town of breckenridge valley brook childcare center final

Transcription

town of breckenridge
valley brook childcare center
final programming document
31 july 2007
project information
project location
table of contents
Tract A-1, Block 11, Breckenridge, Colorado
project information
1
Town of Breckenridge
PO Box 168
Breckenridge, Colorado 80424
project summary
2
project priorities
3
Laurie Best,
Peter Grosshuesch
Tom Daugherty
Jennifer McAtamney
Kathy Grotemeyer
Lucinda Burns
Jo Copeland
project program
4-7
sustainable design goals
8
preliminary design schedule
9-10
design narrative
11
RSMay & Associates, LLC
Randy May
PO Box 2011
Dillon, CO 80435
rsmayllc@wildblue.net
preliminary site plan
12
preliminary floor plan
13
3D model
14-15
operator:
TBD
comparable facilities research
16-27
contractor:
TCD, Inc.
Keith Pitts, Vice President
PO Box 4564
Breckenridge, CO 80424
kpitts@tcdsummit.com
summit daily news article
28
architect:
Matthew Stais Architects
Matthew Stais, Principal Architect
PO Box 135
Breckenridge, CO 80424
matt@staisarchitects.com
advisory
group:
Buhler, John
Dixon, Jill
Egolf, Tracey
Gagen, Tim
Grassetti, Allison
Holman, Rick
Kellerman, Alison
Kenady, Courtney
Meir, Martha
Morgan, Glen
Patricelli, Alison
Root, Craig
Springer, Bill
Thompson, Matt
Westerhoff, Ann-Mari
Zwaagstra, Lynn
project team
owner:
steering
committee:
owner’s rep:
31 july 2007
laurieb@townofbreckenridge.com
peterg@townofbreckenridge.com
tomd@townofbreckenridge.com
jenmcatamney@yahoo.com
kagrotemeyer@comcast.net
lucinda@earlychildhoodoptions.org
peakviewjo@msn.com
johnbu@vailresorts.com
jillemalay@yahoo.com
tracey@egolfinteriors.com
timg@townofbreckenridge.com
grassettia@coppercolorado.com
rickh@breckgov.com
alison@breckgov.com
courtney@poplarhouse.com
carriagehousepreschool@yahoo.com
glenm@townofbreckenridge.com
montessori.breckenridge@gmail.com
khut@colorado.net
bills@townofbreckenridge.com
matt@townofbreckenridge.com
annmari@comcast.net
lynnz@townofbreckenridge.com
page: 1
project summary
The Town of Breckenridge (Town) is a historic mining town located in the central Colorado mountains,
approximately 75 miles west of Denver. It is a popular year-round tourist destination that is known for a variety
of recreational opportunities. Local residents cherish these opportunities, but consequently face a lack of
affordable housing as well as quality, affordable childcare.
In early 2007, the Town hired a research consultant to complete a needs assessment study that looked at the
current need for quality affordable childcare in the Town of Breckenridge. The needs assessment report was
completed in April 2007 and confirmed the need for quality, affordable childcare for a significant number of
families in Breckenridge. On March 26, 2007, the Town issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for interested
firms to provide preliminary design, final design, engineering and specifications, and construction administration
for a new childcare facility. Matthew Stais Architects was awarded the contract and started work in May 2007.
This program document summarizes our work to date and will provide a basis for more detailed design
decisions as the project moves forward.
To meet a tight schedule set by the Town, the project program needed to be nailed down quickly. A “working
group” and an “advisory group” were named. The working group consists of the owner’s representatives and
the design team. The advisory group consists of local providers, neighbors of the project, and community
members at-large. These groups met for two design charrettes in May 2007 to develop the project program.
After compiling input from these charrettes, reviewing of the State of Colorado Rules and Regulations for
childcare facilities, and upon approval from the Town Council, the working group defined the project program.
The new facility, named the “Valley Brook Childcare Center (VBCC)”, will accommodate 60 full-time children:
20 infants, 20 toddlers, and 20 preschoolers. This will alleviate approximately ½ of the current need as
described in the needs assessment report. The Town Council has directed the design team that they do not
intend to expand this facility to meet the entire current need, but rather they will choose to build another
facility or utilize existing buildings to accommodate the community’s need. Schedule, quality, safety and security,
and designing a “green” building have been identified as the highest project priorities.
The VBCC will be located at the north end of Town near the new Police Station, the Upper Blue Elementary
School, and the Recreation Center. It is part of the Town’s Block 11 Master Plan which also includes the
addition of affordable housing and the new Colorado Mountain College campus. The facility will be integrated
with the existing infrastructure and future development to compliment the site.
The VBCC will be designed in accordance with Qualistar requirements. Qualistar is a non-profit organization
that operates in the state of Colorado to improve the quality early childhood education. Centers that earn a
Qualistar rating have proven that they meet higher standards than the State Rules and Regulations. While the
design of the building alone will not earn a Qualistar rating, it is a key component of the rating scale and the
building will be designed to maximize the potential for the operator to earn a high rating.
The project schedule is tight, with design completion projected for August 2007, construction beginning in
October 2007 and occupancy expected in August 2008. The general contractor was named in July 2007, and
the Town hopes to have an operator for the new facility selected by October 2007.
31 july 2007
page: 2
project priorities
The establishment of project priorities is a key step in the programming and design process. The first,
preliminary list of project priorities was developed at the second design charrette, on 31 May 2007 with the
project’s advisory group. The rankings (in descending order with the most important first) and language were
reviewed and confirmed by the project working group, also on 31 May 2007.
1.
Qualistar Rated Facility for 60 children [based on needs assessment]
2.
Safety and security of the site
3.
Sustainable design [per Breckenridge Vision Plan]
4.
Get the building design right: flexible design to accommodate changing needs of
community/curriculum/security
5.
Schedule [driven by Kinderhut closing, projected April 2008]
6.
Budget – 1st costs/operating costs that meet Town requirements
7.
Coordination with neighbors
8.
Vehicular circulation and parking
9.
Non-motorized circulation/trail connections to neighborhoods and river
10.
Addition of community functions if other priorities not compromised
Upon review by the Breckenridge Town Council, the rankings and language were changed to the following,
which represent the final project priorities:
1.
Schedule [driven by Kinderhut closing, projected April 2008]
2.
Qualistar Rated Facility for 60 children [based on needs assessment]
3.
Safety and security of the site
4.
Sustainable design [per Breckenridge Vision Plan]
5.
Get the building design right: flexible design to accommodate changing needs of
community/curriculum/security
6.
Budget – 1st costs/operating costs that meet Town requirements
7.
Coordination with neighbors
8.
Vehicular circulation and parking
9.
Non-motorized circulation/trail connections to neighborhoods and river
10. Addition of community functions if other priorities not compromised
31 july 2007
page: 3
project program
preliminary project program
31 may 2007 [after charrette input]
1.
building program:
a. Student Space [60 spots at 45 sq ft per student] [*]
2,700
b. Student Accessory Space [lockers, counters, etc in add’n to 45 sf]
TBD
c. Multi-Purpose/Community Room [racquetball court size] [**]
800
d. Multi-Purpose/Community Room Storage/Kitchen
330
e. Entry Vestibule/Lobby
400
f. Staff Offices
300
g. Staff Break Area/Restrooms/Storage/Misc
400
h. Parent Resource Area
combine w/staff break area
i. Sick Child/TLC Room
use office area as needed
j. Kitchen
75
k. Laundry
75
l. Classroom Storage [10% classroom floor space]
270
m. Circulation/Misc [10% above total]
500
n. Mechanical/Electrical Service Space [10% above total]
500
o. Total:
6,350 sf
2.
site program:
a. outdoor entry
b. play areas: areas TBD based on qualistar
c. on-site parking: 35-40 total spaces
i. staff: 20-25
ii. drop-off/parents: 15
iii. overflow: at dumpster etc? TBD
d. off-site/overflow/shared parking area[s]: not included
e. service access [dumpster/recycling/maintenance]
f. fire lane/RWB parking: TBD
g. trail connections
h. neighborhood connections
[*] preliminary figure: will be broken down/detailed as we get further into the project.
[**]preliminary figure: research lake Dillon preschool.
31 july 2007
page: 4
research of classroom sizes to meet program needs
to:
project team
via:
email
from:
matt stais
date:
23 july 2007
project:
re:
re-programming of classroom spaces
I met with Kathy Grotemeyer this morning to review classroom sizes and program for VBCC. We had
independently arrived at the same conclusion – that the classrooms needed to grow [she from her experience,
me from re-reading the state regulations]. Further, once the rooms grow, we won’t need so many. A lot of our
discussion centered around efficient staffing [i.e., #kids/room, #/teachers/room, state regulations for minimums
vs. experience points out to be optimum, or at least better than minimum].
This memo will detail our discussions and conclusions. Please read it carefully and pick it apart – the future of
the project will be based on this, and your comments. I think we are on the right track, because what will serve
staffing needs more efficiently [i.e., bigger rooms, with fewer kitchens & baths] will also be more efficient to
design & build. The trick will be to maintain the flexibility that has been prioritized. So then, the details:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
# kids per room: should be higher at infants/toddlers, more like 9 not 7. Makes no sense to staff for
7 kids [need 3 staff] when you can get 9 kids in there and it’s not too tight nor would the care
suffer. In fact carriage house and little red both have 9-10 per room and they think it’s fine.
Also if we were to drop down to 6 kids [2 teachers] that presents a different [and more stringent]
set of problems as far as teachers leaving to leave the room during the day: eat lunch, visit the
bathroom, etc. So 3 teachers, with class sizes that meet state minimums for 2 teachers, will
allow flexibility for the workers to change diapers, have lunch, etc without having to worry
about meeting licensing requirements, and without straining the remainder of the school staff [in
other words, providing quality]. 3 teachers is best.
#1 allows us to drop from 3 infant rooms to 2, and 3 toddler rooms to 2. We will not go with state
minimum sq ft areas, since with 9-10 kids we’ll want more space [to address the quality of
service aspect]. But we will be saving on overall sq ft and will also be more efficient in terms of
baths, changing & food prep areas, storage, and so on.
Sharing will be easier with 6 rooms, broken into 3 groups of 2. The aspect of sharing service areas
among 3 infant rooms, for instance, had been a problem for MSA to work into the design. So
we’re thinking shared walls and services at the 2 infant rooms, the 2 toddler rooms, and the 2
preschool rooms.
We reviewed my matrix and broke the rooms down further, getting to the next level of detail.
Instead of ‘2 or 3 infant rooms’, we broke this into ‘early infant’ [1.5-12 months], and ‘late infant’
[12-18 months]. This was based on Kathy’s operational experience, cross referenced with
31 july 2007
page: 5
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
LRSH, CH, and state regulations. This will still allow operational flexibility – these labels are
subject to ‘verification in the field’ [VIF]. State regulations include 6 months overlap between
infants-toddlers and toddlers-preschoolers, for this reason.
The idea that the needs assessment dictates that the 60 students will be broken down 20-20-20 has
been a constraint, and one that I think is an artificial imposition. The idea that we can crystalball the enrollment, when it’s a moving target, over a year in the future, subject to change over
time, and we don’t even have an operator yet, seems farfetched. So we decided to take the 2020-20 as a ‘plus or minus’ guideline. Again, VIF.
We should strive to license the infant/early toddler rooms for 10, even though they could have 9 on
a regular basis. We thought that the operator may want the flexibility to have 10 kids in there,
although 9 would be better from a quality standpoint. It will all come down to the actual
enrollment, per #6 above. If you have issues with this as it relates to the building program
fulfilling the need assessment, please speak up now.
Kathy and I discussed the possibility of 3 infant rooms, which she thought was excessive, and would
create too much chaos within the facility on an operational level. Per #7 above, I want to make
sure that the remainder of the design team is comfortable with this approach.
Flexibility: we plan to design in the desired flexibility by increasing the room size to 500 sq ft net at
the early toddler room, to match the infant room sizes, and by increasing the remaining 3 rooms
to 600 sq ft each. This is based on Kathy’s input, and we think that these increases add value to
the project in terms of potential for future flexibility, plus they’ll just be nicer, bigger rooms.
Again, quality. Also, as stated at the outset of the project, we’re aiming a little higher than the
minimums.
‘Late toddler’ room [2.5 to 3 years]: we are proposing 12 kids with 3 teachers, for an optimum class
size of 12. 10 would also work, per needs assessment ‘20-20-20’ breakdown, but Kathy is
comfortable with class size up to 12. Here we hope to take advantage of the increases in
staff/child ratio and maximum class size, per state regulations. Kathy’s experience also indicates
that a slightly larger group size will be acceptable. We will size room to be licensed for 12 [@
45 sq ft each, that’s 540 sq ft]. If the Town prefers that we up the licensing capacity for this
room to 14 kids, then we can add another 90 sq ft to the total.
Preschool rooms: to be designed for 14 kids due to teacher ratio of 1:7. This exceeds the needs
assessment but per Kathy makes sense on a staffing level. She suggested that we increase room
sizes here in excess of state regulations based on her experience [refer to attached email].
Good luck digesting all this, and with the council meeting Tuesday. I will be out of the office for the remainder
of the week, but will be checking my messages periodically. Please let me, or MSA office staff, know if you have
questions or input regarding this memo. Otherwise, our office will proceed on this basis.
encl:
VBC classroom program 0717.xls
31 july 2007
page: 6
classroom program
31 july 2007
page: 7
sustainable design goals
31 july 2007
page: 8
preliminary design schedule
to:
project team
via:
hand delivery
from:
matt stais
date:
20 july 2007
project: valley brook childcare center
re:
design schedule
Project schedule got off to a good start, with 2 program development charrettes conducted in May. Project
program and priorities were established, based on community stakeholders’ consensus. Site studies, and tie-in
to larger Block 11 master Plan, took place in June. This included feedback from Town Council, staff and Block
11 master planners. Site was chosen mid June and surveyed by early July.
Project team explored possibility of spring 2008 construction start, which would allow for more design time,
less winter conditions during construction, and completion fall 2008. This idea was rejected due to Town
Council prioritizing occupancy by start of fall 2008 school year at the latest.
These developments affected design schedule to the extent that the current goal is to complete permit set by
end August, to secure pricing, permits, and mobilize field crews in September 2007.
May 2007
Program Development
notice to proceed, contract negotiation, award of contract
analysis of existing conditions, development of existing conditions site plan
identify stakeholders, establish website, advisory group
program development charrettes
help owner define project program, priorities, sustainable design goals
June 2007
Conceptual Design
develop initial conceptual design
develop options to conceptual site and building design [with DTJ]
select project site [by Town Council/steering committee]
select preferred conceptual design [by Town Council/steering committee]
July 2007
Schematic Design/Design Development
31 july 2007
page: 9
receipt of topographical survey
develop schematic design, based on owner approval of conceptual design
incorporate sustainable design concepts; research options
preapplication meeting with town planning staff
review schematic design with stakeholders/neighbors
courtesy review with RWB fire dept
begin design development upon client approval of schematic design
August 2007 Design Dev’t/Town Approvals/Working Drawings [Permit Set]
Submit review set to town planning for upcoming worksession: august 1
Planning Commission worksession: August 7
conclude design development: aug 7
[that gives MSA & consultants 3 weeks for wkg dwgs to permit set level]
submit to town planning department for courtesy review: August 8
submit to Sharon Kelly [state of Colorado] for feedback: August 8
Town Council review: August 14
Planning Commission courtesy review: August 21
Town Council approval of planning commission review: August 28
construction documents for permit [90% CDs]: august 31
[note: break out re-platting/site infrastructure; not included yet]
Sept 2007
Permitting, Pricing, Mobilization
GC: submit 90% CD set to town building dept for permitting
GC: secure subcontractor pricing based on 90% set
GC: begin site mobilization & infrastructure as permitted by local authorities
Oct 2007
Construction
GC: commence construction (8-10 months)
complete 100% construction documents based on town/team/GC input [including
feedback from September pricing]
June-Aug 08 Occupancy
GC: turn over facility to operations staff august 1 at latest
allow 2 weeks for FFE/shakedown cruise by operator, by august 15
GC: complete punch list before kids occupy building
post-occupancy evaluations
31 july 2007
page: 10
design narrative
The design of the project is based on a combination of the external [site and contextual] parameters and
internal parameters [driven by project program and priorities].
The chosen site is directly west of the new Breckenridge Police Station. It is relatively flat. Most of the site was
filled with dredge rock at some time in the recent past. Some existing trees and grade survive on the western
edge. The site is almost square, has excellent solar exposure, and is close to existing transit and trail
connections. A large undeveloped parcel to the north is slated for affordable housing, as part of the Town’s
Block 11 master plan. Utility connections and storm drainage have not been studied in detail to this point.
Vehicular access will be shared with the Police station and the future development parcel to the north, in order
to minimize additional curb cuts for each project. It is expected that staff will utilize the southerly portion of the
parking area, with the western portion dedicated for student drop-off and pickup. Landscaping will screen these
areas, and will also provide screening at the existing utility substation at the corner of Valley Brook and Airport
Roads.
The building will be oriented with the main axis running east-west, to maximize solar gain. Classrooms will be
placed on the south side, for playgrounds and classrooms to take advantage of the sun, and also to have the
building act as a wind break [the prevailing winds blow from the north-northwest].
We have learned that the building entry should be separated from the playground areas, for ease of operation,
and have chosen to locate that on the west side of the building, adjacent to vehicular parking. Offices, staff
areas, storage, and utility areas will be located north of the central corridor. Service access will be shared with
the existing police facility, on the east side of the building.
We have been asked to generate a dynamic building form, worthy of such a public project, and one that
expresses the function of the building. We have varied the roof forms and exterior wall colors to identify the
three primary classroom areas. Our design encompasses a series of roof forms optimized for active solar
processes [7:12 pitch for PV panels, 12:12 pitch for solar hot water systems]. The 12:12 roof areas are located
to the east, in the hopes that they will relate to the police station. The 7:12 south facing roof area is located in
the middle of the building, with clerestory windows above to provide the main internal corridor with natural
light. The western portion includes a curved roof form to delineate the infant area distinctly.
Northerly portions of the building are meant to read as secondary areas. They present fewer windows and wall
to the north winds and weather. The design includes berming the north side of the building, as an extension of
the existing landscape berm at the police station, and will be punctuated by the multi-purpose room and north
porch, which will relate to the future pocket park at the adjoining residential development.
Exterior skin has not been developed in great detail at this time; however, we expect that the building will have
a brick base, to relate to adjacent police and school buildings, with low maintenance siding above. Bright colors
at the south classroom areas will announce the building’s function, and will hopefully make it more enjoyable for
its tenants and the community as a whole.
31 july 2007
page: 11
preliminary site plan
31 july 2007
page: 12
preliminary floor plan
31 july 2007
page: 13
3D model
31 july 2007
page: 14
3D model
31 july 2007
page: 15
comparable facility: carriage house
I.
general information
a. facility name: Carriage House
b. location:
890 Airport Road
Breckenridge, Colorado
c. contact:
Martha Meir, Director
carriagehousepreschool@yahoo.com
II.
building/site information
a. is parking private or multi-use?
private
b. aside from the front desk, there is one “office” that serves many purposes – sick kid
room, parent/staff resource room, staff break room, director office, etc…
III.
ideas and thoughts
a. what do you like about the design of the building you operate in?
1. Likes front door/front desk. Good visibility, it is impossible to miss the front
desk when visitors come in, kids love smaller “kid doors”
2. Likes the compact floor plan and circulation. There is no chaos in the
hallways, the children are easily contained.
3. Likes centrally located kitchen.
4. 3 year old and 4 year old room is a great size and shape.
5. Likes suns shades on playgrounds, but needs some relief from the wind too.
6. Likes window into baby room. It’s good for security and helps staff
remember why they are there.
b. what don’t you like about the design of the building you operate in?
1. Washer/Dryer is not adequate for the amount of washing they do. It is in a
hallway closet, which is a poor location. Baskets of laundry sit out in the hall
all day.
2. 1-year-old room is too small. Once you add the teachers to the room, there
really isn’t enough space for everyone.
3. North playgrounds are not good. They do not get enough sun and they get a
lot of wind. [The Carriage House is in a bit of a wind tunnel]
4. High ceilings make for really poor acoustics and wasted space.
5. Weird shapes of rooms make it very difficult to utilize the space. Corners
that are not at 90 degrees are difficult to deal with. Nooks don’t work in
younger rooms. In older rooms, they work better, but still create some areas
where the teachers cannot see students.
6. Little, kid-sized toilets clog easily.
7. Changing station should be included in 3-year-old room. There are some 3year-olds that will not be potty trained.
8. 4-year-old room (facing West) is always cold in the morning, but warm in the
afternoon.
31 july 2007
page: 16
9. Building does not have sufficient storage or easily accessible storage – interior
and exterior.
c. what would you do differently?
1. ½ doors on all the children’s’ bathroom stalls.
2. More sinks in older kids’ rooms since they can wash their own hands.
3. Would have preferred carpeting instead of hard surfaces.
4. Install high security features at entryways – due to the changing times.
31 july 2007
page: 17
carriage house floor plan
building
entry
31 july 2007
page: 18
comparable facility: lake dillon preschool
I.
general information
a. facility name: Lake Dillon Preschool and Early Learning Center
b. location:
200 Village Pl.
Dillon, Colorado
c. contact:
Sherri Seirmarco, executive director
970.468.1606
II.
a. year built:
1991
b. is parking private or multi-use?
multi-use
c. how many administrative offices do you have?
one
i. is this enough?
yes (because they have separate staff room and parent/teacher resource room)
d. do you have an employee locker room/lounge?
yes
i. is it heavily used?
not really, because teachers are in classrooms most of the day.
e. is there a community room in your building?
no
f. do you have a “parent/teacher resource room”?
yes (in staff room)
no
ii. is it open to the public when the childcare center is closed?
no
III.
operational information
a. is the facility qualistar rated?
yes
IV.
ideas and thoughts
1. Love the gross motor room. It is 29’ x 32’. It can hold maximum 24 4 yearolds at one time.
2. They have lots of storage (mostly in basement) and use all of it.
3. Likes having a “staff refrigerator” and a separate “kids refrigerator” in kitchen.
Makes it easier to monitor temperature in “kids refrigerator”.
4. Likes gate between classrooms/gross motor room and entrance. This keeps
kids from running out the door when they are excited to see their parents at
pick-up time (security issue).
31 july 2007
page: 19
5. Likes window on infant room and doors.
6. Likes having doors between classrooms, not just from classroom to hallway.
This gives them more options in an emergency.
7. Likes ceiling fan in infant room since temperature in infant room is so
important.
8. Likes separate crib room for infants, but pay close attention to Qualistar
requirements for crib space – they cannot fit as many cribs in the sleeping
room as they are licensed for.
9. Likes large front counter. Can set out all the sign-in, sign-out sheets.
1. Vaulted ceilings created very loud rooms (bad acoustics). They had to put
drop ceilings in where the ceilings were too high.
2. Playgrounds are not directly off of classrooms. This creates problems when a
class is out to play and someone needs to go potty. The teacher cannot leave
an entire class on the playground to take a child to the restroom. If the
playground were directly off of the classroom, the teacher should be able to
stand in the doorway and keep an eye on everyone.
3. Diaper changing stations were not well thought out. Their location in the
classroom requires the teachers to turn their back to the children. They have
installed mirrors to deal with this, but think they could be better placed within
the classroom so the teacher can still monitor other children. Outlets were
installed directly above changing tables – don’t do this! Changing tables
should be 2 ‘ away from sink for hand washing after diaper changing.
Changing tables should not be separate from the classroom – it is illegal and
will turn into a storage closet.
4. Heating system uses floor vents and they are disgusting.
1. They would like an entry that has 2 doorways. The 1st (very exterior) would
remain unlocked. Once someone came in that door and was out of the
elements, they could access a security system and get buzzed in and a 2nd door
that would remain locked.
2. Do not put microwaves in each classroom – this is a liability issue, especially if
center does not have the required license to prepare food.
3. It would be very nice to have 2 dishwashers in kitchen. And they must have a
sanitizing cycle.
4. Would like to have car seat storage.
5. Would like storage that is specifically designed for buggies.
6. Not sure how they feel about water fountains. The state and Qualistar
regulations like them, but they get pretty gross when kids put their mouths all
over them.
7. Put staff lockers in classrooms.
8. Would like more tile than carpeting for ease of cleaning.
9. 2 washer/dryers would be nice.
31 july 2007
page: 20
d. what other suggestions do you have?
1. Once kids are 2, they can start to wash their own hands. They should have a
sink and paper towels at their level.
2. Put childproof locks on all storage doors.
3. Each room should have cubbies for total number of children enrolled, not
total that room is licensed for (because some kids are part-time, but it’s nice
for them to have their own cubby so parents don’t have to pack all their stuff
every day).
4. Likes corded phone system. It’s less complicated, phones don’t get lost, and
teachers are less likely to make personal phone calls.
5. Use weighted doors on doorways that kids should not be getting in and out
of.
6. Don’t put doors on bathrooms – or use half doors.
31 july 2007
page: 21
comparable facility: little red school house
I.
general information
a. facility name: Little Red School House
b. location:
600 Reilling Road
Breckenridge, Colorado
c. contact:
Jill Dixon, Director
jillemalay@yahoo.com
II.
a. is parking private or multi-use?
multi-use – this is a security concern and they do not have enough parking. teachers
take up most of the spaces, so drop-off/pick-up times are chaotic.
b. there is one front desk/office area
III.
ideas and thoughts
1. Likes all the cubbies in the hallways – provides children with a feeling of
independence.
2. Likes central kitchen.
3. They have several access options to playgrounds – through hallways and
through classrooms. This is especially beneficial during winter because kids
can go straight to cubby where the flooring is easy to clean.
4. Staff likes that the sleeping area in infant room is not a separate room from
the play area because they feel that if the room is separate, infants will sleep
too much.
5. Like the goal of making classrooms and hallways feel like home.
6. Kids seem to like having the option of a small toilet and an adult sized toilet –
separation by gender is not needed.
1. Interior and exterior storage space is inadequate.
2. Parking lot flow does not work well or safely at peak drop-off/pick-up times.
3. There is not enough shade on playgrounds.
4. One administrative office/front desk is not adequate.
5. Crawl space is not a good solution for storage – access is not reasonable.
1. Include more storage. Each classroom should have a storage closet. Exterior
storage for buggies should be included.
2. Design shade structures for playgrounds – permanent and movable depending
on location.
3. A larger office or additional offices would be beneficial.
4. Install a security system.
5. Make sure that parking doesn’t cause children to be walking in front of traffic.
31 july 2007
page: 22
6. Keep parking private.
7. Aim to meet Qualistar requirements, not just State regulation minimums.
31 july 2007
page: 23
chool house floor plan
building
entry
31 july 2007
page: 24
comparable facility: miller ranch childcare center
I.
general information
a. facility name: Miller Ranch Childcare Center
b. location:
0025 Mill Loft Road
Edwards, Colorado 81632
contact:
Amy Drummet, Executive Director
Pam Mattson, Center Director
970.926.2601
II.
a. year opened:
2006
b. number of parking spaces:
36
c. is parking private or multi-use?
multi-use
i. do you have enough parking?
no
ii. if no, how much parking would you like?
more drop-off/pick-up spots, or better drop-off/pick-up zone
iii. if you have multi-use parking, do you like this?
has cause a limited number of issues, but would prefer private parking
d. how many administrative offices do you have?
2
i. is this enough?
yes
ii. does your office/do these offices serve any other purposes? i.e “sick kid room”
yes – center director’s office is often “sick kid room”. executive director’s office
is also a conference room.
e. do you have an employee locker room/lounge?
yes
yes
ii. it the size adequate?
yes, but they would have liked a stove in the kitchen area.
f. is there a community room in your building?
yes, but it is on a separate level and has a separate entrance/exit.
i. who uses it?
there are some office spaces, and large community rooms that can be used by
community members.
ii. does it have a kitchen?
yes
iii. is it available to the public during childcare operating hours?
yes
31 july 2007
page: 25
III.
IV.
operational information
a. number of full-time slots:
74
ideas and thoughts
1. Like lobby.
2. Likes front desk, which includes a medical supply refrigerator, computer.
3. Security system is great.
4. Executive director’s office is great because it has a conference table.
5. Like carpet – carpet tile is awesome. Makes for easy/economical replacement.
6. Staff room is great. Photo dock/printer in staff room is great because
Qualistar wants pictures of kids in action.
7. Storage room is big enough for 2 strollers.
8. Rooms designed to make kids feel like they are at home – really like the
ceiling lights, compact fluorescent & little T8 bulbs.
9. Like having 2 adult co-ed restrooms in lobby.
10. Love car seat storage off of lobby.
11. Love all the storage in hallways.
12. Like having a refrigerator and dishwasher in each classroom.
13. Like having a mudroom between classrooms and playground.
14. Playground – love astroturf, trail through play area, picnic tables, water
fountain, and sun shades (from Kaplan Learning Company).
1. Hallways are bigger than they need to be – maybe a waste of finished space.
2. In preschool room – the sink in the middle of the room is not practical. It’s
low enough for the kids, but too far away for them to reach.
3. Not enough cubbies and not big enough – just buy the ones from the catalogs!
1. Don’t install built-in soap dispenser.
2. Built-in fixtures (cubbies, benches, etc…) limit flexibility of classrooms.
Would prefer movable fixtures.
3. Center is licensed for 20 infants, 16 toddlers, and 40 preschool students. This
creates a “funneling problem”.
4. Would like better storage in classrooms – for staff and a spot for each
enrolled child to have for food, medications, etc…
5. Would prefer that laundry and cleaning crew room were separate.
31 july 2007
page: 26
miller ranch floor plan
building
entry
31 july 2007
page: 27
summ
mit daily
y news article
a
B
Breck
Childcare Fac
cility Nearing Grou
undbreakin
ng
B LORY POUNDER
BY
a
article
reprin
nted from Summit Daily News,
N
July 16
6, 2007
BRECKENRIDG
B
GE - Staff of a new childcare facility told the Breckenridge Town Counccil last week thhat constructio
on on a
n facility couuld begin in thee fall.
new
The town is alrready receivingg waiting list reequests to get into the new faacility, which iss planning to open
T
o
Aug. 1, 20008. It will
b about 6,5000 square-feet, lo
be
ocated immediiately west of the
t Police Station on Valley Brook
B
Street.
o accommodatte 64 children a day, or abouut 100 families, to address needs of local residents and em
mployees
Itt is designed to
fo
or affordable, quality
q
care.
own completed
d a needs assesssment and fouund an additionnal 56 to 69 sppaces are essenntial by the tim
me build
In April, the To
o is reached in 2014. Howeever, as spacess are lost with next year's clo
out
osure of Kinderhut, the licenssed childcare and
a ski
s
school
facility at
a Peak 9, that number will cllimb to about 127 spaces.
a
half of our neeed, with a
"The Town envvisions the Vallley Brook facility as the first childcare facility to address approximately
s
second
facility that
t
would com
me online laterr," Kim DiLallo
o, director of communication
c
ns, explained inn an e-mail.
The Town's Blo
T
ock 11 Master Plan, which includes the chilldcare building and hundreds of units of affo
ordable housinng, is
e
expected
to bee complete in laate August, saiid Laurie Best, town planner.. At the end off June, she repo
orted to the co
ouncil that
fiive sites for the childcare cen
nter were anallyzed on Valleyy Brook Streett, and a cornerr site design sett back from the street
s
stood
out for the
t location.
On the operatiion side, the Town is recruitiing a nonprofitt provider to run
O
r the facility, and contracto
or interviews were
w
r
recently
conducted. Also, thee Town is provviding financial assistance to recruit
r
and rettain quality teacchers for the facility
fa
and
t existing facilities in Breckkenridge, as weell as creating a scholarship program to helpp families who can't afford caare.
the
mney said at a June worksesssion about the progress being made.
"It's huge," Couuncilmember Jeennifer McAtam
After the impennding closure of
A
o Kinderhut leeft families worried about finnding a place fo
or their childreen, childcare beecame one
o the highest priorities
of
p
for th
he town counccil. And while the
t Town fast-tracked plans for
f the new faccility, the ski area
a
allowed
Kinderrhut to stay op
pen another year.
Now, with Kind
N
derhut expecteed to close in spring, the foccus is to come up with a plan for the childreen who attend
d that
s
school
after it closes
c
and befo
ore the summeer opening of the
t new buildinng.
w
be a bit of
o a gap," McAttamney said.
"We've always know there would
SSummer prograams and altern
native options are
a being explo
ored to ease thhat transition, she added. They will be worrking with
t Kinderhut families
the
f
to com
mmunicate whaat to do duringg that time.
The issue of avvailable/ affordaable childcare is one many Suummit County families strugggle with. Accorrding to Early Childhood
T
C
O
Options,
one inn 10 people wo
orking ski induustry related jo
obs quit becausse they can't finnd affordable childcare
c
and one
o in four
inn the public seector quit for the same reaso
on.
M
More
than 1000 children are on
o waiting lists throughout thhe county, acco
ording to Earlyy Childhood Options.
O
L Pounder can be reached att (970) 668-4628, or at lpounder@summitdaaily.com.
Lory
vvalley brook chhildcare centerr
fiinal programm
ming document
3 july 2007
31
page: 28

town of breckenridge valley brook childcare center final

Transcription

Similar documents

INSIDE High Climbers

Help the Silly Bus kids get to school!

April - Amargosa Valley, NV

2Samen Childcare

Saturday, July 9th, 2016 Rockville Mennonite Church 210 Cupola

17th CAPE TOWN Jazz-fest-2016-JHB

Travel Guide - Ginger Brook Hollow

Perfecting COLLINSVILLE PARKING

For information on the Buntús Programme for Pre

CHILDCARE CENTRES