2022-10-27-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 determined by the design team and that community feedback will be critical. Mr. Coleman said that the community hearing will also be used to get an idea of the ages of those living nearest the park and whether there are still those in the 2-5-year-old range or are there more grade school children that would benefit from a more mature structure. Mr. Pressman asked about the contingency amount for the project. Mr. Coleman stated that there is $10,000 in contingency funds. Mr. Pressman then suggested that if the stakeholders indicated that the higher age range of 5-12 was more appropriate, then the contingency might not be sufficient. Mr. Coleman stated that after preliminary talks with the playground designer, there are options for the construction with the upper age range and that he was confident that both of these options could be obtained with the funding being requested. Mr. Horton brought up the need for a third-party post-construction assessment and stated that someone with those qualifications should have some role in the design process. Mr. Creech asked if the neighbors have had any input to this point; Mr. Coleman again stated that the first public meeting regarding this project would be held on November 9th. Mr. Creech then asked that since the park was so close to wetlands, whether the presence of mosquitos would adversely affect people’s desire to use the park. Mr. Coleman said that he did not know. Ms. O’Brien stated that she and her family used Justin Park and noted the importance of a pocket park on that side of town. Ms. O’Brien also commented on the benefits of these community engagement events. Ms. Fenollosa then asked that if the plans for the park were significantly changed as a result of the neighborhood meeting, would the applicants come back and update the Committee. Mr. Sandeen asked if the park had a sandy surface; Mr. Coleman stated that the safety surface was made with engineered wood fiber and not sand. Mr. Sandeen also asked if there was any plan to expand the footprint of the park and Mr. Coleman replied that there are currently no plans to expand the footprint. After a motion was duly made and seconded the Committee voted by roll call vote (9-0) in a straw poll to support the application, though Mr. Sandeen said that he would like to hear input from the neighbors but that he is leaning yes. Park Improvements- Athletic Fields/Bridge School: Melissa Battite and Chris Filadoro of the Recreation Committee and DPW presented their proposal for updated athletic fields at the Bridge School. Mr. Filadoro stated that the request was in the amount of $285,000 in FY 24. Mr. Filadoro stated that the changes to the Bridge School fields would include laser grading the fields, installation of a new drainage system, new natural grass, new backstops, new spectator and player benches, and new signage, and that the pathways from the playground to the softball field and from the school to the field would be upgraded in accordance with the 2017 ADA study to become fully accessible. Ms. Fenollosa asked when was the last time the Bridge School field was renovated. Mr. Filadoro stated that he had been with the Town of Lexington for 11 years and he had never renovated this space. Mr. Filadoro also stated that the last renovation which took place 13 or 14 years ago was only to improve the infield and that this would be a much more comprehensive renovation. Mr. Coleman also noted that the Bridge School was the first improvement under the annual Athletic Fields Improvements Program and