HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-03-18-SBC-min IIS Iii,,
SCHOOL COMMITTEE /SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES d�llllv
ll)oII° IIII °°III°°° h 111111""I""""I""1111111
Project: Lexington High School Project No:
Subject: School Building Committee Meeting Meeting Date: 3/18/24
Location: Hybrid (146 Maple Street&Zoom) Time: 12:00 PM
Distribution: Attendees, Project File Prepared By: R. Rincon
Present Name Affiliation Present Name Affiliation
✓ Kathleen Lenihan* SBC Chair&SC Member ✓ Mike Burton DWMP
✓ Michael Cronin* SBC Vice-Chair&LPS Facilities ,/ Christina Dell Angelo DWMP
✓ Julie Hackett* Superintendent Steve Brown DWMP
....✓ ... Jim Malloy* .... Town Manager.... .... .... .... ....Mike Cox.... .... DWMP .... ....
✓ Joe Pato* Select Board Chair ✓ Rachel Rincon DWMP
Mark Barrett* Public Facilities Manager Jason Boone DWMP
....✓ .. Charles FavazzoJr*.. PBC Co-Chair .... .... .... .... ....Brad Dore .... DWMP .... ....
....✓ ... Jonathan Himmel*.... PBC Chair .... .... .... ....✓ ....Jacob Greco .... DWMP .... ....
✓ Andrew Baker* Interim Lexington High School Principal Chris Schaffner Green Engineer
✓ Carolyn Kosnoff* Finance Assistant Town Manager ,/ Lorraine Finnegan SMMA
✓ Hsing Min Sha* Community Representative ✓ Rosemary Park SMMA
✓ Kseniya Slaysky* Community Representative ✓ Matt Rice SMMA
Charles Lamb Capital Expenditures Committee ✓ Brian Black SMMA
✓ Alan Levine Appropriation Committee Erin Prestileo SMMA
✓ Dan Voss* Sustainable Lexington Committee AnthonyJimenez SMMA
Maureen Kavanaugh Director of Planning and Assessment Martine Dion SMMA
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....✓ ....Anoush Krafian .... SMMA .... ....
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....✓ ....MichaelDowhan .... SMMA .... ....
Action Item Follow Up
9.5 - Send doodle poll for communications DWMP
working group
Verrrrorrt: ( Massar:hus t:t:s vvvvvv.dorearidvvliillier.coa ri
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 9-3/18/2024
Page: 2
Item
No.
9.1 Call to Order & Intro: 12:04PM meeting was called to order by SBC Chair K. Lenihan Record
with 12 of 13 voting members in attendance.
9.2 Approval of February 26, 2024, March 4, 2024, and March 11, 2024, Meeting Record
Minutes:
➢ A motion to approve the 2/26/2024, 3/4/2024, and 3/11/2024, meeting minutes
as amended by J. Himmel made by H. Sha and seconded by J. Hackett.
Discussion: None. Roll Call Vote: A. Baker - Yes, M. Cronin - Yes, C. Favazzo -
Yes,J. Hackett-Yes,J. Himmel -Yes, C. Kosnoff-Yes,J. Pato -Yes, K. Slaysky-
Yes, H. Sha -Yes, K. Lenihan -Yes. 10-0-0.
9.3 Design Update: Record
Accept Proposed Space Summary:
➢ K. Lenihan highlighted that during the last School Committee meeting, both
the space summary and the educational plan received approval from the
School Committee.
➢ R. Park presented the space summary and requested that the School Building
Committee also approve it. Several changes were made, all of which were
explained.
➢ L. Finnegan explained that the MSBA wants a space summary that is only the
school program (baseline).There are also"adders"(central office, new
fieldhouse, pool, etc.).The reason why we are asking you to accept this today
is because we need to be able to tell the cost estimators the baseline school is
"X". We will also ask the cost estimators to give a price for all the different
variations. When we return the cost estimate to you, it will show the baseline
cost of the school and the"adders". For the entire course of this project the
MSBA will require us to have a baseline only.
➢ L. Finnegan mentioned aiming to finalize decisions regarding the central office,
fieldhouse, and pool by the second and third weeks of July.
Discussion:
➢ H. Sha inquired whether the 85%occupancy is both standard. R. Park clarified
that it's not about occupancy but rather the utilization of space. H. Sha
questioned if there's room for flexibility. M. Rice responded, suggesting that
there's some leeway between 85%and 100%that allows for flexibility.
➢ J. Hackett asked if adjustments could be made if the square footage remains
unchanged. R. Park explained that minor edits and changes are typical and
expected until the schematic design phase.
➢ H. Sha sought clarification on how today's vote would affect decisions
regarding the fieldhouse and pool. R. Park noted that they understand the
fieldhouse and pool decisions are pending for the building committee and the
Page 2 of 9
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 9-3/18/2024
Page: 3
town.Today's vote doesn't preclude decisions on items like a new field house
or central offices.
➢ K. Lenihan requested clarification on whether the baseline school includes
academic areas such as cores, arts, and music. L. Finnegan clarified that it
encompasses spaces necessary to meet curriculum requirements.
➢ K. Slaysky summarized that the vote isn't solely about specific square footage
for each area but rather reflects confidence in the process conducted by
consultants and the school community.The extensive outreach and working
sessions have been thoroughly communicated, instilling confidence in the
work accomplished thus far.
Vote:
A motion to accept the proposed space summary made by H. Sha and seconded by K.
Slaysky. Discussion: None. Roll Call Vote:A. Baker-Yes, M. Cronin -Yes, C. Favazzo -
Yes,J. Hackett-Yes,J. Himmel -Yes, C. Kosnoff-Yes,J. Malloy-Yes.J. Pato -Yes, K.
Slaysky-Yes, H. Sha -Yes, K. Lenihan -Yes. 11-0-0.
Accept Site Development Requirements:
➢ L. Finnegan pointed out that SMMA had not received any comments. She
mentioned a few missing elements, such as Canopy PV parking, which were
subsequently added. Emphasizing that this is still a draft, she assured that
amendments or changes are possible. Everyone will have another opportunity
to review the complete PDP package when all sections are compiled. If any
issues are noticed before submission to the MSBA, they should be brought to
attention.The aim is to provide the package incrementally for easier digestion,
considering that the complete PDP package will be a sizable 500-600-page
document.
Vote:
A motion to accept the site development requirements made by H. Sha and seconded
by J. Hackett. Discussion: None. Roll Call Vote:A. Baker-Yes, M. Cronin -Yes, C.
Favazzo -Yes,J. Hackett-Yes,J. Himmel -Yes, C. Kosnoff-Yes,J. Malloy-Yes.J. Pato
-Yes, K. Slaysky-Yes, H. Sha -Yes, K. Lenihan -Yes. 11-0-0.
Review Concept Massing Alternatives:
➢ B. Black examined the conceptual massing alternatives and outlined that the
table presented reflects SMMA's ongoing exploration of additional options
aligning with the approved space summary's scale.There remains several
weeks before a decision is required from Lexington regarding which option to
advance.A total of 13 alternatives are under consideration, with those
highlighted in red indicating new variations on options presented three weeks
earlier.
➢ A. Code Upgrade
Page 3 of 9
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 9-3/18/2024
Page:4
➢ B. Renovation/Addition
o B.2 Addition/Renovation - Center Shift
• Building Footprint: 246,800 sf
• Floors: 2-4
• Pros: more dense massing further from neighborhood.
Preserves existing building G, and J concrete structures. Access
to outdoors. Enclosed Courtyard.
• Cons: Multi-phase construction. Displaces some alethic fields.
➢ C New Construction - One Phase
o SMMA opted not to proceed with the C.3a option due to concerns
regarding the challenging layout of outdoor spaces between the
building elements. Additionally, the narrow configuration made it
difficult to establish a clear sense of purpose and connectivity.
• C.1 New Construction -Wide Academic Bar North
• Base Educational Program
• Renovated Field House
• Floors:Varies - See Plan
• Pros: Current building remains in use through construction.
Solar Orientation. Access to outdoors. Generous entry at east
• Cons: Fields separate from center rec complex.
• C.1 a New Construction -Wide Academic Bar North - 3 Stories
• C.1 b New Construction -4 Story Academics
• C.1 c New Construction - 5 Story Academics
• Reaching five stories will trigger high-rise code requirements.
• C.2b -Wide Academic Bars West
• Base Educational Program
• Renovated Field House (Enlarged)
• Building Footprint: 229,000 sf
• Floors: 4
• Elongated version of the existing field house.
• Pros: current building remains in use throughout construction.
Solar orientation.Access to Outdoors. 200m Track
• Cons: Fields Separate from center rec complex. Monumental
appearance, No direct field house connection.
• C.4b - New Construction -Academic Village
• Base Educational Program
• Renovated Field House
• Building Footprint: 232,750 sf
• Floors: 4
• Pros: Current remains in use throughout construction.Access
to outdoors. Highly differentiated educational clusters.
Enclosed courtyard
• Cons: Fields separate from center rec complex. Mix of facade
orientations.
• C.5- New Construction (New Shape)
Page 4 of 9
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 9-3/18/2024
Page: 5
• Base Educational Program
• New 36,000 sf Field House
• Building Footprint: 206,000 sf
• Floors: 4
• Pros: Current building remains in use throughout construction.
Access to outdoors. Highly differentiated educational clusters.
Enclosed courtyard. Direct connection to field house. 146m
track.
• Cons: Fields separate from center rec complex. Mix of facade
orientations.
o D.1 - New Construction - Phased with new Field House
• Base Educational Program
• New 72,000 sf field house
• Building Footprint: 279,000 sf
• Floors: 4
• Pros: Current building remains in use throughout construction.
Access to outdoors. Highly differentiated educational clusters.
Enclosed courtyard. 200m track.
• Cons: Fields separate from center rec complex.
➢ B. Black emphasized that each scenario includes an 18,000-square-foot gym
designed to support the school's curriculum.
➢ M. Burton mentioned that they are awaiting direction from senior MSBA
leadership regarding the feasibility of constructing the field house, if it were to
be a separate ballot vote and project, alongside the high school. The project
team is seeking clarification before the upcoming community meeting on April
4th. L. Finnegan elaborated that the MSBA has stipulated their funding for a
school project, prioritizing the school's construction. Any additional facilities,
such as a field house, must be secondary to the school project, meaning
construction cannot commence before the school project.
Discussion:
➢ C. Favazzo questioned why the renderings showcased the field house but did
not specify the locations for central offices and a pool. B. Black explained that
further discussions are needed regarding the field house, while central offices
can be incorporated into any scheme pending MSBA approval.
➢
J. Pato emphasized the need for accounting for a footprint accommodating
500 additional students in all designs. SMMA responded confidently, stating
that expansion is easily achievable in any of the base schemes, with further
exploration planned during the PSR phase.
➢
J. Malloy left the meeting at 12:53pm.
➢ A. Levine inquired about the rationale behind the 1-4 story progression in
option C.2b. B. Black explained that the approach aimed to scale down the
building towards the ground, potentially allowing for the occupation of
terraces with outdoor programs.
Page 5 of 9
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 9-3/18/2024
Page: 6
➢ A. Levine raised concerns about separate votes for a new field house and a
new school and recommended they not be scheduled on the same day to
avoid design complications. K. Lenihan clarified that while the MSBA project
requires its own vote, the select board decides how the debt exclusion ballot is
structured.A. Levine stressed the importance of structuring the votes to
ensure reasonable outcomes if the main vote passes and others do not.
➢ A. Baker complimented SMMA for capturing the idea of a quad in a new way
with option C.S.
➢ K. Slaysky noted potential issues with the travel time and path length between
classes in option C.S, suggesting the need for additional elevators.
➢ K. Slaysky discussed the balance between the building's monumentality and
land use, highlighting concerns about the impact on the landscape and
environment.
➢ K. Slaysky expressed concerns about the safety and visual appearance of
learning spaces on terraces.
➢ H. Sha inquired about the red line references in option C.2b. B. Black
explained that it signifies the connection via Muzzy Street, with plans for a
symbolic building when approaching the school from that direction.
➢ K. Lenihan asked if scheme C.5 could include a renovated field house. SMMA
confirmed it could.
➢ K. Lenihan asked if any high school has a 200-meter track. The project team
responded no.
➢ SMMA mentioned the possibility of squaring off curves for cost-effectiveness.
➢ SMMA emphasized caution regarding stacking too many programs vertically to
maintain efficiency without creating detrimental adjacencies.
➢ M. Burton asked about options with better site utilization or more fields.
SMMA assured that all new construction options can achieve the same
program, size, and field quality.
➢ D.Voss requested a rough order of magnitude (ROM)for solar capacity when
combining parking lot and roof space. SMMA stated it would add up to the
required 3.5 megawatts.
➢ J. Pato expressed confidence in option C.5 regarding students'travel time. He
stressed that we should be considering the tall options early as they reduce
foundation space and if expansion options are to increase height, building
initially for tall building codes is preferable to retrofitting later.J. Pato would
welcome any additional compact 5-story concepts.
Field House
➢ SMMA presented breakdowns of recent 200m track complexes, including
prices and square footage.
➢ SMMA highlighted that for Middlesex League indoor track meets, all 12 boys
and girls track teams compete simultaneously, totaling 24 teams, with
approximately 30 athletes per team, resulting in 720 athletes at a meet, along
with coaches and parents.
Page 6 of 9
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 9-3/18/2024
Page: 7
➢ SMMA discussed the current availability of school field houses in the
Middlesex League, noting that none currently feature 200m tracks. Some
schools host indoor track meets despite not having regulation-size tracks.
➢ SMMA pointed out the advantages of a flat track, such as the ability to use the
infield for other activities like a turf field or tennis courts, but acknowledged
the drawback that races cannot run concurrently.
➢ The MIAA and IAAF have different standard indoor track specification
requirements.
➢ SMMA reviewed additional private/out-of-state schools that have 200m field
houses.
➢ Field House Approaches
o Expand
• Existing field house addition/renovation
• 200m track
4 lane oval
o Replace
• New stand-alone field house
• 200m track
6 lane oval
• New 18K NSF Gym incorporated into new/renovated main
school building.
➢ M. Rice shared that there needs to be a clear separation between the
gymnasium and field house.
9.4 Community Meeting Feedback: Record
➢ M. Burton presented a dollar-to-dollar comparison of previous projects
completed before the onset of Covid, addressing concerns raised by the
community regarding the costs of recently completed high schools. D+W will
share this list once it is finalized.
➢ LHS Anticipated Project Timeline - Estimating
o April 2024- Preliminary Design Program - Conceptual Cost
Comparison
o November 2024- Preferred Schematic Report- Initial Estimate
o August 2025- Schematic Design - Estimate (Cost is finalized with
MSBA, after this it cannot be modified)
o November/December 2025-Town Meeting& Debt Exclusion Votes
o March 2026 - Design Development- Estimate
o August 2026- Construction Documents 60% - Estimate (Finish
Design/Early Site)
o January 2027 - Construction Documents 90%- Estimate
o May 2027 - Guaranteed Maximum Price (Final Bid)
Discussion:
Page 7 of 9
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 9-3/18/2024
Page: 8
➢ K. Slaysky emphasized that the final cost estimate should encompass wetland
relocation, temporary classroom facilities, and transportation if fields are not
local. SMMA clarified that while temporary facilities will be accounted for in the
project budget, the operational costs for the other requests will not be
included.
➢
J. Himmel requested a Turner cost index.
9.5 Communications Working Group Update(10 minutes): Record
➢ C. Dell Angelo mentioned that at the last meeting, they discussed the project
website and reviewed recent updates.
➢ D+W would like to schedule another meeting to finalize the postcard to local DWMP
neighbors for the upcoming community meeting.
9.6 Upcoming Meetings: Record
➢ Permanent Building Committee Meeting-March 19,2024 Preview of estimate package,
space summary review,massing study review
➢ SBC Coordination Meeting- March 25, 2024
➢ SBC Coordination Meeting-April 1, 2024
➢ Exterior and Interior Design Focus Group Meeting-April 1, 2024
➢ MEP and Sustainability Focus Group Meeting-April 3, 2024
➢ Community Meeting No.4-April 4, 2024 Focus Group report out, massing
study update, alternatives review
➢ SBC Coordination Meeting-April 8, 2024
➢ SBC Meeting#10 -April 22, 2024 Focus group update, review
MEP/Sustainability, Design recommendations, refine MEP/sustainability
requirements, taxpayer impact
9.7 Other Topics not Reasonably Anticipated 48 hours prior to the meeting: Record
➢ None.
9.8 Public Comment: Record
➢ M Battite asked what has been the direct community outreach to the abutters
of the park when soliciting feedback on the final building location, size, and
field locations relative to the renderings as next steps?
o M Burton noted they have begun the community outreach and have
drawn a 1000-foot radius around the site. Dore +Whittier believes that
an abutter only discussion should be held in April. We will also gather
the abutters email addresses.As we get closer and closer to
construction, there are the people who we think need an extra level of
attention.
➢ B. Pressman asked have the recreational municipal employees and the
recreation committee been shown the massings that were shown today with
explanation about fields, and had the opportunity to ask questions?What are
the rough estimates of the cost of the different field house sizes? Is the field
house and swimming pool shown at Belmont High School rehabbed elements
of the new high school that opened in 1970? L. Finnegan confirmed yes.
Page 8 of 9
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 9-3/18/2024
Page: 9
➢ S. McKenna shared that the field house working group will be submitting a
presentation ahead of the next SBC meeting next week. He noted that limiting
the field house for high jump, longjump, shotput is not ideal as they also
practice weight throwing and pole vaulting. He also shared that their track and
field team are 10%of the student population and want to provide a space for
kids to grow together.
➢ N. Finch noted she is a fan of the enclosed courtyard designs and hopes it
would match the current size that is there today. She also commented that if
parking spots are reduced it will overflow into the surrounding neighborhoods
as seen in other areas of the town. She asked if the plan is for all teachers to
have their own home classroom or rotate through the designated areas.
9.9 Adjourn: 2:03 PM a motion was made by J. Hackett and seconded by H. Sha to adjourn Record
the meeting. Roll Call Vote: A. Baker-Yes. M. Cronin -Yes,J. Himmel -Yes.J. Hacket-
yes,J. Pato-Yes, K. Slaysky-Yes. C. Kosnoff-Yes, H.Sha -Yes. D.Voss-Yes. K. Lenihan
-Yes. 10-0-0
Sincerely,
0[R Ih.�..�II 1-1-1 1['
Rachel Rincon
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 9 of 9