Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-12-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: 9-12-24 Meeting was held hybrid via Zoom Members Present: Jon Himmel, Chuck Favazzo, Peter Johnson, Elizabeth Giersbach, Celis Brisbin, Henrietta Mei Others Present: Mark Sandeen, Kathleen Lenihan, Peter Kelley, Dr. Julie Hacket, Cindy Arens, Bridger McGraw, Melissa Battite SMMA: Matthew Rice (SMMA), Phil Poinelli (SMMA), Brian Black (SMMA), Tom Faust (SMMA), Dore &Whittier: Mike Burton, Christina Dell Angelo, Staff: Mike Cronin, Mark Barrett The PBC Meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm. Approve Meeting Minutes The approval of the meeting minutes was tabled. Police Station Update—Landscaping and Solar Canopy It was reported that landscaping was ongoing. The size of the plantings around the building was as specified. They were two to three-gallon plants. The unhealthy plants were being replaced. None of the Landscaping has been accepted as of yet, and the warranty would not begin until it had been accepted. Lisa Giersbach commented that there may have been some questionable choices in terms of species and placement. She asked if there was something that could happen in the spring as a separate project to move a few things and add plantings. Jon Himmel asked if the land closer to Fletcher Field was still part of the streetscape, budget-wise. DPF stated we would not know about available funds until early spring. It was reported that DPF continues to pursue refinements to the Solar canopy steel package in an effort to reduce costs and currently had a plan that expected $300,000 to $400,000 in savings and was seeking to get that out to bid quickly. Lexington High School Project Discussion updates Jon Himmel reviewed a presentation using many SMMA slides as a base. It was noted that the Old Harrington lot was 4.6 acres. He commented that the football field could be situated within the running track. The space plan proposed by SMMA was presented, and the gross square feet without the central office was 440,816. The central office was approximately 20,000 square feet. Jon Himmel presented a summary of the options, including the 2015 suggestion and Branch option. He discussed the different options and compared them. There were three different solutions for new construction, all of which encroached on all fields except one lit ball field. There were advantages to each of the schemes that the SBC was evaluating. The school pod neighborhoods were positioned differently in the different schemes, and all of them were four stories. The solutions for new phased-in-place and phased-in-place options were presented. Every option except D4 was four stories. He reviewed each of the options. Jon Himmel examined the 2015 concept update and whether the building would be demoed or kept. He created a four-story building as the first phase and another building as the second phase. He stated it appeared it would be a five-phase process. Jon Himmel presented the updated 2018 concept. There were two issues: building within 30 feet of the language building and having to blow out the fieldhouse. In the first phase, buildings could be vacated, and in the second phase, buildings could further be vacated. To complete the phases, people would have to walk outside. The first two phases would be more than three years in total. Jon Himmel presented the "B.ranch" option and stated that the areas were close and could be done in four phases. He noted that the entrance, the auditorium, and the recreation space were in the same cluster near the center, which he liked. Jon Himmel summed up his presentation by showing the following slide. The purpose of the slide was to examine the difference in project duration and construction disruption by juxtaposing all of the current SMMA options (add/reno, new, and phased in place) plus an updated 2015 SMMA masterplan notion, and a concept of an add/reno scheme entitled "B.ranch" that utilized SMMA's current Branch option as its basis. Options Summary for Discussion New New Construction in Open Space Phased in Place,Phased Add/Reno ir1 Place 2015 C;.t.e'.9 C.2b C"5b D2 BA BA V.1p,ai Krranch ii'� i%. ........ _ Cool,Yroaction"fytac ailnew Anew all new allnew add/veno addlreno addhenn add/moo C.1.d Branch C.2.8 Braid C.58 Bloom D,2 Weave BA Quad B.4 Figure Updated 7415 Branch Current Recreation Fields Building Construction Building Construction Layufawn&Moduadars LaydownffiModulmra Larydown&Madutar4 Laydnwn6Motfularw LaydownGMudularx Improve sit but Ci,42 Improve all but C1,C2 Improve alt but Cl,C2 Equal to current Equat to current E'qua4 to current Equal to current Faust to current Quantity of Recreation Fields when eompletod &l^7 &G7 &C7 Modums No No No Yes Yeas Yes Maybe not Yes Minimum Gonstruct on i 1 1 1 4 4 5 5 4 Building Construction Duration(all plWsrs�........ 3 3 3 5.5 B Cita1 8.5 B Postracc:ulrancy unulruaroatran^.,irelds res,Corerl 1 T. 1 ?F:arlainB iq Ettailag 1 "?ptnkirr8lS StluaEhlE Total C0t5Stn4Ction Dunton 4 4 4 5.5 7 6.5 8.5 8 Tota{Construction puratran By their very nature, the add/reno and phased in place options are • built in the immediate vicinity of the existing school operation and a therefore more disruptive than the "new" options built on the recreation fields. • Necessarily must be built in phases and are therefore longer in duration than the "new" on recreation field options. • Require modular classrooms which are not eligible for MSBA reimbursement, but • Have the benefits of being less disruptive to the recreation fields and preserve some of the existing structure. Brian Black stated that the presentation showed a great deal of understanding of the designs and what they had been discussing. He stated he was glad the connectivity issue was mentioned because it was often unseen. He discussed that they tried to reconnect things as much as possible, but it was at least a temporary challenge. It was asked how the new construction buildings could be shrunk to be close to the service road. Brain Black stated that they had some success in modifying the "Bloom" scheme. It was flexible in how it could be manipulated and rotated, and it worked well at a conceptual level, but it would impact at least some wetlands. He stated he felt they at least had a viable version of the scheme that did not affect the two lit fields. Brian Black shared the graphic material for the "Bloom" option. He noted it was the one option that could be adjusted so much because it had a strong center of gravity and could be more compressed. Henrietta discussed the continued problem of centralization and that it would be beneficial to have a centralized scheme. She discussed the amount of time it would take for students to get from class to class in the more spread- out options, such as the "Branch" option. Brian Black discussed how the wetlands were being worked around. A large linear portion would be worked around or potentially worked over with a type of bridging. On two sides, the buildings would be relatively close, and it was mentioned that a retaining wall could be built on one of the sides. Jon Himmel commented that the parking option was nice in the "Bloom" option as well. Lisa Giersbach asked for more information on the buildings near the undeveloped land and asked about the sense of entry. Brian Black discussed that there would be separate entries and there could be separate bus versus car routes. Due to the high sustainability goals of the project, almost 100% of the parking spaces were being covered with solar canopies. If the parking was close to the building, it could obstruct some of the view. He stated that there was a lot of potential for a secondary entry on the side. He discussed that it could be done that two entrances were complementary rather than competing against each other. Brian Black stated that the undeveloped land was a bit more uneven and could affect the preparation pad. LHS CM Selection Process Discussion Mike Burton reported that the CM at Risk Selection Subcommittee was formed. Christina Dell Angelo presented the timeline for the Selection process, noting that they were set with the advertisements and that the goal was to meet with the CM Selection Subcommittee to review the next step of the two-step process. She reported that the two-step process included a request for qualifications and a request for proposals. In the request for proposals, there was a price and non-price components submitted. The qualifications portion was due on October 9, and they would be reviewed the week of October 10. The shortlist of firms will be reviewed on October 15. The walkthrough was planned for October 24. The request for proposals was due on November 14. The proposals would be reviewed for the weeks of November 14 and November 27. The firms would be reviewed the week of December 2, the Subcommittee would discuss the interviewees the week of December 9, and the goal was to award the phase 1 pre-construction services contract by December 16. It was asked how the timeline fit into the other projects. Christina Dell Angelo stated it already fit in very well with the project schedule, and the idea was to get the CM on board right as the PSR submission was done. LHS PSR Estimate Prep Recommendations Jon Himmel commented that it was an interesting relationship with all of the individuals working on the projects. He stated it would be nice if there were at least of overlap between having the CM on prior to the PSR submission. He asked if the questions could be answered a bit earlier to see the level of service and degree of interest from the pre-construction team. It was discussed whether or not the SBC-approved draft was included in the CM RFP. Jon Himmel suggested giving the CM two weeks to respond to the review section. Christina Dell Angelo noted that they had to go through Massachusetts procurement laws, and it was a two-step process. It was asked how editing the qualifications would affect the timeline. Christina Dell Angelo stated any comments would be received by the end of the day on Friday, September 13, and it would go live on Wednesday, September 18. It was discussed that it would be helpful to get the CM applicants' inputs on the schematic design and timeline to see if there were different opinions on the duration needed. It was decided that the contractor would still be brought in once the single design was settled on. Christina Dell Angelo stated that a month was needed with the team to put together the PSR submission, which it was not being submitted until December 16. If the December meeting was missed, the next chance would be in February. Public Comment A community member, Peter Kelley, commented that in the August meeting, they were told to keep quiet and that they would be able to comment later. He stated that SMMA said they were only authorized to meet with them if they went through the Chair of the SBC. They asked to present another idea that would solve a lot of problems for the project. Mr. Kelley presented his plan. During the discussion that ensued, it was pointed out that it was very similar to a design option that was discussed earlier in the evenings presentation. Some of the details of the add reno scheme were discussed in more detail including the complexities of phasing and the need for temporary space. Although Mr. Kelley's solution had the benefit of preserving more of the recreation fields, it suffered from the same issues as all of the other add/reno schemes to date—excessive disruption and long project duration. The Committee thanked SMMA for showing the revised "Bloom" option that was turned to get off field C1. A community member spoke against demoing next to the student's education spaces. They encouraged the Committee to stop the churn of active construction in the education environment. Urgent Business There was no further business. Summary of action items There were no action items. Motion to adjourn, all approved.