Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-11-10-PBC-minTOWN OF LEXINGTON Permanent Building Committee Permanent Members Jon Himmel, Co-Chairman, Charles Favazzo, Co-Chairman, Peter Johnson, Philip Coleman, Celis Brisbin, Elizabeth Giersbach, Frederick Merrill Police Station Members: Semoon Oh, Wendy Krum Associate Members: Curt Barrentine, Henrietta Mei PBC Minutes for the meeting held on: 11-10-22 Meeting was held remotely via Zoom Members Present: Jon Himmel, Charles Favazzo, Peter Johnson, Phil Coleman, Celis Brisbin, Wendy Krum The PBC Meeting was called to order at 5:00pm Tecton Architects was asked to provide an update on the progress of the Solar Canopy work, which was most recently shared with the Historic District Commission on 11/3/22. The architect shared Community Feedback on the discussions held regarding Fletcher Field as well as a newly proposed option F design. Comments from Discussion regarding fletcher field use were gathered and included the following highlights. 1. Vehicle access (over curb) is required for Farmers Market Vendors 2. Farmers Market representatives talked about storage on site 3. Access to electricity 4. If the Canopy over the pedestrian walk was to be used for vendors then no landscaping on field side of walk, to allow access. 5. Asked if skating rink construction was considered to be permanent, perhaps enhanced with solar canopy above. 6. Seating for skaters and those watching the skating 7. Bathroom Access The consideration of a low canopy on the Fletcher ave side of the field was discussed. Solar Canopy Previous presentations portrayed design options that have been continuously developed in response to feedback from many sources. The current option F shows what is believed to be the final design concept that will be “fine-tuned” for ultimate HDC approval. The overall Option F design was reviewed and numerous questions and discussions followed. It was asked why the Mass Ave leg of canopy was not shown. Tecton stated that it had not received favorable feedback from the HDC on that leg of the canopy but would continue to investigate. The design concept showed openings “light wells” in the canopy structure to allow natural daylight under the canopy and it was discussed if this was a final option or if there was consideration to be made for options. There was discussion that supported providing some gaps between panels over the idea of large openings or light wells. The significance of panel selection was discussed and a recommendation made to consider a Bi-Facial panel that support illumination of the area under the canopy. Spacing of the panels was discussed and the impact of having daylight below the canopy. It was asked if the HDC had purview on panel selection and the “light levels” under the canopy and one of the PBC Liaison noted that the HDC’s purview is anything in view from a public way, which would be what is seen below the canopies. – It was pointed out that the bi-facial solar panel option leaving space between panels (in lieu of openings) would pick up production (architect to review), and it was noted that this type of panel would soon be industry standard. It was also recommended that a model for all day shadows be brought to the next presentation. To allay HDC concerns about a ‘dark cave’, Jon suggested doing some light meter readings at an existing gapped installation to establish lumens, and provide a photo. Point of observation made that the area under the pedestrian canopy could be used as booth space for the farmers market. Although it was pointed out that the Low Canopy may not be effective if a canopy or other structure was placed on fletcher field. Tecton concluded that discussions would be ongoing with the HDC. Integrated design policy discussion (IDP) For those not familiar with the “Integrated Design Policy”, this combines health and sustainability (including energy and resilience concerns) with design. The Chair provided a brief history on the development of the current Integrated Design Policy and stated that it would be helpful to gain any insight from Tecton, from the architect’s perspective of working with the policy, such that lessons learned might be helpful to the Town moving forward. Tecton’s feedback 1. Be specific with your expectations 2. It might be helpful to have someone from each of the various groups be represented at meetings. 3. Representatives from another group must take the information back to their group so that the “wheel is not reinvented” at every meeting. 4. Need to step back and see how the Policy affects the whole project, not just the building. Variations of group meetings were discussed as well as the need to involve other committees thru the process. Tecton suggested that design requirements be set so limits are clear, rather than ‘striving for’ parameters. Also, for clarity, alternating review meetings with different stakeholders bring stress to the project process, information and comments from various committees should be brought up together, in one combined conversation. Celis commented that the SLC would be making recommendations on the changes or updates to the IDP. Jon suggested that both committees should be involved in the editing of this policy and perhaps there needs to be a joint meeting to do so. Jon also recommended that the Stake Holder group be identified in advance for the upcoming High School project. The meeting ended at 6:50 PM Motion to adjourn, made and 2nd.