NEWTOWN TOWNSHIP

ZONING HEARING BOARD

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MARCH 1, 2007

The Newtown Township Zoning Hearing Board met on Thursday, March 1, 2007 in the Newtown Township Building. In attendance and voting were: William Wall, Chairman; Victoria Bowe, Vice-Chairman; David Katz, Secretary; Gail Laughlin and John Lenihan, members. Also in attendance were: James J. Auchinleck, Jr., Esq., Solicitor; Michael Solomon, Zoning Officer and Donna D’Angelis, Stenographer.

Call to Order

Mr. Wall called the meeting to Order at 7:30 PM.

The Pledge of Allegiance

Approval of Minutes

Mrs. Laughlin moved to accept the minutes of January 22, February 1 and February 13, 2007. Mr. Wall seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The agenda was reviewed

  • Continued Application of Robert K. Gartner – 30 Copperleaf Drive
  • Application of Grainhouse Developers, LLC – 11 Penns Trail
  • Application of Scott and Nicole Blatstein – 6 Madison Court
  • Application of James Risch – 36 Suzanna Way
  • Continued Application of The Promenade at Sycamore – North Sycamore Street
  • Continued Application of Leo Holt – 220 Stoopville Road
  • Application of Leo Holt – 220 Stoopville Road

Application of Grainhouse Developers

Mr. Auchinleck informed the Board that Don Marshall, attorney for the applicant, has requested that this application be continued to the April meeting. The applicant intends to amend the application, so there is no need to read the current application into the record.

Mr. Wall moved to continue the application of Grainhouse Developers to April 5, 2007. Mrs. Bowe seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Continued Application of Leo Holt

Application of Leo Holt

Mr. Auchinleck informed the Board that Mr. Hunt, attorney for the applicant has requested to continue these applications to a special meeting on Monday, March 5. In response to Mr. Katz’s question, Mr. Auchinleck said that the parties to the application have been informed of this change.

Mr. Lenihan moved to continue the continued application of Leo Holt and the application of Leo Holt to a special meeting on Monday, March 5, 2007 at 6:30PM. Mrs. Bowe seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Continued Application of Robert K. Gartner

Mr. Katz read into the record the of Robert K. Garner, owner, requesting a variance from section 1000(E)(4) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of a 10 feet by 10 feet storage shed with an 1 feet side yard on left side and 4 feet side yard on right side where a minimum 12 feet side yard is required. The subject property is 30 Copperleaf Drive Newtown in the R-1 medium density residential district being known as tax map parcel #29-29-164.

Mr. Wall asked if anyone present wished to be party to this application.

Mr. Auchinleck explained to those residents in attendance that if they wish to be a party to the application they would have the right to cross-examine the applicant and any of his witnesses, present evidence and witnesses, and make any statement concerning the application. Should they disagree with the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board, party status would give them the right to appeal the decision. Anyone present not wishing party status would be allowed to make statements for or against the application after the hearing and before a decision is rendered.

Kathleen O’Leary was sworn in. Mrs. O’Leary indicated that she lives at 40 Copperleaf Drive, next door to the applicant. She was granted party status.

Mr. Gartner said that he has lived at 30 Copperleaf Drive for four years. He had an old jungle gym in his yard, and had recently removed it and replaced it with a 10 foot by 10 foot shed. He chose this location because he has an unusually shaped lot and he wanted to place the shed where it would not interfere with his children’s playing. He was not aware that a permit would be needed for the shed. He entered as Exhibits A-1 through A-4 a series of photographs of his yard and shed, and as Exhibit A-5 an as built plot plan of his property dated July 18, 1987. On Exhibit A-5 he had outlined the building envelope where a shed could be located without a variance. In response to Mr. Lenihan’s question, Mr. Gartner said that his development, Kirkwood, has a homeowners association, but it only requires that the shed conform to Township Ordinances and that it be similar in color to his home. In response to Mr. Katz’s question, he said that he has had no negative comments from his neighbors.

Mrs. O’Leary had no questions for Mr. Gartner. She entered as Exhibit I-1, a letter from Kirkwood’s Homeowners Association, which indicated that Mr. Gartner had not submitted an application for the shed, and that the Association would investigate whether the shed is in compliance with Kirkwood’s bylaws.

Mrs. O’Leary said that the shed is nine inches from the property line, and directly in her view from her patio, kitchen and dining room. She asked that the Township Ordinance be upheld and that the shed not be permitted. She noted that there had not been permission from the Homeowners Association, and no permit had been issued. She entered as Exhibits I-2 through I-5 a series of photographs of the shed taken from her property. She noted that it is directly in her line of vision and is ten feet tall, well above the fence that separates the two properties.

In response to the Board’s questions, Mr. Gartner said that he has lived in his home for four years, and the shed was installed in the summer of 2006. He said that he could not find a better location for the shed, which he needs because he only has a one car garage. He does not want the shed close to his home because he stores his lawnmower and flammable gas products in the shed. The yard is sloped in such a way that he could not locate it on the other side of his yard. He is also planning an addition to his home, and wanted to allow sufficient space within the building envelope for this addition. There are many other sheds in Kirkwood. He estimated that more than half the homes have sheds, and many are located very close to the property lines.

In response to questions from the Board, Mrs. O’Leary said that she had not spoken to Mr. Gartner directly about the shed because she did not want to make her complaints personal. The shed was erected in one day, so she did not know in advance that he was planning to put it in until it was there.

Mr. Auchinleck reviewed party status with those in attendance who wished to address the Board in support of Mr. Gartner’s application. All agreed that they only wanted to speak on his behalf, but did not want party status.

Mike Helmlinger was sworn in. Mr. Helmlinger indicated that he lives at 27 Copperleaf Drive, opposite Mr. Gartner. He said that there are 60 single family homes in Kirkwood, all on lots of 10,000 square feet or less. Rear yards are only 30 to 40 feet deep, making it impossible to conform to the 12 foot setbacks when attempting to install sheds. Many of the homes in Kirkwood have sheds right on the property lines and visible to their rear neighbors.

Kurt Delutush was sworn in . Mr. Delutush lives at 34 Copperleaf Drive. He agreed with Mr. Helmlinger’s statements. He also noted that the rear yard is so small that the shed would be visible wherever he located it.

Ronald Ernst was sworn in. Mr. Ernst lives at 35 Copperleaf Drive. The shed is directly in line with the front of his home and visible to him from his property. It is a very nice looking shed. He has lived in Kirkwood for 18 years, and agreed that many of the homes have sheds. It would be a shame to ask Mr. Gartner to move the shed, as it would look weird elsewhere in this very small yard.

Mrs. O’Leary said that those giving comment in support of the shed are not affected directly the way she is. She disagreed with Mr. Gartner’s statement that half of the homes have sheds. She estimated that only about 40% of homes have sheds.

Mr. Solomon had no comment.

Mr. Wall asked if the applicant and Mrs. O’Leary would agree that the variance would be granted with a condition that Mr. Gartner provide evergreen screening of the shed. He said Mr. Gartner would be required to pay up to $500 for purchase and installation of evergreens to shield the shed. The evergreens would be located on Mrs. O’Leary’s property. Once planted it would be Mrs. O’Leary’s responsibility to maintain them.

Mrs. O’Leary did not agree. She indicated that it is unfair for her have the plants on her property and for her to bear the burden of maintenance. She questioned why there is an ordinance if it is not upheld.

Mr. Wall explained that the Ordinance provides for variances to be granted. This application is a reasonable request. The Board is attempting to provide a compromise in requiring the buffering. Mrs. O’Leary does have the right to appeal the Board’s decision to the Court of Common Pleas.

Mr. Auchinleck explained that if the condition is added to the variance, the Township would monitor whether the condition has been met prior to issuance of a permit for the shed.

Mr. Wall moved to grant a variance from section 1000(E)(4) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of a 10 feet by 10 feet storage shed with an 1 feet side yard on left side and 4 feet side yard on right side where a minimum 12 feet side yard is required, subject to the condition that the applicant provide a buffer with plantings of Mrs. O’Leary’s choosing, with a cost not greater than $500, to create a relief of the view of the shed .

In response to questions from Mr. Gartner and Mrs. O’Leary, Mr. Auchinleck said that Mrs. O’Leary would choose plantings and Mr. Gartner would pay the landscaper directly. Mrs. O’Leary indicated that she is not satisfied by this condition.

Mr. Wall withdrew his motion.

Mr. Wall moved to grant a variance from section 1000(E)(4) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of a 10 feet by 10 feet storage shed with an 1 feet side yard on left side and 4 feet side yard on right side where a minimum 12 feet side yard is required. Mrs. Laughlin seconded and the motion passed 4-1, with Mr. Katz voting nay.

Application of Scott and Nicole Blatstein

Mr. Katz read into the record the application of Scott and Nicole Blatstein, owners, seeking a variance from the minimum 40 feet rear yard set back requirement to permit construction of a 21 feet by 38 feet open wooden deck resulting in a rear yard set back of 13 feet. The property is located at 6 Madison Court also identified as tax parcel number 29-49-21 in the CM Conservation Management Zoning District.

Scott and Nicole Blatstein were sworn in.

Mr. Wall asked if anyone present wished party status. There was no response.

Mr. Blatstein said that he would like to add a deck to his yard around his pool. He did not want a patio that would require an increase in impervious surface. In response to questions from the Board, he said that his property backs to open space. The new deck will be smaller than the old deck, which is to be removed. The coping around the hot tub has also been removed. His neighbors have had no negative comments, and his homeowners association does not require an approval.

Mr. Lenihan moved to grant a variance from the minimum 40 feet rear yard set back requirement to permit construction of a 21 feet by 38 feet open wooden deck resulting in a rear yard set back of 13 feet. Mr. Katz seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Application of James Risch

Mr. Katz read into the record the application of James Risch, owner, seeking a variance from the maximum 4,000 square feet impervious surface area to permit construction of swimming pool resulting in a 4,605 square feet impervious surface area. The property is located at 36 Susanna Way also identified as tax parcel number 29-44-253 in the CM Conservation Management Zoning District.

James Risch was sworn in.

Mr. Wall asked if anyone present wished party status. There was no response.

Mr. Risch said that he wants to put a swimming pool in his yard and he needs relief for additional impervious surface. The yard will have a five foot fence.

Mr. Katz said that the Board has sometimes required applicants to include stormwater management to control run-off. He asked whether Mr. Risch would agree to such a condition.

In response to Mr. Risch’s questions, Mr. Auchinleck said that an engineer would have to design the system and the Township Engineer would review it; this would be an additional expense. Because the system would only be required to hold the additional run-off caused by the increased impervious surface, it would not be a very large system.

In response to Mr. Lenihan’s questions, Mr. Risch said that his property slopes at the sides and water is directed toward the street. His property backs to 25 acres of open space.

Mr. Solomon had no comment.

Mr. Lenihan moved to grant a variance from the maximum 4,000 square feet impervious surface area to permit construction of swimming pool resulting in a 4,605 square feet impervious surface area. Mr. Wall seconded and the motion passed 4-1, with Mr. Katz voting nay .

Continued Application of The Promenade at Sycamore

David Sander, attorney for the applicant, informed the Board that he has been unable to locate copies of the Phase I environmental report and appendices A through I that were referred to in Exhibit “D” of the Redevelopment Agreement. He does not believe that they had ever been submitted to the Township. He offered as Exhibit A-13 the first amendment to the Redevelopment Agreement.

Referring to Mr. Katz’s earlier request, Mr. Sander informed the Board that the applicant is not able to provide specific information of the types of deliveries that will be made to the Promenade because no specific tenants have leased space yet. The applicant has agreed to a condition that deliveries will be limited to 32-foot trucks, delivering between 10:00PM and 8:00AM. The applicant would agree to reasonable signage and would be legally responsible to uphold the conditions, but enforcement would be the same as on any conditions to any application.

The hearing resumed with cross-examination of Jeffrey L’Amoreaux, an expert witness in traffic engineering.

Craig Smith, representing Sycamore Center Associates, asked Mr. L’Amoreaux if he had heard Mr. Mill’s testimony about the number of parking spaces required for the Promenade.

Mr. L’Amoreaux said that he had been present and was in agreement with Mr. Mill, that Section 603.c.4 of the Ordinance does not require a parking provision for fifteen restaurant employees in the TC zoning district. He agreed that the parking for the restaurant should be calculated by using the 3190 square feet of seating area, rather than the gross square footage. Using 3190 square feet, the restaurant can seat 162 patrons, inside and out, thereby requiring 81 parking spaces. He does not know whether that seating calculation includes the bar area, and whether patrons can be seated in the bar. He could not answer whether the request for relief in setbacks was to maximize the size of the parking structure. The request for relief for 9 foot by 18 foot parking stall size would allow for additional spaces. He was not sure whether Section 1001.b.5 requires 20 foot aisles in parking lots.

Referring to Exhibit A-8, Mr. Smith asked Mr. L’Amoreaux to scale the aisle size. After confirming that the aisles were 20 feet wide, he asked Mr. L’Amoreaux to confirm that the aisle is expected to accommodate two-way traffic. He provided pieces of paper scaled to 9 feet by 18 feet and asked Mr. L’Amoreaux to affix them to certain parking spaces on Exhibit A-8.

Mr. Smith marked the plan with the papers taped in the parking stalls as Exhibit S-3.

In response to Mr. Smith’s questions, Mr. L’Amoreaux measured the aisle space on Exhibit A-8 with the papers affixed to specific spaces, noting that there was an aisle of about 15 feet in width between the papers that had been affixed opposite each other. He confirmed that there has been no request for relief for 15 foot aisles in the parking lot.

Mr. Sander objected to this questioning, noting that the papers did not accurately represent the size of cars. His objection was overruled.

In response to Mr. Smith’s questions about the shared parking analysis entered as Exhibit A-10, Mr. L’Amoreaux agreed that the Township Ordinance does not allow shared parking. He said that he used 18,428 square feet as the retail area, eliminating common corridors and stairwells, although the Ordinance requires that the calculation of parking be based on 20,980 square feet. He calculated peak retail parking at 53 spaces, while the Ordinance requires 105 spaces. He agreed that the Ordinance does not allow for seasonal adjustments in the restaurant parking. He used a peak number of office spaces as 86 spaces, although the Ordinance requires 152 spaces based on 30,440 square feet of office space.

Mr. Smith noted that the goal of the Acme Visioning Committee had been to attract people to the site, however Mr. L’Amoreaux had stated that the parking deficit would not occur because the Promenade would feature specialty shopping, which generates fewer cars. He said that the testimony has referred to a quality restaurant, but asked whether the type of restaurant would influence the number of parking spaces needed.

Mr. Sander objected, noting that the Ordinance does not differentiate about the type of restaurant, but only to use E-5, eating place.

In response to Mr. Smith’s questions, Mr. L’Amoreaux said that the types of businesses that locate in the Promenade could affect the shared parking analysis. There are many types of businesses along Sycamore Street; shared parking makes sense for some of them, not for all. He agreed that the need for parking spaces is created by the mix of uses chosen by the applicant. He does not know whether the relief of 125 parking spaces is the least possible.

Mr. Smith questioned Mr. L’Amoreaux on his on-site analysis. Mr. L’Amoreaux said that he counted spaces on the last Friday and Saturday of December before Christmas. On both sides of Sycamore Street he counted 61 parking spaces between Durham Road and Washington Avenue. He also counted available spaces in the Sycamore Center lot. He did not include these spaces in his conclusions; he wanted to show that the spaces provided in the lot were adequate. He could not and did not use neighboring available parking in his calculations.

T.J. Walsh, representing Newtown Veterans Association, Newtown Ambulance Squad and Newtown Presbyterian Church, asked Mr. L’Amoreaux about parking calculations in the TC zoning district.

Mr. L’Amoreaux said that the Ordinance does not require parking for restaurant employees in the TC district. The Ordinance does not allow for trip analysis or for peak demand. He did not know whether the applicant investigated leasing parking off-site or paying a fee in lieu of parking. In response to Mr. Walsh’s questions on Exhibit A-10, Mr. L’Amoreaux said that there is a thirty space deficit in parking in December between noon and 3PM. Note “e” of Exhibit A-10 refers to office use; ITE Parking Generation Manual does not provide numbers for evening office use. It is assumed that evening and weekend use is de minimis. It is possible that employees would work evenings and weekends. He himself has worked evenings.

In response to Mr. Walsh’s questions about Exhibit A-8, Mr. L’Amoreaux said that the plan proposes that the entrance to the parking structure would align with the intersection of Sycamore Street and Jefferson Street. The entrance drive alongside the building is about 123 feet in length, and would accommodate about six cars; more than six cars would begin to back up into the loading area. He observed that currently about 90% of cars on Jefferson Street heading toward Sycamore Street make a right turn. Traffic sometimes backs up to State Street. There is no left turn lane, and cars sometimes would wait more than one cycle of the traffic light before getting through the intersection. The traffic entering and exiting this project might or might not affect traffic flow. Mr. L’Amoreaux did not know for certain whether the walls of the parking structure would be half height. He did not know whether there is a height requirement so that cars parked in the spaces marked handicapped would see cars entering the structure. The car parked in the first available regular size space would back up and turn to exit.

In response to Mr. Sander’s questions on re-direct, Mr. L’Amoreaux said that 9 foot by 18 foot spaces are normal size spaces and are typical for parking lots and garages. The length of the average car is 15 to 16 feet. The papers placed on Exhibit A-8 are not corresponding to typical cars. It is possible to have an 18 foot long car, but not a 9 foot wide car. The papers do not accurately depict parking in the garage.

Mr. L’Amoreaux used 19,000 square feet in calculating retail parking because he only used leasable space, not the outdoor covered corridor or the stairwell. While shared parking is not permitted under the Ordinance, it is more descriptive of what would happen at this site. The Ordinance requires 332 spaces for the site, but the applicant is requesting a variance. The shared parking analysis indicates that the deficit would only occur on about three or four days a year. There were 40 empty spaces on Sycamore Street on the busiest shopping day of the year. If the deficit occurred in the parking garage, there would be adequate on-street parking available. The Ordinance attempts to accommodate the peak parking need. The type of restaurant would not matter because the parking is based on the number of seats in the restaurant. The applicant has agreed to limit seating to 162 seats, requiring 81 parking spaces. It is his opinion that the 207 parking spaces available would be adequate and the variance requested for relief of 125 spaces is a reasonable request. Although the plans have not been fully engineered, the single entrance shown had been anticipated in the redevelopment agreement. The height of parking garage walls has not been determined. The garage shown on Exhibit A-8 is a typical layout for parking structures, and shows no greater hazard than other garages. Motorists operating safely should have no difficulty entering, parking or exiting.

In response to Mr. Katz’s questions, Mr. L’Amoreaux said that when he counted cars he did not determine the type of vehicles, only the numbers. He estimated that Cadillac Escalade and Hummer are about 7.5 by 18 feet. They might be as long, but not as wide as the papers taped to Exhibit A-8. He did not know the location of support columns within the parking structure. The triangle near the first parking space would be a painted line, not a wall. If a large vehicle, such as a Cadillac Escalade, were parked in the first available space on Sycamore Street, north of the garage entrance, he is not sure whether a driver in a low passenger car could see oncoming traffic on Sycamore Street. He was not sure of the location of the stop bar on the entrance. If a driver were stopped by a red light exiting the garage, he is not sure how far that driver would have to pull forward to see oncoming traffic to make a right turn on red. He noted that if a driver cannot see whether cars are coming and the light is red, he cannot legally make a right turn on red.

In response to Mr. Lenihan’s question, Mr. L’Amoreaux said that he did not count available parking spaces in the Saloon, directly opposite this project. He included Sycamore Center in his count because it is also a shared use development. He agreed that the Saloon would be more affected by a parking deficit because it is the closest parking lot to the project.

In response to Mrs. Bowe’s questions, Mr. L’Amoreaux said that he chose the weekend of December 22/23 to do his count because he had a limited time period, and the December weekend was approaching and it is typically the busiest shopping weekend of the year. He was comfortable using the data collected at that busy time of year.

Mrs. Bowe expressed some concern that only one set of data was included in the count. She questioned whether that weekend would really be the busiest, as most shoppers would be at malls, and many people would already be at home participating in holiday celebrations.

In response to Mrs. Bowe’s further questions, Mr. L’Amoreaux said that the average size of vehicles is about 15 to 16 feet. He did not count specific models of vehicles and could not be sure of the ratio of SUV’s and minivans to sedans. He noted that purchasers of extremely large vehicles are aware that not all parking options are adequate for them. The garage does not have any provision for compact cars. All spaces are the same size, except for handicapped spaces. Mr. L’Amoreaux defined traffic as the movement of people and vehicles, including pedestrians and bicycles. This project will generate some traffic, but a traffic study was not warranted. Sycamore Street has already been laid out, with this project anticipated and included in plans. The curb cuts and signalization for the project have already been included in the redevelopment of Sycamore Street.

Mr. Sander said that, while Mrs. Bowe would like a traffic study, no such study is required for this application, because it does not have anything to do with the relief requested. Any use will generate more traffic because the site is not currently being used at all. The Board of Supervisors chose this site for redevelopment for mixed use, and contemplated that the redevelopment would generate traffic. A traffic impact study would show that there would be an increase in peak hour trips, but nothing can be changed as a result of any study. Sycamore Street has already been completed.

Mr. Wall asked whether there is a certain reliability factor in the statistical study used to generate Exhibit A-10.

Mr. L’Amoreaux agreed to provide Mr. Wall with information on the sources for the numbers used and any reliability factors.

In response to Mr. Katz’s question, Mr. L’Amoreaux said that an EMS vehicle is larger than a Hummer, but would have no problem driving to the upper level of the garage. He did not know whether removing retail space “E” would allow for inclusion of a second entrance.

Vincent Lombardi, a party to this application, asked Mr. L’Amoreaux whether he has studied other three level garages.

Mr. L’Amoreaux said that this is a typical design for a three level garage. He has studied and analyzed about fifteen of them, including a few with only one entrance. He named a garage at Abbott Square that is very similar to this one. If there were an accident involving cars blocking the entrance, they would have to be moved to get emergency vehicles to the upper levels. In the event of fire, people would evacuate on foot.

Mrs. Laughlin asked about the width of Jefferson Street compared to the width of the entrance drive, and about trash pick-up.

Mr. L’Amoreaux said that Jefferson Street is about 24 feet wide, and the entrance drive is 22.67 feet wide. The difference in width would not make a difference in traffic flow.

Mr. Sander said that a driving template had been run for trash trucks picking up at the rear of the buildings, and there were no problems. He noted that this would be addressed at land development, but that the applicant has agreed to trash pick-up during off hours.

John Casiero was sworn in.

Mr. Sander offered Mr. Casiero’s resume as Exhibit A-11. He noted that it had not been updated since Mr. Casiero joined Elliott Building Group as CFO.

In response to Mr. Sander’s questions, Mr. Casiero said that he has been a chief financial officer for real estate developers and has cone many economic analyses. He was offered as an expert witness.

In response to Mr. Smith’s questions, Mr. Casiero said that he is not a real estate appraiser but works with financing and construction costing. This project is the only mixed use development for which he has prepared an analysis. He used a cap rate of 10.

Mr. Smith objected to Mr. Casiero’s qualifications as an expert witness.

Mr. Sander said that he would testify about Exhibit A-12, a cost analysis comparing 332 parking spaces to 207 parking spaces for the Promenade. Mr. Auchinleck allowed this witness.

Referring to Exhibit A-12, Mr. Casiero compared costs associated with construction of 332 parking spaces versus 207 parking spaces. He based projected rental rates on comparable rentals in the area. He found that the cost would be over $2,000,000 more for the larger lot. Rents would have to be increased, which would affect marketability. The current zoning makes it unfeasible to provide 332 parking spaces, because rents would have to be $3.75 per square foot more to cover costs for the additional spaces.

In response to Mr. Smith’s questions, Mr. Casiero said that he was not aware of rents at the planned Goodnoe’s Corner. A national service was used to project the costs for the parking spaces. He was given the numbers by the architects on the project.

Mr. Smith offered as Exhibit S-4 and e-mail from the architects to Mr. Casiero.

In response to Mr. Smith’s questions, Mr. Casiero said he was given a cost range by the architects in an e-mail. He chose the middle range for his analysis. He was told that the numbers were for a five story structure and to ignore the reference to five stories. His initial analysis used $16,500 as the cost per parking space, which he estimated as the middle range, but he did not remember exactly where he got that number. He agreed that his analysis for 207 spaces produces gross lease income of $1,263,000, which is below the yearly debt service. He agreed that even with 207 parking spaces the project would lose money. He did not include vacancies in his calculations, nor did he include taxes or maintenance of common areas. He again reviewed the analysis with Mr. Smith and agreed that he used a mortgage rate of 8.5% over 30 years for a commercial loan that is 100% financed.

In response to Mr. Walsh’s questions, Mr. Casiero said that he used 25,000 square feet of office space because this is the leasable area. In response to Mr. Katz’s question he said that he used round numbers for leasable space for office, restaurant and retail areas. He did not include common areas in his calculations.

In response to Mrs. Bowe’s questions on Exhibit A-12, Mr. Casiero said that Elliott’s sales office supplied the rental numbers. He did not know the rental rates in the immediate area first hand.

In response to Mr. Auchinleck’s questions, Mr. Casiero said that numbers used are triple net. The additional parking shown on A-12 adds $3.76 per square foot per year to the rent.

Mr. Sander offered exhibits A-1 through A-13. Mr. Smith objected to Exhibit A-12. All exhibits were accepted. Mr. Sander agreed to supply Mr. Smith with copies of Exhibit A-8 for Mr. Smith to affix the paper spaces. He will then supply copies of the altered Exhibit A-8 as Exhibit S-3.

Mr. Wall moved to continue the application of the Promenade at Sycamore, LP to Thursday, March 8 at 6:30 PM. Mr. Katz seconded and the motion passed unanimously

Mr. Wall moved to adjourn at 12:30 AM. Mr. Katz seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

Mary Donaldson, Recording Secretary