Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-29-PBC-min.pdf 1 of 6 TOWN OF LEXINGTON Permanent Building Committee (PBC) Permanent Members Jon Himmel, Co-Chairman, Charles Favazzo, Co-Chairman, Peter Johnson, Celis Brisbin, Elizabeth Giersbach, Frederick Merrill, Ian Adamson Associate Members: Henrietta Mei, Wendy Krum PBC Minutes for the meeting held on: 5-29-25 The meeting was held hybrid via Zoom. Members Present: Jon Himmel, Charles Favazzo, Peter Johnson, Celis Brisbin, Ian Adamson, Henrietta Mei Others Present: SMMA: Mike Dowhan, Brian Black, Sarah Sopelak, Lorraine Finnegan, Anthony Jimenez, Anoush Karafian, Mike Dowhan, Dore & Whittier: Cristina Dell Angelo, John Albright, Mike Burton Turner: Kate Cassen, Jame Miesner Staff & Other: Mike Cronin, Mark Barrett, Cindy Arens, Sean Rose, Dan Voss, Maggie Peard, Mark Sandeen, Alan Levine, Lin Jensen, Todd Rhodes, Dr. Julie Hackett The PBC meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m. Discuss/Confirm: Site Design Mike Dowhan reviewed some of the campus site plans and outdoor learning areas, including the roof terrace and site circulation. He stated that some of the wooded knolls and wetlands areas by Worthen Road could be preserved. He commented that he was confident the project would meet all program requirements. Outdoor learning environments adjacent to the building and in the wetland areas connected the site to the building to enrich the student experience. Jon Himmel stated that it would be important to consider whether the confirmation of the design should satisfy the requirements of the project, or whether the design still needs to be massaged to satisfy these requirements. The PBC confirmed their agreement with the presentation of the overall site design and recommended the information for review by the SBC on Monday, June 2nd. Roof Terrace The roof terrace enhanced solar exposure using skylights / light wells to the cafeteria space below and adjacency to classrooms, The roof terrace provided some outdoor study areas and open space. It was asked whether the entire roof terrace would be shoveled when there is snow. It was stated that only the paved areas would be shoveled. Jon Himmel raised concern that the roof terrace felt clustered and needed further development. Driveways and Circulation 2 of 6 Mike Dowhan stated that school buses and LABBB van queues would be separated. The school bus queue would accommodate 37 buses by increasing queue length from 1200LF to 1610LF in a double queue and stacked bus configuration. It was stated that the best use of space is to have two parent queues – one on Park Drive and one on Waltham Street. It was asked whether a school bus would be able to make a U-turn in the Waltham Street queue. Mike Dowhan reported that the queue would be sized to accommodate emergency vehicles and school buses, if necessary. It was asked whether Waltham Street would be sufficiently wide to manage both parent queuing and traffic driving towards Mass Avenue. Mike Dowhan stated that the traffic engineer he consulted recommended the proposed configuration. It was suggested to have parent queues on both the North and South sides of the site to mitigate potential traffic congestion. Mike Dowhan stated that he would price this option. Automobile and Bicycle Parking Mike Dowhan stated that a minimum of 145 bicycle spaces would be included, with an additional 75 included as an add alternate. It was asked whether 75 bicycle spaces would be too small an item as an add alternate for the project. Cindy Arens asked for clarification about the availability of parking by the skate park. Mike Dowhan responded that 10 or 11 total parking spaces would be available and intended for the skate park. It was suggested to allow commuters to turn on the red light at the Worthen Road and Waltham Street intersection to reduce traffic congestion. Athletic Field It was stated that all fields would be sod and irrigated. Mike Dowhan stated that an irrigation consultant would help decide how to irrigate the landscape and athletic fields. Henrietta Mei asked whether the fields may be rented to local athletic leagues to help fund the irrigation and lighting of the fields. It was stated that the Recreation Department was the appropriate authority to answer this question. It was asked whether the fields would be accessible for the fire department in case of an emergency. It was stated that there would be a 20-foot-wide lane for emergency vehicles to access. Discuss/Confirm: Exterior Design The PBC confirmed their recommendation for Option One with four stories and a Central Office. Brian Black stated that SMMA would work on an improved rendering of the design. Palette and Windows 3 of 6 SMMA reviewed six brick and exterior window options and colors. The red-brick palette with vertical windows (Option One - 49%) was preferred to the stone-like palette with vertical windows (Option Two - 25%) in an online survey with 521 responses as of 5/29/2025. It was suggested that the contrast between the red-brick palette and the pale brick on the first floor should be reconsidered. It was suggested that the stair tower should be simplified by using the same porcelain trim material instead of using a third material for a panel. It was commented that the panel had a textured element that would be better represented in a 3D rendering. Brian Black added that the textured element would add depth to the construction. It was asked if granite could be priced for the base. Brian Black commented that actual stone would cost twice as much as brick, but a stone feature could be appropriate for the façade where pictures are taken. Charles Favazzo stated the need to evaluate the value of the feature and the financial trade-offs. It was asked whether there was a confirmed budget. Jon Himmel stated the importance of confirming the exterior design to then evaluate pricing options, as there was not a detailed budget. Brian Black reported that the proposal was within the budget per square foot. Discuss/Confirm: Interior Materials Sarah Sopelak discussed the finishes for the interior (spaces and finishes noted below) of the building and sought confirmation of the recommendation for the SBC to begin pricing. Brian Black suggested having alternate materials prepared for pricing. It was commented that SMMA would begin reconciling the budget in July by meeting with PBC and then SBC up to three times to evaluate VE options. Reaching a reconciled budget would allow SMMA to approve the schematic design submission and the total project budget that gets submitted to MSBA at the end of August. Jon Himmel commented that the project scope needed to be tightened to decrease the base bid. Dining Commons A discussion took place about the meaning of a declare material. The Red List identifies the level of harmful chemicals in products used in the building industry. Sarah Sopelak stated that, for the dining commons, the ceiling would be wood-look metal planks, floors would be patterned terrazzo, and the walls would be a combination of porcelain wall tile, wall paint, and tackable surfaces. Charles Favazzo asked if the dining commons would be the highest-cost area. Sarah Sopelak, reported that the dining commons would be the largest, most populated, and most used space in the building. The room would constitute less than 10% of the overall budget. Library Media Center The library media center would include wood-look metal planks and acoustical panels for the ceiling, resilient carpet 4 of 6 tile for the floor, and paint, acoustic panels, and wood paneling for the walls. Large Group Instruction The LGI would use wood-look metal for the ceiling, resilient carpet floor tile, paint, and felt or fabric-wrapped acoustical panels for the wall. Auditorium The auditorium would use suspended acoustic clouds for the ceiling and a combination of acoustical drapery and wood accent panels for the walls. The floor would be a combination of carpet for the aisleways and concrete for the seating area. Gymnasium The gymnasium would use an exposed deck for the ceiling, paint and panels for the walls, and a wood sport floor. The fitness area would have rubber flooring. Classroom The classrooms would use 2’ by 2’ acoustic ceiling panels for noise control, linoleum rolled goods for the floors, and a combination of general and accent paint for the walls. Corridor The corridors throughout the school would use 2’ by 2’ acoustic ceiling panels, medium-sheen polished concrete for the floor, and a combination of porcelain tile, tackable surface, and paint for the walls. It was asked whether there is a premium for concrete floors. Sarah Sopelak confirmed that there is but offered linoleum as an alternative. Restroom The restrooms would use painted drywall for the ceilings, porcelain tile for the floor, and ceramic tiles for the walls. Back of House Areas The back of house areas would use 2’ by 2’ acoustical ceiling panels, sealed concrete floors, and a combination of reinforced panels and paint for the walls. Kitchen The kitchen would use 2’ by 2’ acoustical ceiling panels, quarry tile with epoxy grout for the floor, and ceramic tile for the walls. Discuss/Confirm Solar/PV System Size Anthony Jimenez, the electrical engineer, discussed the distinct logistics and costs for PV systems. 5 of 6 Anthony Jimenez suggested installing PV systems on the rooftop of the building, Flat roof portion of field house and canopies above the two primary parking lots (Canopies A and B). This option would generate 29% above net zero energy. Anthony Jimenez discussed the option of also installing PV systems in the two other on-site parking lots that would be adjacent to the school. This option would generate 43% above net zero energy. It was noted that installing more PV systems would generate improved financial returns in the long run. Exporting electricity, while requiring a battery, would produce revenue. It was commented that a two-megawatt battery would perform better with more solar power than less. The PBC discussed how the school should achieve the goals of the project: maximizing solar on-site and achieving net zero emissions. It was stated that PV systems are not the only method of achieving net zero emissions. As this was discussed, Lorraine Finnegan clarified that SMMA proposed to decrease the number of panels, not PV capacity. It was discussed that some members of the community would find the solar panels in front of the school building visually objectionable. It was debated whether PV systems are effective to minimize the tax burden on residents. It was stated that investing in infrastructure that would generate revenue through net metering would accomplish this. It was also commented that energy demand would increase over time. Jon Himmel suggested having the architect design the PV system for the school and commented that building the system in front of the school would be incompatible with the aesthetic of the building. It was stated that Lexington policy required placing solar canopies above parking lots when viable. To satisfy the demands of the policy and to maximize solar, it was suggested that PV systems above parking lots should be constructed. It was commented that students would appreciate the solar panels in front of the school. It was suggested to calculate the maximum output of PV systems on-site by including the energy that would be generated by solar panels in all viable areas. It was stated that this would allow the PBC to arrive at a number that could be reconfigured across several options for PV systems. Lorraine Finnegan stated that increasing the annual production of energy on-site to the recommended 5,535,114 kilowatts per year would increase the project cost by up to 10 million dollars. Lorraine Finnegan asked whether the recommendation included PV systems in Canopy A, Canopy B, Canopy C (longspan), and bleachers. Jon Himmel stated that the recommendation of the PBC was to maximize solar without installing canopies in front of the school (Lot D). Relocate the 253kW from the proposed lot D to Lot C and other areas including over the bleachers to maintain the 43% above net zero and nothing over Lot D. It was suggested to install geothermal elements under parking lots instead of installing Canopy D. Public Comment It was asked whether the recommendation was within the SBC’s authority, and who ultimately would make decisions 6 of 6 about the construction of the school. Brian Black stated that defining this process was the purpose of the PBC’s present (May 29th) meeting. The PBC aimed to agree on recommendations to provide the SBC. It was commented that it would be ideal for students to provide their input on the project. Urgent Business There was no further business. Motion to adjourn the PBC meeting; all approved. Next meeting: To be determined.