pages: PlanningBoard/2011-03-14.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2011-03-14 | 3 | Ms. Phillips explaned that the translucent material choice, allows light and air circulation, while also allowing obscured visible access to the interior of the structure from the outside. The idea was to create visual access from the neighborhood. Vice-president Autorino asked for clarification on the number of units and proposed interior remodeling. Ms Kavanaugh-Lynch explained that the number of units will remain, but that all the interior is being replaced. President Ezzy-Ashcraft asked for the number of ADA accessible units and what features these units will have. Ms Phillips explained that ADA accessible units would have lower fixtures, countertops, as well as wider doorways. 26 units tentatively planned. Board member Zuppan asked for clarification on the use of tile on the exterior surfaces. Ms Phillips explained that no tile will be used on the exterior, but that the exterior concrete block masonry would receive some staining to color the exterior. Board member Zuppan asked how the future tenants would be selected. Ms Motoyama explained that the on-site management would ensure that future tenants undergo strict screening. President Ezzy-Ashcraft asked for a clarification on whether the building is a soft-story building or not and how it seismic stability would be ensured on this site. Ms Phillips explained that the building is not a soft-story building and that is cement masonry with rebar enforcement. It is a high functioning structure that could withstand a 300 year earthquake experience. President Ezzy-Ashcraft was concerned about a shared parking agreement that would share the on-site parking spaces with the commercial uses surrounding the space. Ms Kavanaugh-Lynch explained that this sharing agreement is an effort to mitigate on-street parking demand and would be monitored closely. President Ezzy-Ashcraft asked for clarification on what "work-force housing" means. Ms Motoyama explained that this term denotes that this development would serve those individuals and families with a 50 percent of median area income and below. For example, for a family of four that income level would be $50,000. Rents would be assessed at 30 percent of that income level. APPROVED MEETING MINUTES 3 of 10 PLANNING BOARD 3/14/2011 | PlanningBoard/2011-03-14.pdf |