To build a new state office building in the Mendenhall Valley’s Vintage Park development, the developer will have to get around “strong covenants,” but they’ll find a willing seller in the owners of the Vintage Business Park.
“I think the costs are going to be pretty reasonable,” said Greg Wagner, sales and leasing manager for Vintage Business Park, one of two sites being considered for a new state office complex.
The new building, if it eventually gets approved by Gov. Sean Parnell, funded by the Legislature and built, would house employees from the current Department of Labor building, as well as the Douglas Fish and Game building and some downtown Department of Public Safety workers.
Wagner said that even though the state would have to purchase the privately-owned property, the cost of the ready-to-build Vintage Park site would almost certainly be less than the other site under consideration.
The downtown site is atop an aging parking garage, which would have to be demolished and rebuilt. The Valley site would have surface parking, on a variety of now-vacant lots.
Wagner said the Vintage Park site has many attributes that would make it a good state office location, though he said he understood the competing desire to keep state government offices centrally located downtown as well.
Several smaller state offices are already located in Vintage Park, he said. Those include the Alaska Commission on Post Secondary Education, along with some economic development, children’s services and other state offices.
A state consultant, architect Brian Meissner of ECI/Hyer Architects, outlined a number of concerns with the Vintage Park site in a public meeting recently, but said none appeared to make the location impossible.
The biggest, he said, may be some “strong covenants” attached to the property. The Carrs/Safeway site in Vintage Park next to the proposed location needed waivers of the covenants to be developed, he said.
Vern Jones, the state’s chief procurement officer, said the covenants the state is now reviewing are linked to the city’s zoning code, which has the potential for additional complications.
“To break any of those covenants, we’d also need to get changes to the zoning through the city,” he said.
Meissner said that was done for Carrs/Safeway.
Wagner said he doubted any of those concerns would be much of an impediment to the state’s plans.
“I don’t know that there was anything that held Carrs up,” he said, though he acknowledged that it had been before his time with Vintage Park.
And while nearby property is subject to the new, and controversial flood plain maps recently made public by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Vintage Park site is not, Wagner said.
“According to those, we’re not in the 100-year flood plain,” he said.
Wagner said he doubted there would be any river erosion issues, another concern mentioned by the consultant. He pointed out the site being considered, next to Carrs/Safeway, if some distance from the Mendenhall River.
The site is already zoned for commercial activity, said Heather Marlow, city lands and resources manager.
It would likely need additional traffic analysis, but she doubted there would be difficulty meeting any requirements
Wagner agreed that any additional requirements would be minimal in a site already designed for high traffic.
“We handle a fair amount of traffic here right now,” he said.
Wagner said he expected the site selection would likely come down to which location the officials making the determination felt would be most efficient and cost effective.
One added benefit: GCI is laying fiber-optic cable through Vintage Park.
“That opens up huge bandwidth for all kinds of uses,” he said.
Vintage Park was originally developed in 1982 out of mostly lightly-forested land. BBS Enterprises, and related limited liability companies own it, with William Bauer the principal owner of those companies
Jones said he expects a state committee reviewing the sites to come to a preliminary decision this month.
• Contact reporter Pat Forgey at 523-2250 or patrick.forgey@juneauempire.com.
Comments (12)
Add commentGetting beyond the idea that cheaper is better
No question that the Vintage site has up-front cost and development attributes. This is the reason for decentralization planning since the advent of cheap transportation. I get back to opportunities that a development of this size provides to the greater good and beyond the idea that cheaper is the best factor in making planning decisions.
The result of this mentality is seen predominantly in communities that are not seen as beautiful communities. We see suburban sprawl everywhere. Anchorage has been repairing it sprawl for years trying and have been really successful in placing their important public buildings in a location that work together to build a downtown identity.
As Juneau moves forward, we can't afford to continue building two cities; downtown and valley. Vintage park may, itself, benefit...those who believe a dislike a 9 mile commute to the downtown may benefit....juneau as a city will not. Building it outside of the capitol district will be forever seen as backward planning and a missed opportunity to strengthen our downtown identity. Good decisions aren't about what is cheap. It is about what is best for our community.
I can't agree Marias
As the article pointed out - there are already State offices out there - and have been for some time. There are State offices located in a few other places in the Valley too, not to mention Job Service right down the road. We've already lost State offices/jobs to Anchorage - the Valley isn't nearly as far away as that. I put more emphasis on keeping state jobs in Juneau, than in keeping them all bunched together downtown.....
New SOB
I agree with Marlas! I have to laugh at those people that complain about a 9-10 mile drive each day when people in Anchorage or big cities down south drive 20 - 30 miles or more to work each day. I still think this town is NOT big enough for 2 high schools. The city and the state need to work outa deal for the state to by JDHS and remodle it for the needed space. TMHS could easily accommidate ALL of the high school students
Yes, some cities have a
Yes, some cities have a defined downtown with all the state office buildings in that central core. The reality is, that central core in those cities is still about the size of Juneau. Having a building 9 miles from the other will not cripple us. It will not cause urban sprawl. It will just make us seem urban.
Eh...
If you spend time in Springfield, Illinois, for instance.. the entire state seat takes up more land than downtown Juneau. But even in Springfield, they have a huge office building 6 miles away because downtown is too crowded.
And of course, Chicago is the population center of Illinois, so maybe they too, should move their capital. The idea of traveling 3 hours to the state capital is absolutely UNHEARD of in this day and age (tongue in cheek). Or you can squeeze yourself in a tiny United Express 50 seat jet for 40 minutes and pay $250 one way (again, what on earth are they thinking in Illinois... they should move the capital)
Vintage Park is a Central Location
Having a major state office building in the Valley would save hundreds of state workers over 3600 commuting miles each, per year. That shift in travel time and expense results in more family time and better schedules for those Valley workers with children and spouses. When department folks need to be in town for a few hours during the Legislature, a shuttle van will suffice, as it does for Dept. of Labor today. The GCI cable going through Vintage Park is also a huge plus.
The Valley
I say put the proposed building in the valley. The downtown area is a poor fit; like trying to cram a round peg in a square hole. Downtown is too crowded already without bringing more traffic and people into the limited area. I find it alarming that anyone would even consider, let alone promote building anything new and big in the downtown core. It is an area that is past its prime and should be kept as is. There is no functional reason for any new state office buildings in that part of Juneau.
Valley Location Needed
So where would all the state workers park their vehicles while the SOB Parking Garage is demolished ? It seems that adding that large of a project to the SOB Building would be a logistical nightmare.
As a valley resident that works in one of the effected offices in this issue I am very hopeful for the valley location, but not just for my own personal benifit but also for the benifit of the rest of the valley community.
Our struggling mall businesses would all of a sudden have a much larger pool of potential customers during the work day. Our carbon foot print would be minimized. And I along with hundreds of others would be spending much less money on fuel costs to get to work everyday that we could spend on other items we have cut back on. maybe I could even get the history and discovery channels again ! but i digress.
The valley location please
New Building
Juneau is already polerized between the Valley people and those that live downtown. Why make is worse by building a state office building in the valley?
New Building
Juneau is already polerized between the Valley people and those that live downtown. Why make is worse by building a state office building downtown?
Valley and Downtown are
Valley and Downtown are polarized due to the demographics of people with political alliances. It has nothing to do with whether or not they have to drive or walk to work.
Polarized?
Really,
We all live in Juneau, if you want polarization, remember the Douglas people..... they do NOT live in Juneau and if there was polarization, it would be between these two... On another subject I agree, TMHS could fit all the students for high school (I think, if we don't grow) Why not look into putting the legislature or state offices in JDHS? however if you have been following the news about the Willoughby district, we are already losing "parking" downtown. (and closing the parking garage? ha ha) Why would we continue to have traffic drive downtown when we don't have to? I can't stand going downtown to fight for the road with tourists etc.. I wouldn't even go there unless I had to. I do not need a new diamond or plastic totem pole today. Think of the road repairs, pollution etc..... I can't understand why someone would think that the valley is not part of Juneau.... Build us up! Maybe we could get some restaurants in the valley to if we had workers there!