The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2024-04-01-SBC-min (Exterior and Interior Focus Group) MEETING NOTES d�A/ WIIII� I..........I Meeting Date: April 1, 2024 Project Name: Lexington High School Project Number: Subject: Exterior and Interior Focus Group Meeting Attendees: ............... Present Name Affiliation Present Name Affiliation ............... ............... ............... ............................................................................................................................... Kathleen Lenihan SBC Chair&SC Member Timothy Lee(TL) Design Advisory (KL) Committee ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Michael Cronin SEC Vice Chair&LPS Henrietta Mei(HM) Permanent Building (MC) Facilities Committee Julie Hackett OH) SuperintendentJ Todd Rhodes(TD) Sustainable Lexington Vice Chair .................................................................................................................................................... .............................................................................................................. Elizabeth Yan(EY) LHS Student Sustainable Lexington Cynthia Arens (CA) Committee Chair Mark Connor 'Tree Committee Co Chair Luke Yung(LY) LHS Student (MC2) ............................................................... ........................................................................................................ Jeff Harris OH2) Computer Science Teacher J Lorraine Finnegan SMMA Project Manager (LF) ...............................................................-----------------------------------------------------------------....................................................................................................... nt Buildin 'Jon Himmel OH3) Permaneg Matt Rice(MR) SMMA Project Architect Committee Chair Chris Bouchard Project Engineer Brian Black(BB) SMMA Design (CB) Architect ' Rachel Jayson(RJ) Performing Arts Teacher Alicia Kosasih(AK2) SMMA Interior Designer ............................................................... Wendy Krum Permanent Building J Michael Dowhan SMMA Architectural (WK) Committee (MID) Designer ........................................................................................................................... Anoush Krafian SMMA Assistant Project Mike Burton(MB) Dore Whittier (AK) Manager ....................................... .............................................................................................................. ....................................... Damian Bameschi J Christina Dell Dore+Whittier (DB) Angelo(CD) Alan Levine(AL) Appropriations Committee Rachel Rincon Dore Whittier ............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................. Vincent Leroy(VL) Elias Grijalva Dore+Whittier Lin Jensen(LJ) J Jacob Greco OG) Dore Whittier ............................................................................................................. Tina McBride(TM) .......................................... Veirimont MassachUsetts www,doii eandWNn�eii coim Agenda Description Item 1 Introduction: Refer to attendees list. 2. 1 Review proposed PDP Recommendations from Focus Group to the SBC and review current Massing Study Alternatives: • The Interior and Exterior Focus Group Meeting started at 1:00pm BB: - Reviewed the previous Focus Group meetings and discussed the goals for today Designing for the Future: • EID 1: Future expansion design should be incorporated - Given • TR: clarification for how the future expansion will be provided ■ Future expansion could be vertically but also horizontally onto more land • LF: Expansion would be for classrooms/bathrooms/teacher rooms not for larger cafes, gyms, etc... ■ The expansion would be somewhere around 50,000 - 60,000 NSF • EID 2: Design needs to be flexible to respond to new teaching methods - Given • EID 3/4:The building will be large and have impacts on the surrounding environment, be sure not to build larger than needed - Given • EID 5:To learn about schools that build upwards when constricted in space for expansion - More discussion • SMMA noted they need more review on their end to finalize it • JH: Do higher stories incur more cost? ■ Once a building is deemed a high rise there is often more costs associated due to the stricter code • Most schools are no more than 4 stories but there are examples such as Somerville that are 6-7 stories • EID 6: Consider the potential of another pandemic in the design - Given • KL:This applies to everyday life as people are always sick and asks that the language be modified to capture this ■ SMMA will update the language • AL: Will every classroom support hybrid learning? ■ SMMA noted it will depend on the technology budget once it is finalized ■ JH: noted that the Ed plan specified certain areas for hybrid learning to take place Sustainability • EID 7:Avoiding toxic materials and using green materials - Given • EID 8: Consider embodied carbon during building and demo - Given • The future school will use some of the existing concrete foundations • AL: What are the tradeoffs of using existing structures? ■ SMMA noted it is a case-by-case business • TR: Will each option have a carbon estimate ■ SMMA will make a note and ask ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Page 2 of 7 • MC2: Even if LHS is not registered as historical there could be importance in preserving it ■ SMMA noted that even the Reno option would be hiding the building in new facades/insulation, but they will preserve portions of the building and use them in new ways to reflect the previous LHS • EID 9/10:To think about food waste and the ability to return reusable products - Given • EID 11: Building orientation to maximize solar orientation for building energy savings and maximize natural sunlight- Given • EID 12/13: Exterior design to incorporate fundamentals of energy efficiency in the performance of the building and its insulation value - More Discussion Needed • EID 14: Study pros &cons of using Mass Timber(structural wood elements) which would provide a renewable product and carbon reduction - More Discussion Needed • EID 15: Be creative with solar panel locations, they can be maximized at rooftop and on-grade parking - More Discussion Needed • EID 16: Include operational energy constraints in overall decision-making More Discussion Needed Site Design: • EID 17/18/19: Incorporate access to the outdoors in the design, allowing for upper classman to leave the school while still providing adequate security- More Discussion Needed • EID 20: Building should seemingly fit into the environmental surroundings • SMMA noted that this school is on a public park, so it is important to fit this large school building in properly • EID 21: Prioritize design options that integrate in one design both the high school and community elements - Given • EID 22/23/24: Consider separate parking areas for PE/athletic wing, arts wing, and for teachers/students, etc... - More Discussion Needed • Noted that the senior often leave to go to the cars so it should be incorporated into the design • JH: at the Estabrook school building they reduced the number of parking spots, and it has become a large issue • SMMA noted the school committee must decide on parking/ridership policy • CA/MC2:The Lexington Community should be involved in the decision making on parking • EID 25: Consider where delivery dock is in relation to food services - Given • VL:The kitchen is not the only location that would require use of the loading dock ■ SMMA noted they are often at the kitchen but provide "loading pathways" to allow for the movement of goods to the required pathways Designing for Lexington Page 3 of 7 • EID 26- 29: Create a space that is warm and welcoming and where people want to be - Given • EID 30: Create a space that is modern and for the future but provides a nod to the history and past of Lexington - Given • T.McBride: I know people want to reflect the revolutionary history, but the brutalist design should be incorporated as it is also part of Lexington's History Student experience during Construction • EID 31:To consider construction impacts of each alternative for the students currently in school - Given • T.McBride: Noted that during the Estabrook construction students were impacted and must eat lunch in a tent Desire to see Precedents • EID 32:Tour other schools in the surrounding area to gain insight- Given • A tour to visit other schools and urban schools nearby is currently being scheduled • LJ: Lincoln School and Winchester High should be visited; how did these two towns decide on Reno over New Construction. ■ SMMA noted that Lincoln is a K-8 non MSBA building that does not reflect the LHS circumstances. It is important to note the scale as Winchester was a large reno and small addition whereas LHS would be a large addition with only a small reno. • JH: We will be touring Somerville (Addition/Reno,Arlington (Phased Construction), Belmont(Addition/Reno), and Waltham (All new and currently in construction) • T.McBride: What were the differences in reno vs add for the schools talked about ■ Somerville 400,000 SF total with 80,000 of Reno ■ Winchester only has a 20,000 SF addition ■ LHS would have a 300,000 SF addition 'Auditorium • EID 33: Important for the community to have a functional auditorium for all stakeholders - More Discussion Needed • SMMA noted that they are currently including a 1000 seat count but with a larger stage and fly tower • EID 34:The inclusion of an orchestra pit- More Discussion Needed • EID 35:The Auditorium stage should have adequate wing space and a full fly tower- Given Interior Planning and Design • EID 36:The compartmentalization of the school so after hour access can be allowed while not opening the school up to the public - Given • EID 37: Consider creating educational neighborhoods for organizing the school Given • EID 38:Athletics and performing arts have substantial number of visitors, all programs should have appropriately sized and located entrances - Given • EID 39: Prioritize designs that provide low sensory areas throughout the school - Given ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Page 4 of 7 • EID 40:The media center should be foot traffic should be controlled and deliberate - Given • EID 41: Consider flexible cafeteria space with movable furniture so the space can be multi-use - Given • SMMA noted they are planning for a large rolling door so the kitchen can be in use at the same time as a function in the cafeteria • MC2:The mention of how food is served and prepared should be included in the recommendation • EID 42: Possible food appropriate space distributed on the campus - More Discussion Needed • SMMA can provide options, but the Food Policy needs to be reviewed as well • LJ:The IDP needs dishwashers, LHS is already running out of space for trash. Reuse stations for product other than water should be provided • T.McBride:The Cafeteria is often used as a practice room for the performing arts. During study times it is often empty, and it should be captured for the use of study • EID 43:Acoustic absorbent tiles should be included in classrooms - Given • EID 44: Interior design should incorporate natural light and vibrant spaces Given • TR:The concern of natural light interfering with projection screens and teaching methods ■ SMMA noted that placing the building east to west would solve that problem and it is what fueled some of the designs. With the rising and setting sun vertical barriers can be used to help limit the exposure. • EID 45:A concern about Linoleum products - More Discussion Needed • All product data will be reviewed carefully before being specified Massing Study Review • Currently there are 13 alternatives • Category A: Code Upgrades • Category B:Addition/Renovation ■ B.1: Renovation and Addition - Phased in Place • 280,000sf&2-4 Floors • Pros: o No permanent changes to existing fields o Preserves existing Building G and J concrete structures o Access to outdoors o Recreates Quad and maintains Muzzey St. connection • Cons: o Highly disruptive multi-phase construction o Renovations down to structure o Low headroom in existing o Extensive need for temporary modular classrooms during construction 0 Less room for additional program ................................................................................ ............ Page 5 of 7 ■ B.2: Renovation and Addition - Center Shift • 246,800sf&2-4 Floors • Pros: 0 More dense massing further from neighborhood 0 Preserves existing Building G and J concrete structures o Access to outdoors o Enclosed courtyard • Cons: o Multi-phase construction o Displaces some athletic fields o Renovations down to structure o Low headroom in existing • Category C: New Construction in one phase (Please see attached Presentation for References) ■ 3 Stories • C.1 a: E-W Wings,Academics along North • C.2a: E-W Wings,Academics along West • C.3a: E-W Wings, Double-Loaded Academics (not viable) • C.4a:Academic Village, Internal Courtyard ■ 4 to 5 Stories • C.1 b&c: 4 and 5 Story Academics • C.2b: 4 Story Academics (not viable) • C.4b: 4 Story "Village" Orthogonal Form • C.5: 3-4 Stories Center Courtyard, Fanning Wings • Category D: New Construction ■ D.1 Phased with New Field House • Base Educational Program: 279,000sf with New 72,000sf Field House • Pros: o Current building remains in use throughout construction o Access to outdoors o Highly differentiated educational clusters o Enclosed courtyard 200m (about 656.17 ft) indoor track • Cons: o Fields separate from center rec complex • JH: Is the new 72,000sf field house forcing this design or can it be incorporated into other alternatives? • MC2: It would be good to avoid a singular mass structure like Belmont High ................................................................................ ............ Page 6 of 7 Close • The Interior and Exterior Focus Group meeting closed at 3:00pm • Meeting#4- May 16th, 3:30 - 5:30 • The four focus groups will reconvene to discuss each group's recommendations Sincerely, 1III'° IIII III°°i III""IIC"""'lIC"'IIIIIII Jacob Greco Assistant Project Manager Cc:Attendees, File The above is my summation of our meeting. If you have any additions and/or corrections, please contact me for incorporation into these minutes. Page 7 of 7