Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-05-09-PBC-min g4�'351775p TOWN OF LEXINGTON g Permanent Building Committee 4H - 3 Permanent Members < APRIL Jon Himmel Co-Chairman Charles Favazzo Co-Chairman, kI IN 61 Peter Johnson,Philip Coleman, Cells 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: 05-09-2024 Meeting was held hybrid via Zoom Members Present: Jon Himmel, Charles Favazzo, Celis Brisbin, Fred Merrill, Elizabeth Giersbach, Peter Johnson, Wendy Krum, Henrietta Mei Others Present: Doug Lucente, Peter Kelley, David Kanter, Deepika Shawhney, Bob Pressman, Melissa Battite, Kathleen Lenihan, Olivia Kelley SMMAArchitects: Lorraine Finnegan, Phil Poinelli, Brian Black, Rosemary Park Dore &Whittier: Michael Burton Staff: Mark Barrett, Michael Cronin The PBC Meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm. Lexington High School Project Lorraine Finnegan from SMMA provided an update on the Lexington High School Project. This update was provided to the PBC in advance of being presented to the School Building Committee the following Monday. She shared her screen to present the preliminary massing options for the project. There were 18 options in total. The code upgrade was only used as a baseline, and there would be no additions under that scheme. There were three renovation and addition options to varying degrees, two of which were phased in place around the existing building and one of which was phased in place over the existing building. There were many new construction options, some of which used the existing footprint, and some moved toward mitigating Article 97 and environmental impacts. There was a range of solutions: three-to five-stories construction, single phase and multi-phase, and varying impact on the fields. All four- story constructions were recommended, with the exception of B1 . It was asked which plan would conserve the auditorium. Lorraine Finnegan reported B3 would keep the auditorium building in play. Brian Black stated that B3 tried to utilize the existing spaces of the auditorium. He discussed the potential of expanding the space. The usefulness of the structural grid for classrooms was a bit more challenging, and the current sizes of classrooms were 700 square feet. In contrast with the B1 option, it would maintain the science and math buildings. B1 would not allow for building higher because of the lack of foundation and structural capacity. The science building may be an exception because the rooms were larger. The existing classrooms in B1 were much more challenging. It was asked what kind of area was needed for Iaydown. Lorraine Finnegan presented the outlines for B3 and the wetlands and explained that there were 50-foot buffers around all of the wetland zones. She stated that a building of that size would require some of the space to be taken over. She described all of the activities that needed to be on the site, which included trailers that would be offices for the contractor, steel boxes for supplies, some parking, space for shuttle buses, four to five excavators, dump trucks, a place for to stockpile material, staging for concrete trucks, room for enough steel to build the building with, safe access around the building, and an active fire lane around the building. It was asked if finger wetlands could be moved. Lorraine Finnegan stated that the jurisdiction was under review, and they would have to determine whether or not they could be moved. It was asked what the estimated square footage was for wetlands that could be moved. Lorraine Finnegan stated that the maximum was 5,000 square feet, and the first was 5,200 square feet and the other was closer to 8,000 square feet. It was noted that there would have to be a doubled replication of the wetlands, and generally, it was required for the wetlands to be improved. It was asked if the options that had the hearts on them had reduced wetland impact. Lorraine Finnegan confirmed that this was the case. Brian Black explained that many of the C series options were strongly driven by having an east-west orientation for the majority of the buildings for the quality of daylight. C4 moved to a more educational village concept or pod concept. The major differentiation was the number of levels. He stated that they were trying to find the right balance between the walkability of the building and the conservation of the site. It was asked what the best option was for not creating a wall on the property line. It was discussed that it was important to find out where all of the sensitive points were, and some schemes were pushing the edge. The C5 option tried to push more toward the middle and orient the ends of the building toward the neighborhoods. It was stated that for any of the options, design could be used to downplay the mass of the building. Lorraine Finnegan stated that the majority desired the entrance to remain on Worthen Road. The renovations options increased the schedule of the project from three years to five years. Lorraine Finnegan clarified that the three years was to build the new construction, and it would still require and additional 12 months to demolish the existing buildings and restore the site. It was stated that modular classrooms were only carried for options Al, B1, and C6. The B1 option was discussed. It was clarified that the math and science buildings were kept at two stories because those buildings were to be renovated. It was stated that B3 would preserve the performing arts C and D wings. It was clarified that the G building was science, and the J building was the math building. It was commented that the G building took up a lot of land, and if it were built up it would not be perceived as thick because it was farther away from the road. It was stated that it would be possible to construct the left side taller to make the footprint slightly smaller. It was stated that it was not the premise of what the renovation and addition was. It was asked if there was a cost analysis for the renovation and addition compared to the new construction. It was reported that overall conceptual estimates were provided. Lorraine Finnegan stated that the duration would be taken into consideration in the estimates. It was explained that bidders would also generally put a premium on renovations because there was more temporary work that needed to happen to ensure that systems remained online and to provide a safe environment for the occupants. There was a lot of discussion surrounding parking, and it was asked if students could use Lincoln Field parking. Melissa stated it would be something to consider, but she noted that there would need to be operational changes with plowing. She stated that there was also not currently an accessible pathway. The cars would also need to be gone before sports after school hours. Bob Pressman asked if any of the options included a field house. Lorraine Finnegan confirmed that they did not. It was asked how many plans had buses routed through Worthen Road. Lorraine Finnegan stated that they pulled back on traffic, which would have to be figured out later. It was stated that C6 would need to be adjusted to come in off of Worthen Road. Brian Black noted that C6 was designed to mitigate Article 97 impacts and that too many adjustments would alter the mitigation. Multi-level, structured parking was asked about. Lorraine Finnegan stated that the structured parking would be over the site reimbursement cap, and the MSBA would not financially participate. It was stated that there were currently multiple access points for entry and drop-offs, and it was suggested to continue having that ability. Lorraine Finnegan stated that there were currently 450 parking spaces, 85% of which are utilized. She stated that there were 450 parking spaces for each of the options. Chuck stated that the structured parking was not included in the cost estimates, but it was one of the add-ons. It was discussed that the project costs were for the school building only, which was based on direction from the MSBA. It was stated that B3 pricing did include structured parking. It was stated that the structured parking was two decks. It was noted that as additional non-reimbursable space was added to the schemes, the effective reimbursement from MSBA went down. It was clarified that the dollar amount would not decrease, but the percentage would. Chuck Favazzo asked about the MEPA process. It was stated that if there were not over 5,000 square feet of wetlands affected and Article 97 was not impacted, the MEPA process did not need to be done. Lorraine Finnegan stated that by going through the MEPA process, a compromise was usually required. Lorraine Finnegan stated that the documents needed to be developed far enough in advance so they can be presented.,. She cautioned that there were many things to keep in mind. Lorraine Finnegan presented the wetlands that were most likely to be impacted by construction, which were approximately 8,000 square feet, 5,000 square feet, and 3,000 square feet. There was a basin that was being confirmed as well. It was asked if the wetlands had to be replicated on-site, and Lorraine Finnegan stated that they did. It was asked what the size of the parking structure was. Lorraine Finnegan stated that it was approximately 120,000 square feet. It was discussed that the pros and cons on the plans were more helpful than the list of evaluation criteria on the companion spreadsheet. Lorraine Finnegan suggested filtering the criteria by past and current criteria. It was stated that some of the schemes had a fieldhouse in them, and it was asked if they were included in the pricing. Lorraine Finnegan explained that the existing fieldhouse was not included in the new construction options to have a fair comparison of square feet. The range for the total project cost was $600 million to $782 million. It was discussed that phasing and keeping parts of the building open were examined during the options. B3 kept the main buildings of C and D. None of the plans kept the gym. Brian Black explained that they had heard many times that the gym was undersized and was aging, so it was not a prime candidate for a space to be upgraded. There was not currently good connectivity within the school, and this was addressed with the options with the compactness. It was stated that they were trying to create a more dynamic model. Lorraine Finnegan explained that educational delivery had changed, and the changes were being addressed with the options. Classrooms currently at 700 sf should be 850 sf to encourage teamwork and differential learning. While the existing school is 352,000 gsf, the new should be 440,000 gsf. Brian Black discussed that they heard during the brief about the need to attend to the mental health of the students. It was asked if retaining the auditorium and arts building in B3 limits the floor-to-floor height for the whole facility. It was stated that the performing arts were typically spaces that were taller than general floor-to-floor heights and did not generally have anything above them. It was stated that the academic pods were built clear of them, so they had more height. It was asked to see the portion that would be retained under B3. It was stated that the art classrooms would be connected to a second level of the rest of the school. It was asked if it drove the elevation of the new construction to match the elevation. It was stated that it did not. It was asked what the size of the present gym was. It was reported that it was 9,800 square feet. The new gym program requires 18,000 square feet. The existing condition of the math and science buildings was asked about. It was asked if there would be limits on growth because of the structural conditions. Lorraine Finnegan stated that the structure was pretty well intact and there was nothing notable that the structural engineer found, but noted that it could not be vertically expanded. It was asked if there was any way to shell the buildings, and it was stated that the cost was prohibitive. It was stated that all 18 options would be presented to the School Building Committee. Urgent Business There was no further business. Motion to adjourn, all approved.