Meeting Record

 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 Jamie Castle Debbie Deans Angela Edwards Rick Eisenacher Stephen Fye Melissa Gooding Lori Goodwin Jeff Hagan Michelle Hintz Joyce Jessell Eric & Ann Johnson Barry Jordan Andrea Keller Troy Kimmel Jeff Levine Ray Marhamati Jennifer McKneely Diane Morris Kendra Newman Doug Popham Susan Ramsay Suzanne Redman Anne Rood
Ric Wugalter Erin Zagami CC: Sharon Agranov Claudette Ardizzone Anne Baldini Beth Blevins Steve Bonnhag Karen Brunson Karen Castle Jennifer Costello Neeta Datt
Organization
Phone
Parent
301‐395‐3871
Parent
301‐570‐4566
Parent
301‐570‐1548
FMS Parent
301.421.5927
Teacher
301.924.3100
Parent
301‐774‐4688
Parent
301‐573‐3318
Parent
301‐260‐1933
HCM
410.837.7311
FMS Parent
301.421.1704
MCPS
240‐314‐1004
Parents
301‐421‐1340
Parent
301‐774‐8348
Parent 301‐774‐7630
Parent
301‐260‐7551
Teacher, FMS
240.426.8359
MCPS
240.314.1010
Sherwood
301‐260‐0181
Principal, FMS
240.484.4995
Parent
301‐908‐5765
Parent
301‐240‐3654
Parent
301‐412‐1742
Parent
301‐570‐9092
Parent
301‐570‐3251
Parent
301‐570‐8099
Parent
301‐774‐2661
Parent
301‐260‐9303
FMS Parent
Teacher, FMS
301.924.3100
Parent
301‐260‐0556
Parent
301‐570‐6269
Parent 301‐598‐1801
Parent
301‐570‐4566
Parent
240‐678‐8397
Community Liaison for Sen. Montgomery 5/10/2011 FAC # 5 Meeting
Farquhar Middle School
Modernization 211004 Jeff Hagan email
[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] [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] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] Jim Determan Sumaya Fahmy Melissa Gatlin Jean Gries Joe Griffin Jennifer Hallmark Kristin Hewitt Wail Higazi
Michael Hildebrand Patrick Hintz Karen Holt Jihyun Jung Gail Kahan Adrienne Karamihas Felicia Kimmel Rich Konzmann Anne L. Kozma Michael Krakaur Haifa Krakaur Laura Lampshire Kerri St. Laurent Conae Lee Joy Leven Linda Lindstrom Pauline Loveland Brian Lowe
Ed McCarthy Debbie Metrey Kristy Montgomery Joe Pasternak Judith Setkin Porzel Joe Pospisil Lori Post Sarah Qureshi Lisa Rodriguez Michael Ronan Casey Smith Muriel Senderling Michael Shpur Tom Spies Heather Steffan Jillian Storms Robert Tarloff Patricia Via Brant West Melanie Whelan MEETING RECORD HCM
Parent/Teacher
FMS Parent
MCDOT/ Traffic
PTA, FMS
Parent
Parent Parent
FMS Parent
Parent
Parent
Parent
Parent
MCPS
Parent
Parent
FMS Staff
Parent
FMS Parent
Parent
Parent FMS Parent
Parent
Teacher, FMS
FMS Staff
Parent
FMS Parent
Parent
FMS Parent
Parent
FMS Parent
MCDOT/ Traffic
Parent
FMS Parent
Teacher, FMS
FMS Parent
HCM
FMS Parent
MCPS
HCM
FMS Parent
MSDE
Parent/Teacher
FMS Parent
Parent
Parent
410.837.7311
240‐593‐8169
240‐777‐2183
240.832.1190
301‐421‐4305
301‐476‐8097
410‐370‐2829
301‐421‐1704
301‐438‐8453
301‐448‐9106
301‐774‐2999
240.314.1035
301‐260‐7551
301‐570‐6815
301.924.3100
301.924.0149
301‐570‐1042
301‐774‐0032
301.598.3139
301‐570‐5368
301.924.3100
301‐260‐8840
301‐570‐3917
301.774.7747
301‐570‐6979
301.476.7775
240‐777‐2160
301‐924‐3080
301.924.3100
301.570.3825
410.837.7311
301.774.9573
240.314.1014
301.774.8262
410.767.0615
301‐590‐0629
301‐260‐8753
301‐260‐0723
[email protected] sumaya‐[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]
[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] [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]
Page 2 of 6 No 5‐1 5‐2 5‐3 5‐4 5‐5 5‐6 5‐7 Item Diane Morris (Principal) opened the meeting with a brief recap of the meeting on May 4, 2011 noting the new options that were presented (new building directly behind the existing FMS and a potential land swap with the Parks Department, once the land is conveyed, to build a new school while the existing building remains occupied). Tonight’s meeting will look at the new options in more detail in addition to some previous options, and a review of program arrangements/ adjacencies in plan form. Ray Marhamati noted that an additional FAC meeting has been scheduled for June 2, 2011 at 7:00 PM. HCM reviewed the agenda for tonight’s meeting: A review of the new site schemes on the adjacent site, the new option of building directly behind the existing FMS, and review of the site schemes of replacing a building on the existing school’s footprint. Next, a review of three middle school models and how the floor plans can be arranged to accommodate the proposed program. First a brief review of the goals established at the beginning of the FAC process was discussed. These goals were noted in previous meeting minutes and all schemes that are developed are tested against the goals list to be sure the schemes are following the requirements that the Feasibility Advisory Committee established at the beginning of the process. The adjacent site was reviewed. The new site is 17.2 acres compared to 20 acres for the FMS site. A stream buffer exists on the new site similar to the buffer on the existing FMS site. The buffer on the new site covers more area since the stream is located on the new site. No grading or construction can occur in this area. A new scheme‐ ‘Scheme F’ was reviewed. This is a 2 story scheme on the new site. The building is located towards the front of the site with the academic wings oriented with North/ South exposure. The bus loop, student drop off and parking are located along the front of the site, adjacent to Batchellors Forest Road. The rear of the site includes a softball field, soccer field, 3 basketball courts, and 4 tennis courts (note program calls for 6 tennis courts). The stream buffer restricts being able to fit more fields or tennis courts. This is continuing to be explored to be able to maximize the amenities provided on the site. There is room for a geothermal field under the play fields. Comments on Scheme F: Gym is too far from tennis and basketball courts. The next scheme reviewed was another new scheme‐ ‘Scheme E.’ This scheme is a 3‐story scheme as a method of reducing the footprint to gain more site space. The academic wings are stacked with 6th grade on the first floor, 7th grade on the 2nd floor, and 8th grade on the 3rd floor. The parking, bus loop, and student drop off loop are located in the same place as in Scheme F. Much of the program needs to be on the ground level, so there is a limit to how much the footprint can be reduced. This scheme has the same site amenities as scheme F plus 1 additional tennis court (5 total). There is also room for a geothermal field under the play fields in this scheme. MEETING RECORD Action by:
Page 3 of 6 5‐8 5‐9 5‐10 5‐11 5‐12 5‐13 5‐14 5‐15 5‐16 Comments on this scheme: like how the 3 grades are separated, scheme is not ideal for floating teachers that work across grade levels and would have to be moving up and down the levels throughout the day. Security is a concern‐ trying to supervise all of the levels and supervising the stairs. Question: Are stairs open or closed? Answer: Some will be enclosed due to fire code requirements, however the main circulation stair can be an open stair in an atrium space that allows good supervision of students. Question: Could some of the parking and tennis courts be placed on the adjacent parcel and be shared with MNCPPC? Answer: This is definitely something that will be explored. Placing some of the overflow parking on the MNCPPC site may be a good option to reduce the amount of paving on the school site. Concern was expressed that parking not be too far away from the building if located on adjacent site. Question: Could basketball courts be closer to the building to gain space for more play fields. Answer: The basketball courts could be moved closer, but there is a concern with noise in the adjacent classrooms. Question: How many parking spaces are provided?
Answer: All schemes provide 125 parking spaces and 18 bus spaces. Ms. Morris noted that there are 90 staff members. Scheme D was reviewed. This scheme places a new 3 story building on the existing FMS site approximately 30 feet behind the existing building to allow for an onsite modernization. This scheme was briefly reviewed at the meeting on May 5, 2011. This scheme has an advantage over scheme A‐ it allows geothermal to be placed under the play fields in the proper construction sequence, but it will take approx 3 years to build. Comments on this scheme: good access from gymnasium to the play fields, not good access from gym to tennis and basketball courts. Site includes 2 softball fields, 1 soccer field, 6 tennis courts, and 3 basketball courts. Noise, dust, and construction activity are cons of this scheme. Approximately a 3 year construction schedule for this scheme. Construction activity can be scheduled around testing periods, etc. Question: Are there other 3 story schools in Montgomery County. Answer: Yes. Even a few MCPS elementary schools are 3‐story. Scheme B1 was reviewed. This scheme is a replacement school option with student relocation that has been presented previously. Site layout is similar to what currently exists. Site includes 6 tennis courts, 3 basketball courts, 2 soccer fields and 2 softball fields. Question: Since the basketball and tennis courts overlap the stream buffer can they remain in place to save the costs of rebuilding them elsewhere. Answer: No, the site is currently not in compliance and will have to be brought into compliance with any major construction work on the site. Therefore they will have to be removed from the stream buffer. Question: Are there 2 soccer fields in options D, E, and F. Answer: No. MEETING RECORD Page 4 of 6 5‐17 5‐18 5‐19 5‐20 5‐21 5‐22 5‐23 Question: If bus loop in Scheme B1 remains as it currently exists, that is a problem, because there are issues with the way it works now. Answer: The bus loop in this scheme is in the same general area as the existing bus loop, but it will be reconstructed to meet all current requirements. Scheme B2 was reviewed. This scheme is another replacement school option with student relocation that has been presented previously. This scheme has a different building layout/ footprint than Scheme B1. Site includes 6 tennis courts, 3 basketball courts, soccer and softball fields. Playfields shown overlap the stream buffer and will need to be adjusted to remove them from that area. Question: Can trees be removed?
Answer: Possible, but need MNCPPC to approve it. If trees are removed they also must replanted elsewhere. Three middle school floor plan models were presented. These plans are sized based on the middle school program provided by MCPS. The models have been used for previous schools in Maryland. These are schematic plans for Feasibility Study only to show adjacencies and general locations of program areas. They will be refined continuously throughout the design process. The 2 story plan shown in site schemes F and B1 was reviewed. This plan is organized around a main street corridor. Two story academic wings are located along main street. 6th grade is in one wing on the first floor with 7th grade on the second floor above. Art, Tech Ed, Music are in the other wing on the first floor with 8th grade above. Administration/ Health/ Guidance are located next to the main entry with cafeteria across the hall. Athletics are located at the end of main street adjacent to administration. Media Center is on the second floor above administration. Comments: prefer to move gymnasium to an exterior wall. Good plan to be able to monitor building for safety/ security. Suggested to look at switching cafeteria/ kitchen with athletics. The 3 story plan shown in site schemes D and E was reviewed. This plan has a 3 story academic wing with 6th grade on the first floor, 7th grade on the second floor, and 8th grade on the third floor. Administration/ Health/ Guidance are located next to the main entry with athletics across the hall. The cafeteria is located along the front of the building providing an opportunity for after‐hours access. Media Center is on the second floor above administration. The final plan option shown is a 2 story plan as shown in site scheme B2. This plan has 2 separate wings connected by an atrium. One wing is a 2 story academic wing with 6th, 7th, and 8th grades, administration/ health/ guidance, and the media center. The other wing contains the cafeteria, kitchen, athletics, Art, Tech Ed., and Music. Comments: seems a little disjointed but like the academic separation. Entrance not facing road is not preferred. Concerns that there are too many blind spots to properly supervise. Concern that the gymnasium is not located properly for after‐hours access. MEETING RECORD Page 5 of 6 5‐24 5‐25 5‐26 5‐27 5‐28 5‐29 5‐30 Question: Is locating the media center on the second floor an issue. Answer: Many schools have this. Location on 2nd floor provides nice views and an opportunity to celebrate this space. Question: Can administration and guidance and health be separated by floor? Answer: Not ideal. Function this way now with them being separated, but it is not preferred. Question: Is there an elevator?
Answer: Yes, there will be 1 standard elevator. Location will be determined as the design moves forward. Question: Are all of the classroom sizes the same in each scheme? Answer: Yes, they are the same size in all schemes per the MCPS standard Educational Specs/Program. The larger classrooms shown are the science labs in each scheme. Question: Where do plays/ performances take place? Need area outside of space for intermission. Answer: Stage is located in the cafeteria in the schemes per MCPS standards (currently it is in the gymnasium). Stair configurations were discussed. Certain stairs can be designated for use by specific grades during the day. Also, stairs can be designed wide enough to accommodate a center rail so one side is up and 1 side is down to prevent congestion. This will be developed as the design progresses. Next Meeting: FAC Meeting #6: 06‐02‐11 7:00 PM
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