Early Learning Center_Design Narrative by Stephanie Birner

L E C

EARLY LEARNING CENTER

DESIGN

AUGUST 25, 2014

OWNER

ARCHITECT

LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECT

CIVIL ENGINEER

ADDRESS: 2123 S. Arlington Hts Rd Arlington Hts, IL 60005

ADDRESS: 2015 Spring Road Oak Brook, IL 60523

ADDRESS: 221 W Jefferson Ave, Naperville, IL 60540

ADDRESS: 715 Ridgeview Drive McHenry, Illinois 60050

Director of Buildings and Grounds Tony Rossi

President Patrick Brosnan AIA, LEED AP BD+C, REFP

Project Principal Dave Frigo

Project Principal Scot DiGilio

Senior Landscape Designer Andy Howard

Project Engineer Tim Shoemaker

Director of K-12 Robin Randall AIA, LEED AP BD + C Project Manager Paul Pessetti AIA, LEED AP Project Architect Stephanie Marcan Project Designer Katie LaCourt Assoc. AIA, LEED AP BD + C Project Associate Bryan Archibald

Sustainable Design Specialist Vuk Vujovic Assoc. AIA, LEED AP BD+C

STRUCTURAL

ENGINEER

ADDRESS: 837 Oakton St, Elk Grove Village, IL 60007

ADDRESS: 1216 Tower Rd Schaumburg, IL 60173

Project Engineers Bob Siil Steve Schafer Todd Cooper Pete Nomellini

Project Engineer Jim Barrett

L E C

CONSTRUCTION

MANAGER

ADDRESS: 1001 Feehanville Dr Mt Prospect, IL 60056 Construction Manager Joe Papanicholas

PROJECT DIRECTORY

MEPFP ENGINEER

L E C

INITIAL CONCEPTS DESIGN STRATEGY SCHEMATIC DESIGN SITE INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 2 3 4 5

EARLY LEARNING CENTER

I N IT I A L C O N C E PT S L E C

Program NSF 900 sf

18,000 sf

Rooms Rooms Rooms Spaces Rooms Rooms

@ @ @ @ @ @

120 sf 175 sf 120 sf 150 sf 420 sf 100 sf

1,200 sf 1,750 sf 1,200 sf 600 sf 1,680 sf 200 sf 24,630 sf

1 1 1 1 1

Room Room Room Room Room

@ @ @ @ @

300 sf 750 sf 1,000 sf 400 sf 300 sf

300 sf 750 sf 1,000 sf 400 sf 300 sf 2,750 sf

C. Student Services Reception Director's Office Secretary (Clerical) Secretary Social Worker Psychologist Speech Therapy Pull-Out Room Nurse (Cot Area) Nurse (Toilet) Nursing Room General Office Storage Conference Room (w/ Play Area for Parent Meetings) Work Room (Faculty) Staff Center (with kitchenette) Sub-Total:

1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 50

Room Room Space Space Room Rooms Room Room Room Room Room Rooms Staff Staff

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

D. Large Motor Skills Indoor Play Room Multi-Purpose Activity Room (Play and Snack) Warming Kitchen OT/PT Motor Room with in Storage Special Equipment Device Storage Equipment Storage Sub-Total:

1 1 1 1 1 1

Room Room Room Room Room Room

@ @ @ @ @ @

1,800 sf 1,800 sf 300 sf 900 sf 700 sf 450 sf

1,800 sf 1,800 sf 300 sf 900 sf 700 sf 450 sf 5,950 sf

1 1 4 2 2 1 1

Room Room Toilet Rms Toilet Rms Toilet Rms

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

800 sf 300 sf 50 sf 200 sf 200 sf 1,200 sf 1,500 sf

800 sf 300 sf 200 sf 400 sf 400 sf 1,200 sf 1,500 sf 4,800 sf

*plus up to 4 adults (teacher, aides)

Shared Therapy / Break Out Rooms Shared Integrated Therapy Rooms Shared Toilet Room (in the room) Dispersed Learning Stations OT/ PT/ SLP Team Collaboration Room Laundry Rooms with Dishwasher Sub-Total: B. Parent Support Center Secure Parent Waiting Parent Training Room Parent Support Center / Media Center Diagnostic Room Media Storage Sub-Total:

E. Operations and Maintenance General Storage Outdoor Storage (mower, snow blower - outdoor play equip.) Staff Toilets Public Toilets (2 @ Welcome) Student Toilets (2 @ Indoor Play) Mechanical Room Mechanical Mezzanines Sub-Total:

20 Classrooms @ 10 10 10 4 4 2

100 sf 150 sf 180 sf 180 sf 150 sf 150 sf 175 sf 200 sf 80 sf 80 sf 300 sf 400 sf 15 sf per staff 15 sf per staff

Subtotal Program (NSF) Circulation, Walls, Chases, etc. - % of Total Program Total Program Square Footage (GSF) - Excluding Enclosed Outdoor Courtyard and Sensory Gardens:

L E C

100 sf 150 sf 180 sf 180 sf 150 sf 300 sf 175 sf 200 sf 80 sf 80 sf 300 sf 400 sf 750 sf 750 sf 3,795 sf

PROGRAM

I. Program Spaces A. Classroom Spaces Classrooms (up to 15 students*)

41,925 sf 27.5%

15,932 sf 57,857 sf

9 CCSD59_ELC_Program_07 07 2014.xlsx PAGE 1 OF 1

EG INT HER T

IL TO

EG INT HER T

/PT OT OTOR M M OO R

EG INT HER T

SSR

CLA

SSR

CLA

LL PU UT O

SSR

CLA SSR

CLA

SSR

CLA

SSR

CLA

M OO

SSR

CLA

REC

C. SO ORK W

C PSY

RSE

SSR

CLA

O SL T/ P PT RO TEA / O M M

SEC .

O SL T/ P PT RO TEA / O M M

SEC

DIA E ME ORAG ST

ENT G PAR AININ M TR ROO

ENT RT PAR PPO ER/ TER SU ENT CEN C IA D ME

SSR

CLA

SSR

CLA SSR

CLA

SRO

S CLA

NF. CO OOM R

RPO

I-PU

LT MU

O ATI PER

KIL

R OO IND PLAY

E RG

RS TO O M

ES PAC S M

OO SSR

CLA

Y ULT K FAC WOR OM RO

FF STA NTER ette) CE chen (kit

GDIA OSTIC M N OO R E UR T SEC AREN ING P AIT W

SSR

M OO

SRO

CLA CLA

CLA S CLA

. GEN FICE GE OF ORA ST

C. PSY

. RM . WA ITCH K

M OO

SRO

O SL T/ P PT RO TEA / O M M

ITO ET L

SSR

CLA SSR

S CLA

O SL T/ P PT RO TEA / O M M

R. NU RM.

. DIR FICE OF

CLA

. UIP E EQ ORAG ST

M OO

SRO

S CLA

D. STUOILET T

FF STA ILETS TO O C T BLI IL. PU OILET TO L T C ICA S IL. BLI LET AN NE TO U P OI CH NI T ME EZZA M IL. TO C. AL E R E SPE QUIP. GE G E ORA GEN TORA S ST

EG INT HER T

. . IN IN TH TEG TH TEG ER . ER . . IN IN T TH TEG E TH G . ER ER . . IN IN T T E TH G TH EG ER ER . . IN IN T TH EG TH TEG ER ER . . IN TH TEG ER .

IL TO

T ILE

IL TO

LAU DRY N

D. STUOILET T IL.

T ILE

IN TH TEG ER .

T. DIS ARN LE

IL TO

LAU DRY N

STU

VIC SER

R PO UP ER S T T REN CEN PA

1 1

PROGRAM

1/32” = 1’-0”

MOTOR SKILL ADJACENCIES NT ME E UIP AG EQ STOR

E VIC E DE ORAG ST

D. STUOILET T

FF STA OILET T

SSR

CLA

O SRO

CLA EG. NT R. I- I THE TO

ED LOS OOR E ENC UTD SPAC O LAY P

CLA

PU TO BL IL IC ET

. GN R DIA ENTE C

Y ULT K FAC WOR OM RO

L E C

NF. CO OOM R

FF STA NTER ette) CE chen (kit R. NU RM.

. DIR FICE OF

R. NU OIL. T C. SO ORK. W

. SEC

ENT RT PAR PPO ER/ TER SU ENT CEN C IA D ME

SEC

C. PSY

L ERA E GEN OFFIC RAGE STO .

REC

FF STA OILET T

RA GE

O SSR

R. NU OT. C

ST O

LL LET PU UT O

PU TO BL IL IC ET

CLA

D. STUOILET T

PARENT SUPPORT CENTER ADJACENCIES

EG. INT HER. T

OILL T ET PU UT L O

O SRO

SE PA CU W RE RE AI N TI T NG

LL PU UT O / /PT . OT LP RM S

LAU DRY N

VIT

TI I-AC ULT

M R OO IND PLAY

CLASSROOM ADJACENCIES

ING RM EN WA KITCH

FF STA OILET T

CLASSROOM ZONES

DRAMATIC PLAY MUSIC BLOCKS LEGO WALL

COMPUTER LIBRARY LISTENING CENTER TOYS&GAMES

LOUD

QUIET

SCIENCE SENSORY TABLE ART NATURE

MESSY

L E C

SENSORY AREA SAND WATER PATH AROUND EDGE GARDEN

ZEN AREA PICNIC AREA WATER WALLS FISH POND UNDER BRIDGE BRIDGE/RAMP ENTRANCE

ACTIVE AREA TUNNEL TIRE SWING INTERACTIVE FAKE TREES CLIMBING AREA ROCK CLIMBING WALL RAMP&STAIRS

L E C

DIAGRAMMING

OUTDOOR ZONES

THREE RIBONS

ZIG ZAG

PROS PROS • Circular corridor around the courtyard space, for • Connection of Multi-activity to Holmes trike play. • Large corridor space adjacent to smaller • Groupings of 4 classrooms in each house courtyards for Learning Centers • One large centralized courtyard space • Preservation of play field space • Potential for north entry by Multi-activity CONS CONS • No equity between classrooms spaces and • No connection between Multi-activity and courtyard access Indoor Play/Courtyard space • No connection to the north • Open side of smaller courtyards to remainder of • Support and Teaching spaces too remote from site each other • Overtakes site space allocated for future expansion to Holmes (north edge)

ATRIUM VILLAGE

OPEN PLAYFIELDS

PROS PROS • Opportunity for themed activity courtyards (2) • Large corridor space adjacent to smaller in center courtyards for Learning Centers • Transition to ELC from Holmes through Staff • Transition to ELC from Holmes through Staff Services areas only Services and Parent Support Center areas only • Potential for north entry by Multi-activity • Preservation of play fields to the north • Equal division of classroom “Neighborhoods” on CONS either side of courtyards • One, long, wide central corridor CONS • No connection from Large Motor Skills to • No connection between Multi-activity and enclosed outdoor play Indoor Play/Courtyard space • Open side of smaller courtyards to remainder of • Open side of smaller courtyards to remainder of site site • Immediately adjacent to property line

L E C

DESIGN EXPLORATION 16

DESCRIPTION During our early Design Workshops with the Early Learning faculty and staff, everyone brought ideas derived from facility tours, pictures from existing learning spaces as well as a vast collection of inspirational images. Images ranged from full classroom spaces, playground structures, learning corners, materials and interactive play centers. As a method of organizing thoughts in a single location, the District set up a Pinterest account for all Early Learning staff members to post to and pull inspiration from. This resulted in an impressive library of sharable inspiration. This aided the Design Team to assess the intentions behind particular program spaces, as well as apply a playful lens to all decisions made. Staff members kept referencing particular images “Pin” when discussing a particular place within the addition. To aid in the dreaming of the Early Learning Center, the Design Team brought buttons of all “pins” posted to the School District 59 Early Learning Center Pinterest board and asked that staff place the inspirational buttons in their designated locations within the addition. This exercise allowed the Design Team to fully understand the staff’s hopes and intentions for particular program spaces as well as the overall design aesthetic of the center. The courtyard spaces were now explained with colorful images of stacked garden beds, rainwater study walls and children exploring playground structures. The Parent Support Center drew inspiration from airy, comfortable and expansive spaces for parents to get to know the center and staff while their children acclimate to the new environment. The Large Motor Skill areas should have all manner of climbing devices and structures that can service children of all needs.

bus dropoff LEGEND MOTOR SKILLS PARENT SUPPORT CENTER OUTDOOR PLAY STUDENT SERVICES CLASSROOM OPERATIONS

PARENT SUPPORT CENTER

parent dropoff

bus dropoff

isitor parking/ parent dropoff

staff parking

RAH LN.

COTT PL.

L E C

W. LONNQUIST BOULEVARD

EARLY LEARNING CENTER

D E S I G N ST R AT E GY L E C

S. CRESTWOOD LANE

S. MEIER ROAD

bus dropoff

parent dropoff

bus dropoff visitor parking/ parent dropoff

staff parking

1 | ADJACENCIES • SS/Parent Support Center connect to Holmes • Motor Skills connects to the large outdoor play area • Classroom Spaces adjacent to outdoor play LEGEND MOTOR SKILLS PARENT SUPPORT CENTER OUTDOOR PLAY STUDENT SERVICES CLASSROOM OPERATIONS

KENNICOTT PL.

DEBORAH LN.

W. LONNQUIST BOULEVARD CAROL LN.

DEBORAH LN.

CAROL LN.

W. LONNQUIST BOULEVARD

KENNICOTT PL.

staff parking

2 | SENSORY GARDENS • E/W Orientation for energy efficiency • Sensory Gardens between classroom blocks for daylighting • “10 pack” of classrooms for constructibility

bus dropoff

S. CRESTWOOD LANE

S. MEIER ROAD

bus dropoff

parent dropoff

bus dropoff visitor parking/ parent dropoff

visitor parking/ parent dropoff

staff parking

3 | ALIGNMENT • Rotate alternating blocks slightly (5 degrees) to create horizontal “houses” while maintaining coupled classroom equity • The slight variance between each “house” creates a village-like feel • Creates splayed hallways with requested breakout spaces

L E C

KENNICOTT PL.

DEBORAH LN.

CAROL LN.

W. LONNQUIST BOULEVARD KENNICOTT PL.

DEBORAH LN.

W. LONNQUIST BOULEVARD CAROL LN.

parent dropoff

bus dropoff

staff parking

4 | STAGGER • Staggering the plan components creates a more playful corridor filled with break out space “rooms” • It eliminates the long, daunting corridor and produces a series of spaces

1 | Extrude • Each classroom “house” roof exceeds that of the corridor in between in order to provide high quality northern clerestory light into each classroom. • Each “house” registers on the exterior, breaking up the mass in individual components and relating to the scale of the adjacent residential area.

2 | Slope • Each classroom “house” roof slopes south, allowing the south wall to more closely relate to the scale of the users, while providing the northern clerestory light. • The shed roof relates to the massing of the residents across the street as well as Forest View.

10 3.0 0°

3 | Cant 4 | Expression Each southern “house” wall cants: • The shed roof metal panel wraps down the • CONTEXT: It relates to the slanted wall canted wall, relating to the Mansard roof language already present at Holmes. expression already present at Holmes. • ENVIRONMENT: Slanting the wall creates • The Eastern wall of each “house” takes on shading for glass on the south, resulting in a a different material, perhaps wood or brick more energy efficient building veneer. • AESTHETICS: It makes each “house” have a unique and sculptural form.

L E C

EARLY LEARNING CENTER

S C H E M AT I C D E S I G N L E C

SITE PLAN

DESCRIPTION 6

The addition would be located along the east edge of Holmes Junior High School, spanning North to South. There would be a new car dropoff as well as staff and visitor parking lot along Lonnquist Boulevard for the new Early Learning Center. Parents will drop their kids off along the new sidewalk and be escorted into the facility by staff members. Bus traffic for the Early Learning Center would drop off kids along the north turnaround accessed through Forest Viewâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing parking lot, north of the Early Learning Center. Holmes would also be outfitted with a designated (and separated) bus and car drop-offs as well as staff and visitor parking. During afterhours events at Holmes, the ELC parking lot could be utilized as overflow parking. The area east of the ELC would be allocated for on-site stormwater storage.

NO PARKING

690

90 6

688

689

bu 688

visitor p

st N

688

140

687

688 688

W. LO 687

681

bus dropoff 683

684

685

686 680

679

7 68

CLASSROOM

OPS

TOILET

TEAM

TOILET

68 8

CLASSROOM

INTEGRATED THERAPY

68 9

680

MECHANICAL/ OPERATIONS

TOILET

CLASSROOM

TOILET

INTEGRATED THERAPY

STORAGE

CLASSROOM

INTEGRATED THERAPY

OT/PT MOTOR ROOM

TOILET

KITCHEN

67 9

68 0

STORAGE

CLASSROOM CLASSROOM

INTEGRATED THERAPY

MULTI-ACTIVITY

8 67

CLASSROOM

680

TOILET

678

TOILET

9 67

8 67

INDOOR PLAY

INTEGRATED THERAPY

679

CUSTODIAL TEAM CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

688

TOILET

CLASSROOM

679

INTEGRATED THERAPY

68 7

687

TOILET

689

CLASSROOM TEAMCUSTODIAL

67 8

TOILET

67 7

TOILET

CLASSROOM

67 8

TOILET

RECEPTION/ WAITING

TEAM ROOM

OPS

CLASSROOM

678

DIAGNOSTIC

NURSE

677

689

TOILET

INTEGRATED THERAPY

TOILET

9 68

CLASSROOM

TOILET

689

PARENT SUPPORT CENTER TOILET

FACULTY WORK ROOM

STORAGE

PARENT TRAINING ROOM

OFFICE

STAFF CENTER

OFFICE

INTEGRATED THERAPY

679

TOILET

CLASSROOM

678

TOILET

INTEGRATED THERAPY CLASSROOM

us dropoff

parent dropoff

parking/ parent dropoff

staff parking

staff parking 7 67

683

682

67 8

67 9

680

68 4

677

681

679

680

0 68

8 67 9 67

27 77

68 5

7 67

L E C

ONNQUIST BOULEVARD 68 6

FLOOR PLAN

DESCRIPTION The link between Holmes Junior High and the Early Learning Center would be east of the existing Main Office, with individuals transitioning through the new Staff Services area. The new Outdoor Play courtyard would abut the existing east classrooms within Holmes, maintaining the current natural lighting within those rooms. The central corridor would act as a transportation spine and play space between the Support and Activity spaces with the Learning spaces. The classroom bars would be organized around smaller Sensory Gardens, creating “houses” of 10 classrooms.

GTT LAB

ORCHESTRA MUSIC

CLASSROOM

HEALTH & FITNESS CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

READ

CLASSROOM

STORAGE

MECH.

LOCKER

OFFICE

MUSIC

OFFICE

MECH.

SP. ED.

LIFE SKILLS

ART

STORAGE GYMNASIUM

SCIENCE

BAND PREP

SERVING SCIENCE

CAFETERIA

N 0

105

SCIENCE

CLASSROOM

MECHANICAL/ OPERATIONS

TOILET TOILET

CLASSROOM

OPS

TEAM

INTEGRATED THERAPY

TOILET

INTEGRATED THERAPY

STORAGE

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM TOILETTOILET

OT/PT MOTOR ROOM

TOILET INTEGRATED THERAPY TOILET

SENSORY GARDEN

KITCHEN

STORAGE

CLASSROOM TOILETTOILET

TOILET

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM CUSTODIAL

INTEGRATED THERAPY

MULTI-ACTIVITY

TOILET LEARNING CENTER

IDF TEAM

INDOOR PLAY

INTEGRATED THERAPY CUSTODIAL CLASSROOM

TOILET TOILET

CLASSROOM

TOILET

STORAGE

GIRLS

OFFICE

BOYS

TOILET

CLASSROOM

STORAGE

SENSORY GARDEN

CLASSROOM

CONTROL ROOM

TEAM

CLASSROOM

CUSTODIAL

CLASSROOM

TOILETTOILET

CLASSROOM

INTEGRATED THERAPY TOILET

CCLASSROOM CLASSROOM

STORAGE

CLASSROOM

INTEGRATED THERAPY OFFICE

RES.

BOYS SP. PATH

SP. ED.

S.W.

PSYCH

CLASSROOM

STORAGE CLASSROOM

TOILETTOILET

CLASSROOM

GIRLS TOILET INTEGRATED THERAPY TOILET

CLASSROOM SENSORY GARDEN

NURSE MAIN OFFICE

TOILET

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM STORAGE

STORAGE

OFFICE

PARENT SUPPORT CENTER

STAFF CENTER

TOILETTOILET

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM INTEGRATED THERAPY

PRINC.

CONF.

OFFICE

STUDY

OFFICE

TOILET

CLASSROOM STAFF WORKROOM

STAFF LOUNGE

FACULTY WORK ROOM

CLASSROOM

NURSE TOILET

PARENT TRAINING ROOM

RECEPTION/ WAITING STORAGE

L E C

TOILET

OFFICE

DIAGNOSTIC

TEAM ROOM

INTEGRATED THERAPY

OPS

CLASSROOM

TOILETTOILET

CLASSROOM

PROGRAM

DESCRIPTION The main Staff Services and Parent Support Spaces would be located along the south edge, to serve parents immediately upon entry. The Large Motor Skills area to the north would house both the Indoor Play as well as a Multi-Activity Space. These spaces would both be adjacent to the Outdoor Play courtyard. Each pair of classrooms along the east would share an Integrated Therapy room, have a toilet room for student use and allow for the opportunity to open up a wall between classrooms for multiroom interaction. Each group of 5 classrooms would share a Team Teachers room, as well as staff and public restrooms. The central corridor would feature spontaneous learning and play “rooms”, between the Outdoor Play and Sensory Gardens as well as between the MultiActivity and Sensory Garden. These areas allow for specialized learning areas outside the designated classroom spaces.

N 0

105

GTT LAB

ORCHESTRA MUSIC

CLASSROOM

HEALTH & FITNESS CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

READ

CLASSROOM

STORAGE

MECH.

LOCKER

OFFICE

MUSIC

OFFICE

MECH.

SP. ED.

LIFE SKILLS

ART

STORAGE GYMNASIUM

SCIENCE

BAND PREP

SERVING SCIENCE

CAFETERIA

SCIENCE

CLASSROOM

LEGEND MOTOR SKILLS

CLASSROOM

OPS

TEAM MECHANICAL/ OPERATIONS

TOILET TOILET

INTEGRATED THERAPY

PARENT SUPPORT CENTER

TOILET

INTEGRATED THERAPY

STORAGE

CLASSROOM

OUTDOOR PLAY

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM TOILETTOILET

OT/PT MOTOR ROOM

STUDENT SERVICES

TOILET INTEGRATED THERAPY TOILET

SENSORY GARDEN

KITCHEN

CLASSROOM

STORAGE

CLASSROOM TOILETTOILET

TOILET

OPERATIONS

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM CUSTODIAL

INTEGRATED THERAPY

MULTI-ACTIVITY

TOILET LEARNING CENTER

IDF TEAM

INDOOR PLAY

INTEGRATED THERAPY CUSTODIAL CLASSROOM

TOILET TOILET

CLASSROOM

TOILET

STORAGE

GIRLS

OFFICE

BOYS

TOILET

CLASSROOM

STORAGE

SENSORY GARDEN

CLASSROOM

CONTROL ROOM

TEAM

CLASSROOM

CUSTODIAL

CLASSROOM

TOILETTOILET

CLASSROOM

INTEGRATED THERAPY TOILET

CCLASSROOM CLASSROOM

STORAGE

CLASSROOM

INTEGRATED THERAPY OFFICE

RES.

BOYS SP. PATH

SP. ED.

S.W.

PSYCH

CLASSROOM

STORAGE CLASSROOM

TOILETTOILET

CLASSROOM

GIRLS TOILET INTEGRATED THERAPY TOILET

CLASSROOM SENSORY GARDEN

NURSE MAIN OFFICE

TOILET

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM STORAGE

STORAGE

OFFICE

PARENT SUPPORT CENTER

STAFF CENTER

TOILETTOILET

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM INTEGRATED THERAPY

PRINC.

CONF.

OFFICE

STUDY

OFFICE

TOILET

CLASSROOM STAFF WORKROOM

STAFF LOUNGE

FACULTY WORK ROOM

CLASSROOM

NURSE TOILET

PARENT TRAINING ROOM

RECEPTION/ WAITING STORAGE

L E C

TOILET

OFFICE

DIAGNOSTIC

TEAM ROOM

INTEGRATED THERAPY

OPS

CLASSROOM

TOILETTOILET

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM LAYOUT

TOILET B116 OPS B117 495 SF TEAM ROOM B115 398 SF

N 0

CLASSROOM B122 874 SF

INTEGRATED THERAPY B123 175 SF

CLASSROOM B124 874 SF

L E C

TOILET

B122A

B124A

ROOF PLAN

DESCRIPTION In an effort to relate the new addition to the adjacent neighborhood scale and aesthetic, the roofs of each classroom bar would be sloped towards the south end of the site. This design will begin to break up the addition in to smaller pieces, bringing the overall scale down while creating a “neighborhood-like” repetition along the east façade. The sloped roofs will allow for easier (and obvious) rainwater collection, which would be used as a teaching tool within the Sensory Gardens. Roofs could also begin to push in to the Outdoor Play Courtyard and create shaded areas for play and protection.

N 0

105

L E C

BUILDING SECTIONS

DESCRIPTION Using the existing Holmes Junior High mansard roof edge shape and material as inspiration, the Early Learning Center would feature a bent plate of metal panel for the roof and south wall material. The south wall of each classroom bar would be canted to the south, resulting in south glazing shading, while creating a sculptural form for the addition. The sloped roofs would accommodate various ceiling heights throughout the addition while also incorporating clerestory lighting along the north edge. Beyond, the Staff Services area would serve as a beacon for visitors, directing their eye to a transparent, glowing mass at the south entrance.

1 N-S Section Perspective

3 N-S Section Perspective

5 N-S Section Perspective

2 E-W Section Perspective

4 E-W Section Perspective

L E C

BUILDING ISOMETRIC

L E C

SOUTHEAST VIEW

L E C

SOUTHWEST VIEW

L E C

EAST VIEW

L E C

EARLY LEARNING CENTER

S I T E L E C

D E S I G N

SITE DESIGN

PREPARED FOR

Community Consolidated School District 59

NORTH SCALE: 1”=100’

IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

0’

25’

50’

150’

L E C

OUTDOOR PLAY

Sensory/tactile path Sensory plantings Poured-in-place rubber surfacing berm +/- 3’ HT Wee-saw

Leaf imprint Nature inspired play structure Poured-in-place rubber surfacing Log crawl

Trike track Rumble strip Picnic plaza with movable tables and chairs Raccoon tracks imprint

Leaf imprint Embankment slide Stone steps

Wood cookie steppers Log wall/ music circle Pretend stage with overhead arbor

Nature play tables Art wall

Flagstone path

PREPARED FOR

Community Consolidated School District 59

NORTH SCALE: 1”=10’

IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

0’

2.5’

5’

15’

Outdoor Play Area Concep Early Learning Center Mount Prospect, Illinois

Sensory/tactile path Sensory plantings Poured-in-place rubber surfacing berm +/- 3’ HT Wee-saw

Nature inspired play structure Poured-in-place rubber surfacing Log crawl

Leaf imprint Embankment slide Stone steps

Nature play tables Art wall

L E C

PREPARED FOR

Community Consolidated School District 59

NORTH SCALE: 1”=10’

IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

0’

2.5’

5’

15’

OUTDOOR PLAY

Trike track

Pretend stage

Outdoor Play Area - Characte

Early Learning Center Mount Prospect, Illinois

L E C

er Images 1

Wood cookie steppers

Log wall / music circle

Stage with overhead arbor

Poured-in-place rubber surfacing berm PREPARED FOR

Community Consolidated School District 59 IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

ISSUE DATE: JULY 17, 2014 All drawings are preliminary and subject to change. ÂŠ 2014 Hitchcock Design Group

OUTDOOR PLAY

Wee-saw

Embankment slide

Outdoor Play Area - Characte

Early Learning Center Mount Prospect, Illinois

Nature inspired play structure

Art walls

Log crawl

L E C

er Images 2

PREPARED FOR

Community Consolidated School District 59 IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

ISSUE DATE: JULY 17, 2014 All drawings are preliminary and subject to change. ÂŠ 2014 Hitchcock Design Group

OUTDOOR PLAY

Picnic plaza with movable tables and chairs

Nature play tables

Outdoor Play Area - Characte

Early Learning Center Mount Prospect, Illinois

L E C

er Images 3

Stone steppers

Raccoon track imprint

Sensory path

Leaf imprint PREPARED FOR

Community Consolidated School District 59 IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

ISSUE DATE: JULY 17, 2014 All drawings are preliminary and subject to change. ÂŠ 2014 Hitchcock Design Group

SENSORY GARDEN

Sensory/tactile path Sensory plantings Poured-in-place rubber surfacing berm +/- 3’ HT Wee-saw

Elevated water runnels Sand play

Nature inspired play structure Poured-in-place rubber surfacing Log crawl

Sand diggers Texture path pebble paving Arched boardwalk Flagstone paving Stone play / pattern games

Leaf imprint Embankment slide Stone steps

Nature play tables Art wall

PREPARED FOR

Community Consolidated School District 59

NORTH SCALE: 1”=10’

Arched boardwalk

IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

0’

2.5’

5’

15’

Sensory Garden Concep Early Learning Center Mount Prospect, Illinois

Sensory wall Kid-powered water pump

Elevated water runnels

Sensory wall Fiddlehead fern walk

Sensory plantings -Herbs -Perennials

Kid-powered water pump

Sand diggers

L E C

Stone play / pattern games

Sensory wall PREPARED FOR

Community Consolidated School District 59

NORTH SCALE: 1”=10’

IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

0’

2.5’

5’

15’

SENSORY GARDEN

Sandy play

Fiddlehead fern walk

Sensory Garden - Character Im Early Learning Center Mount Prospect, Illinois

L E C

mages

Sensory wall

Texture path / pebble path

Sensory plantings

Kid-powered water pump PREPARED FOR

Community Consolidated School District 59 IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

ISSUE DATE: JULY 17, 2014 All drawings are preliminary and subject to change. ÂŠ 2014 Hitchcock Design Group

FINE ARTS GARDEN

Sensory/tactile path Sensory plantings Poured-in-place rubber surfacing berm +/- 3’ HT Wee-saw

Art stations -paintings -water on slate Plantings

Nature inspired play structure Poured-in-place rubber surfacing Log crawl

Music fence Xylophone bench Harmony circle -tongue drums -slap drums Dance plaza -motor skills

Leaf imprint Embankment slide Stone steps

Nature play tables Art wall

PREPARED FOR

Community Consolidated School District 59

NORTH SCALE: 1”=10’

Xylophone bench

IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

0’

2.5’

5’

15’

Fine Art Garden Concep Early Learning Center Mount Prospect, Illinois

Weaving wall Storage bench Theater space with wood arbor Weaving wall

Weaving wall

Log seats / benches Color chalk canvas Log wall

Theater space with wood arbor

Music fence

L E C

Colored concrete music notes

Harmony circle PREPARED FOR

Community Consolidated School District 59

NORTH SCALE: 1”=10’

IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

0’

2.5’

5’

15’

FINE ARTS GARDEN

Music play

Weaving wall

Fine Art Garden - Character Im

Early Learning Center Mount Prospect, Illinois

L E C

mages

Music play

Theater space

Art wall

Art wall PREPARED FOR

Community Consolidated School District 59 IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

ISSUE DATE: JULY 17, 2014 All drawings are preliminary and subject to change. ÂŠ 2014 Hitchcock Design Group

NATURE GARDEN

Sensory/tactile path Sensory plantings Poured-in-place rubber surfacing berm +/- 3’ HT Wee-saw

Animal imprints in concrete Rubber tile surfacing

Nature inspired play structure Poured-in-place rubber surfacing Log crawl

Boulder accents Balance log Loose parts play -barrels, nuts, seeds, leaves, corn Lean to fort Willow tunnel

Leaf imprint Embankment slide Stone steps

Nature play tables Art wall

PREPARED FOR

Community Consolidated School District 59

NORTH SCALE: 1”=10’

Willow tunnel

IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

0’

2.5’

5’

15’

Nature Garden Concept Early Learning Center Mount Prospect, Illinois

Raised garden Wood cookie hopscotch Nature observation table

Nature observation table

Leaf imprints Storytelling chair Elevated wood deck with log arbor Seasonal garden beds

Wood cookie hopscotch

Loose parts play

L E C

Storytelling chair

Balance log PREPARED FOR

Community Consolidated School District 59

NORTH SCALE: 1”=10’

IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

0’

2.5’

5’

15’

NATURE GARDEN

Lean to fort

animal imprints

Nature Garden - Character Im

Early Learning Center Mount Prospect, Illinois

L E C

mages

Nature observation table

Elevated wood deck

Leaf imprints

Raised garden PREPARED FOR

Community Consolidated School District 59 IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

ISSUE DATE: JULY 17, 2014 All drawings are preliminary and subject to change. ÂŠ 2014 Hitchcock Design Group

EARLY LEARNING CENTER

M E ET I N G M I N UT E S L E C

ENTRY/OFFICE

SENSORY ROOMS/GYM

OUTDOOR PLAY

CLASSROOMS

BUILDING-WIDE

THERAPY

WALL TOYS FOR KIDS

PADDED WALLS

DIRECT ACCESS FROM ALL CLASSROOMS

DIAPER-CHANGING AREA

CLEAN AND UNCLUTTERED

DIAGNOSTIC ROOM

KID-SIZED FURNITURE

FOAM WEDGES

GROSS MOTOR AREA

LOTS OF STORAGE - CUBBIES IN THE CLASSROOMS

APPROPRIATE ADULT AND KID FURNITURE

SEPARATE OT, PT, AND S

KID-LEVEL WINDOWS

BIG AREAS

BIKE PATHS

STANDARDIZED, INTERCHANGABLE ROOMS THAT ARE ADAPTABLE FOR CHANGES IN CURRICULUM COLLABORATIVE AREA TO STORE EVERYTHING

GOOD FLOW

MULTIPLE SMALL AREAS/ BREAK OUT ROOMS

OUTDOOR ART/MUSIC

OPEN STORAGE FOR KIDS TO ACCESS

LOTS OF WINDOWS AND NATURAL LIGHT

COLLABORATION ROOMS

COLOR-CODED PATHWAYS

INDOOR PLAYGROUND

WATER/SAND PLAY

HIGH, CLOSED STORAGE FOR TEACHERS

WINDOWS AT KID HEIGHT

OBSERVATION ROOM WI SPEAKER SYSTEM

COLLABORATION ROOMS

INDOOR COURTYARD WITH WATER FEATURE

MULTIPLE GROSS MOTOR AREAS

GARDEN WITH KID-SIZED STEPPING STONES

APPROPRIATE RATIO OF HARD TO SOFT FLOORING

SKYLIGHTS

PROXIMITY TO CLASSRO

HAVE THE WALLS TELL A STORY

AREAS FOR CLIMBING

RUBBERIZED FLOOR

SOFT AREA FOR READING

NO FLUORESCENT LIGHTING

SEPARATE TEACHING SP

OPEN LARGE OFFICE WITH WAITING ROOM EASY BUS AND DROP OFF

STAIRS FOR PT CALM DOWN ROOMS TOO

ACCESSIBLE FOR WHEELCHAIRS EXPLORATION SPACE

HARD AREA FOR MESSY ACTIVITIES OPEN-ENDED ENVIRONMENTS

CHILD-CENTERED LRC AREA INDOOR COURTYARD

ROOMS FOR PULLOUT TH PSYCH AND SOCIAL WOR

LENDING LIBRARY/ RESOURCE CENTER FOR PARENTS

OPPORTUNITIES FOR INSIDE PHYSICAL MOVEMENT

MULTIPLE ZONES FOR AGE GROUPS/ABILITIES

DRYING RACKS

INTERACTIVE BOARDS IN THE HALLWAYS

OFFICE AREAS LARGE EN FURNITURE AND DRAMA

COZY, HOME-LIKE TO MAKE IT SEEM FAMILIAR BRIGHT WITH LOTS OF WINDOWS

STAGE AREA SCIENCE AREAS

COLLABORATIVE AREAS SHADED AREAS

PROJECT DISPLAY AREAS ORGANIZED AND STRUCTURED ROOMS

COLORFUL TILES WIDE HALLWAYS

ACTIVITIES/WORK CENTERS FOR IMMEDIATE ENGAGEMENT TUNNELS FOR ENTRY

LARGE CIRCLE TIME SPACE FOAM PIT/ BALL PIT

FAMILY SPACES LARGE, OPEN, INVITING

OPEN, HIGH STORAGE FOR TEACHERS SINK

WARM, INVITING, AND COLORFUL - BUT NOT OVERSTIMULATING QUIET FLOORING FOR HALLWAYS

ACCESS TO BATHROOM FOR FAMILIES INVITING AND COLORFUL OFFICE

SLIDES AND TUNNELS SOFT YET SANITARY

NOT VISIBLE FROM DROP-OFF TO AVOID DISTRACTIONS PAVED AND GRASSY AREAS

SENSORY TABLE AREA TALL CEILINGS

INTERACTIVE AREAS IN THE HALLWAYS FOR GROUPS TO COME TOGETHER AIRY SPACES

COUCHES IN OFFICE AREA INVITING FOR KIDS

SPACE TO RUN SPACE FOR BALLS

OBSTACLE COURSES PLAY STRUCTURE

TILE FLOORS WARM FEELING

INVITING EXTERIOR WITH COLORS, BRIGHTNESS, AND WINDOWS PLACES FOR IMAGINATIVE PLAY

HELPFUL FOR VISITORS

DIVIDED YET OPEN FOR SUPERVISION

RUBBERIZED FLOOR - NO WOOD OR RUBBER CHIPS

MANY CENTERS AND SPACE FOR EACH

SPECIFIC THINGS AT KID EYE LEVEL - DISPLAYS, ART, FIXTURES

COLORFUL FOOTPRINTS IN THE SIDEWALK LEADING TO THE BUILDING

KID-SIZED BASKETBALL HOOPS

WHEELCHAIR BRIDGE

SAFETY

COURTYARD WITH LOW PLANTERS TEACHER LUNCHROOM

CONFERENCE ROOM WITH ROOM FOR LARGE GROUPS

ACCESS FOR ALL STUDENTS

BIG SWING

SPACE FOR KIDS TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL LEARNING, SMALL GROUP, AND WHOLE GROUP

TEACHER WORKROOM

MOTOR ROOM FOR THERAPY LARGE ENOUGH FOR GROUP MOTOR ACTIVITIES

INTERACTIVE EQUIPMENT/ MULTI-MODAL

THOUGHTFUL ATTENTION TO TECHNOLOGY SMARTBOARDS, PROJECTORS, SCREENS, ETC.

SNACKLUNCH ROOM FOR KIDS NEAR GYM

ACCESS CONTROL FOR VISITING PARENTS

INDOOR SPACE THAT RESEMBLES OUTDOOR SPACE

FENCED IN

THERAPY CLOSE OR WITHIN CLASSROOM

LIBRARY AND READING ROOM

TOUCHABLE STATUE/SCULPTURES IN THE FRONT

TRAMPOLINES

OUTDOOR SENSORY TABLES

SPACE TO NAVIGATE STROLLERS/WALKERS

KITCHEN WITH KID-LEVEL COUNTERS COMMUNITY SAFETY PATROL AREAS FOR PRETEND COMMUNITY HOOKS/CUBBIES IN THE HALLWAYS

FOUNTAIN SEASONAL DECORATIONS

TREES STORAGE FOR RIDING TOYS

WALK-IN CLOSET STORAGE BLANK WALL FOR NO DISTRACTION ACTIVITIES

DISPLAYS FOR ROTATING KID'S ARTWORK IN THE OFFICE

NO BABY SWINGS

VISIBILITY OF THE DOOR FROM EVERYWHERE

DIMMABLE LIGHTS

OPEN OFFICE AREA FOR RESOURCE STAFF PRIVATE ROOMS FOR CONVERSATIONS OVERHANG FOR BUS DROP-OFF TOY LENDING LIBRARY

ENCLOSED AREA FOR PROJECTS AND LEARNING ONE LEVEL SAFETY TOWN POOL

SENSOR ON DOOR TO ALERT TEACHER DOORS BETWEEN CLASSROOMS STORAGE SPACE FOR EXTRA CLOTHES AREAS FOR QUIET AND CALM ACTIVITIES

SHORTER WALKING DISTANCES IN THE BUILDING/CENTRALLY-LOCATED OFFICE KID HEIGHT BULLETIN BOARDS SEPARATION BETWEEN BUS AND CAR DROPOFF BRING NATURE INSIDE

WINDOWS TO SEE INTO LEARNING

PICNIC TABLES

WINDOWS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SCIENCE CENTER

ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS

COMFY PLACES FOR FAMILIES TO WAIT

SANDBOX

AREA FOR SPEECH GROUPS WITHIN THE CLASSROOM FRUIT-BEARING TREES

HILLS

LITTLE NOOKS FOR READING

ABILITY TO SEE ALL SECRETARIES WHEN THEY ARE SEATED WELCOMING FOR PARENTS OF DIFFERENT CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS - SIGNAGE PARENTS FEEL SAFE AT DROPOFF HAPPY FACE ENTRY SIGN WELCOME DESK RATHER THAN AN OFFICE

L E C

TUNNELS AND SLIDES QUIET AREA FOR SHY KIDS TREE HOUSE

SLANTED ROOF - NOT FLAT ROUNDED ENTRANCE AREA SKY MURALS ON THE CEILINGS GLASS AND LIGHT STONE ON THE EXTERIOR MUSIC PLAYING

SEPARATE AREA FOR KID MEETINGS

BUILDING-WIDE

ASSROOMS

FLOORING

NO AUTOMATIC FLUSHERS FOR KIDS

APPROPRIATE ADULT AND KID FURNITURE

SEPARATE OT, PT, AND SPEECH

NO AUTOMATIC LIGHTS FOR KDS

COLLABORATION ROOMS FOR THERAPY

NO AUTOMATIC FAUCETS FOR KIDS

LOTS OF WINDOWS AND NATURAL LIGHT

COLLABORATION ROOMS FOR TEAM CONFERENCES

BATHROOM IN EACH CLASSROOM WITH SHELVES

WINDOWS AT KID HEIGHT

OBSERVATION ROOM WITH ONE-WAY MIRROR AND SPEAKER SYSTEM

DISHWASHER FOR TOYS

SKYLIGHTS

PROXIMITY TO CLASSROOMS

LAUNDRY AREA

NO FLUORESCENT LIGHTING

SEPARATE TEACHING SPACE FOR PT

COOKING AREA WITH SECURE AREA FOR MULTIPLE OVENS

CHILD-CENTERED LRC AREA INDOOR COURTYARD

ROOMS FOR PULLOUT THERAPY PSYCH AND SOCIAL WORKER NOT IN THE OFFICE

APPROPRIATE RATIO OF STAFF/PARENTS TOILET ROOMS FAMILY TOILET ROOM

INTERACTIVE BOARDS IN THE HALLWAYS

OFFICE AREAS LARGE ENOUGH FOR COMFY FURNITURE AND DRAMATIC PLAY

COLORFUL TILES WIDE HALLWAYS

SEPARATE AREA FOR KIDS TO PLAY DURING IEP MEETINGS

WARM, INVITING, AND COLORFUL - BUT NOT OVERSTIMULATING QUIET FLOORING FOR HALLWAYS INTERACTIVE AREAS IN THE HALLWAYS FOR GROUPS TO COME TOGETHER AIRY SPACES INVITING EXTERIOR WITH COLORS, BRIGHTNESS, AND WINDOWS PLACES FOR IMAGINATIVE PLAY SPECIFIC THINGS AT KID EYE LEVEL - DISPLAYS, ART, FIXTURES COURTYARD WITH LOW PLANTERS

EARNING,

TEACHER LUNCHROOM

OGY S, ETC.

SNACKLUNCH ROOM FOR KIDS NEAR GYM

LIBRARY AND READING ROOM

ERS

KITCHEN WITH KID-LEVEL COUNTERS

VITIES

COMMUNITY SAFETY PATROL AREAS FOR PRETEND COMMUNITY HOOKS/CUBBIES IN THE HALLWAYS

HERE

DIMMABLE LIGHTS SHORTER WALKING DISTANCES IN THE BUILDING/CENTRALLY-LOCATED OFFICE KID HEIGHT BULLETIN BOARDS SEPARATION BETWEEN BUS AND CAR DROPOFF BRING NATURE INSIDE

CE CENTER

SERVICE/SUPPORT AREAS

DIAGNOSTIC ROOM

MS THAT ARE UM COLLABORATIVE AREA TO STORE EVERYTHING

THERAPY

CLEAN AND UNCLUTTERED

ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS

CLASSROOM FRUIT-BEARING TREES SLANTED ROOF - NOT FLAT ROUNDED ENTRANCE AREA SKY MURALS ON THE CEILINGS GLASS AND LIGHT STONE ON THE EXTERIOR MUSIC PLAYING

L E C

LOUNGE FOR MOTHERS WIDE BATHROOMS LARGE NURSE/HEALTH ROOM

Summary of a Traffic Study Meeting held at 1:30 p.m., Thursday, June 12, 2014 at Holmes Elementary School. These notes record our understanding of items discussed and decisions made at this meeting. Please notify us within seven (7) calendar days of any necessary additions or corrections. PERSONS IN ATTENDANCE

Matthew Lawrie, Project Engineer, Village of Mount Prospect Tony Rossi, Executive Director of Facilities & Operations, CCSD59 Joe Papanicholas, Project Manager, Nicholas & Associates Scott DiGilio, Principal, Applied/RTM Associates Robin Randall, Vice President, Legat Architects Stephanie Marcan, Project Architect, Legat Architects Katherine LaCourt, Project Designer, Legat Architects

ITEMS DISCUSSED

1. It was stated that the Early Learning Center would have car traffic along Lonnquist and buses to the North, while Holmes Elementary School would service both cars and buses from off Lonnquist. 2. Matthew Lawrie (ML) asked if there was a sidewalk present between the north bus drive and the south parking in front of Holmes. It was stated yes. There will also be a sidewalk running along the entire south end of the property, south of the parking and bus drive. ML asked if the sidewalk would jog to accommodate the new southern parking for Holmes. Katherine LaCourt (KL) noted that the sidewalk already jogs at the far west end of the site. Scott Degilio (SD) stated there will also be a sidewalk between the exit from the ELC dropoff and the entrance to the Holmes dropoff for children walking to school to safely traverse. Robin Randall (RR) and SD stated there would also be sidewalks along the outskirts of all the dropoff locations so as to accommodate pedestrians across the site. 3. ML inquired about student/pedestrian crosswalks. It was stated that we will maintain the two current crosswalks (adjacent to Carol and Deborah Lanes). The A/E will also investigate a third crosswalk at the far southeast corner of the site, adjacent to Kenneth Place.

2. ML asked if there would be any parent drop-off traffic intended at the north entrance. It was stated no. The north entrance drive would solely be for bus dropoff and staff marking for Forest View Elementary School. 3. ML asked what the hours of operation would be for the new ELC. TR stated there would be two sessions; one in the morning and one in the afternoon. The hours for dropoff for the ELC will stagger those for Holmes. 4. TR stated that the ELC would need to accommodate 70% bus dropoff and 30% parent dropoff. The parent drivers would be limited to approximately 50 cars per day (25 in the morning and 25 cars in the afternoon). TR stated the importance of separating car and bus traffic. 5. SD stated that the parking stalls depicted in front of the ELC would be staff parking spaces. TR noted that we will need to accommodate visitor parking spaces between dropoff times. ML stated that we need to accommodate all parked cars on site so as to avoid parked cars on Lonnquist or other neighborhood arterial streets. 6. ML stated he was concerned about the exit from Holmes dropoff being immediately adjacent to the exit/entrance to the Holmes staff parking lot. ML asked if the two separated drives be joined somehow. SD stated this would be difficult as the goal would be to separate the car and bus traffic. There was also the potential to lose current vital parking spaces within the staff parking lot. 7. ML stated that signage would need to be critically considered for all parking areas, entrances and exits. Signage should be utilized to safely control the exit of buses and cars from both the Holmes dropoff and staff parking lot. Visitor parking spots should be identified with signage.

L E C

MEETING MINUTES

1. ML inquired about the current median just south of what will be the new entrance drive for the ELC. SD stated the median would most likely be removed and a left turn lane would be installed. If the median were removed, 4 trees would need to be removed as well. The median could not be moved west as the road narrows. ML asked if there was a large demand for left-turners along Lonnquist (or if there was expected to be). Joe Papanicholas (JP) and Tony Rossi (TR) stated no; perhaps 50-60 cars a day.

1. SD stated that along the median at the Holmes dropoff, there would be parallel parking spots that would be utilized as visitor parking between dropoff times. 2. ML stated there are no Red Flags that he can identify with the current plan. TR asked if ML could foresee any problems down the road. ML stated that the exit from the ELC dropoff should more closely align with Deborah Lane or should be completely offset to the east. SD stated this could be adjusted slightly, but the current design strives to maintain the most parking spaces possible. 3. TR asked if the Village would like to see any other material used at the aprons to the street other than asphalt. ML stated this was not necessary. 4. ML asked if the design team had considered reversing the flow of traffic from west to east. SD stated this would not be feasible due to the current loading/unloading of buses along the right side. If the flow was reversed, children would need to walk in front of vehicles to get within either building. 5. TR asked if parallel parking was currently allowed along Lonnquist Blvd. ML stated yes. 6. ML stated that if he were sent some options, he would cautiously review with individuals in his office for review and comment. TR stated he would email the PDFs that were brought to the meeting. RR stated she would like to make a few of the changes noted prior to emailing them to ML. 7. ML asked the schedule for the ELC work. TR stated that we are awaiting Board approval in June, ground breaking would be in October and the new building would be occupied by August 2015. 8. ML stated that parent parking should be considered and accommodated within the design. He stated that at Westbrook, they did not intend to have any parents that would like to park, but have since encountered a problem as there are not enough spaces to accommodate both staff parking and visitor dropoff spots. TR stated there is no reason to assume ample parent dropoff as the school demographics do not support this theory. 9. ML asked about lighting in the parking lots. TR stated all lights would be LED.

PERSONS IN ATTENDANCE

Tony Rossi, Executive Director of Facilities & Operations, CCSD59 Joe Papanicholas, Project Manager, Nicholas & Associates Patrick Brosnan, President, Legat Architects Robin Randall, Vice President, Legat Architects Paul Pessetti, Project Manager, Legat Architects Stephanie Marcan, Project Architect, Legat Architects Katherine LaCourt, Project Designer, Legat Architects

ITEMS DISCUSSED

1. It was stated that consultants would be contacted in the coming days to submit proposals for structural and MEPFP work. CS2, 2010 Engineering (for their Geothermal expertise), WMA (for their sustainability expertise), KJWW and Chuck Anderson would all be contacted for proposals. 2. Patrick Brosnan (PB) asked if we would be pursuing LEED certification for this project. Tony Rossi (TR) stated that if we received a grant, we should strive to achieve LEED Certification; either way we should be designing to LEED standards to achieve the most sustainable building we can. PB asked if the Board would support a $500,000 grant for LEED Gold efforts if the money were allocated for application and monitoring efforts. TR stated yes. 3. Robin Randall (RR) stated that we should consider designing for the installation of future solar opportunities as the possibility for a Net Zero building could be achievable in the future. DESIGN PROGRESS

1. The massing studies were presented. Each study aims to break down the scale of the overall building mass for a more “neighborhood-like” feel and incorporate shed roofs for clerestory and natural lighting in the corridors and classrooms. TR asked that the team further investigate the central hallway with the goal of breaking down the vista of the 300’ corridor.

L E C

MEETING MINUTES

Summary of a Progress Meeting held at 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 23, 2014 at Legat Architects. These notes record our understanding of items discussed and decisions made at this meeting. Please notify us within seven (7) calendar days of any necessary additions or corrections.

Option 1: The two end classroom neighborhoods begin to step down in elevation to combat the site slope. The roofs would be comprised of separate sloped planes. This scheme does have the disadvantage of creating to classroom neighborhoods that are somewhat separated from the rest of the school. Option 2: The two end classroom neighborhoods are more closely connected to the rest of the classrooms. All the classrooms are able to accommodate some northern light exposure with the implementation of shared sloped roofs

Option 3: This scheme maintains the same floor plan from Option 2, but the roof slopes are slightly different. Rather than limiting the sloped roof areas to the classroom pairs, the slopes extend beyond and over the corridors. This scheme advantageously creates covered patio areas along the west face. This scheme does have the disadvantage of limiting the natural clerestory light to the corridors and it also creates very tall corridors which could be overwhelming for the ELC students.

The roofs could extend over the corridors, clerestory windows would light the tall masses. The corridor at the East end could push out and become glazing walls to the East for Inside/Outside interaction and observation.

Physical models were reviewed for their program-specific studies. The master site model will likely be at 1:20 scale, while smaller study models will be at 1/8” scale. The boundaries of the site model were set at the centerline of Lonnquist up to Forest View (model a portion of this building and from the existing parking lot of the west to the homes on the east. RR stated that the model(s) will serve as working studies for the design team to try out ideas and work through various design concepts.

L E C

MEETING MINUTES

2. Preliminary glazing studies were presented to illustrate the ideal lighting and building/roof configuration. Low, horizontal glazing along the South façade could turn the corner and become clerestory glazing along the North façade. This could allow the East and West walls to remain blank and could become teaching walls.

A centralized shared teaching room would implement pivot/movable/hinged walls to blur the lines of classroom and breakout space. If a pivot wall is utilized, the â&#x20AC;&#x153;openâ&#x20AC;? position could become a presentation wall for the classroom

Mobile cubbies (middle) could define loud areas for themed play and study.

A low window seat (top left corner) could create a quiet zone. A low ceiling element could be implemented to break down the scale of the classroom and further define zones within the room.

5. RR noted that the east-to-west corridors could incorporate ramps (partial width of the corridor) that could terminate with a “lookout” space higher than the lower level. These “lookout” spaces could overlook the east side of the site or the covered patios. 6. Joe Papanicholas (JP) stated that the construction process will involve a fair amount of site regarding and the multiple level changes may not be required. He stated that if the level changes are desired, this could be accommodated in the budget. RR stated that the design team would develop a few sectional options and send to Nicholas & Associates for constructibility review. 7. Building materials were briefly discussed with the team. TR stated that he would like the exterior of the ELC to be sympathetic to Holmes, but not necessarily identical. RR stated the tan/light brown slit face CMU on the current exterior of Holmes could be a good jumping-off point for color and materiality for the exterior of the ELC. 8. PB suggested that cold formed metal framing should be considered for the exterior walls, rather than the traditional CMU walls. He explained that given the compact construction schedule, the cold formed framing could be constructed throughout the winter and masonry veneer could follow in the spring. JP agreed that this method should be considered. TR asked if the R-value suffers from not utilizing CMU exterior walls. Paul Pessetti (PP) stated that the same (if not better) R-value could be achieved as the full cavity of the wall would be filled with insulation. 9. PP suggested that all drywall walls should incorporate 4’-6’ of impact resistant drywall from the finished floor up. This will help with the durability of finished spaces. 10. It was stated that the flexibility of the interior walls should be considered in the design. 11. RR asked if the design should include exterior doors from all the classrooms. While this is considered Best Practice for a facility of this type, it is not a code requirement. TR stated that exterior doors from the classrooms should not be incorporated.

L E C

MEETING MINUTES

4. The sectional quality of the building was discussed. As the site steps off 10’ on the east as well as 10’ on the north, the design team would like to explore incorporating ramps and stairs throughout the building. There would most likely be a combination of 1:12 sloped ramps (with handrails) and 1:20 sloped ramps (no handrails required).

12. It was stated that the space(s) for potential future expansion at Holmes should be maintained (north of classrooms 128 & 134). 13. TR confirmed that the ELC should be a minimum of 130â&#x20AC;&#x2122; from the east property line. 14. TR confirmed that the design should not depict a connection to Forest View. 15. The budget was confirmed at $14.3 million ($250/sf for 57,200sf). 16. It was agreed that the design team would refine the floor plans and develop some building sections for Nicholas & Associates to begin pricing efforts. JP stated that floor elevations (and some rough site elevations) would be ideal for the site grading pricing. JP asked that a building elevation be included for pricing efforts. JP asked that the documents be placed on a Cloud drive so that he could begin to view them. The design team stated that a Dropbox folder would be created and shared with the team. 17. It was discussed that the following items would be expected for the Board Meeting on July 21st:

a. b. c. d. e. f.

Thank you.

Physical model(s) 3D Massing Model (Revit and/or sketchup) Renderings Floor Plans Site Plan Schematic Design Budget from Nicholas & Associates

PERSONS IN ATTENDENCE

Tony Rossi, Executive Director of Facilities & Operations, CCSD59 Joe Papanicholas, Project Manager, Nicholas & Associates Robin Randall, Vice President, Legat Architects Paul Pessetti, Project Manager, Legat Architects Stephanie Marcan, Project Architect, Legat Architects Katherine LaCourt, Project Designer, Legat Architects ITEMS DISCUSSED

1. The partial site survey is expected today. This will include only the area east of Holmes, where the addition is expected. 2. Tony Rossi (TR) stated that the contract will be a requirement of the Board Resolution on July 21st. Paul Pessetti (PP) stated that he will coordinate with TR and Patrick Brosnan to lock in the Architectural fees. 3.

Stephanie Marcan (SM) asked what the agenda would include for the Community Forum on Tues day, July 15th at 6:00 pm. TR stated that the Community Forum will include a 20 minute Lead ership Team presentation of the intention of the addition followed by small breakout groups lead by Tony and Ruth. These breakout groups will discuss the financial aspects of the addition as well as the construction plans thus far. Timeline, design floor plans and construction impact will be detailed for the group. TR stated that a mounted floor plan (with a few massing models on top) would be helpful in explaining the plans. Legat will provide both. TR stated that following the Community Forum, the District website would be updated regularly to include plans and information as a follow-up.

MEETING MINUTES

Summary of a Progress Meeting held at 1:00 p.m., Wednesday, July 2, 2014 at Legat Architects. These notes record our understanding of items discussed and decisions made at this meeting. Please notify us within seven (7) calendar days of any necessary additions or corrections.

4. The SD62 building tour will be on Monday, July 14th at 2:00pm

L E C

The Design Workshop should be coordinated through Melissa Ward. Robing Randall (RR) suggested Wednesday, July 9th as a potential date. RR stated that we will likely discuss the Classroom spaces (including the Integrated Therapy rooms), the enclosed courtyard spaces as well as the corridor learning areas. RR stated that Legat will also discuss the floor plan and basic massing with group and explain the process followed thus far

DESIGN PROGRESS

The three (3) floor plans were reviewed in detail. Pros and cons of each were discussed. A short video walkthrough was shown to express the Central Corridor experience. The massing studies were presented. Each study aims to break down the scale of the overall building mass for a more “neighborhood-like” feel and incorporate shed roofs for clerestory and natural lighting in the corridors and classrooms. TR asked that the team further investigate the central hallway with the goal of breaking down the vista of the 300’ corridor. . Option 1: Straight This scheme has the longest of the central hallways. It features a 30’ separation between the Motor Skills rooms and the potential Holmes addition area. This (and all subsequent schemes) depicts a 10’ corridor north-south between Holmes and the Outdoor Play Courtyard. If, in the event that a reconfiguration of interior Holmes classrooms occurs (and the hallway become unnecessary) the ELC plan could be shifted 10’ to the west or the extra space could be reallocated within the Courtyard.

Option 3: Stepped This scheme achieves the desired Central Corridor experience. There is very little, to no north vista observed when standing at the south entrance and ample breakout spaces are created in the corridors, of varying size and shape. There is more opportunity for spontaneous play, which was a deeply desired attribute discussed in the two previous workshops. The south entry is a bit wider, making the entrance sequence clearer for visitors.

L E C

MEETING MINUTES

Option 2: Staggered This scheme brings the ELC closer to the north Bus Dropoff drive and beings to alter the experience within the Central Corridor. A short walkthrough was shown, depicting the new, deeper and spacious corridor learning zones that are created by the angled corridor.

2. Option 3: Stepped, was chosen as the favored scheme. The design team will proceed with refining this scheme to potentially achieve a 30’ separation between the Motor Skills rooms and the potential Holmes addition to the north. 3. Katherine LaCourt (KL) stated that in the event that alterations were made within Holmes and the new 10’ corridor were no longer required, it would be preferred that the space be reallocated within the Courtyard, rather than shifting the ELC design to the west. TR agreed. 4.

TR asked if there will be further development within the Outdoor Play Courtyard prior to the July 21st Board Meeting. RR stated yes. Hitchcock Design Group will likely be involved as they have ample experience with outdoor educational spaces. Hitchcock will also be involved with the design of the smaller sensory gardens. These areas will also be on the agenda to discuss at the next Workshop.

5. Various massing studies were reviewed, inclusive of wall orientation, roof slopes, glazing studies and covered patio areas. Progression #1: As a progression from our previous meeting, the exterior of Holmes was studied for materiality and form precedent. The canting of the south wall of each “house” builds upon the angled mansard roof and the angled walls of Holmes. The canted walls provide shading for the glazing elements along the south wall while creating a unique and sculptural form of each house.

Massing Option #2: This particular option explores the possibility of mirroring the classroom houses such that the Faculty Team Rooms would be along the outside east face, rather than off of the main corridor. This provides the opportunity to create a small patio of outdoors room for the faculty to utilize. 6. TR noted his hesitance to explore Massing Option #2 as it would create another point of egress from the addition as well as a potential security issue. PP noted that given the function of the Faculty Team Rooms, they would best be served if located along the central corridor. 7. The sectional potential of the east-to-west classroom corridors was discussed. These areas are prime for transitioning the addition from one elevation to another if the site constraints require this. A 48â&#x20AC;? drop in elevation could be achieved through a 1:12 sloping ramp. This design could result in a central ramp with flanking stairs to transition from one level to the next. Handrails would be required along the hallways as the drop is more than 30â&#x20AC;?.

L E C

MEETING MINUTES

Massing Option #1: Building upon the house shape of the massing progression #1, material is illustrated. The south canted wall and the shed roof become one continuous metal material, relating to the mansard roofs surrounding Holmes. The eastern wall of each house could then be articulated with a different material, perhaps wood or masonry veneer.

A 48” drop in elevation could be achieved through a 1:12 sloping ramp. This design could result in a central ramp with flanking stairs to transition from one level to the next. Handrails would be required along the hallways as the drop is more than 30”.

The sectional quality of the building was discussed. As the site steps off 10’ on the east as well as 10’ on the north, the design team would like to explore incorporating ramps and stairs through out the building. There would most likely be a combination of 1:12 sloped ramps (with handrails) and 1:20 sloped ramps (no handrails required).

9. TR noted his concern that the ramps and stairs could potentially change the use of, or limit the use of the hallways. 10. TR noted that if this element were incorporated, he would not want to see handrails within the corridors. 11. TR asked if the addition could be at grade, or if a level change was necessary. PP stated that we would need to discuss further with the Civil engineer, but he did not see why a single level could be maintained. 12. Joe Papanicholas (JP) asked that a copy of the final Option 3 floor plan and a building section be sent to him so that he can begin the pricing exercise prior to the Holiday weekend. He asked that the basic building materials and structural components be noted within the building section. 13. TR stated that the design team should be investigating Sustainable Design elements to incorporate. Geothermal and solar design should both be considered. There should be a potential for Holmes to monitor and learn from these design elements (eg. solar power monitors for the Science classes).

Thank you.

JULY 9, 2014 at 10:00am

Breakout Group #1: Sensory Garden Theme Assignment & Brainstorming CLASS

CLASS

OPS

TEAM

bus dropoff

CLASS

MOTOR SKILLS

RNING CENTER 118

CONTROL ROOM -

CLASSROOM 126

TEAM

CLASSROOM 130

CCLASSROOM LRC1

CLASS

OUTDOOR PLAY

CLASSROOM 132

• • • •

Near Equipment Storage Tactile Pebble Walk Herb Growing Area

• • • •

Theater Stage Ivy Wall Music: Xylophone Art: Vertical Slate

Sensory panel

CLASS

FINE ARTS

SENSORY GARDEN

CLASSROOM 134

CLASS

OPS

CLASSROOM 128

Music station / Xylophone

OPS

TEAM

Modular play structure with climbing boulder

STORAGE 116 BOYS 108

SENSORY

SENSORY GARDEN

LEARNING CENTER

OFFICE -

CLASS

Specialty paving

Art stations

Raised planter beds

Play Environment - Concept 3 - Character Images

PREPARED FOR

Moody Nolan

Malcolm X College Chicago, Illinois

SP. ED. 145A SP. ED. 145B

SP. ED. 146

PSYCH 147

S.W. 142

GIRLS 106

CLASS Log wall / Loose parts play area CLASSROOM 127

CLASSROOM 133

CLASS

Log wall / Loose parts play area

CLASSROOM 129 CLASSROOM 125

CLASSROOM 131

OFFICE STUDY OFFICE 308 309 310

STAFF LOUNGE 307

CLASSROOM 121

Flexible concrete paving

CLASSROOM 123

STOR. STAFF CENTER

PARENT TRAINING

FACULTY WORK

T NURSE

PARENT SUPPORT CENTER

CLASS

NATURE

Raised stage with overhead arbor

• •

CLASS

DIAG./ CONF Art station

Leaf shape imprints

CLASS Play Environment - Concept 2 - Character Images CLASS Malcolm X College Play Environment - Concept 2 - Character Images

RECEP./ SW PSY PSY DIR WAITING

OPS

OOM

TOILET 314 TOILET 316

Raised stage with overhead arbor

CLASS

SENSORY GARDEN

TEAM

NURSE 313 STORAGE 312

Flexible concrete paving

Art station

Raised garden beds PREPARED FOR

MoodyRaised Nolangarden beds

Leaf shape imprints

PREPARED FOR

Moody Nolan

Chicago, Illinois

Malcolm X College

Raised Planting Beds Planting Seeds

S. CRESTWOOD LANE

OPERATIONS

MEETING MINUTES

DESIGN WORKSHOP

parent dropoff

L E C

staff parking

89 T PL.

LN.

OULEVARD

MOTOR Breakout Group #1: Outdoor Play Courtyard Programming SKILLS

OPS

TEAM

CLASS

Mosaic mural

SENSORY GARDEN

CLASSROOM 134

ROOM

Log steppers

CLASSROOM 130

Water play

Trike track

Malcolm X College

OUTDOOR PLAY

CLASSROOM 132

Malcolm X College

Raised stage and loose parts play

Loose parts table / exploration

OILET 314 TOILET 316

Moody Nolan

Flexible concrete paving

CLASSROOM 127

CLASSROOM 133

CLASSROOM 129 CLASSROOM 125

Butterfly Weed

Log wall / Loose parts play PREPARED FOR

Moody Nolan

SENSORY GARDEN CLASSROOM 131

Art station

Leaf shape imprints

Raised garden beds

Log wall / Loose parts play area

Flexible concrete paving Moody Nolan

Play Environment - Concept 2 STOR. - Character Images Malcolm X College

Chicago, Illinois

CLASSROOM 121

Prickley Pear

Raised stage with overhead arbor

CLASS

DY OFFICE 9 310

OUNGE 7

PREPARED FOR

Log wall / Loose parts play area

Chicago, Illinois

• Trucks w/Textured Pavement • Log Walls • Balance beams • Small & Large Components • Shade CLASS • Art Wall • See-Saw(safe) • Art Tables • Swing • Diggers • Crawling Log • CLASS Steps CLASS • Movable Surface ISSUE DATE: JUNE 14, 2013 PROJECT NUMBER: 06-1033-001-01-05 All drawings are preliminary and subject to change. © 2013 Hitchcock Design Group

CLASSROOM 123

STAFF CENTER

FACULTY T WORK T NURSE

PARENT SUPPORT CENTER

PARENT TRAINING

Raised stage with overhead arbor

PREPARED FOR

CLASS

DIAG./ CONF

Art station

OPS

CLASSROOM 126

Sensory plantings

GIRLS 106

Embankment slide

Chicago, Illinois

Play Environment - Concept 2 - Character Images

PSYCH 147

CLASS

Play Environment - Concept 1 - Character Images

TEAM

ROOM 1

Imagination / Storytelling stage

Ornamental grasses

Log crawl

OPS

CLASSROOM 128

CLASS

Sensory garden

TEAM

ORAGE 116 BOYS 108

CLASS

Leaf shape imprints

RECEP./ CLASS SW PSY PSY DIR WAITING Play Environment - Concept 2 - Character Images Malcolm X College

Raised garden beds

CLASS

parent dropoff

PREPARED FOR

Moody Nolan

Breakout Group #2: Parent Support Center Configuration

4 HOLMES A

B 3 4 C

D 3

2 2

1 1

VISITORS • • •

L E C

STAFF

Varying paths for visitors, staff and Holmes community. Flip the Diagnostic/Conference Room with the Nurse’s Office. Nurse should be closer to the Main Corridor as well as the Outdoor play Courtyard Parent Training & Staff Center ideally located along Courtyard wall for children view.

The Team Room would ideally include: • IEP/OT Team • Speech Offices/Meeting place • Staff and Public toilets nearby • Printer/Copier • WiFi enabled • Place for (4) people

Breakout Group #3: Classroom and Support Spaces Configuration MUD ROOM P.O. T

INT. T.

T P.O.

P.O.

INT. T.

P.O.

ART SINK •

There should be a single toilet per classroom (inclusive of a changing table and storage for T diapers P.O. and clothes) P.O. T INT. T. • No occupancy sensor in toilet rooms • Divide up the Pullout Room to double as a ARTstorage room (for files, etc.) teacher • If all the support elements are moved to the corridor wall, the opposite wall can accommodate for windows; the wall between the two classrooms couldREADING begin to blur and students could SCIENCE utilize more program space.

•

• •

Relocate the Pullout Room to the corridor corner, creating a cubby nook. This area could create a “Mud Room” upon entry into the P.O.sequence INT. T. P.O. classroom (enter, put coats away, wash hands). Cubbies should be portable and adaptable. If the Toilet rooms move to the opposite corner, they can share a plumbing wall with eachother T sink. T and allow for an art The nook created between the Integrated Therapy room and the Toilet rooms could have a movable wall and allow students to utilize both classrooms

ART SINK

T P.O.

INT. T.

P.O. T

P.O. INT. T. P.O.

ART T SCIENCE •

• •

READING

By locating both the Toilet room and the Pullout room to the back corner, this area would allow for a supervised entry sequence as well as an Art Area, as plumbing would be in one location. The Science Area could form around the front corner, as the lighting would be ample for planting growth and study. The corner between the two classrooms could include a low bench, to create a quiet Reading Area.

L E C

•

• •

By moving the support spaces into the corners of the classrooms, there instantly become double the corners within the classroom. These corners make for ideal Learning Zones within the classroom. Small, medium and large spaces begin to form. If the center wall between classrooms were operable, students could not only move from one room to the next, but could observe activities within the opposite room.

PERSONS IN ATTENDANCE

Tony Rossi, Executive Director of Facilities & Operations, CCSD59 Patrick Brosnan, President, Legat Architects Robin Randall, Vice President, Legat Architects Paul Pessetti, Project Manager, Legat Architects Stephanie Marcan, Project Architect, Legat Architects Joyce Hanlon, Project Intern, Legat Architects ITEMS DISCUSSED

1. Tony Rossi (TR) stated that the Board Meeting on July 21st will consist of a statement of 2. Resolution,. The Design Team will not be required to fully present all elements developed during Schematic Design at this time. The Design Team should prepare a Floor Plan and Site Plan for presentation, along with a summary of progress thus far and steps taken since our last 3. presentation. If, in the event, that the Board approves Legat to proceed with full architectural services, they will proceed with a vote for bonds, followed by a secondary presentation of the full Schematic Design progress. 4. TR noted that the next meeting, following the Board Meeting, will be with Melissa, Veronica and himself to review the Schematic Design studies. The Design Team should come prepared with any specific questions regarding program organization and space configuration and the group will resolve the issues. Stephanie Marcan (SM) and Robin Randall (RR) reviewed the site plan, floor plan, building section and axons with the team. Legat should be prepared to present all the items noted above, along with a suggested axon of the learning spaces in particular (including furniture and â&#x20AC;&#x153;learning spacesâ&#x20AC;? preliminarily defined.

MEETING MINUTES

Summary of a Progress Meeting held at 1:00 p.m., Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at Legat Architects. These notes record our understanding of items discussed and decisions made at this meeting. Please notify us within seven (7) calendar days of any necessary additions or corrections.

DESIGN PROGRESS

Site Plan: This plan will focus solely on the parking and drive improvements to the north and south. The site plan will better illustrate the demarcation between Holmes and the ELC. • The quantities of parking spaces should remain un-labeled until the Civil Engineer can confirm the required and final quantities. • The final parking space quantity will likely be between 60-70 new spaces • The east edge of the center Sensory Garden should show a clear wall between the courtyard and the field to the east. • Ideally, the site plan would show the Google neighborhood context. Floor Plan: This plan will focus in on the actual program spaces and the flow of activity, learning and staff spaces. • The program color and key should be included for clarity. • The corridor/circulation color should be something other than white for clarity (white reads as negative space rather than a portion of the building).

L E C

1. The floor plan was walked through in detail as there were comments and ideas incorporated from the Early Learning Design Workshop with staff. a. At the termination of each classroom corridor id currently shown an exterior monumental stair for gathering and presentation space. This would be accessed by doors to the exterior at the end of these corridors. These stairs allow for transition to the a lower grade, while creating a new learning/gathering space opportunity. Egress requirements will need to be explored fully prior to implementing this element completely. b. The classroom pairs now show an alternate Integrated Therapy, Toilet Room(s) and Breakout Space configuration as a result of the Design Workshop with staff. There was a desire to have two separate Toilet rooms, rather than a shared space. This will eliminate the potential for accidental locked doors on either side of the Toilet Room, after student use. It was noted that by code, we will be required to include doors into the Toilet Rooms, as food will be prepared and served within the Classrooms. The Design Team is also working through a way(s) to incorporate more corners within the Classroom to divide the space into designated learning spaces (resulting from relocating the Breakout Space into the front corner of the Classroom, rather than being located within the shared core space). This will result in 20 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 100sf rooms, rather than 10 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 120sf rooms. c. The Design Team will need to maintain the corridor along the east face of Holmes, as a decision has yet to be made regarding the potential renovation(s) within Holmes. d. The Multi-Activity and Indoor Play spaces are noted. TR asked if the exterior toilet room adjacent to the Outdoor Play space was necessary. This particular program element was a request from staff during the first Design Workshop. Currently, if a child needs to use the restroom, they will enter the building at the nearest Toilet Room. The same is true at the District 62 ELC. This should be reviewed with Melissa and Veronica. e. Both the Parent Support Center and the Motor Skills areas will need a closer look at the program configurations.

Building Section: This view begins to clarify the form intentions of the classroom bars. They will incorporate a canted south wall, sloped roof and high clerestory windows.

Building Isometric View: This view depicts the sloped roofs as well as the splay of the classroom forms. Some of the classroom roofs begin to extend and form shaded areas within the Outdoor Play and to the east of the Classroom bars.

NEXT STEPS

1. TR asked that the Design Team outline the plan for completing design and engineering for the early Site bid package in September. Patrick Brosnan (PB) noted that we will need to lock in our consultants in the next few days. The Design Team will then need to quickly lock in the floor plan. The design has not altered significantly in the last few weeks, as the floor plan is oriented and configured according to staff comments and program requirements.

L E C

2. A Kickoff Meeting with the Design Team and all consultants was scheduled on Wednesday, July 23rd at 11:00am at Nicholas & Associates office. Consultant arrivals should be staggered to be time-effective. 3. A Holmes Renovation Discussion Meeting was scheduled on Monday, July 21st at 10:30am at Holmes Junior High School. 4. LEED goals and possibilities were discussed. It was emphasized that the budget should be carefully monitored when considering LEED technologies and designs. If LEED design, registration and technologies can be achieved within the confines of the budget, the Design Team should explore this opportunity. PB to set up a meeting with Bob Romo from the Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation to discuss grant-based opportunities. Robin Randall (RR) suggested a meeting prior with Vuk Vujovic with Legat to further research the grant opportunities. A meeting to review grant-bases sustainable design opportunities on Wednesday, July 30th at 1:00pm at the Oak Brook Legat office. Thank you.

L E C