School Building Committee

Westport Community Schools

DATE: Wednesday, September 7, 2016

TIME: 6:00 p.m.

PLACE: Westport Jr./Sr. High SchoolMedia Center

MINUTES

Present: Chair Dianne Baron,Mark Carney, David Cass, Ann Marie Dargon, Craig Dutra, James Hartnett, Timothy King, Carolyn Pontes, Kevin Rioux, John Tunney,Cheryl Tutalo, Antone Vieira, Antonio Viveiros.

Absent:Jon Bernier, Michael Duarte, Thomas Gastall, Robert Medeiros, Warren Messier, Joseph Pacheco, Co-Chair Tracy Priestner, Adam Charest (WMS Student), Sue Ubiera.

Also Present: Dan Tavares, Daedalus and CGA, Jonathan Levi, Architect, Amy Archer Traffic Engineer.

I.Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance - Chair Baron called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

II.Informational Agenda

A.OPM Report -Dan Tavares reported that comments were submitted back to the MSBA for the PDP Report. There have been no follow up comments from the MSBA to date. The schedule has the start of Preferred Schematic Report (PSR) stage beginning now. The critical deadline for submitting the PSRis on September 29. Module 4consists of the Schematic Design (SD)where the architect develops further refinements of the project.A Project Scope and Budget package will be presented to the MSBA. Mr. Tavares mentioned the MSBA meetings have been modified to holding meetingsin February and May with no meeting in January. The OPM and architects are in the process of looking at an accelerated plan to be ready for the MSBA meeting in February; however, it may be on the May 10 MSBA Board meeting. In the next few weeks more information on the cost estimation process of Schematic Design will be done.Antone Vieira voiced concerns over any delays that might occur and wants tokeep people on task.Mr. Tavares said having continuous input and feedback from the public as well as looking at shapes, sizes, and forms will have quality results;however, this may take a slower process. Mr. Tavares mentioned either compressed or an extended timetable,their accountability has not changed. It was expressed tohave the MSBA approval before the May town meeting as the preferred plan. It was noted that Town meeting is on May 2 and the MSBA Board meeting is on May 10.

D. Traffic Study Update on the Middle School Site - (taken out of order) - Amy Archer presented a Transportation Update onthe MS Site. Ms. Archermentioned the following items in her report that include impact, mitigation, and recommendations:

  • grades 5-12 at MS site;
  • currently shares driveway with elementary school;
  • 487 students, grades 3-6 elementary school;
  • assumed 103 faculty;
  • retained 89% bus rate, noted for non drivers; and
  • distributed trips into network: bus trips, drop offs, pick ups, student drivers 0, faculty trips

Capacity analysis:

  • looked at a.m.commuter school peak for comparison
  • due to shared bus routes, one hour staggered time
  • boulevard un-signaled, boulevard signaled, 2 driveways un-signalized, mitigation to Rt. 88

Recommendations:

  • signalizing better than not signalizing
  • timing adjustments to Rt. 88 and Old County, access permit process with Mass DOT
  • propose 2 driveways, if un-signalizedpropose timing adjustment
  • a Traffic Study will be physically taken on September 13, 2016

C. Architect Submissions on Middle School Site - (taken out of order)

Jonathan Levi began his presentation called Schematic Design Workshop #1. He stated that this is the start of the Preferred Schematic Design (SD) phase where a look at building configurations will take place. The plans focused on the MS site and 2 options for the HS site. Schematic designs were shown that represent the following attributes of how a building might take shape: project based learning with visibility of teacher/student, corridors become program spaces, beehive places for centers of learning, academic classroom clustering for group work and not regimented, opened spaces, outdoor learning spaces, breakout spaces smaller scale for specialized work, seminar rooms with glass walls,science classrooms becoming exploratoriesand flexible.

Various versions were shown and explained:

version1. - breakout spaces and teacher spaces, key classrooms for project based learning, shared exploration space, balcony.

version2. - mix and match classrooms, grouping of teacher prep areas, bridge connects classroom spaces, group presentation space, shared common workspaces.

version3.-common area, one side shared with science classrooms, outdoor space with connections to a learning commons space.

version 4. - learning commons center connected to shared classrooms

Mr. Levi referred back to the MS site showing the MS site layout:

  • need to make new water wells and septic
  • showed properties and boundaries
  • wetlands setback
  • framed by woodlands
  • site not accurately surveyed yet
  • in general an S shaped mound
  • slope northeast
  • solar and seasonal winds -- solar advantageous
  • daylight use for classrooms
  • prevailing winds looked at for outdoor spaces
  • existing waterwells and septic fields showed
  • continued use of library and elementary school
  • sensitive to neighbors
  • problem access point forlibrary has a bend in road
  • existing boulevard entry for WES, curb cut
  • ignore Gifford rd. access points
  • 4 possibilities to place the new building

Mr. Levi went on to show 5 alternatives at the MS site and 2 at the Main Road site.The Main Road sites are near a cemetery. The town conservation agent walked the site to do a wetlands boundary survey. The perimeter of wetlands makes the site tight. It is alsonot a flat site due to a slope. Athletic fields are positioned in the upper or lower portions.In the secondMain Rd. version the building is in middle of site, which limits the baseball fields.

5 Alternatives for MS Site

All schemes were done ac/dc so they can be segmented off with 2 different scenarios. One for just a middle school (add the high school at a later date) and one for a middle/high school.

  1. Old County Road foreground courtyard version, more playfields, 2 curbcuts for WES and parent dropoff. Open classroom extension later adding classrooms if enrollment increases. (Once you build a new Jr./Sr. High School you will have increased enrollment.)
  2. Western edge of existing playfields, build MS on northern portion, add HS to south of MS, lots of playfields 2 full size soccer fields, baseball field, field hockey, access from boulevard, additional bus loop, parking in front of building.
  3. Building reflects existing topography.
  4. Similar to harmony shape with existing topography, build on rear of site, HS in front, build on the slope, road in middle of the fields if desired.
  5. S shaped building, build MS in rear, build HS toward the south.

It was mentioned that today the WES is crowded with buses and parents.Recommendation is to build a bus loop to eliminate conflict.The designs presented will be further refined.

During the discussion the following items were mentioned:

  • daylight in classrooms, the majority of light comes from the dome of the sky not the sun,northern exposure just as good as southern
  • bus drop offs would be at a secondary entrance not the main entrance
  • building on slope/contour vs. building on flat site
  • important to have community understand the options
  • main issue is traffic -new signal cost $200,000- $250,000, no charge for tweaking
  • many like the curved buildings to match the topography
  • moving library entrance would help with traffic
  • maximize space for fields
  • various options will not have a big difference in cost- tight range
  • not convinced about the traffic problems at the HS Site with F. and G.
  • concerned with single driveway with fields split
  • parking underestimated with 160 spaces, have room to add parking
  • roads between the fields may be an advantage with the community, welcoming
  • recommendation to eliminate A. with building close to road
  • road in center of the fields concerned with people walking far
  • use Green St. with limited use to tie into traffic patterns
  • prefer building at rear of site

Chair Baron asked if there was a motion to eliminate any of the options. A motion was made by Tim King to eliminate A,B, and E.

Motion by Tim King seconded by David Cass

Discussion took place that included the following points:

  • get a cost estimate on B
  • on C. and D. the WES is in a shadow may be a concern, Mr. Levi will bring a shadow study
  • rectangular school versus a curved school on D.
  • request for a model school to see if it fits, Mr. Levi said this is not timely now

Next week there will be a Public Forum where Mr. Levi will present the same presentation then get public opinion.After a discussion, there was a consensus to not limit what the public will see and to have them view all the prepared versions. Mr. King withdrew his motion.

Recommendations to air all the information publically on the website and cable was made Mr. Levi offered to do a voice over animation to help with the design explanations.

B. Communications Subcommittee Report- (taken out of order) Chair Baron reported for Tracy Priestner that they are now creating a flyer and preparing for how they will inform the public on the preferred option.

III.Action Agenda

A. Approval of Minutes of Wednesday, August 24, 2016- A motion was made to approve the minutes.

Motion by Kevin Rioux, seconded by Antone Vieira, all were in favor

IV.Comments and Statements from the Public/Citizen’s Participation -There were none.

V.Adjourn - A motion was made to adjourn.

Motion by Kevin Rioux, seconded by John Tunney,all were in favor

The School Building Committee ended at 7:57 p.m..

1