To: James Tokar Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Division of Construction 45 West Gude Drive Room Suite 4300 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Issue: October 7, 2015 Project: Thomas A. Wootton High School Renovation/Expansion Meeting: October 6, 2015 Purpose: Feasibility Study, Work Session Meeting #1 Intro: The first Feasibility Study meeting was held at 2:45 p.m. at Wootton High School's auditorium. After a brief introduction by Jim Tokar, the design team presented an overview of the study process and the initial 3 concepts for the school. The following is a summary of the items discussed regarding the Renovation/Expansion: ƒ Debbie Szyfer briefly explained what the Capital Improvements Program is and how it affects the school project. ƒ Once completed, the school will have a capacity of 2420 students with a core of 2400. ƒ The school will remain functional during construction. Construction will be phased. ƒ Paul Falkenbury explained the purpose of the feasibility study, how the main program components will be located as per staff input, and the resultant options that will be refined moving forward. He explained the following steps after the study as well. ƒ The school is planned to be open on August 2021, if construction starts by summer of 2018. Additionally, site renovations will continue through 2022. Current Issues: When participants were asked about current school issues that may need to be addressed, they mentioned the following: ƒ HVAC systems need to be upgraded to current standards and checked for proper function. ƒ Classrooms need to have a phone system that communicates with the main office. ƒ The lower level is disconnected from dining room. Current circulation goes through lockers. This poses a security problem. ƒ Clear circulation and way‐finding is not clear. ƒ Gymnasium entry very hidden and seems like a back entry. The athletic department needs a more identifiable entry. ƒ There are only 4 tennis courts. For tennis meets, the school shares courts with the adjacent middle school. 1 | Page of 5 ƒ
New design should help the school play a more cultural role in the community and have a unique feature or identity that reaches out to parents and neighboring businesses. ƒ It may preferable to have classes looking into day‐lit courtyards, not covered commons since passing students and noise may be distracting to students in classrooms. ƒ Current cafeteria is too small. Overflow makes it noisy in corridors. More capacity that allows for one lunch with more spaces for students to eat at would be better. ƒ Music suite is currently too far from Auditorium. ƒ A new auditorium should have a higher fly loft and a higher cant than the current one for better sightlines. ƒ Teachers need more workspaces separate from students and for small groups. ƒ Current science greenhouse is too small and not easily accessible. ƒ The special education department needs a small room for testing or individual/small group work. After listening to concerns, Debbie Szyfer talked about the county standards, such as mechanical closets and auditorium capacity, and how these standards may be modified to suit Wootton HS' needs and for future projects. Paul Falkenbury proceeded to highlight some of the current site issues, such as: ƒ Temporary staff parking along bus loop has become permanent and quite restricting to bus flow. Cars and buses do not flow out from Wootton Parkway quickly. Car entry needs to be separated from bus entry. ƒ Entry does not have a secure vestibule. Concept Options: Three concept options for the design were presented. The following were the main features of each option: Option 1A: ∼ Reconfigured lockers with team rooms, larger locker areas, and better circulation. ∼ A larger entry to Athletics Department. ∼ Major components, current gymnasium, auditorium, and cafeteria would stay in place. Cafeteria and auditorium storage would be expanded. ∼ Classrooms and labs are reconfigured for larger, up‐to‐standard spaces. ∼ Cutting roof opening on upper level eliminates windowless classrooms ∼ Science and technology suite are located in new addition on three levels. There may be opportunities for a two levels space in hallway to accommodate physics experiments. ∼ Reconfigured administration and counseling suites will have a secure vestibule. ∼ Current relocatable classrooms will be eliminated. 2 | Page of 5 Option 2A: ∼ Reconfigured lockers with team rooms, larger locker areas, and better circulation. ∼ A larger entry to Athletics Department. ∼ Current gymnasium stays in place. The auditorium, music and arts suites, and the cafeteria would be relocated to the North end of the site over current tennis court location. ∼ New technology and science lab wing would be located where current cafeteria sits with technology labs on the lower level. College Institiute will be on site and a new courtyard provides labs with outdoor access and daylight. ∼ Reconfigured administration and counseling suites will have a secure vestibule which leads to two wide entry corridors. ∼ Media center is relocated to second floor along front of school, providing higher ceilings and more visibility. ∼ Current relocatable classrooms will be eliminated. Option 3A: ∼ Most transformative option. ∼ Main entry would be relocated to lower level which will make it more visible from Wootton Parkway. ∼ Reconfigured administration will have a secure vestibule and a large inviting commons space. ∼ Student activities, College Institute and Counseling Suite are relocated to lower level along an outdoor space. ∼ Major components, the auditorium, music suite, cafeteria, and the athletics department would be relocated to the North end of the site over current tennis court location. ∼ New technology and science lab wings would be on two levels with a small courtyard providing labs with daylight. ∼ Media center is relocated to second floor on southeast corner of school, providing higher ceilings and more visibility. ∼ A third level of classrooms with potential for future addition. ∼ Current relocatable classrooms will be eliminated. All options involve a renovation of existing classrooms and finishes, and minor reconfigurations as necessary to provide up‐to‐standard spaces. After answering some general questions regarding cost estimates, the design and the proposed site circulation, the participants presented the feedback below: ƒ Regarding option 3A: ‐ It seems like a good idea to have the main entry on the lower level. 3 | Page of 5 ‐ The gymnasium is too far from the stadium. ‐ The site entries seem too tight. ‐ All noisy activities as located on north end may be an issue with neighboring residences. ƒ There should be a traffic light at North entry. Paul Falkenbury explained that a traffic study will be performed and the final determination, based on study recommendations, would be done by the department of transportation. ƒ Auxiliary gyms may be too noisy to be placed over the music suite. ƒ Access to gymnasium lobby should be at grade if possible. ƒ More computer access is necessary. Debbie Szyfer explained all classrooms are now designed to provide computer access and promethean boards to reduce the need for computer labs and avoid scheduling conflicts. ƒ Wireless network system needs to be designed for proper signal coverage throughout. ƒ Language arts teacher mentioned chrome books are not appropriate for all programs and teaching styles. Laptops or PCs are required. ƒ Current lecture room with stepped seating is great; should be preserved if possible. Large conference rooms for staff meetings are necessary. ƒ Main Gym should be on lower lever on south side for better proximity to stadium. ƒ An additional option could possibly be explored where only the cafeteria gets relocated. ƒ It would be preferable to not have staff parking within bus loop or entering at same location. ƒ Although stadium has been resurfaced with new turf, there are no concessions or restrooms. This concluded the meeting. Please review these meeting minutes with the proper individuals and advise of any conflicts, additions, or modifications you may wish to incorporate. The presentation and attendance sheet has been included for reference. Cordially, Jenny C. Alvarez, RA, LEED AP Samaha Associates, PC
jalvarez@samaha‐arch.com 4 | Page of 5