2024-03-19-PBC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Update on Lexington High School Project Lorraine Finnegan from SMMA provided an update on the Lexington High School Project. She reported that the space summary set the baseline for the school project, and it needed to contain only the school. The initial submission also included an 18,000-foot gymnasium and a renovation of the field house. The total building gross floor area proposed was 440,816 square feet, which included the 18,000-foot gymnasium. The core academic section captured all of the classrooms, and the usage of every space was confirmed with the school. It was asked when the schematic design would be submitted. It was reported that the schematic design would be submitted in August 2025. The sizes of different high schools were discussed. It was asked if the massings included the future central administration building. Brian Black reported that the central office was being integrated and represented approximately 4% of the floor area. Brian Black shared the PDP design workflow. He discussed that site analysis and how the building might be organized went into the workflow. They were listening to the community about creating a campus for everyone to make sure it was recognized that the fields were a whole community resource. There was also a desire to build within the context of Lexington, which was included in the plan. One of the first drivers of the studies was where to place the program. Diagrams were presented to show the options. The first option was to build on the existing footprint, which would minimize disturbance to the rest of the site. The second option was to build part of the school on some of the fields. The third option was to build the new building on the field, which would not overlap with the existing building at all. The fourth option was to build new on the existing fields in a phased manner. He discussed the pros and cons of each approach. He stated that there were 13 options developed so far and would be taken into consideration for the pricing. The B-category involved renovation and addition. The imagined scenarios were presented, and the pros and cons were discussed. The phased-in-place approach would be highly disruptive, but there would be no permanent changes to existing fields. The center shift approach would preserve some existing structures and allow access for students during construction, but it would displace some athletic fields. The building would create a courtyard between the old and new construction. The new construction-in-one-phase approaches were three-story schemes and then 4 to 5 stories in the next round. There were some concerns about going too tall. The academic village was originally a three-story scheme and created an enclosed courtyard but created a wall between the center rec and the rest of the athletics. The four-story scheme of the academic village had a larger and less light-intensive space in the north. The C.5 new construction had an upper courtyard considered and had an outdoor space that was contained, and it was paired with a new field house. D.1 was four stories and was a reconfigured village scheme that made room for the courtyard. It was discussed that the gym was placed on the second floor in all of the options, with lockers and other rooms that would not be affected by the noise underneath. It was clarified that the schoolhouse had to begin before the field house construction. Lorraine Finnegan presented the PDP cost estimating assumptions. She stated that there was a preliminary evaluation of alternatives. There was a description of all of the systems at each level and alternatives. There were a couple of options to be priced. The pricing would be dollar-per-square-foot and would not be shown in a line-item format. She reported that coming out of PDP, the design team would need to be given at least three alternatives, including an addition-renovation option, and after PSR, the design would need to be chosen for schematic design. The breakout pricing options were reviewed. The fieldhouse options would start one year into the school construction. Lorraine Finnegan reviewed the scope of work, including sustainability alternatives, remediation, civil, site, and earthwork, layout and materials, grading and drainage, utilities, off-site improvements, structure, architecture, interiors, HVAC, electrical, plumbing and fire protection, and miscellaneous items such as food service, the auditorium, hazardous materials, and temporary. It was noted that civil, site, and earthwork would not be done at the current phase. The estimate for hazmat materials was $2.1 million. The estimate for hazardous soils was $1 million. She stated that they tried to ensure they captured the recommendations they had received. Regarding the PDP estimating process: It was asked if there would be estimates for each of the subcomponents. It was reported that they would like to receive the costs for the subcomponents. It was stated that only the bricks- and-mortar costs would be received. It was suggested that one of the reasons for the battery source was to enable the connection with EverSource since there was a different-sized battery to accomplish it. It was asked if the