🛝 Birch Meadow Phase II Project 2-25-25 AI Recap

Below is a summarized version of the Birch Meadow Master Plan Phase 2 Design Review meeting, organized by timestamps and speakers, focusing on key points raised during the discussion in Reading, Massachusetts. This summary condenses the discussion into major themes, speaker contributions, and decisions, avoiding excessive detail while retaining the essence of the conversation. Timestamps correspond to the video linked at the bottom.

Date: February 25, 2025
Location: Town Hall Conference Room
Purpose: Update residents on Phase 2 of the Birch Meadow recreation area improvements, focusing on basketball courts, playground upgrades, and parking, followed by a Q&A session.

Technical Setup Issues

[2:43 – 4:58]

• Speakers: Unidentified (likely meeting organizers and IT staff, including Kevin Connors.
• Content: The meeting begins with technical difficulties setting up Zoom in the town hall conference room. There’s confusion about accessing the Zoom option on the TV and entering meeting credentials. The issue is resolved, and participants join the virtual meeting.
• Key Outcome: Successful connection to Zoom after troubleshooting.

---

Introduction by Jim Sullivan

[7:34 – 8:59]

• Speaker: Jim Sullivan, Recreation Administrator.
• Content: Jim introduces himself, noting his nearly two-year tenure and involvement since 2007 when the Birch Meadow master plan began. He outlines that Phase 1 was completed last year, and Phase 2 focuses on upgrading the basketball courts (formerly including pickleball), the Tot Lot playground, and adding parking. He introduces Ryan Percival (town engineer) and Steve Crisafulli (landscape architect from Activitas) and sets the agenda: a presentation followed by Q&A.
• Key Outcome: Framework established for the meeting; residents encouraged to sign up for updates.

---

Presentation by Steve Chi

[8:59 – 14:28]

• Speaker: Steve Crisafulli, Landscape Architect from Activitas.
• Content: Steve presents Phase 2 plans, including:
  • Existing conditions review (playground with rubber mulch, outdated courts).
  • History: Master plan initiated in 2007-08, updated in 2019 with community input.
  • Phase 1 completed (track, field, parking lot, pavilion).
  • Phase 2 scope: Two post-tension concrete basketball courts with lighting, playground resurfacing with fencing, minor parking adjustments (initially +9 spaces, later scaled back), and pathway enhancements with signage.
  • Playground equipment options: durable robinia wood or standard steel/plastic.
• Key Outcome: Initial plan shared; parking reduction noted due to cost and feedback.

---

Q&A

[14:47 – 20:47] Parking and Safety Concerns

• Speakers: Residents (including Dave, an outspoken local), Jim Sullivan, Ryan Percival (town engineer).
• Content:
  • Dave (14:47): Questions playground location and parking proximity, citing safety risks from kids running into traffic and frequent stop-sign violations on Bancroft Street. Suggests existing parking (e.g., Fieldhouse lot) is sufficient.
  • Ryan/Jim: Explain parking was reduced from 9 to a few head-in spaces for accessibility; police were invited but unavailable.
  • Dave (16:56): Emphasizes traffic issues (speeding, no enforcement) and suggests speed bumps or traffic calming.
  • Jim (20:00): Notes basketball court lights may have earlier shut-off times (e.g., 8-9 PM) vs. tennis courts (10 PM) due to noise concerns, pending Recreation Committee policy.
• Key Outcome: Parking reduction acknowledged; traffic safety concerns raised for further review with police.

[20:47 – 24:35] Playground Design and Maintenance

• Speakers: Residents (Dave, another resident), Jim Sullivan, Steve Crisafulli.
• Content:
  • Resident (22:01): Asks about wooden playground durability and maintenance costs, referencing past issues with Imagination Station. Requests more swings.
  • Jim: Confirms robinia wood’s durability, funding for maintenance ($100,000 park budget), and plans for pour-in-place surfacing for accessibility. Assures 6+ swings added after recent design tweak.
  • Dave (24:06): Requests speed bumps; Jim notes plow and cost issues but suggests removable options.
• Key Outcome: Playground upgrades confirmed (accessible, durable, more swings); speed bump feasibility to be explored.

[24:35 – 30:20] Traffic Calming and Construction Logistics

• Speakers: Residents (Dave, others), Ryan, Jim Sullivan, Chuck Tyrone (Conservation Administrator).
• Content:
  • Ryan (24:35): Speed bumps problematic; suggests speed humps or raised crosswalks, though costly.
  • Dave (26:53): Stresses child safety, criticizing cost excuses if accidents occur.
  • Resident (25:47): Confirms trees for shade will be added.
  • Dave (28:43): Suggests moving playground entrance away from the street for safety.
  • Ryan/Jim: Agree to review entrance placement and salvage memorial bricks post-construction. Little League staging area will use part of the parking lot with access coordinated.
• Key Outcome: Traffic calming options and entrance redesign to be studied; staging logistics clarified.

[30:20 – 40:05] Parking, Enforcement, and Accessibility

• Speakers: Residents (Dave, others), Jim Sullivan, Ryan, Chuck Tyrone.
• Content:
  • Dave (33:00): Opposes new parking, citing existing overflow onto his street and lack of enforcement. Questions need for more basketball courts given past underuse.
  • Jim: Defends court upgrades as deferred maintenance fix; suggests educating users on parking options.
  • Chuck (38:14): Notes age range shift (2-5 to 3-12) for accessibility, including kids with disabilities.
  • Dave (39:22): Demands enforcement (citations) over discretionary signs, citing intersection dangers.
• Key Outcome: Parking reduction favored (possibly just 2-3 handicap spots); enforcement concerns escalated to police.

[40:37 – 52:05] Additional Features and Maintenance

• Speakers: Residents (Nelson, Dave, others), Jim Sullivan, Ryan.
• Content:
  • Nelson (40:37): Suggests cameras for security and deterrence.
  • Jim: Confirms cameras at pavilion have aided investigations; signage could deter misuse.
  • Dave (41:46): Critiques Phase 1 path flooding, questions maintenance planning.
  • Ryan/Jim: Acknowledge drainage issues, plan catch basin fixes; note salting sidewalks is a town-wide policy issue.
  • Dave (48:44): Suggests removing parking for shade trees; others propose shade sails (deemed costly).
• Key Outcome: Cameras and signage supported; drainage fixes planned; parking vs. shade trade-off to be reviewed.

[52:50 – 1:03:23] Conservation, Enforcement, and Policy

• Speakers: Residents (Dave, others), Chuck Tyrone, Jim Sullivan, Ryan.
• Content:
  • Chuck (52:50): Notes project is in wetland buffer zone; suggests plantings to mitigate impact.
  • Dave (55:48): Frustrated by unenforced parking rules affecting residents.
  • Jim/Ryan: Propose wayfinding signs and police coordination; basketball light hours TBD by Recreation Committee.
• Key Outcome: Conservation measures added; enforcement and signage prioritized for follow-up.

---

Closing Discussion

[1:03:59 – 1:22:28] and Action Items

• Speakers: Residents (Dave, Jenna online, others), Jim Sullivan, Ryan, Chuck Tyrone.
• Content:
  • Dave (1:03:59): Questions student pathways and neighborhood involvement, feeling ignored by the process.
  • Jim/Ryan: Assure pathways maintained, commit to better communication (plans online, 600-ft notification radius).
  • Jenna (1:00:43): Confirms project approved in 2023, design ongoing.
  • Ryan (1:15:47): Tentative July 2025 construction start; parking decision pending.
• Key Outcome: Commitment to post plans, enhance notifications, and involve Precinct 7; construction timeline set.

---

Key Outcomes

1. Project Scope Adjustments:
   • Parking reduced from 9 to potentially 2-3 handicap spots, pending review with Parking Transportation Task Force.
   • Playground to shift from Tot Lot (2-5) to broader age range (3-12) with fencing, swings, and shade trees.
   • Basketball courts upgraded with lights (hours TBD) and partial fencing.
2. Safety and Traffic:
   • Traffic calming (speed humps, entrance relocation) and enforcement (police presence, cameras) to be explored due to resident concerns about speeding and stop-sign violations.
   • Wayfinding signage confirmed to guide parking and facility use.
3. Community Involvement:
   • Plans, budgets, and updates to be posted online; Precinct 7 residents promised a stronger voice via broader notifications and ongoing dialogue.
4. Timeline and Next Steps:
   • Permitting in March 2025, bidding in June, construction in July.
   • Further reviews by Conservation Commission, Recreation Committee, and CPDC scheduled.