6 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

Preliminary Design Program February 4, 2020

MSBA Project #201706730010 Florence Roche Elementary School

INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8

6 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

6.1 School Assignment Practices 16.2 Tuition Agreements 16.3 Rental or Acquisition of Existing Buildings 1PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 26.4 Code Upgrade Option 5

Structural Assessment 7Cost Analysis for Construction Only 8

6.5 Renovation and/or Addition Option 10Code Assessment 13Civil Assessment 14Landscape Assessment 15Structural Assessment 16Security Assessment 17Cost Analysis for Construction Only 18

6.6 New Building Options & Potential Locations 20Code Assessment - Option 3 23Civil Assessment - Option 3 24Landscape Assessment - Option 3 25Structural Assessment - Option 3 26Security Assessment - Option 3 27Cost Analysis for Construction Only - Option 3 28Code Assessment - Option 4 33Civil Assessment - Option 4 34Landscape Assessment - Option 4 35Structural Assessment - Option 4 36Security Assessment - Option 4 37Cost Analysis for Construction Only - Option 4 38Civil Assessment - Option 6 42Cost Analysis for Construction Only - Option 6 44

6.7 List of 3 Distinct Alternatives for Further Development & Evaluation 46

1 Preliminary Design Program February 4, 2020


INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8

6.1 School Assignment PracticesAs indicated in the Florence Roche Elementary School SOI, due to limited space at the existing Florence Roche Elementary School, the Groton-Dunstable Regional School District has redrawn the elementary school boundary lines so roughly 107-120 +/- elementary school children, who live in Groton attend the Shallow Union School. One of the primary goals of the Florence Roche Elementary School feasibility study was to develop a preferred solution/option in conjunction with the MSBA and follow through with implementing said option into a construction project. At the completion of the project, and as indicated in the SOI, the boundary lines established due to the limited space at the Florence Roche Elementary School will be lifted allowing all elementary school-aged Groton students currently attending Shallow Union in Dunstable, MA to attend school at the new Florence Roche Elementary School.

There are no other facilities under control of the Towns of Groton & Dunstable that could be utilized for swing space or other school-related operational use.

6.2 Tuition AgreementsThe Groton-Dunstable Regional School District does not have any tuition agreements with any other school districts.

6.3 Rental or Acquisition of Existing BuildingsThere are no facilities of sufficient size available within the Towns of Groton & Dunstable to accommodate any Florence Roche Project option(s) as part of this Feasibility Study.

2MSBA Project #201706730010 Florence Roche Elementary School


PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVESOVERVIEW

As required by the MSBA Module 3, the Owner’s Project Manager, the design team, and the District have reviewed various locations and options for the Florence Roche Elementary School project. Each of the options consider a 645-student Elementary School population for Kindergarten though 4th grade.

Leftfield developed a comparative-probable project cost analysis for various options ranging from a code upgrade, addition/renovation, new construction on the existing site, new options housed on the current high school site, as well as various grade configurations with multiple options. These studies were performed prior to the finalization of the space summary so assumed square footages utilized in the analysis differ slightly from the final space summary square footage. After review of this analysis by the Committee, all fifth and sixth-grade configurations were removed from further consideration.

Please see Chart 1 on the following page, which illustrates the various options that were explored and considered during the PDP phase, and when said options were removed from further consideration. Due to the timing of the early comparable-probable cost analysis, square footage values are not in direct alignment with the submitted space summary. In the interest of managing financial expectations and obligations with the Groton-Dunstable Client, a financial analysis was performed based on a new 113,650 square foot design and presented to the

Client at their January 28, 2020 Building Committee meeting. Please see Chart 2 which depicts probable costs for a 113,650 square foot facility.

The completed comparable-probable cost analysis was a jumping-off point for SGA to commence a more robust PDP analysis comprising six options. Leftfield’s comparative-probable cost analysis can be found in Appendix 8/6.7.

Studio G Architects responded to Committee feedback as a result of the comparative-probable cost analysis and developed six options for the Feasibility Study; one Code Upgrade Option, one Renovation and Addition Option, and four New Construction Options. These options are further discussed on the following pages of this report. These options refer to various sites on the existing Main Street campus, as well as a location on the High School campus. Please refer to the diagram below for the Main Street campus site delineation.

The Feasibility Study is an ongoing process, so some consultant reports were based on a previous yet conceptually similar iteration of the design options. Any discrepancies between the consultant reports and the designer’s options as presented in this PDP are a result of the iterative nature of this process. Consultant report summaries are included after each design option, with the exception of the MEP/FP Conceptual Systems Narrative, applicable to all options, which can be found in Appendix 8/6.1.



INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8

Build

ing Co

mmittee

Mee

tings

Compa

rativ

e Prob

able Cost

Values

Estim

ated

District

[Groton] sh

are

of TPC

Estim

ated

Dun

stab

le

share of TPC

COMBINED

SH

ARE

11/26/2019

12/11/2019

1/14/2020

1/28/2020

In m

illions

In m

illions

In m

illions

In m

illions

OPT

ION 1

Code

Upg

rade

K‐4 | 48

769

,468

$38.7

$38.7

n/a

n/a

OPT

ION 2

New

Build/R

eno

K‐4 | 64

512

3,46

8$8

2.2

$58.2

n/a

n/a

Option to be furthe

r stud

ied in th

e PSR Ph

ase

Option 3, 4

New

Build

K‐4 | 64

598

,201

$71.4

$48.9

n/a

n/a

Option to be furthe

r stud

ied in th

e PSR Ph

ase

Option FR

B

New

Build

4 PK

CR's; PK‐4|

704

104,20

1$7

5.5

$51.2

$0.5

$51.7

Pre‐k prog

ram TBD

Option FR

D

New

Build

PK‐5 G&D | 1,087

150,15

8$1

07.0

$63.4

$17.9

$81.3

Option FR

‐MSS A

New

/Lim

ited Re

noK‐4 | 64

511

5,60

1$7

7.3

$53.9

n/a

n/a

Option FR

‐MSS B

New

/Lim

ited Re

noPK

‐4 | 704

121,60

1$8

1.4

$56.3

$0.6

$56.9

Option FR

‐MSS C

New

/Lim

ited Re

noPK

‐Groton 5th | 85

914

5,68

5$9

7.6

$56.3

$15.9

$72.2

Option 6

New

Build

K‐4 | 64

598

,201

$72.3

$51.0

n/a

n/a

Option FR

‐HS B

New

Build

4 PK

CR's; PK‐4|

704

104,20

1$7

6.4

$53.3

$0.5

$53.8

Option FR

‐HS D

New

Build

PK‐5 G&D | 1,087

150,15

8$1

07.8

$64.9

$18.3

$83.2

* Plea

se note that GSF value

s sho

wn in th

is an

alysis do

not align with

the PD

P space summary. This d

ocum

ent is n

ot be construe

d as a project bud

get; it is a compa

rable cost ana

lysis

Flor

ence

Roc

he E

lem

enta

ry S

choo

l Fea

sibi

lity

Stud

y - P

DP

- Com

para

tive

Prob

able

Cos

t Ana

lysi

s

Site

Option

Grade

Con

figuration |

Enrollm

ent

Assumed

squa

re fo

otage

*

Executive Su

mmary

Remov

ed from

furthe

r con

sideration at th

e 11

‐26‐20

19 m

eetin

g

Not presented

Remov

ed from

furthe

r con

sideration at th

e 11

‐26‐20

19 m

eetin

g

Florence Roche Site OptionsHigh School Site

Options

Florence Roche ‐ Middle School South Site Options

Remov

ed from

furthe

r con

sideration at th

e 11

‐26‐20

19 m

eetin

gRe

mov

ed from

furthe

r con

sideration at th

e 11

‐26‐20

19 m

eetin

g

Remov

ed from

furthe

r con

sideration at th

e 11

‐26‐20

19 m

eetin

gRe

n/Ad

d op

tion requ

ired in th

e PSR

phase; Rem

oved

at 1

2‐11

mtg.

Ren/Ad

d op

tion requ

ired in th

e PSR

phase; Rem

oved

at 1

2‐11

mtg.

Ren/Ad

d op

tion requ

ired in th

e PSR

phase; Rem

oved

at 1

2‐11

mtg.

CHA

RT 1



Build

ing Co

mmittee

Mee

tings

Compa

rativ

e Prob

able Cost

Values

Estim

ated

District

[Groton] sh

are

of TPC

Estim

ated

Dun

stab

le

share of TPC

COMBINED

SH

ARE

11/26/2019

12/11/2019

1/14/2020

1/28/2020

In m

illions

In m

illions

In m

illions

In m

illions

OPT

ION 1

Code

Upg

rade

K‐4 | 48

769

,468

$38.7

$38.7

n/a

n/a

OPT

ION 2

New

Build/R

eno

K‐4 | 64

512

3,46

8$8

2.2

$58.2

n/a

n/a

Option to be furthe

r stud

ied in th

e PSR Ph

ase

Option 3, 4

New

Build

K‐4 | 64

511

3,65

0$8

1.5

$58.3

n/a

n/a

Option to be furthe

r stud

ied in th

e PSR Ph

ase

Option FR

B

New

Build

4 PK

CR's; PK‐4|

704

104,20

1$7

5.5

$51.2

$0.5

$51.7

Pre‐K Prog

ram TBD

Option FR

D

New

Build

PK‐5 G&D | 1,087

150,15

8$1

07.0

$63.4

$17.9

$81.3

Option FR

‐MSS A

New

/Lim

ited Re

noK‐4 | 64

511

5,60

1$7

7.3

$53.9

n/a

n/a

Option FR

‐MSS B

New

/Lim

ited Re

noPK

‐4 | 704

121,60

1$8

1.4

$56.3

$0.6

$56.9

Option FR

‐MSS C

New

/Lim

ited Re

noPK

‐Groton 5th | 85

914

5,68

5$9

7.6

$56.3

$15.9

$72.2

Option 6

New

Build

K‐4 | 64

598

,201

$72.3

$51.0

n/a

n/a

Option FR

‐HS B

New

Build

4 PK

CR's; PK‐4|

704

104,20

1$7

6.4

$53.3

$0.5

$53.8

Option FR

‐HS D

New

Build

PK‐5 G&D | 1,087

150,15

8$1

07.8

$64.9

$18.3

$83.2

Remov

ed from

furthe

r con

sideration at th

e 11

‐26‐20

19 m

eetin

g

Not presented

Remov

ed from

furthe

r con

sideration at th

e 11

‐26‐20

19 m

eetin

g

Florence Roche Site OptionsHigh School Site

Options

Florence Roche ‐ Middle School South Site Options

Remov

ed from

furthe

r con

sideration at th

e 11

‐26‐20

19 m

eetin

gRe

mov

ed from

furthe

r con

sideration at th

e 11

‐26‐20

19 m

eetin

g

Remov

ed from

furthe

r con

sideration at th

e 11

‐26‐20

19 m

eetin

gRe

n/Ad

d op

tion requ

ired in th

e PSR

phase; Rem

oved

at 1

2‐11

mtg.

Ren/Ad

d op

tion requ

ired in th

e PSR

phase; Rem

oved

at 1

2‐11

mtg.

Ren/Ad

d op

tion requ

ired in th

e PSR

phase; Rem

oved

at 1

2‐11

mtg.

Flor

ence

Roc

he E

lem

enta

ry S

choo

l Fea

sibi

lity

Stud

y - P

DP

- Com

para

tive

Prob

able

Cos

t Ana

lysi

s

Site

Option

Grade

Con

figuration |

Enrollm

ent

Assumed

squa

re fo

otage

Executive Su

mmary

CHA

RT 2



INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8

6.4 Code Upgrade OptionOPTION 1: CODE UPGRADEThe Code Upgrade option focuses on repairs and modifications required for compliance with current building and accessibility codes. Despite appearances, the building requires myriad upgrades to meet code requirements. Because of the extensive nature of the work, little of the existing building would remain untouched. The upgrade work will snowball into a significant replacement of finishes and other elements.

Due to the square footage of the building, the lack of code compliant fire walls, and no sprinkler system, in order to bring the building in compliance with construction classification, the modular classrooms need to be removed, a sprinkler system must be added, and a compliance alternative must be approved by the building official and the Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS).

Assuming approval is attained, the code upgrade option would further require: structural upgrades for reinforcement and seismic resistance, mechanical system upgrades to provide fresh air and exhaust, envelope upgrades to meet energy code requirements, and installation of new fire protection / alarm systems. Meeting accessibility regulations will require significant modifications to doors, hardware, bathrooms, stairs (which do not currently comply with egress enclosure requirements, guardrail conformance, and stair nosing regulations), and site elements including new curb cuts and grading. The extent of work required to bring the building into compliance would trigger additional

work under the building code and may include new plumbing fixtures, as well as other elements.

The replacement with new construction of the demolished modular classrooms, and a code upgraded school building, would still leave the District with a building which does not support the required educational program, configurations, adjacencies, and sizes. A majority of the existing spaces would remain undersized, inefficient, and inadequate based on the schools programmatic needs and MSBA standards. Furthermore, many program areas needed for successful delivery of the Education Plan, would remain unaccounted for in the existing facility. Additionally, the building would not be able to accommodate the additional projected student enrollment.

The scope of work required in this option would be widespread throughout the building and site. Currently there is no identified temporary swing space available, in the Towns of Groton or Dunstable, for either a whole or partial relocation of the school population during construction. Temporary modular classrooms for swing space would be required and would entail substantial additional costs. Since this Code Upgrade option does not address the programmatic deficiencies, would be costly for code and systems upgrades, and incurs additional swing space costs, it was determined that this concept has no merit to evaluate further. The cost and further study of this option will not be included with the Preferred Schematic Report.

Advantages:1. Minimal site construction disturbance comparative

to other options

Disadvantages:1. No MSBA reimbursement for code upgrades.2. Educational program needs are not met.3. Some spaces may remain undersized; others

cannot be included/added at all.4. Complex phasing and sequencing required

for interior construction work which must be performed around occupied space: disruptive to learning and prolonging the project.

5. District maintains old and outdated building.6. Limited opportunities for improving the site

circulation.7. Increased enrollment is not met.





INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8

OPTION 1: CODE UPGRADE

STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT

ENGINEER’S DESIGN GROUP (EDG)Structural EngineerSee Appendix 8/6.4 — Structural Assessment of Options for full consultant report.

The proposed scheme will require repairs and only minor renovations and upgrades to the existing school triggered by requirements for compliance with the International Existing Building Code. All of the proposed renovations will essentially be Architectural in nature and will require no major reconfiguration of the structure. The proposed scheme requires replacement of all mechanical equipment, renovations related to ADA requirements and the addition of a vestibule and bathrooms.

Primary Structural Code Issues Related to the Existing StructureBased on the proposed scope, we would recommend following the compliance requirements of the Work Area Compliance Method since it will be the most cost effective method for this proposed scheme. Given that there is no reconfiguration of demising walls or spaces, the work area as defined in the International Existing Building code will be less than 50% of the aggregate floor area of the building; therefore, no structural upgrades or interventions are required by the code.

Proposed Structural SchemeBased on the scope of the proposed scheme, no structural upgrades are triggered or required. The replacement mechanical units can be supported on the existing framing, if the proposed units are lighter in weight than the existing units. Some of the mechanical equipment may be required to be supported on dunnage platforms. Allow for costs for reinforcement of the roof structure as a percentage of the cost of the mechanical units.



OPTION 1: CODE UPGRADE

COST ANALYSIS FOR CONSTRUCTION ONLY

LEFTFIELD, LLCOwner’s Project ManagerSee Appendix 8/6.7 — Comparative Probable Cost Analysis for full report.

Florence Roche Feasibility Study ‐ PDP Conceptual Design Construction Cost AnalysisNovember 2019Florence Roche Code Upgrade

General Statistics New Reno Notes Gross Square Footage: 7,000 62,468 "New" is based on replacement of mods Building Footprint: 7,000 62,468Supported Floor Deck: 0 0Roof Area: 7,000 62,468Exterior Wall Surface Area: 4,704 19,180# Elevator Stops: 0 0

New Construction ‐ "the box" Quantity Unit Unit Cost TotalA10 ‐ Foundations 7,000 sf $33.00 $231,000A10 ‐ Foundations, premium high wall work 0 lf $800.00 $0A10 ‐ Foundations, additional excavation and export 4,080 cy $45.00 $183,600A20 ‐ Basement Construction none $0B10 ‐ Superstructure, supported floors 0 sf $18.00 $0B10 ‐ Superstructure, supported roofs 7,000 sf $22.00 $154,000B20 ‐ Exterior enclosure 4,704 sf $50.00 $235,200B20 ‐ Exterior enclosure, join to old work 3,825 sfsa $40.00 $153,000B30 ‐ Roofing 7,000 sf $18.00 $126,000C10 ‐ Interior construction 7,000 sf $42.00 $294,000C20 ‐ Stairwells 7,000 sf $2.00 $14,000C30 ‐ Interior Finishes 7,000 sf $28.00 $196,000D10 ‐ Conveying systems 0 stops $55,000.00 $0D20 ‐ Plumbing 7,000 sf $23.00 $161,000D30 ‐ HVAC 7,000 sf $57.00 $399,000D40 ‐ Fire Protection 7,000 sf $7.00 $49,000D50 ‐ Electrical 7,000 sf $36.00 $252,000E10 ‐ Equipment 7,000 sf $6.00 $42,000E20 ‐ Furnishings 7,000 sf $13.00 $91,000

Subtotal ‐ New Construction "the box" $2,580,800

Special Construction; Demolition. + Abatement Quantity Unit Unit Cost TotalF10 ‐ Special construction none $0F20 ‐ Building Demolition 7,000 sf $5 $35,000F20 ‐ Asbestos Abatement 62,468 sf $20 $1,249,360

Subtotal ‐ Special Constr; Demo. + Abatement $1,284,360

OPTION 1 Code

Sitework costs based on extrapolated site development costs frm other projects

C:\Users\David\Dropbox (Leftfield)\Groton_Dunstable Elementary\5 - Feasibility & Schematic Design\5d - MSBA PDP\LF PDP cost study\Final analysis sent to SGA_1_17_2020\Flor Ro_Option Comparision_01_17_2020



INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8

Florence Roche Feasibility Study ‐ PDP Conceptual Design Construction Cost AnalysisNovember 2019Florence Roche Code Upgrade OPTION 1 Code Renovation: Quantity Unit Unit Cost TotalA10 ‐ Foundations 62,468 sf $4.00 $249,872A20 ‐ Basement Construction 8,000 sf $20.00 $160,000B10 ‐ Superstructure 62,468 sf $10.00 $624,680B10 ‐ Superstructure related to MEP's 62,468 sf $5.00 $312,340B20 ‐ Exterior enclosure 19,180 sfsa $65.00 $1,246,700B30 ‐ Roofing 62,468 sf $25.00 $1,561,700C10 ‐ Interior construction 62,468 sf $30.00 $1,874,040C10 ‐ Interior gut 62,468 sf $12.00 $749,616C20 ‐ Stairwells 62,468 sf $1.50 $93,702C30 ‐ Interior Finishes 62,468 sf $15.00 $937,020D10 ‐ Conveying systems 2 stops $55,000.00 $110,000D20 ‐ Plumbing 62,468 sf $14.00 $874,552D30 ‐ HVAC 62,468 sf $40.00 $2,498,720D40 ‐ Fire Protection 62,468 sf $5.00 $312,340D50 ‐ Electrical 62,468 sf $30.00 $1,874,040E10 ‐ Equipment 62,468 sf $5.00 $312,340E20 ‐ Furnishings 62,468 sf $10.00 $624,680Construction Phasing/Logistics Premium 62,468 sf $15.00 $937,020

Subtotal ‐ Renovation $15,353,362

SiteworkG10 ‐ Site Preparation 1 plug $150,000 $150,000G20 ‐ Site Improvements 1 plug $150,000 $150,000G30 ‐ Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities 1 plug $200,000 $200,000G40 ‐ Site Electrical Utilities 1 plug $200,000 $200,000

Subtotal ‐ Sitework $700,000




6.5 Renovation and/or Addition OptionOPTION 2: RENOVATION AND ADDITIONA renovation and addition at the existing Florence Roche Elementary School is achievable and would address many of the programmatic deficiencies in the current school building, including providing the classrooms necessary to satisfy the 645 student enrollment.

To achieve this option, the existing wings of modular classrooms, as well as the Gymnasium and Cafeteria portion of the existing school would need to be demolished. A 3-story addition, housing classroom neighborhoods and the Gymnasium would be connected to the existing building along the south. Much of the remaining existing building would be renovated and programmatically reconfigured to create right-sized important program elements such as the media center, Science Technology Engineering (STE), art and music rooms. Subsequently, the Cafeteria would be located adjacent to a new playground. Some of the existing classrooms however, are observed to be undersized; expensive measures would be required to expand these educational spaces or the school would be required to accept the smaller sized spaces. Renovations would also include bringing the

remaining portions of the existing building up to current accessibility, structural, and fire protection codes. Through this option of renovation and addition, the design enrollment of 645 students could be satisfied, although site limitations preclude the optimal indoor/outdoor adjacencies, and sizing of certain spaces.

With careful consideration to spatial relationships and adjacencies, a phased approach to construction---building the 3-story addition first, and then using it as swing space during renovation of the existing building, may be possible, although it comes with potential hazards and significant hardships impacting educational delivery during construction, and with a cost premium. The lack of other available temporary swing space in the District, leaves temporary modular classroom as the only other option, and as noted in Option 1, an expensive and undesirable one.

In consideration of these challenges, and the fact that the completed school would still fall short of achieving some of the significant programmatic goals given the site limitations, it was determined that this concept does not merit further evaluation.



INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8

Advantages:1. Building located close to parking area / loop2. Maintain existing playing fields and track

Disadvantages:1. Significant reconfiguration of existing school

layout; limited feasibility of phased construction; significant academic disruption

2. Significant excavation required for lower level3. Compromised layout strives to meet educational

visioning goals 4. District maintains renovated older building5. Limited options for adjacent outdoor learning and

play spaces6. High cost compared to new construction7. Requires new electrical service and 3rd

mechanical room, and relocation of existing underground tank

8. Limited opportunities for improving site circulation9. Challenged opportunity for 13 bus queuing

DNUP

SCALE: 1/16" =1'-0"

Owner

FLORENCE ROCHE

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

1/14/2020

A101

0' 4' 8' 16'

UP

SCALE: 1/16" =1'-0"

Owner

FLORENCE ROCHE

BASEMENT LEVEL

1/14/2020

A103

0' 4' 8' 16'

UP

0' 4' 8' 16'

SCALE: 1/16" =1'-0"

Owner

FLORENCE ROCHE

SECOND FLOOR

1/14/2020

A102

CLASSROOM (CR)

SPECIAL EDUCATION (SP. ED.)

MEDIA CENTER

ART / MUSIC

STAGE

GYMNASIUM

KITCHEN / CAFETERIA

ADMINISTRATION

BUILDING SERVICES

CIRCULATION

LEGEND

MAIN FLOOR

CR CR CR CRCR

CR

CR

CR

CRCR

CR

CRCR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CRCR

CR

MEDIACENTER

ADMIN

GYM

KITCHEN

CAFETERIA

STAGE

ART

ART

MUSIC

MUSIC

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

CRCR

UPPER FLOOR

LOWER FLOOR





INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8

OPTION 2: RENOVATION AND ADDITION

CODE ASSESSMENT

BUILDING, FIRE & ACCESSCode ConsultantSee Appendix 8/6.5 — Code Assessment of Options for full consultant report.

The existing modular elements will be demolished, the remainder of the original building will be reused and renovated in phases, and at least one addition (3 story) will be constructed. A second addition is also possible but currently shown as a detached structure.

From the code compliance perspective, Renovation and Addition Option 2 will provide a code compliant option but there will be high costs and numerous design challenges. Variances may be required to address various building and accessibility code issues. This option presents the most difficult code compliance challenge.




CIVIL ASSESSMENT

SAMIOTESEnvironmental Permitting & Civil EngineerSee Appendix 8/4.7 — Civil Assessment for full consultant report.

This option includes renovating the existing buildings, campus and addition of a new Elementary School building in the center and southern part of the property. Location of the southern addition would need to be approved with respect to the 100’ Wetland buffer area if found during Wetland Flagging investigation. With this renovation alternative, it would be possible to reuse a majority of the existing utilities. Please see the below recommendations and impacts for this project alternative:

Stormwater Management• Cleaning of all drainage structures and pipe

network• Condition assessment of existing drainage system• Re-grade impervious areas for proper drainage

and tributary areas to stormwater structures• Provide foundation drainage for the proposed

additions• Capture / route roof storm water to stormwater

systems• Installation of additional stormwater collection

structures at low points (assume fifteen)• Installation of water quality units (assume two)• Utilization of rain gardens and Low Impact

Design elements• Detention / Infiltration BMP’s to offset additional

imperviousness, in any option that creates additional impervious areas.

• Include Pervious Pavement as an option (it is recommended not to “mix + match” pervious materials on site)

Sewer• Cleaning of all sewer structures and pipe network• Condition assessment of existing sewer system• Provide the addition with a new sanitary sewer

service connection to the existing 8” sewer main• Installation of additional sewer manholes (assume

3)

Water• The fire protection connection to the proposed

Elementary School addition would be supplied from the onsite campus 12” main – will need to be flow tested.

• New domestic water connection would be supplied from the onsite campus 12” main.

Parking • Remove and replace all pavement around the

Florence Roche School.• Required parking spaces – minimum of 1.5

spaces per classroom, plus 1 space per 5 seats in an auditorium. The maximum number is 1 parking space per 3 seats per classroom, plus 1 space per 3 seats in an auditorium, we may request a waiver or variance to seek relief.

• Provide ADA parking spaces per MAAB requirements.

Hardscape• Remove and replace damaged curbing.• Materials are listed below in order of preference.

1. Granite curbing (especially at drop off areas in front of school).

2. Pre-cast concrete (it is suggested that this material not to be used anywhere that is salted or snowplowed).

3. Bituminous Asphalt (it is suggested that this material not to be used anywhere that is salted or snowplowed).

• Remove and replace all existing sidewalk sections in accordance with MAAB/ADA requirements.

• Provide MAAB/ADA access to existing building egresses.

• Install MAAB/ADA required tactile warning strips at all accessible ramps.

• Emergency Vehicle access – Evaluate fire truck turning radius for required widths.

• Car and School Bus Drop off areas – Evaluate vehicular accessibility and capacity with addition.



INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8


LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

TERRAINK, INC.Landscape ArchitectsSee Appendix 8/4.7 — Landscape Assessment for full consultant report.

Option 2 proposes the renovation of the building onsite, with three additions: to the north, an academic wing; and to the south, a gym and cafeteria.

The environmental advantages in this option would include: A) Minimal interventions relative to the construction operations (i.e.: demolition, removals, and the construction of new roads and pathways) and, B) Minimal interventions relative to the existing recreation facilities (relocation of the existing track and ball fields would be unnecessary).

One primary disadvantage to the outdoor program is that the safety and efficiency of the access and circulation is not truly addressed as some students will need to use the open spaces around the track field, while other students will be further confined to the playground courtyard, which appears to have a smaller footprint, given the new building addition. Another disadvantage would relate to the ADA access and circulation to the new building entrances as it will need to be accommodated in an even smaller footprint, therefore requiring the use of walls and possibly ADA compliant ramps and/or interior elevators. Drop-off/pick-up areas, in addition to the waiting/gathering areas, have also been reduced due to the enlarged building footprint.




STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT


The proposed scheme requires renovation of the entire school and reconfiguration of the majority of the demising walls. The scheme requires construction of a new two to three story Academic Wing Addition and a two story Gymnasium/Cafeteria Addition.

Primary Structural Code Issues Related to the Existing StructureDue to the extent of the proposed renovations and additions to the existing structure, the existing structure will have to be upgraded by the addition of some masonry shear walls. All of the existing masonry walls will be required to be clipped at the top to the floor and roof structure.

PROPOSED STRUCTURAL SCHEME Due to the extent of the proposed renovations and reconfiguration of the interior spaces, additional reinforced masonry shear walls or braced frames of structural steel will be required. The proposed shear walls or braced frames would be located at the existing column lines.

Due to the replacement of the entire mechanical and HVAC system, an allowance should be made for reinforcement of the existing roof framing to support the new units. This cost should be carried as a percentage cost of the mechanical units in the budget.

All of the existing masonry walls will be required to be clipped at the top to the existing floor and roof structure with steel angle clips at 4 ft. – 0 in. on center.

PROPOSED ADDITIONS Substructure — Foundations Based on the foundations of the existing structure, the columns of the proposed addition would bear on reinforced concrete footings and the perimeter foundation walls would bear on continuous reinforced concrete strip footings extending at least 4 ft. – 0 in. below grade.

Substructure — Slabs-on-Grade

Based on the existing school construction, the lowest level of the proposed additions would be a 5 in. thick concrete slab-on-grade reinforced with welded wire fabric over a vapor barrier on 2 in. thick rigid

insulation on 8 in. of compacted granular structural fill and a base course of 8 in. of compacted gravel.

Superstructure — Floor Construction

Typical Floor Construction:

A 4 ½ in. light weight concrete composite metal deck slab reinforced with welded wire fabric on wide flange steel beams spanning between steel girders and columns. The weight of the structural steel is estimated to be 14 psf for the typical framing.

Superstructure — Roof Construction

Typical Roof Construction:

The roof construction would be galvanized, corrugated 3 in. deep, Type ‘N’ metal roof deck spanning between wide flange steel beams and girders connected to the existing steel beams. The weight of the structural steel is estimated to be 14 psf.

Gymnasium and Cafeteria Roof Framing:

The roof construction would be acoustic, galvanized, corrugated 3 in. deep, Type ‘NA” metal roof deck at the Gymnasium and the Cafeteria, spanning between long span steel joists. The weight of the steel joists and structural steel framing is estimated to be 13 psf.

Superstructure — Vertical Framing Elements

Columns:

Columns will be hollow structural steel columns. Typical columns would be HSS 8 x 8 columns and the columns at the double height spaces would be HSS 12 x 12.

Lateral Load-Resisting System:

The typical lateral load resisting system for the school would be ordinary concentric braced frames (as defined in the International Building Code) comprised of HSS structural steel members.



INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8


SECURITY ASSESSMENT

VANTAGE TECHNOLOGY GROUPSecurity ConsultantSee Appendix 8/4.7 — Security Assessment for full consultant report.

• PRO: The location of the proposed academic building creates an interior courtyard area in a desirable manner, from a security perspective. The courtyard perimeter is clearly defined by the buildings around it and sightlines can be maintained from all buildings onto the courtyard.

• PRO: This location is the further from the walking trail, in comparison to the other options. If this is a public trail, this can be used as a route to access the site from behind, which is mitigated by not locating the site near the trail.

• CON: This provides the least flexibility in how security can be implemented since it would need to be retrofitted. Also, retrofitting security systems is more costly than installing new systems and related infrastructure.




COST ANALYSIS FOR CONSTRUCTION ONLY


Florence Roche Feasibility Study ‐ PDP Conceptual Design Construction Cost AnalysisNovember 2019Florence Roche Full Renovation; Addition

GSF 123,468General Statistics New ** Reno Notes Gross Square Footage: 61,000 62,468Building Footprint: n/a * n/a *Supported Floor Deck: n/a * n/a *Roof Area: n/a * n/a * * Utilizing cost/GSF values, not geometry of designExterior Wall Surface Area: n/a * n/a * Assume design will be 2 stories # Elevator Stops: 0 2

New Construction ‐ "the box" Quantity Unit Unit Cost TotalA10 ‐ Foundations 61,000 sf $33.00 $2,013,000A10 ‐ Foundations, premium high wall work 0 lf $800.00 $0A10 ‐ Foundations, additional excavation and export 0 cy $45.00 $0A20 ‐ Basement Construction none $0B10 ‐ Superstructure, supported floors 61,000 sf $18.00 $1,098,000B10 ‐ Superstructure, supported roofs 61,000 sf $22.00 $1,342,000B20 ‐ Exterior enclosure 61,000 sf $50.00 $3,050,000B20 ‐ Exterior enclosure, join to old work 640 sfsa $40.00 $25,600B30 ‐ Roofing 61,000 sf $18.00 $1,098,000C10 ‐ Interior construction 61,000 sf $42.00 $2,562,000C20 ‐ Stairwells 61,000 sf $2.00 $122,000C30 ‐ Interior Finishes 61,000 sf $28.00 $1,708,000D10 ‐ Conveying systems 0 stops $55,000.00 $0D20 ‐ Plumbing 61,000 sf $23.00 $1,403,000D30 ‐ HVAC 61,000 sf $57.00 $3,477,000D40 ‐ Fire Protection 61,000 sf $7.00 $427,000D50 ‐ Electrical 61,000 sf $36.00 $2,196,000E10 ‐ Equipment 61,000 sf $6.00 $366,000E20 ‐ Furnishings 61,000 sf $13.00 $793,000




OPTION 2 A/R


** Per MSBA space Summary Template = 93,525 ‐ 62,468 = 31,057 + 5% increase for additional program and 15% inefficiency factor




INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8

Florence Roche Feasibility Study ‐ PDP Conceptual Design Construction Cost AnalysisNovember 2019Florence Roche Full Renovation; Addition

GSF 123,468

OPTION 2 A/RRenovation: Quantity Unit Unit Cost TotalA10 ‐ Foundations 62,468 sf $4.00 $249,872A20 ‐ Basement Construction 8,000 sf $40.00 $320,000B10 ‐ Superstructure 62,468 sf $10.00 $624,680B10 ‐ Superstructure related to MEP's 62,468 sf $5.00 $312,340B20 ‐ Exterior enclosure 19,180 sfsa $75.00 $1,438,500B30 ‐ Roofing 62,468 sf $25.00 $1,561,700C10 ‐ Interior construction 62,468 sf $35.00 $2,186,380C10 ‐ Interior gut 62,468 sf $20.00 $1,249,360C20 ‐ Stairwells 62,468 sf $1.50 $93,702C30 ‐ Interior Finishes 62,468 sf $26.00 $1,624,168D10 ‐ Conveying systems 2 stops $55,000.00 $110,000D20 ‐ Plumbing 62,468 sf $14.00 $874,552D30 ‐ HVAC 62,468 sf $46.00 $2,873,528D40 ‐ Fire Protection 62,468 sf $5.00 $312,340D50 ‐ Electrical 62,468 sf $34.00 $2,123,912E10 ‐ Equipment 62,468 sf $5.00 $312,340E20 ‐ Furnishings 62,468 sf $20.00 $1,249,360Construction Phasing/Logistics Premium 62,468 sf $10.00 $624,680

Subtotal ‐ Renovation $18,141,414

SiteworkG10 ‐ Site Preparation 98,481 sf $20 $1,969,616G20 ‐ Site Improvements 98,481 sf $25 $2,462,020G30 ‐ Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities 1 plug $500,000 $500,000G40 ‐ Site Electrical Utilities 1 plug $300,000 $300,000

Subtotal ‐ Sitework $5,231,636




6.6 New Building Options & Potential LocationsOPTION 3: NEW CONSTRUCTION BEHIND EXISTING FLORENCE ROCHE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (SITE A)Option 3 constructs a new building to replace the existing Florence Roche Elementary School. The new construction would be located behind the existing elementary school and would be built while the existing school remained occupied. Applicable to all of the New Building Options (Options 3 – 6), a new Florence Roche Elementary School would be designed in accordance with all current building codes and accessibility requirements and would allow the opportunity to fully incorporate energy-efficiencies and educational programming initiatives, while fully supporting the District goals for 21st Century learning. New construction would offer the least disruption to the school community since the elementary school would remain occupied during construction.

The proposed organization of the building would be to create a 2-story building that has a central entrance along the southern side. With the school set back from Main Street, the drive aisle would allow for ample bus queuing and vehicular access assisted by traffic calming features. The buildings’ main entry access point would be from a gathering plaza where

there would be plantings, welcoming benches, and security/ safety features incorporated into the design. From the main entry, the building would be divided into two separate wings: a classroom academic wing to the east, and a shared spaces wing to the west. This division allows public access (after hours) to community spaces while being able to secure access to the classroom wing.

The academic wing is oriented to allow optimal southern exposure for the classrooms. The two-story configuration would organize the grades into neighborhoods, with support services distributed throughout to support the Educational Program provided by the District. The shared spaces wing of the building would house the larger program elements of the Gym, Cafeteria, Arts, and Media Center. Service deliveries to the Cafeteria would be accommodated by the drive aisle currently in place to the south of Middle School South.

The conceptual plan for this option will continue to be evaluated in the Preferred Schematic Report.



INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8

Advantages:1. New building can be constructed while current

building remains in use2. Flat site assumed to require minimal grading work3. Multiple options for adjacent outdoor learning

and play spaces4. Road crossing not required to access outdoor

play spaces5. Early separation of Florence Roche drop-off loop

improves overall site circulation 6. Potential use of easement to Champney Street

Disadvantages:1. Expansion may require tree removal2. Non-visitor parking is far from building3. Fire Dept may require access around building

perimeter, tight on space4. Limited opportunities for expansion

The Brewery179 Boylston StreetJamaica Plain, MA 02130617-524-5558617-524-5544

© 2017 STUDIO G ARCHITECTS

DATE:

PROJECT NO:

DRAWN BY:

SCALE:TF b

uild

ing

com

mun

ities

susta

inab

le

REF. DWG:

A R C C H I T E T S

s t u d o i

ISSUED: 1" = 80'-0"

FLORENCE ROCHE

Project Number

Author

01/24/20

8.5x11 SITE A PLANS AA101C

Enter address here

CR

CR

CR

CR

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

ROOF

ROOF

ROOF

ROOF

ROOF

OPEN TO BELOW

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

CR

CRCR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CRCR

CRCR CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

CRCR

CR

GYM

CAFETERIA

MEDIACENTER

ADMIN

MUSIC

MUSIC

ARTART

KITCHEN

STAGE

FIRST FLOOR

SECOND FLOOR

CLASSROOM (CR)


MEDIA CENTER

ART / MUSIC

STAGE

GYMNASIUM

KITCHEN / CAFETERIA

ADMINISTRATION

BUILDING SERVICES

CIRCULATION

LEGEND





INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8

OPTION 3: NEW CONSTRUCTION BEHIND EXISTING FLORENCE ROCHE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (SITE A)

CODE ASSESSMENT - OPTION 3


Option 3 will have some considerations due to relationship to property lines. The design can be built without expensive fire walls, as a single construction type will be achievable. Ultimately the construction classification will depend on the height and area.

The greatest challenge will be fire department vehicle access, and specific evaluation is only possible with scaled plans. From the code compliance perspective, this option presents inherently less challenging code compliance efforts than Option 2.




CIVIL ASSESSMENT - OPTION 3


This option includes demolishing the existing Florence School building and constructing a new stand-alone Elementary school in the eastern location of the site. A proposed athletic field would be positioned in the southwest corner of the campus in the school building old location. This layout would require several new utility connections / piping and structures, which could be placed within the school campus’s site and connect to the municipal system. Please see the below recommendations and impacts for this project alternative:

Stormwater Management• Condition assessment of existing drainage system

in locations prior to municipal connection.• Cleaning of all remaining drainage structures

and pipe networks.• Provide the new athletic field with a drainage

system.• Provide foundation drainage for the proposed

new construction.• Installation of additional stormwater collection

structures at low points (assume fifteen).• Installation of water quality units (assume four).• Utilization of rain gardens and Low Impact

Design.• Re-grade impervious areas for proper drainage

and tributary areas to stormwater structures.• Detention / Infiltration BMP’s to offset additional


• Include Pervious Pavement as an option (it is recommended not to “mix + match” pervious materials on site).

Sewer• Condition assessment of existing sewer system.• Cleaning of all existing sewer structures and pipe

network.• Installation of a 3,000-gallon Kitchen grease trap

on western side of cafeteria.• Installation of additional sewer manholes (assume

five).• A new sanitary sewer service connection to the

existing 8” campus sewer main.


buildings would be supplied from the campus 12” water main – will need to be flow tested.

• New domestic water connection would also be supplied from the Highland Avenue campus 12” water main.

Parking • Required parking spaces – minimum of 1.5


• Provide ADA parking spaces.• Emergency Vehicle access – Evaluate fire truck

turning radius for required widths.• Car and School Bus Drop off areas – Evaluate

vehicular accessibility and capacity.



INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8


LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT - OPTION 3


Option 3 proposes a new building to the east of the existing School with the subsequent relocation of the track field to the front of the new School, adjacent to the existing driveway.

The environmental advantages of this option include: A) Minimal regrading due to the location in a flat area, B) The potential to have outdoor laboratory classrooms at a closer proximity to the wooded areas, thereby enabling greater use of the natural resources, and C) Increased driveway length that allows for better bus and car queuing to relieve traffic congestion at the Main Street entrance/intersection.

The environmental disadvantages of this option include: A) The proximity of the project to the wetland buffer and property line, B) The removal of the northern tree grove, which could potentially have an impact on the existing habitats associated with the woodland areas, C) The relocation of the track field, which would require significant grading and possibly perimeter fencing for safety, to limit access to the vehicular circulation, and D) A flat and open space for play and outdoor learning is limited by the enclosed woodland and wetland zones to the east and the proposed driveway to the west.




STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT - OPTION 3


The proposed scheme will consist of construction of a new, two story structure on the existing school Site with the following dimensions: 98,200 GSF Total.

Substructure — Foundations Based on the foundations of the existing structure, the columns of the proposed structure would bear on reinforced concrete spread footings and the perimeter foundation walls would bear on continuous reinforced concrete strip footings extending at least 4 ft. – 0 in. below grade. With the assumed bearing capacity of the soil of 2 tons/sf, a typical interior footing would be 9 ft. – 0 in. x 9 ft. - 0 in. x 24 in. deep and the typical exterior footings would be 8 ft. – 0 in. x 8 ft. – 0 in. x 24 in. deep in the three story areas. In the single story areas, typical interior footings would be 7 ft. – 0 in. x 7 ft. – in. x 24 in. deep and typical exterior footings would be 6 ft. – 0 in. x 6 ft. - 0 in. x 24 in. deep. Typical interior and exterior footings at the Cafeteria and Gymnasium would be 8 ft. – 0 in. x 8 ft. – 0 in. x 24 in. deep. The exterior foundation walls would be 14 to 16 in. thick, reinforced cast-in-place concrete walls on 24 to 36 in. wide continuous reinforced concrete strip footings around the perimeter of the building extending a minimum of 4 ft. – 0 in. below finished grade.


Based on the existing school construction, the lowest level of the proposed structure would be a 5 in. thick concrete slab-on-grade reinforced with welded wire fabric over a vapor barrier on 2 in. thick rigid insulation on 8 in. of compacted granular structural fill and a base course of 8 in. of compacted gravel.






The roof construction would be galvanized, corrugated 3 in. deep, Type ‘N’ metal roof deck spanning between wide flange steel beams and girders. At locations of roof supported mechanical equipment, a concrete slab will be provided similar to the typical supported slab. The weight of the structural steel is estimated to be 14 psf.




Columns:






INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8


SECURITY ASSESSMENT - OPTION 3


• PRO: Location is further into the campus than the current school location. This may make it a less desirable target for outsiders if proper perimeter and layered security measures are placed along the path.

• CON: Location places school between an open field and a track, which may create a gap or easy access to the site from the sides. This would require additional security measures.

• CON: Academic spaces are spread out towards the front and the back of the school, with the shared spaces traversing the middle. This creates a complexity in how security measures may need to be applied to secure the classrooms.




COST ANALYSIS FOR CONSTRUCTION ONLY - OPTION 3


Florence Roche Feasibility Study ‐ PDP Conceptual Design Construction Cost AnalysisJanuary 2020Option 3 ‐ NEW, 645 students

GSF 98,201General Statistics New Reno Notes Gross Square Footage: 98,201 * Utilizing cost/GSF values, not geometry of designBuilding Footprint: n/a * Assume design will be 2 stories Supported Floor Deck: n/a *Roof Area: n/a *Exterior Wall Surface Area: n/a *# Elevator Stops: 2

New Construction ‐ "the box" Quantity Unit Unit Cost TotalA10 ‐ Foundations 98,201 sf $33.00 $3,240,641A10 ‐ Foundations, premium high wall work 0 lf $800.00 $0A10 ‐ Foundations, additional excavation and export 0 cy $45.00 $0A20 ‐ Basement Construction none $0B10 ‐ Superstructure, supported floors 98,201 sf $18.00 $1,767,623B10 ‐ Superstructure, supported roofs 98,201 sf $22.00 $2,160,428B20 ‐ Exterior enclosure 98,201 sf $50.00 $4,910,063B20 ‐ Exterior enclosure, join to old work 0 sfsa $40.00 $0B30 ‐ Roofing 98,201 sf $18.00 $1,767,623C10 ‐ Interior construction 98,201 sf $42.00 $4,124,453C20 ‐ Stairwells 98,201 sf $2.00 $196,403C30 ‐ Interior Finishes 98,201 sf $28.00 $2,749,635D10 ‐ Conveying systems 2 stops $55,000.00 $110,000D20 ‐ Plumbing 98,201 sf $23.00 $2,258,629D30 ‐ HVAC 98,201 sf $57.00 $5,597,471D40 ‐ Fire Protection 98,201 sf $7.00 $687,409D50 ‐ Electrical 98,201 sf $36.00 $3,535,245E10 ‐ Equipment 98,201 sf $6.00 $589,208E20 ‐ Furnishings 98,201 sf $13.00 $1,276,616




OPTION 3 ‐ 645





INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8


GSF 98,201

OPTION 3 ‐ 645Renovation: Quantity Unit Unit Cost TotalA10 ‐ Foundations 0 sf $3.00 $0A20 ‐ Basement Construction 0 sf $0.00 $0B10 ‐ Superstructure 0 sf $8.00 $0B10 ‐ Superstructure related to MEP's 0 sf $10.00 $0B20 ‐ Exterior enclosure 0 sfsa $50.00 $0B30 ‐ Roofing 0 sf $18.00 $0C10 ‐ Interior construction 0 sf $35.00 $0C10 ‐ Interior gut 0 sf $10.00 $0C20 ‐ Stairwells 0 sf $1.05 $0C30 ‐ Interior Finishes 0 sf $24.00 $0D10 ‐ Conveying systems 0 stops $50,000.00 $0D20 ‐ Plumbing 0 sf $12.00 $0D30 ‐ HVAC 0 sf $36.00 $0D40 ‐ Fire Protection 0 sf $7.00 $0D50 ‐ Electrical 0 sf $34.00 $0E10 ‐ Equipment 0 sf $6.00 $0E20 ‐ Furnishings 0 sf $4.00 $0Construction Phasing/Logistics Premium 0 sf $5.00 $0

Subtotal ‐ Renovation $0






OPTION 4: NEW CONSTRUCTION BEHIND EXISTING MIDDLE SCHOOL SOUTH (SITE B)Option 4 constructs a new building to replace the existing Florence Roche Elementary School. The building would be located behind and to the north-east of Middle School South and would not displace the Elementary or Middle School students at the Main Street Campus during construction.

The 2-story building creates a central common area with a communicating stair for connection between the two levels. The shared program spaces are adjacent to this central core (Gym, Cafeteria, Arts, and Media Center) while the academic classroom wings radiate out from this core zone. The academic wings could be secured to allow public access (after hours) to community spaces while preventing access to the classroom wing.

The primary entry to the building is along the western side, off of a gathering plaza, similar to other options, where there would be plantings, welcoming benches, and security/ safety features incorporated into the design. With the school set back from Main Street, the drive aisle would allow for ample bus queuing and vehicular access assisted by traffic calming features.

The academic wings are oriented to allow optimal daylight exposure for the classrooms. The two-story configuration would organize the grades into neighborhoods, with services distributed throughout to

support the District’s Educational Program.

The conceptual plan for this option will continue to be evaluated in the Preferred Schematic Report.


building remains in use2. Existing track remains in place3. Multiple locations for open-ended play areas with

easy access to wooded areas4. Existing vehicular circulation is extended to new

drop-off loop and school5. New school is located deep in site and more

private/set back from street6. Courtyards create opportunities for outdoor

classrooms7. Community use spaces (ie. gym and cafeteria)

are located near the entrance and to each other.8. Short hallways and wings create a distinct

neighborhood feel.

Disadvantages:1. New school is located deep in site and not

immediately visible from campus entry2. Florence Roche Elementary School and MS traffic

are combined deeper into site; does not improve congestion on site

3. Non-visitor parking is far from building.



INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8

The Brewery179 Boylston StreetJamaica Plain, MA 02130617-524-5558617-524-5544

© 2017 STUDIO G ARCHITECTS

DATE:

PROJECT NO:

DRAWN BY:

SCALE:TF b

uild

ing

com

mun

ities

susta

inab

le

REF. DWG:

A R C C H I T E T S

s t u d o i

ISSUED: 1" = 80'-0"

FLORENCE ROCHE

Project Number

Author

01/24/20

8.5x11 SITE B PLANS AA101D

Enter address here

CR

CR

MULTI-PURPOSE

CR

CR

CRCR

CRCR

CR

CR

CR CR CRCR

CRCR

CR

CR

CR CRCR

CRCRCR

CR

CR CRCR

CRCR

CR

CR

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

SP.ED.SP.

ED.

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

SP.ED.

GYM

FIRST FLOOR

SECOND FLOOR

OPEN TO BELOW

OPEN TO BELOW

KITCHENMEDIACENTERARTART

MUSIC MUSIC

CAFETERIA

STAGE

ADMIN

CLASSROOM (CR)


MEDIA CENTER

ART / MUSIC

STAGE

GYMNASIUM

KITCHEN / CAFETERIA

ADMINISTRATION

BUILDING SERVICES

CIRCULATION

LEGEND





INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8

OPTION 4: NEW CONSTRUCTION BEHIND EXISTING MIDDLE SCHOOL SOUTH (SITE B)

CODE ASSESSMENT - OPTION 4


Option 4 appears to have no concerns to any opening objectives. The design can be built without expensive fire walls, as a single construction type will be achievable. Ultimately the construction classification will depend on the height and area. A fire wall between the gym and the remainder of the building may have additional security value.

The greatest challenge will be fire department vehicle access, and specific evaluation is only possible with scaled plans. From the code compliance perspective, this option presents inherently less challenging code compliance efforts than Option 2.






This option includes demolishing the existing Florence School building and constructing a new standalone Elementary school east of the Southern Middle School. A proposed baseball field would be positioned in the southwest corner of the campus in the school building old location. This layout would require several new utility connections / piping and structures, which could be placed within the school campus’s site and connect to the municipal system. Please see the below recommendations and impacts for this project alternative:









imperviousness, in any option that creates additional

• impervious areas.• Include Pervious Pavement as an option (it is

recommended not to “mix + match” pervious materials on

• site).

Sewer• Condition assessment of existing sewer system.• Cleaning of all existing sewer structures and pipe







• New domestic water connection would also be supplied from the Highland Avenue campus 12” water main.








INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8


LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT - OPTION 4


Option 4 proposes a new building to the northeast of the existing School with the subsequent relocation of the baseball field to the original school location, adjacent to the existing driveway.

The environmental advantages of this option include: A) The preservation of the northern tree grove that serves as a “frame” in this option to delineate the active recreation zone and the School buildings from one another, B) The immediate access to the natural resources for efficient lessons and/or onsite experiments, as requested by the teachers, C) The new loop driveway could be shared with the Middle School if the drop-off and pick-up times are sequenced properly, thereby easing the vehicular traffic congestion and the need to incorporate additional pervious pavement elsewhere throughout the site, D) Given the proposed configuration of the School building, there are pockets of open space between each extension of the building that will allow for easy access to the outdoors, while maximizing the sun exposure to the classrooms, and E) Relative to program, this option provides a more cohesive and diverse use of the open space programs with the potential to segregate areas for different user groups or activities.

The environmental disadvantages of this option include: A) The proximity of the project to the wetland buffer, B) The proposed, shared Middle and Elementary School driveway that could create a logistical problem if adjustments to the varied School schedules are unable to be implemented, and, C) With regard to project visibility, the Elementary School would be tucked behind the Middle School which could present a problem for newcomers and visitors if not addressed properly with good wayfinding.




STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT - OPTION 4

ENGINEER’S DESIGN GROUP (EGD)Structural EngineerSee Appendix 8/6.4 — Structural Assessment of Options for full consultant report.

The proposed scheme will consist of construction of a new, two story structure on the existing school Site with the following dimensions: 98,200 GSF Total.

Substructure — Foundations Based on the foundations of the existing structure, the columns of the proposed structure would bear on reinforced concrete spread footings and the perimeter foundation walls would bear on continuous reinforced concrete strip footings extending at least 4 ft. – 0 in. below grade. With the assumed bearing capacity of the soil of 2 tons/sf, a typical interior footing would be 9 ft. – 0 in. x 9 ft. - 0 in. x 24 in. deep and the typical exterior footings would be 8 ft. – 0 in. x 8 ft. – 0 in. x 24 in. deep in the three story areas. In the single story areas, typical interior footings would be 7 ft. – 0 in. x 7 ft. – in. x 24 in. deep and typical exterior footings would be 6 ft. – 0 in. x 6 ft. - 0 in. x 24 in. deep. Typical interior and exterior footings at the Cafeteria and Gymnasium would be 8 ft. – 0 in. x 8 ft. – 0 in. x 24 in. deep. The exterior foundation walls would be 14 to 16 in. thick, reinforced cast-in-place concrete walls on 24 to 36 in. wide continuous reinforced concrete strip footings around the perimeter of the building extending a minimum of 4 ft. – 0 in. below finished grade.


Based on the existing school construction, the lowest level of the proposed structure would be a 5 in. thick concrete slab-on-grade reinforced with welded wire fabric over a vapor barrier on 2 in. thick rigid insulation on 8 in. of compacted granular structural fill and a base course of 8 in. of compacted gravel.






The roof construction would be galvanized, corrugated 3 in. deep, Type ‘N’ metal roof deck spanning between wide flange steel beams and girders. At locations of roof supported mechanical equipment, a concrete slab will be provided similar to the typical supported slab. The weight of the structural steel is estimated to be 14 psf.




Columns:






INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8


SECURITY ASSESSMENT - OPTION 4


• PRO: Location is deeper into the campus, taking it further away from the outer site perimeter. This may make it a less desirable target for outsiders if proper perimeter and layered security measures are placed along the path.

• PRO: Location mitigates risk from open fields and track since they are both to one side of the school. This simplifies the manner in which security systems would be implemented.

• PRO: Academic space are all placed towards the rear of the school with the shared spaces all being in the front. This places the classrooms at an advantage from a security perspective and simplifies the manner in which security systems would be implemented.

• CON: Location has the walking trail routed along the rear of all 3 main wings. This will require additional security measures to create a well-defined and secure perimeter







GSF 98,201General Statistics New Reno Notes Gross Square Footage: 98,201 * Utilizing cost/GSF values, not geometry of designBuilding Footprint: n/a * Assume design will be 2 stories Supported Floor Deck: n/a *Roof Area: n/a *Exterior Wall Surface Area: n/a *# Elevator Stops: 2





OPTION 3 ‐ 645



OPTION 4 - 645Option 4



INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8


GSF 98,201






OPTION 4 - 645Option 4



OPTION 5: NEW CONSTRUCTION BEHIND MIDDLE SCHOOL NORTH (SITE C)Option 5 constructs a new building to replace the existing Florence Roche Elementary School. The new construction would be located behind and to the east of the existing Middle School North and the Twomey Center.

The existing wetland boundaries would restrict the footprint of the building and would likely result in a three-story building, which is not a preferred option. In addition to the constrained site, other challenges include sub-optimal solar orientation, lack of outdoor space including play space, and impacts on traffic and site circulation due to the building’s close proximity to adjacent structures.

The primary entrance to the building would be along the existing parking lot currently located behind Middle School North. Similar to the other new construction options, the buildings main entry would be located off of a gathering plaza, where there would be plantings, welcoming benches, and security/ safety features incorporated into the design. With the school bound by wetlands and adjacent structures, it would be challenging to accommodate a drive aisle for ample bus queuing and vehicular access. Additionally, due to the substantial restrictions on the site, fire truck access to and around the site would be difficult to achieve.

The three-story building creates a central common area with the shared program spaces (Gym, Cafeteria, Arts, and Media Center) along a south-east wing and an academic classroom wing perpendicular to the north-west. The academic wings could be secured to allow

public access (after hours) to community spaces while preventing unwanted access to the classroom wing.

Due to the fact that the site is compact and undersized, and the completed school would have significant programmatic and structural challenges given the site limitations, it was determined that this concept does not merit further evaluation.


building remains in use2. Early separation of Florence Roche drop-off drive

improves site circulation3. Existing track could remain

Disadvantages:1. Limited site (wetlands, Youth Center, substantial

grade changes) would likely necessitate an undesirable 3-story school

2. New school is located deep in site and not immediately visible from campus entry

3. New building supplants playing field adjacent to Middle School North and Youth Center

4. High concentration of buildings, asphalt, and students in this area of site

5. Drop-off loop is tacked onto existing parking areas resulting in traffic conflict and potential congestion

6. Limited room for Elementary School expansion, and reduces opportunities for expansion of Middle School North and Middle School South.



INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8

OPTION 6: NEW CONSTRUCTION AT THE GROTON-DUNSTABLE REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS LOCATED AT 703 CHICOPEE ROW, GROTON, MA

Option 6 constructs a new Florence Roche Elementary School at a location approximately 4 miles north-east from the existing Florence Roche Elementary School site, on the High School campus.

The entire High School parcel has a smattering of wetland areas, only leaving a small portion along the south side of the parcel available for potential future development. This area is currently densely wooded and would be accessed from the existing drive aisle for the High School. The Florence Roche Elementary School would share the access drive and would have an auxiliary loop to access a new building. Additional busing would be required for the elementary school population at this location.

A preliminary massing idea would create a 2-story building with a primary entrance along the north side of the building. Similar to the other new construction options, the buildings main entry would be located off of a gathering plaza, where there would be plantings, welcoming benches, and security/ safety features incorporated into the design. From the main entry, the building would be divided into two separate wings: a classroom academic wing to the east, and a shared spaces wing to the west. This division allows public access (after hours) to community spaces while being able to secure access to the classroom wing.

The two-story configuration would organize the grades into neighborhoods, with services distributed throughout to support the Educational Program provided by the District. The shared spaces wing of the building would house the larger program elements of the Gym, Cafeteria, Arts, and Media Center.

Due to the site’s extensive wetlands, distance from the Main Street Campus, lack of utility access (see Civil report), minimal synergies between High School and Elementary School populations, added vehicular traffic, and the need for the additional expense of busing, it was determined that this concept does not merit further evaluation.


building remains in use2. No disruption to students at the Main Street

Campus

Disadvantages:1. No MSBA reimbursement for existing Florence

Roche Elementary School demolition and site redevelopment

2. Wetlands limit available site area to south side3. Demolition of wooded area reduces natural

resources for high school, and buffer to neighbors4. Utilities must be routed from North Street (north

of site): extensive site work and major cost driver5. Located 4 miles from existing Florence Roche

Elementary School and Groton town center6. Increases travel distance for majority of students

attending Florence Roche, potentially requiring busing

7. Teaching time for specialists would be reduced due to travel distance between Middle School and new Elementary School

8. Shared resources of youth center and performing arts center are not available at this site



OPTION 6: NEW CONSTRUCTION AT THE GROTON-DUNSTABLE REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS LOCATED AT 703 CHICOPEE ROW, GROTON, MA



This option includes clearing a wooded vacant area and constructing a new stand-alone Elementary school in the southern portion of the High School lot. This layout would require several new utility connections / piping and structures, which could be placed within the school campus’s site and connect to the municipal system. Please see the below recommendations and impacts for these project alternatives:










• Include Pervious Pavement as an option (it is recommended not to “mix + match” pervious materials on site).

Sewer• Condition assessment of existing sewer system. • Cleaning of all existing sewer structures and pipe







• New domestic water connection would also be

supplied from the Highland Avenue campus 12” water main.






PERMITTING SCHEDULE

Due to wetland resource areas located on and adjacent to the sites, any construction to the school will require approval from the Groton Conservation Commission and DEP at a minimum. In this situation, the Conservation Commission approved plans are the prerequisite for the site plan approval plans to the Groton Planning Board.

Prior to beginning construction, the project site will require to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP and filing an ENOI with the EPA.

At this point it is appears that MEPA permitting it appears will not be required for any of the sites, due to that the project alternatives seem not to trigger the thresholds such as, but not limited to:

1. Direct alteration of 50 or more acres of land.2. Creation of ten or more acres of impervious area.3. Alteration requiring a variance in accordance

with the Wetlands Protection Act.4. New withdrawal or Expansion in withdrawal of:

2,500,000 or more gpd from a surface water source.

A full review of thresholds shall be completed based on the chosen design alternative and it is recommended that we seek a letter of determination at that time.

The Permitting time line expected to take up to 3-6 months.

• Groton Conservation Commission & DEP: ±60-120 Days

• Groton Stormwater Permit: ±60-120 Days



INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8

• Groton Earth Removal Stormwater Advisory Committee: ±60-120 Days

• Groton Sewer Connection Permit: ±30-60 Days• Groton Water Connection Permit: ±30-60 Days• Groton Planning Board: ±45-120 Days• Groton DPW: ±30-60 Days• NH&ESP for Petwawag Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern (ACECs): ±60-120 Days• NPDES/SWPPP: ±14 Days by GC,

prior to commencing construction



OPTION 6: NEW CONSTRUCTION AT THE GROTON-DUNSTABLE REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS



Florence Roche Feasibility Study ‐ PDP Conceptual Design Construction Cost AnalysisJanuary 2020Option 6 ‐ NEW @ HS, 645 students

GSF 98,201General Statistics New Reno Notes Gross Square Footage: 98,201Building Footprint: n/a *Supported Floor Deck: n/a * * Utilizing cost/GSF values, not geometry of designRoof Area: n/a * Assume design will be 2 stories Exterior Wall Surface Area: n/a *# Elevator Stops: 2





OPTION 6 ‐ 645

Per MSBA space Summary Template = 93,525. Included a 5% factor increase for additional program





INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8

Florence Roche Feasibility Study ‐ PDP Conceptual Design Construction Cost AnalysisJanuary 2020Option 6 ‐ NEW @ HS, 645 students

GSF 98,201



SiteworkG10 ‐ Site Preparation 98,201 sf $20 $1,964,025G20 ‐ Site Improvements 98,201 sf $25 $2,455,031G30 ‐ Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities 1 plug $1,250,000 $1,250,000G40 ‐ Site Electrical Utilities 1 plug $250,000 $250,000





6.7 List of 3 Distinct Alternatives for Further Development & Evaluation

The School Building Committee determined which evaluation selection criteria were most important when selecting options for further development, and the results have been compiled on the following page. They based their decisions on their knowledge of the District’s needs and values, as well as on feedback from community outreach efforts, including a community Visioning session and an online survey.

The SBC, together with Studio G Architects, developed questions for the online survey which was distributed to residents via direct email, several listserves (including Groton parents, Special Education, and the Council on Aging), the Town website, the school newsletter, and social media. The survey included open-ended

questions designed to give residents the opportunity to share thoughts and concerns directly with District decision-makers and with the design team. The survey received well over 200 responses; the survey questions and results are compiled at the end of this section. This valuable feedback factored into the SBC’s ranking of the evaluation criteria, as well as the Educational Program and the Space Summary template. The feedback will be further incorporated into the design options as we move out of the Feasibility Study and into the Schematic Design phase.

During the next phase of the Feasibility Study, it is the District’s preference to further develop and evaluate the following options.

OPTION 2Addition and Renovation of the Existing Florence Roche Elementary School

OPTION 3New Construction behind the Existing Florence Roche Elementary School (Site A)

OPTION 4New Construction behind the Existing Middle School South (Site B)



INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8

Opt

ion

2 R

eno/

Ad

d Ex

istin

g Fl

oren

ce R

oche

Opt

ion

3 (S

ite A

) Ne

w S

choo

l -

Behi

nd E

xist

ing

Flor

ence

Roc

he

Opt

ion

4 (S

ite B

) Ne

w S

choo

l -

Behi

nd E

xist

ing

MS

Sout

h

1De

liver

y of

edu

catio

n [im

plem

enta

tion

of E

d. P

lan]

1.10

3.20

3.50

2Ge

ogra

phic

loca

tion

in th

e Di

stric

t2.

802.

902.

803

Traf

fic [e

xter

nal t

o th

e sit

e] &

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d im

pact

[tra

ffic/

scal

e/m

assin

g]1.

402.

802.

604

Park

ing,

dro

p of

f/st

acki

ng1.

302.

302.

305

Outd

oor p

lay

1.50

3.00

2.60

6De

sign

Flex

ibili

ty

1.00

2.90

3.20

7Vo

ter r

isk [r

isk =

0 |

pre

fera

ble

= 4]

1.40

2.30

2.50

8Re

spon

sible

des

ign

[sus

tain

abili

ty, f

acili

ty m

aint

enan

ce]

1.40

3.30

3.40

9Im

pact

to e

duca

tiona

l pro

gram

/fac

ilitie

s dur

ing

cons

truc

tion

0.70

2.80

3.30

10Op

tion

risk

[per

mitt

ing

- wet

land

s, pl

anni

ng, Z

BA, a

rticl

e 97

]2.

102.

102.

10To

tals

14.7

027

.60

28.3

0Po

tent

ial a

dvan

cem

ent i

nto

PDP

Flor

ence

Roc

he E

lem

enta

ry S

choo

l PDP

Qua

litat

ive

Anal

ysis

PDP

Eval

uatio

n Cr

iteria

OPT

IONS

EVAL

UATI

ON S

UMM

ARY

Lege

nd 0N

ot p

refe

rabl

e1

Poor

2Sa

tisfa

ctor

y3

Adva

ntag

eous

4

High

ly A

dvan

tage

ous

Plea

se n

ote

the

sele

ctio

n cr

iteria

will

adj

ust b

ased

on

furth

er d

evel

opm

ent o

f the

opt

ions

dur

ing

the

PSR

phas

e.



Florence Roche Elementary School Building Committee January 14, 2020

GROTON20290%

DUNSTABLE177%

OTHER6

3%

GROTON DUNSTABLE OTHER


CURRENT89

41%

PAST61

28%

FACULTY157%

OTHER24%

CURRENT PAST FACULTY OTHER



INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8


If yes, what grade(s), what school(s)?

911 10

17

1216

26

2 1 25 5 5 6

4

43

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

PRE-K KINDERGARTEN 1ST GRADE 2ND GRADE 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE 5TH-8TH GRADE 9TH-12TH GRADE

NU

MBE

R O

F ST

UDE

NTS

BOUTWELL FLORENCE ROCHE SWALLOW UNION UNKNOWN GDRMS GDRHS

YES13765%

NO75

35%


If yes, when did they graduate?

YES58

28%

NO15072%

BEFORE 20108

16%

2010 - 201517

34%

2016 - 201950%

BEFORE 2010

2010 - 2015

2016 - 2019




12

17

20

13

34

26

27

26

13

9

12

9

28

20

37

47

3

5

4

16

30

18

46

59

VISUAL ARTS

MUSIC

PERFORMING ARTS

SMALL GROUP AREAS

MAKERSPACE

READING RM/ LIBRARY/ MEDIA CENTER

SCI. TECH. ENG. MATH (STEM)

GYM AND OUTDOOR PLAY SPACE

1ST RANK 2ND RANK 3RD RANK

•

•

••

•

•


13

52

42

32

19

17

31

44

50

18

2

14

13

23

109

ACCESS TO SPACE FOR COMMUNITY USE

VEHICULAR AND BUS CIRCULATION / TRAFFIC FLOW

SERVICE EFFICIENCY AND SIZE OF CAFETERIA / LUNCH

ENERGY EFFICIENCY / SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

ACCESS TO OUTDOOR AND INTERIOR PLAY AREA(S)

1ST RANK 2ND RANK 3RD RANK

•••••••



INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8


•

•

•••


•••••

•••••

••

••••




••••••••


•••••

•

••••••

•



INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8


•••

•

••

•

•••••


•••

•••••••




••••••••••


•••••••••••



INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8


Existing Main Street Campus Site 127Groton-Dunstable Regional High School Site 17Other 6

EXISTING SITE12785%

HIGH SCHOOL SITE17

11%

OTHER6

4%

EXISTING SITE

HIGH SCHOOL SITE

OTHER

•

••••

•

••


No opinion 19Not at all adequate 10Barely adequate 54Adequate 37Mostly Adequate 23Very Adequate 6

NO OPINION13%

NOT AT ALL ADEQUATE

7%

BARELY ADEQUATE36%

ADEQUATE25%

MOSTLY ADEQUATE15%

VERY ADEQUATE4%

NO OPINION

NOT AT ALL ADEQUATE

BARELY ADEQUATE

ADEQUATE

MOSTLY ADEQUATE

VERY ADEQUATE




Yes 45No 75

Never 69Infrequently 22Monthly 8Weekly 18Daily 3

Yes 51No 69

•••••

•

YES45

37%NO75

63%

NEVER

INFREQUENTLY

MONTHLY

WEEKLY

DAILY

YES51

42%NO69

58%


•••••••••



INTR

OD

UCT

ION

1

INIT

IAL

SPA

CE

SUM

MA

RY3

EDU

CATI

ON

AL

PRO

GRA

M2

EVA

L. O

F EX

ISTI

NG

CON

DIT

ION

S4

SITE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

5

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EVA

L.O

F A

LTER

NAT

IVES

6

LOCA

L A

CTIO

NS

&

APP

ROVA

LS7

APP

END

IX

8


•••••••••••••

6 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

Documents