Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-02-27-PBC-minTOWN OF LEXINGTON Permanent Building Committee Permanent Members Jon Himmel Co -Chairman Charles Favazzo Co -Chairman Peter Johnson, Cells Brisbin, Elizabeth Giersbach, Frederick Merrill, Ian Adamson Associate Members: Wendy Krum, Henrietta Mei PBC Minutes for the meeting held on: 2-27-25 Meeting was held hybrid via Zoom Members Present: Jon Himmel, Celis Brisbin, Peter Johnson, Fred Merrill, Lisa Giersbach, Wendy Krum Others Present: David Kanter, Dr. Hackett, Mark Sandeen, Deepika Shawhney, Cindy Arens, Kathleen Lenihan, Kavitha Venkatesan, Dan Voss, Andy Joint, Todd Rhodes, Andrew Baker, Mark Barrett, Mike Cronin SMMA and D&W and Turner: Lorraine Finnegan, Michael Burton, Steve Brown Matthew Rice, Christina Dell Angelo Anoush Krafian, Brian Black, Tom Faust The PBC Meeting was called to order at 6:09 pm. The SBC did not meet a quorum. The SLC meeting was called to order. Lexington High School Project — Introduce, Discuss, Confirm Jon Himmel discussed a suggestion to structuring the meeting minutes to incorporate SMMA's approval tasks and to provide a framework to consider items. He asked for an update on ProCore as a tool and if the CM would be picking up the minutes. Update on ProCore setup: It was reported that invites were sent out to the team for ProCore setup, and there were a couple of opportunities for PBC to use it. They would continue to work towards getting the system set up and provide an update in the near future. Space Layouts/Circulation: The space layouts and circulation plans were due for confirmation on April 10. Programming and building design direction were due for confirmation on February 27. The building floor plan was reviewed, and it was noted that they were still working on continuing to define the zones of the building. One of the main takeaways was that of the three entrances into the main lobby the west entrance had a more positive civic presence for the building and might be considered the "Main Entrance". The elevator lobby would be directly opposite the main office for better visibility and safety. Two other entrances were moving directly into the main space. On review of level two, it was discussed that having a good flow for the students was critical. There were multiple stair towers to enable ease of travel. Level third level showed the upper-level courtyard, Art and a STEM wing on level three. Level four included the central office expansion, which fully occupied one wing. With added program space and classrooms in other wings. Jon Himmel commented that there were a lot of exterior walls facing the courtyard on level three and suggested creating a protected space to put plants or other items. He discussed exploring the upper interior space. He asked if light would be coming in from three sides. It was discussed that the bridge enclosures were glassy, and they were starting to visualize what it would feel like to drop into the courtyard space. Applying program on the inner or outer edges of the bridges to provide a more layered view was also being explored. The intention was that the elements would be more transparent rather than opaque. The primary usefulness of the courtyard was to drive the light down into it. There were some concerns about the double -high space from SBC as well. Lisa Giersbach noted that the design of the courtyard would be very critical to its use and that the students would not want to be the main focus of attention. She discussed creating nooks and ensuring that the students would feel comfortable. She asked about the change in entry on level one. Brian Black explained the challenges and stated that they were screening it visually. He stated that there were a series of sketches being designed that addressed the pedestrian routes. It was noted that there was an exterior and interior design focus group being held on March 4 from 3 to 5 pm. Cindy Arens asked how many people could sit in the cafeteria and discussed the space needed for lunchtime. Andrew Baker clarified that they had 2,400 students and three lunches, so space for 800 students was needed. Brian Black stated that the cafeteria was sized for 800 students, but they needed to examine the furniture layout as well. Some of level two could be needed. Jon Himmel discussed the potential cost of the winter garden. Mark Sandeen raised concerns about using electricity to melt snow on sidewalks due to cost and that it could not keep up with the snow. It was clarified that tubing for radiant heat rather than electricity could be used, if we chose to have this feature. Tom Faust from SMMA discussed circulation in the building. At a slower pace simulating an overcrowded condition during class passing time, the total travel time was seven minutes in the current building. The proposed building travel time was three and a half minutes at an average adult walking speed. Elevators: There were three elevators planned for the building, with one being dedicated to serving the central office. Each elevator would require a small mechanical room. The plan was that every elevator would have card access installed, but it still needed to be decided who would have access. No elevators would go to the roof. Jon Himmel asked about the location of elevator three if the student population grew and the central office moved. Tom Faust stated that they were exploring the location and would likely move it closer to the center of the building. It was asked if elevator access to the roof was needed. Tom Faust stated that elevator access to the roof was not desired. Future Expansion (gross square footage): Brian Black discussed the future expansion, noting the upper limit of 3,000 students. When examining the potential conversion of the central office space, the capacity was 322 students, which left a need for 283 students. Other expansion possibilities included a four -bay extension on level three for an additional 522 students or a three -bay expansion on level three, which exceeded the target by 6%. Other spaces adjacent to the dining commons for additional dining were explored as well. Mr. Baker advocated for the expansion of space to occur on level one, which needed to be explored further. Jon Himmel stated that the town had agreed upon the number of approved students for expansion. He noted that it looked like the numbers for expansion could be exceeded in the future. Brian Black stated that expanding the C wing was difficult due to the wetland. They could potentially examine a further extension of the B wing. Bleacher Seat count: Tom Faust stated that the minimum bleacher count was 1,000, which resulted in a fairly large bleacher system He presented the options, noting that one primary concern was to allow the bleachers to be fully extended without impinging on the courts. SBC liked the centered bleacher option with eight tiers, which had 1,016 seats. Brian Black stated that the bleacher count for the field house was 400. Other kinds of space supporting the actual programs, locker space, training space, and weight rooms were higher-level needs than increasing the seating in the bleachers. The track size and field house options were tabled at the SBC meeting and would be revisited on March 10, along with the bleacher seat count for the field house. Confirm 146M or 200M track: Brian Black stated that the problems with the field house related mainly to safety and not having great representation or inclusion of the space for all programs. There was consensus among the groups to use the 146M track, but the track coaches preferred a 200M track. The track coaches requested consideration of a banked track if the 146M track was pursued. Brian Black stated that doing a banked track created other challenges. The constructability and budgeting of the field house itself were the other considerations. Brian Black presented the two track options. Andrew Baker discussed the uses of the track and stated that it needed to work for a lot of people and different programs. The 146M track would be more usable to the public. The PE alternative space would work for wrestling as well as other spaces. The best use of the space for all people would be the 146M track. Brian Black stated that regardless of Track size, the AD had shared that there would be no hosting of track meets at Lexington. He discussed the need to accommodate different uses. Wendy Krum asked how big the outside track was. It was reported that it was 400M. PBC confirmed moving forward with the 146M track. Field house Add/Reno: Brian Black presented the four options for the field house. At the SBC meeting, the focus was on options C and D, and concerns were raised about the cost of those two options. If the focus was on improving the track environment, options C and D were the best. Jon Himmel stated that Chuck Favazzo was in favor of option A. He discussed that it was fiscally responsible to move forward with option A. It was clarified that the current base price included option B, which was $42,625,000. It was asked for SMMA to look at the gains of option D with the flat roof. It was noted that SMMA was looking at a solar study that would be possible for option D. PBC agreed with SBC on choosing option C or D. Jon Himmel discussed that the best option would be option E, which would be a rectangular box. Option D2 was also discussed. Mass Timber vs. structural steel: The three options for mass timber compared to structural steel were presented. Option C was $2 million and would include exposed beams. Brian Black noted it was not feasible to have mass timber in the gymnasium. SBC decided not to move forward with any of the mass timber options. Cindy Arens asked for full metrics on embodied carbon to be provided. Brian Black stated that the sustainability team was working on the information. Integrated automation systems (BMS) The Town of Lexington desired an integrated automation system, and various systems would be monitored through the BMS. The specifics would be determined for the May meeting. It was discussed that battery -powered systems posed too many challenges. Town facilities also preferred the hardwired approach. The PBC confirmed the hard -wired approach. Location of Energy Storage/Battery: The size was still being worked on, but the general plan was to have them in one utility area. The utility area would contain all equipment. This information would be confirmed at the May meeting. Cindy Arens asked about the approximate size of space needed. The area would contain two battery storage areas of 8 MegaWatts at most. EV Charging Station quantiles and EV Charging Stations: There were 500 total parking spots and only 31 new spots. There would be a maximum of 31 EV charging spaces required. If all 500 spaces were counted as new, the cost for additional EV charging spaces would increase to $3.1 million. It was requested to break out the EV and PV costs to make a better -informed decision The stretch code and bylaws were discussed. Cindy Arens discussed the assumptions that should be listed in the costs, such as how many days the chargers would be used. Mark Sandeen suggested validating the kilowatt numbers with Maggie since he remembered them being closer to 20,000 -kilowatt hours per four charges. He noted that the numbers were also increasing. Jon Himmel noted that the SBC did not have an understanding of the hours of use. Dan Voss stated that it was agreed at an SBC meeting to show the numbers. Maggie discussed that the usage had increased dramatically, and in FY24, it was 86,000 kWh for 11 chargers. It was noted that other information, such as potential revenue and charging individuals for using the EV chargers, needed to be discussed. Public Comment There was no public comment. Urgent Business There was no further business. Motion to adjourn both PBC and SLC, all approved.