M E M O R A N D U M O F C O N F E R E N C E

Transcription

1 January 26, 2017 M E M O R A N D U M O F C O N F E R E N C E PROJECT Potomac Elementary School Revitalization and Expansion Montgomery County Public Schools ARCHITECT S PROJECT NO DATE AND LOCATION PRESENT Meeting #2 Wednesday January 18, 2017, Potomac E.S. Meeting #3 Tuesday January 24, 2017, Potomac E.S. For Montgomery County Public Schools * Dr. Catherine Allie, Principal * Mr. Seth Adams, Director, MCPS Division of Construction * Mr. Mike Shpur, Architect, MCPS Division of Construction * Ms. Julie Morris, Planner, MCPS Division of Long-Range Planning For Moseley Architects Mr. Jim Henderson Mr. Bill Brown Mr. Eric Garcia Mr. Shawn Benjaminson, ADTEK Engineers Refer to attached sign-in sheets for additional participants DISCUSSIONS AND DECISIONS. The purposes of the meetings were to discuss the progress of the Schematic Design Phase of the project. The following items were discussed: 1. Mr. Henderson opened the meeting with introductions, an overview of the design process, and best practices for Elementary School design. 2. Mr. Henderson and Mr. Benjaminson reviewed the existing site conditions. There are several items that will impact the location of the building and site amenities. a. Right of Way from Chapel Road A right of way from Chapel Road does exist, but there is a wetland in the middle of it. We will not be able to use the right of way for site access, either permanently or as a construction entrance. b. Stream buffer and underground storm water pipes There is a stream buffer on the west side of the property near the softball infield. No construction can occur within the limits of the stream buffer. Additionally, there is a storm water pipe cutting across the site that needs to be preserved. Parking, playfields or play areas can be constructed over this pipe, but a new building MWW-10

2 Page 2 January 26, 2017 can t be constructed over the pipe as there will be no way to maintain the pipe if there was a problem with it. c. Second entrance off of River Road at the southwest corner of the property A permit with the MD State Highway Administration has been submitted for the second entrance to the site. It is the opinion of the design team that the second entrance will be approved, but the final decision rests with the MD SHA. d. Existing stand of mature trees on the northeast side of the property During the Feasibility Study Phase, it was requested by the community that these trees be preserved. These trees could be taken down for a building, but additional trees would be required to replace them in kind. 3. Mr. Henderson presented three options for discussion: a. Feasibility Study Preferred Option a) The courtyard plan provides a simple circulation pattern that is easy to supervise, with a controlled outdoor space. b) The site is easily supervised. c) The building location on River Road offers the best opportunity for a street presence, façade design, and school identity. The building will be setback from River Road approximately the same distance as the Church to the east. d) The stage located between the Multi-Purpose Room and the Gymnasium offers flexibility. a) Requires use of Radnor Facility during 1 ½ year construction period. b) Community access to the play fields is further from parking in this option. (3) The current diagram has the bus loop on the east side of the building, and the student drop-off loop on the west side of the building. Further discussion needs to occur to determine if this is the appropriate solution, or if these need to be flipped. b. Re-Use of Gym Option a) Cost savings through re-use of gymnasium a) As currently designed, future classrooms in this option will not have windows. b) Gym location adjacent to front door and Administration is not preferred. c) Would prefer the Gym to be located adjacent to fields / play areas d) The sacrifices of the plan relationships to preserve the limited existing building space do not seem to be worth the potential savings c. On-Site Revitalization Option 3 Linear Plan

3 Page 3 January 26, 2017 a) Eliminates need to use the Radnor Center. b) This option will have longer drive aisles for parent pick-up queuing c) Building is located in the back of the site. Community use will all happen at the front of the site, with good access to parking. d) Less asphalt seen from River Road. Potential for landscape buffers between River road and site. e) Some in attendance felt the location of the building in the rear of the site was more representative of the neighborhood. a) If the second site entrance is permitted, this could be used as a construction entrance for the initial building phase. It would require the removal or replacement of the two existing trailers closest to River Road. The construction entrance would also impact the existing bus loop. Art and Music classes would likely be moved to a cart during construction. b) Limited space for contractor to stage equipment and materials. c) Play fields, paved play areas, and playgrounds will be unavailable during entire construction period. It was suggested that the school could pursue an agreement with the adjacent Church, to utilize the Church parking lot for play fields during construction. d) This option will have a second phase to demolish the existing building and develop the fields and parking. The construction will be 9-12 months longer than the options that move the school off-site during construction. The longer construction duration will increase costs. e) The new building will be set-back from River Road. The new building, service drives, and vehicular traffic will be much closer to existing neighbors than the current conditions. f) More roadway, and as a result more Stormwater Management facilities, will be required in this option. g) The utility phasing and increase in construction duration will make this option more expensive than the other options. h) Existing stand of mature trees will be eliminated with this option. i) Play field location at the front of the site requires significant travel distance from the building. The play field along River Road raises safety concerns. A fence and possibly a landscaped buffer will be required. j) Noise, dust, traffic etc.., from construction could impact existing building k) The new building would be much closer to the existing neighbors than the current building. On-going noise from the operation of the building (buses, deliveries, students, etc ) would have more impact on the neighbors. Neighbors concerned about the loss of the existing trees, and the change in character and value of their properties. l) Building is located at the back of the site. Security around building may be an issue.

4 Page 4 January 26, 2017 m) Future classrooms at the front of the building. Investigate moving future classrooms to the rear of the site and moving the Media Center to the lower level. n) Some classroom spaces do not have windows in this option. o) Staff raised concerns about the ability to monitor outdoor activities in this option because of the distance between the playfields and the paved play / playground areas (3) It was suggested that the bus loop could stop at the front of the building, to allow for more space between the building and existing trees. This would also require that the loading area be at the front of the building as well. (4) An agreement with the adjacent Church would be required to allow students access to Church property for emergency evacuation drills. (5) Concerns were raised about the timing of the demolition of the existing building. All hazardous materials will be abated prior to the demolition of the building. (6) Outside the box ideas a) Use of the Gaithersburg Facility instead of the Radnor Facility b) Mobile Classrooms at the Brickyard Site during construction instead of the Radnor Facility c) Renting space from a private facility instead of the Radnor Facility 4. Another evening meeting will be scheduled to discuss the refinements of the concepts: a. Feasibility Study Preferred Option b. Option 3 (Linear Plan Option) revised to move building to the west, allowing some of the trees on the east side of the property to be remain. Combine fire lane and paved play. c. An additional On-Site Revitalization / Expansion option with an L shape or courtyard plan. 5. Participants had many questions about the use of the Radnor Center as a holding facility. An additional meeting will be scheduled prior to the next Work Session to discuss the use of the Radnor Center. Issues of concern to the parents are: a. Condition of the Radnor Facility b. Bus Schedule / School Day Hours c. Coordination of bus loading and student drop-off and pick up d. Play Area at the Radnor Center e. Before and After Care availability f. Extracurricular activities field access g. Quantity of trailers / open space at the Radnor Center

5 Page 5 January 26, 2017 The above information is the writer s recollection of the discussions and decisions at the meeting. Should there be any additions or corrections, please notify the writer within two weeks of distribution for correction. NOTES BY: Jim Henderson, AIA Vice President DISTRIBUTION: As indicated by (*) above, also: Ms. Veronica Hill, Assistant Director, MCPS Division of Construction Mr. Gary Mosesman, Team Leader, MCPS Division of Construction