2016-02-11-PBC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Permanent Building Committee (PBC) 201 Bedford Street, Room 221 February 11, 2016 Members Present: Bill Hurley, Lee Noel Chase, Philip Coleman, Dick Perry, Chuck Favazzo, Eric Brown, Howard Hobbs & Ned Goodell Members Absent: Jon Himmel, Peter Johnson, Carl Oldenburg, Guests: Ken DiNisco and Angel Khazadian, DiNisco Design Partnership; Mike Lambert, Bond Brothers; Paul G. Kalous, Hill International Lexington DPF: Patrick Goddard, Director of Public Facilities and Mark Barrett, RA Project Manager Recording Secretary: Ann Marie Ponzini Eric called the Meeting to order at 7:OOp.m. 1. General Business • The members reviewed the PBC & School Committee Meeting minutes dated December 22, 2015 and the PBC Meeting minutes dated January 14, 2016. Motion to approve PBC & School Committee minutes dated December 22, 2015 — APPROVED. Motion to approve PBC Committee minutes dated January 14. 2016 — APPROVED. • It was discussed that the School Committee had appointed new members as building specific representatives which included Bill Hurley assigned to the Diamond School and Lee Noel Chase on the Clarke school with new members Howard Hobbs on Clarke and Ned Goodell on Diamond. The new members introduced themselves as did the balance of the PBC members. 2. Clarke and Diamond Updates • DiNisco provided an update on his 3rd meeting with Con Comm this past Tuesday, with the project being approved and stated he is expecting an Order of Conditions in about 2 weeks for Clarke. • There were concerns at the last hearing about the driveway behind the gym at Diamond regarding encroachment on the 25 ft wetlands buffer. Further discussion is needed and the hearing was extended. DiNisco expects this next hearing will be the last. • DiNisco stated that pulling back the pavement will work and meets the encroachment requirements and that a discussion would be held with the fire dept. to ensure their acceptance of any modifications to this access roadway. • A PBC Member asked if traffic patterns were a concern of Con Comm: Answer was No. 3. Hill Peer Review Updates • 22 items were vetted by the School Administration. • 2 main concerns were looked at. 1. Does the design meet the capacity expectations? 2. Are there better ways to design, or improve delivery, of this program for less money? • Hill stated that nothing was found to be wasteful, and that that the general consensus is DiNisco has provided a good design. PCB Meeting 02.11.16 Page 1