Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-04-10-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: Wendy Krum, Henrietta Mei PBC Minutes for the meeting held on: 4-10-25 Meeting was held hybrid via Zoom PBC Members Present: Jon Himmel, Chuck Favazzo, Celis Brisbin, Peter Johnson, Henrietta Mei, Wendy Krum Others Present: SM MA: Lorraine Finnegan, Brian Black, Sarah Sopelak, Tom Faust, Anoush Krafian D&W: Mike Burton Jacob Greco, Christina Dellangello Turner: Jamie Miesner, Phil Coleman Other: Mark Barrett, , Mark Sandeen, Cindy Arens, Dr. Julie Hackey, Tom Shiple The PBC meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Discussion with LHS Project Team on: Lorraine Finnegan reported that a meeting was added on May 1 to allow more time for the target value design and building design during the current meeting. The topics for May 1 would be more site -focused and would also cover the HVAC design. Lorraine Finnegan presented the agenda for the May 8, 2025, meeting, which included confirmation of electrical design, renewable energy, propriety items, and HVAC design. Review/Recommendations on Confirmation Items Being Proposed to SBC for 4/14 Exterior Building and Design: Brian Black reviewed the scope assumptions. He reviewed the relative costs and embodied carbon of the exterior cladding materials, highlighting that brick was low-cost and low -carbon. The proportion of brick to masonry could be adjusted. Brick was S60 per square foot, and terra cotta was over S120 per square foot. Renderings of multiple exterior design options were presented and discussed. Option B had a richer palette and included a little color. Option C had horizontal banding rather than vertical banding and warmer colors. It was commented that Option C looked more like an office building. There was a focus group meeting on April 28, and a decision would be made in May. The building entrances were presented. It was requested that a line be drawn around the fieldhouse to make it clear that it was not a single, open space. It was asked what the floor -to -floor height was. It was reported that it was currently 16 feet, but it would be discussed. The feature spaces of the school were shown. The dining common lighting options included a framed skylight, an oculus in the center, or a solatube with reflective surfaces inside the ceiling tubes that provided light. Henrietta Mei commented that she liked the framed skylight for providing more daylight to the permitters, but she did not like the center columns. Sarah Sopelak reviewed the material assumptions for the dining commons, auditorium, gymnasium, library media center, and large -group instruction spaces. The theme of natural wood panels and warmth was seen throughout the school. Acoustic ceiling panels were also frequently used to minimize sound carrying. Henrietta Mei suggested incorporating some of the exterior themes into the dining commons. Sarah Sopelak noted that they were starting to look into that. Cindy commented that many people would want to tack up signs, and that should be considered. It was noted that the classrooms would consist of painted drywall and marker boards. Tom Faust reported that a study was conducted on the floor -to -floor height and overall building height reductions. He noted that they wanted t0 ensure they were coordinating efficiently and in a way that worked with the ceiling heights. The overall current building height was 64 feet. The potential height reductions without compromising coordination abilities included reversing the roof slope to make the high point in the center of the building, reducing the floor -to - floor height for level three, reducing level one to be 15' 4", and reducing the classroom ceiling heights from 11 feet to 10'6". Comparisons that showed the leftover space for mechanical spaces were presented. Tom Faust noted that there were also high -bay spaces that were essentially independent of the floor -to -floor height, such as the auditorium, which already had restrictions. The potential height reductions were discussed. It was asked what the recently constructed school floor -to -floor heights were. Lorraine Finnegan reported that they were 18 feet, 16 feet, and 14 feet. It was noted that the 14 -foot floor -to -floor heights were challenging. The PBC was asked whether they would like to continue at 16 feet or proceed with the presented height reductions. MOTION: Chuck Favazzo moved that the Permanent Building Committee move forward with the proposed height reductions, with the expectation that it could be decreased further in the next phase. Jon Himmel seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The 16 -foot versus the 14' 8" plenum comparison was presented. Jon Himmel noted the long distance between the campuses and asked whether a nine -foot hallway would be sufficient. Lorraine Finnegan reported that they preferred 10 feet, but nine was sufficient. The building floor plan for level one was presented. There was more work to do on visibility for the performance arts wing and the connectivity of the gymnasium space. The SBC would be asked for confirmation to continue with the design and working on the noted challenges. The vertical circulation systems were presented. There were three main stairs serving the common space that were as visible as possible. There were egress stairs at the end of each wing, and the learning stairs provided additional access between levels one and two. The three elevators needed to be reviewed. There was one in each wing, with two serving the dining room directly. Lorraine Finnegan noted that only one elevator was required, but two were more typical. The third elevator was dedicated to the central office but would also be programmed to serve students with accessibility needs. The building floor plan for level two was presented. The rooms in the center included building support, teacher planning spaces, small group rooms, and three wellness rooms. It was noted that the center rooms could have lower ceilings to provide more space for the mechanics. The building floor plan for level three was presented, and the entrances to the roof terrace were noted. The building floor plan for level four was presented. The central office piece was developed further, and the overall envelope had shrunk. The student enrollment considerations were reviewed and discussed. The previous version of the central office had not been fully fleshed out and had a capacity of 299 students when converted. The more current expansion option had a capacity of 253 students. If enclosures were created, the number could be increased to 299 students again. The two options for the B wing addition were presented. The first option added 552 students, bringing the total capacity to 4,200. The second option added 460 students, bringing the total capacity to 3,100. Lorraine Finnegan noted the impact on site planning and the need to ensure that no roadways or utilities would need to be moved in the future. Guidance from the SBC was being requested on April 14. The two options were discussed. Lorraine Finnegan noted the goal of maintaining the classroom structure. It was discussed that future additions would be very expensive. The PBC decided to move forward with recommending the first option, which would be 13,440 square feet per floor. Value Management/Target Value Design The cost estimating timeline was presented. The dates were solidified and confirmed with both AMF & Turner. Meeting dates for three rounds of reviews were set, with the goal of requiring only two rounds. The importance of timing throughout the project's lifecycle was discussed. Jon Himmel commented that the important message was that the opportunity to add value decreased over time. Lorraine Finnegan highlighted that the project team was talking daily. The target value design was presented. It was a systematic approach to budgeting, broken down into individual components. Mechanical target -value design was currently underway. The exterior wall component was being priced out. A high-level report for the foundation was received and would be the next focus. Jon Himmel commented that the target value design was very helpful. He noted that it was important for the public to hear a number and asked whether anyone else thought it would be good to include the overall cost. It was clarified that the budget would not be set until the end of SD. Lorraine Finnegan suggested including soft and hard costs. It was noted that the numbers did not account for any tariffs. The design process and the impact of design changes on the budget were discussed. It was noted that they were currently within 1% of the project study report (PSR). The PSR estimate was based on historical costs and was believed to be correct, but a full report was still needed. Jon Himmel asked if the check estimates would be included by the time the schematic design (SD) went out by June. Lorraine Finnegan reported that they were writing specifications and did not yet have definitions of everything. The SD estimate package would provide all of that specificity. Andy Oldeman was working with Drew from Turner Construction to consider all options. Jon Himmel commented that if the target value design had a target, all square footage needed to be included and it needed to match the scope of the whole project. It was clarified that the S662 million estimate included all 509,515 square feet, so it was not over budget for square footage. The hard costs could be broken out for focus. Lorraine Finnegan asked that the items the PBC wanted broken out be sent to Mark Barrett so they could be shared with enough notice. It was noted that another cost estimate assumption memo would be provided with SD. Mark Barrett asked what the top three or four areas should be focused on to have the greatest impact on the budget. Mechanical and plumbing, exterior wall and roofing, sitework, and site improvements were recommended as the focus areas. The field house was discussed. Jon Himmel recommended providing a menu of options to have available when the pricing estimates came in. Lorriane Finnegan requested that the current cost estimate assumption memo be reviewed to determine which further breakdowns were needed. Public Comment There was no public comment. Urgent Business There was no further business. Motion to adjourn PBC, all approved.