pages: PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-11-14 | 6 | whereas the code applies to expansions of existing buildings within a certain time period. Mr. Knowles noted the credit was not generated by the 25% rule, but by the loss of space. Mr. Tai concurred. President Cunningham inquired where the $26.00 per sq. ft. and the 250 multiplier originated. Mr. Tai responded that it derived from averaging real estate transactions over a period of time and was prepared by the Development Services Department. He noted the rate of $26.00 was looking at transactions that occurred after 2003, but staff was recently told this figure may increase significantly prices and transactions of real estate are looked at in recent times. President Cunningham inquired where the 250 multiplier derived from. Mr. Tai responded that it is a flat figure that is embedded in the code requirement and noted that it is the area of land required for each parking space. Board member Kohlstrand inquired if the color palette for the building would be the same as the other building. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative. He noted that the building would look almost identical with the exception of the parapet at the top. President Cunningham inquired if Public Works had any comments on the layout of the parking since it is one directional. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative. President Cunningham inquired if this is in keeping with trash collecting since it was a previous concern on this parcel. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative. President Cunningham noted he was concerned about granting this Variance, as it would compound the problem. He noted the residents stated there was no parking downtown and the whole idea of having in-lieu fees was to help the city pay for a parking structure. He noted if the City is not collecting revenue, this would encumber the City more. He also noted it would put the goal of building a parking structure further away from being achieved. Board member McNamara noted the issue she is having is if the intent of having the in-lieu fee available is to look for either a replacement or some other way to make parking available. She stated $143,000 or $110,000 does not go far enough to make that a possibility as an alternative. She noted that whole area is so impacted with parking and even if the bigger garage does go up, she did not believe it would satisfy the parking need. She noted she liked the construction and the design, but was concerned about the amount of spaces it will take up. Vice-President Cook echoed the concerns of Board member McNamara. She noted she felt a little differently about waiving the parking requirement when it is an existing building being rehabbed, a smaller project or brand new building. She noted she wanted to approve it to encourage this type of project, but she felt the 22-space shortfall seemed substantial for this particular area. She stated she would not feel that way if the new parking structure construction were underway. She felt she would Planning Board Minutes Page 6 November 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf |