pages: PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-10-23 | 5 | supported only by the business park. In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand whether the proposed parking was 268 spaces, where the minimum required was 189 spaces, Mr. Ernst noted that they did not want to oversize the parking. He added that while the parking ratios on the footprints alone may look high when adding the mezzanine component to the office, they will come back in line; he noted that every buyer wanted mezzanine space because of the cost of real estate. Member Kohlstrand believed that if the applicant kept everything the way it was, but removed the parking spaces in the front, she would be very comfortable with the project. She would like to see less parking in front of all the buildings, and appreciated the applicant's responsiveness. Mr. Ernst noted that these buildings have a very well defined front for the office component, and a back for the manufacturing/warehouse components. The applicants believed that it was very important to separate those functions, which added to the long-term value of the project. They tried to break up the parking by added street trees and breaking up the parking with a hedgerow, which blocked the rows of cars. He noted that the presence of cars was a positive factor, which indicated there was activity on this formerly sleepy parcel. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was very pleased and impressed impressive with the environmentally friendly design elements incorporated into this project, and she believed this was a responsible design. She believed the buildings were attractive, and understood the challenges of leasing buildings in such a site. She believed that SRM had made a good-faith effort to attract businesses. Mr. Ernst noted that they had a 30% vacancy rate, which was still relatively high. Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the City should encourage the applicant's efforts to encourage occupancy. Member Mariani noted that she was also pleased with the project, and would like to see all of the architectural enhancements in Phase I. Member McNamara noted that she had been concerned about the architectural design, and was very pleased with the changes that were proposed, especially with the change of textures and three-foot recesses to add interest. She supported the addition of those features to Phase I where possible. M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-39 to approve a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow five new buildings totaling approximately 100,795 square feet in floor area with a total of 268 parking spaces to be constructed on a 7.7 acre site, with the modification of adding trees and sun louvers in Phase I. AYES - 5 (Lynch absent); NOES - 1 (Kohlstrand); ABSTAIN - 0 8-C. GPA05-02, R05-04, MP05-02, DP05-02, TM05-02, IS05-03 -Grand Marina Village Residential Development (AT). The applicant requests approval of a Planning Board Minutes Page 5 October 23, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf |