Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-16-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: 11-16-23 The meeting was held remotely via Zoom Members Present: Jon Himmel, Charles Favazzo, Philip Coleman, Elizabeth Giersbach, Semoon Oh, Wendy Krum, Curt Barrentine, Henrietta Mei Others Present: Mark Barrett, Steve Brown, Mike Cronin, Michael Burton, Matthew Rice, Todd Rhodes, Cindy Arens, Rosemary Park, Dan Voss, Lorraine Finnegan The PBC Meeting was called to order. Approve Meeting Minutes for 9-13-23, 8-17-23, and 6-8-23 Philip Coleman made a motion to approve the meeting minutes for 6-8-23, 8-17-23, and 9-13-23. Charles Favazzo seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously. Update on Police Station & Solar Canopy Project Mark Barrett reported that there was a meeting with the HDC on November 2nd, and a certificate of appropriateness for the solar canopy was granted. The design was approved with the “high hat” or raised section in the middle. There were a couple of neighbors who spoke in favor of the high hat. The steel frame package is being priced. Steve Brown provided an additional update on the Police Station Project. He stated that the remainder of the brownstone was delivered and that the work continued to progress. The exterior masonry was expected to be complete in the next few weeks. The staging was making its way around the building. The exterior roof edge work, metal work, and gutter system were in the process of being installed. The installation of the main electric service pathways was complete. The beginning of exterior paver walk work on the west side was started and will be completed later in the springtime. There was a coordination meeting with the sub-contractor for the Radio Tower Foundation, and they planned on mobilization next week. The painter was working on both floors. The interior mechanical, electrical, and plumbing installation was being worked on. There were progress photos presented of the exterior and interior. A Construction Change Directive was executed with the contractor so that they could begin the installation of the foundation for the solar canopies, and it included a schedule extension of 55 days. It was clarified that the 55-day extension was for the site work, not for the building. When the change proposal for the foundation for the solar canopy was received, some changes were not agreed upon and were being worked on. It was reported that they were waiting on a logistics plan, and there will need to be conversations about CO. It was reported that there were two meetings with the solar company, the electrical engineer, and the architect regarding the meters and the solar canopies to work on the design. Mike Cronin reported that the charging stations also needed to be behind the meter, and the electrical engineer and solar designer were working to ensure that the solution was appropriate. Update on Lexington High School Project Mike Burton provided an update on the Lexington High School Project. He presented the feasibility and schematic timeline. The project was currently in feasibility. It was anticipated to submit the preliminary design program to the MSBA in May 2024. It was anticipated to submit the PSR to the MSBA in December 2024, followed by the development of the schematic design (SD). The SD will be submitted to the MSBA in September 2025, followed by the town meeting in November 2025. Several community meetings were coming up, the second of which would be occurring in November 2023. It was noted that the April 2024 community meeting would be shifted to May 2024. The community engagement involved student involvement as well. Lorraine Finnegan presented the SMMA work plan. She reported that the feasibility study was made up of two components, including the preliminary design program and the preferred schematic report. The PDP phase was where the community discussed goals of the project. Rosemary Park discussed stakeholder engagement. The goal was to gather input, have discussions around relevant topics, and then the groups can make recommendations to the school building committee. The focus groups themselves do not approve anything but recommend solutions. There were four proposed groups of meetings,1each - Visioning meetings including educational planning and equity; 3 each - Focus Groups sustainability/MEP; site, safety, and security; and exterior and interior design. The goal was to ensure the right stakeholders were in the right groups. The schedule for the visioning and focus groups was presented and discussed. The meetings will continue in the PSR phase and schematic design. It was hoped to achieve a kickoff meeting on December 11th to bring together all groups to discuss the overall goals. Once the dates of the workgroup meetings are solidified, they will be added to the schedule. The timeline will be made available to everyone. At the end of April, alternative options will be given to a cost estimator. It was asked how many SMMA individuals were aware of the details of the integrated design and construction policy, as well as Attachment B, and how many people on the team would be working through that. Everyone needs to be included and on notice regarding the project. It was stated that the information was included in the RFP, and there were multiple components included in the design. There will be multiple members of the SMMA team at the focus group meetings to ensure integration of these issues into the discussions. It was asked what the focus group “site, safety, and security” referred to. It was discussed that the site component involved the site design as well as the approach of the site for safety and if there was the right type of access for emergency services. The design of the site has an impact on safety and security, and combining them as a group has led to a better site design plan. It was discussed that sustainability occurs in every group. The sustainability/MEP group focuses more on the systems. It was stated that while the groups appear independent, there will be a lot of overlap between them; students and educators will be a consistent presence. It was discussed that as the sessions are scheduled, it would be helpful to have the ability for PBC and Sustainable Lexington to both be able to attend. It was suggested to add the Green Engineer in sooner in the process. SMMA cautioned that it may be too early for the Green Engineer to join now, but it could be considered for them to join directly for the town. It was stated that it was important for the food service areas also to be considered. It was asked what the green charette was. It was stated that under the visioning workshops, the green charette would pull together all of the topics that had been discussed and the sustainability goals. It would be a larger discussion along with breakout groups to focus on particular topics. It was stated that it was a global discussion and would be opened up to members of the community. One of the overarching goals of the policy was to move to an integrated process. There were concerns raised about the independent groups and that the groups would not be united. Mark Sandeen expressed a wish for cross pollination, so that the town could unite around the design. It was stated that people had to be filtered into groups to get the work done, but that they were not competing interests. It was asked who was completing the cost- benefit analysis, and it was reported that it was SMMA. Jon Himmel noted it would be important to bring in the value engineering group (Arcadis) early on, before it’s too late to use their information. It was commented that the high school land ownership with Recreation was very intertwined, and it was suggested to include the Lexington Recreation group in the Site, Safety and Security Group, at least. Jon Himmel stressed that PBC involvement needs to be ‘across the board’.. It was reported that there was a discussion with the Article 97 stakeholders, and the next steps were identified. One item that needed to be confirmed was the ratio of the land swap and whether it was 1.5 to 1 or 2 to 1 or 1:1. Any change in use needs to show that Article 97 land will be replicated. A change in purpose for recreational land requires a 2/3 town meeting vote and a state legislative vote. The legislative process takes 1 year and begins after Town Meeting approval. The next steps included scheduling meetings with state representatives and beginning a discussion with the Public Lands Preservation Act (PLPA). There was work being done to create a schedule of everything that needed to be done for Article 97. A CPM timeline diagram is needed. It was suggested to have each of the groups list their six most important goals. It was discussed that it was important to have the different groups to ensure everyone’s voices were heard. There will be meetings added to the Article 97 workplan. Finally, D&W needs to engage Sustainable Lexington in the Eversource meeting. Urgent Business There was no further business. Motion to adjourn, all approved. Next meeting: December 12th