Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-22-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: 8-22-24 Meeting was held hybrid via Zoom Members Present: Jon Himmel, Charles Favazzo, Elizabeth Giersbach, Fred Merrill, Wendy Krum, Ian Adamson, Henrietta Mei Others Present: David Kanter, Todd Rhodes, Bob Pressman, Mark Sandeen, Peter Kelley, Olivia Kelley, Olga Guttag, M Marso. SMMA; Matt Rice D&W; Mike Burton Staff: Mike Cronin, Mark Barrett The PBC Meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm. Group Photograph at the 250th countdown sign A group photograph was discussed but not taken. Approve Meeting Minutes A motion was made and Second, to approve the meeting minutes for April 25, 2024 as amended. The vote was unanimous. The Landscaping at the Police station was discussed; It was reported that the contractor had seeded the front in June prior to the ribbon cutting and weeds quickly overtook the area. Since then additional seeding and cooler weather were expected to improve the condition Jon Himmel discussed that the building looked barren due to the lack of landscaping and asked if we have what was designed. A request was made to circulate the landscape plan.. The Committee asked to see if landscaping could be expanded. DPF said they would investigate. Irrigation and sod for Fletcher field were being looked at and would go to DPW for installation and maintenance. Lexington High School Project Discussion updates Matt Rice from SSMA provided an update on the Lexington High School Project. He discussed the IDP/LEED Scorecard criteria [IDP = Integrated Design Policy]. The project would be LEEDv4 Gold certified per School Building Committee [SBC] vote. The current tracking was 81 LEED points, and gold required 60 points. The LEED tracking sheet incorporated the Lexington Integrated Design Policy additional requirements. The LEED requirement for parking would result in a 40% reduction, which would result in a total spot count of 270. However, that number of spaces would be very challenging operationally, therefore the project is seeking that credit. The plan was to meet the LEED requirement for EV charging vehicles. The Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction credit was discussed. Mark Sandeen suggested looking into concrete that reduced CO2 by 30%. Matt Rice stated that there were applications of the low-carbon emission concrete that could be looked into. Matt Rice stated that the other options that could be targeted were adding/renovating steel/concrete structures or adding/renovating with existing steel and concrete and new structural mass timber. There was a large cost in the mass timber option. The preliminary 75-year life cycle cost analysis for the geothermal + PV + batteries resulted in a one-to-two-year payback due to incentives available at the time of the analysis. The geothermal test was underway, although there had been a bit of a delay for the drill rig to get to the needed depths. It was asked for the Geotech report to be distributed. Matt Rice stated that he would have it distributed. Matt Rice reported that they would be preparing additional materials for the Target Red List materials priority list and the Schematic Design: Decision on the Red List materials to be included in the specifications. It was suggested that the Town provide the Red List use on the fire and police station projects so it could be use as a guide. Matt Rice discussed the parking and driveways. Looking at the existing site, the A lot (Worthen rd) was at the front of the building and had 154 spaces. The B lot (next to the foreign language building and load dock) was at the east of the building and had 288 spaces. Overall, of the 450 spots, there was 89% utilization on the day that the analysis was done. It was clarified that only 60 of the 100 spaces for the central offices were needed. Matt Rice reviewed the breakdown of the parking spaces. It was clarified that no spots were being carried for students. All of the spots for students had been handled by lottery and the principal's preference was not to have the parking spots. Matt Rice explained that not all of the accessible spots could be put in one lot, and the numbers could change as the spaces were moved around. He stated that the LABBB van parking spaces would also likely be designed as accessible spaces. Matt Rice presented the visuals of the parking lots for the different options, highlighting that the quantities may end up being distributed in different forms. Underground parking was discussed, and the pros included not having to worry about as much impervious area, and the challenges were largely due to the cost of going below grade. The rationale had been that the unsuitable soil (peat) would be removed, but the experts were not recommending that it be done. Since we may have to assume deep foundations through unsuitable soils, Chuck Favazzo asked if the new pile drive regulations in Lexington had been looked at. Matt Rice stated he could make sure that was on their radar, although he was not sure they were using a driven pile approach. Mark Sandeen stated that the regulations (for noise and vibration) were more specific to rock breaking. Mark Sandeen discussed the conversion of Ford transit vans to electric and suggested prioritizing some of the EV charging spaces to be associated with the LABBB spaces. Matt Rice stated he would look into that. Matt Rice discussed the tradeoffs on the removal of the soil and the foundation. The other considerations of the underground parking were the considerable waterproofing, the need to mechanically ventilate the underground parking space to ensure no CO buildup, and security and access concerns. The net-zero goal was on track to be achieved, and if surface parking was reduced due to structured parking then, they would have to find other places to add solar panels. Matt Rice discussed the larger electric yellow school bus depot topic. If the buses would stay onsite over the course of the evening, then the drivers needed to then have somewhere to park as well. There were previous discussions about bike access, and Matt Rice stated that they would be incorporating bike racks. It was commented that parking could go down over the decades as autonomous cars became more prevalent and more carpooling was done. It was asked if bike shelters were being thought about. Matt Rice stated that he agreed, and they typically included some type of bike shelter. The LEED credits tied to bicycles included indoor bike storage and showers for staff. It was asked if there was a security/safety/vandalism issue with bus charging and if the area needed to be fenced off. Matt Rice agreed that some type of security would likely be needed if this was included. He stated that generally, the bus depot, from an aesthetic standpoint, was something that they were struggling with. Jon Himmel discussed the on-site batteries for the bus depots and asked if the space for storage was being shown on the plans. Matt Rice stated that the footprint was not shown on the plan, and it would be identified for future meetings. He stated it would take on a footprint area that would be large enough to show up on the plans. Mark Sandeen suggested keeping them away from the transformers. It was asked what the red dotted line shown on the site plan was and what the dashed lines by the field house were. Matt Rice reported that the dashed lines were different sizes and configurations of the fieldhouse. Jon Himmel asked if the pond was remaining. Matt Rice stated that the area was identified as not being wetland. Jon Himmel discussed that he thought it was not a DEP-designated area but it was a designated town area. Mike Burton stated that he thought the pond would remain where it was. Mike Burton confirmed that the LABBB vans were owned by the LABBB program, not the Town of Lexington, so charging may be a contract issue to be worked out.. It was asked what the ratio between full-time and part-time staff was. Matt Rice stated he could provide the information. The topic of student parking was discussed. The students would not have parking spaces, but they could have street parking. It was suggested that some individuals who only came to the school one or two days a week could park further away from the school and walk. The Select Board could decide if Worthen Road parking would be for students or staff overflow, and in general whether any town parking would be for school use. Jon Himmel asked about the potential of vertical solar panels on the fagade. Matt Rice stated that those applications were best in areas where the Sun is at a lower angle to the earth Matt Rice discussed the anticipated field impacts. There was a series of very detailed conversations with recreation and the PE teachers at the high school. A list of all activities was presented, which showed when the activities occurred throughout the year and which phases of construction would affect those activities. The diagrams also illustrated the areas for the geothermal wellfield, and that would be taken out of the equation for future analyses. Matt Rice presented the build-in-place option. The C4 field in the build-in-place option was not impacted. It was asked what it would take to turn the track field into a football field. There was some discussion on turf preferences for play, but SMMA would investigate if the field fits. It was asked if the site diagrams would be shared with the public. Matt Rice stated that the diagrams were shown at a meeting open to the public but not yet at a community meeting. It was discussed that the playground was not disrupted. It was stated that the disruption would likely be a big topic at the next community meeting. It was discussed that it could be helpful if not all five fields were next to each other. It was suggested that the information should be stated in a simpler way rather than across all of the diagrams. Matt Rice was asked to create a time- lapse summary of the impacts on the fields. It was asked if studies were done on field use, including community use. Matt Rice reported that that information presented was a result of such a study and analysis. It was stated that there would have to be some remote parking in the future when construction began. It was asked what the maximum number of workers were expected on site. It was reported that there would be 200 to 300 workers. Matt Rice discussed the use of temporary parking and the use of the municipal or other lots that are close to the school. It was suggested to make a better description of the field use in the renovation plans. The location of the fields and parking lots concerning the building location were discussed. It was stated that it should be thought about how to structure a conversation with community members regarding the fields. It was asked if someone could share any thoughts about the community meeting on the 14' or from the summit on the 15th Jon Himmel shared that the structure of the meeting on the August 14' was so that the community could ask questions and get them answered. Jon Himmel stated that the summit included the financial committee, the school committee, and recreation. At the summit, there were discussions about the fieldhouse and the pool. There were discussions about renovating the fieldhouse in place. Mike Burton stated he did not have a number for the standalone fieldhouse. It was stated that clarification was needed from the MSBA on what they would pay for regarding the fieldhouse. It was clarified that the MSBA would participate and pay for up to 18,000 sf of the renovation of the fieldhouse if the 18,000-square-foot gym in the building was not done. There was discussion about sizing the proposed new HVAC system to accommodate the loads of a future field house and if MSBA would allow that. It was recommended that it be clearly stated if a new fieldhouse would be a separate cost per MSBA rules. It was asked if there was a new swimming pool in the plan, and it was reported that there was not. It was stated that at the end of the public meeting, several people were talking about additional renovation schemes. A statement was made that the architect was studying the possibility of using more of the old high school . It was asked if that exercise was happening. Matt Rice stated that they would present the higher-level renovation option at the SBC meeting on September 3. Public Comment A community member of Lexington raised concerns about the cost of the project and asked if there was a budget that was guiding the design.. A community member discussed the LEED status and was surprised that the certification was currently at platinum rather than gold. They raised concerns about the cost of the platinum certification. A community member discussed that we should not be building on the fields and wanted to know why SMMA has not looked back at the 2015 master plan work they did and what the high school design ideas were at that time. Further they raised concerns about the inability to sit at a table with SMMA and discuss their ideas on how the school could be renovated in place and stay off the fields. SMMA advised that any such meeting would have to go thru the SBC. Motion to adjourn, all approved.