The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-10-17 Board of Selectmen Handout,e,, to to & 2m. n! ► E Pill 1: 26 October 17, 2006 Dear Selectmen; We would've liked to attend Tues. night's meeting but would still like to address the issue of more tax move going to the High School building project. We have lived in Reading for over five years and the taxes have more than doubled in that time. We live on a fixed income & have found these increases hard to pay. According to an article (see copy) we are supposed to be paying less in taxes not more. Older people will not vote for you again if taxes keep going up. Please no more taxes for the H.S.; we've already paid enough. Sincerely, ita & Denise Lawrence 243 Main St. Reading uunnunn~inuiniinnuuunnun~nnnnnnuunnnnuuuu~ 010 ad Y11CLL Lite commission and the r.iementarySel oolBuild.Wg.Ccmiaitte regga ding additio spaces at the B.Itchelder Ele- and rife-ritary Se oolf The commission is scheduled to 1. 4 meet to Orr L,11 Might. -PeterMardtn READING TOWN GE `STATE FUNDS EARLIER - The Massachu- l setts School W,1dingAuthorityha,;agreedtopaythe town $1,9 ruilllon over the next several months far I,an- constructNOW n, w b school; which Is 'cQ bo-' "ul fi be . n tl %e fall: Tlie first $5 million payment was vtn{ed to the town lax t week; "according : toBob 1 eP hejll, the town's finance director. The state will eye'A reimburse the town for more than $10 mIT;lLpn alI early spent on:onstrtiction, IAT 4ch(2utMAi?gWhen the school's construction was t~ - initially bondedlln 2004 the town expected residents w to myah i it a rl nth for nlor : than 1Q years rill state m_ n became availablc, but the earls t Wrap r pay ments ultin stgh&ant E avings for taxpay- ers antl&tl 10 M`tV~Zniiing authority I.eLacheur said. ` ze ; Tt ey were ryreative coming ul with a solution, i + and it will WOFr p both our benefit:,," the finance neap director said. - Peter MCLTCi7t ".SHIALEY NEW TECHAtQO,~Y'COMMITTEE MEMBER - Craig specialist, has been aD- Cie A)ostol.(blob e 442 Marrett Road Lexington, MA 02421 781-860-5502 FAX:781-860-5554 Qedfo~d Mgiit ;Landon rno- darn ryDar Amherst Latch: , field: Milford- lNlndham ti~ `Rrnokllne Hehis Nashua: .1! Pelham: ~ [v4etn~an N fl! , " `r-~t `Lowrance Pew Qupstable lio roll Rog 1precut 'An over Pe And09 r; Lowell, Groton Westfdrd Tewksbury Ch~Itps' North forcl Readln Shirley Ayer Billerica 4Vilming Littleton Carlisle toil Reading Harvard Burling- c Boxlwrough Acton. Bedford ten Stone-' Concord ham Wrtch exington ester Atli ngto Medford :r 9aimant s. EDITORIAL EDITORS: Tom Coakley: 781-860-5558 Ri+•n..+ C~ n nnn : Ul /-yLy'G06e7 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter. From: Michelle Asselin [michelleasselin@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:09 PM To: Reading - Selectmen "Although I can not attend tonight's meeting, I wish that the-Board of Selectmen continue to work toward identifying a more suitable development than a 60 store, 400,000 square foot shopping mall for Reading at the Addison Wesley Pearson site." Michelle Asselin Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. 0 1.06 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: ckzeek@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:13 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square at Reading I am writing to express my support for the proposed Park Square at Reading project. This is an effective use of a currently empty and deteriorating property which will enhance both the town's appearance and its revenues. The developer has consistently worked with the working group, the neighbors, and the selectmen to address legitimate concerns, resulting in several modifications to the original proposal. The current proposal balances retail, restaurant, public/community spaces, and residential uses, and includes needed road improvements. The guidelines in the working group document allow the town and the developer to work together to create a center that meets a variety of needs. This collaboration is certainly to the town's advantage. Concerns about traffic continue to be raised. While no one of us has a crystal ball, I was curious about the traffic impact of the Wayside Commons development in Burlington. I've visited that center on 2 Saturday afternoons this month to find the parking lot virtually full, the shops bustling, and NO traffic snarls on the surrounding roads. I was easily able to turn left onto both major bordering streets. This seems to bode well for traffic at Park Square, especially with the improved access the developer has agreed to provide. The reality is that the property will be sold and developed, probably sooner rather than later. The disposition of the Addison Wesley property is a decision that affects the entire town, not just a few neighbors. I urge you to consider the big picture now and in the future. Park Square at Reading will benefit all of us who live in Reading. Cathy Zeek 163 Pearl Street Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. D 10/17/2006 Hechenblefter, Peter From: bresten25@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:15 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: In Support of Park Square project I am writing to support the Park Square project. Unfortunately I am unable to attend tonights meeting to show my support in.person, however, I would like to weigh in. Reading is lucky to have a developer willing to work with the town on this project! This developer has been more than reasonable and if we miss this opportunity, it is unlikely that another developer will attempt working with the town. Time is money for developers and there are other locations and towns that are easier to work with! Why would any of you want to give up the opportunity to improve the towns tax base without putting further stress on the school system? Why would you oppose adding retail and restaurant options which would be a conveniance for town residents, provide jobs for our teenagers, and make the town more attractive overall? Sure the abutting residents are nervous and afraid of change. They would rather nothing be built on the site! Something is going to be built there and what a tragedy if we end up with high density housing! Please protect the best interests of our town and support the Park Square proposal! In my nieghborhood, the residents want this project! Theresa Bresten 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: bresten25@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:17 PM To: Town Manager Subject: In support of the Park Square project I am writing to support the Park Square project. Unfortunately I am unable to attend tonights meeting to. show my support in person, however, I would like to weigh in. Reading is lucky to have a developer willing to work with the town on this project! This developer has been more than reasonable and if we miss this opportunity, it is unlikely that another developer will attempt working with the town. Time is money for developers and there are other locations and towns that are easier to work with! Why would any of you want to give up the opportunity to improve the town's tax base without putting further stress on the school system? Why would you oppose adding retail and restaurant options which would be a conveniance for town residents, provide jobs for our teenagers, and make the town more attractive overall? Sure the abutting residents are nervous and afraid of change. They would rather nothing be built on the site! Something is going to be built there and what a tragedy if we end up with high density housing! Please protect the best interests of our town and support the Park Square proposal! In my nieghborhood, the residents want this project! Theresa Bresten 1 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Kerry Kreppein [kerrykreppein@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:48 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Tonights Meeting I wish to thank the board of selectmen for your votes against the "lifestyle development" at the Addison Wesley site. As nice as the developer's glitzy marketing makes the mall look, it is the wrong fit for that area. I truly appreciate the long hours put in by the Working Group and yourselves and I am incensed by how the developer has ignored the Working Group document, while trying to sell the Reading residents on how "cooperative" they are. Their plan is too large, and they agree they can't make it smaller. Common sense says that traffic there won't work, no matter what their studies claim. Five or six restaurants are not a good fit on the edge of a residential area. We will be killing our downtown businesses instead of trying to grow them. It seems to me that Reading is taking control back from the developer, and that has them scrambling. They have invested a lot of time and money in this endeavor and will not back off easily. I think they need a firm NO from Reading. We will be able to find a better fit. As the mother of two small children with a traveling spouse, I am again unable to make tonight's meeting, but I wanted to put in my two cents. Thank you for your diligence on this issue. I'll be watching, as usual, on RCTV. Kerry Kreppein 15 Pratt St 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Rob Culbert [rob@CulbertHealthcareSolutions.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:04 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Cc: 'nomaII01867' Subject: No Mall Please Hello, We can not attend tonight's meeting but please know that we are NOT in favor of a mall at the Addison Wesley site. We can't even get across town to the Jordan's mall because the traffic lights are so backed up. Sincerely, Rob and Jennifer Culbert 21 Strawberry Hill Lane Reading, Ma 01867 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Jeffrey Kline [nedrygoods@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:16 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Cc: Town Manager Subject: Park Sqaure project To: The Board of Selectmen and Town Manager, As 25 plus year residents of the Reading, please be aware that we are very much in favor of the Park Square project. The quality of stores will bring a very much needed face lift for the town, that we will be very proud of and will support, not to mention the increase to the town in tax dollars as well as jobs for local residents. I hate to think of the alternative, "more housing". If you want to make it happen, you can! Please work together with the necessary people to get this project done! Regards, Jeff and Carol Kline 12 Hunt Street 10/17/2006 6 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Nancy Reid [lindgren-reid@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:18 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square at Reading To the Selectmen: I am in favor of the Park Square project in Reading. I prefer to have a development that will bring money into our tax base and not add to our need for more costly town services the largest of which is the school system. I am against having housing be apart of this project. I feel we already have enough high density housing in town, especially the new Archston'd complex on West Street. A health and wellness center would be a positive addition to our town in the proposed area as well. Regarding traffic: having high density housing in that area will add just as much if not more traffic to that area. I feel traffic is no reason to try to stop this development. I hope the Selectmen will listen to the Park Square development company carefully and move Reading in a positive direction by voting for the Park Square project. Nancy Reid Nancy Lindgren Reid LINDGREN & REID DESIGN tel: 781-942-7889 fax: 781-942-2853 lindaren-reid aOcomcast.net www.lihdgren-reid.com 10/17/2006 (o Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Nancy Reid [lindgren-reid@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:19 PM To: Town Manager Subject: Park Square at Reading Dear Peter: I am in favor of the Park Square project in Reading. I prefer to have a development that will bring money into our tax base and not add to our need for more costly town services the largest of which is the school system. I am against having housing be a part of this project. I feel we already have enough high density housing in town, especially the new Archstone complex on West Street. A health and wellness center would be a positive addition to our town in the proposed area as well. Regarding traffic: having high density housing in that area will add just as much if not more traffic to that area. I feel traffic is no reason to try to stop this development. I hope the Selectmen will listen to the Park Square development company carefully and move Reading in a positive direction by voting for the Park Square project. Nancy Reid Nancy Lindgren Reid LINDGREN & REID DESIGN tel: 781-942-7889 fax: 781-942-2853 lindaren-reid ancomcast.net www.lindgren-reid.com 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Louise [louisecallahan@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:37 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Mall I absolutely am against this big mall idea with 50 or 60 plus stores. I am unable to attend the meeting but wanted you to know my feelings. Thank you. Louise Callahan 7 Indiana Avenue D 10/17/2006 Page 1 of .l Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Scott & Sheila Tully [sctttul@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:21 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Tonight's Meeting I am unable to attend tonight's meeting but would like to see the Board of Selectman continue to work towards identifying a more suitable development for the Addison Wesley site than a 60 store shopping mail. Sheila Tully 10/17/2006 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: tunacat@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 200612:21 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Move on/time fo charette To the Board of Selectmen: Thank you for your decisive vote rejecting the current proposal from W/S Development for a mall at the Addison/Wesley Pearson property. Please do not invite W/S Development back for one more talk. It is time for the BOS and the town to get back to standard practices. The Board has been extremely accommodating to W/S Development, creating a Working Group at their request, to provide guidance to their proposal. The Board has provided sufficient guidance to date and has spoken on the proposal. Let your vote stand. Please continue on with plans for a design charette to develop a concept for this property that will benefit the town, property owner, and developer that will not be divisive and will not create such rancor in Reading. There are many qualified professionals in Reading willing to lend their expertise. A fresh start and a new concept is what is needed at this point: Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Angela Binda Town Meeting Member, Precinct 5 1 D Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Peter Collins [emikate@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:24 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: board meeting Although I cannot attend tonights board meeting, I wish that the board of selectman can find a more suitable use for the Addison Wesley property than a Mall. Peter and Veronica Collins a 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Comcast Mail [remsmith@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:50 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square Board of Selectmen, I urge you to move forward with the Park Square proposal. I am very frustrated with the absolute lack of leadership shown by some members of this board in allowing a minority of community members to stall this process. It underscores the failures in a volunteer form of town government. You were elected to provide leadership and direction, and those qualities are needed more than ever right now. Our history as a business friendly town is not a positive one. We need to change that perception, while getting the necessary improvements from the developer. I believe a component without any housing is preferable. We need a better retail component with perhaps a wellness center. Please move forward with Park Square proposal and let's get Reading on the right track. Respectfully, R. Emmet Smith RRRED Member 92 Spruce Road Precinct 8 ,9 V(P 10/17/2006 I have summarized my comments from the August 9`i' meeting and attached them in separate files so I won't repeat those points here. I know you're all very busy and appreciate you taking the time to read my thoughts on how we move forward with regard to the AW site. I'm puzzled when I hear comments with regards to "speaking for those with no voice". This issue has been before the Town for almost 2 years and certainly anyone who feels strongly about the proposal has had ample opportunity to voice their concerns. And why does this discussion with the "silent" seem to be directed at the pro-mall contingency? Have each of you spoken to the individual abutters and neighbors most affected by the proposal? Why is it assumed that all of their concerns are summed up or expressed by Reading C.A.R.E.? If that is the basic assumption, then one could argue that all pro-mall supporters, silent or otherwise, have had their views expressed through RRRED, albeit through leadership with questionable motives and troubling conflict of interests. Given every opportunity to work with the Town and build consensus for the project, WS has instead chosen to find Reading's weaknesses and exploit them, dividing the Town in the hopes of deflecting analysis away from the real issues of what is appropriate for this site, this neighborhood, our Town. I'll remind the Board that this developer has never, in almost two years, conceded anything of substance. The few, trivial items they have modified have not affected their plans whatsoever and were the result of the Town backing them against a wall. They have plowed ahead with an arrogant disregard for the needs of the Town and have repeatedly told us that they know better what's good for us. That is their history, their formula, here in Reading as well as in other towns. We would not tolerate this type of divisive behavior from our children, our coworkers and business associates, or our political leadership. So while we must develop a clear strategy for the AW site, we should not continue to reward this developer with chance after chance only to have them insult and disappoint us again and again. Frankly, I would not hire WS to clean out a cesspool. It is time to move forward. There are other developers who, given clear direction from the Town, can and will provide us with a mutually beneficial proposal. CAN YOU IMAGINE THE POWER WE WOULD WIELD, AS A TOWN, IF WE SPOKE WITH ONE VOICE? That's what WS fears most. That's why they chose the track they have been following. Each time they are given another chance, they see it as another opportunity to drive a wedge into the Town; as a chance to win, not by cooperation, but by default. Wayland stood as ONE and got exactly what they wanted. Sincerely, Nick Safma 221 South Street 0 PARK SQUARE AT R E A D I N G Exolanatorv Notes oreoared by WfS Development Reference: 'Report of-Addison Wesley Working Group", document dated July11. 2006 Please refer to item numbers in the margins of the review copy: Item # Tonic Comment #1 Size of Retail component f - -Mtg-1, the WIG asked W/S to state its minimum 4 ~ requirement; at WG•Mtg-2 the retail size was reduced from 400,000 at to 320,000 st, and was presented as the'New Site Plan', dated April 2006. This retail square footage satisfies feasibility criteria and development experience, including: location in trade-area, tenant mix for number & size. m 4=4s--------" quality design and construction. god-meetninanciai criteria. #2 Density Da erica properties indicates a wide range of Q statistics density depending on location, acreage and market conditions. Two research efforts were conducted during the AW WG process to identify and compare similar and appropriate "retail" and 'mixed-use development properties. The density of the proposed A-W redevelopment pnigra;r deafly within those norms. ft3 Residential program t ~ Tie N Plan' responded to numerous suggestions of the WG, including a Residential component Residences were positioned as a "transition zone" near existing homes. Depending on building height, the plan provided from 32 to 44 residential units. More units are possible subject to planning and design considerations. #4 Size of a Retail Unit Besides the single largest retail unit of max. 63,000 tenant mix would benefit from some degree of er flexibility. For example, two entail units of San 25,000 and 30,000 sf could be both appropriate desirable. #5 No. of Liquor Licenses The number of fine dinin ablishments could be limited to three, though we berr the character and quality of Park Square would c Inly be enhanced if more than three were possible. #6 Opening percentage - and continued success of the project is better assured When a majority of tenants Initially open together. First impressions are important to assure return visits. #7 Residential format The 'New Site Plan' assumes residential units Tor-sale' with 10% affordable. #8 Landscape Buffer The'New Site Plan' features a highly developed planning & design approach which features a significant landscape buffer around the perimeter of the property abutting existing Explanatory Notes prepared by WIS Development 22SEP-06 Summary of Comments on Notes of telephone call, 10 am 6/1/05, Page: 1 Author. Safinanj Subject. Note Date: 101172006 9:42:59 AM -7he proposed range satisfies WS's financial criteria only. Their other malls have smaller lifestyle components supported by big box '"'brother. Wayside Commons at 190K draws some of its support from surrounding areas. AW is the beneficiary ofs(milarconditions with Woburn, Stoneham and Reading all contributing. There's over3 million sq.fL of support retail and commercial within a 2 mile radius Their development experience is based on big box and each of their subsequent lifestyle centers has differed in size and layout. At the Aug 9th meeting Mr. Skater indicated he was not familiar with the surrounding area (when I questioned him about support from local retail/commercial areas) Author. Safinanj Subject Note Date: 1011720069:45:01 AM -TWO EFORTS? The reseamh we provided showed proposed density to be well OVER comparative site size, even without penalty ~T-'for limited access, residenfial abutter etc). If the second'efforr was the list provide by WS's Dick Marx, which included the Atrium and Chestnut Hill Malls, we have already shown that this range was not a valid comparison. And it further shows what they see when they look at Reading. 49 Author. Safinanj Subject Note Data. 9232006 10:2623 AM ^..-Transifion zones were requested along both South and Curtis. WS did not provide became they are not interested In housing. r° Further, the housing component as proposed does not meet AW WG requirements Author. Safinanj Subject Note Date: 10/172006 9:46:01 AM """Not interested in what the Town wants. Here's what works best for us.- can see what Is happening at Wayside with PARTIAL openings. However, if the development is a true mixed use, with REAL sq.ft. allocation, the development will take pre of itself as far as phased construction. Portions will be completed and opened in a more logical sequence. This will also reduce the demand on Town staff for permitting and review. Another sound reason for real mixed use PARK SQUARE AT R E A b 1 N O t Business-C, a ~std t a neighbors. In fact, in zoning distric zontal r reequired'bufferzone" consists of two minimum hod dimensions: 25' forlandscaoe buffed and The . Zoning proposed setback (inducting the landscape buffer). landscape buffer meets or exceeds the existing zoning requirement of a minimum horizontal dimension of 25'. As the proposed Site Plan indicates, the actual landscape buffer varies in width, never being less than 25', and expands to as much as 50'-60'. In the location of Restricted Area'A', it 180' across. if the site Plan layout was is as much as in select modified, it is Possible chat some perimetere bu f e into locations could beconverted of landscape buffePo t ariouslyt:l35'. could result in portions 37', 43' and 50' widths. and views across & through it, areat The quality of the buffer, least as importantas minimum dimensions. ThelandscaPit buffer has been designed to include: feasible retention of existing mature trees, plants and fencing for screening; inclusion of elevated berms to reduce sightliness additional new bees and tain -Restricted nArea A" and aecommetment to re conditions in the socalied 'fingers along South Street Within the buffer zone are landscaped islands bonfe' comm relainnnaW to park ng or c rculation; landscaped areas adjacent ffid ~8 th. -bb_ architectural screen walls to screen service po' {ighding; and no signage. Towards the 9oa being a gaol neighbor, the site plan layout is odente aid awaypfrdm active side of the buf4dings are prim y a rears of the neighbors, and in to I ,the side es aces towards neighbors. mum the minimum architectudt zed" building fa Importantly, the Naw Site P n meets or exceeds existing dmensionat requireme of zoning, inctedl does in trot utilize as landscape buffer an uitding setback, y t of•right building h • his of 55' and 95'. The fallowing items are Provided as additZdjmCUy eon: #9 Location of Restaurants that buildings and close-by residentsof the tail buildings p_ rtting along Curbs Street and South Street As pr~v, ously noted, the existing A W emergency access to #1p emergency Evacuation South Streetwilt he retained for emergency access. A detailed evacuation plan will be prepared itly that plan will property management procedures. Importer , Towns fire and police input from and nd saiisactian of the 22sSP-06 Explanatory Notes prepared by W/S Development a Page: 2 Author. Sefinanl Subject Note Data. 1011712006 9:52:00 AM 3 in other wards,'we can't meet the requirements of the AW WG and dent want to ht use if WS can not acknowledge intense WG required larger buffer zones because t the proPOSLd use Is more that the as•of-rig that, they should not be allowed to PIM' They continually refer to as•of-right zoning as though the proposed use were equal to the existing office zoning. IT IS NOT. if they're so in love with as-of-right zoning, build whops allowed re sed by WS Mr. Bonazott has also, on several occasions. tried to equatelcompare as-oE•dght zoninng limits with what has been p and r safety codes an G and whop even it traffic engineadng. ife This is troubling since it files in the face of 50 years of zoning, Pfanning, building m arks fend to be quiet use by ir white the buildings u may be valley they allow for more ope~P ce and less very "'dum perviousarea. And Ofh rtiaaf. us Moe and zones, Wit' Me to no advlty on weekends. • Author. Sarmanj on the resfdenUet border. Subject Note with additional restaurants AND Plate one Data. 19!17, ther t was 9AM sosay They mething about~ow they would apProaen future negotiators at And yet, there it what else to - >'~cleedy shows they intent and says PARK SQUARE AT R E A D I N G #11 Building services It has been incorrectly reported tiff Lxiene .n me tenants at our Derby Street Shoppe xrgtfam property take deliveries through or. The'building in the middle' we call The on Building can be fully serviced from the carefully planned curb-side service truck'lay-by' and nearby service- utility room. This functional layout and operation is the same as found at The Pavilion Building at Derby Street Shoppes. In addition, many other tenants, whether they have rear service doors or not, routinely take deliveries through their front doors. This fact has been verified by daily observation, as well as by direct interview of on-site retail store managers, as conducted by our full-time property manager at Derby Street Shoppes. Page: 3 O Author. Safinenj Subject Note Date: 92312006 11:42:09 AM _F Marianne Downing's field visit to Derby Street would prove otherwise. Author. Selman] Note anj Sub Date: 10117/2006 9:55:48 AM Many retailers do not report shoplifting crimes because they will not pursue them in court due to costs. Further, it is detrimental to the malts image. Regardless of the nature of the calls, emergency personnel are still required to respond. That means additional demand on services and cost to the Town Example, if a male officer is dispatched but a female perp is apprehended, an additional female officer must then be dispatched to pat them down etc. So while only one incident is logged, it required two units to respond Park Square at Reading is a type of retail center that is 60- stores= 60+ Individual alarms. predominantly home to small-to-medium sized shoppe hich share common service points. These service areas screened by architectural fencing and landscapin In response to concerns about the larger dedicate service court ' at Whole Foods Market, w agree to relocel at court to the side of that building and the erefore aw ay direct view of directly abutting neighbors on South S et #12 Parking The proposed site layout provides prox 1,640 parking spaces serving Retail C merdal (320k) and Non- retail Commercial (70k) at a p 'ng ratio of nearly 425. Residential parking is in ad -on to that, and based upon 1.5 cars per unit, that addiUo I parking would be 48 to 66 cars. Therefore, the total o ite parking Is approximately 1,700 spaces. Of that to approximately 600 spaces are on structural deck. a deck is configured in two parts: 24evels of parking locet over retail, situated adjacent & parallel to Route 128; yd, 14evei of parking over grade-parking, located in front of ore Foods Market and also situated adjacent & parallel Route 128. The parking structures will be archit tumlfy integrated with the other buildings. An a ' e= 1 persp ective rendering could be prepared to better 1 p sent scale and haracter. c #13 Crime data = The great majority of emergency calls to Derby Street Shoppes, numbering approximately one per day, consists of door alarms (retailer doors left ajar), medical assistance and especially cerNockouts. Town of Hingham data has been provided. #14 Site Utilities The existing property's water, sanitary, and power requirements will be re-engineered and rebuilt. Exhaustive detail will be forthcoming when professional engineers develop appropriate design documentation. These details will be carefully and exhaustively reviewed, including appropriate peer review, by local and state authorities. #15 Scope of traffic study As mutually determined in June 2005 and specifically directed by town leadership, traffic analysis to-date has focused Explanatory Notes prepared by W/S Development 22-SEP-06 5 GI U A R E page: LUME 06 CABS the only way to mntrot traffic antl its agedon 0" Author nl pp,R R E A p t w t3 VO Subject: Note Note SIZE RETAIL At1DTOTAL Date:101772006 TOTAL M which is pmpos as 23,000 roParty, opinion, t main sliest ne In MY community. osed retail development ai Tambo p to account the P i on the intersection a but not exclusively) In traffic along South primarily ( ex the sco on cut throug ect and t n tale Any devetoPrnant must now s by 1h, nature of We uses. sgfL of retail. , : clearly stated that we MEPA-Ma ss"i Ys' and Street South We Stree anded by ffio sue l mixed-use MI mitigate most of the tra of this tragic study to be exp coon at Main Area the principal in As previously presented, ned with Vanes (only t of Main Street, 0 be h Street X g segmen #16 Size of Intersection thin Street and Sout 15 -way and the 128-95 the aPProximatety state right-of w e and wholly located wi ved over b"ucted e), but initially cons not ipr proved over not m ymration of clover leaf inte d a - very good and ove d s O only. LOS conditions if after completion an oPment is t that time. ' We d that re-ex 9 i p ne er a y a devetap P quam, it is determ nswcted by stud-led an ld be co e been tion hav dble, it cou esira Also, the aesthetics of the interse ved over current road- niCicantlY impto i g proposed to be s shoulder/ road-side conditions. Explanatory Notes prepared by WIS Development 0 22SEP-06 gEPORT OF, Addison Wesley Working Group (AW WG) July of Selectmen To The Reading Bl r t, Review Mission of Working Group of Working Group to date Group's findings 2, Review Findings an Working 3. Community input/comments Select q, Review Schede and result of public input session with the Board of men Review findings s+ of the Working Group Fine Tune the Findings and Developer to respond to the Findings • Ask the ProPerq Also see: . Notes Prepared by W/S Developmenf' "Explanatory indicnres m°st+cccnt cbangm 26 the d°cnment since the j_ AW WG meeting. Underline 1 Summary of Comments on outline Addison Wesley Group comments no This page contains n This page contains no comments MISSION Addison Wesley Working Group June 22, 2006 - 7:30 PM Mission of the Working Group: 's view of the • To advise the Board of Selectmen on the Communityappropriate develop o ert °ow er and/or develper respond to the . To then have the p p tY Community vision of the appropriate development of the site; . To evaluate the property owner's/developers response and oard of Selectmen whether the community recommend to the B should move forward with re-zoning of the site. nderline indicates most recent changes to the docament since the last AW WG meeting. U 2 °f h,s age conta'ns no comments p Working MOUP A,ddis0u V22esley2006--7.30 p 3une GrOup: theAddisOnV~ esley~'0rng issues Addrese(s) by 1, land and Access Trafi1c 3. l UPact 4. Nlida~ a~ cansideraOns 5. vinan ilie docament ndetline [adicntes most ttxent c8nn3es t0 since the last A r, meeting, ll 1.1 Land Uses permitted as a Saecial Permit . Mixed use required, which shaft include residential uses Retail . office/non retail cmnrrtercial . Residential . Over 55 housing (may alter mixed use . Community use be ermi . Non-pralituse may P Open Space Paridag garages Underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AW WG meeting. 4 Q Page: 4 Author. SaBmnj Subject: Note This mix is predominantlonenitthatdnes "Mixed tlse" 10/1712006 9: be called 3604g a housing com te: rdl d h y a an n rms like retail, TDa prop he current '`'single, non-retail commercial tenants that Oulned in this document ments as i „ GREE re out and provide not meet the Town's requ replicate traditional village erm At some point ffic toad ,..AGREE ...AGREE E n , required to help reduce tra Mixed used is tai Retail design experts say that a more sustainable develo ith t the y next best thing .eta en l me xpe of this mall AGRE ...AGREE i for aced w this retail "formula" will be rep a every 10 years. At any 9 designs need to change t AGREE .AGREE er shopping cen could be failing- more sustainable distribution o uses AGREE . successful mixed-use village indicates a sis of any l .AGREE . . y Ana Page: 5 0 1.2 Amount of use oermitted • Retail -lack of consensus by AW WG- Discussed between 150,000 sf and 320,000 • Range of opinion for retail use of AW WG participants GREE • 100,000 to 200,000 but require • 190,000 to 210,000 320,000 sf • 200,000 to 250,000 see note #1 • 320,000 • 250,000 to 300,000 • 150,000 • 200,000 to 300,000 • 100,000 to 150,000 • Average 188,750 to 235,000 • Issues to be used to determine amount of retail use, in priority order are: ...AGREE • Traffic generation and other traffic congestion; • Neighborhood Impact and Physical scale and mass relative to surrounding uses • Net cost/financial impact to the Town • Impact on Reading Square and other retail areas of Reading (what of the u s would compete with Reading Square?) • Level of activity • Development needs to be successful to the Town and developer • What level of retail use makes the development financially feasible • Diversity of uses on the site is desirable to the community • Quality of the development is a factor • Development should create a sense of place • How to evaluate appropriate levels of retail ddition • Range of size of lifestyle malls -156K sf to 784k sf / 530k sf info pr ided • Density ranges of retail -,2,800 sf/acre to 12,000 sf/acre = see n e #2 • Mixed commercial - 6,680 sf/acre to 14,600 sf/acre • Need to apply subjective criteria to ranges • Offrce/non-retail commercial AGREE • Residential- 2 to 4 units per gross acre (approx 50 to 100 units) NEE O DISCUSS = see note #3 • Allow over 55 housing (may alter mixed use guidelines) ...AGREE • Community Space- minimum amount of 2,000 square feet ...AGREE • Allow some non-profits ...AGREE underline indicates most recent changes to the document since the last AW WG meeting. 5 Author: Safinanj Subject: Note Date: 10/171200610:06:20 AM JThis is the weakest part of the AW WG Doc and WS took advantage of it. Even still, the proposed size does not meet the AW WG requirements if you consider average size or if you throw out the high and low ranges. WS proposal misses all but one of these ranges. And that one was the "softball" Author. Safinanj Subject: Note Date: 10/17/200610:06:57 AM I" JWS wants us to consider enclosed malls in urban areas when discussing density. I have already provided a breakdown of the comps they submitted and showed how they are not valid. It does show that WS is interested only in competing with Lynnfield or Burlington, not in providing what may be in the best interest of Reading. Author. Safinanj Subject: Note Date: 9/23/2006 11:32:56 AM WS is not interested in providing a housing component and has intensionally provided units that 'Y-don't meet the AW WG requirements. They are not interested in mixed use. Given Reading's standing in meeting our affordable housing quota, the housing component may be the most important portion of any development. Page: 6 1.3 Conditions or saet:ial considerations. ons, Permit by the CPDC; Projec (note - some changes or e as a ci m • t should be permitted as a Sp zonin at t AGREE clarifications of definitions should be applied to the underlying g special use regulations are developed.) versant as part of the special Retail -These conditions may need to be done as a d permit granting process ail unit 63,000 sf (I ° ° unit); next largest 50 % of • Maximum size for far o f 15;750 sf AGRE EE 263,000 ,00 est d oiscuss other sizes largest or 31,50 unit); next largest 50 (remai not including restaurants see note #W Maximum number of restaurants with liquor licenses - 3 ...D15CU see e note #5 • Not more than 25% of the space to open for business in any 30 day period see note #6 ...Discuss s - No "big box° uses, automotive uses, fast food. Liquor s ores. prohibited use Movie Theaters, adult uses. ...AGREE Officeinon retail commercial - permitted uses would include professional offices; corporate 'so offices; consumer services, child care; fttness facility; ...AGREE Its as part of the Town Residential- at le st 20% affordable (so it con' ble as a transition t bath South S et and Cu l ausing rtis; stock); rental is p DISCUSS see note #7 maximum of 2 BR units; ...AGREE Over 55 housing (may alter mixed use gutdeilnes) unity Space -2,000 sf; may include kitchen group facilities, ps; rnominat charge tar use; Comm residents and AGREE development office; available to Reading butter use; near housing; location can be "back office less visible: good Nou-profit uses - may be allowed if it fits within the mix of uses and doesn't have negative impact ...AGREE may include islands in parking and pedestrian areas, Open Space- would include buss spa es like pta2as, gazebos, etc.; ...AGREE and may include "urban" opens sp ...AGREE Parting garage - permitted height will be related to location. Uaderline indicates most recent changes m the document since the last AW WG meetin& 6 Author: Safinani Subject: Note Date: 10/17/200610:07:48 AM the statement. They want more restaurants bee Duran ihhr Again, they say AGREE but quatify s Jprofiitable for them. At the Aug 9th meeting it was noted that allowing this many late hours of operations to almost half the development. AW WG is clear on store size. WS wants more larger store which contradicts the "boutique" argument. N N~O! This page contains no comments Traffic/Access • Keep Level of Service (LOS) as high as practical ...AGREE • Keep Impact on South Street as low as possible ...AGREE • Keep the needed improvement to Main Street as minimal as possible but molding sure that improvements are adequate to serve the site and through traffic ...AGREE • Require developer to evaluate alternate means of access if 128/[93 interchange improvements are done - and how to guarantee and phase in ...AGREE • Require a follow-up traffic study and mitigation if there are unanticipated problems identified by the study. ...AGREE • Require aesthetic improvements to Main Street-plantings, gateway, ...AGREE • Residential access from South Street ...AGREE • Future of Jacob Way (conveyance for consideration) ...AGREE • Measure the total delay for the total route - not just at one or 2 points- measure at each signal ...AGREE • Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian access from off site to the site, and within the site should be required ...AGREE Underline indicates most meat changes to the document since the last AW WG meeting. 7 at their praposat has (FAQ) v _AgGbREE what Area Ratio EE [lwaO titan, needs to address nd floor l00 feet e % - aPP ervious surface not less than ...AGR verog by Lot coverag resideatlal distrtct - buitdings, tot c .1 In setback from out, height interretati°nsid Commercial Butdtng residenttat districts on layou al ack from erctal depe riding AG setb Residenti C etd be less than com o and uses as tittle as to,- e $8 • merctat buddtn° can be unit ED I- TO DISCUSS see n !ran with com hi hway - „,NE Landscg setback from abutting e e at aped gnffering from resid district Buildin i Residentia use - 25' . Retail use - 50' so, Officeusi cludinggarage-50' Parking Loading area - 50' Fire lane - 2 'to 25' AGREE Route 128- highway urpie° are heights - stepped towards of d0'; uP Building map for the site 6Vu area max . 2 "steps° yoning Using existing b taw max of 55 ;allow architectural feature bt m the Zonbig by d 95' height ding heir Don't nee the del+nttion of bu MV Cod to address .,.AGREE woeOt.P roads kiting ear revi ed and impact on abutting properties and Lig ~ Heeds to be P caphy needs to ref,} to 5 site elded the Zoning BYlaw Needs to be lighting section of Ned to ng for site safety is needed .,.AGREE Adequ uate bg This is a si Plan review issue to buildings free-standing sign will signs should be attached to be one s Gener y there will probably need s are etc. R~ nitiou that where tt s visible from Curren t bylaw says sign tie to address heirh ill need to address hour , of rs business is open rties ou • during ttin residential prof t e not on 1kte iuumtn to only Needs to be sensitive a ctions even if attached to buildings 00 am t ht re stri eatures opening at 11: Need to have eh g s Sunday architectural f discus eading S in live with Other sihtation hiera,.gher Ar' E' would tike to able to be co eti ours of oP Should m G meeting. underline indicates mast "cut chnaBiz t0 the document sinca the last Atiti'w 9 page- operation ning hours °f huorhoad Author Safinanj roach to assnuch as location, Haig certainly its subject: Note 1,1:23:48 J*A consistent in circumstances s 'TbiS is Date: 912312446 ds to be atin9 Station out by RT128• eclat town nee account mitig that the hour operation of a gas simply a result of sp _ 1 agree should take "`ticwe_ver these not allowed at other location near 2 l is that untair ndx etc. For example lion near residentia. of conditions? This p no cnMMents age contains Stop and Shop is 7 the same as the Stop and Shop " to be Gurreut Reading SuQe,11 V et rte un Sundays the li9u°r license Weekdays; noon to ,in tit 11 PM, a as 12 midnight wee t hours to he the same un Restauran R L iquor licenses - estaurant midnight Sundays to 4:30 PM M'S+ Sun rtoon'tii b (retail-4:36 amb am to to PM pGREE Bftness center -d17 performance standard - e%tra • Chitd caa ng areas 30 PM-bused on „AGREE Hours for use of loa 7 am_ 9: General standard buffering or beratlog- dimension) of delivery areas uality not residences as possible Location of lA's far f from es or enhanced (in 9 ...AGREE A's tar rude ehang Use mitigation-g . buffer es AGREE Location of uses away from homes t for Restaurant uses transition o out to South Street ,cut, exceP • ul uses as that g mercial develop ined at Site . Rvtvdiflth fingers" or property art of the corn this to be determ used asp ofaccomplishing What happens anently not to be O° the . perm eacY Recess. Methodology area as defined emerg rRVal. in the "DO bulld7, AGREE Plan apP be allowed No structures should b eristingzonfng Wrap r of the buildings Aesthetic treatment of the "rear lice indicates mastreceat chows fo the document since the lust AW WG mectinY> 9 llndec .,.AGREE lan and ",-see what mipgatian we can ttt 3tlUtt ueeds- 4~ a to other eommunity agreement on the b-11- mere sites) Linkag artatton and other eom hould get s secure (trolley scrv",' to trnusp ment (Sturgis Sewer pump Transportatiou reduction deveWp Server Inflow and Inftitrat'toas n deatanded by Modify eapaeny of utilities station) tol water purehase -Mw supplemen marketing powntown linkage ` Artificial fields rovemeuts a !nation Refurbts stattou k par Imp ent of Itu g s treet trearment of Main , C.atewaY Sidewalks ovemeuts Street imp ~{s amctin& Utydettine indicates most recent chaaS~ to the docnment since the last A SO age contains no This p comments Th's pad c ntarns no GommentS understand the consultant to xaning change an outside mdepeue eva►ue to the proPertY of the This would als tt `inancirl nhle the adidingation, would Qa1 wu~ks• This would hof thfs The Town shouldtate den► and critecia ndinglewhat t the d the other a scope {tnances of the r~ dersw vet of devetoptnen that meets develop wilt assist in on hat the Town consultants and b the ti which understanding at w osat before of poten n► a specitic ProPTowa ni►►iden Y the {nancial impact an This assist in son the site. when ter atbeforc then en nderstand d specific &C enn there is Pa tential umt consultant to a from t done n when of ntity work; et infdepaudent time Town s incom bhee e This Town wlll id should g cost of $ervi should roi the a 4fhe d to before then development toeC ed over silo but should be P re-' oning for t e o51 k. ( war Propos t is and develop ulan cons ,G ipcedn& the test A st recent ctw %,s w ffie dzc 'atsim': tt tlndMliae indicates ma Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: PETER GILLIES [gilliesfamily1@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 8:17 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square Dear selectmen, Please continue working with the developers to make Park Square a reality. We would like it to be comprised of retail, the proposed Health and Wellness Center and little or no housing. Diana Deyermenjian& Peter W. Gillies 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: The O'Briens [etobrien@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 11:44 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Addison Wesley site Selectmen, Although I can not attend tonight's meeting, I wish that the Board of Selectmen continue to work toward identifying a more suitable development than a 60 store, 400,000 square foot shopping mall for Reading at the Addison Wesley Pearson site. Thank you for your continued efforts in this matter. Janice & Tom O'Brien 19 Sandra Lane Reading, MA 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Jody Avtges godyavtges@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 8:54 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Dear James B. and others: Please don't build a mall in our town. Thank you very much. Jody Jody James Avtges 781-942-5756-home or 781-985-0559-cell 10/17/2006 9 Hechenblefter, Peter From: epvy1234@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:09 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: BOS Meeting on Oct 17, 2006 Dear Board of Selectmen, First, we would like to express my appreciation of your service to the Town of Reading. From my neighbors, I realize that there will be a BOS meeting tonight at 7:30 pm. I can not attend tonight's meeting but I truly wish that the Board of Selectmen continue to work toward identifying a more suitable development than a 60 store, 400,000 square foot shopping mall for Reading at the Addison Wesley Pearson site. Sincerely yours, Edward and Vicky Pang 318 South Street 1 A1W Pearson Site Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Jeffrey Dietz Beffrey.dietz@nortel.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:28 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: A/W Pearson Site Hi, Page 1 of 1 I wanted to express my agreement with the Board of Selectmen's overwhelming majority vote rejecting the latest proposal (with 320K Retail plus mixed use) from W/S Development. Given the extent to which the BOS, the Working Group, and the town has already engaged W/S Development, continued dealings with them would be futile. I encourage development of a design charette as a basis for future discussion. Thanks for all of your hard work protecting the character of our town. Your stewardship is appreciated. Sincerely, Jeffrey Dietz Town Meeting Member Precinct 5 10/17/2006 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Clark Mc Cormick [Cxmccorm@bigdig.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 11:09 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Addison Wesley Pearson Site Although I can not attend tonight's meeting, I wish that the Board of Selectmen continue to work toward identifying a more suitable development than a 60 store, 400,000 square foot shopping mall for Reading at the Addison Wesley Pearson site. Clark McCormick 20 Haystack Rd. Reading, MA I 13 g Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: robinreeves@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:48 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Addison Wesley Site Although I can not attend tonight's meeting, I wish to express my concern regarding the Addison Wesley site. I request that the Board of Selectmen continue to work toward identifying a more suitable development than a 60 store, 400,000 square foot shopping mall for Reading. Thank you, Robin Reeves 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: nomall01867 [nomaII01867@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:33 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Reading CARE Endorsers Attachments: RC - Endorser List -10-17-06.xis Members of the Board, Please review the attached Reading CARE Endorser List. 1,207 (and growing) Reading residents have signed on to support smart growth in Reading and wish that the Board of Selectmen continue to work toward identifying a more suitable use for the Addison Wesley Pearson site other than the current proposal by W/S Development which includes a 40-60 store, 320,000 square foot shopping mall. We appreciate your continued support. Thank you. Jay Lenox Chairman Reading CARE 10/17/2006 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Linda Simard [Isimard@suffolk.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:32 AM To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager Subject: Addison Wesley Proposal Dear Board of Selectmen and Town Manager: As a member of the working group that met for months last spring, I am very pleased that the Board of Selectmen has chosen to continue discussions regarding the Addison Wesley site and the proposed lifestyle center. The working group spent numerous hours discussing the relevant issues for development of the parcel of land, and while many of us came to the table with basic disagreements regarding the appropriate use of the land, we were successful in bridging many difficult issue through face to face discussion. I know that I came away from each meeting with a better sense of the opinions of my colleagues on the working group than I had going into the meetings and I suspect that this is equally true for others on the working group. The developer was not present at the table for most of the working group meetings because we wanted to discuss the needs of the town rather than the needs of the developer. I think the group was able to draft its final report largely because we focused on our needs. At this point in time, I believe it is necessary for the BOS or the CPDC to sit down with the developer and have face to face discussions about the issues that remain to be resolved. The vote that the BOS took several weeks ago failed to communicate the needs of the town or the underlying reasons supporting our needs and it certainly provided no avenue for response by the developer. The only message that the vote sent to the developer was to take their proposal elsewhere. Given that we don't own the parcel of land and we lack control over what the next proposal will be, I believe the message was ill founded. We have a proposal on the table that is appealing to some residents in town and unappealing to others in town. While it is difficult to guess how many residents favor or disfavor the existing proposal, it is clear that many of those who currently disfavor the proposal could be satisfied by an amended proposal that reduced the size of the facility. If this is the case, the BOS or CPDC would be wise to negotiate with this developer rather than walking away and leaving us open to whatever might come next. I felt that the time that I spent on the working group was significant (in terms of quantity of time) and sometimes thankless - and I suspect that you might feel the same way about the time you are spending on this matter. I hope, however, that you will continue to do your best to represent the interests of all of the residents of the town by keeping an open mind and working toward a resolution of the remaining issues. Thank you, Linda Simard I D Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Michael Emelianoff [misha01 @comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:24 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Addison Wesley site development importance: High Although I can not attend tonight's meeting, I wish that the Board of Selectmen continue to work toward identifying a more suitable development than a 60 store, 400,000 square foot shopping mall for Reading at the Addison Wesley Pearson site. Thank you. Michael D. Emelianoff 31 Indian Tree Lane Reading, MA 01867 10/17/2006 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Dee Vigeant [dvigeant@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 200610:16 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Tonight's Meeting Gentlemen: Although I will not be attending tonight's meeting, I trust that the Board of Selectmen will continue its efforts to arrive at a more appropriate plan for the Addison Wesley Pearson site than a 60-store, 400,000 square foot mall, which would severely impact our town. Sincerely, Mary D. Vigeant I 03 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Nina Emelianoff [ninaemel@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:11 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Proposed Addison Wesley development Although I cannot attend tonight's meeting, I wish that the Board of Selectmen continue to work toward identifying a more suitable development than a 60 store, 400,000 square foot shopping mall for Reading at the Addison Wesley Pearson site as it will change the character of our town and create unnecessary traffic jams. Thank you. Nina Emelianoff 31 Indian Tree Lane Reading, MA 01867 10/17/2006 a Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Cowell, Doug [Doug.Cowell@analog.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:06 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Addison Wesley Pearson site. Importance: High Dear Board of Selectmen, I will be unable to make the meeting tonight to discuss this issue. I am contacting you to voice the concerns I have with a proposed large scale shopping mall. * One entry- exit for main traffic so close to the 95/28 interchange * The damage to abutting neighborhoods * The.damage to our down town shops & business * Dangerous traffic patters on lower Main Street from Stoneham Line to the Town Center. I think a modest mall with combined use apartments may be an-acceptable use of the land. But, a new large mall has just opened in Burlington, Redstone is not.fully occupied and Reading does not need an empty mall at this dangerous intersection. Best regards, Doug Doug Cowell PSCM Buyer Analog Devices Inc. 617-761-7133 1 D Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: kgranara@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:04 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Hello, I am unable to attend tonight's meeting but would like to stress my hope that the Board of Selectmen continue to find a better situation for the Addison Wesley site than the "lifestyle center". Thank you, Kristen Granara 10/17/2006 Hechenblefter, Peter From: ROBERT LAUTZENHEISE [riautz1@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:58 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Development Dear Selectmen: Though I can not be there tonight, I hope that you continue your interest in preserving the interests of our Town as a residential community and resist the efforts of a certain developer to steal property values from a large number of residents, which might result in a loss of tax revenue to the Town. Aain, Thank You. Bob Lautzenheiser 1 O Page 1 of l Hechenblefter, Peter From: Meghan Dynan [madynan@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:54 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: tonights meeting To the Reading Board of Selectmen: My name is Meghan Dynan and I live at 44 Indian Tree Lane. Although I can not attend tonight's meeting, I wish that the Board of Selectmen will continue to work toward identifying a more suitable development than a 60 store, 400,000 square foot shopping mall for Reading at the Addison Wesley Pearson site." Thank you for your time and effort towards this issue. Sincerely Meghan Dynan Meghan Dynan Mary Kay Independent Beauty Consultant Phone: (781) 944-3315 e-mail: madvnan(@comcast.net Shop Online! www.marvkay.com/mdvnan Anh~ V9 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Robbin Ayer [RobbinAyer@crd.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:44 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Addison Wesley Pearson site Hello, I will not be able to attend the Board of Selectmen's meeting tonight. But I want to thank you and ask for your continued commitment to identifying a more suitable development for this site. A large scale shopping mall is not the answer for this location in Reading. Thank you! Robbin Ayer 238 South Street Reading, MA 01867 781.944.3278 10/17/2006 -4c, Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Molly Thornton [molly_thornton@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:44 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: One more thing... I am a nurse. I work overnight and cannot attend tonight's meeting. I wish that the Board of Selectmen continue to work toward identifying a more suitable development than a 60 store, 400,000 square foot shopping mall for Reading at the Addison Wesley Pearson site. Thank you! Molly Thornton All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. 10/17/2006 6100 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: RRRED [info@rrred.org] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 6:47 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: [POSSIBLY SPAM] Importance: Low This is to let you know that I am in favor of Park Square at Reading. It will certainly bring in revenue for the town, it will give work to many people with very little traveling. And, above all it will give us some stores so we can do our shopping in Reading instead of going to Malls out of town. Dorothy Gile 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Kristen Pluntze [kristen@pluntze.com] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:35 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Town Square project Board of Selectman, I tried to do this e-mail the last time around, so here goes this time. I think it would be foolish if the town of Reading does not VOTE FOR this project. Do we want a mall of condos, and apartments? The developer has made several other of these projects, which people FROM Reading are visiting..and spending money in other towns when we could benefit from the same facility here. Have some sense and vote for a new Upgraded Readinq...not the old one with only gas stations, bagel shops and Pharmacy's. Thank you, Kristen Pluntze 93 Fairchild Dr Jim Pluntze 93 Fairchild Dr. 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Leigh Anne Bell [leighbell@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:50 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Park Square Hello, I am writing in support of the fact that you are still leaving discussions open for Park Square. That shows the residents of this town that some of you are listening. It would be great if we could come up with a solution to bring mixed use to the site. The fact that Weiner and Associates have not withdrawn their proposal also shows that they are willing to work with the town. The fact of the matter is Pearson has an obligation to their shareholders. They need to do what is best for them - unfortunately that is to make a buck. If Weiner walks away anything could happen - other developers may not really care what the neighbors think. I wish I could say that I have faith that the Board will do what is best for the town. With all the discussions and hostility that are surrounding this topic, I just hope that a compromise can be met. Sincerely, Leigh Anne Bell 0 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: RRRED [info@rrred.org] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 9:11 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: [POSSIBLY SPAM] Importance: Low I am writing in favor of Park Square in Reading. I would love to have a whole foods in the neighborhood and love that it will also be a great place to walk around and shop. I also like the idea of adding a park area. I think it will bring a warm beautiful touch to Reading. I would love if it also brought revenue into Reading. I don't believe it will cause as much of a problem as some people think. I have been to the meetings and have heard both sides speak in favor and against it. I did not like how the meetings were run however and do not wish to join anymore unless the people of Reading can act like grown civil adults. I thought that the people against Park Square were immature, unfair and also just liked to here themselves talk. I also didn't need the 8th grade allegebra lesson about bell curves. Please just add my vote for Park Square. Thank You. Amy Ward (Home Owner) Beacon Street 10/17/2006 Addison Wesley Project Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Carmen Redfearn [redfearnfamily@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 9:54 PM To: Town Manager Subject: Addison Wesley Project Dear Mr. Heckenbleckner, We just wanted to let you know that we am in favor of the proposed project at the Addison Wesley site and we hope that you will continue to work toward making that a reality for our town. We appreciate the fact that it would be another good option for jobs for our families as well as a place to be proud of & convenient to shop at. We're hopeful that the final points of contention can be worked out and we can enjoy this new project in the near future. Thank you. Sincerely, Carmen C. Dutile-Redfearn Paul E. Redfearn 194 High Street Reading 781-944-0377 V-11 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: David Pinette [d.pinette@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 10:29 PM To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager Cc: readingchronicle@comcast.net; reading@cnc.com Subject: Addison Wesley Redevelopment To the Selectmen and Town Manager of Reading, I am writing to urge the elected officials of Reading to take a hard, honest look at the former Addison Wesley property and its redevelopment for the benefit of the Town of Reading. Notice that I am asking for the benefit of the entire town; not to pacify those abutters to this piece of property, and a few other vocal residents that would most likely not be happy with any redevelopment of this site. We are poised in a very opportune position to create something that can benefit the town of Reading as a whole. Maybe the mall plan as it has been presented thusfar is not the answer the town as a whole either needs or desires. I feel very strongly that the "negotiations" that have taken place between the Town officials and the mall developers up until this point have been quite close-minded. In all good negotiations there will always be some give and take. I have listened to abutters and members of the Reading Selectmen state in open meeting that the developers proposing the mall have not come close to meeting any of the outlined tenets of the plans outlined by the working group. The developers claim that they have met 95% of the requests outlined in the working group plan. How can there be such a wide disparity of understanding? Look folks, it is time to admit that the emperor does not have any new clothes; he is naked! We all need to remember that the town does not own this property, Pearson does; and they may sell it to whomever they wish. I have not heard any one individual, elected or private, come up with any alternative plans. Again I will restate, I am not saying the mall plan as it has been proposed is the correct redevelopment for this site. Can we as responsible adults come to the table and negotiate with the current developer, or any other developer for that matter? I have not heard any of the selectmen proffer any other economically viable development options. This is something I would like to see and hear. I have heard the same from other Reading residents as well. As I look back on the other major development opportunities that Reading has been involved in over the past decade, I wince at the prospect that this opportunity may become "strike three"! Strike one being the loss of the initial Home Depot development offer for the redevelopment of the dump site off Walker's Brook Drive. Strike two being the redevelopment of the Spence Farm property; losing an over 55 development proposed by the Marriott Corporation and gaining what can only be termed and seen as a development Reading has never seen before. This is one type of development I do not wish to see at the Addison Wesley site. We cannot be short-sighted in our long-term vision. If we build any more housing developments, on top of the one we already have, we will be faced with a numbers dilemma in our schools. Where will the revenue come from when Reading is required to provide an education to all the new students that a development of this nature would add to our school enrollment? This certainly needs to be factored into the decision-making process. I wish to close with one last thought............ Please, lets not have Reading look like the Christy Mihos "Big Dig Explained" cartoon campaign advertisement currently running on television, where he is seen questioning the engineers and politicians why the "Big Dig" is 12 billion dollars over budget, when people ask in the years to come "what happened" in Reading at the Addison Wesley site off route 128! Sincerely, David Pinette Reading Resident 56 10/17/2006 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: jhmcwilliams@verizon.net Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:12 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Support for Park Square I am happy that you have decided to keep the idea of the Park Square development on the table. I would like to see this process continue to the point of allowing the developer the full opportunity to present their full proposal. As a resident of Reading, I would like to see the property developed, with less housing and more retail, specifically a Whole Foods market, upscale shops, and the proposed health and wellness center. Regards, John McWilliams 1 Virginia Circle Reading 1 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: JAHAYDEN2@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:38 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Cc: Town Manager Subject: Selectmen review of Park Square at Reading Dear Selectmen Let me say up front that I am writing to support the further review of the Park Square project with the goal of reaching agreement to complete the project. This is my first comment to anyone on this issue as frankly I expected that the various town committees would develop reasonable compromises to bring this project to completion. It is my belief that this is a best use of the property for Reading. It brings in substantial revenue which we certainly can use, it doesn't burden our school system, it draws minimal town resources in relation to its taxes, it makes good use of the relationship of the land to highway, and it will provide substantial local employment. I have tried to envision other more appropriate uses of this land without success except perhaps having Pearson donate the land to Reading as a park, which I expect would be the only use acceptable to the residents of South St. as that has been the case since Addison - Wesley moved out. This can be a very substantial asset or liability to Reading for years to come. I can only hope that our leaders will do the right thing for the most people and not fall victim to the demands of special interests. Sincerely, Art & Jane Hayden 89 King Street lug 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Nancy Leary [nwleary@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:57 AM To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager Subject: Park Square Reading I understand there is another meeting tonight to discuss Park Square Reading. While I will be traveling on business and cannot attend the meeting, I wanted to voice my opinion. Please continue to work with the current developer in an attempt to bring Park Square Reading to fruition. I am most interested in the retail component of the development the town desperately needs a bookstore, restaurants are very welcome, and I am most excited about the possibility of a Whole Foods store. If some percentage of housing Wor the health club are needed to bring the project to a reality, so be it, but those are not the aspects of the plan that I am seeking. Let's put all the hours that you & the developer have spent to date, to a good end & come to a reasonable agreement on Park Square Reading. Thank you Nancy Leary (9) 10/17/2006 Hechenblefter, Peter From: John & Carolyn O'Brien Dcobrn@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 8:09 AM To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager Cc: info@rrred.org Subject: Park Square We are writing in support of the Park Square Project proposed for the Addison Wesley site in Reading. We have been a Reading resident for over 7 years and like most of the people most vocally opposed to the project never experience Addison Wesley in full operation. If it was still in full operation we feel it would have influenced many of them not to move into that area. The unfortunate fact for those that did purchase after Addison Wesley bought property near one of the largest commercially zoned parcels in Reading. There will be development at this site and no matter what it is many of the same people that oppose the Park Square development will oppose any future development of the site. There were predictions of major traffic problems before Jordans/Home Depot opened but none of them materialized. There are definitely concerns with the project the most major being traffic but this should not be something that kills the project but something that with proper planning can benefit all in the entire town of Reading. Please reconsider your opposition to this project get together with the developer and come up with a solution that will benefit THE ENTIRE TOWN OF READING. Unfortunately some people will not be happy and no solution will be perfect but I feel THE TOWN has a great opportunity now and if we let this one get away who knows what future will bring. John & Carolyn O'Brien Minot Street 1 ~o Page I of I Hechenbleikner, Peter From: peirce29@aol.com Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 10:56 AM To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager Cc: reading@cnc.com; readingchronicle@comcast.net Subject: Park Square at Reading I'm looking forward to seeing more discussion and a plan of action at tomorrow's BOS meeting. As my property abuts the site, I'm very interested in what will be built in my back yard (literally). From the start I have been supportive of the Park Square project and continue to be. I think that the developer is sincerely trying to create a win/win situation for the town. Since the last BOS meeting I have started getting the Reading Daily Chronicle and have been reading letters from many residents of Reading. My neighbor Teresa Murphy and another Reading resident sent very good letters about the 40B changes, which has been one of my main concerns. However, neither has changed my opinion that the Park Square development can be made into a good thing for Reading. It can. Last weekend I visited my mother in CT, who is contemplating moving into an over 55 community within her town. There were 30 condo units being built, each just under $300,000 apiece. Let me tell you, they were beautiful. They are conveniently located right near a shopping center where my mom will be able to shop and have breakfast and meet with her friends. This led me to thinking. What about a third solution. On the South Street side, put in some beautiful condos for an over 55 group. On the highway side, a beautiful up scale shopping center that the residents of the town can enjoy while. buffering the highway noise for the condo residents. The Health and Wellness center on the top floor would be an added convenience for the residents in the condos. It may or may not be a solution that would work, or that the developer would be able to accomplish, but at least it is an alternative that could get people thinking and moving forward. Either way, I think it is extremely important that you begin to have real, productive conversations with the developer, leaving personal opinion and pre-conceived notions at the door. It is apparent by listening to some of the BOS that they have made up their minds and are stubbornly refusing to look at "the big picture" with an open mind. The catch phrase "think outside the box" may be outdated, but applies in this situation. If you put some effort in to this, I'm certain that a compromise can be made that will fill everyone's needs. Sincerely, Jeannie Peirce Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. 10/16/2006 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Donna Schenkel [donna@schenkelstegman.com] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:02 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Cc: Town Manager Subject: Park Square Hello, I am unable to attend the meeting on October 17 but wanted to indicate that I support Park Square at Reading and look forward to the Board's continued communication with the developer. Thank you. Donna Schenkel Schenkel/Stegman Communications Design 8 Winchester Place, Suite 306 Winchester, MA 01890 781.721.0172 781.729.4526 fax www.schenkelstegman.com 1 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Joyal, Paul [pjoyal@rsasecurity.com] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:11 AM To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager Subject: Park Square Hello, I can not make the meeting on Tuesday night to discuss the Park Square project, but I do want to-express my support for it. While I can understand some of the points that have been made in opposition to the project, it just seems to make sense to me that this land be developed into a useful retail space. The lack of a legitimate retail area in Reading is one of the key reasons that I believe it should be developed into a retail spot that we can all agree works for the town. I feel that it makes sense to continue discussions with the developer along with either the Board of Selectmen or the CPDC to come to a compromise. It does not make sense to me to try to squeeze housing into this area. Please continue the talks with the developers and hopefully we have a high-end area that Reading can be proud to have as part of our town. Thank you, Paul Joyal 33 Ashley Place Reading, MA 01867 Paul Jo al Mana er, Marketing Communications 1781-515-6298 0 The Securltq 09visron of EMC 9) 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Jack and Peg Russell ahrx642@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:14 PM To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager Subject: Park Square I am writing to express support for the Park Square at Reading project, but most of all, I am writing to urge you and/or the CPDC to sit down and negotiate face-to-face with the developers. I think this meeting is long overdue. Frankly, I was not in favor of establishing the "working group" and certainly do not favor a charrette. The time for trying to come up with a vision of what Reading would like to see on the Pearson property was when Addison- Wesley left and the property went on the market. For whatever reason, we missed that opportunity. Now I think is too late. The community is badly polarized over this issue, and a unified consensus is impossible. We need leadership and resolution. That is your job and what you were elected to do. Please do not pass it off again. I'm in favor of the project for all the reasons which have been stated before, and you know what they are. My only concern has been traffic, and I am satisfied that good traffic engineering (and the developer's money) can solve the potential problems. I truly believe this is a quality project which would add to the quality of life here in Reading. Peg Russell 91 Spruce Rd. (781) 944-9229 Town Meeting Member, Precinct 8 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Laurie Meehan [imeehan1@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:20 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: park square support We would like to state our support for Park Square at Reading. We would like to see some quality stores as part of this project. We are hoping the stores would include a bookstore, whole foods store and little or no housing. A park or recreation area for town residents to use for sports etc would be preferred too. Thank you Laurie and Chris Meehan 11 Latham Lane ,,Y'0s 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Lyn Schmidt [lynschmidt@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:20 PM To: Town Manager; Reading - Selectmen Subject: support of Park Square Dear Peter Hechenbleikner and Board of Selectman 1 am sending a message to let you know that 1 am in favor of the Park Square Proposal and 1 was disappointed and dismayed that the Board of Selectman did not vote in favor of the plan. 1 am encouraged that you will be re-visiting the issue with the Developers and that some agreement of this plan will be approved. 1 personally feel that this will benefit Reading and 1 do not want to see housing in this space. Thank you Lyn Schmidt 9P 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Laurie Meehan [Imeehan1@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, October 16; 2006 1:22 PM To: Town Manager Subject: park square support We would like to state our support for Park Square at Reading. We would like to see some quality stores as part of this project. We are hoping the stores would include a bookstore, whole foods store and little or no housing. A park or recreation area for town residents to use for sports etc would be preferred too. Thank you Laurie and Chris Meehan 11 Latham Lane 10/16/2006 I.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis Line 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Page 1 of 3 Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Accounts Table Table 1.1.3. Real Gross Domestic Product, Quantity Indexes [Index numbers, 2000=100] Seasonally adjusted Today is: 10/13/2006 Last Revised on September 28, 2006 Next Release Date October 27, 2 006 2004 2004 2004 2004 I II III IV Gross domestic product 107.633 108.705 109.538 110.247 Personal consumption expenditures 110.987 111.796 112.875 114.062 Durable goods 123.590 124.106 126.712 128.603 Nondurable goods 110.685 111.148 112.160 113.657 Services 108.637 109.662 110.503 111.418 Gross private domestic investment 97.750 102.675 103.187 104.490 Fixed investment 98.751 101.515 103.401 104.655 Nonresidential 90.192 91.773 94.056 95.960 Structures 78.238 79.548 80.148 79.737 Equipment and software 94.900 96.590 99.591 102.519 Residential 120.656 126.221 127.224 127.022 Change in private inventories Net exports of goods and services Exports Goods Services Imports Goods Services Government consumption expenditures and gross investment Federal National defense Nondefense State and local 99.862 101.368 97.484 99.015 105.769 107.216 111.348 115.547 111.746 116.395 109.490 111.522 102.557 101.000 106.449 116.800 117.734 112.367 105.017 102.510 111.234 120.151 121.268 114.827 112.210 112.835 113.189 112.647 122.901 123.664 125.170 123.517 127.262 127.904 130.714 127.619 115.054 116.035 115.187 116.148 106.789 107.344 107.110 107.131 http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TablePrint.asp 10/13/2006 U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis Line 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Page 2 of 3 Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Accounts Table Table 1.1.3. Real Gross Domestic Product, Quantity Indexes [Index numbers, 2000=100] Seasonally adjusted Today is: 10/13/2006 Last Revised on September 28, 2006 Next Release Date October 27, 2006 2005 2005 2005 2005 I II III IV Gross domestic product 111.173 112.069 113.223 113.719 Personal consumption expenditures 114.838 116.031 117.152 117.373 Durable goods 129.358 133.299 136.207 131.799 Nondurable goods 115.114 116.496 117.481 118.608 Services 111.874 112.501 113.379 113.945 Gross private domestic investment 106.579 105.595 106.938 111.034 Fixed investment 106.650 109.339 111.032 111.811 Nonresidential 97.370 98.601 100.025 101.308 Structures 80.773 80.356 78.903 81.174 Equipment and software 104.092 106.087 108.889 109.653 Residential 130.406 136.476 138.821 138.495 Change in private inventories Net exports of goods and services Exports Goods Services Imports Goods Services Government consumption expenditures and gross investment Federal National defense Nondefense State and local 106.226 108.637 109.503 112.054 103.886 107.063 108.050 111.027 112.034 112.585 113.158 114.693 121.357 121.775 122.520 126.377 122.737 123.332 124.159 128.331 114.757 114.317 114.652 116.954 113.104 113.417 114.358 114.048 124.540 124.668 127.545 126.053 129.018 129.928 133.423 130.002 116.485 115.189 116.939 118.971 107.302 107.709 107.674 107.954 http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TablePrint.asp 10/13/2006 U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis Page 3 of 3 Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Accounts Table Tabl e 1.1.3. Real Gross Domestic Product, Quantity Indexes [Index numbers, 2000=100] Seasonally adjusted TodEy is: 10/13/2006 Last Revised on September 28, 2006 Next Release Date October 27, 2006 2006 2006 Line I II 1 Gross domestic product 115.274 116.004 2 Personal consumption expenditures 118.761 119.521 3 Durable goods 137.893 137.868 4 Nondurable goods 120.313 120.742 5 Services 114.398 115.440 6 Gross private domestic investment 113.143 113.429 7 Fixed investment 114.033 113.570 8 Nonresidential 104.606 105.738 9 Structures 82.893 86.819 10 Equipment and software 113.704 113.313 it Residential 138.391 134.368 12 Change in private inventories 13 Net exports of goods and services 14 Exports 115.783 117.536 15 Goods 115.535 117.228 16 Services 116.564 118.463 17 Imports 129.146 129.608 18 Goods 131.236 131.218 19 Services 119.055 121.896 20 Government consumption expenditures and 115.423 115.657 gross investment 21 Federal 128.728 127.262 22 National defense 132.808 132.141 23 Nondefense 121.411 118.488 24 State and local 108.682 109.762 http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TablePrint.asp 10/13/2006 .il t Project Contingency Plan: Delivering the finished product to . the community. r t; I 888u`Y ® ~ a R.. v, .ttE". NHS" 7W t ~ _ c ,V. A,4 'fd YtlG~1Yi' Standard Contingency for Combination Renovation / Construction Projects is 8% Contingency What it is intended to address What it is not intended to adc 1 Standard Contingency for Public Projects 8% of construction cost x Adjusted Contingency Post-Bidding $1,623,172 Additional Town Meeting Appropriation Fall 2004 $350,000 i Additional Town Meeting Appropriation Spring 2005 $500,000 TOTAL CONTINGENCY IN BUDGET $2,473172 8% of the construction cost (Brick & Mortar, Site Work, etc. ) is the typical standard amount set for contingency in public construction projects. The construction cost for the RMHS project is $44,492,700 Cost of Culvert Replacement $406,000 I 17% l Phasing Modifications $237,000 10% i Additional Site Expenses $367,000 15% Unforeseen Asbestos Removal $153,000 6% Additional Health and Safety Items $66,000 4% Unforeseen site conditions $269,600 11% Improvements to Contract work $321,000 ° 13 /o Moving Expenses $163,000 7% Unforeseen Building Conditions or $404,400 17% i modifications Total Spent Contingency as of $2,407,000 Nov 2006 ~i 2 Contingency Prior to Bidding $2,184,150 wxxxxwxxxw wxwxx o Asbestos Removal Culvert and Unplanned Drainage: f e1^ ' e ~5,v4en~`Y 7 $487708 $6597585 Unforeseen Structural Deficiencies: $3847739 $175327032 $17"350,000 ti Which reflects 3% of the Initial Construction Cost And 2% of the Total Project Budget 3 a The Initial Project Cap $53,012,316 d e Increased Project Cap $57,069,381 e Total Project Budget w/Current Contingency $55,144,752 o Total Project Budget w/Increased Contingency $56,494,752 a The requested additional contingency is within the cap and will be submitted for 59.79% reimbursement. Additional Borrowing under Prop 21/2 Debt Exclusion (one-time only minor project change provision) s Borrowing within the levy limit e Free Cash Stabilization Fund 4 ..P 0 tl 0 , Q P P ~~•YF'E, tl~ ~ i~,~ :m3. flr`+~ "~i I a DOR recognizes that, with major construction projects, costs can change as projects progress Towns can ask DOR to allow additional borrowing to be covered under the original debt exclusion Additional borrowing under the "Minor Project Change" provision must: Be MODEST IN AMOUNT, and 2. Fund THE SAME PROJECT , C 'na ti 'n i 7 w.. t;rn3n ty+i x;•tt. r^' 0 0 U^ 0 yQ 0 0 ~ S ® DOR defines MODEST IN AMOUNT as "reasonable in comparison to standard measures of increase in inflation, construction costs, and costs of state and local goods and services, since the referendum." Increase in Cost Indices between 2003 and Present Consumer Price Index: 10.2% (Bureau of Labor Statistics) Construction Cost Index: 9.7% (census Bureau) Governmental Cost Index: 9.9% (Bureau of Economic Analysis) 5 DOR defines THE SAME PROJECT as "expenses reasonably necessary to complete the fundamental elements of the project." These include "involuntary" expenses such as: e "unplanned drainage" " c "removal of asbestos or other contaminants" 4 "undetected structural deficiencies" o" oe a o a o. a 0-0 ' o `4` Step 1. Board of Selectmen submits application to DOR for determination that additional borrowing may be included under original debt exclusion Town may apply ONE TIME ONLY for DOR approval of additional borrowing to be included in debt exclusion Once town receives approval, no future additional borrowing under original debt exclusion is allowed without a new referendum question put to the voters o Step 2. DOR reviews application, issues determination, and notifies town of its decision o Step 3. Town meeting votes to authorize borrowing for y additional construction costs 6 Modified Nov. Original w/ MSBA Town Plan 2006 Meeting Today $500.00 I $314.55 I $314.55 4 Next Year $500.00 1 $314.61 I $320.26 In 2 Years I $500.OD I $178.571 $184.321 $soo t $350 - .at per .-hold $200, i e slv..~~w„-c f K u annual impact of $50 $5.75 per houeahold 0 5 10 15 20 25 Yana, 7 ~:4t' G r,.,.. . A4-, u'r Original Savings to Nov. Town Savings to Projection Revised MSSA Taxpayers Meeting Taxpayers Year l $325,00 $300.00 $25.00 N/A Year 2 $325.00 $305.00 $20.00 NIA Year3 $325,00 $310.00 $15.00 NIA Year4 $500.00 $314.55 $185.45 $314.55 $185.45 This 41ear Year 5 $500.00 $314.51 $185.49 $320,26 $179,74 i Year 6 $500.00 $178.57 $321.43 $184.32 $315.68 Year 7 $500,00 $178.90 $321.10 $184.65 $315.35 Year 8 $500.00 $178.75 $321.25 $184,50 $315.50 Year 9 $500.00 $178,48 $321.52 $184.00 $316.00 j Year 10 $500.00 $177.48 $322.52 $183,23 $316.77 Year 11 $500.00 $177.21 $322.79 $182.96 $317.04 Year 12 $235.06 $176.18 $58.88 $181.93 $53.13 j n Year 13 $235.06 $173,47 $61.59 $179,22 V. $55.84 Year 14 $235.06 $1700 $64.16 $176.65 $81 ~ tteeeRRaa '.N. ~ - i Request that the Board of Selectmen submit the application to DOR for determination that additional borrowing may be included under original debt exclusion Once DOR approval is received, request of Town Meeting to authorize the borrowing for the additional construction costs 8