Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-05-14-PBC-minTOWN OF LEXINGTON Permanent Building Committee 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: 5-14-26 Meeting was held hybrid via Zoom PBC Members Present: Jon Himmel, Chuck Favazzo, Celis Brisbin, Fred Merrill, Ian Adamson, Wendy Krum, Henrietta Mei Others Present: SMMA Architects: Lorraine Finnegan, Lana P, Anoush K, Erin P, Madeline L. Dore & Whittier: Mike Burton, Christina D, Kyle L, Jacob G. Turner: Jamie Meiser Others: Mike Cronin, Mark Barrett, Mark S., Dan V., Cynthia A., Minhaj K. The PBC meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. The schedule was presented. It was noted that the design development phase was complete, and the construction documents (CDs) were underway. The Early Release Package (ERP) 1 was out to bid. Phase 1 would begin in July 2026 and finish in August 2029, and Phase 2 would start in August 2029 and finish in November 2030. The next milestone for estimating was 60% CD for August or September 2026, the 90% CD would go to the end of 2026, and the full CDs would be wrapped up in April or May of 2027. Erin presented a flowchart outlining the permitting schedule leading to construction. The process included FEMA, MEPA, the Conservation Commission, and Article 97. Article 97 was filed at the state level; the EEA was issued in February; the bill passed through the House; and it was anticipated to pass through the Senate in June 2026. The Conservation Commission was ongoing and in the peer review process. Once approved the appeal period would end in June 2026, and the Conservation Commission process would be complete. The EENF Certificate for MEPA was received in October 2025, and the Single Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) will be submitted on May 15, 2026, to address compliance for the EENF Certificate. The SEIR Certificate was expected in June 2026 and would conclude the MEPA process. FEMA was still ongoing, and the current form was in a 90 -day review period. The review period ended on May 21, 2026, which should conclude the FEMA process. Change Order Process Update: There was a discussion about the threshold for which an owner contingency change order would come to the PBC for approval, and it was reduced from S500,000 to S250,000. No other changes were made to the owner's construction contingency change order process. A special meeting for approval of a time sensitive item was an option. It was clarified that the 250,000 threshold applied to a single request, not to aggregated requests. Building Height & Mechanical Room: Due to design changes over the past few months, there was not enough space in a single -level mechanical room to meet the height requirements. The final option was a double -height mechanical room that included a bar -grate mezzanine at the first level with an access stair to the lower level. This area was extensively modeled and evaluated to come to this decision. The structural system for the auditorium was examined and changed from a load-bearing CMU system to all -steel framing. The change would not affect the building's square footage or the mechanical system design. The line of columns at the rear of the loading dock could also be removed. The change resulted in a small cost savings. It was asked whether there was masonry in the loading dock, or whether the change removed it. It was reported that there was a masonry exterior wall. A rendering of the loading dock was presented. It was noted that the layout would not change, and only the columns would be removed, as there would be structural framing. The building height was reduced from 64 feet to 62 feet during schematic design (SD), and challenges arose on the fourth floor due to the reduced height. The mechanical systems requirements were reviewed. The largest requirements were related to code. The other factors included MSBA requirements for a target minimum area, structural bracing requirements that lead to restrictions, acoustic requirements, and maintenance needs. The guiding principles for the HVAC systems were reviewed, which included clearances, continuous direct access for service and maintenance, support for systems, the space allowance for equipment hangers and supports, limits on the use of space between beams, clearance requirements for other building components, extra space necessary for the ducts entering the roof, locations of rooftop supports, and a return air plenum. Lana discussed the heat pump requirements. The pipe connection was on the same side as the electrical connection, and as soon as the piping was connected, it needed to be offset immediately using connectors. It was asked how the heat pump requirements impacted the height constraints. Lana explained that the heat pump was part of the larger system, which resulted in impacts. The ideal design application for Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) was presented. The ideal system was starting to spread into other areas, and there were still challenges with fitting everything on the fourth floor. The changes made since SD to the floor -to -floor heights were presented. The ceiling heights on levels three and four were lowered by six inches to 10 feet. The classroom ceilings were also lowered to 8.5 feet, while the typical hallway height remained at nine feet. Roof drain locations were shifted, structural beam depths were reduced, shafts were added and relocated to minimize horizontal runs, and ceilings in some non -classroom spaces were locally dropped to concentrate ductwork. Even with the accommodations, there were still issues. The recommendation, based on the changes and work with Turner Construction, was to raise the roof by eight inches to accommodate 4th floor mechanical needs. The level one height was still under review to confirm the space needs there. The current drawings for the fourth level were presented. It was noted that some utilities on the side were moved, including the plumbing, which was moved to the perimeter. The majority of the equipment was kept in the corridors when possible. It was clarified that the rooftop units were on curbs, and the roof itself was a composite concrete deck so that sound did not transfer into adjacent classroom spaces. The drawings for the first level were presented. It was noted that space still needed to be found for the ductwork, and that the kitchen's limited space posed an additional challenge. Jon Himmel asked if some of the equipment could be trenched. Lana explained that they did not put any of their equipment into trenches. There were many heat pumps in bldg. C of the first level. Photographs of the piping and supports were presented, and it was noted that the piping did not always go horizontally. Other photographs of the ductwork, pipe work, and the number of wires required for one floor were presented. Some of the assumptions made during SD regarding heat pumps and ductwork were modified, and it was asked what the implications would be for solar, since more roof space would be required. It was clarified that the locations may change, but the area taken up would remain the same. It was noted that the shadow line would also remain the same, so there would be no shading impact. Further discussions were needed to assess any impacts of changes to the equipment on the roof. It was noted that during the past analysis of the SD, the decision was made to use water -source heat pumps because there would be fewer units. It was asked why there were more heat pumps. Lana explained that it could be hard to see all the nuances and details of a program during the beginning phases of the project. It was added that the team could be asked why there were air heat pumps rather than water heat pumps. It was clarified that only water heat pumps were being used. Value Management: The construction document process was just initiating, and it was noted that it will become harder to make changes as the process continues without impacting the design. The list reviewed at the end of DD was divided into three buckets: minor, moderate, and major impacts. Some items had major impacts and would need to be discussed during the summer. The major items included deleting skylights entirely for the dining commons and installing solar tubes; installing geothermal underground vaults on site; reducing the PV array to net zero; not building out the central office; and removing the elevator in the B wing. It was noted that some members of the public wanted all items examined to determine how to cut costs. It was commented that it was not in the PBC's purview to decide what to eliminate. Jon Himmel noted that the duration of the construction documents was not short, and the items should be revisited once pricing is available to readjust as needed. Mike Burton clarified that the decisions had to be made prior to the end of the 60% CD, which was scheduled to run through August 2026. It was recommended that the "other impacts" be outlined for the list of items. Target Value Design: The target value design (TVD) schedule was presented, and it was noted that the TVD work had begun for the 60% CD. The TVD was ongoing simultaneously with the CD. It was noted that plumbing, mechanical, and electrical would be covered during the July 9, 2026, PBC meeting. On June 11, 2026, interiors would be discussed. There were extensive foundation and structure studies, and the site work enabling piece was out to bid. The option to reduce the number of piles still needs to be examined. The TVD topics were presented, and it was noted that many had been discussed in the last phase and would continue to be discussed during CD. The topics were briefly reviewed. It was noted that ongoing discussions were underway to make the exterior wall more efficient. The trenching, if required, needed to be determined during the 60% CD phase. Dan asked if the line item for PV was being added to the TVD schedule and if it was possible to participate in those discussions. It was confirmed that the team would reach out to him to gain his insights. Henrietta Mei asked whether there were any exterior images available. It was stated that there was a meeting with a group of residents a couple of weeks ago to hear comments and hold a work session, and that there was a consensus on how to move forward. Another meeting was scheduled for May 21, 2026. It was clarified that the 60% CD was only just starting. It was requested that a report from that group be provided after the May 21 meeting. Jon Himmel commented that the initial conversations from that group requested more uniformity and specificity, and there was one discussion about the entrance from the field space needing additional work. It was discussed that the language and communication for the project were important, given its public nature. Jon Himmel asked when the phase one costs would be available. It was reported that finishes and much of the job would be purchased through 2027, so a 100% estimate could not be made. Some construction work (ERP#1) will begin on July 6, 2026. It was requested that a presentation on construction work for 2026 be included at the next PBC meeting. It was noted that the next abutter meeting on May 26, 2026 would include conversations on site safety logistics and traffic information. It was confirmed that Dan would start attending the PBC meeting regularly. It was reported that temp electrical, site enabling, geothermal, and piles were out to bid. The starting times for each component were discussed. Public Comment Minhaj Kirmani stated that he had received the complete set of the structural drawings, reviewed it and that it had improved. He raised a concern about expansion joints in the building. He suggested that the buildings be independent structures to improve efficiency in seismic load and other analyses. He also recommended eliminating any excessive piles. Chuck Favazzo requested that Minhaj Kirmani send an email. Urgent Business Motion to adjourn PBC, all approved.