Meeting Record
750 E. Pratt Street
Suite 1100
Baltimore MD 21202
410 837 7311
410 837 6530 fax
www.hcm2.com
ARCHITECTURE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIOR DESIGN
Date:
Project:
Project No:
Prepared by: Attendee Robin Bruckner Karen Castle Neeta Datt
Jim Determan Angela Edwards Rick Eisenacher Melissa Gooding Jean Gries Jeff Hagan Michelle Hintz Joyce Jessell Eric & Ann Johnson Adrienne Karamihas Troy Kimmel Anne L. Kozma Michael Krakaur Laura Lampshire Jeff Levine Linda Lindstrom Pauline Loveland Ray Marhamati Jennifer McKneely Diane Morris Doug Popham Joe Pospisil Susan Ramsay Suzanne Redman Michael Ronan Muriel Senderling Michael Shpur Jillian Storms CC: Sharon Agranov Claudette Ardizzone Anne Baldini Organization
Parent
Parent
Community Liaison for Sen. Montgomery HCM
FMS Parent
Teacher
Parent
MCDOT/ Traffic
HCM
FMS Parent
MCPS
Parents
MCPS
Parent FMS Staff
Parent
Parent
Teacher, FMS
Teacher, FMS
FMS Staff
MCPS
Sherwood
Principal, FMS
Parent
MCDOT/ Traffic
Parent
Parent
FMS Parent
FMS Parent
MCPS
MSDE
Parent
FMS Parent
Teacher, FMS
4/6/2011 FAC # 3 Meeting
Farquhar Middle School
Modernization 211004 Jeff Hagan Phone
301‐570‐8248
301‐570‐4566
email
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] 410.837.7311
301.421.5927
301.924.3100
301‐573‐3318
240‐777‐2183
410.837.7311
301.421.1704
240‐314‐1004
301‐421‐1340
240.314.1035
301‐602‐1663
301.924.3100
301.924.0149
301‐570‐1042
240.426.8359
301.924.3100
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
Michael.krakaur@aggregate‐us.com
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
240.314.1010
301‐260‐0181
240.484.4995
301‐240‐3654
240‐777‐2160
301‐412‐1742
301‐570‐9092
301.570.3825
301.774.9573
240.314.1014
410.767.0615
301‐260‐9303
301.924.3100
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
Beth Blevins Parent
301‐260‐0556
[email protected] Steve Bonnhag Parent
301‐570‐6269
[email protected] Karen Brunson Parent 301‐598‐1801
[email protected]
Jamie Castle Parent
301‐570‐4566
[email protected]
Jennifer Costello Parent
240‐678‐8397
[email protected]
Sumaya Fahmy Parent/Teacher 240‐593‐8169
sumaya‐[email protected]
Melissa Gatlin FMS Parent
[email protected] Lori Goodwin Parent
301‐260‐1933
[email protected]
Joe Griffin PTA, FMS
240.832.1190
[email protected] Jennifer Hallmark Parent
301‐421‐4305
[email protected] Kristin Hewitt Parent 301‐476‐8097
[email protected] Wail Higazi
Parent
410‐370‐2829
[email protected] Michael Hildebrand FMS Parent
[email protected] Patrick Hintz Parent
301‐421‐1704
[email protected] Karen Holt Parent
301‐438‐8453
[email protected] Jihyun Jung Parent
301‐448‐9106
[email protected]
Gail Kahan Parent
301‐774‐2999
[email protected] Andrea Keller Parent 301‐774‐7630
[email protected]
Felicia Kimmel Parent
301‐260‐7551
[email protected]
Rich Konzmann Parent
301‐570‐6815
[email protected]
Haifa Krakaur FMS Parent
[email protected]
Kerri St. Laurent Parent 301‐774‐0032
[email protected]
Conae Lee FMS Parent
301.598.3139
[email protected] Joy Leven Parent
301‐570‐5368
[email protected]
Brian Lowe
Parent
301‐260‐8840
[email protected] Ed McCarthy FMS Parent
[email protected]
Debbie Metrey Parent
301‐570‐3917
[email protected]
Kristy Montgomery FMS Parent
301.774.7747
[email protected] Kendra Newman Parent
301‐908‐5765
[email protected] [email protected] Joe Pasternak Parent
301‐570‐6979
[email protected] Judith Setkin Porzel FMS Parent
301.476.7775
Lori Post Parent
301‐924‐3080
[email protected] Sarah Qureshi FMS Parent
[email protected]
Lisa Rodriguez Teacher, FMS
301.924.3100
[email protected]
Casey Smith HCM
410.837.7311
[email protected] Heather Steffan FMS Parent
301.774.8262
[email protected]
Tom Spies HCM
[email protected] Robert Tarloff Parent/Teacher 301‐590‐0629
[email protected]
Patricia Via FMS Parent
[email protected]
Brant West Parent
301‐260‐8753
[email protected] Melanie Whelan Parent
301‐260‐0723
[email protected]
Ric Wugalter Parent
703‐629‐4916
[email protected] No Item Action by:
3‐1 Diane Morris (Principal) informed the group that a meeting has been set for April 27th as part of FAC meeting # 4(7‐8:30pm) at Farquhar Middle School with MCPS staff. Parents will be given an opportunity to present. (NOTE: At the time of posting of these meeting minutes, MCPS has notified the community that the above mentioned special meeting has been pushed back to May 4th at 7:00 pm and the FAC MEETING RECORD Page 2 of 6 3‐2 3‐3 3‐4 meeting #4 also scheduled on 4/27/11has been canceled as more time is needed to explore all the options that were provided by the community to MCPS). Ray Marhamati provided a brief update on the feasibility study process: 3 viable options developed as part of the FAC meetings will be presented to the Board of Education. The Board of Education will make a determination of which option to pursue. Purpose of today’s meeting is to review the previous options and review the development of those options. HCM reviewed the goals developed at previous meetings. All options are evaluated against this list.  Students to remain on site during construction.  Sympathetic design to the neighborhood (rural community)  Windows that open.  Safe drop off and pick‐up area (separate drop off an pick‐up from busses.  Adequate parking.  Arts to be central hub.  Separating grade levels (especially 6th & 8th grades).  Central Science storage.  Small school feel (intimate).  Traditional (“old school house feel”).  Natural light.  Safe place in building during storms‐ green zones.  Larger cafeteria.  Community use of the school is important (i.e. gym, fields, media center, cafeteria).  High tech (wired and wireless).  School as a teaching tool, science projects that involve the building, “see through walls” to show how the building works.  Furniture flexibility to allow small and large group instruction.  Flexibility with change in technology.  Need a lot of receptacles throughout the room to accommodate the expanding technology (flexibility). Computers are protected from power surges// outages.  Ability to darken rooms to allow use of Promethean boards.  Temperature control in the classrooms, better temperature comfort.  Automatic flush toilets  Emergency lights in toilet rooms (will be provided).  Faculty restroom in each wing.  Teachers are territorial‐ need a place that is their “own.”  Privatize grade cluster from public space to allow for student privacy.  Stage for performances, need better acoustics than in current gym. An updated existing site plan was reviewed. Information has been added to the site plan including: existing utility locations, building MEETING RECORD Page 3 of 6 3‐5 3‐6 3‐7 3‐8 3‐9 3‐10 setbacks, and an existing stream buffer that cannot be disturbed along the North side of the site. Scheme A was reviewed (constructing a building at the back of the site while the existing building remains in operation). An updated Scheme A with preliminary room layouts included to show proposed adjacencies and the other site restrictions was presented. This is a further refinement of the previous Scheme A. The use of geothermal on this option is limited because there is no room to construct the geothermal well field while maintaining the existing building on site. MCPS will look into the possibility of placing the geothermal field under the proposed parking lot. Typically the well field is placed under the play fields. The play fields in this option will be located where the existing building currently is, thus not allowing the geothermal well field to be constructed in the proper sequence. Also, this option will not allow the use of play fields for 3 years. Question: When will we know if geothermal will work‐ if it can go under the parking lot? Answer: Will report back on this at the next meeting. Question: Why can’t the geothermal field be constructed after the building is built? Answer: Because the building must be environmentally controlled before many materials can be placed in the building (i.e. doors, finishes, gypsum board, gymnasium flooring, etc.). There are mold and humidity considerations and other environmental factors that prohibit this sequencing. Also, drilling the wells is time consuming and could not be completed in time. The existing building needs to be vacated, hazardous materials must be abated, the building demolished, and then the well field is constructed. This cannot be accomplished over a summer. Question: Geothermal is preferred but is it required?
Answer: It is not required, but Montgomery County and the State of Maryland require that the building be LEED certified. Geothermal provides the best payback, most efficiency, and contributes greatly to the LEED requirements. However, the Feasibility Study will look at a minimum of 3 systems with geothermal being one of the systems. Question: It was mentioned that the well spacing is typically 20 feet between wells. Can the spacing be reduced to 10 feet to save space? Answer: Spacing the wells closer will create problems over time. The ground around the wells will become saturated over time if the wells are spaced too close together, which will bring the temperature of the ground higher over time. This will reduce the efficiency of the wells over time. A 3 story version of Scheme A was presented. This was explored to determine if a more compact footprint would provide additional open space for a geothermal well field. There is not enough program to stack to gain sufficient space for a geothermal well field. In addition, there are program compromises with pushing program to a third floor. Ms. Morris expressed concerns of a 3 story option including safety and security, difficult for clear supervision, access to other grade levels from each other is difficult, less efficient programmatically, not the best MEETING RECORD Page 4 of 6 3‐11 3‐12 3‐13 3‐14 3‐15 3‐16 3‐17 3‐18 3‐19 option for students, and general instructional compromises. Scheme B was reviewed (constructing a building at the front of the site in the approximate location of the existing building footprint). It was suggested that the gymnasium and auxiliary gyms be flipped to allow the main gym to be on an exterior wall for better access to the fields. Scheme E was reviewed (scheme to retain the existing gymnasium addition and replace the remainder of the building). This option has not been further developed. If this scheme is pursued, the existing gym would become the main gym for the school. The existing gym has been surveyed and it is exactly 20 feet to the underside of the structure (current MCPS standards are 27 feet to underside of the structure). A new gymnasium would provide better insulated exterior walls, acoustics, and daylighting.. The existing gym is too short for volleyball and the existing acoustical block walls are chipped/ damaged. Schemes C & D (phased construction options) were not reviewed nor further developed. They were deemed at the March 30th meeting to not be viable options. Scheme C does not meet programmatic requirements and is costly. Scheme D is costly and will take a lot longer to complete. The Board of Education is looking for sensible options. The geothermal conductivity test was discussed. This is a test to help determine how to design the geothermal system, not whether geothermal can be done. This test will take place over the summer months. Question: Will permeable paving be used?
Answer: It will probably be used in the parking stalls area. It is not typically done in the drive aisles because of damaged caused by heavy trucks. Question: Is it possible to build doors over the geothermal field to allow access in case something breaks and therefore allowing it to be placed under the parking lot? Answer: No, the geothermal well field is too large to allow the use of doors. Question: Can solar power be used to lessen the need for geothermal requirements? Answer: Cannot substitute systems, they are complimentary. Photovoltaic (solar) is used to lessen electrical usage. Geothermal is used to heat and cool the building. MCPS has used solar arrays on some buildings (though only for a portion of the facility, not to provide power to the entire facility). However, new buildings typically have green roofs to help meet the Storm Water regulation. Solar arrays will create too much shade to allow green roofs to grow adequately. Also, photovoltaic systems are very expensive. Photovoltaic systems will be explored as part of the design process and integrated as appropriate. Ms. Storms from MSDE noted that other Maryland Counties are in the process of designing photovoltaic systems over the parking lot areas. Question: Parents feel they are running out of time, and all options have not been explored. Answer: The Feasibility Study process can be extended if necessary. MEETING RECORD Page 5 of 6 3‐20 3‐21 3‐22 3‐23 3‐24 3‐25 The adjacent site was discussed. The lot to the North of FMS is currently under review by the County to be dedicated to Parks and Planning. This is being explored to determine what options may be available to the FMS project. However, the lot has not yet been conveyed and is still privately owned. Question: Is Geothermal the limiting factor of scheme A?
Answer: Geothermal is not the only limiting factor, there are many issues to consider such as the stream buffer which is limiting the use of part of the site, safety, the building far off the road not as visible at night, fields in front will require a fence along the entire frontage of the site, sewage will have to be pumped from the back of the site to the main in the road, etc. Question: What HVAC options are reviewed for the feasibility study? Answer: 3 or 4 options will be reviewed. A 4 pipe system, variable flow refrigerant system, geothermal, chiller/ boiler, and a hybrid system are some of the options that will be reviewed. Additional schemes are being explored and will be reported on at the next meeting. The ultimate goal is to present 3 viable options to the Board of Education for consideration. Question: Which costs go the Board of Education as part of the feasibility report and are transportation costs included? Answer: Costs for site and building construction for all 3 options will be included. This includes costs for furniture, fixtures and equipment (FFE), planning costs, site development costs, and costs to construct the building. These are all capital costs. Transportation costs are operating costs and are not typically included in the feasibility study process, however that information will be provided for this project. Ms. Storms from MSDE noted that MSDE will need a waiver request letter soon about not pursuing a renovation option. 3‐26 Next Meeting: FAC Meeting #4: 4‐27‐11 7:00 PM (NOTE: At the time of posting of these meeting minutes, MCPS has notified the community that the above mentioned special meeting has been pushed back to May 4th at 7:00 pm and the FAC meeting #4 also scheduled on 4/27/11has been canceled as more time is needed to explore all the options that were provided by the community to MCPS). These meeting notes were prepared by Hord Coplan Macht, Inc for the purpose of recording the information covered during this meeting. Should anyone object to any statement or interpretation contained herein, please inform Hord Coplan Macht, Inc. within seven days or the meeting notes shall stand as written. Submitted by, HORD COPLAN MACHT, Inc. Jeffrey R. Hagan, Project Manager MEETING RECORD Page 6 of 6