2008-10-29-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Minutes for the Meeting of October 29, 2008 Page 3 performance measures to recoup the monies from escrow; what were the traffic performance measures? Mr. Nichols said it would take some time after occupancy to achieve some of the necessary credits for LEED certification credits and the traffic performance measures were a reduction of 10% for projected single vehicle trips based on square footage not parking spaces. Mr. Zurlo ?? Based on the Table of Dimensional Controls the current difference of 33% between gross floor area and net floor area seemed high. Was there documentation to show how that number was derived? Mr. Nichols said the building interior layout is very inefficient and he would share the calculations. The proposed building’s net floor area would be 15% of its gross, but 20% was used for the fiscal impact. Mr. Nichols said the assessment is based on the rental income, which is based on the rentable square footage. ?? Was there anything in the PSDUP showing the commitment from past approvals such as the lighting? Mr. Nichols said he believed that previous commitments were met. ?? Wanted to see architectural plans showing the use of 50% roof coverage. Mr. Nichols said the plan showed what was the anticipated use. It would be more if there were labs involved. ?? When would the tax revenue start? Mr. Grant said there was generally a time lag of 1 to 5 years. ?? Had there been any discussion of looping Lexpress into the property as an express service during lunch hours to reduce vehicle trips? Mr. Nichols said to date there had been none, but would like to have that discussion and have it as part of the TDM policy. ?? The meeting with the Design Advisory Committee will be a good opportunity to deal with the mass of the building beyond just the surface treatment. Mr. Canale ?? There were more issues that were raised at the October 1 meeting than were answered. Mr. Nichols said he would respond to those questions at a later time. ?? What would be the rationale for rezoning the portion that is residentially zoned to a commercial zone since leaving it residential would not affect what was being proposed? Mr. Nichols said it was to establish a commercial property and it would not affect development plans since it would all be in restricted areas; it would affect the FAR. ?? There are concerns about the expansion of commercial zones if they don’t advantage abutters, the applicant, and the Town. ?? There was a feeling that the 2003 proposal is better than the proposed plan, the FAR is not as concerning as in 2003, but the intrusion of the commercial area on Spring Street was problematic, as it is with the present plan. There are concerns about the proposed building and that it should stay off the steep slopes, out of the 100-foot wetland buffer, that this would be the tallest building