pages: PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-11-14 | 4 | waved. Mr. Tai noted that when that work was done, no new parking spaces were triggered because there was a loss in floor area. Board member McNamara inquired if the approval of last year's construction occurred. Mr. Tai responded that that project was approved on a separate parcel and that the addition also did not trigger extra parking spaces. Vice-President Cook inquired why that request did not trigger additional parking spaces. Mr. Tai responded that the code specifies that only an expansion to a commercial building that is 25% of the existing floor area or equivalent to five parking spaces would trigger the parking. The office space that Board member McNamara referred to was a demolition of an existing addition and reconstruction, so the net gain floor area was not sufficient to trigger additional parking. John Knowles, the applicant, addressed the Board explaining the history of this project, which began six years ago and informed the Board that part of the confusion was that this was an ongoing project and from his point of view the project is actually four separate parcels. He noted that Mr. Tai was referring to the net loss of leaseable area in the original building and then 1,000 sq. ft. of new space was added. At the same time they demolished the entire ground floor, which had a net loss of roughly 1,000 sq. ft. thus leaving no parking requirements. He felt the project accrued a credit towards in-lieu parking fees. This office space would match the façade of the Starbucks building. He stated the parking lot would be re-landscaped. He felt the in-lieu fees were extraordinarily high and were financially difficult for him. He then noted that this is the first new building to be in down town Park Street in the past 20-25 years. He felt that the services provided in the building would be good for the City at large. He felt these fees on top of all the other fees were excessive. He reiterated that he thought it would be a great project for keeping momentum going in the Park Street area. Board member Kohlstrand inquired how many spaces the applicant thought were accrued on accrued deficit from the previous parcel. Mr. Knowles responded five spaces. Board member Kohlstrand inquired on how the current parking lot is managed and if the applicant reserves spaces for businesses in the area. Mr. Knowles stated he is reserving spaces for certain individual business in the area. He noted that they have spaces leased out on a monthly basis. However, he noted that retail parking spaces are not leased out, just spaces for offices. Board member Kohlstrand made a point of clarification on parking spaces for employees versus client parking to which Mr. Knowles responded employees are not supposed to park in the lot as the spaces are supposed to be for clients only. He also noted that the parking lot has not been tightly managed over the last year and they have gotten very sloppy with managing the parking lot in anticipation of these projects. He noted that once the projects are completed, he is obligated to strictly enforce the parking space management. Board member Kohlstrand stated that when the firm she worked for looked at the different locations of parking lots in the down town area, they realized not all parking lots were used effectively and were reserved for individual businesses. She noted pieces of the lots had spaces that were not being Planning Board Minutes Page 4 November 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf |