Early Learning Center Pre-Design Committee
November 16, 2015
4:00 – 6:00 PM
MLE Library
In Attendance
What We Heard
The Sumner Story
Steve Sjolund, Beth Dykman, Laurie Dent, Karen Brown, Mark
Baumgarten, Marina Tanay, Sara Johnson, Anne Little, Julie Hunt, Matt
Ziegenfuss, Deb Campbell, Pam Stoner, Kevin Flannigan, Laurie Sjolund,
Kay Gallo, Marc Brouillet, Esperanza Hanson, Matt Rumbaugh, Bobbi
Marcy, Kimberly Clinton-Schmidt, Breaen Czerwinski
 Need to go two stories
 Need to capture more space for parking
 Shared space with middle school
 Early learning years are critical
 Enabling environments to support optimal learning
 Develop and maintain relationships
 Spaces that provoke “why” questions
 Welcoming to all
 Connection to natural environment
 Practical
 Maintainable
 Safe
 Cost effective
 Allow for good management of school
 Movement
 Whimsical
 Creativity
 Light
 Open and connective
 Connection to nature

The Community
 Growing
 32% of households have school age kids
 25% of population under age of 18
 Live here because of families
 Town with history – sense of community – reflected at schools
 SSD is running out of space. Building early learning centers to
help solve space problem. Bring resources together to focus on
young learners. Families’ first introduction into school system.
 Not an elementary school, intentional space to support early
learning
Explore 3 Options
Based on Feedback
from Last Meeting
1. Option 1: Community Bridge
 How to make entry not feel hidden
 Look at traffic circulation inside building
 Look at layout of parking area. Created larger area for
parent/staff parking and smaller area for buses
 Look at more than one outdoor play areas.
 Building mirrored from what was presented at the last meeting
 Dedicated hallway to move through building
 Building is a combination of 1 and 2 stories
Feedback
Pro:
 The change in location of administration
 Good relationship between preschool and administration
 Bus and parking configuration
 Building is visually appealing
 Clusters of classrooms
Question:
 Ability for specialists to serve all classrooms within art spaces
2. Option 2: Box of Chocolates
 About what’s inside
 Incorporate outside pavilion to fit inside
 Parking/parent drop off with bus pull-out area
 Art/community/play area adjacent to each other creating
flexible space
 Connection from inside to outside play areas
 Second floor has two kindergarten classroom groupings. Each
with a flex area
Feedback
Pro:
 Larges spaces
 Play area visible from building entrance
 One story at entrance
 Design celebrates paly
Con:
 Kitchen access
 Not enough bus area
 Long traffic paths
 Combined playground
 Secluded play area in center with potential to be cold and wet
space
 Safety – too many points of access for security
Conclusions
Next Meeting
3. Option 3: Juicy Center
 Separate zones for parking/drop-off and busses
 Arc defining two flexible spaces
 Play/art rooms adjacent to each other
 Kindergarten rooms upstairs surrounding flex and kitchen areas
 Different roof designs
Feedback
Pro:
 Access to playground for preschool
 More flexibility with large open space
 Kindergarten space feels like a community
 More parking
 Roof design resembles MLE and SMS
 Skylights
 Easy access for kindergarten to art room
 Design is more different and less traditional
 Design and layout on site is more respectful of neighbors’ views
Con:
 Upstairs open space not usable
 Open spaces makes containment of toddlers difficult
 Design resembles a church
 No dominant warm front entry
 A lot of positives about the juicy center design. Develop a sense
of scale that breaks down the large space feel.
 Explore courtyard concept in option 2 to see if it can work.
 Explore other possible designs
Monday December 7, 2015
4:00 – 6:00 PM
Maple Lawn Library