Meeting Record

Meeting Record
Date:
Project:
750 E. Pratt Street
Suite 1100
Baltimore MD 21202
Project No:
Prepared by:
410 837 7311
410 837 6530 fax
www.hcm2.com
Attendee
Beth Blevins
Robin Bruckner
Jenna Dean
Jim Determan
Angela Edwards
Rick Eisenacher
Volker Englisch
Greg Fox
Stephen Fye
Melissa Gooding
Maneth P. Gravell
Joe Griffin
Jeff Hagan
Dr. Ursula A Hermann
ARCHITECTURE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIOR DESIGN
Kristin Hewitt
Michelle Hintz
Karen Holt
Hank Hyde
Tom Hyde
Adrienne Karamihas
Troy Kimmel
Jennifer McKneely
Joann Mirgon
Diane Morris
Meg Pease-Fye
Susan Ramsay
Barbara Ray
Elaine Salter
Muriel Senderling
Michael Shpur
James Song
John S. Weske
CC:
Organization
Parent
Parent
Neighbor
HCM
FMS Parent
Teacher
Parent
AMT
Parent
Parent
Parent
PTA, FMS
HCM
Community
Superintendant
Parent
FMS Parent
Parent
Neighbor
Neighbor
MCPS
Parent
Sherwood
Parent
Principal, FMS
Neighbor
Parent
SSGS
Parent
FMS Parent
MCPS
Director Dept
of Facilities
Management
Neighbor
Phone
301-260-0556
301-395-3871
410.837.7311
301.421.5927
301.924.3100
301-881-2545
301-774-4688
301-573-3318
301-254-2930
240-832-1190
410.837.7311
6/02/2011 FAC # 6 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]
301-476-8097
301.421.1704
301-438-8453
301-924-2254
301-774-3147
240.314.1035
301-602-1663
301-260-0181
301-980-6546
240.484.4995
301-796-1130
301-412-1742
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
301-260-1668
301.774.9573
240.314.1014
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
301-774-7564
[email protected]
Sharon Agranov
Claudette Ardizzone
Anne Baldini
Steve Bonnhag
Karen Brunson
Jamie Castle
Karen Castle
Jennifer Costello
Neeta Datt
Debbie Deans
Sumaya Fahmy
Melissa Gatlin
Lori Goodwin
Jean Gries
Jennifer Hallmark
Wail Higazi
Michael Hildebrand
Patrick Hintz
Joyce Jessell
Eric & Ann Johnson
Barry Jordan
Jihyun Jung
Gail Kahan
Andrea Keller
Felicia Kimmel
Rich Konzmann
Anne L. Kozma
Michael Krakaur
Haifa Krakaur
Laura Lampshire
Kerri St. Laurent
Conae Lee
Joy Leven
Jeff Levine
Linda Lindstrom
Pauline Loveland
Brian Lowe
Ray Marhamati
Ed McCarthy
Debbie Metrey
Kristy Montgomery
Kendra Newman
Joe Pasternak
Doug Popham
Judith Setkin Porzel
Joe Pospisil
Lori Post
Sarah Qureshi
Suzanne Redman
MEETING RECORD
Parent
301-260-9303
FMS Parent
Teacher, FMS
301.924.3100
Parent
301-570-6269
Parent
301-598-1801
Parent
301-570-4566
Parent
301-570-4566
Parent
240-678-8397
Community Liaison for Sen.
Montgomery
Parent
301-570-1548
Parent/Teacher 240-593-8169
FMS Parent
Parent
301-260-1933
MCDOT/ Traffic 240-777-2183
Parent
301-421-4305
Parent
410-370-2829
FMS Parent
Parent
301-421-1704
MCPS
240-314-1004
Parents
301-421-1340
Parent
301-774-8348
Parent
301-448-9106
Parent
301-774-2999
Parent
301-774-7630
Parent
301-260-7551
Parent
301-570-6815
FMS Staff
301.924.3100
Parent
301.924.0149
FMS Parent
Parent
301-570-1042
Parent
301-774-0032
FMS Parent
301.598.3139
Parent
301-570-5368
Teacher, FMS
240.426.8359
Teacher, FMS
301.924.3100
FMS Staff
Parent
301-260-8840
MCPS
240.314.1010
FMS Parent
Parent
301-570-3917
FMS Parent
301.774.7747
Parent
301-908-5765
Parent
301-570-6979
Parent
301-240-3654
FMS Parent
301.476.7775
MCDOT/ Traffic 240-777-2160
Parent
301-924-3080
FMS Parent
Parent
301-570-9092
[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]
[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 8
Lisa Rodriguez
Michael Ronan
Anne Rood
Casey Smith
Tom Spies
Heather Steffan
Jillian Storms
Robert Tarloff
Patricia Via
Brant West
Melanie Whelan
Ric Wugalter
Erin Zagami
No
6-1
Teacher, FMS
FMS Parent
Parent
HCM
HCM
FMS Parent
MSDE
Parent/Teacher
FMS Parent
Parent
Parent
Parent
Parent
301.924.3100
301.570.3825
301-570-3251
410.837.7311
301.774.8262
410.767.0615
301-590-0629
301-260-8753
301-260-0723
301-570-8099
301-774-2661
[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]
Item
Mr. Song opened the meeting with a review of the 3 design approaches
and an update to the community on the status of the adjacent
property.
Approach 1: Traditional approach- relocate students to Tilden, vacate
the building and site, and construct a new building.
Approach 2: Existing building to remain occupied while a replacement
building is constructed behind the existing building. When new building
is complete, existing building is demolished and play fields are
constructed.
Approach 3: Build replacement building on new site, then turn the
current site over to MNCPPC.
Regarding Approach 3- Mr. Song met twice with MNCPPC in addition to
three phone calls with senior level staff. MNCPPC was receptive to a
trade and took the idea back to MNCPPC staff to evaluate. At 2:37
today (6/2/11) Mr. Song received an answer back from Department of
Parks that they are OK with MCPS developing a plan for the new school
on their land. The land exchange has to be equal or greater in value and
must meet all codes and regulations. The existing school site is 20 acres
and the adjacent site is 17 acres, therefore the exchange would provide
a larger parcel for MNCPPC. In addition, the stream buffer is larger on
the adjacent site than the FMS site, so there would be more
developable area for MNCPPC if they take over the current FMS site.
Action by:
Some additional challenges include a requirement in the Master Plan
that Old Vic Road to be extended to align with the current school
entrance and limits curb cuts along Batchellor’s Forest Road since it is
considered a “rustic road.” Therefore the new site will have to be
accessed from the existing site. If the preferred scheme is a
replacement building next door, MCPS will be advocating/ requesting 2
more curb cuts along Batchellor’s Forest Road.
At this point it is too preliminary to take to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission is aware of the request but is not in a position
to rule on it until after the Superintendant has made a recommendation
MEETING RECORD
Page 3 of 8
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
to the Board of Education and the Board of Education has agreed to
support that plan.
Mr. Song had directed HCM to look at the adjacent property to see
whether a new building would fit and what other challenges exist.
Those options will be shown tonight.
Mr. Song outlined the next steps:
1. Finish the Feasibility Study.
2. September- All feasibility studies will be presented to the new
Superintendant of Schools and the Superintendant will make a
recommendation to the Board of Education.
3. The Cluster Coordinator will provide testimony to the Board of
Education to get funding for the project and to advocate for
the preferred option.
4. The Board of Education will make the final decision. In
November a recommendation will be made to the County
Council and the County Executive that will empower MCPS to
make submission to MNCPPC requesting a land exchange.
MNCPPC could choose to save some or all of the existing FMS
amenities (building, tennis courts, basketball courts, ball fields,
parking lot).
5. If MNCPPC agrees, the next step is a title transfer of the deed
for the property.
6. Once MNCCPC approval is received, MCPS will proceed directly
into the design phase with a project completion date of August
2015.
It is important that the 24 month design period is not shortened.
Farquhar Middle School is one of many projects competing for $1.4
Billion. Reconciliation of the budget will not be final until next May.
There are many regulatory agencies that must review the project. There
is less than 12 months of actual design work; the remainder is the
approval process. This includes 2 months for bidding and 1 month for
Board of Education approval. This process is there to ensure compliance
with safety and security.
Mr. Song will attend the Greater Olney Civic Association Meeting on
th
June 14 at 7:30 PM. The same update provided at this meeting will be
provided at that meeting. No further progress on the land swap will
occur until after the report is complete and presented to MNCPPC.
Question: Community not opposed to the modernization, just opposed
to busing to Tilden. If this is the last meeting, how does the Community
keep informed?
Answer: Relay questions or concerns to the Principal (Ms. Morris) and
the Project Manager (Mr. Marhamati) will respond throughout the
entire project. Please do not contact anyone without copying Mr.
Marhamati.
Question: Does the FAC make a recommendation of a preferred option?
Answer: The FAC may prioritize the options. Typically the feasibility
study will state that the FAC prefers a specific option. However, the
Superintendant and the Board of Education will review all of the
options.
MEETING RECORD
Page 4 of 8
6-7
6-8
6-9
6-10
6-11
6-12
6-13
6-14
6-15
Question: Will we see costs of the options tonight?
Answer: Not tonight. Costs of all of the options will be done after the 3
final options are agreed to and then the design team will look at the
options in more detail to develop the cost model. This will take a couple
of months and then MCPS will finalize the cost model. This will be
included in the final report. An electronic copy of the feasibility study
will be posted on the website approximately in mid August.
Question: Will transportation costs be shown as a line item on the
relocation scheme?
Answer: Will not be included in the budget but will be identified.
Question: If the option on the adjacent site is recommended, will
additional curb cuts be included to access the new site from Batchellor’s
Forest Road?
Answer: Only options that are constructable can be shown. Current
Master Plan does not allow additional curb cuts. MCPS will request an
amendment to the Master Plan.
Question: Is the time frame the same or different for each of the
options?
Answer: Design and approval process is about the same for all. There
are differences in total time to construct the different options.
Relocating and rebuilding or replacing off site is approximately 2 years.
Building behind the existing building is approximately 3 years.
Question: Can the school use the park facilities such as the tennis courts
and not build new on our site to allow more room for the building?
Answer: Need to fit the program on our site. It is unknown what will
happen to the park site in the future. MCPS does have schools that are
contiguous with park sites. Also, the stream buffer may create
supervision issues. This will be explored as the design is developed.
Mr. Thomas Hyde, adjacent neighbor to the new site, submitted a
memo dated June 2, 2011 detailing his opposition to constructing a
school on the new site next door to his property.
Question: What is the proposed number of students and are there any
proposed boundary changes?
Answer: Currently there are 560 students. No boundary changes are
planned at this time. The building will be built for 800 students and the
core spaces will be built for 1,000 students. If the capacity exceeds 800
students then classrooms can be added and the core spaces will be able
to support the increase in population without having to be enlarged.
Question: What will traffic be like on Batchellor’s Forest Road during
construction?
Answer: Batchellor’s Forest Road is a narrow twisting road. There will
be trucks, noise, dust and safety issues. A traffic analysis will be done as
part of the design process. After the building is complete, the on-site
flow of traffic will be better with separation of cars, busses, and
pedestrians. Offsite improvements to curb cuts will improve flow along
Batchellor’s Forest Road.
Adjacent land still belongs to the developer and has not been conveyed
to MNCPPC yet.
MEETING RECORD
Page 5 of 8
6-16
6-17
6-18
Question: How does the community get involved if there is not a
consensus?
Answer: All comments and concerns are being recorded and presented.
The ultimate decision will be by the Board of Education.
Next, HCM presented the schemes to the Committee. All 5 schemes will
be included in the feasibility study report.
Scheme E was reviewed. This scheme is a 3-story scheme as a way to
reduce the footprint to gain more space on site. The academic wings
th
th
th
are stacked with 6 grade, 7 grade, and 8 grade on separate floors.
The 3 story portion is on the South end only. The building is
approximately 65 feet from the North property line. The site is accessed
via the existing school site since the Master Plan does not currently
allow new curb cuts. The building is a compact plan allowing tennis
courts, basketball courts, and play fields in the rear and parking in the
front. The service on the North side can be screened architecturally and
with landscaping. Also service could be moved to the other end of
building (mirror building). (Note last 3 MCPS middle schools have been
3 stories).
Pros:
No relocation to Tilden.
Geothermal is possible.
Cons:
Sanitary Sewer is at the South end of the existing school
property, so it would have to be extended up Batchellor’s
Forest Road.
Overlapping baseball fields.
Safety/ Supervision of 3 story building more difficult.
3 story building in the middle of a field would not be in scale
with neighborhood.
Building is next to adjacent neighbor.
Question: Can the building be shifted South?
Answer: No, the stream buffer limits this.
6-19
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, similar to Scheme E. Also, the site is accessed
via the existing school site since the Master Plan does not currently
allow new curb cuts. Computer labs will be in each academic wing in
addition to the Tech Ed area.
Pros:
No relocation to Tilden.
Geothermal is possible.
2 story building is more in line with the existing vistas.
Cons:
Sanitary Sewer is at the South end of the existing school
property, so it would have to be extended up Batchellor’s
Forest Road.
MEETING RECORD
Page 6 of 8
-
Reduced quantity of ball fields/ sports courts.
Building is next to adjacent neighbor.
Question: Can the parking be located in the back of the building?
Answer: This is not preferred. There are safety issues with crossing
traffic to get to the building.
Question: Can building be mirrored to get gymnasium closer to the play
fields/ tennis and basketball courts. Also will allow service area to be at
opposite side of property, away from the adjacent property owner.
Answer: Yes, this will be explored.
6-20
Scheme D was reviewed next. 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.
Pros:
Cons:
-
No relocation to Tilden.
Geothermal is possible.
Safety/ Supervision of 3 story building more difficult.
Impact on 6 classrooms along back of existing building.
Noise/ dust/ construction activity.
Longer construction period (approximately 3 years).
Loss of play fields for duration of construction.
Question: Why was scheme A (building at back of site) eliminated?
Answer: There were too many cons (i.e. geothermal could not be done).
Scheme D eliminated many of those cons and does not require
relocation to Tilden.
6-21
Scheme B1 was reviewed. This scheme is a replacement school option
with student relocation to Tilden. Site layout is similar to what currently
exists. Site includes 6 tennis courts, 3 basketball courts, 2 soccer fields
and 2 softball fields.
Pros:
Cons:
-
MEETING RECORD
Geothermal is possible.
Does not affect neighbor.
Relocation to Tilden.
Impact on students and parents for after school activities.
Lengthy bus ride has impact on student academic
performance.
Increased transportation costs.
Unpredictability of traffic/ congestion from FMS to Tilden
Holding Center.
Heavily reduced parent involvement.
Page 7 of 8
6-22
Scheme B2 was reviewed. This scheme is another replacement school
option with student relocation. This scheme has a different building
layout/ footprint than Scheme B1. There are 2 entrances, one for
busses and another for car riders/ visitors. Site includes 6 tennis courts,
3 basketball courts, soccer and softball fields.
Pros:
Geothermal is possible.
Does not affect neighbor.
Cons:
Relocation to Tilden.
Impact on students and parents for after school activities.
Lengthy bus ride has impact on student academic
performance.
Increased transportation costs.
Unpredictability of traffic/ congestion from FMS to Tilden
Holding Center.
Heavily reduced parent involvement.
Safety/ Supervision of 3 story building more difficult.
6-23
The consensus of the Feasibility Advisory Committee is that Option F (2
story option on the adjacent property) is the preferred scheme. The
design team will explore mirroring the plan to have the gymnasium
closer to the sports courts and play fields and the service area on the
opposite side of the site away from the adjacent homeowner.
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 8 of 8