Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMuzzey Senior Center and White House Conceptual and Feasibility Study Full-Report-071808Muzzey Senior Center and White House Conceptual and Feasibility Study Lexington, Massachusetts Prepared by Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts for Town of Lexington Purchasing Division 1625 Massachusetts Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts Carl F. Valente, Town Manager James McLaughlin, Chief Procurement Officer Patrick Goddard, Director of Public Facilities July 2008 Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 This page deliberately left blank. Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table of Contents B. CONFIRMATION OF SENIOR SERVICES PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS • Site Visits • Prior Studies • Programmatic Areas • Scale and Design Considerations • Occupant Load and Parking Analysis • Conclusions • PRELIMINARY PROGRAM, PARKING AND OCCUPANT LOAD ANALYSIS Method 1 Method 2 • Assessment: Reuse of Muzzey for Supportive Day Facility C. ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS (WHITE HOUSE SITE) • Permitted Uses • Historic Preservation Incentives • Dimensional Controls • Transition Areas • Parking • Traffic • Historic District • Heritage Landscapes • Applicable Codes and Regulations • Use /Structural Limitations • Transportation Issues D. ALTERNATIVE SITE AND BUILDING PLANS (WHITE HOUSE SITE) • Description of Development Scenarios • Scenario A • Scenario B • Scenario C E. IN -DEPTH INVESTIGATION (WHITE HOUSE) • Site Visit • Prior Studies • Observed Conditions • Historic Character • Character - Defining Features • Preservation Priorities • Redevelopment Design Considerations • Structural Assessment Report F. COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS AND SYSTEM UPGRADES (MUZZEY SENIOR CENTER) • Site Visit • Prior Studies • Observed Conditions P:\2811 _lexi ng_sen r_ctr \doc \report\TOC.doc Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 G. PROJECT COST ESTIMATES • Outline Specifications • Cost Estimates • Impact of Reuse of Historic Structures H. REPORT CONCLUSIONS I. APPENDIX • Meeting Notes • Phone Log PA2811 _lexi ng_sen r_ctr \doc \report\TOC.doc iu Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Town of Lexington is the owner and long -time steward of the "White House," located at 1557 Massachusetts Avenue, in the Battle Green Historic District. The Town contracted with Bargmann, Hendrie + Archetype, Inc. to assess the current conditions of the White House, examine the existing Muzzey Senior Center building and evaluate the existing Senior Center programs, in order to determine whether the existing buildings could be renovated and expanded to serve as a two- building Senior /Community Center campus. The program analysis included a comparison with senior center facilities in other towns, with particular regard to project floor area per number of residents 60+ years of age in those communities. A tour of the existing Adult Supportive Day Care (ASDC) facility on Mill Street was also undertaken, and discussions with staff touched on the needs of a growing population segment. Looking at the use of existing activity spaces throughout a typical day, and in consideration of the possibility of additional programming (e.g., community meetings and events) and the opportunity to expand the existing activities calendar into evenings and weekends, the team met with stakeholders and proceeded to develop a table of recommended square footages. The team's observations and findings culminated with a set of conceptual design options for the White House site, accompanied by outline specifications and cost estimates. Due to the substandard conditions observed at the Muzzey Senior Center facility (including deficiencies in natural light and ventilation and limited hours of operation), the assessment team determined that Muzzey would be unsuitable as one anchor of a two - building Senior Center campus. Consequently, the study focused on the feasibility of a consolidated program at the White House site, with or without the ASDC. The team briefly considered relocating the ASDC to the parking -lot level of Muzzey but found it seriously lacking in the amenities required (e.g. enclosed outdoor space and views to the outdoors), compared to the very pleasant if somewhat out -of- the -way natural environment provided by the Mill Street facility. However, the current lease arrangement and the likelihood that the ASDC center's clientele will grow over the coming years adds a measure of uncertainty. For this reason, one of the three White House site scenarios developed by the team incorporates the AFDC on a separate, upper floor. The study concluded that an attractive and efficiently- designed, two -story building is feasible and in conformance with existing zoning (subject to site plan review, special permits and approval by the Lexington HDC). Each of the development options illustrate a careful integration of the historic main house and carriage barn components into a new mixed -use building clad with clapboard siding and capped with traditional sloped roofs. In order to retain the parcel's historic residential scale and to avoid overwhelming the site with new bulk, the proposed building is shaped into narrow wings bent into a C shape to create a small -scale courtyard. The administrative wing is situated to the west, adjacent to the existing Police Station and closer to the Town Offices. The proposed multi - purpose room grouping is of somewhat larger scale and would feature abundant windows facing the Town Conscience Land, at the eastern side of the parcel. In each scheme, the main entrance and drop -off area faces a new parking area north of the building, and vehicular access occurs via Fletcher Avenue, rather than busy Mass. Ave. Using the 22,500 square -foot Scenario B as the preferred solution, a conceptual construction and project cost estimate was prepared. Incorporating generous (35 %) design and construction contingency markups requested by the Town, the team estimates the 2008 Scenario B construction cost at just over $8,700,000 ($387/sf). Adding estimated soft costs to this figure results in an estimated 2008 Total Project Cost of $10,185,575 ($453/sf). The actual construction date of a new Senior Center is subject to numerous approvals and yet to be determined but, if an optimistic 2010 construction start is used, escalating the 2008 estimate results in an adjusted, estimated Total Project Cost of about $12.1 million. In consideration of the cost impact of reusing historic components of the White House, the study team estimated the cost premium to restore, relocate and rehabilitate the historic Main Block and the Barn /Carriage House at approximately $90,000, which represents about 1 % of the estimated construction cost. P:\2811 _I exi ng_sen r_ctr \doc \report\exec -su mma ry- 071708.4 oc Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 This page deliberately left blank. Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 B. CONFIRMATION OF SENIOR SERVICES PROGRAM AND SITE REQUIREMENTS SITE VISITS BH +A staff visited the Senior Center within the Muzzey Condominium complex and the Adult Supportive Day Care program in Lincoln a total of six times for the purpose of confirming program requirements. Site visits consisted of analyzing site and building programmatic conditions, meeting with staff and observing both staff and program participants during daily activities. The findings of these site visits were compiled in meeting minutes (where applicable) and field notes and used to determine the quantity and size of program elements. PRIOR STUDIES BH +A was provided with an architectural program produced by a Lexington Council on Aging (COA) committee and included in the Senior Center Action Plan report, dated November 2005. This document was used as a starting point for the formation of a new program that combined the 2005 information with new BH +A input. PROGRAMMATIC AREAS BH +A met with staff members at both facilities and the Council on Aging to produce a new program that incorporated both the well- reasoned conclusions of the November 2005 program and new suggestions based on BH +A's experience designing community and senior centers. The discussions in these meetings, together with the results of the site visits, yielded a number and approximate size of program, support, and staff areas. The sizes of these spaces were further refined by analysis of attendance (in the case of program areas) and the application of industry standards (in the case of support and staff areas). In the case of the Supportive Day Care program, the quantities and sizes of several spaces were determined by comparing projected / desired growth with the required program, staff, and support spaces as regulated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Elder Affairs requirements for elder day service facilities. SCALE AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Proper sizing is key to the successful design of an efficient facility. If a facility is too small, citizens could be inadvertently excluded from programs or forced into substandard conditions. Too large a facility results in unnecessarily high construction and operating costs. Regarding Adult Day facilities, size is based on 1) staff size and 2) the maximum daily census of program participants. After these numbers are determined, the size of the facility is calculated by applying industry office size standards for the staff areas and State regulations for the program areas. Special allowances are often made for program areas specific to each facility, e.g., a greenhouse. The design of senior centers need not be as formulaic as Adult Day facilities, which facilitates the inclusion of multi- purpose spaces and the opportunity to program spaces throughout the day and the week. The challenge with planning a large, new facility is that projected participation levels can be difficult to determine; experience has shown that participation levels can vary drastically between an existing, outdated facility and a brand -new complex. Toward this end, two methods of practical value were used in determining the most effective size for the Lexington Senior Center. The first method involves comparing the Architectural Program area with the size of facilities in Towns that have a similarly -sized senior population. The second method involves using Statewide recommendations. P:\2811 _lexing_sen r_ctr \doc\ report\ Conf -Sr- Sery - Prog - Reqts- 061608.doc Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 Lexington Senior Center Feasibility Study April 28, 2008 SENIOR CENTER SIZE AND POPULATION INFORMATION Community 000 Census 60+ population r projected .r population . per .r d• rrr Beverly 7,637 8,598 18,000 sf n/a 2.36 sf Brookline 9,053 10,157 21,000 sf 2001 2.32 sf Leominster 7,105 8,159 8,000 sf 1987 1.20 sf (1990 population) Lexington - Existing 7,248 7,942 10,700 sf 1984 1.48 sf (2000 population) Lexington - Proposed 7,248 7,942 21,400 sf 2.69 sf (2010 population) Methuen 8,208 9,103 18,000 sf 1985 2.11 sf (1990 population) Peabody 10,625 11,681 30,000 sf 1991 3.22 sf (1990 population) Plymouth 7,559 11,556 18,200 sf TBD 1.57 sf (2010 population) Sharon 2,565 3,516 14,300 sf 2007 4.06 sf (2010 population) Watertown 6,645 6,388 7,500 sf 1993 1.17 sf Average 7,405 8,567 16,875 sf" rVa 2.57 sf The Massachusetts Executive Office of Elder Affairs recommends 5.0 sf per 60+ resident. Note. This chart compares the size of the proposed Lexington Senior Center with those in Massachusetts Towns of similarly -sized senior populations. Towns with notably inadequate and outdated facilities are excluded, as are Towns with smaller populations and disproportionately large senior centers. The chart above shows the results of the first method. By dividing the senior center size by the 60+ population for which it was designed (hence the use of different census data in each case), we arrive at a ratio of square feet per 60+ resident. The facilities included in this comparison are in Towns of 60+ populations that very closely approximate that of Lexington. What we find is that Lexington's ratio of 2.69 is very close to the average of 2.57. This indicates that the 21,400 square feet size recommended in the Architectural Program (see below) is in keeping with the design of other facilities in towns with a similar senior population. While this method looks at comparables in the surrounding area, it does not determine whether the suggested size meets the programmatic needs of these facilities. Hence, the need for a second method utilizing the collective experience of the Commonwealth's Executive Office of Elder Affairs (EOEA). At the present time, there are no statewide regulations that govern the size of senior center program space in Massachusetts. However, the EOEA has developed a 5- square -foot per age 60+ resident recommendation, based on post- occupancy evaluations of senior centers throughout Massachusetts. Lexington's ratio of 2.69 is well below this number. It is interesting to note that the current Senior Center facility in the basement of the Muzzey Condominium complex provides only 1.48 square feet per age 60+ resident, and much of this space is substandard. On the other hand, it is our opinion (based on our experience designing several other senior centers) that the State's recommendation of 5 square feet is high and would result in an oversized facility. Based on the above analysis, BH +A recommends a facilitv sized comfortablv between the Architectural Proaram number of 2.69 sauare feet Der resident and 4.5 sauare feet per 60+ resident PA2811 _lexing_sen r_ctr \doc\ report\ Conf -Sr- Sery - Prog - Reqts- 061608.doc Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 ADULT SUPPORTIVE DAY CARE With regard to the existing Adult Supportive Day Care program, it is important to note that facilities of this type are meant to serve a population with specific mental and physical needs for the purpose of a) providing care for program participants that enables them to remain in the community instead of being placed in medical institutions, and b) providing respite for the participant's primary caregivers, who are most often the family members with whom they live. Such centers are broken down into three main types, depending on the level of service offered. The 'medical model' includes a medically- oriented staff that oversees the care of participants with often complex medical needs. Participants in these programs require physical assistance with so- called Activities of Daily Living (dressing, use of the restroom, eating, etc). The 'social model' provides care to a population that can perform the basic functions of daily life with verbal prompting. The third model is a mix of the medical- and social -model types. The Lexington facility follows the social model and, while the program's participants are not administered medical care at the facility, it is important to note that this is largely a population facing a variety of physical and cognitive impairments. Designing for the comfort of this population is an evolving practice and results in a facility with a combination of specific features not commonly found in any other type of facility. The most important design intents are: to provide for the safety of the program participants; to provide a setting that enables a feeling of security and promotes independence and self- esteem; to facilitate the staff's ability to provide programming and oversight to achieve these goals. In the context of the parameters described above, the facility in Lincoln is well- designed. The residential setting for the program offers several benefits and provides abundant natural views and daylight. Moreover, research has shown that an ASDC setting with residential features can foster a calming effect for participants eager to avoid institutionalization and loss of family contact. The separation of program areas is formal enough to provide for the separation of participants (based on the level and type of care needed) yet subtle enough to allow for staff supervision between spaces. Transitions in and out of the facility are achieved in stages, allowing for both increased security and decreased agitation in a population that does not always deal well with times and places of transition. Restrooms are adequate in size and number, with entrances that are relatively visible from program areas. The required rest area is located in a remote yet visible corner of the house that allows for privacy and quiet. Shortcomings of the facility include two major items: the size of the program areas and the size of the staff areas. The number of ASDC programs in the United States has doubled each decade since 1980, as they continue to become an increasingly popular choice for an expanding population. Combined with State requirements governing the amount of program area for participants, the Lincoln facility does not offer much in the way of program expansion. Increased program area can be used for activities that promote a sense of personal accomplishment, e.g., successful completion of a task like growing plants in a greenhouse. To the credit of the staff of the Lincoln facility, the staff office areas were decreased in size in order to increase program area, when the facility was originally converted from a conventional residence. This decision resulted in a lack of a private meeting or consultation space and an undersized staff work space to support a paperwork- intensive field. For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that if the ASDC program remain in Lincoln, especially if it can be expanded to allow more program area and a larger staff area and to add a private conference room. P:\2811 _lexing_sen r_ctr \doc\ report\ Conf -Sr- Sery - Prog - Reqts- 061608.doc Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 OCCUPANT LOAD AND PARKING ANALYSIS Occupant load and parking requirements were calculated using two different methods. Method 1: State Building Code and Lexington Zoning By -Laws In the first method, the occupant load was calculated by classifying the use of each area of the building, and applying an occupant -per- square -foot calculation as defined by the State Building Code (Massachusetts General Law 784). Parking requirements were calculated by using the same classification of each area of the building (as demarcated on the program) and applying a parking- space -per- square -foot calculation as defined by the Town of Lexington Zoning By -Laws. Method 2: Estimate of Actual Conditions In the second method, occupant load was determined by analyzing each space of the building at different times of the week and comparing it to current program offerings and attendance levels at the existing Senior Center. The attendance level was multiplied by 1.25 to allow for the increase in attendance that occurs when a new facility opens. Parking requirements were based on this occupant load by determining how many cars would result at the times of peak use, given varying ratios of participants to cars used. The same procedure was used to calculate the estimated occupant load and parking requirement for three timeframes: 1) the typical weekday when the building is functioning as a Senior Center and Supportive Day facility, 2) the typical weeknight when the multi - purpose spaces within the Senior Center are open for Senior Center or Recreation Department programming, and 3) a typical weekend scenario that depicts the largest multi - purpose space as being used in a rental capacity with kitchen support, and the remaining multi - purpose spaces open for Senior Center or Recreation Department programming. Method 1 yields a theoretical maximum occupant load and parking requirement if each space of the building is being fully used. Method 2 is intended to give a more accurate picture of how many people are likely to be in the building at different times of the week, given projected participation levels. CONCLUSIONS Applying Method 1 to the program results in an occupant load of 739 and a parking space requirement of 105. The majority of the occupants are to be found in two program areas: the large multi - purpose room (MPR) and the classrooms. The high occupant total for the large MPR is predicated on the use of the entire space for one function that draws 300 people. It should be noted that such a function is highly unlikely to occur during a weekday, when parking spaces are least available on the White House site. Such a function is more likely to occur either on a weeknight, or more likely on a weekend when the large multi - purpose space is used in a rental capacity. At these times, the number of parking spaces used by employees who work elsewhere in Town and by municipal employees working in Town Hall and the Police Station is at its lowest, leaving more parking available for Senior Center users. Applying Method 2 to the program results in three occupant load and parking requirement totals, depending on the time of the week. Occupant load / parking requirement totals for the weekday, weeknight, and weekend are, respectively, 307 / 105, 160 / 58, and 354 / 69. The highest level of use is calculated to occur during the weekday, when the Senior Center is running multiple programs in the building's multi - purpose spaces. The Supportive Day program contributes little to the need for parking as the participants in the Supportive Day program are transported to and from the site by vehicles that do not park on -site. Weeknights produce a lower projected occupant load and parking requirement than weekdays due to the fact that the functions that draw large numbers of seniors to the classroom spaces during the day are less likely to occur in the evening. Another major contributing factor to the lower occupant total on a weeknight is that the Supportive Day program and Senior Center staff offices are closed at these times. It should be noted that, while applying Method 2 to the weekend scenario projects the highest number of occupants (354), the parking space requirement is lower (69 spaces versus 105 on a weekday) because it is assumed that a higher ratio of people will arrive in the same vehicle for a large rental function than would for regular Senior Center programming. PA2811 _lexing_sen r_ctr \doc\ report\ Conf -Sr- Sery - Prog - Reqts- 061608.doc k t � {\ _ {ƒ 7+ \( co : / \ \ y \ { { { f \ y y y Ix 00 00 / 0 0 wx r _ /(e -- )]) : =ee _ — 0 ;k ! \. »e EEm J6 - E })\ }\ /_.; /\(\)§72 )E{ !) {{ / ]3zmFT o o3«Jaa«w:ac) E. 4 2 {427 a 7[$244«2 ]aa=aaa3 )ƒ) )jf {± _ {ƒ 7+ \( co k t � {\ _ {ƒ 7+ \( co �\ / / f / y y \ 4) f � ` E `r \E _ _ \) � \ \ (/ \ /E<C)_ _ _ {ƒ 7+ \( co k � (( & m - ©--- - - - - -- ! \ � To wo To w I. . . wo 77 ow wo !z IRS - -- ¢) 9/ 7t \t 7t 7t G ° - - -Q \ © 7 - > \ „ - - 7 7 7 7 7 @ r 7 _ - ))e , 4. E 2 2 = ,:E,Eyi e,77EE)`#(( == (( & m 0 N 0 U w Z O D W Q O] } Q Z Q a _T a aoi U O N w O o O N C J Q L 3 = w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � a U C O O C C v d O _ a 0 C 0 0 �i m m7 aoi O1 Y � � a E m 0 a C O T7 C � 00 . N d D C O) C t Y O) LL C O Y U o a ° a c o 0 0 N O a 0 U O MA C N T a 3 C m C c � V c O Y � O- O) O) t`n �n w y O d O d � W V C C C W z Q Z N EF O z Q Z in z Q Z 80 A8 °N m o m N m R m T o 5 T 5 o o O m W S U (n O (n 0 0 0 Y Y c W U D Q Q K (n U Y J K C7 (n O- Q X a T Q` C + a E � m E E X a ol�LL r J_ U LL Q wW H> Z�- w vo C1C � Z) 0U) ZO 0� w LL (n >- w zN Q Z) 0 LL Z� W W' J w U w U ~ O N C C V O OV cu >, (6 -ffi C LL Q U) � Q •> vi 0 ' Q L- � cu cu W i Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 This page deliberately left blank. Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 ZONING C. DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS CNNK4N RO eaor 1 AYLOR L R °' 1 IC�1I �' yq' C' ONT LN C3 cn t� z S S'g� O,t•� "` �. GLEN RD. SOUTH m ��5 Q- a VypOp RO r � / o Historic District SrErsoN w d z n CR w ST z ,'T z o TS CRS °R' o Ass U K Y D POT N PL r Q 11 RS RM N M u i �� rt y. RM z0 o �� Lm'c LO °a- use rs o w Battle Green SSA D -12 z a x. Historic o A hi District Z TER. ti pd ' afI' „jJ�, RD 00 The White House site (1557 Massachusetts Avenue) is located in an RS (One- Family Dwelling) Zone, which emphasizes low- density residential development and allows related public and institutional uses. The Dunkin Donuts property across Fletcher Avenue occupies a Service Business commercial zone. Provisions of the Lexington Zoning Code relevant to the White House project include, without limitation, the following: • Article IV Historic Preservation Incentives (Section 135 -18) • Article VII Dimensional Controls • Article XI Off- Street Parking and Loading • Article XI I Traffic Permitted Uses Section 135 -16 addresses principal and accessory uses. More than one principal use (e.g., Business and Institutional) may be allowed on a lot. An accessory use (e.g., a small gift shop or retail store) is one that constitutes only an incidental or insubstantial part of the total activity that takes place on a lot. Per Table 1, Permitted Uses and Development Standards, municipal buildings or uses comprise a subcategory of Institutional Uses that is allowed as -of -right in an RS zone. It appears that the Adult Supportive Day Care facility would also be allowed, subject to compliance with operating and development standards (Table 1, Line 2.1). Non - profit community service centers and charitable organizations are allowed only by Special Permit (Section 135 -11). Per 2.4 Development Standards, proposals for uses and structures greater than 10,000 gross square feet in area are required to include a Site Plan. Approval of the Site Plan and proposal constitutes a Special Permit (Section 135 -12). P:\2811_lexing_senr_ctr \doc\ report\Development- Parameters.doc 1 Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 Historic Preservation Incentives Special Permits Section 135 -18 provides incentives for preserving buildings, structures, sites and settings, including a promise of priority in granting special permits, when contributing buildings in a historical setting and context are retained in place, rather than relocated off site. The paragraph does not specifically address moving structures within the same parcel. Alteration or Removal of Significant Buildings Paragraph C of this section authorizes special permits by the Planning Board and /or Board of Appeals to authorize actions that would otherwise not comply with other provisions of the By -Law, and that would allow for renovation, repair, adaptive use or, in limited instances, removal of historic or architecturally significant buildings. Dimensional Controls Dimensional controls for are specified in Table 2. In an RS Zone: • Minimum front yard setback is 30 feet. • Minimum side yard setback is 15 feet. For institutional uses, the minimum setback must be the greater of 25 feet or a distance equal to the height of the building (per Section 135 -39; the existing White House is approximately 31 feet high). However, Section 135 -38 provides for certain side -yard exemptions to the Table 2 requirements, stating that "lesser requirements than those of Table 2 apply to certain lots." The White House property has an actual lot frontage greater than 100 feet, which keeps the minimum side yard setback at 15 feet. • Minimum rear yard setback is 15 feet, with the same provision for institutional uses as above. • Maximum FAR is .25 for institutional uses (which include municipal buildings or uses, nonprofit community service centers and recreational facilities). There is no requirement for other uses. Transition Areas Section 135 -54 provides for landscaped transition and screening areas in cases where a lot abuts or is across the street from a different zoning district. Per the table in paragraph C, the transition area required facing the Dunkin Donuts property (CS Zone) must be at least 20 feet in depth. Parking Each application for a special permit with site plan review, petition for variance, etc., must be accompanied by an off - street parking and loading plan illustrating compliance with the By -Law and with accepted engineering practice. Per Section 135 -64, the Parking Factors (minimum number of spaces to be provided) for institutional uses are as follows: • Non - recreational public facilities 1 space per 600 net square feet • Community service center 1 space per each 6 seats in the largest assembly area • Recreation centers and other institutional uses "As needed" • Office uses 1 space per 250 net square feet Where off - street parking or loading serves two or more activities that are different types of uses (including two or more activities that are part of the same principal use), the number of spaces provided shall be the sum of the requirements for the various individual uses (Section 135 -64 B(4)). Because the proposed Senior Center is a multi - purpose facility incorporating a number of different functions and activities, the program analysis in this Report applies an appropriate Parking Factor to each of the different program spaces. In parking lots containing more than 20 spaces, not more than 33% of such spaces may be designed for use by compact cars. Refer to the attached transportation study for further discussion about parking for Senior Centers. As required by state law, specially designated parking spaces for persons with physical disabilities must be provided. PA2811 _lexing_sen r_ctr \doc\ report\Development- Parameters.doc Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 N Per 135 -64, the Loading Factor for institutional uses is 1 per the first 25,000 square feet and 1 additional for each additional 75,000 square feet. Minimum yards for parking lots are addressed in Section 135 -67. In an RS District, parking spaces, driveways and maneuvering aisles must be set 25 feet back from the street line and 5 feet from all other lines. Transition and screening requirements delineated in Paragraph F apply. Where screening is required, it must consist of a strip of land at least four feet wide and densely planted with shrubs and trees, or a wall, barrier or fence at least 5 feet above finished grade. Traffic Section 135 -71, Paragraph B, requires a special permit with site plan review, prior to the erection of a new building occupying 10,000 square feet or more of non - residential gross floor area. Section 135 -72 addresses the need for traffic study conducted by a qualified traffic engineer and describes the required deliverables. P:\2811 _lexing_sen r_ctr \doc\ report\Development- Parameters.doc Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 HISTORIC DISTRICT Enabling Legislation: Ch. 447, Acts of 1956, as amended by Ch. 185, Acts of 1958, Ch.579, Acts of 1966, Ch. 268 Acts of 1978 and Ch. 375, Acts of 1982 and Ch. 426, Acts of 2000. Administered by the Lexington Historic Districts Commission (HDC). The HDC is responsible for reviewing and approving all plans within the Lexington Historic Districts for construction, demolition, exterior renovations, color changes and signs. Lexington Historic Districts Commission, Application Instructions and Guidelines was prepared by the HDC and revised in December 2001. The White House site is located within the boundaries of the Battle Green Historic District. gD ;n j S 9 i, Nb N STETSON oaK, e \ pR- + .. ♦ \\ .`,C'� MILITIA co; DR, q�s� 3, P `G x l 40GES W T Rn ` 4~ kSON OURT q. RkER RD. Battle Green Historic District HERITAGE LANDSCAPES Independent of the Lexington Historic Districts Commission process, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Heritage Landscape Inventory Program prepared a Lexington Reconnaissance Report which identified, among several other Lexington properties, the "Town Conscience Land" located adjacent to the White House as a Heritage Landscape. PA2811_lexing_senr_ctr \doc\ report\Development- Parameters.doc 4 Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study -� Town of Lexington July 2008 APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS Current codes and regulations governing the Lexington project include: • The Massachusetts State Building Code (780 CMR), 6th Edition • The Massachusetts State Plumbing Code (248 CMR) • Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (521 CMR) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) regulations are referenced but no specific portions are cited in Appendix A of the current Massachusetts code. Nonetheless, the following NFPA "Codes" can serve as useful guidelines for the consideration of compliance alternatives and performance -based options: • NFPA Life Safety Code 101, Chapter 43 (2006) • NFPA 914, Code for Fire Protection of Historic Structures (2006) USE /STRUCTURAL LIMITATIONS Occupancy The following occupancy factors apply to potential Senior Center uses • Assembly 1 occupant per 15 gsf • Fitness /Program Space 1 occupant per 50 gsf • Classroom 1 occupant per 20 nsf • Business (Administrative) 1 occupant per 100 gsf Accessibility Accessibility to the Senior Center by all people, regardless of physical disability, is undoubtedly an important goal of the Town and the COA, as well as a State code requirement. Any new multi -story facility would be fully accessible. A ramp or lift would be required to provide wheelchair access to the existing first floor of the house, which is raised above a tall basement. If the existing side entrance is continued in service as an active (i.e., primary) entrance to the Main Block, it too would need to be modified for accessibility. Alternatively, it could be retained in place merely as an emergency egress. Existing Buildings Chapter 34 780 CMR Chapter 34 controls the alteration, repair, addition and change of occupancy of existing structures. Alterations, repairs, additions and changes of occupancy to existing structures are governed by Sections 3400 through 3409. While additions and alterations to existing structures must conform to the requirements for new construction, this provision does not obligate unaltered areas within the existing structure itself to comply. However, alterations to any structure must conform to the code requirements for a new structure and must not result in an increase in hazard to the occupants. Regarding the existing stair in the Main Block of the White House, special provisions in Chapter 34 address existing non - conforming means of egress. 3400.4.1 requires the building official to cite violations (in occupied spaces) and to order abatement within a defined timeframe intended to protect occupants. Similarly, abatement of unsafe lighting and /or ventilation is required (3400.6). Where full compliance with 780 CMR for new construction is not practical for structural and /or other technical reasons, the building official may accept compliance alternatives. P:\2811 _lexing_sen r_ctr \doc\ report\Development- Parameters.doc Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 Energy Provisions Section 3407.0 established energy provisions for existing buildings, whereby only alterations to building components affecting the energy conservation performance of the building need comply. For example, Section 3407.4.3 exempts existing roof /ceiling assemblies from compliance, unless the existing roofing materials are stripped off. Regarding windows, ordinary repairs need not comply (3407.4.2). Historic Buildings In accordance with its status as a contributing structure within the Battle Green Historic District, the White House is categorized for Code purposes as a "partially preserved building" (3409.3) and is subject to the following provisions: 1) individual components of an existing building system may be repaired or replaced in -kind without requiring that system to fully comply with the code for new construction; 2) when the repair of historic materials is not possible, compatible materials may be substituted which closely convey the form and design as well as the visual appearance of the structure. "Partially preserved buildings" are subject to a number of exemptions from provisions of the State Building Code. Repairs or in -kind replacement of such features as historic roofing, windows, entries, porches, decorative elements, metal and masonry are allowed so as not to compromise the architectural integrity of the building's significant historical characteristics and qualities. Per 3409.3.11, this status also exempts the building from the energy requirements of 780 CMR 13 and 780 CMR 36. Structural Requirements for Existing Buildings Per 780 CMR 3408.2, existing structural systems that are affected by alteration, addition, change of use or damage to be repaired must be evaluated by a structural engineer. Specific requirements for additions, alterations, changes in use and repairs are prescribed in 3408.4, 3408.5 and 3408.6. Egress Chapter 34 provisions for retaining various building "systems" in existing buildings do not offer specific relief related to emergency egress requirements. All floors within altered buildings are required to have access to a minimum of two independent means of egress acceptable to the building official, per 780 CMR 3404.4, 3404.5 and Table 1010.2). If the Main Block of the house were appended to a larger new building, a fire door would be proposed at the junction between new and old, and the building official would be asked to approve retention of the existing unenclosed historic staircase. The new building would include independent means of egress connected directly to the exterior. PA2811 _lexing_sen r_ctr \doc\ report\Development- Parameters.doc WARD EIN f A 5 5 0 C I A T E 5 MEMORANDUM To: Jack Glassman, BH +A Date: June 5, 2008 From: Elizabeth Peart HSH Project No. 2008022.01 Subject: Lexington Senior Center — Transportation Issues Howard /Stein - Hudson (HSH) have reviewed the information that Bargmann Hendrie and Archetype (BH +A) have provided for the proposed relocation of the Senior Center to 1557 Massachusetts Avenue (Mass Ave) in Lexington. Our understanding is that BH +A is developing a preliminary design to examine the feasibility of converting the property at 1557 Mass Ave into a Senior /Community Center. The current Senior Center now operates at 1475 Mass Ave within the former Muzzey School, a building that has been converted into residential condominiums. The site building at 1557 Mass Ave is temporarily occupied by the Lexington DPW while the new Bedford Street facility is constructed. The site is adjacent to the Lexington Police Station and Town Hall. A large, contiguous parking area with about 150 spaces is located behind these buildings and serves the parking needs of the Police Station, Town Hall, the Town's permit parking program', and the temporary DPW offices. Of the total spaces, 71 are located immediately behind and adjacent to the proposed Senior Center site. It is worth noting that in the recent past, tandem parking spaces existed adjacent to the site, increasing the immediate parking capacity from 71 spaces to 105 spaces. These tandem spaces no longer exist adjacent to the site. As BH +A proceeds with preliminary design alternatives, the following transportation issues should be considered. Vehicular Access to the Senior Center Currently, there are two access /egress driveways directly serving the proposed site. There is an existing curb -cut on Mass Ave for a driveway serving the front of the building. This driveway connects from Mass Ave through the site to the rear parking lot. A curb -cut on Fletcher Avenue provides access /egress directly to the large rear parking lot. 1 The Town operates a parking permit program open to employees (all businesses) who work in the Town center. The purpose of the program is to locate longer term parking out of the Town center, allowing short-term parkers, such as customers and visitors, to use the more convenient spaces. Of the 187 permit spaces in various locations within the Town, 17 spaces are located behind the proposed Senior Center site and 6 spaces are located along Fletcher Avenue. HOWARD /STEIN- HUDSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 38 Chauncy Street, 9th Floor • Boston, Massachusetts 02111 • www.hshassoc.com Phone (617) 482 -7080 • Fax (617) 482 -7417 • info@hshassoc.com Page 1 PA2811 LEXING SENR CTR\DOC\REPORTU EX SR CENTER MEMO FROM HSH 06 05 2008.DOC Lexington Senior Center Transportation Issues On Mass Ave, about 75 feet west of the site driveway, another driveway runs in between the site and the Police Station and connects to the rear parking lot. A grassy median with trees separate the two directions of traffic flow on this driveway. The driveway serves parallel parking along the eastern curb and provides the primary access to the Police Station. Together, the two Mass Ave driveways provide redundant connections through to the rear parking lot. We recommend that the Mass Ave driveway to the site be eliminated and that the Mass Ave driveway to the Police Station (with grassy median) be maintained. With the elimination of the site driveway to Mass Ave, all vehicles trips to the Senior Center will use Fletcher Avenue to access the rear parking lot. The parking lot driveway on Fletcher Avenue can easily process the net new traffic volumes associated with the site. Senior Center Parking Demand BH +A used two methods to develop the parking demand and associated occupant load in the new facility. The first method was based on projected use, with specific assumptions about the detailed use of the building. Results are projected for weekday, weeknight and weekend event periods. The second method, which produces results for one general time period, relied on state building codes and Lexington zoning by -laws for parking. Each method produced a similar weekday results number of parking spaces required for the site. Because the first method incorporated more detailed time periods and more precise usage assumptions, these results were used as input to further parking analysis. Using the weekday schedule of activities that occur at the current Senior Center and information provided by BH +A, HSH developed a parking accumulation graph as shown in Figure 1. Based on employment and program assumptions at the Senior Center, the graph shows how parking spaces will fill over the course of a typical weekday. In addition to typical daily events, this example incorporates several activities in the multi - purpose room throughout the day and early evening. The peak parking demand of about 102 spaces will likely occur around noontime when lunch is served and again in the mid - afternoon, when a larger afternoon program event might occur in the multi - purpose room. While in the past, tandem parking spaces (extra long spaces for two cars) were used in the rear lot behind the proposed site, these are not recommended for the Senior Center. Tandem parking can be a viable option at a location with long term packers who repeatedly park every day, but the Senior Center will have many short -term visitors who will park for only a couple hours. Designated Parking Spaces for Permit Holders The Town's permit parking program (see footnote 1) includes 17 designated spaces located behind the Senior Center site in rear parking lot. There are also 6 permit spaces along the western curb of Fletcher Avenue between Woburn Street and the parking lot exit. During two late morning observations of the rear parking lot, (Monday, March 10, 2008 and Thursday, April 10, 2008), some permit parking spaces were vacant. On March 10, seven of the 23 spaces were vacant and on April 10, eleven were vacant. It is unclear, however, whether these spaces were occupied by DPW employees who will relocate to the new DPW facility on Bedford Street or by employees of town businesses. The permit program is an important part of Lexington's effort to manage long -term and short-term parking demands. The estimated peak parking demand of 102 spaces at the new Senior Center, will conflict with the permit parking demand located on the site. Relocating the 23 permit spaces to another convenient Town Center location would be part of the plan to provide adequate parking at the new Senior Center. Page 2 Lexington Senior Center Transportation Issues Depending on the subsequent parking lot design for the Senior Center site and the number of spaces that can be constructed within the site's constraints, it is likely that the parking activity generated by the Senior Center and the 23 permitted spaces cannot all be accommodated at the rear of the site. Other Parking Issues Related to the new Senior Center parking demand and the permit parking program, both described above, is the more general parking demands that occur near the site and in the Town Center. The large, contiguous parking area behind the site has about 150 spaces and serves the parking needs of Town Hall, the Police Station, the Town's permit parking program, and the temporary DPW offices. Metered short- term parking is provided for visitors. Short-term visitors to Town Hall can also park on Mass Ave and along the circular front driveway. Town Hall currently has about 85 employees, most of whom work typical office hours. It is estimated that most employees drive and park in the rear lot and, therefore, represent a majority of the daytime parking demand behind Town Hall. While there are frequently evening meetings at Town Hall, parking spaces are usually available in the rear lot. The Police Station also has a steady daytime parking demand from both employees and official police vehicles. With the relocation of the DPW to Bedford Street, it is likely that parking demand in the rear lot will decrease by at least 40 spaces. With the new parking activity generated by the Center, it will be important to ensure adequate parking for adjacent Town Hall and Police Station users. While a certain number of spaces can be allocated to each use with proper signage, it is unlikely that the parking demand for all daytime users (Center +Town Hall+ Police + permit parking) can be directly served on this site, given the current parking capacity. In the future, Cary Hall may become more active with additional daytime and evening events. Such events would generate increased parking demand. Visitors to weekday events at Cary Hall would have difficulty parking in the rear lot. Parking for evening events would be easier, however, because Town Hall and the Senior Center would be closed. Traditionally, the Farmer's Market operates at the current site mid -June through September. For 2008, the scheduled times are Tuesdays 2:30 until 6:00 pm. To maximize parking availability, activity planning at the Senior Center should complement known Cary Hall events and other events, such as the recurring Farmer's Market. For example, scaling back Senior Center events on Tuesday afternoons in the summer would allow more parking for the popular Farmer's Market. Drop -Off / Pick -Up Curb Given that the Senior Center serves an older population, a drop- off /pick -up driveway near the main door of the facility will reduce conflicts between pedestrians and moving vehicles in the parking lot and provide a shorter walk for visitors with reduced mobility. With the adult supportive day care, most daytime visitors will arrive via van or be dropped off by family members. The reverse activity will occur later in the day as visitors are picked up by van services or family. Providing an adequate drop- off /pick -up area removed from conflicts with general parking activity will be an important element for accessibility and safety. Adjacent Police Station It is our understanding that the Police Station may undergo an expansion at its current site and there may be an opportunity to have shared use of the Senior Center's facilities with the Police, such as classroom Page 3 Lexington Senior Center Transportation Issues space, fitness space and kitchen areas. This shared use arrangement will not affect vehicle access or parking activity, but may require an enhanced pedestrian connection (possibly enclosed) between the two buildings. Special Parking Considerations Given the senior age of many visitors to the Center, it is important to provide adequate handicapped parking spaces and provide clear signage. Also, several larger spaces should be reserved for van parking. If an adequate pick -up /drop -off area is provided at the main door of the building, the van spaces do not need to be close to the building because the van driver will drive the vehicle to the building for boarding activity. Intersection of Massachusetts Avenue/Woburn Street/Fletcher Avenue /Winthrop Road The intersection of Massachusetts Avenue/Woburn Street/Fletcher Avenue/Winthrop Road is an unsignalized intersection where Mass Avenue traffic proceeds through without stopping and Woburn Street /Winthrop Road traffic must stop before proceeding. While no quantitative analysis of this intersection was conducted, qualitative observations indicate that the intersection operates under capacity without any significant delays for any approach. Because the side street traffic from Fletcher Avenue, Woburn Street and Winthrop Road are required to stop, a short queue occasionally develops on these side streets as drivers wait for an acceptable gap in Mass Ave traffic. When drivers are turning left from Mass Ave onto the side streets and must wait for a gap in oncoming traffic, there is sufficient pavement width on Mass Ave for continuing through traffic to bypass on the right. With the proposed sole access to the Senior Center from Fletcher Avenue, most site traffic will travel through this intersection. Based on the qualitative observations of this intersection, the net new vehicle trips generated by the Senior Center will not adversely affect the traffic operations Senior Center Bus Field Trips The Senior Center currently runs a few field trips per month to various events and destinations. These trips typically have a weekday morning departure from St. Bridgid's Church, where seniors park and board the bus. Trips usually return the same day, although there are some overnight trips. The long -term parking activity associated with these trips is well- suited for the church location that has a lower weekday parking demand. It is recommended that this arrangement, with off -site parking and departure, continue to operate because it is unlikely that the Senior Center site will have adequate parking to support both regular daytime visitors and the long -term parking associated with the weekday bus trips. Transit Access The site is directly served by Lexpress bus services. The Lexpress system operates six routes, generally operating weekdays between 7:00 am and 6:30 pm. Each of the six routes operates from Depot Square located in the center of Town and radiates out to serve different neighborhoods of Lexington. Service on each route operates every hour. Route 1 (East Lexington) and Route 3 (Countryside and Emerson Gardens) stop on Mass Ave near the site. Page 4 Lexington Senior Center Transportation Issues While the proposed site is closer to Depot Square (served by all Lexpress routes) than the current Muzzey Senior Center, it is still about I/4 mile from Depot Square — a distance too far for some visitors to comfortably walk. No benches or shelters are provided on Mass Avenue near the site. The site is also served by MBTA Bus Route 62 (Bedford to Alewife) and Route 76 (Hanscom /Lincoln Labs — Alewife). Both of these routes have stops along Mass Avenue near Town Hall and Fletcher Avenue/Winthrop Road. Service generally operates every 30 minutes during the morning and afternoon peak hours and one hour during off -peak hours. This service tends to serve commuters traveling to and from Alewife Station. Enhancing these bus stops to include benches and shelters could encourage more use of the available transit services to the Senior Center site. Once the Senior Center is relocated, Lexpress route schedules should be reviewed by the Town to ensure that transfer times at Depot Square are relatively short, thereby encouraging transit use to the Senior Center. An easy pedestrian connection between the bus stops and Senior Center building should be provided. Page 5 200 180 160 140 120 N 100 N 80 60 40 20 Lexington Senior Center Transportation Issues Figure 1 Lexington Senior Center Parking Demand by Time of Day - Typical Weekday with several daily events in the multi - purpose room Parking Supply at new Center = ? N O O O M O W O 00 pMp V � � O r M c M M M W N OD M Q Page 6 Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 D. ALTERNATIVE SITE AND BUILDING PLANS The process of development of alternative site and building plans began with the assumption that portions of the White House would be preserved and relocated on the site to make room for new program space and for required parking. Inspired by local architect John Ruffing's suggestion that a courtyard building on the site could incorporate the Main Block of the White House, engage Mass. Ave. and also embrace afternoon sunlight, we explored C- shaped plans. Locating the large multi - purpose rooms along the east side of the "C" suggested an indoor - outdoor connection oriented toward the existing green space. Scenario A incorporates the Senior Center program elements in a two -story building but results in excess floor area. Consequently, Scenario B was developed as a refinement of Scenario A that retains the courtyard concept but represents a more efficient use of floor space. Finally, Scenario C was developed as a simple diagram intended to test the feasibility of a larger, three -level building incorporating the Adult Supportive Day Care facility on its own upper floor. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS SCENARIO A • Incorporate existing wood - framed Main Block of White House and Barn /Carriage House into new two -story Senior Center, providing appropriate fire separation doors and floor /wall assemblies. Set new Senior center first floor at grade; align new second floor with existing house. • Retain Main Block and Barn /Carriage House in their original spatial relationship to each other, relocating the ensemble forward on the parcel. Step massing of new building back to even historic link between Main Block and outbuilding. Recreate historic front porch of Main Block. • Adapt Main Block for Executive Director's office at first floor and computer center on second floor; convert Barn /Carriage House interior into Window Pane Shop accessible from new courtyard and Senior Center lobby. • Locate large, subdividable multi - purpose rooms at east side of complex, facing existing green space. • Foundation comprised of spread footings, slab on grade; no usable basement space. • Parking, drop -off and main entrance at rear of building, preserving green space and "village" character along Massachusetts Avenue. • Two lanes of diagonal parking configured for one -way traffic. Principal vehicular access to Senior Center (and connecting to other municipal buildings) via Fletcher Avenue rather than Mass. Ave. • Locate new Fitness center in prominent new pavilion facing relocated Barn /Carriage House. Provide adjacent porches for indoor /outdoor use. • Total floor area of 28,000 GSF (not including Adult Supportive Day Care) exceeds proposed area in Preliminary Program, Parking and Occupant Load Analysis. • Adult Supportive Day Care (ASDC) remains in existing facility. Alternatively, ASDC relocates to first floor of Muzzey Center, but this requires infill of atrium with new floor and ceiling decks at first -floor level and results in clearly substandard levels of natural light and outdoor view. SCENARIO B • Similar to Scenario A but two -story building tightened up for more efficient use of space, less circulation space. Multipurpose space reduced from three to two adjacent, subdividable rooms, enlarging area of outdoor green space. • Foundation comprised of spread footings, slab on grade; no usable basement space. • Total floor area of 22,500 GSF (not including Adult Supportive Day Care) closely approximates proposed area in Preliminary Program, Parking and Occupant Load Analysis. • Small -scale Barn /Carriage House relocated to front of complex and occupied by Fitness Center. Window Pane Shop relocated to second -floor lobby, adjacent to other activity rooms. • First -floor lounge area and adjacent library offer views of, and access to, courtyard, lobby and main entrance. P:\ 2811_ lexing _senr_ctr \doc \report\Alternative Site -Bldg Plans.doc Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 • Location of Director's office suite and computer rooms to Main Block allows compatible and sensitive reuse of small -scale residential wing with preserved historic details. • Adult Supportive Day Care (ASDC) remains in existing facility. Alternatively, ASDC relocates to first floor of Muzzey Center, but this requires infill of atrium with new floor and ceiling decks at first -floor level and results in clearly substandard levels of natural light and outdoor view. SCENARIO C • Three -story building includes garden (lower) level, main level and upper level. Excavate part of existing green space east of building down to garden level, to provide natural light to and views from classrooms, fitness center, game room and Muzzey Room. Garden level also includes Fix -It Shop, computer rooms and Window Pane Shop. • Two large multi - purpose rooms at main level, overlooking green space. Administrative wing at west side of complex, closest to Police Station. Main level includes cafe /lounge, library and arts & crafts pavilion. • Adult Supportive Day Care (ASDC) occupies upper level, offering abundant natural light and views of outdoors. Facility is accessible via the main elevator and stairs. • Total floor area of 28,000 GSF includes ASDC and approximates proposed total area in Preliminary Program, Parking and Occupant Load Analysis. P:\ 2811_ lexing _senr_ctr \doc \report\Alternative Site -Bldg Plans.doc tfi� w O z w CO Z O H z X W J C c V N d V d m E�> H H� H O O O H O y p J LL LL LL LL LL N E c> d 'Q V V ci V .O V Q = r a o 0) � co � ti O! 07 Vi Z p,s w 3 p p p 0 0 p 0 N p O V 0 d p G1 v E c O L Y c M L IM L -�d oiu-2 ao day CO) 3 L r p N AIL N L > L �a�cR C 3 w CL M d d N f�Jl x L 3 v iii c V = O W C W to G1 c E m Q 0 m O H H H z H O L v LL LL LL LL d N N Q w d E CO) CO) CO) 00 M N Z LU cn m O O O N 07 O 0 V� v p p LO p CO) O V N O N cC v a L r r N N Q H H H H O v LL LL LL LL N d d d p d Vi CO) U) le Z C O O O M p O V0 v p N p M CO) a v r r N N v L c2Z t E LU Z c "r 0 _ 'c H H LL (' 2 LL LL U .3 U' N v +O+ v 0 U) CO) r i(Q as m O p p C � r r LUZ dHN co cc IV LU N > N _ 7 p U) m J r2 LU CO) H H H OO LL LL LL LL y N +-� CO) � ~ Cl p 2 'x O O O Cl d � CO N t = M N tC O� M `O t H Q% as as > m > (D � CL CC cn a J y J G1 C N Vi L J i d 0 LU '-r C C 41 m O M = J 2 : O2 QO�d cc a L 0 C d N d L t O O O a0 0 N c N E O .0 LCD C .O d C O C O c L tm Q. 0 C 0 CL Q 0 d p G1 v E c O L Y c M L IM L -�d oiu-2 ao day 2a R a 4- M- 0 AIL L > L O C 3 w CL M d d N f�Jl x L 3 v iii c V = O W C W to G1 c E m Q 0 R H H O z It L L N P®� a 'vA_r'J m Q c r 'V I..L E i w m i U w Z) z w a U) w U) U a U) CO a ti LO LO w W F— Z W V 0 Z W cr, O F— Z R W J sk �r a� x� w� �m ®d U° Wi Cn CD Z I— E Vim? �s CO Q z O CD z x w J LL O z O z W V 0 Z W Z 07 A# rlL Z X k Li FIETCHER AVENUE w w i U U d w U I Q IL �I U) w al K of W w I w F Z) w t �I w 0 S UI U ° 0 I ' N i I I co w U ' d U w Q Ia I i w U a Z LU LU 0 0 LL 0 U) O M w U U) Q wa C) U) az Uw 0� z�n Y ¢ U W � Lu U awa a co co �w 0 W Q W 01-- 0 aa0 rM(O (D a� 1N3AJbNd317 301-10d W Z) W Q H co 7 S U co i� zN Q� J o � o W Z M O_ H Z O` CU C� Z �E. c m W9= U) t— t— w U) 2 U Q U) U) Z O CD z X W J W H Z W V O z w z O H C7 z X W J i !j it � {V I i V If r �I� i 1 .N, s ,3 a a E ca - �s CO Q z O CD z X LU J LL O z O M LU H z LU A 2 • PA'4' rq--- LU LU Q LU LU co U U) co 2� U r) z a vie Cf)� 'o_r' a „ W� U) m ry O< LL L o ra a _a o� z= a= J � E . Wm H �s Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 This page deliberately left blank. w Z) Z \W a U) W CO U a U) LO T C. w W F z LU 0 Z W Z 0 F— Z R W J K LL 0 0 w Q Q O a m 0 z a J D O a U af Q a a) U ❑ uu w�LL 2 O VO °o El N 0 Z O ON O� Iy -0. Roy Rol Rol 0Oa .0m .0$ -Cry y� HK� Ftt� HK� � K r� r� a L 0 O N S (Ji Oxo p Zo LL J O w Zo 0 I K 0 Z'.— F� WN L '2 > o Z SN3WOM �LL w� U ry V U � r SN3W triN _ ON O O °m OLL OK QY 00� - �¢N r¢° W^ y SUN ....> CL� U yE � � 0 2 LL — U¢N � 0 J 0 0 LL F z 3 Fo �� III 'II 1e o w 0 N �Zy WN Q�N mON`.. p O y -------------------- ---- - - - - -- �LL N O°� m _ I I _ w UQ Oa H_ U) fr z D0 �F Q U J � � �Um WUO m �Wa Q<w w JwU L) =� Q— Q z W z�a w0� AML) 4 a U i W m ui H W r Q o v / O IMO 0V ` o `w Q J Z 5< 4 /O @ S E �- Z Wm E a U Cn � 9 Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 This page deliberately left blank. LU Z) z LU U) Lli CO M L) U) LO L.O T— w LU F- z LU 0 Z LU Cl) z 0 F- (49 z R LU .j LLI U) Li < z 0 U) Q rr z 0 Z) (D IL 0 EL of D < 0- U) C) El I Lt FYI _L 02 O 0 0, 0 0 0 01. wLL A 10 Z9 am w t: 2>° MULL w. w w w z 0 0 U W li w cn CD CD N C\f w W W o- I" n li LLJ Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 This page deliberately left blank. w Z) z w U) W CO U U) LO L.O T J w W F— z LU 0 z W Z 0 F- Z R W J W U) LLI z O U) z o 0 O af a a D J ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N N O O w g N D o m UO a0i°n a0�°n Yo FK� FK� J J g g W L K LL O O ❑ � w � m Ow u ^ 1 �o Q �¢w Z O o III�jIII tOQ� SN3WOM 0 W U) Q W 0� WU U W D 0 0 0 Wz 2 Q W � 20U U W d .6 (n U) m0z O 0CL 0 ¢ate WtU U Z:) cr ul 2 U o N N TfG � m F K O � j O O O w K - SN3W ON III ^ O Opry Ow 3wo w� UH K LL� ❑ O N _ Q N U N N O(37 �00 ❑ _ �� YQ .....� zp O ag N i g z y K N w 0',. m O N Z N WW 4 xKH Z.- n. O ff 11I o O m 4 a U r i o W ui H N W Q� U) O O O g N r J - LU N t Q 0.11 1 W J Z 5� Q /O li E s z � r W m U) 9 Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 This page deliberately left blank. W Z W VJ / W/� vJ D U ♦ U) ♦� vJ LO LO r w LU F z LU L) Z W Z 0 F- Z x W J W Q � W Q O a CO Of ? J D O d a U o � � O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2� 4 r i W W L m W J D �� /)� o VJ 0 0 LUy J 1 J m W J W - n D m 0 Q E� W m U U) 9 Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 This page deliberately left blank. W D Z W Q U) H W 2 U U) Q ti LO r w LU F- z LU L) 0 Z W Z O H CD Z X W J 2� 4 w Q > w e F— Q z � o (~ Q O Q Z � d � Q aII D u U L i W LL W NW m ry D r a V O ° O C) 1 - J - W W J a Z W r _ Q C� C) O Q Es wm U # U 9 Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 This page deliberately left blank. W D Z W Q U) W 2 U U) Q LO Lfi r w LU F— z LU L) 0 Z W Z O H CD Z X W J LU (1) Q ~¢ ¢ z � o Cl) a a Z C7 d o a U Q d D U F 4 a W W m W r ~ C/) O C) N J W W J Z- Q C) O Q Es wm U r 9 Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 This page deliberately left blank. W Z) Z W Q H H W U) 2 U Q U) U) Q LO LO T w LU F— z LU L) 0 Z W Z O H CD Z X W J W L m W r VJ J W N W J r W - o- n C) O Q E� wm U U) g e 9 a c� O Ir a ° Q� z Q > O < Q I J Z CD CL U Q d U) U F —1 F W L m W r VJ J W N W J r W - o- n C) O Q E� wm U U) g e 9 Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 This page deliberately left blank. Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 E. IN -DEPTH INVESTIGATION (WHITE HOUSE) SITE VISIT On February 5th, 2008, the A/E team visited the White House and proceeded to investigate the building. Existing architectural, structural and mechanical systems were observed. PRIOR STUDIES Prior to our field visit, we received a set of electronic files comprising portions of the Feasibility Study for the School Administration Building dated June 2005 and submitted by Handlin, Garrahan, Zachos and Associates. This report summarized existing conditions at the White House and incorporated relatively accurate existing- conditions drawings (with a few significant errors found). During a brief telephone conversation with Mr. Handlin, we were informed that in- depth historical research on the building was also completed; however, Mr. Handlin's research findings were not offered for our review or use. OBSERVED CONDITIONS Since it was acquired by the Town of Lexington, the White House has been renovated and expanded in order to accommodate administrative offices and a maintenance facility. In general, it can be said that the main block of the house has been well- maintained; while it has clearly been modernized, a number of historic features remain. The adjacent ell retains certain historic interior features, such as doors, trim and dado paneling, but their spotty locations interspersed with later alterations and additions results in an scene of diminished architectural integrity. No portion of the house is more disfigured, however, than the link between the main block/ell and the barn /carriage house. Reconstruction of the link massing and exterior shell and connecting it to a renovated carriage barn would be one way to restore the historic appearance of the ensemble. Means of Egress • Constructed as a residence and subsequently enlarged in an ad hoc manner, the White House does not meet egress standards, as presently configured. The second floor of the link has a long, dead -end corridor only 32'/2" wide and steep staircases leading up and down. Exterior Architectural • Historic photographs indicate that house achieved its essential "look" by the 1880's, including an Italianate porch probably added in the 1860's; the porch was replaced by a wraparound piazza by 1918. The barn and one -story link created a "dooryard" protected from north winds. • Viewing the surviving photographs it can be argued that the main block remained visually anchored by the link and barn /carriage house in spite of changes to the porches. Unfortunately, this harmonious massing was destroyed when the link was reconstructed as a two -story addition. Only the original entrance and adjacent window openings remain from the original link. • Most of the windows in the house are replacements in fair to good condition. At the attic and the carriage barn loft, joinery and muntin profiles observed suggest that these are surviving original artifacts; however they are in poor condition. • Wood roofing shingles survive on the barn /carriage house underneath the over - framed roof of the two -story link. • At the northwest corner of the house, a "sleeping porch" with a deep roof overhang was added. Interior Architectural • Looking at the main block and ell together, one finds a variety of door, window and baseboard molding styles, including Greek Revival, Victorian and later (1930's) treatments. Given the age of the house and the fact that portions of the original residence were converted to a doctor's office and later to municipal offices, it is not surprising to find differences from opening to opening and room to room. • Without a doubt, the main block of the house retains the most architectural integrity. Pedimented door and window trim with backband moldings provide a consistent vocabulary of ornament throughout the front parlors. • Fireplace surrounds in the main block survive in excellent condition and display a variety of styles and materials. • Stamped metal ceilings at the front parlors survive in excellent condition. P:\2811 _lexi ng_senr_ctr \doc \report \In- Depth.doc Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 Painted, horizontal bead -board dados survive in the ell and the link staircases; these paneling remnants provide additional clues to the building chronology but do not tie the house together architecturally. The second -floor sleeping porch and adjacent closets retains varnished "novelty" siding dating to the 1930s. Other than the exterior door, no historic detail was observed in the link. Barn interiors are all modern at the first floor. In the loft above, original framing and sheathing is exposed to view. Structural Our investigation of the existing wood framing members of the main block, ell and barn /carriage house found them identical in dimension and spacing, suggesting that these components are original and all constructed ca. 1847. The narrow one -story link (widened and expanded to two stories later) appears to have been constructed not long after; however, it is unlikely that much of the link framing remains above the deteriorated sills. The curious double foundation wall below the northwest corner of the house, adjacent to the original ell, suggests that an original shed was subsequently enlarged. This enlargement included the second -floor sleeping porch, later enclosed with windows. The barn /carriage house has an interesting timber framing system incorporating iron tie rods. Refer to attached letter prepared by Structures North for preliminary assessment of structural capacity. Mechanical The existing mechanical systems do not meet current code requirements in many areas (e.g., inadequate combustion air volume for gas -fired boiler and duct furnace, outside air achieved by operable windows only). Most all existing systems are at or near the end of their service life expectancy. Plumbing Residential fixtures throughout. A modern unisex restroom with accessible fixtures is situated in the link building, which itself remains technically inaccessible due to a narrow door and non - compliant ramp leading from the former garage. Fire Protection No sprinkler system. Electrical The 120/208 volt service incorporates two 200 -amp mains, with 126 -pole circuit breaker panels located in the basement. The existing electrical service would be completely inadequate for a full Senior Center program. Emergency lighting units (EBU) at the first floor appear to be operable, but the second floor has no EBU's. Fire Alarm The fire alarm is inoperable; refer to the attached report prepared by BJEJR. One horn was located. Heat detectors were observed in each room. Accessibility The first floor of the main block and ell are raised 6 steps (approximately 39 ") above grade. The rear of the ell and the link are situated down three steps from this main floor level. At the second floor, the link is similarly dropped 3 risers. Existing communicating stairs appears to have been worked around existing pantries and /or closets, leaving projecting wall segments. Taken together, the existing conditions result in an facility virtually impossible to retrofit for accessibility. Incorporating portions of the White House into a new Senior Center facility would require removing barriers and adjusting floor heights for accessibility and efficient space use. Potential Hazardous Materials Pipe insulation that may contain asbestos was observed in basements and crawl spaces. Vinyl- asbestos floor tile (VAT) was observed in various locations. VAT should be removed in accordance with all applicable regulations, as part of any selective demolition or renovation project affecting these materials. PA2811 _lexi ng_senr_ctr \doc \report \In- Depth.doc Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 HISTORIC CHARACTER 1 •� r Irl OF FIT-1 � �e i ., ,, :E (ll I� '.z lilllli 11 1111 _ as Lexington HiGtof %cal Society White House ( "Dr. Barnes' House "), ca. 1918. Note wraparound porch at main block. Entrance to one -story link (beyond) and flanking windows survive to the present time, even though the rest of the link was obliterated by later additions. January 2008 view indicates how loss of porch, enlargement of link and inappropriate foundation plantings have altered the original proportions. Nonetheless, the massing and many details of the main block survive. P:\2811— lexing— senr— ctr \doc \report \In- Depth.doc 3 Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 Portions of the model shaded in blue indicate components believed to be original (ca. 1847) construction. CHARACTER - DEFINING FEATURES Identifying Character - Defining Features The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation define "character- defining features" as follows: 'architectural materials and features that are important in defining the historic character of a building are generally recommended for retention and preservation. Alteration or removal is apt to cause diminution or loss of the building's historic character Repair, rather than replacement, of existing character - defining features is recommended. " Evaluation criteria include craftsmanship, historic and /or architectural significance, potential for public accessibility, visual prominence and integrity of setting, design and materials. PRESERVATION PRIORITIES This section sets forth a categorized list of preservation priorities for the White House: High Priority items must be preserved and typically require a strict conservation /preservation approach toward repairs. Medium Priority items are character - defining features that shouldbe preserved if possible but, if deteriorated, may be replaced in -kind with retention of character and detailing. Low Priority items are those which possess little or no significant character - defining features. They may be preserved, altered, or removed, provided that such action has no physical or visual effect on High or Medium Priority items. PA2811 _lexi ng_senr_ctr \doc \report \In- Depth.doc Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 High Preservation Priority: (Must be preserved.) • Exterior of main block and ell, including paired chimneys and roof shapes. • Early beveled (clapboard) siding, pilasters and cornices at main block. • Exterior chimneys. • Original window configurations (e.g., 6/6 true divided -light sash) at main block and ell, including Greek - Revival beveled - profile exterior casings and trim. • Two (presumed) original windows (may be removed and preserved offsite as curatorial artifacts). • Original entrance at east side of main block. Medium Preservation Priority: (Should be preserved; can be replaced in -kind if necessary. If removed, should be properly documented first) • Connected Massing: Relationship of original (ca. 1847) "big house" and ell to original (ca. 1847) barn /carriage house. Consider reconstruction of one -story link. • Original entrance to one -story link, including door, sidelights and trim. • Main stair at main block, including railings. • Interior fireplaces and mantles, at main block. • Stamped metal ceilings at front parlors. • 19th- century recessed -panel doors throughout, including porcelain knob hardware. • Later 6/6 double -hung windows (main block). • Dressed granite foundation walls (main block). • Early timber framing /joinery (main block). • Wood shutters (main block). • Early timber framing /joinery (barn /carriage house). Low Preservation Priority: (Little or no contribution; may be altered or removed.) • Asphalt- shingle roofing, throughout. • Two -story link, including walls, roofs, dormers, and windows. • Shed roof "hat" added to ell north of main block. • Modern stoops and railings. • Altered and truncated window sills and modern casings. • 1/1 and other twentieth- century double -hung and fixed windows. • Northwest "sleeping porch" and other 1930's alterations. • Rubble foundation walls (should be documented prior to removal) P:\2811 _lexi ng_senr_ctr \doc \report \In- Depth.doc Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 REDEVELOPMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Massing: The simplified "big- house, little house, back house, barn" configuration should be retained and restored, if possible, whether or not the complex is moved on the site, in order to preserve and enhance the historically residential character of the building and the block. Floor Alignment: The floor -to -floor dimension (approximately 9' -8 ") between the first and second floors of the main block and is too small for Senior Center use, due to the need to accommodate various modern structural, mechanical and electrical systems. However, if this section were retained as, say, administrative office space and appended to a new two -story Senior Center building with its first floor approximately at existing grade, the floor -to- floor height for the balance of the new facility would be a marginally acceptable 11' -9 ". Alternatives include isolating the second floor of the preserved section from the rest of the new complex (which might require installation of a redundant egress system) or gutting the main block of the house to create a new double- height hall or atrium. PA2811 _lexi ng_senr_ctr \doc \report \In- Depth.doc Structures North �1101M] S�Washington , aahes Massachusetts 7 Salem, Massachusetts 019d0-351d P.O. Box, 01971 -5560 T 978.745.6817 1 F 978.745.6767 www.structures-north.com Structural Assessment Report Lexington Senior Center, Lexington, Massachusetts February 28, 2008 Prepared for: Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc. Prepared by: Elizabeth Acly, PE Introduction On February 5, 2008, we visited the White House (proposed home of the Lexington Senior Center) on Massachusetts Avenue in Lexington, Massachusetts to perform a structural assessment of the building in conjunction with BH +A. Our team has been charged with performing a study to examine the existing building and assess space use options and their relative feasibility. The following is a summary of our findings. Please note that the scope of our investigation was to complete an overall assessment of the structure to determine general loading capacities and significant deficiencies. A more comprehensive investigation will be required for future renovation projects. For the purposes of this report, Massachusetts Avenue is assumed to run east -west and the front elevation facing Mass Ave. shall be considered "south ". General Description The building, referred to as the White House, is a rambling procession of connected two -story gable roofed structures built over the years beginning with the ca. 1845 Greek Revival residential structure in the south -west corner. Nineteenth century additions include the ell behind the original house, the carriage house to the east and a single story shed -type building connecting the house to the west with the carriage house to the east. A 1916 renovation campaign included the construction of an addition in the northwest corner and was undertaken when the building was purchased by a doctor to be used for his practice. The town assumed use of the White House for town office uses in the 1930s, after which the connector was extended to north and a 2nd story added. The original structure and each subsequent generation of additions were framed in wood with details and construction style typical of the era in which it was built. Design Considerations and Loading Capacity Evaluation We performed a general assessment of the structure with respect to the overall capacity of the framing and have the following comments and recommendations. We based our code analysis on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Building Code, Sixth Edition. Structures North February 28, 2008 Lexington Senior Center Lexington, MA Floor Framing: The historical and current uses of the building are residential and office requiring the framing to carry a code - prescribed live loads of 40 and 50 psf respectively. Public rooms require a 100 psf carrying capacity. A rough check of the framing in the nineteenth century portions of the 1St floor indicates that it has the capacity to support a range of 33 to 47 psf live load. These capacities indicate that the framing is generally moderately overstressed if the floor plan remains the same and the use of the space is not significantly changed. By limiting total occupancies within the rooms, better defining species of framing and grandfathering the structure where it has performed well under similar loads, it is likely that reinforcement can be limited to a few localized areas that we identified as particularly weak. If there are changes to the floor plan and /or use then the joists and beams will need to be more significantly reinforced. Although outside the scope of this project, a future design phase should include miscroscopic identification of the wood species to better determine an allowable stress for the framing. The above loads are calculated from the 1st floor framing plan but it is reasonable to assume that the 2nd is similar. Roof Framing: We performed a structural analysis of the existing rafter framing to identify relative load capacities and any significant deficiencies. We found that rafters are slightly undersized for full code - prescribed snow loads but appear to have performed well. The significance of this finding is that the roof framing can be considered adequate if loadings are unchanged. Insulating roof and attic spaces would likely result in an increase in snow load, which would likely necessitate the reinforcement of rafters. Noted Conditions and Recommendations We performed a visual conditions assessment of the structure and have the following comments and recommendations. Foundations and Sills: We noted some deteriorated sill and joist framing through a void in the foundation wall where the south -west corner of the connector building butts against the main building. We also noted that the grade is high relative to the lowered sills in many locations along the connector building and carriage house. We noted some crushing of the lower clapboards along the east wall of the carriage house indicating sill deterioration. It is likely that a good portion of the sills in the connector and carriage house are deteriorated and will need to be replaced along with repairing any deteriorating joist ends. Consideration should be given to either lowering the grade or raising the building in these areas. Loose masonry foundation walls should be repaired. Conclusion The condition of the structure is generally very good. Attention paid to sill and foundation repairs, weather - proofing and storm water management will ensure this historic building many more years of useful life. Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 F. COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS AND SYSTEM UPGRADES RECOMMENDATIONS (MUZZEY SENIOR CENTER) SITE VISIT On February 5th, 2008, the A/E team visited the Muzzey Senior Center. We were met by Greg, a representative of Regal Management Company, who walked us through the two -level Senior Center and also brought us into the Muzzey High Apartments side, where we toured the basement mechanical room and elevator machine room and then proceeded up to the top floor and roof. From across the atrium and from the roof, we observed components of the atrium ventilation system and rooftop HVAC systems. PRIOR STUDIES Subsequent to our field visit, we received draft copies of a comprehensive study prepared for the Muzzey Apartments by TBA Architects, Inc. ( "TBA "). The TBA study involved detailed review of renovation drawings, consultations with staff, Trustees and residents and numerous site visits and, as such, incorporates a number of findings and recommendations for the entire complex. In this context, our observations will focus only on compliance issues affecting the existing Senior Center. OBSERVED CONDITIONS Means of Egress The fire exit leading from the basement level program area (the lowest level of the atrium) is furnished with knob rather than panic hardware. The communicating stairs connecting the first -floor reception and administrative areas with the basement program areas do not meet present dimensional requirements. Stair tread depths are less than 11" and riser heights exceed 7 ". Regarding dimensional uniformity requirements, the tolerance between the largest and smallest riser shall not exceed 3/8" in any flight of stairs; however, existing risers were observed to vary between 7'/4" and 7 %'. Egress corridors were observed to contain stored supplies and paraphernalia. The rear areaway contains unenclosed a/c condensing units. MPrhaniral Atrium Smoke Exhaust: The atrium exhaust system dates to the 1984 renovation and is tested annually, according to the TBA report. The exhaust system should be connected to a standby power source (e.g., emergency generator system). Make -Up Air Unit: This gas -fired unit and its companion DX refrigerant cooling coil and air - cooled condensing unit are reported to operate satisfactorily, per the TBA report. No duct smoke detectors were observed at ductwork related to the rooftop unit. Plumbing No Senior Center janitor's closet was found; mops and cleaning supplies stored in the Men's Room were observed to encroach on the restroom circulation space. The restrooms off the Dining Room and Kitchen serve the first -floor level but are not wheelchair - accessible. Fire Protection The existing Muzzey Apartments sprinkler system does not offer complete coverage. At the Senior Center, there is no sprinkler coverage, other than portions of the atrium. In general, corridors have smoke detectors, and rooms have heat detectors. deficiency is most glaring in certain egress paths. P:\2811 _lexing_sen r_ctr \doc \report\Muzzey.doc Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 Electrical Per the TBA report, the existing Muzzey building electrical service is 120/208 volts, three - phase, rated at 2,800 amps. Existing service to the Senior Center is 120/208 volts, three - phase, with power distributed via the building's main electric switchboard, located in the basement. The common space is served from house panels elsewhere in the building. An emergency generator was not installed at the complex. Kitchen electrical outlets do not have the ground fault circuit interrupters (GFI) now required by code. Emergency lighting is provided by battery units, where it has been installed. However, emergency lighting is missing from the communicating stair, recreation areas (e.g., pool table), kitchen and restrooms and, most glaringly, from egress passageways. Exits appear well-marked. Fire Alarm As noted in the TBA report, the building fire alarm control panel (FACP) and other components of the system are old and do not meet current NFPA guidelines. The system should be replaced with new, fully addressable equipment. Existing fire alarm notification devices are not ADA- compliant, with respect to audio /visual signals. Meeting rooms and classrooms do not have strobe alarm devices. Room occupancy at these rooms is listed as 49 (tables and chairs), i.e., less than 50. Accessibility See fire alarm section regarding comments on fire alarm devices. The basement -level accessible restrooms include lavatory counters (e.g., 26'/2" knee space less than required 29" requirement) and grab bars that do not comply with current Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (MAAB) regulations. In addition, a paper -towel dispenser appears to project into the volume above the required clear floor space providing access to the sink. At the communicating (bullnose) stair, handrails are not continuous. Floor space under the bullnose stair is not furnished with guards for people with visual disabilities, even though the stair landing assembly results in headroom well below 80" above the floor. A counter and sink furnished in one of the classrooms is not accessible because it is 1) in a base cabinet without access space and is 2) installed approximately 36'/2" above the finished floor, exceeding current MAAB and ADA requirements for side reach over an obstruction (34" per 521 CMR 6.6; AFDAAG 804.3.2). PA2811 _lexing_sen r_ctr \doc \report\Muzzey.doc LL 0 (/1 W a� LL L O WW U) r C� (n 0 0 N LU J W J Z W z w W W Vz W W LL U w 20 Q Zz W W U) �U) o >- 00 Zw L Q N J N w G J Zz z — W U) W W x U) Jw m H Z D LJ r Z w 0 U) W w ❑ V/ W a Z 0 0 El N m N a 0 e� N O m m 0 i E ! e m m Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 This page deliberately left blank. Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 N G. PROJECT COST ESTIMATES Outline Specifications for Proposed Senior Center White House Site, 1557 Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington DIVISION 1: GENERAL CONDITIONS A. General Contractor Responsibilities B. Owner Responsibilities C. Protections 1. Historic treatment procedures: protect Main Block of house and Barn /Carriage House 2. Temporary shoring at rear of Main Block after ell removed D. Cutting and patching DIVISION 2: SITEWORK A. Site Safety B. General Site Prep 1. Selective Structure Demolition: two -story ell and link, barn /carriage house slab on grade 2. Tree protection and trimming 3. Special Considerations: relocate Main Block of house and Barn /Carriage House to new locations on site DIVISION 3: CONCRETE A. Foundations (frost -type) B. Slabs 1. Interior on grade 2. Interior on deck 3. Exterior at grade (stoops) C. Miscellaneous DIVISION 4: MASONRY A. Exterior wall construction (load- bearing CMU) B. Interior wall construction (CMU at elevator and stairwells) C. Stone cladding: salvage and reinstall granite facing at relocated Main Block DIVISION 5: STEEL A. Structural steel framing B. Steel joist framing C. Steel decking D. Metal fabrications E. Metal stairs F. Pipe and tube railings DIVISION 6: CARPENTRY A. Rough 1. Reinforcement of Main Block floors and roof 2. Alterations to timber -frame Barn /Carriage House 3. Blocking as required P:\2811 _I exi ng_sen r_ctr \doc \report \Proj - Cost- Est.doc Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 B. Finish /Woodwork 1. Interior shelving, window ledges, dadoes, countertops, reception desk, etc. 2. Main Block exterior: repair /replacement of siding /trim as needed 3. Barn /Carriage House: replace all siding /trim 4. Exterior wood /cement composite clapboard siding, trim, fascia and soffits 5. Exterior porch columns and trim at Main Block and at new construction 6. Louver shutters at Main Block of house DIVISION 7: THERMAL AND MOISTURE A. Waterproofing B. Insulation 1. Rigid insulation under slab and at foundation 2. Batt insulation with vapor barrier at roof truss bottom chords 3. Rigid insulation at clapboard wall system on CMU 4. Blown -in insulation at Main Block 5. Rigid insulation at perimeter of relocated Barn /Carriage House C. Asphalt shingle roofing, typical (architectural, 40 -year) D. EPDM roofing at flat -roof areas, incl. accessories E. Standing -seam metal roofing at porches (anodized aluminum, standard color) F. Gutters and downspouts (anodized aluminum, standard color) G. Sheet metal flashing and trim H. Self- adhering sheet waterproofing I. Sealants throughout DIVISION 8: OPENINGS A. HM frame, flush wood doors and hardware B. Automatic door opener at main entrance C. Fixed -in -place replica carriage -house doors at Barn /Carriage House D. Windows at new construction (white, metal -clad wood; low E glass) E. Windows at Main Block of house (wood, IG) F. Glazed aluminum curtain walls at multi - purpose rooms G. Interior glazing at transoms, sidelights, etc. H. Louver and vents DIVISION 9: FINISHES A. Non - structural metal framing B. Gypsum board C. Acoustical tile ceilings D. Flooring and wall finishes 1. Carpet with rubber base at administrative office suite, classrooms, activity rooms, Window Pane Shop, Muzzey Room, common areas, etc. 2. Vinyl -strip flooring with rubber base at multi - purpose rooms 3. Wood with wood base at Fitness Room 4. Ceramic tile at restrooms 5. Hardened /sealed concrete at machine rooms, boiler, storage 6. Resilient tile flooring (raised disc) at Kitchen 7. Rubber treads /risers /landings at stairwells 8. Recessed aluminum grid entry mats E. Interior and exterior painting PA2811 _Iexi ng_senr_ctr \doc \report \Proj - Cost- Est.doc Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 DIVISION 10: ACCESSORIES A. Allowances for tackboards, display case B. Toilet accessories C. Toilet compartments D. Signage E. Fire extinguishers and cabinets F. Accordion folding partitions (2) DIVISION 11: EQUIPMENT A. Projection screens B. Foodservice equipment DIVISION 12: FURNISHINGS A. Allowance for window treatments throughout B. Site furnishings: bike rack, benches, low -level lighting, waste receptacles DIVISION 14: CONVEYING EQUIPMENT A. 2500# passenger elevator, single door, two stops DIVISION 21: FIRE SUPPRESSION A. Adequate Town water supply and pressure assumed B. Automatic sprinkler system throughout (wet system) DIVISION 22: PLUMBING A. Commercial -grade VC fixtures B. Wall -mount WCs and urinals with chair carriers C. Drinking fountain, chilled water D. Floor drains at restrooms, boiler E. Elevator sump pit F. Exterior frost -proof hose bibs G. Point -of -use heaters for domestic HW at restrooms H. Janitor floor sinks DIVISION 23: HVAC A. Basic mechanical, etc. B. Package HVAC units, gas -fired C. Split- system AC at Main Block of house D. Commercial kitchen hoods DIVISION 26: ELECTRICAL A. Basic electrical, etc. B. Power C. Lighting D. Generator system allowance E. Intrusion detection F. Lighting controls at multi - purpose rooms DIVISION 27: COMMUNICATIONS A. Voice and data communication cabling B. Backbone and horizontal cabling P:\2811 _I exi ng_sen r_ctr \doc \report \Proj - Cost- Est.doc N Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 DIVISION 31: EARTHWORK A. Site clearing B. Earth moving; excavation support/protection C. Special considerations: backfill existing basement of Main Block and ell and link crawl space DIVISION 32: EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS A. Asphalt paving B. Concrete paving, incl. joint sealants C. Unit paving D. Turf and grasses E. Plants DIVISION 33: UTILITIES A. Piped utilities B. Water distribution piping C. Sanitary sewers D. Subdrainage E. Storm utility drainage piping PA2811 _Iexi ng_senr_ctr \doc \report \Proj - Cost- Est.doc Lexington Senior Center Feasibility Study SCENARIO A ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 1$11,926,4 90 ITEM # DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST EXTENSION SUBTOTALS Construction 1.0 Construction Costs (Total Estimated Cost of Construction, today's $) $10,445,490 Architect/Engineers LS 1 $25,000 $25,000 2.0 Architect Basic Services 4.1 FF &E 1 $25,000 $25,000 $650,000 Contract Amount LS 1 $650,000 $650,000 2.1 A/E Additional Services $80,000 1 $25,000 $177,500 Hazmat Consultant LS 1 $7,500 $7,500 Kitchen Designer LS 1 $15,000 $15,000 LEED" process for PD /SD /DD /CD /CA LS 1 $100,000 $100,000 LEEDS Energy Modeling LS 1 $30,000 $30,000 Professional Cost Estimate LS 1 $25,000 $25,000 2.3 Architect Reimbursables 1 $20,000 $20,000 $30,000 General Expenses LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 Pre - Qualification LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 Bid Document Printing LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 Bid Advertisements LS 1 $0 FF &E and Technoloqv 4.0 Design FF &E LS 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 4.1 FF &E 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 6.2 Insurance and Legal Legal Fees Builders Risk Insurance $250,000 Kitchen & Vending Equipment LS 1 $80,000 $80,000 1 $25,000 Fitness Equipment LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 $2,000 All other FF &E LS 1 $150,000 $150,000 $10,500 4.2 Design Technology LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 4.3 Technology LS 1 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Support Services 5.0 Structural Peer Review LS 1 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 5.1 Materials Testing Services 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 6.2 Insurance and Legal Legal Fees Builders Risk Insurance $15,000 Concrete, Steel, etc. LS 1 $7,500 $7,500 1 $25,000 Environmental Monitoring LS 1 $7,500 $7,500 $2,000 5.2 Geotechnical Services, etc. allow 1 $35,000 $35,000 $10,500 Soils Report/Borings LS 1 $10,000 $10,000 Water Flow /Pressure Test LS 1 $500 $500 5.3 Surveying LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 5.4 Moving allow 1 $17,500 $17,500 5.5 LEWD Commissioning (fundamental) LS 1 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Administrative 6.0 Permits allow 1 $2,500 $2,500 6.1 Bond Underwriting LS 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 6.2 Insurance and Legal Legal Fees Builders Risk Insurance LS LS 1 $10,000 $10,000 1 $30,000 $30,000 $40,000 6.3 Utility Company Charges allow 1 $25,000 $25,000 6.4 Administrative Costs allow 1 $2,000 $2,000 6.5 Clerk -of- the -Works allow 1 $35,000 $35,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (TODAY'S $) SCENARIO A FLOOR AREA COST PER SQUARE FOOT: ESCALATION TO MIDPOINT OF CONSTRUCTION (ASSUMED 3Q,2010) $11,926,490 27,000 SF $441.72 /SF 18.97% $14,188,945 est- total -proj- cast- Scenados- A- B- C- 061008.xls Bargmann Hendrie +Archetype, Inc. Lexington Senior Center Feasibility Study SCENARIO B ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 1$10,185,5 75 ITEM # DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST EXTENSION SUBTOTALS Construction 1.0 Construction Costs (Total Estimated Cost of Construction, today's $) $8,704,575 Architect/Engineers LS 1 $25,000 $25,000 2.0 Architect Basic Services 4.1 FF &E 1 $25,000 $25,000 $650,000 Contract Amount LS 1 $650,000 $650,000 2.1 A/E Additional Services $80,000 1 $25,000 $177,500 Hazmat Consultant LS 1 $7,500 $7,500 Kitchen Designer LS 1 $15,000 $15,000 LEED" process for PD /SD /DD /CD /CA LS 1 $100,000 $100,000 LEEDS Energy Modeling LS 1 $30,000 $30,000 Professional Cost Estimate LS 1 $25,000 $25,000 2.3 Architect Reimbursables 1 $20,000 $20,000 $30,000 General Expenses LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 Pre - Qualification LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 Bid Document Printing LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 Bid Advertisements LS 1 $0 FF &E and Technoloqv 4.0 Design FF &E LS 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 4.1 FF &E 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 6.2 Insurance and Legal Legal Fees Builders Risk Insurance $250,000 Kitchen & Vending Equipment LS 1 $80,000 $80,000 1 $25,000 Fitness Equipment LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 $2,000 All other FF &E LS 1 $150,000 $150,000 $10,500 4.2 Design Technology LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 4.3 Technology LS 1 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Support Services 5.0 Structural Peer Review LS 1 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 5.1 Materials Testing Services 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 6.2 Insurance and Legal Legal Fees Builders Risk Insurance $15,000 Concrete, Steel, etc. LS 1 $7,500 $7,500 1 $25,000 Environmental Monitoring LS 1 $7,500 $7,500 $2,000 5.2 Geotechnical Services, etc. allow 1 $35,000 $35,000 $10,500 Soils Report/Borings LS 1 $10,000 $10,000 Water Flow /Pressure Test LS 1 $500 $500 5.3 Surveying LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 5.4 Moving allow 1 $17,500 $17,500 5.5 LEWD Commissioning (fundamental) LS 1 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Administrative 6.0 Permits allow 1 $2,500 $2,500 6.1 Bond Underwriting LS 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 6.2 Insurance and Legal Legal Fees Builders Risk Insurance LS LS 1 $10,000 $10,000 1 $30,000 $30,000 $40,000 6.3 Utility Company Charges allow 1 $25,000 $25,000 6.4 Administrative Costs allow 1 $2,000 $2,000 6.5 Clerk -of- the -Works allow 1 $35,000 $35,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (TODAY'S $) $10,185,575 SCENARIO B FLOOR AREA 22,500 SF COST PER SQUARE FOOT: $452.69 /SF ESCALATION TO MID -POINT OF CONSTRUCTION (ASSUMED 3Q,2010) 18.97% $12,117,779 est- total -proj- cast- Scenados- A- B- C- 061008.xls Bargmann Hendrie +Archetype, Inc. Lexington Senior Center Feasibility Study SCENARIO C ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 1$12,313,3 60 ITEM # DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST EXTENSION SUBTOTALS Construction 1.0 Construction Costs (Total Estimated Cost of Construction, today's $) $10,832,360 Architect/Engineers LS 1 $25,000 $25,000 2.0 Architect Basic Services 4.1 FF &E 1 $25,000 $25,000 $650,000 Contract Amount LS 1 $650,000 $650,000 2.1 A/E Additional Services $80,000 1 $25,000 $177,500 Hazmat Consultant LS 1 $7,500 $7,500 Kitchen Designer LS 1 $15,000 $15,000 LEED" process for PD /SD /DD /CD /CA LS 1 $100,000 $100,000 LEEDS Energy Modeling LS 1 $30,000 $30,000 Professional Cost Estimate LS 1 $25,000 $25,000 2.3 Architect Reimbursables 1 $20,000 $20,000 $30,000 General Expenses LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 Pre - Qualification LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 Bid Document Printing LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 Bid Advertisements LS 1 $0 FF &E and Technoloqv 4.0 Design FF &E LS 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 4.1 FF &E 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 6.2 Insurance and Legal Legal Fees Builders Risk Insurance $250,000 Kitchen & Vending Equipment LS 1 $80,000 $80,000 1 $25,000 Fitness Equipment LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 $2,000 All other FF &E LS 1 $150,000 $150,000 $10,500 4.2 Design Technology LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 4.3 Technology LS 1 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Support Services 5.0 Structural Peer Review LS 1 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 5.1 Materials Testing Services 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 6.2 Insurance and Legal Legal Fees Builders Risk Insurance $15,000 Concrete, Steel, etc. LS 1 $7,500 $7,500 1 $25,000 Environmental Monitoring LS 1 $7,500 $7,500 $2,000 5.2 Geotechnical Services, etc. allow 1 $35,000 $35,000 $10,500 Soils Report/Borings LS 1 $10,000 $10,000 Water Flow /Pressure Test LS 1 $500 $500 5.3 Surveying LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 5.4 Moving allow 1 $17,500 $17,500 5.5 LEWD Commissioning (fundamental) LS 1 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Administrative 6.0 Permits allow 1 $2,500 $2,500 6.1 Bond Underwriting LS 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 6.2 Insurance and Legal Legal Fees Builders Risk Insurance LS LS 1 $10,000 $10,000 1 $30,000 $30,000 $40,000 6.3 Utility Company Charges allow 1 $25,000 $25,000 6.4 Administrative Costs allow 1 $2,000 $2,000 6.5 Clerk -of- the -Works allow 1 $35,000 $35,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (TODAY'S $) $12,313,360 SCENARIO C FLOOR AREA 28,000 SF COST PER SQUARE FOOT: $439.76 /SF ESCALATION TO MIDPOINT OF CONSTRUCTION (ASSUMED 3Q,2010) 18.97% $14,649,204 est- total -proj- cast- Scenados- A- B- C- 061008.xls Bargmann Hendrie +Archetype, Inc. Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 This page deliberately left blank. OM Lexington Senior Center Lexington, MA Conceptual Cost Estimate Update #1 Prepared for: - bh+a Boston, MA Prepared by:- D G Jones International, Inc. 3 Baldwin Green Common, Suite 202, Woburn, MA 01801 -1868 email : boston@dgjonesboston.com Tel: 781 - 932 -3131 Fax: 781 - 932 -3199 June 10, 2008 Lexington Senior Center, Lexington, MA Conceptual Cost Estimate, Update #1 - Contents Contents Page Summary 1 Notes 2 Graph 4 General Requirements 5 Gross Floor Areas 6 June 10, 2008 nlee /nathanprojects /2008 -020 Lexington SC, Update #1, June 08 Page (i) d g jones international inc Lexington Senior Center, Lexington, MA Conceptual Cost Estimate, Update #1 - Summary GROSS FLOOR AREA (in square feet) Element Name Interior Demolition /Alteration Substructure Superstructure Stairs Roof Finish Exterior Walls Exterior Windows & Doors Interior Walls Interior Windows & Doors Finishes Specialties Equipment Furnishings Special Construction Conveying Plumbing Fire Protection HVAC Electrical Sub -Total Building Site Work /Site Utilities Sub -Total Construction General Requirements Design Contingency Construction Contingency Total Construction Cost (excluding Escalation) Escalation to mid point of construction (3Q2010) Total Construction Cost (including Escalation) 25.00% 10.00% 18.97% June 10, 2008 22,500 Cost /sf % of Bldg 20,000 0.89 0.41% 214,552 9.54 4.41% 804,476 35.75 16.55% 36,000 1.60 0.74% 224,907 10.00 4.63% 578,267 25.70 11.90% 291,600 12.96 6.00% 180,000 8.00 3.70% 112,500 5.00 2.31% 360,000 16.00 7.41% 56,250 2.50 1.16% 141,200 6.28 2.91% 112,500 5.00 2.31% 50,650 2.25 1.04% 105,000 4.67 2.16% 171,375 7.62 3.53% 95,625 4.25 1.97% 855,000 38.00 17.59% 450,000 20.00 9.26% 4,859,902 216.00 100.00% 492,181 21.87 5,352,083 237.87 978,517 43.49 1,582,650 70.34 791,325 35.17 8,704,575 386.87 1,501,144 66.72 10,205,719 453.59 nlee /projects /2008 -020 Lexington SC, Update #1, June 08 Page 1 d g jones international inc Lexington Senior Center, Lexington, MA Conceptual Cost Estimate, Update #1 - Notes Notes June 10, 2008 1. Brief project description:- - New two story Senior Center Building with 2# relocated buildings & associated MEP & Site Work /Site Utilities. 2. The estimate is based on the following:- - Prevailing wage. - Competitive bid to pre - selected contractors. - General contractor type project. - Receipt of 5# bona fide bids. - 10 month construction period. 3. The gross floor area is based on the following:- - Measurement is taken to the outside face of the exterior wall. - Voids are deleted. 4. Story heights:- - Varies. 5. General Requirements for these project are listed and priced later in this document. 6. Special Conditions for this project are included with General Requirements. 7. Escalation to mid point of construction at 3Q2010 is allowed @ 8% /annum compounded. 8. Design contingency is an allowance for future design modifications /additions, which alter the cost of the building as the design progresses, this percentage reduces as the design develops. It is based on a percentage of the sum of Sub -Total Construction, General Requirements, Special Conditions and Escalation. For this level of estimate the following has been included:- - 25.00% 9. Construction contingency is an allowance for scope /design modifications made by the owner during construction and also for any unforeseen circumstances. It is based on a percentage of the sum of Sub -Total Construction, General Requirements, Special Conditions, Escalation and Estimating Contingency. The following has been included:- - 10.00% 10. This estimate has been prepared from the following design information:- - Plan drawings received May 7 2008 - Two emails both dated June 09, 2008. - Telephone conversations with bh +a. nlee \projects \2008 -020 Lexington SC, Update #1, June 08 Page 2 d g jones international inc Lexington Senior Center, Lexington, MA Conceptual Cost Estimate, Update #1 - Notes Notes (Cont'd) 11. The Estimate excludes the following:- - Utility company backcharges. - Building permit fees. - Sales tax. - Design consultant's fees. - Asbestos abatement/hazardous waste removal. - Loose furniture, fittings and equipment. - Fixed furniture, fittings and equipment except as listed in the Estimate. - Rock removal. - Water removal. - Window treatment. - Generator. - Telephones. - Complete audiovisual. - Cameras, monitors, videos etc. 12. The Estimate includes the following:- - See Estimate. 13. Allowances:- - See Estimate. 14. Estimates by other firms:- - None. 15. Assumptions:- - See Estimate. June 10, 2008 nlee \projects \2008 -020 Lexington SC, Update #1, June 08 Page 3 d g jones international inc 00 O O N O a� c W L CL 0 U s M R Q0 c 0 y � R c M d J � d � C E y U N w L r O (n O U c 0 Q. � d C v J 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 (O 't C\ O 00 (O V N 60- v) (oI,oZO£) uogow;suoo jo;ulod plw o; uol ;eleos3 (oual5upoo uopni;suoO (ouebul;uo0 ubisea s;uawannba�j lejauaE) sawmn an /NioM en leou;oal3 OVAH uol;oa ;ad aJld bulgwnld bul (anuo0 uopni;suoO leloads sbulgslwnd ;uawdmb3 sal;leloads sagsluld snood �R smopuM Joua;uI spellJoua;uI snood V smopuM ioua ;x3 shell Joua ;x3 sj1els ain;ow;siadns ain;oni;sgng uogeja;ly /uogllowa(] Joua;ul O N E N W U C (0 C 0 E a� c N a� c .o 0) v a� m ra U O cb O Lexington Senior Center, Lexington, MA Conceptual Cost Estimate, Update #1 - General Requirements June 10, 2008 Description Qty % of Time Allocated Unit Rate Amount General Requirements Field personnel Field personnel:- - project manager 21.67 50% week 3,250.00 70,417 - project superintendent 43.33 100% week 2,850.00 123,500 - field engineer 39.00 90% week 2,650.00 103,350 - MEP coordinator 39.00 90% week 2,600.00 101,400 - laborer 43.33 100% week 2,450.00 106,167 Main office staff 33.00 75% week 2,550.00 84,150 Insurance & Bond Cost Insurances (includes):- 1 Is 168,800.00 168,800 - builders risk - general liability - vehicle liability - pollution liability - workers compensation Included in Labor - umbrella coverage Performance bond. 1 Is 147,700.00 Not Required Temporary Utilities & Services Temporary utilities & Services:- - temporary water & sewer service & distribution 43 week 150.00 6,500 - temporary water consumed 43 week 100.00 4,333 - temporary toilet rental & service 43 week 100.00 4,333 - temporary electricity consumed 43 week 100.00 4,333 - temporary heating system 43 week 100.00 4,333 - temporary heating fuel consumed 43 week 100.00 4,333 - emergency diesel generator fuel consumed 43 week 100.00 4,333 Additional Categories Preparation of progress schedules. 10 mth 1,000.00 10,000 Compilation /preparation of site survey data. 1 Is 7,500.00 7,500 Preparation of shop drawings. 1 Is 5,000.00 5,000 Construction photographs. 10 mth 125.00 1,250 Temporary construction. 43 week 125.00 5,417 Construction aids (safety nets, personnel protection equipment, partial scaffolding, etc) 43 week 250.00 10,833 Barriers and enclosures. 43 week 250.00 10,833 Security. 10 mth 650.00 6,500 Access roads. 43 week 125.00 5,417 Temporary controls. 43 week 125.00 5,417 Project signs. 10 mth 50.00 500 Field offices and sheds 10 mth 750.00 7,500 Field office expenses. 43 week 85.00 3,683 Equipment rental 1 Is 15,000.00 15,000 Snow removal 8 ea 350.00 2,800 Winter protection 1 Is 75,000.00 75,000 Interim cleaning 43 week 175.00 7,583 Final cleaning 1 Is 8,000.00 8,000 General Requirements Total 978,517 nlee /projects/ 2008 -020 Lexington SC, Update #1, June 08 Page 5 d gjones international inc Lexington Senior Center, Lexington, MA Conceptual Cost Estimate, Update #1 - GFA Gross Floor Areas Relocated Buildings Area Perimeter New Building 682 108 Gound Level 10,609 638 Upper Level 9,785 702 Total 20,394 Relocated Buildings Carriage house 682 108 Main house (Ground Level) 709 107 Main house (Upper Level) 715 108 2,106 Height 13.00 13.00 June 10, 2008 nlee /projects /2008 -020 Lexington SC, Update #1, June 08 Page 6 d g jones international inc Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 During the course of the study, the team was asked to endeavor to quantify the impact of saving the historic structures associated with the White House property and incorporating them into a new Senior Center project. The following chart delineates relevant work items in an attempt to set forth an apples -to- apples comparison between all -new construction and new construction with an adaptive -use component. Lexington Senior Center at White House Site IMPACT OF REUSE OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES Approximate combined area of preserved portion of Main House and Barn /Carriage House: 2,106 SF Work Item Estimated 2008 Cost 1 Protect existing structures during construction $3,000 2 Temporary move 2 structures on -site for site preparation $30,000 3 Site preparation atributed to 2 structures $15,000 4 Salvaged stone veneer at new foundation for relocated Main House $20,000 5 Move 2 structures on -site to final location $40,000 6 Structural repair /reinforcement for occupancy $35,000 7 Interior renovation, complete (substructure, specialities, equipment, $175,000 furnishings, fire protection, HVAC, electrical)* 8 Internal lift required for access to raised 1st floor, plus finish details $20,000 9 Special improvements (e.g., compliance alternatives) for egress, fire $25,000 separation, protection of archaic assemblies, etc. 10 Restoration of interior /exterior finishes and details $200,000 General Requirements $85,000 Design Contingency 25% $162,000 Construction Contingency 10% $81,000 Totals $891,000 * Note., Estimated cost is based on D. G. Jones June 2008 Senior Center conceptual estimate, but substructure, fire protection, HVAC and electrical $ /SF figures were increased by 75% ± to reflect cost premium to retrofit existing. Assumed no plumbing Typical 2008 $ /SF IF all -new construction @ $380.00 /SF: $800,280 Premium for reusing historic structures $90,720 As the chart indicates, the preservation component results in only a small increase in cost; the estimated $90,000 premium for repair, restoration and reuse of the historic structures represents about 1% of the estimated construction cost of the project (Scenario B) and could therefore be characterized as a "wash." P:\2811 _I exi ng_sen r_ctr \doc \report \Proj - Cost- Est.doc Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 This page deliberately left blank. Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 H. REPORT CONCLUSIONS The study team concluded that an attractive and efficiently - designed, two -story building is feasible and in conformance with existing zoning (subject to site plan review, special permits and approval by the Lexington HDC). Each of the development options illustrate a careful integration of the historic main house and carriage barn components into a new mixed -use building clad with clapboard siding and capped with traditional sloped roofs. In order to retain the parcel's historic residential scale and to avoid overwhelming the site with new bulk, the proposed building is shaped into narrow wings bent into a C shape to create a small -scale courtyard. The administrative wing is situated to the west, adjacent to the existing Police Station and closer to the Town Offices. The proposed multi - purpose room grouping is of somewhat larger scale and would feature abundant windows facing the Town Conscience Land at the eastern side of the parcel. In each scheme, the main entrance and drop -off area faces a new parking area north of the building, and vehicular access occurs via Fletcher Avenue, rather than busy Mass. Ave. Using the 22,500 square -foot Scenario B as the preferred solution, a conceptual construction and project cost estimate was prepared. Incorporating generous (35 %) design and construction contingency markups requested by the Town, the team estimates the 2008 Scenario B construction cost at just over $8,700,000 ($387/sf). Adding estimated soft costs to this figure results in an estimated 2008 Total Project Cost of $10,185,575 ($453/sf). The actual construction date of a new Senior Center is subject to numerous approvals and yet to be determined but, if an optimistic 2010 construction start is used, escalating the 2008 estimate results in an adjusted, estimated Total Project Cost of about $12.1 million. In consideration of the cost impact of reusing historic components of the White House, the study team estimated the cost premium to restore, relocate and rehabilitate the historic Main Block and the Barn /Carriage House at approximately $90,000, which represents about 1 % of the estimated construction cost. P:\2811_lexing_senr_ctr \doc \report\Conclusion.doc Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 This page deliberately left blank. Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 P:\2811 _lexi ng_sen r_ctr \doc \report\Appendix.doc I. APPENDIX Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 This page deliberately left blank. BARGMANN HENDRIE + ARCHETYPE, INC. Architecture I Planning I Interior Design 300 A Street 617 350 0450 tel Boston, MA 02210 -1710 617 350 0215 fax meeting notes date : January 24, 2008 job name & number: Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study, project no. 2811.00 subject : Presentation of Process Overview to Lexington COA present : Marian Cohen Director, Lexington COA Marilyn Campbell Acting Director, Lexington Social Services Charlotte Rodgers Nurse, Lexington Social Services Dept. Hank Manz Selectmen Liaison Paul Lapointe Lexington COA Jim Goell President, LexSA John Federochko LexSA John Ruffing Various members Lexington COA Joel Bargmann BH +A Jack Glassman BH +A Rich Leonard BH +A by : Rich Leonard distribution : project file ......... . ............... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................... 1 Record Introduction of Personnel 1. Marilyn Campbell, Acting Director 2. Charlotte Rodgers, Nurse- takes position Feb. 7th, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Record Presentation by l3H +A Joel Bargmann gave introduction, Rich Leonard spoke about space needs assessment and gave overview of process. Joel Bargmann then opened the floor to questions and concerns. ........................... ......................... . ...................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Record General Discussion 1. Traffic is a big concern. Both congestion and safety will be important considerations. 2. Paul Lapointe commented that important political considerations will be how the issues of the use of the green space, parking areas, and multi- purpose space are handled. 3. Marian Cohen commented that there has been controversy generated by the choice of a site for a new Senior Center. There is a perception that any time a site becomes available, parties come 'from out of the woodwork' to claim it for their use, and that the COA has gotten pushed out of other sites. PA2811 _lex ing_sen r_ctr \doc\ meeting\ mtg _COAProcessOverview_012408.doc Lexington Senior Center Process Overview Meeting - Lexington COA January 24, 2008 Page 2 ............................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................... 4 Record Transportation Marian Cohen asked BH +A the best way to go about studying transportation to and from the site. Joel Bargmann replied that there are 'alternative transportation consultants' that study things like the viability of operating a van transport to a site, and the best ways to bring the public in by plotting the traffic patterns in town and determining when the peak load is. He cautioned that alt. trans. consultants are very expensive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Record Multiple Uses of Space John Federochko of LexSA commented that there is indecision as to whether Lexington seniors do not want to share the space as a community center for safety and space reasons. Jim Goell commented that it is understood that if sharing the space between different groups brings essential consensus, then it is a good thing. They agreed that they will look for direction in this matter from the Feasibility Study in that they hope it concludes what the largest size building is that can be supported by the site. Jack Glassman attested to the benefit of gaining public support by inviting other uses when necessary. Marian Cohen did stress, however, that the COA desires that the building be a Senior Center only during weekdays. John Federochko echoed this sentiment by saying they get kicked out of Muzzey at 4:30 because of the lease agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Record Key Contacts Joel Bargmann asked who the key contacts are. Paul Lapointe and Marian Cohen replied that it will be important to connect with Carl Valente, the Town Manager, and Capital Expenditures. Karen Simmons heads up Adult Ed. and Recreation and would be helpful. PA2811 _lex ing_sen r_ctr \doc\ meeting\ mtg _COAProcessOverview_012408.doc BARGMANN HENDRIE + ARCHETYPE, INC. Architecture I Planning I Interior Design 300 A Street Boston, MA 02210 -1710 meeting notes 617 350 0450 tel 617 350 0215 fax date : February 7, 2008 job name & number: Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study bh +a project no. 2811.00 subject : Programming of the Senior Center present : Marian Cohen Director, Lexington COA Paul Lapointe Lexington COA Rich Leonard BH +A by : Rich Leonard distribution : project file 1 Record Sharing of Space Marian Cohen reiterated that if the use of space in a new Senior Center by other groups is after hours and helps to gain much - needed political support, then the COA is open to this approach. Paul Lapointe did caution that the incorporation of other voices must be done in a fashion that does not compromise the tight schedule and that this is a Senior Center first and foremost. Rich Leonard stated that the type of space we are providing for COA is inherently useful for other groups if properly designed. .......................... ......................... . ...................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Record Supportive Day Program Rich Leonard gave an update of progress and asked about the Supportive Day Program. Marian Cohen said that it operates via the Social Model. It was agreed that Carolyn Griffith is the best person to speak with about it. Rich Leonard stated that he will be meeting with her and seeing her facility very soon, time TBD. It was also suggested that Jane Pagett, Betty Borghesani, and Jane Trudeaux would be useful resources, as they were on the subcommittee that argued for day services to be brought to Lexington. The COA agreed to provide BH +A with a copy of the report produced for that P: \2811 _lex i ng_sen r_ctr \doc \meeting \mtg_PLand MCProg ramming_020708.doc Lexington Senior Center Feasibility Study Programming Meeting - Senior Center February 7, 2008 Page 2 .. ............................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................... 3 Record Senior Center Program Discussion turned to the program produced as part of the Senior Center Action Plan by a subcommittee of the COA. Rich Leonard asked questions. 1. RL noticed there is no large area for general storage, and that the need for it is high in senior centers. PL and MC concurred that a lot of storage is needed, both for general storage and for program spaces. PL suggested the basement of the White House, but that the space must be easily accessible. MC suggested that the portions of the Muzzey complex can be used for archive storage. 2. RL asked about the meals program. MC stated that the Senior Center recently contracted with a new meals vendor at Youville and that it has been very popular, resulting in increasing numbers. 3. MC and PL stated that the multi - purpose space can be used for a variety of uses that might help gain political consensus, and PL recommended that we look into tying the use into functions at a renovated Cary Hall on weeknights and weekends. 4. MC stated that the allocation of exercise space will be particularly important since that is the type of space the COA and Rec. Dept. have been getting removed from. 5. PL stated that there could be important municipal uses of the spaces on weeknights, such as for ZBA hearings that garner high interest. 6. RL said that one of BH +A's next steps is to diagram the multi - purpose spaces shown on the program and to give an impression of what they can be used for and by how many people. PL and MC agreed that it would be a great visualization tool. PL stated that the COA would have great interest in seeing such a diagram as well. ................................. ......................... . ...................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Record Elmer Bull Fix -It Shop Bob Edwards of the COA then gave RL a tour of the Elmer Bull Fix -It shop in the sub - basement of the Senior Center. BE showed that the room lacks the space necessary for repairing and storing the appliances and furniture that are brought here by the public. There is not enough room for more workers, which results in a waiting list of people who would love to work in the shop but cannot because of space concerns. Other concerns: 1. There is inadequate ventilation, which is bad at times like when someone is soldering. 2. There are only two small storage cabinets for the vast amount of spare parts stored here. 3. There is inadequate space for the desk where the records of the operation are kept. 4. There should be outlets on each bench. 5. The new items brought in have to be kept on a tabletop shared by a worker- too tight. 6. One of the tables should be workbench height for the type of work that is done there. 7. The overflow storage is in the room used for podiatry clinics. P: \2811 _lex i ng_sen r_ctr \doc \meeting \mtg_PLand MCProg ramming_020708.doc Lexington Senior Center Feasibility Study Programming Meeting - Senior Center February 7, 2008 Page 3 8. BE ended by voicing the sentiment that while the Fix -It Shop works on a donation - for - service basis, it makes a considerable deal of revenue for the Senior Center and would do even better if the space was more efficient / inviting. P: \2811 _lex i ng_sen r_ctr \doc \meeting \mtg_PLand MCProg ramming_020708.doc BARGMANN HENDRIE + ARCHETYPE, INC. Architecture I Planning I Interior Design 300 A Street 617 350 0450 tel Boston, MA 02210 -1710 617 350 0215 fax meeting notes date : February 7, 2008 job name & number: Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study, project no. 2811.00 subject : Lexington COA Meeting - Overview of Supportive Day Care Program present : Marian Cohen Director, Lexington COA Marilyn Campbell Acting Director, Lexington Social Services Charlotte Rodgers Nurse, Lexington Social Services Dept. Carolyn Griffith Director, Supportive Day Program Hank Manz Selectmen Liaison Paul Lapointe Lexington COA Jim Goell President, LexSA John Federochko LexSA Various members Lexington COA Rich Leonard BH +A by : Rich Leonard distribution : project file Record Discussion of Supportive Day Program The COA formed a subcommittee to promote knowledge of the program to the COA and to evaluate the finances of the programs, with the ensuing discussion as follows: 1. There has been a decline in client numbers at the program, which is thought to be due to two factors: a) turnover of staff at facilities that refer to the program, so that people being referred might not be hearing about the program, and b) there has been widespread confusion involving the use of transportation services for people who live outside of Lexington. 2. Second item of the two- transportation. Carolyn Griffith stated that she was told to tell prospective clients that the program cannot offer transportation to people from outside of Lexington at the cost at which it is offered to people from Lexington. The alternative is to pay an upcharge that is thought to be prohibitive. There was a discussion revolving around why this policy might be in- place- it was thought that the Selectmen refused to pay the subsidy of the transportation fee paid for Lexington residents (thereby making it affordable) for out -of -town residents. One approach that was suggested is approaching the administrations of other towns to persuade them to also pay the subsidy for their residents. PA2811 _lexi ng_sen r_ctr \doc\ meeting \mtg_COASupportiveDayOvery iew_020708.doc Lexington Senior Center Supportive Day Overview Meeting - Lexington COA February 7, 2008 Page 2 Record Marketing of Supportive Day It was stated that there is no marketing done for the program and that it is referred to as 'Lexington's best kept secret.' There will be an effort to produce and spread the brochure produced by the program, including other potential measures that will be discussed further. PA2811 _lexi ng_sen r_ctr \doc\ meeting \mtg_COASupportiveDayOvery iew_020708.doc BARGMANN HENDRIE + ARCHETYPE, INC. Architecture I Planning I Interior Design 300 A Street 617 350 0450 tel Boston, MA 02210 -1710 617 350 0215 fax meeting notes date : February 8, 2008 job name & number: Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study bh +a project no. 2811.00 subject : Programming of the Senior Center present : Marilyn Campbell Acting Director, Lexington Social Services Charlotte Rodgers Nurse, Lexington Social Services Rich Leonard BH +A by : Rich Leonard distribution : project file 1 Record Tour of the Facility Marilyn Campbell gave Rich Leonard a tour, with the following observations: The meals program serves roughly 20 people per day in -house and delivers another 50 per day, but these numbers are growing since the switch to a new food vendor out of Youville. The van from Youville brings the meals and parks at the curb- a considerable distance away on a walk that is not maintained well in the winter. The delivery must then pass through a fire stair to reach the kitchen. The threshold here is a problem. The meals are brought in both hot and cold and re- packaged for delivery by volunteers or served in the dining room. The re- packaging occurs on a central island that is not large enough, and there is not adequate storage for the hot bags and coolers to maintain temperatures. The passs- through window is not used often as the meals are served 1 -to -1, which the program participants appreciate. The pass- through window is appreciated, however. The finishes and appliances are residential -grade and do not allow for high volume cooking and cleaning. There is no sprinkler system or hood. Two refrigerators and two appliances, and awkward circulation around them. The program coordinator office is very small. The Muzzey Room is used for a variety of functions, including a/v storage since there are not enough closets. The closet in this room is the only large closet in the facility, meaning it is shared by a variety of programs. When the tables and chairs are not used, they are pushed to the edge of the room. This is the only carpeted space- is used for yoga b/c it's not cold tile as elsewhere. The fitness nook is angular, not private yet tucked away, and is not intended for this purpose. The billiard and ping pong tables are kept within the large open space in the PA2811 _lexing_sen r_ctr \doc \meeting \mtg_MCandCRProg ramming_020808.doc Lexington Senior Center Feasibility Study Programming Meeting and Walkthrough - Senior Center February 8, 2008 Page 2 sub - basement at the foot of the stairs. Players must stop often to allow people to circulate between spaces. Also, the ping pong ball ends up everywhere- these are serious players! Also, this big open space blurs into the waiting area for the social worker, which does not afford privacy. Very large classes must be held in this space if the dining hall is being used (often), but it is really a collection of three spaces, so people cannot hear or see instructors at times - disjointed - stair is in middle. Conference Room is too long and narrow, and the sound from the dining hall above is very, very loud and prevents good communication. The medical clinic room and waiting area are in the same room- separated by a screen when needed- so there is no privacy. The room is too large for clinics and does not have the proper equipment. No hair care / beauty clinics are desired. This rooms doubles as the arts & crafts space. The waiting area for tax consultation and computers and overflow waiting for the clinics is in one small space. Is also overflow storage for the library. The computers are tucked into a back corner, yet in the open- seem to be an afterthought. The library is nice. as is the Windowpane Shop. but it's in a remote location. Record Additional comments Marilyn Campbell and Charlotte Rodgers voiced the opinion that weekend programming would be good and has been a success in other communities, because in senior centers couples become singles, and they come here for company and familiarity, and the weekends can be very long when home alone. PA2811 _lexing_sen r_ctr \doc \meeting \mtg_MCandCRProg ramming_020808.doc 300 A Street Boston, MA 02210 -1710 meeting notes date : job name & number subject present by : BARGMANN HENDRIE + ARCHETYPE, INC. Architecture I Planning I Interior Design 617 350 0450 tel 617 350 0215 fax February 08, 2008 Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study, project no. 2811.00 Use of the White House Site Carl Valente Patrick Goddard Paul Lapointe Leo McSweeney Joel Bargmann Jack Glassman Rich Leonard Rich Leonard distribution : project file Town Manager, Lexington Director, Public Facilities Lexington COA Lexington COA BH +A BH +A BH +A 1 Record Farmer's Market Carl Valente began by noting that a consideration of planning on the White House site is the Farmer's Market, which operates one day per week from late April to October 1 in the grassy area of the site along Mass. Ave. parking for vendors and patrons has been a big and growing concern as the popularity of the market has grown. There have been discussion of the market moving to another location since this site also presents safety concerns with being in an area surrounding by high volume roadways. One potential site for relocation is the Hastings site, but there is an issue with access to power and restrooms. This will be an ongoing discussion, but it is felt that if the continuation of the Farmer's Market precludes the Senior Center redevelopment of the site, which is a year -round use benefiting many people each day. Mr. Valente will forward contact information for Sonia DeMartia, the director of the Farmer's Market, to BH +A. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................... 2 Record Cary Hall Carl Valente noted that the Town retained a performing arts redevelopment / marketing firm to investigate the potential of redeveloping Cary Hall to become a performing arts destination that would draw large crowds to Lexington. It was concluded, however, the because of the remote location of Cary Hall from the main stretch of downtown shopping and restaurants and parking, it would not be feasible. He will send a copy of this report to BH +A. he noted that a use of this facility that interfaces with multi - purpose space at the White House site would be favorable. PA2811 _lexing_sen r_ctr \doc\ meeting \mtg_CarlValente_020808.doc Lexington Senior Center Feasibility Study Meeting with Carl Valente February 8, 2008 Page 2 . ............................... 3 _. Record .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................... Town Hall When asked about parking congestion on the site, Carl Valente noted that the DPW offices and vehicles will soon be relocating to another facility and that this will result in a number of free parking spaces. The office space they currently occupy in Town Hall will be converted to office for the Recreation Department and potentially to meeting space. This will not yield an increase in parking congestion in that the Rec. Dept. is already within Town Hall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................... 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recreation Department programs Paul Lapointe asked about the favorability of designing the Senior Center so that the Recreation Department could have use of the multi - purpose spaces within during weeknights and weekends. Carl Valente responded that it is a good idea in that the Recreation Department currently does not have dedicated program space, and operates in piecemeal fashion out of different facilities, particularly the schools. Mr. Valente will forward contact information for the Recreation Director, Karen Simmons, to BH +A. Mr. Valente referenced a facility in Weston that functions well as a multi -use facility. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................... 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Permit Parking Paul Lapointe asked about the use of a portion of the spots in the main parking lot (which the White House parking is a part of) as permit parking for employees who work in the Town center. When asked if this arrangement could change, Mr. Valente cautioned that there is a shortage of parking in Town, and that reallocating these spots could be problematic. He recommended that BH +A speak with the Transportation Coordinator, Gail Wagner, and will forward her contact information. He agreed that the assertion that the lot is inefficiently configured and that it could be worthwhile to investigate options involving moving the White House building on its site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................... 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preservation of White House Carl Valente asked about the extent of historic preservation required at the White House, and Jack Glassman of BH +A replied that there is no requirement that would necessitate preserving a particular extent of the interior of the White House, and that there could also be opinions within the Town as to how much deserves preservation, but that the historic elements of the exterior must be preserved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................... 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Service Department Paul Lapointe asked about the structure of the Social Services Department and what impact the change of it will have on the program of the Senior Center. Mr. Valente replied that he has scheduled a meeting revolving around Social Services Department staffing and will forward the results. PA2811 _lexing_sen r_ctr \doc\ meeting \mtg_CarlValente_020808.doc Lexington Senior Center Feasibility Study " Meeting with Carl Valente 1 February 8, 2008 Page 3 Record Schematic Designs Carl Valente asked if the Feasibility Study will include schematic designs of the Senior Center facility. Joel Bargmann stated that it would, but that they would intentionally be somewhat generic so as to avoid conflict about particular aesthetic aspects of the designs. It was agreed by all that this level of design do not require a meeting with the Design Advisory Committee. Paul Lapointe stated that the main conclusion will be whether a two -site conclusion for the operation of the Senior Center and Supportive Day Care operation works as a solution. Carl Valente responded that it will be valuable to see how the design and feasibility are impacted by the re- allocation of the permitted parking spots or not. Record Schedule The schedule was reviewed, and it was noted that BH +A's draft findings are due at the end of March. Carl Valente stated that it will be important to have these findings presented to the Capital Expenditures Committee and the Board of Selectmen. PA2811 _lexing_sen r_ctr \doc\ meeting \mtg_CarlValente_020808.doc BARGMANN HENDRIE + ARCHETYPE, INC. Architecture I Planning I Interior Design 300 A Street 617 350 0450 tel Boston, MA 02210 -1710 617 350 0215 fax meeting notes date : February 14, 2008 job name & number: Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study bh +a project no. 2811.00 subject : Programming and Walkthrough of the Supportive Day Program present : Carolyn Griffith Director, Lexington Supportive Day Care Rich Leonard BH +A by : Rich Leonard distribution : project file Record Tour of the Facility Carolyn Griffith gave Rich Leonard a tour, with the following observations: The program serves roughly 20 people per day but these numbers are fluctuating with a study ongoing as to why. The participants are brought via van to the driveway, and they travel either up the 3 -4 front steps through the front door or up into the space via a ramp that is placed in the garage so as to lend a residential feel to the property (Mill St. is single - family residential in character). The main space consists of two rooms that are openly connected. One has tables and chairs in a rectangular, inward - facing pattern used for meals, with birds in the center, and the other room has tables and chairs in a small -group 4- person per table configuration. These spaces are used for both meals and activities and allow the staff and participants to focus on tasks and socialization in a more focused manner. Windows from these spaces look out to the deck and wooded lot where there is a garden in the warmer months, tended to by the participants. The kitchen is residential in feel and is used for preparing smalls meals or activities with the program participants. It is open to one of the two dining / activity areas. As required by the State, there is a rest area in a quiet corner of the facility. The furniture in this room consists of lounger type seating that allows the participants to sleep while sitting but also to spend quiet moments away from the group. There are three wheelchair - accessible restrooms, all large enough to accommodate a participant and staff member. The staff offices are small but allow for observation of the parking area and road. More space is desired for this area, but not at the expense of program area. The current office area is an open office with small workspaces for PA2811 _lex ing_sen r_ctr \doc \meeting \mtg_Su ppDayProg ramming_021408.doc Lexington Senior Center Feasibility Study Programming Meeting andWa|kthmugh Supportive Day Care Center � February 14.2OO8 Page three people, and the configuration does not afford privacy. There is a long central corridor that separates the office and rest area from the main dining and activity rooms. As many of the participants have memory impairments and dementia to some degree, this corridor space is used for strolling while allowing the staff to monitor what is happening without The d6cor of the interior is very homelike with quilts adorning the walls and craft projects displayed throughout. The garage is heated and provides an additional seating area in nicer 2 Record Additional comments Carolyn Griffith reports being very satisfied with the facility outside of the size of the office area. To the credit of the staff, in the conversion process that resulted in the facility being used as a supportive day facility, it was consciously decided that the staff areas would be smaller if it meant more activity room for program participants. Another requested addition would be a space in which to garden throughout the year, as gardening is a very therapeutic, confidence-building activity that allows for an appropriate level of The facility has a very residential feel, which is thought to be an ideal setting for the neuroscience needs of this population. The open flow between the small spaces allows for participants to dictate how they spend their time, which is very important. One drawback of the facility is that it does not appear to allow many possibilities for expanding the number of clients served in that expansion to 40 people would trigger needing an additional wheelchair-accessible restroom and a total of 2,000 sf of program space, as per State regulations. BARGMANN HENDRIE + ARCHETYPE, INC. Architecture I Planning I Interior Design 300 A Street 617 350 0450 tel Boston, MA 02210 -1710 617 350 0215 fax meeting notes date : February 14, 2008 job name & number: Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study bh +a project no. 2811.00 subject : Programming of the Senior Center present : Marian Cohen Director, Lexington COA Paul Lapointe Lexington COA Rich Leonard BH +A by : Rich Leonard distribution : project file Record Supportive Day Facility Rich Leonard reported touring the Supportive Day facility at Mill Street in Lincoln and meeting with the director, Carolyn Griffith, and inquired as to the reason for wanting to relocate that operation. Marian Cohen and Paul Lapointe replied that the primary reasons are as follows: The Mill Street facility is owned by Minuteman Vocational Technical High School, and while the current lease affords paying very low rent, that agreement could change at any time, or worse, Minuteman Tech could decide to sell the facility to pay for much - needed work on their facility. Also, the Mill St. program is not in Lexington, meaning transportation costs are higher and that supervision /communication /network connectivity are not possible. All present acknowledged that grouping the Supportive Day Program and Senior Center, if possible, will have to be handled very carefully because of the problems inherent in mixing these two types of facilities. Marian Cohen directed the discussion to the possibility of having the Supportive Day program in the Muzzey facility if the Senior Center moves. However, it was acknowledged that there are some problems with this site, namely that there is no exterior program space and very little exposure to natural light. It is not known how the condo association that operates the Muzzey facility would react to moving this program here or to this program re- working the relationship of the space to the exterior landscape. P: \2811 _lex i ng_sen r_ctr \doc \meeting \mtg_PLand MCProg ramming_021408.doc Lexington Senior Center Feasibility Study Programming Meeting - Senior Center February 14, 2008 Page 2 _.....— .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................... 2 Record Senior Center Program Discussion turned to the program of the Senior Center as produced by the Senior Center Action Plan Committee. Rich Leonard presented a diagram that showed the size of the multi - purpose spaces on the program, along with information on how many people could use these spaces at any given time and for a variety of purposes. Paul Lapointe stated that he would like to see how the sizes of the spaces relate to the current dining area on the entry level of the Muzzey facility and as compared to the large meeting space at the library and the performance space in Cary Hall. He also stated that these types of spaces want to be on the first floor of a facility, and that it will be important to see what actually fits on the White House site given zoning and parking considerations. Rich Leonard stated that after the program is further clarified, the firm's work will turn to determining how this program can fit on the site or not. 3 Record Clarification of Data Rich Leonard asked if there are records kept of the number of people taking part in programs at the Senior Center. Marian Cohen and Paul Lapointe noted that the use of the My Senior Center program may be producing good data now, and that Marilyn Campbell or Charlotte Rodgers may be able to produce that data. It was also suggested that the people who run the various programs would be good sources of information. Paul Lapointe also suggested that Karen Simmons, the Recreation Director, might have good numbers on the participation in the Recreation Department's programs and that this data can also be mapped onto the multi - purpose space diagram BH +A produced in order to show the various uses of the facility and its value to the Town -at- large. Marian Cohen also stated that it will be important for the Council on Aging to learn from the study how operating out of a larger facility will impact the operations budget. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Record Moving Forward Paul Lapointe asked that BH +A attend a meeting that will potentially be scheduled with the Permanent Building Committee for March 11th to serve as a 30- minute presentation of draft findings. Paul Lapointe stated that the Capital Expenditures Committee is also eager for a meeting and inclusion in the process. He also recommended that BH +A speak with Patrick Goddard about the plans for Cary Hall and how this could be dovetailed with the White House plans. ................................. ......................... . ...................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Record Cost Estimates Paul Lapointe noted that his preliminary project cost estimate only reflect Community Preservation Act grants for the White House facility, but noted that he feels the Muzzey facility would also qualify for this funding. P: \2811 _lex i ng_sen r_ctr \doc \meeting \mtg_PLand MCProg ramming_021408.doc Lexington Senior Center Feasibility Study Programming Meeting - Senior Center February 14, 2008 Page 3 Record Program Clarification Paul Lapointe stated that it would be ideal for the Windowpane Shop and Elmer Bull Fix -It Shop to be located on the main level of a facility, as opposed to where they are now, but that if doing so at the White House site means that everything will not properly fit on that site, then those two spaces could remain here at the Muzzey facility, provided they are moved to the main level here. Marian Cohen also received clarification from Carl Valente on the staff offices to be provided at the Senior Center complex. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... Record Historic Preservation Aspect Paul Lapointe requested that the study also help the Council on Aging understand how the extent and nature of historic preservation of the White House facility impacts the programming of the Senior Center campus. P: \2811 _lex i ng_sen r_ctr \doc \meeting \mtg_PLand MCProg ramming_021408.doc BARGMANN HENDRIE + ARCHETYPE, INC. Architecture I Planning I Interior Design 300 A Street 617 350 0450 tel bha @bhplus.com Boston, MA 02210 -1710 617 350 0215 fax www.bhplus.com phone log to /from: Paul Lapointe date /time: February 01, 2008 / 12:30 pm job name & number: Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study BH +A Project No. 2811.00 subject : Programming meetings cc: Project File comments: Rich Leonard called Paul Lapointe to ask what contacts would be helpful to speak with regarding the space needs of the Council on Aging. Mr. Lapointe replied as follows: • He feels Marian Cohen and he would be most helpful. He will arrange a meeting between myself and the two of them. • Mr. Lapointe also recommended speaking with Marilyn Campbell, the acting director of Social Services. • Also recommended was Lauren McSweeney, the outgoing director of the Senior Center. • Patrick Goddard is another useful contact, and Rich Leonard stated that Jack Glassman is in regular communication with him. • Mr. Lapointe will schedule a meeting between himself, representatives from BH +A, and Carl Valente, the Town Manager. • Mr. Lapointe also thought it would be helpful for BH +A to meet with the Council on Aging and /or Lexington Senior Advocates. Mr. Lapointe agreed to send contact information and arrange meetings with all of the above. P:\2811 _lexing_senr_ctr \doc \phonelog \phone- 020108- PaulLapointe.doc BARGMANN HENDRIE + ARCHETYPE, INC. Architecture I Planning I Interior Design 300 A Street 617 350 0450 tel bha @bhplus.com Boston, MA 02210 -1710 617 350 0215 fax www.bhplus.com phone log to /from: Gail Wagner Transportation Coordinator, Town of Lexington Lexington, MA 781.862.0500x241 date /time: February 22, 2008 / 11:45 am job name & number: Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study BH +A Project No. 2811.00 subject : Parking at White House site cc: Project File comments: Rich Leonard called Gail Wagner to inquire about the issue of parking in Lexington and on the White House site: • Regarding the parking situation in Town, Ms. Wagner stated that it is a situation that is constantly in flux, so that what may be the picture can, and will, change shortly. Most notably, five things are leading to change now: 1) the redevelopment of Cary Hall, 2) the relocation of DPW from the White House to another facility, 3) the redevelopment of the former Cohoes retail property, 4) the redevelopment ongoing at the Battle Green Inn, and 5) the Farmer's Market on the White House site • Redevelopment of Cary Hall: Ms. Wagner is uncertain what the exact plans are for Cary Hall, but notes that re -use or further use of that facility could potentially result in increased demand for parking. She recommended that BH +A contact the head of Lexington's Economic Development Board, Susan Yanofksy. • Relocation of the Department of Public Works: This will occur in Spring of 2009, and will result in a number of parking spaces at the White House site becoming vacant. Ms. Wagner will determine the number of spaces this impacts and will forward this information to BH +A. • Redevelopment of the Cohoes retail property: The site of the retail space that formerly housed Cohoes department store is being redeveloped. Part of this site is a parking lot that contains roughly 60 spaces, some of which were formerly rented to people who drive to work in Lexington. Currently much of this parking P:\2811 _lexing_senr_ctr \doc \phonelog \phone- 022208- GailWagner.doc Gail Wagner February 22, 2008 Page 2 of 2 lot is lost as parking as it is being used as a staging area for the construction equipment involved in the renovation of that space. Ms. Wagner does not know the plans for this site, but thinks that it could potentially add more parking. She recommended that BH +A speak to Ms. Yanofsky about this project as well. Redevelopment of the Battle Green Inn: The work ongoing at this site has resulted in the temporary loss of 10 to 12 metered parking spaces. At the completion of construction on that site, Ms. Wagner estimates that 6 to 8 of these sites will be reallocated as metered spots once again. Farmer's Market on the White House Site: BH +A reported that it will attempt to contact Sonia DeMartia, the director of the Farmer's Market, to determine how many spaces the Market uses and roughly how many car - driving costumers the Market draws. Ms. Wagner agreed that if the continuation of the Farmer's Market on this site prohibits its use for redevelopment as an everyday municipal facility benefiting the community -at- large, that it makes sense to consider other locations for the Farmer's Market. Ms. Wagner stated that this is all important since the pressure on the main Town parking lot at Depot Station is currently very high. There are 300 parking spaces in this lot, and with stacking of cars, 360 are accommodated on working days. Ms. Wagner reports that this lot typically fills to capacity and closes to new cars from 10:30 am to 4 pm. This is important as the need for parking is increasing as more businesses move into the center of Lexington. PA2811 _lexing_senr_ctr \doc \phonelog \phone- 022208- GailWagner.doc GS BARGMANN HENDRIE + ARCHETYPE, INC. Architecture I Planning I Interior Design 300 A Street 617 350 0450 tel bha @bhplus.com Boston, MA 02210 -1710 617 350 0215 fax www.bhplus.com phone log to /from: Karen Simmons Recreation Director, Town of Lexington Lexington, MA 781.862.0500x263 date /time: February 22, 2008 / 12:30 pm job name & number: Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study BH +A Project No. 2811.00 subject : The need for multi - purpose space cc: Project File comments: Rich Leonard called Karen Simmons to ask about the types of programs the Recreation Department offers and how the lack of space available for the Department leads to problems with programming. Important points: • The Recreation Department currently uses space that is primarily in the schools and in Cary Hall. The use of space in schools has been problematic in that the Recreation Department is given last dibs, so to speak. This results in cancellations and a lack of programs. Also, since most of the space used is in school gyms, this limits the quality of programs that are offered in these spaces. As an example, Ms. Simmons stated that yoga classes are ideally held in a different type of space, and that the nature of them suffers from being in school gyms. • When asked what variety of activities the Recreation Department would offer on weeknights and weekends in the multi - purpose space in a Senior Center, she stated that the Department offers a wide variety of programs that would benefit from the space and does not have space currently. • When asked how much multi - purpose space the Recreation Department could fill on weeknight and weekends, Ms. Simmons confidently stated that the Department could fill any amount of space that would be in the Senior Center facility. • Ms. Simmons justified this by saying that the Department currently fills each space it is given use of when it is available, and ran 400 programs last year alone. She agreed to forward the current list of programs, the participation levels, and what spaces are used to Rich Leonard at BH +A. She stated that the Recreation Department would be happy to be included as it has not been included in discussion involving the redevelopment of Cary Hall. P: \2811 _lexing_senr_ctr \doc \phonelog \phone- 022208- KarenSimmons.doc BARGMANN HENDRIE + ARCHETYPE, INC. Architecture I Planning I Interior Design 300 A Street 617 350 0450 tel bha @bhplus.com Boston, MA 02210 -1710 617 350 0215 fax www.bhplus.com phone log to /from: Gail Wagner Transportation Coordinator, Town of Lexington Lexington, MA 781.862.0500x241 date /time: February 25, 2008 / 3:30 pm job name & number: Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study BH +A Project No. 2811.00 subject : Parking at White House site cc: Project File comments: Gail Wagner called Rich Leonard follow -up with information about the number of spaces being used for permit and DPW parking on the combined Town lot at the White House / police facility / Cary Hall / Town Hall. The breakdown is as follows: • DPW parking: 1) Employee vehicle spaces for office staff working in DPW / Engineering office in Town Hall, slated to become free in Spring 2009: 12 2) DPW vehicle spaces at White House, not including those mentioned above, and also slated to become free in Spring 2009: 25 • "Center Business" permit parking spaces on White House site: 17 Ms. Wagner reiterated that she cannot envision eliminating the 17 Center Business permit spaces because it is her understanding that no room exists for these spaces elsewhere. Five (5) of these spaces are at the most remote corner of the lot, adjacent to Fletcher Avenue, and the remaining twelve (12) are opposite those and adjacent to the existing hedgerow. P:\2811 _lexing_senr_ctr \doc \phonelog \phone- 022508 -G a i l Wag n e r.d oc