HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-10-26-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
Permanent Building Committee (PBC) Minutes for the meeting held on: 10-26-23
The meeting was held remotely via Zoom
PBC Members Present:
Jon Himmel, Charles Favazzo, Philip Coleman, Celis Brisbin, Fred Merrill, Wendy Krum, Curt Barrentine
Others Present:
David Kanter, Mark Sandeen, Gerry Yurkevicz, Todd Rhodes, Cindy Arens, Dan Voss
Tecton Architects (Police Station): Jeff McElravy
SMMA Architects (High School): Erin Prestileo, Matt Rice
Dore & Whittier (Police & High School): Mike Burton, Steve Brown
Staff: Mark Barrett, Michael Cronin, Maggie Peard
The PBC Meeting was called to order at 5PM
Meeting Minutes
The minutes for 9-13-23, 8-17-23, and 6-8-23 were discussed and will be edited by staff.
Review and make recommendations to the Select Board on the acceptance of the High-Performance Buildings Policy.
Maggie Peard provided an overview of the High Performance Buildings Policy. It was originally conceived in 2019
and is a sister policy to the Integrated Design Policy. The High Performance Building Policy focuses on completed
buildings while the Integrated Design Policy (IDP) focuses on building in design and construction. The High-
Performance Buildings Policy looks at municipal buildings and identifies any issues in performance that would
negatively impact occupant health or environment. The policy creates a stakeholder group to set up a yearly
process of collecting data on a building-by-building basis. After the onboarding process that will last a couple of
years, targets will be set. The Select Board and the School Committee would adopt the policy. There could be
impacts to operating and maintenance as well. The policy was being presented to other committees as well to
incorporate input prior to bringing the policy to the Select Board and the School Committee. Jon Himmel stated that
he sent tracked change comments on the documents for review. He asked about the purpose of policy and the
definition of well-being. He raised concerns about the lack of discussion on fire safety, egress in the event of a fire,
and other safety issues in the policy. It was reported that regular maintenance check-ups were done annually at a
minimum. There was a discussion surrounding whether emergency preparedness should be part of the policy. Jon
Himmel suggested adding a seventh item about outside sources of funding. Jon Himmel suggested that the
documents be created so that they can be searched on the server. Jon Himmel suggested having a hierarchical
structure to refer to other sections, points numbered and footnoted. Jon Himmel suggested having inspections of
trees after weather events, and asked if DPW has reviewed the document for landscaping, policy should be
included. Jon Himmel suggested breaking down the maintenance requests by category. Also, the document must
reference the IDP and give it precedence. Maggie Peard thanked him for all of the feedback.
Update on Police Station Project
Steve Brown provided an update on the Police Station Project. There was brownstone going on the exterior. The
last and final delivery for the water table was received. The curtainwall framing should be wrapping up by the end of
the week. The exterior windows will be starting the next week. The building should be tight by the end of November.
Roof membrane is on, and standing seam to be complete by December. The exterior elevation is staged for
masonry. Inside the building on the first floor, the drywall should be finished within the current or next week. The
CMU block will be ongoing over the next few weeks. The preparation for paint was beginning. On the second floor,
the mechanical, electrical, plumbing (MEP) rough was ongoing, followed by installation in the ceiling, water pipe
installation, and induct installation. The second floor was slightly behind schedule. Outside of the building, the
utilities were ongoing until the weather worsened. Installation of the retaining wall and preparation for the walkways
was ongoing. There were photos presented of the interior and exterior of the building. The schedule was adjusted
due to the temporary electrical work, and that was moved into April. The substantial completion date was adjusted
from March 12 to April 9. Celis requested a single line diagram (in the works) which shows, that solar can be used
even when there is a utility company power outage. It was reported that there was an envelope commissioning
agent and a building commissioning agent that had been active since the inception of the project. There was also a
commissioning agent specific to the BMS control system that would be onboarded soon. It was asked what the
status of the switchgear was. It was reported that based on the change order, it was planned to come in on March
24, 2024.
Update on Solar Canopy
Jeff McElravy reported that at the October 23 Historic District Commission (HDC) meeting, there was a discussion
about continuing the presentation due to the late arrival of design documents. It is anticipated to present on
November 2nd. The presentation that was prepared for the October meeting was forwarded to everyone. There were
suggestions to extend the landscaping behind the enclosure and to get a color sample for the steel. A physical
sample will be sent to Mark Barrett and then will be available to any member of HDC. From a design standpoint, the
foundation packet was out for pricing. The structural system was being worked through, and it was suggested that
the Q-Cells panel could go down to a quarter inch per foot slope. According to Q-Cells, the minimum pitch was
three degrees, This, then led to a couple of revisions so that the total slope did not exceed the height limits. Snow
loading was discussed. The Q-Cells panel only had a 75 PSF snow loading capacity, and there were significant
snow load issues being dealt with. Work was being done so that the snow would not be distributed from the upper
canopy down to the lower canopy level panels. If the numbers could not be done appropriately, a different panel
would be looked at. On November 2nd, the package will be presented to the HDC. There were comments about
landscaping on the other side of the bike path, and the engineers were getting a survey of that area competed. After
the survey, additional landscaping would be added. Dan Voss asked if the shade analysis was done. Jeff McElravy
reported that it had not been completed yet. The model will be running to see what the impact of shading was. It
was asked when an estimate would be received, and a firm date was not known at this time.
Mark Barrett reported that the framework pricing would likely be available within the next few weeks. Jon Himmel
asked if Q-Cell was a specific manufacturer. Jeff McElravy reported that it was and that it was dependent on the
final procurement method. He reported that the mounting system allows for the greatest push and pull loads, and
they were trying to maximize the opportunity for the snow load capacity. It was reported that the only changes
included additions to landscaping. It was discussed that the final design and pricing information was hoped to be
finalized within the next few weeks. Cindy Arens asked for the information to be sent to the Sustainable Lexington
Committee, and it was stated that it would be. It was asked if other panels were reviewed before they were re-
designed. It was reported that the engineer was reviewing them. Alternate panel options for snow load had been
provided, but the panels had a different dimension. The relationship of panels to snow load will be pursued for best
fit. It was asked if there was anything significant about funding. It was reported that there was not.
Update on Lexington High School Project / Architect Selected
Mike Burton provided an update on the Lexington High School Project. He reported that they were in Module 3 after
completing the designer selection. Interviews were held on October 3rd, and the Committee chose SMMA to be the
designer. It was also the Lexington team’s first-ranked designer.
Matthew Rice and Erin Prestileo from SMMA introduced themselves. Matthew Rice shared his screen to present
information on SMMA. SMMA is an integrative design firm with 200 employees. The firm designs projects that are
responsible, well-crafted, and beautiful. They have designed the new Somerville, Waltham and Winchester high
schools. Matthew Rice is the lead project architect, and Brian Black is the lead designer. Community engagement
would be a critical component of the project. The school building committee (SBC) would be working with SMMA
during the project. Community engagement would continue throughout the project. Stakeholder groups would be
asked to provide input. It was suggested that four primary focus groups be created which would interface with the 46
boards, commissions, and committees represented by the stakeholder groups.
The focus groups included:
educational planning and equity
sustainability/MEP systems
site, safety, and security
exterior and interior design
The timeline for the Preliminary Design Program (PDP) was presented. The first category was the educational plan
review and educational programming, and it would run from October 2023 to January 2024. The options
development (repair – renovate – new buildings) would take place from January 2024 through April 2024. The
submission of the PDP to the Massachusetts School Building Authority and the review period take place in May and
June 2024. The Preferred Schematic Report would begin in May 2024 and run through December 2024, which was
the actual program document. It was reported that the reviews with staff at the educational program were being
finalized. A meeting was being planned with a couple of individuals from the town to discuss Article 97.
Jon Himmel asked how the IDP, especially Attachment B, fits into the PDP timeline. The IDP requests a delivery after
Month One. He suggested figuring out how the IDP fits into the PDP timeline. Mike Burton discussed that the green
charette held at the beginning of the process was a forum in which a lot of topics in the IDP come into play. He
discussed that site orientation was tied to multiple focus groups. He discussed that available lay-down space would
be a critical aspect when different options are evaluated. Jon Himmel asked what form the work plan would take. It
was discussed that each section in the PDP, including stakeholder meetings, would have specific dates added. In
terms of reviewing, weekly meetings will be held to track progress. Jon Himmel asked about Prolog and Procore and
stated that Prolog was very useful in being able to access previous meeting notes. He asked if there would be a way
to track the design process. Mike Burton reported that they had proposed using a custom-built dashboard. It was
discussed that the CM typically brought on Procore. All of the information could be transferred to Procore if it was
decided to use it. It was discussed that when the CM was on board, phasing, logistics, and staging were examined.
The CM’s input will be given at the beginning of the schematic design. It was discussed that stakeholder engagement
would begin in November and last through April 2024. The idea of the PDP was to get all options on the table. In May
2024, decisions would start to be made. It was discussed that it was a very iterative process. The Preliminary
Schematic Report (PSR) is scheduled May through December 2024, and then the schematic design would begin,
and SMMA would get to a 50% design. It was asked if there was a timeline for bringing the CM on board. It was
discussed that for them to be useful, it would be best to be in the PSR phase. It was discussed that having the
construction manager on earlier would be beneficial but that bringing them prior to the options being created would
not be as helpful. It was suggested that individuals from the Sustainable Committee could be helpful with answering
questions for the IDP. It was discussed that CM procurement could be put out, and a few weeks to provide
comments could be given. The next PBC meeting is scheduled on November 16th, and the next SBC meeting was on
November 30th. It was reported that there would be some progress to be presented at the following PBC meeting. It
was discussed that Cindy Arens and others on the PBC could assist with a peer review. There would be a public
forum held on Tuesday, November 21st, and it was asked if anyone had topics to add to the agenda to reach out.
Motion to adjourn, all approved. Meeting adjourned at 7PM.
Next meeting: November 16th 2023.