HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-03-20 ad Hoc - Library Landscape Committee Minutes� ur
Town of Reading
5 Meeting Minutes
Ja:11P[oPP�htl -
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Ad Hoc Library Landscape Committee
Date: 2024-03-20 Time: 7:30 PM
Building: Reading Public Library Location: Conference Room
Address: 64 Middlesex Avenue Session: Open Session
Purpose: General Meeting Version: Final
Attendees: Members - Present:
Genady Pilyaysky, Chair; Cherrie Dubois, Vice -Chair; Jake Soucy, Secretary;
Cappy Popp (remote); Elaine Stone; Andrea Hogan;
Members - Not Present:
Desiree Zicko
Others Present:
Mark Novak, Activitas Design Principal (remote); Meaghan Clemente, Library
Administrative Assistant;
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Jake Soucy, Secretary
Topics of Discussion:
I. Call to Order 7:28 pm.
IL Presentation from Activitas
Design Principal Mark Novak presented Activitas' preferred landscape design concept,
developed in collaboration with a working group composed of some Ad Hoc Library
Landscape Committee members and engineering, fire, police, and administrative
representatives from the Town of Reading staff. Activitas has worked with the Town of
Reading on other projects.
Mr. Novak provided an overview of the project, which included a review of opportunities
on the property that could enhance its connections to the surrounding neighborhood
community. Accessibility, signage, and lighting are key in public use areas. However,
bright lighting is a concern for abutters. Mr. Novak noted that he will review existing
vegetation and potential enhancements in the conceptual design.
An outdoor environment for learning and gathering is important for library users. The
plan will include various sustainable plant materials for education, allow for gardens,
and provide access to water and irrigation for ongoing maintenance and care. He noted
the need for seating for smaller gatherings and a larger area for storytimes, concerts,
and other entertaining programs. People generally gravitate toward gathering areas that
are well -lit, intimate, and comfortable.
Mr. Novak reviewed precedent images showcasing amphitheater concepts with
reclaimed granite built into slopes. Quotes or names of key donors could be engraved
into the stone if desired.
Page I 1
Mr. Novak presented a word cloud displaying key takeaways from community survey
responses. Seating, shade, accessibility, and gathering areas were featured
prommentty, although native plantings, pollinators, and perennial gardens are also
priorities.
A gathering space off the east wing was a key element, featuring handicapped access
from the Community Room to a flat plaza with a paved patio, Some regrading and
additional fill would be required to adjust the hill slope in this area. The design
recommends developing a retaining wall featuring planters around a pergola structure,
providing shaded seating in a handicap -accessible intimate gathering area. There would
be two pre-engineered pergola structures measuring approximately 16 square feet each
Although open on the sides, a roof that automatically senses rain could be closed to
provide some shelter during a mild storm. Storm water would be pumped through a
drainage system. The group discussed the possibility of harvesting rainwater in rain
barrels or using rainwater in the planters and lawns through an irrigation system,
although this may increase costs. The Committee expressed concems about the
lifespan of the pergola structure, especially the operational mechanism on the roof. Dr.
Pilyaysky questioned whether the pergola roof could be manually operated in the event
of electrical or mechanical issues. Mr. Novak clarified that the roof is hardwired and will
find out more about warranties from the vendor.
Mr. Novak noted that the proposed pergola is the Uplift Structure model from Landscape
Forms. A charcoal color is pictured, although various color options are available. Grey
would match nicely with the existing metal and proposed bollards. The pergola can
incorporate multiple features such as privacy screens, whiteboards, audiovisual outlets,
data jacks, meeting tables, raised seating tables, Wi-Fi access points, monitor hookups
for presentations, and more. The space is intended to be flexible but functional as a
casual meeting and relaxation space and an outdoor classroom.
An original sink from the Highland School would be featured in a plant bed around the
edge of the building, near a paved walkway providing access to School Street and the
Library's main entrance. The paved path would continue toward Middlesex Avenue and
an entertainment stage with tiered seating along the front corner of the building.
Handicap access would be near the stairwell door, with added curbs to improve safety.
This tiered seating would create a large but intimate venue away from the commotion of
cars in the driveway and neighborhood. Ms. Stone questioned whether optional lawn
chair seating for spectators would still be possible. Plantings and trees could be adjusted
to allow for visibility. Dr. Pilyaysky asked for clarification on the dashed lines in the
proposed front path, which represent existing stairs along the slope of the front driveway.
A performance area at the same level as the natural grade will be easier to implement
and maintain and could provide for year-round use. An alternate conceptual idea
features a pergola structure over the performance stage. However, corner posts would
limit spectator visibility. The pergola over the stage would also reduce seating from
approximately 40 to 50 seats to 30 to 40
Mr. Novak presented sample light bollards for installation along the walkway. The low-
level posts and tree moonlighting could provide a softer ambiance for abutters while
maintaining pedestrian safety. Mr. Soucy questioned the height of the proposed bollards.
Mr. Novak clarified that the proposed bollards are Annapolis Bollards from Landscape
Forms and would be composed of complementary metal that matches well with the
contemporary nature of the existing Library's architecture. Options for Wi-Fi access
points, outlets, and charging stations within the bollards are also possible. This may help
further extend and enhance Wi-Fi accessibility on Library property. Ms. Stone
questioned the direction of the lighting regarding dark sky compliance. Mr. Novak
clarified that the lighting could be focused on walkways rather than the grass in a
Page 1 2
downward direction. Trash and recycling receptacles would also be established to
maintain a clean appearance.
Mr. Novak also presented Carousel Tables from Landscape Forms. These well -
constructed, durable metal tables have four to five layers of powder coating and can be
secured to the ground for year-round outdoor use. Circular and square tables are
available in various colors. Heavy but moveable chairs are also available for secure
seasonal use and are stackable for indoor winter storage.
Mr. Novak proposed the usage of Umbriano (Summer Wheat) pavers from Unilock for
the patio area, which would tie in with the brick of the building. The stones are much
more dense than residential pavers and will not lose color or retain as much water. The
surface of the pavers is also easily washable. Mr. Novak clarified that the proposed
pavers are not permeable, but permeable pavers could be an option. Mr. Popp
expressed concems about stainability. Water would run through the joints between the
pavers into a natural groundwater system. The Town's Engineering and Water
Departments would be closely involved in drainage design.
Mr. Popp questioned the electricity supply needed for the performance space, pergolas,
and lighting. Mr. Novak noted that a complete electrical survey of the existing building
would be conducted, and additional enhancements and improvements would be
required, likely pulling from an existing building panel to a mini panel outside.
Mr. Novak presented the rough order of magnitude preliminary opinion of probable
project costs as $1,373.200. This includes approximately $125,000 of soft costs and
design fees for the review and development of the project by a professional landscape
architect, engineers, and surveyors. The cost opinion includes a 20% construction and
design contingency amount due to the conceptual nature of the plan, which may need to
be adjusted and reduced as the project progresses.
Mobilization and site preparation are estimated at $49,170. This would include
construction fencing, erosion control, slope adjustments, and other construction
preparations. The projection for earthwork and drainage improvements is $30,240.
The cost opinion estimates site furnishings at $170,500 and includes tables and chairs
and two pergolas that are approximately 16 It x 16 ft and $75,000 each. Pergola costs
may vary slightly due to customization options. An optional pergola over the stage area
would cost an additional $108,000 above the proposed total.
Pavement and masonry are estimated at $387,030. The primary driver of this is the
massive cast stone tiered seating. Site lighting and electrical upgrades estimates are
$89,600, with additional landscape and site improvements estimated at $140,379.
Although project costs have come in higher than expected, it may be difficult to break the
project down into more cost-effective phases due to the expense of durable materials
and construction costs. The Committee thanked Mr. Novak and Activitas for their
informative presentation and ideas, which complement the existing building and would
significantly enhance outdoor offerings in the Library space. Mr. Novak welcomed
additional email correspondence to wrap up questions on the project. The Library could
issue a request for proposals for additional bids for the project to compare pricing.
However, Activitas would love to be a part of construction and implementation if the
project moves forward. Mr. Novak exited the meeting at 8:25 pm.
111. Discussion of the Presented Material
The Committee discussed strategies to potentially reduce costs for the project, which
came in higher than generally expected. Although appealing and attractive, some high -
Page 1 3
end design features could be modified to realize cost savings. Ms. Dubois noted the
generosity of the Reading Public Library Foundation but expressed fundraising concerns
due to inflation and other economic difficulties that are impacting many potential users
and donors.
The projected $150,000 cost for the pergolas was discussed. Dr. Pilyaysky noted that
this seemed high compared to pergolas intended for residential use of similar size. The
automatic roof feature may be costly and could malfunction. If the sides of the pergola
are open, users may still get wet during a storm. Electrical wiring and monitor hookups
may also be flexible. The pergolas will provide important shade for Library users for
years, especially during hot summers. Shade is also important for visibility on
computers, e -readers, and other electronic devices. Ms. Stone reminded the Committee
that the community survey identified shade and seating as a top priority. Alternative
materials, designs, and options could be explored.
The accessible doorway near the top of the tiered seating is not accessible, as it is a fire
door in the middle of an existing internal stairwell. Mr. Popp noted that alternative access
is available by traveling on the sidewalk around the building.
The cost of pavement and masonry could be significantly reduced by removing tiered
seating near the performance stage and revisiting that option later. The Committee ruled
out the optional pergola over the performance stage, as it would reduce the amount of
available seating. Events would likely be moved inside in the event of inclement weather.
Different materials could be explored for the tiered seating. However, the granite seating
would likely be even more expensive, especially with a non -slippery finish.
The Committee discussed the possibility of WkFi access within the light bollards. Mr.
Popp noted that it would be helpful to closely examine the existing Wi-Fi coverage
throughout the properly regarding distance from the building. The glass windows of the
Studio space would have minimal impact on coverage along the proposed bollard
location along the front driveway compared to other brick areas of the building. WI-Fi
signal is useable in the Community Room and faintly from Mr. Soucy's School Street
residence. Wi-Fi coverage could be improved by installing some, but not all, smart light
bollards.
The Committee expressed interest in assembling a Request for Proposal for other
professional landscape architect firms to bid on implementing the Acdvilas design. While
considering the general concept, additional modifications and possibilities may help
reduce costs and provide new perspectives.
The Committee discussed the priorities of the tiered stage seating area and the pergola
patio area to break the project down into smaller phases, Mr. Popp believes each area
should be considered in terms of the benefits that it would provide Library staff and
patrons. The Library should assess the value of planned programs and usage to
maximize the space and the donated funds for the project. However, some costs, such
as mobilization and site preparation, involve both seating areas. It may cost more over
time if these costs are incurred again during subsequent construction phases.
The Committee discussed the issue of ongoing maintenance for plantings, determining
that native plantings and access to a hose for water are priorities for reducing the
maintenance burden. Mature plantings are expensive but provide additional appeal and
shade. The Committee noted that additional maintenance may be required until
plantings are firmly established.
Page 14
IV. Public Comment
No public comments were made in person or remotely.
V. Report Updates on Prior Action Items
TABLED
VI. Approval of February 16, 2024 Meeting Minutes
Motion: To approve the minutes of the February 15, 2024, Ad Hoc Library Landscape
Committee Meeting as presented.
(Dubois / Hogan)
Vote: Approved 6-0
VII. Future Agenda Items and Action Items
The Activitas proposal will be further reviewed and discussed. Updates on prior action
items, such as drafting a communications plan and schedule, promotional material,
neighborhood engagement, and feedback methods, will also be discussed.
VIII. Adjournment 9:14 pm
Motion: To Adjourn at 9:14 pm
(Popp / Soucy)
Vote: Approved 6.0
Respectfully SubmitteI _ /'
'
Sake S uo cry, Secretary
Page 1 5