The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-12-17-PBC-min Town of Lexington Permanent Building Committee op�J51775"N�c � A Q y 3 Permanent Members: Co-Chairman:Jon Himmel &Co-Chairman Dick Perry, Philip Coleman, 3 a Charles Favazzo, Carl Oldenburg, Peter Johnson, Celis Brisbin fk;� toy Project Specific Members: Fire Station: Robert Cunha &Joseph Sirkovich Hastings Elementary: Curt Barrentine &Andrew Clarke Visitors Center:Joel Berman & Peter Kelly PBC Minutes 12-17-20 Held Via Zoom 5PM Members present:Jon Himmel, Dick Perry. Carl Oldenburg, Chuck Favazzo, Phil Coleman, Celis Brizben Members of DAC and Liaisons from Other Committees noted were: Mark Sandeen, Suzie Barry,Tim Lee, Caroline Fitzgerald,Todd Rhodes, Ian Adamson, Steve Vincent, Chris Jonas, Brigitte Steins Staff members present: Mike Cronin, Dave Pinsonnault, Mark Barrett,Stella Carr TBA Architects:Justin Humphries Westview Cemetery Building project update Justin Humphreys from TBA architects was present to provide an update on the status of the project and show how feedback from prior meetings has been evaluated and incorporated. Justin from TBA architects outlined updates to the floor plans based upon feedback from prior meetings. The restroom block in the floor plans was pushed back to create more lobby space so that a screening wall could be added in front of the public restrooms blocking them from lobby view. Also the restroom doors were turned to a wall perpendicular to the screening wall to increase privacy. . At the staff bathroom location some tightening of the design took place and an alcove outside of the staff restrooms was created to host a few staff lockers. In response to a question Justin showed the options in the lobby where solid walls exist and where displays could be versus where fire alarm panel and related equipment could be located. The height of the lobby screen wall was discussed and it was noted that it would be a full height wall. In response to an inquiry about keeping diesel fumes and other fumes from the garage space out of the staff and public spaces, several elements were discussed.The use of merve 16 filters,the maintenance of positive pressure in the staff and public spaces and negative pressure in the garage spaces. Additionally it was discussed that adding an additional door in the hallway between staff and garage and creating an air lock might be a good idea. The Architect acknowledged this idea and thinks it should be implemented. It was noted that the door to the emergency elec room needed to swing out. Justin walked everyone thru the rest of the plans, including a reminder on the three zones, public, staff and garage and answered any remaining questions on the floor plans. Presenting the updated building elevations TBA outlined a bit more detail on the front entry including a a more defined canopy roof over the front doors and the incorporation of a wing wall from the front canopy extending outward perpendicular to the front approach walk. There were also two other locations were a building wall was extended ( half height)to help define the overall image. Also presented was a logic to the panel size spacing and rhythm as it was explained and based in part on the rhythm of the window wall and interior work spaces. 201 BEDFORD STREET• LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02420 TBA reviewed the overall site plan with site drainage/storm water but explained that these drawings were in the midst of engineering review and we were hopeful that the large storm water detention basin planned for could be removed. The discussion turned to discussing the need to plan for additive alternates in case we become concerned about bid costs and the fixed budget for this project. A few suggestions were made as possible additive alternates including,gravel drive and parking lots in lieu of pavement,the last of the large garage bays could be an alternate, potential cost savings of the large storm water detention basin. DPW Director stated that the building square footage is what the operations group truly needs so he would prefer alternates to be by way of materials choices. It was agreed that a strategy should be developed and that perhaps the Design Team should understand what could be save by some potential add alternates such as 1 garage bay. It was also noted that there is no other curbing used in the cemetery so any planned curbing could be removed. All in all everyone agreed that the overall design elevations and floor plans were well improved since the last meeting and in good shape. The discussion turned to the Leed/ Lex checklist and overall sustainability discussion.The Facilities Department (DPF) explained that the Architect team had prepared the LEED/Lex checklist for the project,which had been circulated. However the DPF had shared that with The Green Engineer and asked for a review from their perspective. The Green Engineers (TGE) review and associated updated LEED/Lex Checklist was received and circulated just hours before the meeting. TBA share the updated checklist on screen and some items were highlighted. In general TGE's review put the project at 46 points on the green (expected), 25 on the yellow (maybe) and 39 in the Unlikely column. There was a reminder that this was a small +/-4,000 sf building with roughly half of that being conditioned space. One of the checklist items involves the use of Energy storage and the current plan was to provide a conduit path to a slab for future Battery inclusion. However it was noted that given that the building had a low peak demand expectation the battery storage would likely be less beneficial and we could likely save on the cost of the pad and conduit. It was asked if given the discussion of having add alternate ideas, could any of the LEED/Lex checklist items be considered an additive alternate. The Design team would need to look at that. It was asked if the investments made in Red list development for the Police project could be translated to the Westview project. It was discussed that the police project was stopped before there was real development in the work. We had bought a process but do not yet have a product from that. The DPF was asked to verify if any workable/useable information came out of that early work. It was recapped that at the Police project it had been agreed to focus on just 4 to 6 specification divisions It was discussed that this was a very small project with a fixed budget established prior to the current sustainability policy and this was agreed to in principal although it was suggested that some level of commitment in some aspects of the project could support the ideals behind the policy. Interior Finish components such as adhesives and paints were mentioned as easy targets for compliance. The incorporation of solar panels on the roof were discussed and while no hard input has been received for our current solar providers, input was still being pursued for information of this project. The primary concern discussed was how the roof edge could be improved to hide solar panels for the ground and perhaps most importantly from the approach drive which is somewhat higher than grade that the building floor pan. It was discussed that these architectural factors are as much a part of the "solar ready' moniker and other building infrastructure. The expected solar panel layout still needs confirmation but the assumptions currently are a "saw tooth" ballasted roof mount as we have at other buildings with the high edge of the panel at 10-12 inches above the deck. The discussion was about determining the height of the parapet needed to hide the panels, especially on the main approach, but also without going so high that we reduce the available solar area on the roof. It was hoped that better solar layout and needs for net zero would be available at the next meeting. Summary for next meeting: It is anticipated that we will have an energy analysis for the building in January and schedule the next meeting after that. It was discussed to have additional information on solar panel layouts and parapet heights for review. It was expected to have further information on Red List scope that could be included. It was expected that the next meeting will have a project budget draft for review. Motion was made and seconded to adjourn at 6:30 pm. Meeting Adjourned