HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-26-SBC-min SCHOOL COMMITTEE/SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
D01::Z1fiii: Ili wi li'TRlfiiillfZ
Project: Lexington High School Project No:
Subject: School Building Committee Meeting Meeting Date: 2/26/24
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 J Mike Burton DWMP
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
✓ Michael Cronin* SBC Vice-Chair&LPS Facilities ✓ Christina Dell Angelo DWMP
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
✓ Julie Hackett* Superintendent Steve Brown DWMP
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
J Jim Malloy* Town Manager Mike Cox DWMP
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
✓ Joe Pato* Select Board Chair J Rachel Rincon DWMP
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mark Barrett* Public Facilities Manager Jason Boone DWMP
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
✓ Charles Favazzo Jr.* PBC Co-Chair Brad Dore DWMP
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Jonathan Himmel* PBC Chair Elias Grijalva DWMP
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Interim Lexington High School Green Engineer
✓ Andrew Baker* Principal Chris Schaffner
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
✓ Carolyn Kosnoff* Finance Assistant Town Manager ✓ Lorraine Finnegan SMMA
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Hsing Min Sha* Community Representative J Rosemary Park SMMA
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
J Kseniya Slaysky* Community Representative J 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
Michael Dowhan SMMA
ActionItem,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Follow Up�p
8.4 — Send doodle poll to evaluation criteria working DWMP
rou to schedule first ineetin .
11einrroa:.ain I MassacJhUSEUS Wrarwararar.r���ireanclWFarlhliV.u::i'ier.coirml
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 8-2/26/2024
Page:2
Item
No.
8.1 Call to Order & Intro: 12:03PM meeting was called to order by SBC Chair K. Lenihan Record
with 10 of 13 voting members in attendance.
8.2 Approval of January 22, 2024, Meeting Minutes: Record
➢ A motion to approve the 1/22/2024 meeting as submitted made by J. Hackett
and seconded by J. Pato. Discussion: None. Roll Call Vote: K. Lenihan-yes, M.
Cronin - yes,J. Hacket - yes,J. Pato - yes,J. Malloy - yes, C. Favazzo - yes, K.
Slaysky-yes, D.Voss-yes. 8-0-0.
Approval of January 29, 2024, Meeting Minutes:
➢ A motion to approve the 1/29/2024 meeting as submitted made by J. Hackett
and seconded by J. Pato. Discussion: None. Roll Call Vote: K. Lenihan -yes, M.
Cronin - yes,J. Hacket - yes,J. Pato - yes,J. Malloy - yes, C. Favazzo - yes, K.
Slaysky-yes, D.Voss-yes. 8-0-0.
Approval of February 5, 2024, Meeting Minutes:
➢ A motion to approve the 2/5/2024 meeting as submitted made by J. Hackett
and seconded by J. Pato. Discussion: None. Roll Call Vote: K. Lenihan -yes, M.
Cronin - yes,J. Hacket - yes,J. Pato - yes,J. Malloy - yes, C. Favazzo - yes, K.
Slaysky-yes, D.Voss-yes. 8-0-0.
Approval of February 12, 2024, Meeting Minutes:
➢ A motion to approve the 2/12/2024 meeting minutes amended to remove K.
Lenihan from attendance and calling to order made by J. Hackett and
seconded by J. Pato. Discussion: None. Roll Call Vote: K. Lenihan - yes, M.
Cronin - yes,J. Hacket - yes,J. Pato - yes,J. Malloy - yes, C. Favazzo - yes, K.
Slaysky-yes, D.Voss-yes. 8-0-0.
8.3 Design Update: Record
Accept Existing Conditions Report:
➢ L. Finnegan shared that SMMA had only received comments from A. Levine
and made the updates that were requested. She noted that there was another
walkthrough at the school last week. She mentioned at this time they are
looking for the SBC to accept the report that will be included as a section
within the PDP. SMMA will then continue to move on with the site
development which is a separate section. If something comes up before the
PDP is submitted and it needs to be included, it will be added in.The goal now
is to move on with developing alternatives and site development
Page 2 of 9
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 8-2/26/2024
Page:3
requirements. Unless someone has an objection, there is no need to vote on it
and they will keep moving ahead.
Intro to Space Summary:
➢ R. Park explained the process that led up to the space summary and what is
done with the space summary afterwards. R. Park shared the PDP workflow. In
addition to the existing conditions investigations, SMMA has been analyzing
the curriculum and master schedule of courses. At the same time, there are
focus groups,visioning workshops, and educational programming meetings
with all of the staff and educators. With all of this data and the educational
plan, they can start to create a program space summary. From this, they can
work on program adjacency diagrams to be able to understand the
relationships between the different programmatic elements.The diagrams
and research help to contribute to the initial massing concepts and forms.
➢ R. Park shared that the space summary is a template provided by the MSBA.
This template itemizes the programs and their quantities and areas necessary
to support the school's educational goals and curriculum. It is designed to
achieve an 85% utilization rate, which facilitates more efficient facility use and
accommodates fluctuations in student enrollment. The MSBA organizes these
programs into categories,followed by line items for each type of space. The
existing program is listed next to the room types, followed by the proposed
program. Subsequently, the MSBA's guidelines are listed, which are numbers
calculated through algorithms and ratios based on student enrollment that
the MSBA will reimburse for. L. Finnegan mentioned that plugging in the MSBA
reimbursement in the cell auto-populates the MSBA guidelines.The MSBA
column cannot be edited, even if they agree to reimburse more square
footage or change some areas.J. Hackett then shared that multiple meetings
over several hours were conducted to reach this point. L. Finnegan explained
the acronyms used for net floor area,grossing factor, and gross floor area.
The net floor area is the space within the four walls,the grossing factor
considers the thickness of the walls,toilet rooms, mechanical rooms,
corridors, so multiplying the space inside the walls by the grossing factor
yields the gross square footage. L. Finnegan also noted that this is subject to
change until Schematic Design is approved (August 2025) by the school
building committee and MSBA. Once approved by the MSBA, these numbers
are finalized and do not change thereafter.
➢ R. Park walked the SBC members through the details of the draft proposed
space summary.
➢ L. Finnegan shared that the staff had thoroughly reviewed the draft proposed
space summary. Over 30 meetings were held with 30 departments, each
comprising large group discussions. Space-by-space walkthroughs were
Page 3 of 9
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 8-2/26/2024
Page:4
conducted, accompanied by conversations regarding current usage and future
adaptations to ensure a comprehensive understanding. While acknowledging
that some spaces may cease to exist in the future,the emphasis was on
elucidating the alternatives and their potential uses.This introduction marks
the initial stage, with ongoing refinement anticipated as the process evolves.
➢ R. Park shared a slide visually depicting the programs from the spreadsheet in
graphical form.
➢ R. Park explained the adjacency diagrams, illustrating how the school could
potentially be organized based on understanding the relationships between
different program spaces.Three options were presented: a central innovation
center, a school comprised of several centers, and distributed labs.
Review Concept Massing Studies:
➢ M. Dowhan shared that SMMA is contemplating the next phase of their review
and research concerning the site.They aim to comprehend not only the
constraints but also the opportunities presented by the site and how they can
leverage these opportunities to align with the program requirements.
➢ Site Opportunities and Constraints
• Zoning- Mike notes they will need a variance for building height.
• Recreational Facilities-There may need to be some relocation of
some of the fields but will try to minimize that.
• Wetland Resource Areas-There is a combination of water and
vegetated wetlands.
• Solar Orientation and Prevailing Winds- Need to think about
maximizing solar orientation especially for classroom wings and try to
make sure that any exposures that we have mitigate all the different
prevailing wind elements.
➢ A Campus for everyone-What we've heard so far:
• The building and campus should have character, personality.
• It should be a place where people want to be.
• How one approaches and enters the building are important.
• The scale, materials, look and feel need to be appealing.
• Site and building should feel like part of one environment.
• Incorporate surrounding natural features and multi-modal circulation.
• How do we maintain our identity in such a large, complex building?
➢ Three Siting Approaches
• Approach I: Renovation and Addition, Phased in Place
i. Builds on Top of Current Footprint
ii. Highly Disruptive
iii. Minimal Site Disturbance
• Approach II: Renovation and Addition, Partially on Fields
Page 4 of 9
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 8-2/26/2024
Page: 5
i. Builds First on Fields, Then Connects Buildings G and J.
ii. Enables More Connected Rec Resources
Approach III: New Building on Existing Fields
i. Construction Free of Existing School
ii. Separates Fields from Center Rec Facility
B. Black reviewed all construction alternatives with their pros and cons. (Code
Upgrade, Renovation &Addition, New construction)
• Base Program
• Alt 1. Same as base option except includes central office
• Alt 2. Same as alt 1 except includes new field house + pool
Discussion:
➢ K. Slaysky raised a query regarding the core academic space falling short of
the MSBA guidelines. L. Finnegan clarified that while individual categories may
deviate from the guidelines, the total proposed space exceeds what the MSBA
will reimburse. She explained that adjustments were made based on usage,
aiming to reallocate space to different categories as necessary. Finnegan
noted that after receiving feedback from the PDP, the committee would
reassess space allocation to ensure optimal utilization. K. Slaysky remarked
that prioritizing core academics is crucial, despite deviations from MSBA
standards in some areas. R. Park added that the MSBA guidelines offer a range
for classrooms, with their recommendation set at 900 square feet, slightly
higher than the 850 square feet proposed. K. Slaysky clarified that the focus is
on space per classroom rather than the total number of classrooms,
suggesting that any excess space could be allocated to other programs. R.
Park confirmed this understanding.
➢ J. Pato commented, advising caution against fixating on specific areas at this
stage. He emphasized the importance of assessing the overall value that the
project brings to the community.
➢ A. Levine raised a concern about the discrepancy between the total square
footage in the space summary, noting it as 460,000 square feet instead of the
expected 350,000 square feet. She observed that while the number of rooms
in certain categories remained relatively unchanged, the sizes of the rooms
appeared to have increased. L. Finnegan responded that this was not a
consistent theme throughout the space summary. A. Levine inquired about
areas where there might be a significant increase in the number of rooms.
SMMA confirmed this, indicating that in the vocations and technology
category, there were numerous specialty lab spaces not present in the current
setup, accounting for much of the increase. A. Levine noted the focus was
more on changes in room size rather than quantity. R. Park elaborated,
explaining that although there wasn't a significant increase in the number of
rooms, additional flexible spaces were included to accommodate students
Page 5 of 9
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 8-2/26/2024
Page: 6
during I blocks and study halls, thus enhancing academic flexibility. A. Baker
shared insights from meetings with department leaders, highlighting the
introduction of various flexible spaces such as laboratories and conference
rooms that could serve multiple purposes during different times of the day. R.
Park further emphasized the importance of efficiently utilizing classrooms
while incorporating flexibility to accommodate potential fluctuations in
student population.
➢ K. Slaysky inquired about the existence of a metric for educational square
footage per student. L. Finnegan explained that all classrooms are designed
based on accommodating 23 students per classroom, with the formula
assuming this occupancy in rooms larger than the current ones. While there
are square footage requirements per student in certain areas like the cafeteria
and media center, it doesn't apply uniformly across all spaces. The allocation
of square footage per student varies depending on the specific requirements
of each space.
➢ D. Voss requested that the models include the canopies so that they can be
taken into account when evaluating the options. B. Black assured that SMMA
would incorporate the canopies into the next round of options.
➢ J. Pato highlighted the absence of plans for expansion in the current designs,
expressing concern about future growth and the preservation of the footprint.
He inquired about provisions for expansion and how the footprint
accommodates that need. Additionally, he expressed a preference for a more
compact footprint with increased height. L. Finnegan mentioned the existence
of one four-story option. J. Pato reiterated the importance of addressing
expansion concerns and maximizing the preservation of the footprint.
➢ C. Favazzo inquired whether the assumption was that parking ratios remained
consistent across all options, as well as the situation with the net field. Mike
confirmed that indeed, the parking remained the same in every scenario,
comprising 450 parking spaces, mirroring the existing site, and each scenario
maintained a one-to-one match for fields. When asked about a required
parking ratio for new schools, M. Dowhan clarified that there isn't one.
➢ K. Slaysky echoed J. Pato's concern about maintaining a compact footprint for
the project. Additionally, he inquired about the location of the geothermal
field, emphasizing its necessity for supporting the school system. L. Finnegan
clarified that the geothermal field would likely need to be situated in a
combination of locations, including some under the building and some under
the field.
➢ K. Slaysky inquired whether the options that are more spread out allow
students enough time between class changes. B. Black confirmed that they are
indeed aiming to ensure sufficient time between class changes by maintaining
short distances between primary educational programs.Additionally, he noted
Page 6 of 9
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 8-2/26/2024
Page:7
that if more space becomes available on the site, it could potentially unlock
new configurations leading to increased efficiency.
➢ K. Slaysky asked whether the phased replacement of old buildings with new
ones fit the MSBA's definition of addition/renovation. B. Black affirmed that it
does indeed fit that definition.
➢ K. Lenihan expressed a desire to see more 4-story options in order to preserve
the footprint.
➢ K. Lenihan voiced concern over the lack of secured courtyard space for
students. B. Black suggested that they could explore ways in the site design to
create closure, such as using a gate or a wall.
➢ A. Levine commented on favoring minimizing the building footprint by opting
for 4-stories or beyond. In response, B. Black highlighted a tradeoff, noting
that while a smaller footprint reduces the generation of electricity from the
roof, it might allow for more room on the ground to accommodate canopies.
He explained that typically, around 40% of the roof could be designated for
PVs. Additionally, he cautioned that exceeding four stories might trigger
high-rise construction regulations.
➢ K. Slaysky inquired about the status of the pool question, noting that it's
depicted as an alternative. He asked if this is part of a land planning exercise,
suggesting that if a pool were to be built in the future, that's where it would be
located. L. Finnegan confirmed this assumption. B. Black added that it also
serves as a cost exercise.
8.4 Approve Evaluation Criteria: Record
When the criteria matrix is used:
➢ Used once options/alternatives are developed.
➢ Used on April 29th when we start to review options/alternatives.
➢ Accepting criteria ONLY evaluated at SBC meeting on May 15`h
➢ Approving PDP submission at SBC meeting on May 27th
➢ Further review of options/alternatives based on criteria throughout the
Preferred Schematic Report phase(Fall of 2024)
Received comments from committee members Comments:
➢ Reorganizing sections from top to bottom
➢ Additional criteria added/changed throughout.
➢ Sections have a numbering system.
Scoring:
Page 7 of 9
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 8-2/26/2024
Page:8
➢ Multiple ideas on how to score/weight each criterion. Requires SBC discussion.
➢ Current scoring is 1,2,3 and color association (1=red, 2=yellow, 3=green).
Recommendation to change to 0,2,5 with colors.
➢ Weighted score/formula for each criterion for overall total score to be totaled
different against each option.
➢ Recommend working group to discuss further. DWMP
M. Burton recommended a working group that included J. Himmel,A. Levine,J.
Hackett, K. Lenihan, M. Cronin and H. Sha.
DWMP will send a doodle poll to the working group members to schedule their first
meeting.
8.5 Communications Working Group Update (10 minutes): Record
K. Lenihan provided the SBC with an update, informing them that all residents in
Lexington should have received their postcards containing information about the
project's website, featuring a QR code. She also mentioned that the next community
meeting is scheduled for March 6th, offering both in-person and online attendance
options. Additionally, Lenihan highlighted the recent updates made by the working
group to the website, aimed at improving user-friendliness and ensuring information
is readily accessible. She encouraged feedback for further improvements, promising
to address any necessary changes promptly.
C. Dell Angelo noted the next Communications Working group meeting is on Friday at
10:00a m.
8.6 Schedule Working Group Update(10 minutes): Record
C. Favazzo shared that the group had provided comments to M. Cronin and M. Burton,
and they have now incorporated those changes into the working schedule.
8.8 Upcoming Meetings: Record
➢ School Committee Meeting- February 27, 2024, Project team present
Educational Program and Space Summary
➢ Community Meeting No. 3- March 6, 2024, Designer updates,timeline
review, breakout discussion
➢ School Committee Meeting- March 12, 2024, Vote to approve Educational
Program and accept Space Summary
Page 8 of 9
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 8-2/26/2024
Page:9
➢ Permanent Building Committee- March 14, 2024, Evaluation Criteria,
Existing Conditions Draft Report, Space Summary, Massing Studies, Monthly
Progress Update
➢ SBC No. 9- March 18, 2024,Accept proposed space summary, accept site
development requirements, review concept massing alternatives
8.9 Other Topics not Reasonably Anticipated 48 hours prior to the meeting: Record
➢ None.
8.10 Public Comment: Record
➢ Dawn made several suggestions. Firstly, she proposed that meeting packets
and all related materials be added to the website before the meetings for
accessibility. Additionally, she recommended including the existing conditions
report and draft space summary on the website. Dawn also highlighted the
absence of mention of the field house in the introduction, stressing its
significance as an existing program. Furthermore, she expressed concerns
about the view and connection to the high school when on Mass Ave.,
emphasizing the importance of avoiding an industrial building aesthetic.
➢ B. Pressman shared there are people who have been very dedicated to the
towns recreation program and there should be something where we they can
see total replacement if that is going to occur. K. Lenihan will reach out to the
recreation committee.
8.11 Adjourn: 1:52 PM a motion was made by J. Hackett and seconded by J. Malloy to Record
adjourn the meeting. Roll Call Vote: K. Lenihan -yes, M. Cronin-yes,J. Hacket-yes,
J. Pato-yes,J. Malloy-yes, C. Favazzo -yes, A. Baker-yes. C. Kosnoff-Yes, K. Slaysky
-yes, D.Voss-yes. 10-0-0
Sincerely,
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