart (See Figure 3.2.1). Create a pedestrian-oriented campus with a collegial character and a unique sense of place. Collocate like functions and emphasize research adjacencies and support services. Environmental Framework Proposed development density should be based on the existing character of the PNNL Campus low-scale (one to two story) and low-density architecture. Building footprints should be limited to less than 50 percent of the site area in order to maximize open space, and be low-rise construction that is consistent with the building heights of existing facilities (See Figure 3.2.2). Figure 3.2.1 - Campus Heart 3.0 Development Potential l page 24 A. B. Figure 3.2.2 - Environmental Framework PNNL Richland contains existing organizational conditions that are identified as potential examples for future development of the Core Campus Area. The adjacent photos illustrate these existing conditions. A. The existing spatial framework of the Core Campus Area and defined campus edges. B. The identification of existing open space provides the ability to reinforce the Core Campus Area with building placement and site development that highlights existing amenities. C. Maintaining building setbacks allows for a consistent architectural aesthetic throughout the campus while providing the necessary framework for open space and circulation networks. D. Existing tree-lined streets, such as Q Avenue, provide an effective cross-campus connection. C. D. 3.0 Development Potential l page 25 Flexible Growth Strategy Privately owned and/or operated facilities in the southern portion of the Core Campus Area should function as flexible space (See Figure 3.2.3). These facilities offer an adaptable strategy should the space most effectively be acquired in this manner. The primary development opportunity on privately owned land is located north of current BSF/CSF construction, while a second opportunity exists north of Battelle Boulevard and east of the existing ROB facility. The fully developed Core Campus Area demonstrates a very large number of facilities and staff (Refer to Development Potential Diagrams, Figures 3.1.1. and 3.1.2). This amount of development should be phased to occur incrementally over time by focusing development around open space, recognizing potential for research adjacencies, and effectively locating amenity spaces. A phased approach offers an integrated and adaptable development strategy that provides flexibility related to funding stream, capability need, and program adjacencies (See Figures 3.2.4 and 3.2.5). Figure 3.2.3 - Adaptable Development Strategy 3.0 Development Potential l page 26 Figure 3.2.4 - Phasing Option East to West Development Figure 3.2.5 - Phasing Option South to North Development 3.0 Development Potential l page 27 3.0 Development Potential l page 28 4. MASTER PLAN CONCEPT 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Introduction Primary Concepts Influencing Physical Plan Arrangement Site Organization Proposed Development 4.0 Master Plan Concept l page 29 Figure 4.0.1 - PNNL - Richland Land Ownership 4.0 Master Plan Concept l page 30 Master Plan Concept 4.0 Introduction Master plan concepts shown in this document are based on a set of planning principles (See Section 5 – Planning Principles) that serve as guidelines for future development. These planning principles have been developed by the PNSO and PNNL Management and Design Teams along with direction from PNSO/PNNL Leadership Teams. All concepts focus development potential on the federally owned land area north of Battelle Boulevard (See Figure 4.0.1). 4.1 Primary Concepts Influencing Physical Plan Arrangement The following concepts are critical in the physical arrangement of open space, buildings, and vehicular circulation that leads to the creation of a pedestrian-oriented campus with a collegial atmosphere and a unique sense of place: Build on the organizational strengths of the existing PNNL Core Campus Area Centralize staff to create a population center and development core around a newly defined campus heart. Utilize open space as the primary organizing element of the PNNL Core Campus Area. Create a consistent, unifying landscape character. Implement a high-volume site perimeter/low-volume site interior parking strategy. Create a primary pedestrian/secondary vehicle plan hierarchy, and establish a pedestrian oriented campus-style character. Consolidate service functions to increase efficiency and reduce impact and visibility. 4.0 Master Plan Concept l page 31 4.2 Site Organization Open space should serve as the primary organizing element of the Campus, and should be designed and planned with human comfort and safety as primary factors. Open space serves as linkage between pedestrian corridors, reinforces and accents common-use spaces, and creates a framework for the organization of building locations on site (See Figure 4.2.1). Common-use spaces should be located to serve multiple facilities and functions in both an interior and exterior environment, and should serve as the linkage between pedestrian corridors and open space. These spaces facilitate increased communication and interaction among visitors and staff, add character to the campus, and reinforce the unique identity of the campus thereby aiding in employee recruitment and retention (See Figure 4.2.2). Figure 4.2.1 - Open Space: Feature Open Space as Primary Organizing Element of the Plan and Create Pedestrian-Oriented Corridors Figure 4.2.2 - Common-Use Space: Foster Area-Wide Interaction and Provide and Link Interior and Exterior Gathering Space 4.0 Master Plan Concept l page 32 Planned open space areas provide the necessary framework to establish building zones that create the opportunity for organized development. As building programs develop, these planned building zones will help to identify potential research adjacencies, and relationships with adjacent common-use spaces, that create highquality campus environments (See Figure 4.2.3). Figure 4.2.3 - Master Plan Zoning: Organize Building Zones Around Featured Open Space Zones. Organize Growth Based on Research Adjacencies, Program and Support Need In order to reinforce the idea of a pedestrian-oriented site, high-volume parking is focused to the perimeter of the site while parking areas to the interior of the site are limited. This strategy minimizes potential conflicts with pedestrian traffic and helps in the creation of a collegial atmosphere. The idea of a collegial atmosphere is further strengthened by compartmentalized parking areas that are reduced in scale and visibility, thus maintaining the open character of the campus. This can be achieved by limiting parking areas to the perimeter of the site, using landscape buffers, and by manipulating topography to screen vehicles (See Figure 4.2.4). Figure 4.2.4 - Parking: High-Volume Perimeter/Low Volume Interior Parking Strategy 4.0 Master Plan Concept l page 33 Service traffic is consolidated to several ‘service courtyards’ that are framed by buildings. This creates an opportunity for service traffic to share common access drives from vehicular circulation routes and allows for greater flexibility in site security strategies (See Figure 4.2.5). The integration of open space, common-use space, parking, and service area overlays form the development framework for the Core Campus Area (See Figure 4.2.6). This composite diagram serves as the template for proposed development concepts, and becomes fully realized with the addition of building forms emphasizing the low scale (one-two story) architecture of the campus, building entries, pedestrian circulation routes, and suggestion of landscape character. Figure 4.2.5 - Service Circulation: Consolidate Service Functions to Increase Efficiency, Reduce Impact and Visibility, and Minimize Conflicts with Pedestrian Circulation Figure 4.2.6 - Composite Overlay: The Sum of the Planning Principles is the Master Plan Framework 4.0 Master Plan Concept l page 34 4.3 Proposed Development Figure 4.3.1 - Illustrative Master Plan Figure 4.3.1 presents a development concept for the full build-out of federally owned lands within the Core Campus Area. Building upon ideas presented within Section 3 - Development Potential and Section 5 - Planning Principles, the illustration provides a conceptual representation of the physical arrangement of open space, buildings, parking, and circulation routes on the PNNL Core Campus. This proposed physical arrangement serves as a template for future development of the North and South Core Campus Areas. It recognizes potential opportunity for development within adjacent, privately-owned lands, as needed for mission requirements, and relies heavily upon the existing organizational framework of the existing facilities and grounds located within PNNL Core Campus Area. These planned, developed, and identified physical features are areas of the Campus that should be identified as successfully implemented open spaces that can be emulated in further planning efforts (See Figure 4.3.2 & 4.3.3). 4.0 Master Plan Concept l page 35 Examples of the existing organizational framework on Campus are shown in Figure 4.3.2. These physical features provide appropriate context that aids in the development of proposed concepts. A. Low development density. A. B. B. Build on Existing Site Features to concentrate amenities (built and natural) near population centers. C. Low-scale (1-2 story) architectural character/ park-like setting. D. Reinforce Q Avenue Corridor as a primary campus connector. Promote pedestrian circulation and de-emphasize the vehicle. C. Figure 4.3.2 - Existing Context - PNNL Facilities & Grounds D. 4.0 Master Plan Concept l page 36 Figure 4.3.3 - Open Space & Common-Use Areas The images on the left illustrate a network of defined open space corridors and common-use areas that are interconnected by a pedestrian path system and reinforced by landscape development. These spaces serve as the framework that guides the location and development of building, commons, parking and service zones on Campus. Top Left: South Campus Commons Campus Open Space Network Top Right: Bottom Left: PSF Commons Bottom Right: BuildingSpecific Open Space 4.0 Master Plan Concept l page 37 4.0 Master Plan Concept l page 38 5. PLANNING PRINCIPLES 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 Introduction Campus Master Plan Zoning Local and Regional Relationships Open Space Campus Entry / Staff & Visitor Circulation Site Safety & Security Parking Common-Use Space Service Circulation Sustainable Development Site Infrastructure Image and Identity 5.0 Planning Principles l page 39 The Planning Principles described in the following pages address the complexity and diverse planning issues that are involved with creating a Campus Master Plan for the future of PNNL. 5.0 Planning Principles l page 40 5.0 Introduction The definition of tenets to create a preferred future for the PNNLRichland campus and guide long-term growth was a key outcome of the process associated with the development of this Campus Master Plan, in particular collaboration with PNNL and PNSO leadership. The Planning Principles described in the following pages address the complexity and multi-faceted aspects that are involved with creating a Campus Master Plan for the future of PNNL. They detail functional and qualitative issues related to a diverse range of topics such as the establishment of physical relationships and organizational structure of the PNNL campus, landscape character, image and identity, and the creation of a superior quality of life and a sense of place. Planning Principles The principles addressed in detail on the following pages include: 1. Campus Master Plan Zoning 2. Local & Regional Relationships 3. Open Space 4. Campus Entry / Staff & Visitor Circulation 5. Site Security 6. Parking 7. Common-Use Space 8. Service Circulation 9. Site Sustainability 10. Site Infrastructure 11. Image & Identity The Planning Principles serve as a means of achieving a preferred outcome – meeting the goals outlined in the Executive Summary of this report. They are not intended to serve as planning restrictions, but will guide the future planning and design of individual projects whenever feasible. When employed on a project by project basis, new development will ‘fit’ a physical planning framework designed to create a cohesive and integrated campus. The Application of these Principles is described in the Development Potential -- Section 3, and Master Plan Concept -- Section 4 of this report. 5.0 Planning Principles l page 41 5.1 Campus Master Plan Zoning Planning Principles for Campus Master Plan Zoning Centralize Staff and Create a Core Campus Area Create an Integrated and Adaptable Development Strategy Assign Growth to Defined Geographic Area Build on the Organizational Strength of Existing Campus Conditions Create a Campus “Heart” Optimize Development Potential Create an Integrated and Adaptable Development Strategy In examining the physical arrangement of space and development opportunity at PNNL, the need for a planning strategy that is both flexible and easily adaptable is critical. This Plan allows for the ability to grow incrementally based on programmatic needs and serves as a framework for progress forward. In addition the Plan addresses a holistic, integrated strategy that describes the physical relationships between categories of development on the PNNL Richland Campus, including the location of building, open space, parking, service, and amenity zones. The approach promotes consistency, and coordination of the development across Campus while defining architectural and landscape character, land use density, circulation, infrastructure patterns, and service locations. Centralize Staff and Create a Core Campus Area The development options presented and discussed in this PNNL Campus Master Plan focus specifically on the Core Campus Area of PNNL Richland (See Figure 5.1.1). The concentration of development options to a defined campus core offers several long-term benefits to the campus: Promotes a walkable, pedestrian-oriented campus. Consolidates service areas thereby limiting pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and aids in the planning and execution of site security measures. Concentrates parking areas to reduce walking travel distances and diminish urban heat island effects. Reinforces sustainable development goals of PNNL Richland. Assign Growth to Defined Geographic Areas Two areas of campus (See Figure 5.1.1) present potential for growth based on programmatic needs, spatial arrangement, development density, and developing research trends. Growth within these areas shall be based on the following: North Core Campus: Programmed facilities with high security requirements and research facilities with shared administrative functions. South Core Campus: General science and office facilities, and thirdparty owned facilities that offer opportunity for both expansion and contraction. 5.0 Planning Principles l page 42 Figure 5.1.1 - Core Campus Area 5.0 Planning Principles l page 43 The sycamore tree lines, planted at the time of the Laboratory inception in 1965, are a recognized asset to the campus, and a well-known landmark. The spatial structure that they provide – defining Campus edges, pedestrian and vehicular corridors, and the framing of views – is a basic component of the landscape composition of PNNL. The extension of this feature into areas of new development will integrate “new” and “old”, and will aid in the creation of a cohesive environment. The selection of drought tolerant shade trees of similar horticultural character to the sycamores, will achieve sustainability goals. Figure 5.1.2 - Existing Conditions 5.0 Planning Principles l page 44 Build on the Organizational Strength of the Existing Campus Conditions Q Avenue, the cooling pools near ROB and LSL-II, Horn Rapids Road, Battelle Boulevard, and a potentially re-routed George Washington Way and Extension present a spatial framework for the existing Campus that effectively sets the stage for future development. The Q Avenue corridor and the PSF courtyard have created a potential development ‘spine’ that provides opportunity for further definition of Primary Campus Entry and the Campus Heart (See Figure 5.1.2). Campus character is typified by low-scale (one-two story), low density development, and a large percentage of open space relative to building footprint. The image that this development character conveys is consistent with the southeastern Washington shrub-steppe environment, and should be continued. It is also consistent with the sustainability goal of limiting building footprint to less than 50% of the site area in order to maximize open space. Common building setbacks create a built edge resulting in a consistent appearance that lends clarity and distinction to building and perimeter parking zones. The setback line also assists in the implementation of site security strategies. 5.0 Planning Principles l page 45 Create a Campus “Heart” ‘Campus Heart’ is associated with establishing a sense of place at PNNL Richland for the general public, Laboratory visitors, and Campus population (See Figure 5.1.3). Relative to public and visitor groups, and a Campus-wide perspective, the ‘Heart’ is centered on the Horn Rapids Road corridor. The corridor bisects the Campus, and is equidistant from the geographic centers of both North and South Core Campus Areas, making it readily accessible from these locations and the surrounding road system. Primary Campus entry, primary visitor reception, and support functions serving the campus population are to be located here. The ‘Heart’ establishes a sense of arrival, and conveys the unique PNNL Richland image-a consistent landscape character, building scale, and development density- for public and staff. At a staff population and precinct level, the ‘Staff Cores’ associated with the North and South Core Campus Areas provide Laboratory users with amenities and support services in both interior and exterior environments. In this context, the ‘Heart’ consists of a mix of scientific research programs and support functions that are located in close proximity to one another, and are at, or near a Campus population center. The centralized location is planned to promote synergy and interaction, and build a sense of community. Optimize Development Potential This Campus Master Plan recognizes the ample opportunities that exist for expansion within the Core Campus Area, and addresses the full build-out of PNNL (See Figure 5.1.4). The North Core Campus Area has received much focus in an effort to explore its development potential and integrate future work with PSF facilities. See Section 3, Development Potential, for further description. Figure 5.1.3 - “Heart” of Campus 5.0 Planning Principles l page 46 Figure 5.1.4 - PNNL Richland - Conceptual Development Capacity 5.0 Planning Principles l page 47 5.2 Local and Regional Relationships Planning Principles for Local and Regional Relationships Coordinate Plan with Adjacent Development Coordinate Plan with Adjacent Development To maintain the PNNL relationship with surrounding regional partners, collaboration must exist in all planning efforts (See Figure 5.2.1). Maintaining an open dialogue regarding the decision making process is necessary in areas such as the following: Transit and circulation routes to and from campus, access to the Columbia Riverfront, identification and interpretation of Native American Heritage sites, and development planned by the City of Richland. There are multiple organizations that neighbor the PNNL Core Campus Area, and are recognized as key stakeholders in planning for future development. Maintaining an open dialogue with all interested parties is essential to ensure alignment of transit and circulation routes to and from the Campus, and access to the Columbia Riverfront. The ability to engage thirdparty land owners East of George Washington Way helps keep development strategies for PNNL adaptable to changing program and population needs. Figure 5.2.1 - Local and Regional Relationships 5.0 Planning Principles l page 48 5.3 Open Space Planning Principles for Open Space Open Space as Primary Organizing Element of the Master Campus Plan Create Pedestrian-Oriented Corridors Implement Sustainable Design Practices Increase Opportunities for Interaction Create a Rich Mix of Outdoor Spaces Emphasize Human Comfort and Safety Create a Consistent, Unifying Landscape Character The organization of open space provides a framework for the systematic placement and ordering of scientific building sites and support/service functions, conveys the image of a pedestrian-oriented/campus-style character, and, as a result of shared open space frontage, promotes interaction among staff and visitors. The concept assists in the creation of a primary pedestrian/secondary vehicle hierarchy at interior areas of PNNL Richland. Open Space as Primary Organizing Element of the Master Campus Plan The Plan exhibits an open space hierarchy, defined by major and minor corridors that create a network of spaces establishing linkages at a variety of scales: inter-campus connection between North and South Core Campus Areas; the connection of precincts within the Core Campus Areas; building to building, and exterior amenity space connections; and the connection of PNNL Richland to adjacent development including the Tri-Cities Research District, local commercial use, the Columbia River frontage, and City of Richland river walk (See Figure 5.3.1). A goal of the Plan is to improve upon the sense of order and organization inherent to the existing Q Avenue corridor, and to identify it as a standard for the development of future open space. Existing qualities considered appropriate for future development include: a high percentage of landscape to pavement area; a wide landscape zone dominated by mature, large-scale shade trees that align with and reinforce pedestrian and vehicular routes, and a relatively consistent building setback. The courtyard at the PSF, and the Q Avenue/Battelle Boulevard intersection create a north and south terminus to the corridor, providing an appropriate beginning and end to the open space. Planning strategy for the Q Avenue corridor should focus on deemphasizing vehicular circulation and identifying a transformative approach that creates a pedestrian-oriented space. Improvements should focus on enhancing pedestrian movement, human comfort, aesthetics, and amenities. The following options should be evaluated as a means of reducing vehicle presence in favor of pedestrian orientation: 5.0 Planning Principles l page 49 Figure 5.3.1 - Open Space Network 5.0 Planning Principles l page 50 Traffic volume-evaluate options for alternative access to parking areas currently served by Q Avenue in order to reduce traffic. Inner Campus parking-eliminate placement of additional parking, and reduce quantity to the minimum required to serve the needs of essential services. Q Avenue closure-evaluate options for partial or complete elimination of vehicle traffic to create a dedicated pedestrian zone. Reduce vehicle speed-evaluate methods to slow traffic and minimize potential vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. Implement Sustainable Design Practices Implementation of sustainable design practices are required to support the Open Space Planning Principle, inclusive of the following: Renewable technologies for lighting; minimizing light pollution; showcasing laboratory developed technologies; ensure that walking paths are people friendly and decrease road traffic. Design landscaping with low water use and low maintenance. Create Pedestrian-Oriented Corridors The following guidelines can help create pedestrian-oriented corridors at Q Avenue and other locations throughout campus: Maintain clear and open sight lines with special concern given to intersections with vehicular traffic. Provide consistent landscape treatment that enhances visual appeal and provides relief from sun and wind. Create spaces that vary in scale and provide opportunities for small-tolarge group interaction. Organize corridors within existing campus-wide pedestrian network to provide concise paths of travel. Increased recognition of building entries and amenity spaces. Additional open spaces throughout the campus can serve as amenity spaces in and around building zones. These areas should be consolidated to serve multiple buildings and also function as linkage between pedestrian circulation patterns. Increase Opportunities for Interaction The organization of buildings, circulation networks, and open space on campus plays a vital role in the creation of opportunities for interaction in an exterior environment. Consolidating open spaces to serve several building entries can increase the chance of informal dialogue between staff members and visitors. The planning and design of these spaces with human comfort and safety as goals can create areas on Campus that attract people to spend additional time in common exterior locations. This creates potential opportunities for dialogue and collaboration between users, thus enhancing the overall quality of the working environment and Campus as a whole. 5.0 Planning Principles l page 51 Create a Rich Mix of Outdoor Spaces In the creation of outdoor spaces, providing a mixture of scales and types helps to shape the identity of the campus while providing the opportunity for individual user experience. These spaces also have the ability to describe unique characteristics of the Campus through interpretive design elements and connection to natural systems. While differing outdoor spaces help shape the character of the Campus, great care must be taken to maintain a similar language of hardscape and softscape materials throughout to reinforce the identity of the Campus itself. Create a Consistent, Unifying Landscape Character Landscape material on campus functions as a common fabric that unifies the various types of facilities and exterior spaces. The existing framework of sycamore-lined pedestrian areas should serve as a model for future development (See Figure 5.3.2). To the greatest degree possible, the use of plant species native and/or adaptive to the Lower Columbia River Basin area should be used for the following reasons: Reinforces the unique identity of PNNL. Maintains biodiversity. Reduces maintenance. Reduces or eliminates the need for irrigation. Aids in achieving sustainable development goals. Overstory shade trees provide a formal edge to major spaces. Future plantings should continue this theme, and reflect the organization of pedestrian circulation routes, and complement proposed landmarks. The trees establish a discernible pattern creating a sense of unity, sequence, scale, and structure to the spaces. Ornamental trees should accent special use areas, such as entry points at buildings, and places of gathering. Shrub layers should define pedestrian routes and accent specialty areas (See Figure 5.3.3). Emphasize Human Comfort and Safety Human comfort and safety in an exterior environment can lead to increased use by visitors and staff and can also aid in employee recruitment and retention. Various strategies can be employed: Mitigate solar heat gain and wind through landscape treatment and building orientation. Minimize conflicts with vehicular circulation. Provide appropriate levels of site lighting that highlight circulation routes. Implement visually appealing landscape treatment with seasonal interest. 5.0 Planning Principles l page 52 Tree-Lined Circulation Routes & Campus Boundaries Open Space Network & Campus Amenities Low Development Density / Park-Like Setting Figure 5.3.2 - Existing Landscape Framework Common-Use Areas 5.0 Planning Principles l page 53 Figure 5.3.3 - Master Plan Landscape Framework 5.0 Planning Principles l page 54 5.4 Campus Entry / Staff & Visitor Circulation Planning Principles for Campus Entry / Staff & Visitor Circulation Create a Primary Pedestrian / Secondary Vehicle Plan Hierarchy Acknowledge Pedestrian Circulation Routes Encourage Bicycle Traffic Define Clear Campus Entry Sequence Establish Primary and Secondary Entry Hierarchy Separate Service and Staff Traffic Reduce Quantity and Scale of Roads to Optimize Pedestrian Traffic Increase Availability of Mass Transit and Preferred Parking The implementation of these strategies must be coordinated with the parties holding jurisdictional control of the roads affected by the Campus Master Plan. Ownership is currently held by multiple parties, including: the City of Richland, the Federal Government, the Port of Benton, and Private Owners. Acknowledge Pedestrian Circulation Routes In order to maintain the stated goal of a pedestrian-oriented campus and maintain the required level of service to buildings, careful consideration must be given to the inevitable intersection of pedestrian and service traffic. Signage, soft security barriers, site lighting, and appropriate road alignment can all aid in minimizing conflicts. Where possible, however, this intersection of pedestrian and vehicle should be avoided. Emergency vehicle access to interior campus locations can share pedestrian ways to eliminate the need for additional, and redundant, roadways. Create Primary Pedestrian / Secondary Vehicle Plan Hierarchy Encourage Bicycle Traffic The development goal of a pedestrian-oriented campus can begin to be realized by the use of the following strategies: Traffic calming measures - narrowing vehicular lanes through the space. Landscape buffers between vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas. The use of ‘soft’ barriers at edges of vehicular circulation. Development of exterior amenity spaces. Examine design speeds of vehicular circulation routes and vehicle access to existing parking areas within modified areas of Q Avenue and other roads as appropriate. Bicycle traffic to and from campus, and within the bounds of campus itself, should be encourage wherever possible. Bicycle lanes should be provided at campus arterial roads with special attention given to intersections with pedestrian circulation routes. Bicycle parking and shower/changing facilities should be provided at buildings per LEED requirements. 5.0 Planning Principles l page 55 Define Clear Campus Entry Sequence The primary flow of traffic to and from campus is concentrated to George Washington Way and Stevens Avenue from the north and south, and Horn Rapids Road and Battelle Boulevard from the east and west. The northsouth circulation route through the spine of the Campus where Q Avenue is currently located, with its framework of mature Sycamore trees, could be made more favorable to pedestrian circulation within the Campus with a reduction in vehicular traffic volume and velocity. Utilizing the existing framework of vehicular circulation around the Campus will begin to define the entry sequence and add further definition to the identity of PNNL (see Figure 5.4.1). This can be accomplished by: Reinforcing primary and secondary campus entry locations with site development. Identifying a campus-wide landscape framework plan (also see Principles, Section 5.3 -- Open Spaces). Implementing wayfinding and signage strategies. Ability to grow the campus around a newly realized Campus Heart. PSF courtyard north of Horn Rapids Road creates an appropriate terminus to the open space spine where Q Avenue is located. The Horn Rapids Road corridor bisects the Core Campus Area, making it equidistant, and equally accessible to North and South Core Campus Areas. Three locations along Horn Rapids Road are recognized as the potential point of destination for primary campus entry, they are: 1. 2. 3. The intersection of Horn Rapids Road and George Washington Way The Q Avenue terminus -- the intersection of Horn Rapids Road and Q Avenue, and The Horn Rapids Road/Stevens Drive intersection. Each of those locations could accommodate visitor reception, badging, and Federal office space functions. Illustrations of the examples, and a description of each are provided in Figures 5.4.2 - 5.4.4. Battelle Boulevard is identified as the secondary entry to Campus. This secondary entry would be eliminated if the strategy to optimize pedestrian circulation between buildings on Campus is exercised, resulting in partial or full closure of Q Avenue to vehicular traffic. Emergency and maintenance vehicles must be accommodated in any scenario. Primary and secondary entries would be similar in character from a landscape development standpoint, but a primary entry would eventually plan for the appropriate primary entry-like functions. Establish Primary and Secondary Entry Hierarchy During the PNNL Master Plan process, the Design and Management Teams reviewed the Horn Rapids Road and Battelle Boulevard corridors as possible locations for the main campus entry. Horn Rapids Road (see Figure 5.4.1) was selected as the primary campus entry for the following reasons: Proximity to primary research functions critical to the PNNL scientific mission. Proximity to George Washington Way, one of the primary access routes from the south. 5.0 Planning Principles l page 56 Campus Entry Sequence (Figure 5.4.1-Top) Planning guidelines designed to establish Horn Rapids Road as the Primary Campus Entry will: Allow PNNL to present a unique PNNL image to staff and public. Enhance the entry sequence with streetscape, landscape, and signage improvements. Provide clarity to arrival by employing a PNNL “Brand” signage system. Provide for mass transit stops. Establish safe pedestrian crossings, and minimize the potential for pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Campus Entry Example - George Washington Way Terminus (Figure 5.4.2-Bottom) The location provides visual and physical termination of George Washington Way. The location provides clarity of transition from public to private (PNNL) access. The location takes full advantage of views and access to the Columbia River and environs. A proposed Visitor Center and Federal office space location in this area is not central to the PNNL population center. This entry location drives initial expansion to the southeast quadrant of the development zone north of Horn Rapids Road. 5.0 Planning Principles l page 57 Campus Entry Example - Q Avenue Terminus (Figure 5.4.3-Top) The location is geographically central, and within equal travel distance, to the Core Development Areas located north and south of Horn Rapids Road. The location is central to the PNNL population core. As a result, a Visitor Center facility containing central badging and shared common functions such as conferencing and meeting space would be readily available to the majority of PNNL staff. A Visitor Center/Central Badging facility at this location as an independent stand-alone facility can be fully integrated with existing development. The location can take full advantage of an existing, mature landscape setting that is consistent with the desired PNNL image. Campus Entry Example - Horn Rapids Road/Stevens Drive (Figure 5.4.4-Bottom) The location is highly visible upon both north and south approach via Stevens Drive. The location is not centrally located relative to the existing and future PNNL population centers. Travel distance and accessibility should be considered when siting Visitor Center, Badging, and Federal office functions as part of the campus entry. The west side of the Core Campus Area south of Horn Rapids Road, and north of the BSF/CSF facilities is currently service-oriented resulting from the location of EMSL shipping and receiving functions. This area is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future because property west of EMSL is privately held, and the PNNL emphasis is placed on developing federally-owned land. Development character may not align with the desired PNNL image. The placement of a primary site entry/visitor center and Federal office space at this location will drive development of the southwest quadrant of the North Core Campus Area. 5.0 Planning Principles l page 58 Separate Service and Staff Traffic Service and staff should have clearly defined traffic patterns that allow the campus to function properly. Consolidated service ‘courtyards’ that serve multiple buildings begin to achieve this goal. Staff parking areas should be oriented at the edges of campus to allow for ease of pedestrian flow at the Campus Core Areas (See Figure 5.4.5). Where service and staff traffic must coexist, clearly defined signage, site lighting, and landscape treatment will aid in the creation of a safe circulation routes. Given the clear definition of service and staff vehicular circulation routes, emergency service vehicles will have ample opportunity for well defined routes to buildings. In interior campus locations, pedestrian routes may also double as emergency vehicle routes. Figure 5.4.5 - Staff Parking and Service Areas 5.0 Planning Principles l page 59 5.5 Site Safety and Security Planning Principles for Site Safety and Security Collocate Research Programs With Similar Requirements Regarding Life Safety, Property, Protection and Access Control Develop an ‘Additive” Strategy Present a “Soft” Barrier to the Community Establish Parking Zone at Campus Perimeter Collocate Research Programs With Similar Requirements Regarding Life Safety, Property, Protection and Access Control Facilities with similar program requirements should be located in close proximity to one another in order to share advantageous strategies required to accommodate elevated levels of site security and for safety needs. An example of this would be locating high radiological facilities together. This will also capitalize on the interactive and communicative benefits of their advantageous adjacencies, and will provide the required 400 meter standoff distance to areas of public access (See Figure 5.5.1). The eventual exit from the retained nuclear facility in the 300 Area will require this type of high-level safety. Top: Figure 5.5.1 - High Radiological Area Diagram Bottom: Figure 5.5.2 - Stand Off Distances 5.0 Planning Principles l page 60 Develop an “Additive” Strategy Development is to be designed to accommodate a “medium threat level”, and operate at a ‘low’ threat level per Security Design Criteria (SDC) set by PNNL Risk and Threat Assessment Requirements. As a result, the Plan requires that development provide the flexibility to allow for the placement of more stringent security measures as required -- an ‘additive’ approach to security. This strategy allows for the development of an open campus character that is consistent with the low threat level, provides the ability to add security on a function-specific basis, and aids in maintaining an aesthetically pleasing campus setting. Present a “Soft” Barrier to the Community The use of soft barrier site security strategies helps maintain the current open-campus paradigm, reinforces the goal of a pedestrian-oriented campus, and maintains an open interface with local and regional partners. Site walls, landscape buffers, pedestrian scale lighting, topographic changes and building orientation are examples of design strategies that can be employed to maintain this soft barrier (See Figures 5.5.3 & 5.5.4). Establish Parking Zone at Campus Perimeter A Stand-Off Distance of 80 feet from parking to building, and the placement of parking at the Campus perimeter (See Figure 5.5.2) are required by the Security Design Criteria (SDC). The separation of service traffic from staff/visitor circulation, and reduction in the number of vehicular ‘points of access’ allows for ease of observation and reduces the potential of threat. Figure 5.5.3 - Barrier Security Strategy - Site Walls Figure 5.5.4 - “Soft” Barrier Security Strategy - Landscape/Topographic Buffer 5.0 Planning Principles l page 61 5.6 Parking Planning Principles for Parking High Volume Perimeter - Low Volume Interior Compartmentalize Parking to Reduce Scale and Visibility Balance Convenience and Aesthetics When Locating Parking Integrate Sustainable Development Principles Compartmentalize Parking to Reduce Scale and Visibility Compartmentalizing parking lots will diminish their expanse and diminish heat island effects. The concentration of parking at the Campus perimeter will require that lots be subdivided to reduce their visual scale. The use of landscape material and land forms can aid in screening parking areas, thereby reducing their visibility on campus. Balance Convenience and Aesthetics When Locating Parking Parking areas should be conveniently located to minimize walking distances to buildings for staff and visitors alike. This however, should not be the only consideration. Aesthetic concerns regarding the physical arrangement of buildings, parking, and open space on campus are essential to the future development of campus, and should be given consideration in the decisionmaking process during the planning and design of new facilities. High Volume Perimeter - Low Volume Interior Consolidation and concentration of parking at the site perimeter will provide more area at the interior of Campus for building and site development opportunities. This allows for flexible planning and growth options as the campus develops forward, and provides ample room for open space within the campus core. Limiting the amount of traffic flow in the core areas of campus provides the following benefits (See Figure 5.6.1): Establishes pedestrian oriented campus core. Maintains soft barrier site security strategies. Contributes to staff interaction by allowing for effective placement of buildings within the Core Campus Areas. Allows consolidated service courtyards to function more efficiently. Provides direct access from parking areas to primary site circulation routes. Integrate Sustainable Development Principles The following sustainable development principles can be applied to the planning and design of parking areas on campus: Consider the use of progressive stormwater management practices such as vegetated swales and porous paving. Consolidate parking areas to allow for shared use and diminished development areas. Introduce shade tree plantings to reduce heat island effects. Provide preferred parking stalls to carpool and fuel efficient vehicles in accordance with LEED requirements. 5.0 Planning Principles l page 62 Figure 5.6.1 - Parking Diagram. 5.0 Planning Principles l page 63 5.7 Common-Use Space While there are similarities between the Planning Principles, Open Space (Section 5.3) and Common Use Space (Section 5.7), it is important to note the distinctions. Planning Principles for Common-Use Space Foster Campus-Wide Interaction Increase Employee Services to Meet Demand Provide and Link Interior and Exterior Gathering Space Comfort Promotes Use Landmarks Open Space describes the landscape system in the broad context that serves as the organizational framework for the Campus Master Plan relative to the location of building, parking, and circulation zones, and provides the linkage between Core Campus Areas, and adjacent development. Foster Campus-Wide Interaction The location of common-use spaces on campus should be planned to serve multiple buildings and functions while providing opportunities for interaction between staff and visitors in both interior and exterior settings (See Figure 5.7.1). These types of spaces attract people to a common destination and provide opportunities for interaction that don’t exist elsewhere on campus. Connection to off-campus spaces, such as recreational and retail opportunities, should be considered. Common-Use Space refers to dedicated interior and exterior space for gathering and interaction. This common space is often linked by, and located at the intersection of open space corridors and the circulation routes, and building groupings that are organized about them. Amenities associated with this principle could include food service, meeting/conference space, and passive and active recreation opportunities. Increase Employee Services to Meet Demand Employee recruitment and retention goals are critical elements involved in advancing PNNL’s scientific missions. Providing common-use amenity spaces that create a pleasurable work environment and foster creativity can help achieve these goals. These amenity spaces can happen as demand rises and could happen both independently or as a part of a larger building project. 5.0 Planning Principles l page 64 Figure 5.7.1 - Common-Use Space 5.0 Planning Principles l page 65 Provide and Link Interior and Exterior Gathering Space Cafeteria spaces with indoor and outdoor seating, courtyard spaces for large scale outdoor gatherings, and landscaped open spaces are all examples of appropriate common-use amenity spaces. Strategically locating these functions to serve multiple buildings and users in the greater context of the campus framework creates recognizable zones of usable amenity spaces in both indoor and outdoor environments. These are the places that define the character of campus and, through a thoughtful and sensitive design approach, promote staff interaction, and create a collegial atmosphere. Comfort Promotes Use Provide environmental benefits such as wind protection, shade, cooling, and improved air quality. The ability to seek different venues within the Core Campus Area as diurnal and seasonal changes occur, in order to maintain physical comfort, plays a vital role in encouraging use within the space. Landmarks Provide special areas that create a prominent feature in the landscape, that distinguish a locality, and identify a space for a particular kind of use. These areas enrich the exterior environment, link spaces, create destinations, and promote use of the site. They assist in creating a diversity of spaces that accommodate a variety of activities and promote use “all the time.” 5.8 Service Circulation Planning Principles for Service Circulation Develop Campus-Wide Strategy Consolidate Service Functions Acknowledge Pedestrian Circulation Routes Develop Campus-Wide Strategy A servicing strategy, linked to sustainability goals, that reduces the dependence on the vehicle in the delivery of goods and services, should be implemented. The centralizing of service functions, as illustrated in Figure 5.8.1, allows facility and operations staff the ability to walk or use alternative transportation such as carts, to perform work. Consolidate Service Functions The consolidation of service functions helps to increase efficiency of service traffic by utilizing a centralized core that serves several building zones and shares a single entry point (See Figure 5.8.1). These consolidated areas will also remain relatively hidden thus screening service functions from the public view of campus. Single points of entry to service courtyards allow for a higher level of security and offer a greater potential 5.0 Planning Principles l page 66 for monitoring of service vehicles and operations. This configuration also allows new facilities to front on open space at primary entries. Acknowledge Pedestrian Circulation Routes In order to maintain the stated goal of a pedestrian-oriented campus and maintain the required level of service to buildings, careful consideration must be given to the inevitable intersection of pedestrian and service traffic. Signage, soft security barriers, site lighting, and appropriate road alignment can all aid in minimizing conflicts. Where possible, however, this intersection of pedestrian and vehicle should be avoided. Emergency vehicle access to interior campus locations can share pedestrian ways to eliminate the need for additional, and redundant, roadways. Figure 5.8.1 - Consolidation of Service Functions 5.0 Planning Principles l page 67 5.9 Sustainable Development Planning Principles for Sustainable Development Solar Orientation Promote Environmental Stewardship Showcase Leading-Edge Technologies Emphasize Conservation-Based Site Plan Strategy Transitional Landscape Zones Sustainable Site Development Promote Environmental Stewardship PNNL Richland can become a showcase by promoting environmental stewardship across Campus. Working with the City of Richland for increased mass transit opportunities, increasing environmental awareness on campus protecting areas of native habitat and implementing sustainable development practices at a project level can all aid in communicating the message of environmental stewardship. Showcase Leading-Edge Technologies The design and implementation of leading-edge sustainable technologies on campus will establish PNNL as a leader in sustainable development and could therefore influence the decision-making process of surrounding community members and other national lab facilities. Examples of such strategies, illustrated in Figure 5.9.1, include: Gray Water Collection Systems Photovoltaics Vegetated ‘Green’ Roof Systems Wind Power Generation Emphasize Conservation-Based Site Plan Strategy The physical arrangement of space on campus can aid in achieving sustainable goals. Consolidated parking and service areas allow for efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians across campus. The further development of campus should occur in focused building zones to achieve the intended effects of consolidated building and parking areas. Solar Orientation North facing building facades, shade trees along south sides of buildings, and outdoor amenity spaces oriented north of buildings are all potential strategies to lower energy use and create a more comfortable working environment. Buildings or groupings of buildings may also provide relief from solar gain and wind and could provide the necessary outdoor environment for amenity space. 5.0 Planning Principles l page 68 Transitional Landscape Zones Limiting irrigation to areas required for fire protection and select open space/amenity space areas will reduce water consumption needs. Per Department of Energy (DOE) direction, based upon Factory Mutual (FM) loss prevention criteria, the recommended defensible space separation between building and wildland area is 100 feet. Defensible space is defined as an area between an improved property/buildings and a potential wildland fire where combustible materials and vegetation have been removed or modified to reduce the potential for fire on improved property spreading to wildland fuels or to provide a safe working area for fire fighters protecting life and improved property from wildland fire. Based upon project criteria for the PSF, the initial PNNL construction project north of Horn Rapids Road, the defensible space zones must have, at a minimum, partial irrigation of turf areas. These requirements establish a transitional landscape concept with three distinct zones (See Figure 5.9.2): A formal, manicured, fully irrigated central zone associated with major campus open space and exterior gathering areas; a transitional zone of limited irrigation and lower maintenance; and a naturalized/native zone involving restoration of high desert plantings and/or the addition of native/adaptive plantings at the site perimeter. Gray Water Collection Photovoltaics Wind Generation Figure 5.9.1 - Display of Sustainable Technologies 5.0 Planning Principles l page 69 CO R A EC MP A US RE A KEY FORMAL LANDSCAPE ZONEFULL IRRIGATION TRANSITIONAL LANDSCAPE ZONE-LIMITED IRRIGATION NATURALIZED / NATIVE ZONENO IRRIGATION Figure 5.9.2 - Sustainable Site Strategy 5.0 Planning Principles l page 70 Sustainable Site Development Guidelines 1. The relationship between the built areas and parking lots will be designed to encourage and promote pedestrian circulation in and around the project site, and provide easy bike and pedestrian access to encourage public commute. Built areas with interconnected functions will be clustered together to minimize the need for transportation between facilities. Pedestrian access between buildings will be encouraged by creating pedestrian-friendly connectors that are intimate in scale, shaded, protected from winds, and accentuated by buildings and landscape. Parking, storage (and showering facilities) that encourage the use of bicycles, shall be reviewed on a project basis. Parking quantities will be limited to the code minimum, and include dedicated parking for car/van pools. The Campus Master Plan is recommending a circulation and parking design, to minimize parking in the interior of the campus and may consider a “clean-fuel” shuttle for transportation within the campus. In addition to encouraging pedestrian movement, clustering buildings together will also help in consolidating large open spaces for creating habitats for animal and plant species that enhance environmental quality in and around the building, and can potentially provide natural pest control. Reduce hard paved areas by implementing pervious materials or paving designs. Additionally, ‘green roofs’ -- roof tops that are vegetated -- will be considered where applicable. Landscape elements such as berms or swales and filtration strategies using vegetation should be included to treat stormwater for reuse. Heat-absorbing site surfaces will be minimized using light colored materials for roofs and hard paved areas, or introducing roof gardens. This will reduce overall site micro-climate temperatures during summer months, when peak cooling loads occur. In addition to surface color, introducing site vegetation (preferably low-maintenance native species) will also lower micro-climate temperatures through evapotranspiration, without significantly increasing water-use. While roof gardens reduce stormwater run-off, hard roof surfaces, open up an opportunity for installing a relatively low cost photovoltaic sheet on roof surface. A building will be oriented to promote energy efficiency, by allowing easy access to daylight and solar control. Typically, short overhangs are adequate to provide optimal control for the relatively high solar altitude on the south, while the north has almost no direct solar exposure, making these the ideal orientations for locating windows. Thus, a primarily east-west axis for the building will maximize the potential for daylight utilization and renewable energy system integration (building-integrated photovoltaic system). Integrating the landscape design to shade lower wall areas around the building will also reduce energy consumption. Native and adaptive vegetation will be used for landscaping to reduce any additional water consumption beyond the initial three-year establishment period. Low-water irrigation systems may be installed for the establishment period only. Preference is for site vegetation – native species – whose evapo-transpiration would also lower microclimate temperatures. See Figure 5.9.3 for examples of development guideline implementation. 8. 2. 3. 4. 9. 5. 6. 7. 5.0 Planning Principles l page 71 The design and implementation of leading-edge sustainable technologies on campus will establish PNNL as a leader in sustainable development and could therefore influence the decision-making process of surrounding community members and other national lab facilities. Native & Adaptive Vegetation Low Irrigation Zones Vegetated, ‘Green’ Roof Design Figure 5.9.3 - Development Guideline Implementation 5.0 Planning Principles l page 72 5.10 Site Infrastructure Planning Principles for Site Infrastructure Utility Distribution Develop Efficient Distribution Corridors Integrate with City of Richland Infrastructure Improvements Upgrade Existing Infrastructure to be Mission Ready Continue “Stand-Alone” Service Model for Campus Expansion The current utility distribution strategy that is employed for both North and South Core Campus areas will continue (See Figure 5.10.1). This approach involves the design of mechanical systems and utilities as ‘stand alone’ services on a building-by-building basis, and will be connected to either the campus utility system (South) or the recently expanded City of Richland Infrastructure Corridor (North). Adequate utility capacity is available to accommodate the maximum development potential indicated by the Campus Master Plan. Infrastructure is owned by multiple entities, and must be coordinated with local/regional providers. PNNL is also positioned to take advantage of local conditions to showcase leading-edge technologies. Data, from on-site campus testing, indicates that geothermal energy is available for heating and cooling. Solar and wind power generation are also available as renewable energy options. Figure 5.10.1 - Site Utility Diagram 5.0 Planning Principles l page 73 5.11 Image and Identity Planning Principles for Image and Identity Establish Campus Character Emblematic of Unique PNNL Identity Establish the Image and Character of a Pedestrian-Oriented Campus with a Collegial Atmosphere and a Unique Sense of Place. Establish Campus Character Emblematic of Unique PNNL Identity The unique sense of place offered by the PNNL Richland site can be enhanced by giving careful thought to the following in the design and planning process: Recognizing PNNL Branding efforts (See Figure 5.11.1). Capitalizing on existing views to adjacent topographic elements such as the Rattlesnake Hills. Reinforcing the existing architectural character of current facilities and their low-scale approach. Maintaining relationships within the research community and the TriCities area. Providing access to the Columbia Riverfront through pedestrian corridors and exterior amenity spaces (See Figure 5.11.2). Figure 5.11.1 - Establishing The PNNL Brand 5.0 Planning Principles l page 74 Establish the Image and Character of a Pedestrian-Oriented Campus with a Collegial Atmosphere Cross-campus pedestrian corridors, a low-volume interior parking strategy, and consolidated service zones are all strategies that aid in the development of a pedestrian-oriented campus (See Figures 5.11.3 & 5.11.4). Design and planning on the PNNL Richland site with this goal in mind will form a foundation for future development of the site with a collegial atmosphere. Additional planning goals will help reinforce this idea: Formalized open spaces that connect multiple facilities Clearly defined entry sequence that establishes campus heart. Open site security strategy that allows for ease of pedestrian movement and maintains aesthetic value of existing and proposed development. Amenity spaces that offer potential for communication and interaction within the site. Figure 5.11.2 - Columbia River Pedestrian Corridors and Exterior Amenity Spaces Figure 5.11.3 - Open Space 5.0 Planning Principles l page 75 Figure 5.11.4 - Master Plan Diagram 5.0 Planning Principles l page 76 6. APPENDIX 6.0 Appendix l page 77 Appendix Population and Parking Per Building Key A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V Building PSF ISB - 1 ISB - 2 NSB ETB EMSL LSL - 2 EDL PSL MATH ROB BRSW TSW UHF ESB RTL Complex Function Office/Lab Office Office Office Office R&D/Office R&D/Office R&D R&D/Office R&D/Office Office Office/Whs Warehouse NA Office/Whs Off/R&D/ Storage APEL R&D/Office SIGMA - 3 Office SIGMA - 5 R&D/Office SIGMA - 2 Office LSB Office BSF/CSF Office/Whs. Total Population and Parking Population 242 181 242 350 318 334 127 6 141 75 247 29 0 0 31 98 51 73 172 79 298 320 3,414 Parking 271 265 265 400 400 329 143 153 496 Combined NA NA 76 NA 134 NA NA NA NA NA 345 3,277 Figure 6.0.1 - Population and Parking 6.0 Appendix l page 78 Building Use and Population 6.0 Appendix l page 79 Figure 6.0.2 - tri-cities research district - Master Plan 2008 6.0 Appendix l page 80 This page will be the back cover of the actual printed document.