1	HELLGATE SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN
2	Introduction Who We Are Hellgate Elementary Board of Trustees, Superintendent, Faculty, Staff and Hellgate Transportation Company Building Solutions (Polson, MT) Registered architect, practicing since 1989. Specializing in facility planning for public schools, city & county governments WGM Group (Missoula, MT) 40 years experience in land use planning, site design, transportation planning, engineering and surveying
3	Introduction How we got here The Hellgate Elementary School Board of Trustees and the school Superintendent have taken a pro-active approach to campus planning. Increased enrollments for Hellgate Elementary Possibility of all day kindergarten Talk of having to bring in mobile classrooms to serve student population Increased safety for students
4	Introduction Time Frame 2000 - School begins to reach maximum capacity and population hovers around 1200 students and begins to manage out of district numbers 2005/2006 - Building Solutions is hired 2006/2007 - Research conducted and alternative analysis process begins 2007 - Public involvement process and bond election
5	School History & Demographics of School District Kristin Smith WGM Group Planner
6	Introduction Hellgate History 1869 - First school 1917 - Two-room schoolhouse (Bldg #1) 1960s - Combined with Grant Creek School and Grass Valley School to become Hellgate District #4 1974 - Building #2, w/ additions in 1978 1991 - Building #3 2001 - District voters approve levy to purchase additional acreage – school now a 43-acre campus
7	Introduction Hellgate History
8
9
10
11
12
13
14	Introduction Demographic Trends and Community Growth Missoula County – 1990 78,687 people 30,782 households Hellgate District – 1990* 5,022 people 1,696 households * Approximation based on Census Tract Data
15	Introduction Demographic Trends and Community Growth Missoula County – 2000 95,802 people (22% increase) 38,439 households Hellgate District – 2000 7,728 people (54% increase) 2,727 households
16	Introduction Demographic Trends and Community Growth Hellgate School District Year Students 1997 1181 2007 1244 2017 1635 (projected)
17	Introduction Demographic Trends and Community Growth
18
19
20	Site Orientation
21	Current Conditions Existing Traffic and Safety Concerns Congestion Vehicle/Pedestrian Conflicts Lack of U-turn for Building 1 Vehicles Passing Buses Parent Parking in Bus Loading Areas Special Event Parking
22	Current Conditions Existing Traffic and Safety Concerns
23	Current Conditions Existing Traffic and Safety Concerns
24	Current Conditions Existing Traffic and Safety Concerns
25
26	"Building is too small for..." Building is too small for growing student enrollment. Original structure is one of the oldest schools in this area, has seen 7 significant additions. Library and other support services are too small and overcrowded. Classrooms lack modern amenities such as sinks.
27	Current Conditions Building Two Building is too small – and now is faced with all-day kindergarten. “Open” concept floor plan has never functioned well – too disruptive. Heating system uses under-floor pipe tunnels as air ducts. Roof is near the end of its useable lifespan. Too many exterior doors for security purposes.
28	Current Conditions Building Three Building is too small for growing student enrollment. Adding onto the building is very difficult, do to the unique architectural features and mechanical systems. Support spaces are stressed – band, science, library, special services. Cafeteria serves entire campus – extreme crowding and multiple feedings.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35	Assessing the Site Limiting Factors Airport Avigation Easement 2000 - Hellgate Elementary was subject to a formal avigation easement. No mention of airport centerline offset. 2001 – Land purchased to the north for future expansion 2001 to present, airport begins development planning (new control tower). This planning resulted in expanded avigation easement & 500’ offset of runway centerline
36	Result of Airport Development Plan 500 foot offset
37	Additional Design Factors
38	Lewis & Clark Elementary 460 Students
39	Washington Middle School 580 Students
40	C.S. Porter Middle School 520 Students
41	Design Criteria Goals and Objectives Reduce pedestrian-vehicle conflict Separate buses and cars and bus drop-off areas from parent drop-off areas Preserve play areas associated with individual buildings Preserve open fields Close off internal driving and parking Facilitate large delivery vehicles Provide space for new campus buildings Increase or maintain parking spaces for each building Provide for bus queuing on campus of 7-8 buses as well as curbside parking and bus pick-up at each building Provide access to the maintenance building Facilitate proximate parent drop-off for each building Limit entrances onto Flynn Lane Reuse some existing infrastructure Avoid u-turns on Flynn Lane Provide for emergency vehicle access Provide vehicular access to the new building without interrupting pedestrian crossings Avoid impacts to the neighboring property Provide pedestrian connection between buildings 1 and 2
42	Design Process Round One
43	Design Process Round One
44	Design Process Round Two
45	Design Process Round Two
46	Design Process Round Three – The Preferred Alternative
47	Preferred Alt. Road Alignment
48	Preferred Alternative Advantages Uses existing infrastructure Separate parent drop off areas from buses Limited vehicle activity in the campus core during school hours On-site bus queuing facilitated in same manner as it is currently Additional parking spaces at Building 1 Formalized/safer parent drop off area at Building 1 No children crossing in front of buses Reduces frequency of Flynn Lane U-Turns
49	Preferred Alternative Advantages (Cont’d) Minimizes proposed number of Flynn Lane access points Preserves ball fields north of access road Preserves most play areas Strong pedestrian connection between Buildings 1 & 2 Increased visibility and security for Building 3 parking area Increased special event parking south of Building 3 Facilitates future ring road and preserves options for connections to City/County road plan. Reduced cost – Approximate cost for road construction and parking lots $1.2 million ($3.0 million less than previous options)
50	Preferred Alternative Disadvantages Fewer parking spaces east of Building 2 Driving distance for Building 3 parent drop-off increased over existing condition Proximity of proposed southern access road to Building 1
51	Design Process Round Three – Building Details
52	Preferred Alt. Road Alignment
53	Public Involvement Schedule May 3^rd – Hellgate Elementary Staff Meeting May 3^rd – 1^st Open House - Mailing to neighbors May 10^th – 2^nd Open House - District wide mailing May 17^th – Final Open House - District wide mailing & newspaper ad
54	Implementation Schedule May – Develop final bond materials June 8^th - Last day of school Summer 2007 – Continue with public bond campaign September 2007 – Bond election Fall 2007 – Begin design process Spring 2008 – Begin construction of south access road Summer 2008 into 2009 – Building expansions
55	HELLGATE SCHOOL DISTRICT CAMPUS IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
56	HELLGATE SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN