Okay.

Good evening.

This is the February 3rd regular meeting of the Stanford Planning Board rescheduled from January 27th.

The first item on the agenda is the review of the planning board meeting minutes.

And I will also, I suppose I should.

No, my apologies for not being on camera, but my internet just went out.

So I'm called in.

Again.

But yes, so members of the board, are there any questions or amendments for the minutes from December 22nd or January 13th?

Nope.

Nope.

Okay.

So for the minutes of December 22nd.

Present uh were uh myself, Jeremy, uh Ravi, and Chet.

Um and we have quorum for the minutes.

Yep.

Okay.

Um Lindsay, if you can help me with visuals since I am just on my tiny phone screen.

Yep.

Um so um do I have a motion on the minutes?

Chet.

Okay.

First from Chet and a second.

Ravi.

Okay, second from Ravi.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

And uh hand here and three.

All right, that passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Um and for uh and for the minutes uh from January 13th, which was our capital budget public hearing.

Uh again, members present were um myself, Jeremy, Ravi, uh Bill, and Chet at present.

So do I have a motion on the minutes for uh January 13th?

Uh chat first it.

Okay.

And a second from Jeremy?

Jeremy.

From Jeremy, all in favor.

Jeremy.

Oh, I'm assuming since he's seconded, so uh unanimous, yep.

Okay, passes unanimously.

All right, thank you very much.

Um next on our agenda is the review of the capital budget uh since the 13th.

So uh members, I had sent around a revised uh draft based upon um information that we've received from the city and various city departments uh since uh we last reviewed the budget in January, as well as incorporating uh public comments.

Um I can walk through those and or um if there are if people have had a chance to look at those and have questions, we can go through them.

I will note that um again, we are um we've been given guidance to aim for um a safe debt limit for the city for city bonding of 35 million dollars, um which is five million dollars than last year.

And um uh so and that this again it'll go through um the mayor and two other boards and so uh decided to aim for about 50 million dollars, just under 50 million dollars for what this the planning board uh is proposing with tiers uh to signify which um items are higher in priority and transmit that to the mayor to um make edits and continue it through the process, knowing that the board of reps and the board of finance can only make cuts.

Uh so are there any um initial questions or points of clarification on the budget?

Uh hiper uh so don't even is this the file that you just shared, uh the 29 million file.

Um yes, that's the file that you all have access to.

Uh Jennifer, I believe you made some adjustments to it.

Um let's see.

So I had sent ahead of the um what was originally scheduled as a meeting on the 27th.

Uh a file.

And I'm looking for my analysis version.

Um right.

So um uh I do have the I see the share file from your email.

I could put it on a screen if you'd like, or yeah, it's up to you.

Um didn't Jen, didn't you say you're you're communicating from your phone?

I am so so Tony, that would be helpful if you wouldn't mind doing that.

Okay.

And I have what I need for uh you need to give me access so I can share a screen.

All right, you're good to go.

Thank you.

Um so as always, it is it is challenging to figure out how to pare down all the requests by half.

Um, and know that there will be even more um cuts that are coming.

Um I can highlight uh uh and you can see um in column I in red are um items for which um a uh a decrease uh needed in order to help to bring down the total figure below again the the target right now of of uh below 50 million dollars um before it goes through the additional boards.

Um some of what was driving um many of the cuts is that the uh the big pieces of feedback that we were got that we got in particular were from the Board of Education about which projects could be partially funded or fully funded, and we um received advice that several of the projects that we had prioritized but only partially funded could not proceed unless they had full funding because it is required to get the state match um uh for um for the full project that the whole thing has to be authorized.

Um so that was the case for um the second uh project from Board of Education uh at AITE Um as well as for um the Newfield Fresh Air Uh, which is uh on pay it's listed as page 29.

Um and then for Ripple WAM, the HVAC uh replacement.

Um those were so those by virtue of increasing those that added quite a lot uh to the total.

Um and then also we got feedback um about the district-wide athletic fields renovation.

That was another that was initially in as partially funded.

Um, we were advised that that would not be sufficient to do what's needed at um at Boyle Stadium at Stanford High, and that it, I mean, because we all know the West Hill construction is ongoing.

Um we're gonna have a period when that's the only uh facility of that kind that's available in the city.

So um it the time sensitivity of making uh repairs to that um was important.

Um so I'll pause there first and see if there are questions or suggestions.

Tony, uh might you be able to make uh enlarge the image just a little bit more?

Good.

Yeah, that's better.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, it's my eyes.

Hey, Jennifer, or uh what if you put you comments?

Sure.

Well, this way the pool feedback we got about the wokushi park and uh I think the uh the other one was uh let me check my notes.

Uh yes, we can um down to that section.

Yeah, the cool island but I be sure the specific feedback we got in the public hearing.

Right.

We can submit the we can move down to the um maintenance parks section.

Um so um I will say so for Bakuzi Park, I know we got a lot of um uh comments of support about that.

Um as of the hearing, we had actually already put in for the full amount of funding that the parks department had requested for that project.

So we're not able to add any more than what they've asked for.

Um so yeah, and it is you know, well taken the importance that we we know that that project has been on hold for a while.

I'm my understanding is that some of it had to do with the um on the National Park Service side, kind of revising the grant on their end, so things have been on hold.

So it's very understandable that residents of the neighborhood neighboring areas are frustrated with how long that's been uh sitting.

Um, but we have made the full authorization that we're able to make in support of that project.

Yeah, and we also see the co-ailand park is here.

So I think I think that is good.

Yes.

Okay, yeah.

So Cove Island Park, right?

We did um, I think it had been in at a bit less.

Um, and we were advised by the parks department again, the the the full author uh that um the that's this that they needed an additional amount in order to be able to move forward um the project.

Uh there was a portion of the scope um that we sh that um recommended shaving off.

So it's not quite the full 650 and change that they had requested.

Um this whole budget came down very tight already.

So we've been kind of shaving off 50,000 here 100,000 there was necessary.

Yeah, that's fine.

So then uh the last two points, I think I erased it last time.

So the community is starting two new projects.

One is that A1 Theater and the other one is the lighthouse.

And we have actually not allowed allotted any any amount at all.

We have not.

Yeah.

So would we consider giving them something at least so that they can you know they don't feel too discouraged?

I mean, $50,000 each or something like that would at least uh well give them a sense of uh you know, everybody supporting them in the mission.

I mean, I think question one is if we were to increase an allocation for any project, where would we where would we balance out the funding so that we're counting for that?

Um I will note that um I think for the Avon, uh though I'm of course deeply supportive of an important arts institution like that, they are are they're moving forward with that project, whether or not we fund it.

So um, and we have roofs that are leaking and elevators that have to be fixed.

And uh they're just it it's really challenging to um to weigh all of these things, um, one of which is you know what is the um what is the impact of the contribution that the city is making?

Um my understanding was that what was driving the request from the Avon is that um if they don't receive some additional supplemental funding that they have to dip into their line of credit in order to keep the project going so it can be completed, but it you know, they have to pay like more interest on it in order to complete the project, um, which is deeply unfortunate and it weighed against I think all of like the numerous other projects that we've had before us it was difficult to justify um adding in there.

Um and then um I think for the Stanford Harbor Lighthouse, I know we got one we got you know a letter from the organization and there was one public comment, but again, I think in uh in comparison to many other like high urgency projects, it was challenging to um put in the funding there, but certainly wish them well as they continue to raise funding for uh restoration.

I see.

Uh uh Jen, I have a question for you uh on both of those, just at a yeah, a general question.

The um since they're both tier fives, which if I'm recalling correctly is uh deferable um potentially deferable projects, uh and neither one of them will be finished next year.

Could we not somehow um you know establish it as a priority for the next fiscal year or something else?

I mean, we we could along with, I mean, I would like um I don't know that we will have time to go through every project to do the out years today, but um for projects that fall into especially tier four and tier five, um, I do think it is worthwhile for us to um to add some amounts into the out years to indicate um uh an expectation of future support, knowing that you know what we're allocating here is not binding in the out years, and still I think it's helpful to be able to guide the various departments and agencies in understanding uh you know how how things fit into the overall medium term picture.

Okay.

Um and uh is the mayor okay with this, uh the the town okay with this the budget is um 30, 35 million, you said.

Right.

So again, we're we're the first part of this.

So if we were to right, if we were to submit a 35 million dollar budget, I understand.

Right, like we need to submit something that's more than 35, knowing that more cuts will come after.

Um and uh is the mayor okay with this uh the the town okay with this the budget is um 3 35 million you said right so again we're we're the first part of this so if we were to right if we were to submit a 35 million dollar budget I understand right like we need to submit something that's more than 35 knowing that more cuts will come after I agree but I don't will the main is the mayor okay with this that we submit a 49 million I mean the these these pieces operate independently so we submit what we submit to the mayor um I I will say I mean in prior years um we've tended to come in a lot closer to um the the debt limit usually more like a variance of like five to eight million rather than yeah um I I mean another thing driving this is that we did also receive again non-binding but a recommendation from uh the uh city's uh um uh financial council um that to that of the 35 million that 10 million of that ought to be allocated specifically to the board of education um the initial budget draft we had put forward fell quite short of that 10 million we had allocated much more to other departments um so this also you know brings the total of board of education uh recommended projects uh closer to that uh 10 million dollar range and I think we just uh right now it's at about nine million um and I think at this point we leave it to the mayor to determine um given a lot of competing priorities uh how to proceed from there.

Yeah I just don't want an impression that we're just punting the problem to to the mayor to solve because 15 million is pretty substantial.

You know if it's a few last year I understand the mayor is just so I leave it to the town to say whether this is you know appropriate or should the mayor expect us to do that.

I mean I I think that the you know the mayor is certainly welcome to come back to the planning board after we submit to ask for further guidance there is again like there is tiering to show um relative priorities and um as Chad had suggested I think that adding in some uh figures into the um out years can also help uh to paint the broader picture um of priorities um so there are five tiers um in this and uh right now tiers one through three come in at 32 or about 33 million dollars so if they were to fund just tiers one through three we would come in under the safe debt limit okay okay at least she knows how we went I mean our thoughts if she wants she wants her to do yes um again I it is it is always hard to do this um I know the mayor is appreciative of our work to uh sort through these projects and uh establish some criteria for priority um I think this year one thing that made things aside from having a lower debt limit to work with um that also we we do have an increasing number of departments that are doing a really good job of long-term planning and putting forward a lot of big projects um into this um into the capital cycle consideration um and so that uh in a way kind of meant that it was we had a we had a lot of like really big projects um that I think it's important for the departments to be putting forward and prioritizing um but it it it meant that there weren't a lot of projects where we could kind of like whittle away a little bit here a little bit there to get it down um so um and I would again like I I think um even after we've submitted this budget um I I think that there's certainly you know dialogue to be had with the departments about um kind of multi-year forecasting um and and how we might um even start to think ahead uh on that a bit um because I do want to honor the work of the departments to do that long range uh planning so that we know the projects that are in pipeline and and how we might prioritize those against uh other projects that are just kind of routine keep the city uh humming sorts of things like paving our roads jen could I add a comment sure yeah um you know Jen and I uh talked uh last week um at some length about um why it's you know um the debt limit safe debt limit is as low as it is this year versus last year versus the year before um and and while we don't know um it in point of fact what the ra reason is we can suspect that it has something to do with the fact that the city is anticipating um large capital expenses with Westfield high school and the funding and even after the city gets its share they still have to fund you know a hundred million a hundred and thirty million whatever that number is um within the next five years so um at the same time we wanted to let the

You know, Jen and I uh talked uh last week um at some length about um why it's you know um the debt limit safe debt limit is as low as it is this year versus last year versus the year before um and and while we don't know um it in point of fact what the ra reason is we can suspect that it has something to do with the fact that the city is anticipating um large capital expenses with Westfield high school and the funding and even after the city gets its share they still have to fund you know a hundred million 130 million whatever that number is um within the next five years so um at the same time we wanted to let the um the other departments uh and and the mayor and and and the other um the board of finance and the board for reps understand that you know we don't want to shortchange the other city departments they're they're still providing very important roles you know for the city for the citizenry for the community um and and we wanted to you know kind of send a send a message of support that the that work we may not be able to afford it this year but that work still has to get done so that's why we uh decided um at least jen and I for our parts to to keep it um just below 50 as opposed to just below 40 or some some other number yeah thanks thanks chat for for adding that in um I just to highlight a couple of the other um larger changes since we had put out the draft before public hearing um as we heard um at the hearing and and had confirmation of follow up um the city has received um a two million dollar grant to be able to move forward um the um hatchfield park project um we had had a larger allocation in there um and for now um so the total project cost is about 2.5 million um i'm hopeful that with the two million uh from the grant this year that the city is able to move the project forward and that we can put the the the balance of the about half million into the next out year and that that will not um interfere with their construction timeline um is my current recommendation um and one to see um what others on the board thought of that yeah it uh tony you're scrolling to that now i i assume yeah there it is okay so nothing's been um uh allocated for this year okay uh correct yeah um knowing that the the grant is coming in and that as far as we know there isn't like a a grant match or uh kind of authorization parameters around that uh grant in the same way that um there are often for um for other for other grants so again i do want to make sure that we are showing um the um expectation of putting the balance of the request into the uh 27 28 out year so that um it's clear that we do support completion of the project um but again given how tight it was just to get down to this 50 million um uh anywhere that it was possible to kind of figure out which pieces we could defer um was a lot of this so i i uh i have a question in regard to that uh strategy this is the first year that we're kind of thinking about right um the the five year the longer term you know capital budgeting um needs um we don't typically um or my my recollection from last year uh and my understanding is that the departments don't necessarily change their capital budgeting requests um at this point so how do we uh do we have to name these you know and if there are let's say 10 projects that we support but we just are struggling with finding money this year and we'd like to recommend you know some amounts you know for the for the following capital year how do we get that message across uh we in the sheet that we um that is the budget submission sheet there are fields for the out year recommendations so we can uh express those in there okay but we um your capital you're talking about the capital budgeting uh request form which is i mean it yes yes so so um do we have to put together a list of those things i mean we don't control them the departments control them so if we want to make modifications to them do we have to let the department know you know what modifications um we think should be made um no um and i'll just note that in um i can't remember the last year that we were that we did um out year recommendations specifically um but for i'd say most of the uh decade that i've been on the board we did actually the that the planning board did go through and also do out year projections as part of the capital budget project process but i think at some point in the last three year

Um no, um, and I'll just note that in um I can't remember the last year that we were that we did um out year recommendations specifically.

Um, but for I'd say most of the uh decade that I've been on the board, we did actually the that the planning board did go through and also do out year projections as part of the capital budget project process.

But I think at some point in the last three or so years, um that part of it got dropped, but it is part of the purview of the planning board if we would uh if we so choose to make more specific recommendations around um medium-term capital planning and to kind of comment on or affirm the uh the department uh out year forecasts.

So that that would be some kind of uh uh generalized note uh in the um transmission transmitted letter.

Um no, actually, I mean I Tony, if you want to pull up uh for I mean, if you want to pull up the sheet for Hatchfield Park.

I I yeah, I mean No, I I'm familiar with this.

So Tony, I guess what I'm not seeing um so all of these capital budget request forms that each department has submitted, um, are gathered again and and they're they get attached to our transmit a letter.

No, if if this board requires makes a request, I can update this out year request for next year.

Okay, you know, I can we can do that for every project.

Um and um and that would be part of the uh the uh capital book coming from the planning board.

Um and then you may want to add some kind of verbiage in your transmittal letter um about what you're doing.

Um but ultimately next year uh the departments will resubmit their request, and you know, you would have to do that comparison.

Sure.

Yeah, right.

Yeah.

So again, I we know that whatever we put into the out year forecast is not binding, but I think can still serve as useful guidance and signals to the departments about priorities.

Okay.

But at a minimum, presumably um our definition in the transmitted letter for for uh items four and five will also shed a little bit more light on the board's intentions put relative to all or some of those projects.

Correct.

Yes.

So um typically in the transmittal letter, while we don't call out every single project because that would make for a very long letter.

Um if there are certain uh major items within any given tier or uh projects of certain characteristics, um, we can make a notation about that.

So I think that you know, Hatchfield Park is an example of a project that is large enough and that the circumstances of why it was uh zeroed out of the budget are very particular to the grant.

And I think just having a notation that that and perhaps a couple of these other projects are ones that we recommend prioritizing for the next fiscal year is something that we can do in our transmittal letter.

Okay, thank you.

Um so I will not go through every single amendment uh made since December again.

They are they are highlighted.

Um there were a couple of items I just want to note um were actually corrections under public safety uh police and public safety uh Samford fire.

Um there was actually there were some entries that were sort of like off by line.

And so there was one project where we had allocated actually much more than they had requested because we actually meant to be for a different project.

And so um that has been corrected.

Um and that uh and so that made a bit of a difference in our totals.

Um and then made some reductions in the following to be able to um to bring down the total of it.

So the unaccepted road building and paving under traffic and road maintenance was one where um definitely in agreement that it is important for us to fund that and that it's one of those things.

I mean, it's been lingering for decades.

And so um having some amount, but not as much as we had initially put in seemed like one uh place where it could make sense to make some reductions.

Um there's some reductions under operations maintenance under roof replacement, which is always a hard section to make cuts for, but there were some projects it seemed like they were uh feasible.

Um we had initially put in an amount for the animal shelter under operations engineering, second item there, um, which was designated for um demolition of the current facility.

Um so the completion of the animal shelter is not contingent upon that, but it you know it would certainly be better to do all of that work all at once, but given the amount that it costs, that was another item that kind of got put in for um uh budgeting in the out years rather than an allocation for this year.

Um yeah, I would say so.

I I would say that those are the the largest changes that occurred in order to balance things out.

Um Chad, is there anything else that you think is important to call out?

No, I don't think so, Jeff.

Thank you.

All right.

Um so uh are are there any other recommendations, questions, or clarification from the board.

I'm fine.

Thank you.

Thank you, and J.

Sure.

Um that you put in none.

Um I guess we've uh be looking for a motion um to affirm transmittal of this draft budget to the mayor.

Um we will also um I'll I'll work with uh Tony to um to finish drafting the transmittal letter, which uh is a bit more descriptive of the tiers and and many of the things that we discussed here about relative priority, some of the projects.

I I'll I'll move um you know, um acceptance or or um or approval of of this uh these recommended capital budget recommendations for forwarding.

Do I have a second?

Yeah, Jennifer, are we gonna see the letter before it goes out to the mayor's office or uh uh yes, uh you yes, I will I can make sure that the letter is um reviewed uh by the board uh before it goes to the mayor.

You can if you take a um well, actually, there is already a draft that um that Lindsay had started putting together um so that you can get a sense of the the content and flow of it.

Um and so it'll it'll look quite similar.

And if there are specific um items that you were that you think is important to highlight in the letter would certainly uh appreciate any recommendations on that.

Okay, also go on.

Okay, all right, thank you.

So we have a second from Jeremy.

Um all in favor.

I'm I'm sorry to interrupt, but may you amend the motion to to include the total of the 68 million.

I have it highlighted here.

Is that okay?

Uh yes.

So the motion from Chat is for a budget recommendation of 68 uh million seven hundred ten and fifty, of which 49 million nine thirty-five fifty would be city bonds.

Um put that amendment.

Uh all in favor of uh putting forward this draft to the mayor.

And I see unanimous.

Okay, all right.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, give me just a second, I plug in my phone.

Okay, your patience is about to die on me.

Um so next on our agenda um is request for authorization supplemental capital project appropriation for West Hill High School.

And queue up our presenter for that.

Yep, Catherine's on.

Uh good evening.

I I'm also joined by uh Director CNonez.

Okay.

If we could promote him as well, yep.

And I think we also have Adam Levitis from Collier's project leaders with us.

Anyone else?

That's anybody else?

That's it.

That's only Jennifer, if you want to read the full um line into the record.

Jennifer, you're on mute.

Thank you.

Yes.

So the um the item is West Hill School Replacement Project, Project CP 1471, total request of 144 million six hundred and eighty-six thousand.

One hundred one hundred and twelve.

This request is to amend the fiscal year capital budget 2526 for the construction of a new West Hill High School at 125 Roxbury Road.

This increases the prior authorization to match a total project budget commitment of 446 million dollars with an 80% reimbursement by the state of Connecticut.

The local share reflects the 5% retainage held by the state of Connecticut.

I have a few brief slides as well.

Just I know this board actually has been very involved.

We also have Chet as well who joins us on our monthly school-wide construction update meetings.

But I know since we had some other members or newer members too, we wanted to just give a timeline of the project if that was all right.

Yes, please.

The hall road, which is the construction access road for um uh where we'll be bringing all of our materials in.

Um this is under construction currently.

This project started all the way back in 2021.

Um and I know it's it's amazing how 2121 to 2026.

We started with uh a 261 million dollar project budget authorization.

Um at the time, Stanford was receiving uh somewhere around, I believe it was like 23 or 25% reimbursement.

There was special legislation, which um put this project uh to receive a 80% project reimbursement.

Then we also established Fund 57, which started to raise revenue for this program.

Um not going to read completely from the slide here, but in 2023, um, during administrative review and discussions with the state.

Um it was initiated by the state to consider um rising construction costs.

There was a significant amount of escalation that they were noticing in that period.

And so there was a reauthorization at that time to 301 million.

Um, but that was done in advance of uh onboarding our design team, our owner's representative, our architect, and our construction manager.

Um we onboarded the team after that first reauthorization to the 301 million.

Um when we completed the schematic design phase, uh, which involves very rigorous cost estimating and a value management value engineering exercise.

Um, the estimated escalated project budget was 461 million dollars.

Um because that was significantly above our initial authorization.

We worked with the team for some val for more additional value management, which included some reduction of square footage, um, looking at how we were cut and fill our cut and fill analysis on the site, uh, utility coordination, uh very long list of items.

Uh ultimately our design development budget reflected our estimate reflected that work.

Um and we came in at our our design development estimate came in at 446 million with the help from our state legislature.

We went out to ask for what is called special legislation.

That is the 446 million, maintaining an 80% reimbursement.

So that's why we're here before you tonight is procedurally.

The legislature has now voted to increase uh our amount from the 301 to the 446 and maintain that 80% reimbursement.

And so we are looking tonight to align um the local authorization with what has been uh activated by the legislator this past summer.

And why are we here now?

I just have a quick look ahead.

Um West Hill is moving like it's going to have to move like a Swiss watch.

So we're here to for you tonight.

We will be going before the uh Board of Finance in just a few days for a review kind of of the overall holistic program that includes obviously Roxbury and the upper and lower schools.

Uh that will be Thursday evening.

Um we are out to bid.

We went out to bid in December, and we will be opening bids uh February 11th.

Um we will then also be proceeding, hopefully with your vote tonight, we'll be proceeding to the Board of Finance for the authorization vote.

Um that is not a vote on a GMP.

We will not have a GMP, which is a guaranteed maximum price uh proposal to bring before the Board of Finance until uh approximately March 13th.

So or 14th, apologies.

I think we'll have it on the 13th for them to review, and we'll be uh planning on going to, I believe, a special meeting on the 16th.

Um the week of April 13th, we are looking to break ground.

There are many, many, many micro steps in between all of that.

Um, but those are just the very high level why we're here tonight uh in February, because it probably feels like it's so far away from April, but um, it is it is right upon us, and we're very excited to get started with this project.

And so, in line with that, just the capital sheet that was included with your packet.

Um, I did just want to highlight as you can see, the state grant requests is 108, so it's 108 state grant.

Uh 108 and 108.5, and it's approximately 36 million dollars uh for local share for this this final adjustment.

And that will bring our authorization up to the um to the state legislators' authorization of 446.

So um I'm happy to answer any questions.

Obviously, I've also had Director Kinun is here and college project leaders, um, who's our owner's representative for this project.

So I know that's I know that's a lot.

It's hard to describe six years in in five minutes.

Um thank you.

Uh are there any questions from the board?

Bravy.

Yeah, yeah.

So hey Kathleen, so just uh from education you're not asked for any tenders, we are not floated any construction tenders, etc.

Right yet.

Have we?

Oh no, construction, sorry, we were not asked for tenders and bids.

We're not no, we don't have bids back in.

So the only bid that we received um and are executing on is the hall road contract.

That was approximately 1.6 million.

Uh Adam's nodding good.

Okay, it was one point, that was a 1.6 million dollar uh mobilization effort, so that we do not we do not want to bring our construction traffic through our active high school campus.

So that's the construction that we've you know, we've activated so far.

But we we are out to bid, we will not be receiving bids till February 11th.

I see so once you once we get the approval uh forget the timelines on the calendar, but uh once we get the approvals from the board of rep we go to bid after that, or we go to bid before that or how we are we are out to bid now.

So with this authorization, if we are within our budget, then we will move forward with the project.

If bids come in and we are not within our budget, that is that is a different conversation that we will be we would have to have.

I see.

So we should for the time being assume that it will come within this upward envelope and not be any access.

Correct.

That's the only assumption, right?

That's how we are proceeding.

Also because the time obviously it takes to come before planning and then finance and board of reps and then mobilize construction activities.

Yeah, and how long?

Remind me again, how long does construction is going to take?

Three years?

Was it last time you said?

Uh approximately three years.

Uh, but then we have the additional demolition of the existing building.

So Adam, what's the total month total we have now?

40.

Uh it is over 50 months, depending upon exactly what alternates might be selected.

So yes, the the new school is scheduled to open uh in the fall of 2029, and then over that I'm assuming school year while the students are in the new building, demolition and any other um work such as an editorium, that kind of thing would happen in that ensuing year.

And Adam, just uh once again from education, uh the cost fixed knowing that the 30 months time frame or the contractors can come and ask for additional funding.

It's uh so the initial contract that would be signed with or presumably signed with the construction manager would be for the scope within the drawings.

So as long as uh all of the construction is within the contract documents, that's what's reflected in the guarantee maximum price.

And and within that, there are some construction manager contingencies, things of that nature, but that's the crux of how that contract is structured.

Should there be something that comes up that is unforeseen and not within the contract documents?

You know, they're starting to excavate and there's some unforeseen condition well below the ground that no one could have known about, then that or or owner request for a change might be something subject to change orders.

But for all intents and purposes, the when you when you're starting construction, that's what's captured within the uh GMP price.

And then within that 446 that's being outlined this evening, are again owners' contingencies, other costs that that compise the uh compile the entire project budget of 446.

So it is not as though there would be a contract for 446 million dollars with the contractor.

Okay, so we have contingencies we do.

That is included in this number.

There's um construction contingencies, um, and then there is owner contingency.

Um, but even for use of construction contingency, that requires consent of the owner.

So a construction contingency could be used up to I think about five thousand dollars and the which is is uh kind of standard practice to keep the job moving, uh, if there was some unforeseen, you know, unforeseen condition.

Um the the number that you see before you is a total project cost.

So it is not uh a construction dollar amount.

The actual guaranteed maximum price will be lower than uh what you see here.

Thank you.

Uh Jeremy had his hand up next.

Thank you, Catherine.

Um, so I I know we don't want to get into what ifs, um, but you know, let's say we open up the bids and and that's above the the 446 million.

Um I assume that process starts again for asking the state for you know it is very difficult.

I I appreciate you saying that we don't want to get into one what ifs because uh it is we won't be able to proceed if we're we're over the authorization.

Um starting the process all over again uh may depend on the the level of that swing, so to speak, uh, or the the context of it.

So um was there any likely that that's the kind of thing we want to understand between the 11th and the 16th.

If there was a scope, you know, that's why we have scope reviews, which are very intense multi-hour meetings with each contractor.

Um, Robbie, to your question where we go through the drawings and we say, you know, and you're including this pipe and you're including this excavation, and you're including you know, we want to make sure um that we've detailed out that our understanding of the drawings, me being an architect, also sometimes architects speak and contractor speak.

We see the same thing, but not the same thing on the page.

So we we go through those very detailed meetings.

So Jeremy, to try and give you the best answer, I can't can.

It it really will depend.

There are 60 are the Adam, I keep saying 61, but is it more than that?

65.

See, I knew it was off there.

There are 65 bid packages.

Those packages swing from $15,000 because we have set-aside packages to encourage uh small business, uh, women-run enterprise, minority businesses to $60 million.

So not only do we have many, many packages, but we have a very, very large swing in those packages for this very large building.

So uh yeah.

So I I hope that helps to kind of tell you.

I don't want to start the process all over again, but you know, yeah, we really have to see where it comes out.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I guess um uh my my turn next.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um Catherine, you said that um the the 446 represents the total project budget for now.

Um can you um help these folks understand the planning board uh representatives understand the different, you know, um what's um the difference between our total project budget and our construction budget.

Um and in general terms that difference being soft costs.

Construction is considered a hard cost, soft costs are fees and expenses and things of that sort.

Chad, I know I'm I'm very familiar with this.

I don't know if you're looking for an explanation or not on that information.

Um time to keep us all yeah, yeah, understood.

But um Catherine, can you it is can you share with us the uh current quote unquote budget for the hard construction cost.

Yeah, so uh so the sure just in the middle of us bidding, we'll be happy.

Oh well, the what was what was or give it to us in a range, whatever you're comfortable with.

Yeah, right.

No, no, no.

So well, we can speak to what was um most recently discussed prior to to going to bid, um, where this with a commension document phase estimate was shared with board of education and um uh numerous others in order to actually go to the state too uh before going out to bid.

Um I'm actually just so I'm not misspeaking while I'm uh talking here.

I'm gonna make sure I get the correct value that was published out there.

Um the Catherine's point, so we're not doubling up on data that was uh already disseminated.

Um just this file's opening, bear with me for five more seconds.

Um while Adam's opening the file, I'll say in very general terms, the soft costs are also 80% reimbursable.

So I did just want to point that out.

Soft costs and construction costs are both reimbursable under this grant.

The state doesn't make any kind of just you know a distinction or exception.

It's all it all goes towards you know, build what what needs to go into building a building.

Um and some of those soft costs include um uh you know, testing and inspections around uh abatement.

Um they include obviously our architecture and engineering fees.

Um they include our pre-construction constructability reviews from our um construction manager at risk.

Um they're a partner in this.

We bring them along the way um to point out places where there might look like and also we we held two separate estimates, which we leveled together.

Um each time we estimated, we had the contractor estimate.

We also had the architectural team hold an estimator.

Um when we saw the numbers rising, we even considered if we should at that point bring on even a third estimator, you know, but we were finding that this was this was where the market was was leading us.

So the the reconciled uh construction document phase estimates between those two estimators uh was just over 404 million subsequent to that number, there were a few million dollars in additional reductions that were found prior to actually going out to bid.

So the high level answer for your chat is approximately 400 million, is what would be expected for GMP.

That's what I wanted the um board to understand that you know the uh ideally the sum total of the 60 the selected um offers uh in of the 65 packages God willing will come closer to the 400 million as opposed to the 446 million right thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Um hearing none, uh can I have a motion on the request for authorization for supplemental capital for West Hill School Replacement Project.

I'll make that motion.

Motion to approve.

Yes, and do I have a second on that motion?

Uh chat has raised his hand.

All right, second from chat.

All in favor unanimous.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next on our docket is subdivisions.

Which are noticed as public hearings.

So public meetings.

Public meetings.

So Ravi, if you could read into the record the legal notice first for a subdivision 4056, Giuliano Denino, six Stanford Lane, two lots.

So this is uh legal notice all from the planning board, City of Stanford.

Uh notices here may be given that the Stanford Planning Board has received the following application for the subdivision of property into two parcels.

Conducted via the internet and our conference call at 6 30 p.m.

Uh subdivision number 4056, Guileano Dinino.

Pardon me if I am uh pronouncing their name correctly.

Six Sanford Lane, two lots.

Applicants is proposing to subdivide this.586 acre parcel into two lots, which is commonly known as Sixth Sanford Lane.

The property is located on the south side of Sanford Lane at its intersection with Newfield Avenue, as number 000-2434, and is in the single family low density district Actin.

Copies of the above reference application along with information on how to attend the meeting will be available on planning board's website.

The hearing may be continued to such time and place as it'll be announced with a planning board.

And dated on the 22nd of January 22.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um so if we can go ahead and have our uh applicant as a presenter and introduce yourself for the record, please.

Sure.

Good evening, everybody.

My name is Joseph Capalbo.

I'm an attorney practicing law here in Stanford, and I represent the applicant tonight.

I think present tonight also are Ken Fratteroli, the surveyor and Wayne DeVinzo DeVanzo, who is the engineer, and they're probably somewhere on uh if you need questions answered uh from them as well.

Uh before you tonight is a very simple two-lot subdivision.

Um it's property on the corner of Newfield Avenue and Sanford Lane.

Um the existing site is a little over 25,000 square feet in area, and it's located in the R10 zone, which as this board knows the R10 requires um 10,000 square feet per dwelling unit.

It's presently improved with a single family dwelling that, according to assessor's records, was built somewhere around uh 1951.

And it's in some need of repair.

Um the applicant's intention and what he's proposing is to one remove the existing structure and two subdivide the property into two uh fully legally conforming parcels, right?

So by that I mean each parcel will comply in all respects to the existing requirements for the R10 zone in the Stanford zoning regulations.

Um there's no uh variances that are going to be required.

No issues in connection with either of the lots.

The resulting parcels will have the required area.

They'll have sufficient uh area to provide for a single family dwelling, and uh it will meet all the required setbacks uh for the R10 zone.

Open space has been provided for.

Um we've had some discussions with staff about possibly relocating the open space, making it maybe consolidating it, maybe making it a little more effective.

Um so uh the applicant is willing to do that, and if we can improve uh the area for open space, um we'll go ahead and do that um uh with the staff after uh the closing of the hearing.

Um parcel A will have access onto Sanford Lane.

It will be a corner lot.

Parcel B will have access, ingress and egress on to um Newfield Avenue.

All the city departments um uh each parcel has full um access to uh all the essential utilities, um, sewer and water, especially.

Um all departments have reviewed these applications, um, and they've all come back.

There's no department in the city who's any has any has had any objection uh to what's being proposed tonight.

With regard to the uh referrals as they relate to engineering and EPB, the applicant has reviewed all of their proposed conditions and has no objection to uh addressing all of those um uh conditions that they're proposing.

They all seem to be pretty standard.

Um I would like to comment though on one of the conditions, and that was one from the traffic department.

Um now the applicant would prefer, right, not to build a sidewalk in front of this parcel on Newfield Avenue.

Um it just doesn't seem to make any sense right now.

Um the the side there is real no sidewalk infrastructure in this area of Newfield Avenue, and there probably isn't going to be, as far as I know, right?

There will be no other really development.

It's a residential area, and I don't know if the city has any plans for this particular area.

There is uh somewhat of a sidewalk there now, but it's not very effective.

Um, it just doesn't seem to make practical sense, and it doesn't make financial sense.

It's just a two-lot subdivision, right?

We're not building 20 condominium units here where we because a lot of sidewalks are expensive that we could, you know, um uh amortize the the cost of it over all the units.

It's just a two-lot subdivision, and it just doesn't seem uh practical from the standpoint of there being this piece of sidewalk in the middle of Newfield Avenue with with really no connection.

That being said, the applicant is willing to accept whatever the board uh um decides on this issue, right?

And if you decide that you want to see a sidewalk put there, he certainly will be happy to do it.

I would point out that the subdivid subdivision regulations do provide you discretion.

A sidewalk is not required, it's up to you to determine whether or not you think one is necessary.

Uh, but it's whatever you whatever you decide, the applicant will surely accept, right?

So, you know, I'm gonna be brief.

This doesn't get any cleaner uh and easier uh as two-lot subdivisions go.

It's it's a two-lot subdivision, it's in full compliance uh with the zoning regulations.

No variances are going to be required.

There's no objections from any of the city departments.

Um it has access to all the necessary utilities.

Um they're sharp, straight lines.

Um there's no no jagged lines or Gersh, I think it fractured lines or however they call them.

It it's as it's as clean as you could get, and it provides an opportunity for uh a couple of single family houses in a in a city that's in bad need of single family housing.

So uh, like I said, uh the engineers here, the surveyors here will be happy to answer whatever questions you have at this time.

Uh Chat has his hand up.

You're on mute.

You're welcome.

Um Mr.

Cabal, the uh just a quick question for you.

Uh since I I live right around the corner from this.

Um my recollection is that uh there are there are is currently a sidewalk along Newfield.

It may be an asphalt sidewalk.

So are you saying um to just to clarify um that the uh the request that may have been made to you regarding sidewalks is to upgrade the existing sidewalk to be in somehow compliance with the city's sidewalk standards, i.e.

uh a concrete sidewalk versus a blacktop thing.

Is that what you mean?

Well, my all the um the recommendation from the traffic department was is that the sidewalk be upgraded, right?

He doesn't give any specifics.

Now, my experience in other applications has been that if you are going to build a sidewalk or upgrade a sidewalk, it has to be done in accordance with city standards.

That would make sense.

I assume that would be the same here.

That wasn't that's not what was stated.

It is what it was stated as rebuild the sidewalk to city standard along Newfield Aval Avenue on both property frontages.

All right, and there you go.

So that's what would have to be done, yes.

Very, very plain and very simple.

Okay.

Um do we um have your uh surveyor uh or has your surveyor at this point by any chance established um how the current sidewalk may be asphalt as opposed to concrete, which is the city standards, but does it otherwise comply with accessibility standards, for example, and and things of that sort?

Yeah, I I well the the surveyor's on, I'll ask him to answer the question, but I can tell you from my observation, I I don't know the answer to that.

I went back again this week to take a look, which was a complete waste of time.

For obvious reasons.

So I I don't know.

I I don't know that that sidewalk is to any standard whatsoever.

It's been there a long time.

It's asphalt.

Um it works, I think, um, to the extent that the sidewalks on that in that area work.

Um, but it's I don't think it's up to standards, and maybe Ken Fratteroli, who's on can be more specific.

Okay.

Thank you.

As I said, we'll we'll live with the board decides.

Yeah, I can hear you now.

Oh, okay.

Sorry.

I this I'm new to this, so I'm trying to figure it out.

Um the sidewalks for asphalt, as far as them meeting present requirements, I couldn't answer that question.

Uh they I've lived on Newfield Avenue my life for the past 30 years and change, and they've been that way in the present condition, they are.

I don't I'm not the one who would judge whether it's adequate or in it as far as the standards go.

It's just an asphalt sidewalk.

It appears to be more narrow than the typical.

Um, but still pedestrian-wise, people use it all the time.

I don't know how else they answer your question.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, are there other questions from the board?

All right.

Um I mean, uh I I guess as to the sidewalk, which we are unable to examine close up to the snow.

Um, I I think in the direction that um chat was going.

I mean, I I think if this rather than being interpreted as um uh two city standard in terms of um uh concrete construction, if the um recommendation is rather that it is um rebuilt to um like current condition consistent with existing asphalt sidewalks.

Um that's that strikes me as a reasonable uh way to go about this.

In general, I'm certainly always very much in favor of adding in sidewalks whenever we can, but I think it is a point well taken that it it doesn't make a ton of sense to put in like four or five blocks of of sidewalk and then have the rest of it be asphalt, probably you know, for uh for a long time to come.

Um uh does that um I'm wondering how that sits with the rest of the board.

Jennifer Jeremy here, I I think that's an interesting and intriguing idea.

Um you know, I don't know with how traffic newfield is pedestrian-wise and you know, walkability-wise, if if that section going down to sort of that supermarket area is is an area that the city is looking to upgrade the sidewalks to to be in compliance with uh the city standard.

So I I think before we we make that recommendation, it may be helpful to understand if that section of sidewalk uh is you know in the city's sort of bullseye to to be upgraded at some point.

Um, so so you know we're we're building to the standard and and you know the future with what we're looking at, you know, in regards to the comprehensive plan and and walkability, especially in in an area like that.

Yes.

Um I think that that point is well taken.

It did, I would say it's sort of it's in a spot where it's like close, but not that close, right?

To the to the where the um the shopping center is.

Um I'm I travel that a lot on the weekends, and you know, there's always people walking their dogs running, you know, what have you.

Um, you know, and there's only sidewalks on that single side of the street.

Right.

Well, I I personally would not like the old recommendation of the own department.

I mean, if it's not a big deal and what I mean, they didn't aren't on the cause.

I don't think it's fair for us to old old recommendation and propose something else.

Okay.

I I appreciate that, Ravi.

Um had I known that this was the scenario, I would have liked to take time to talk to um Luke uh about alternatives or reasoning behind the um the requirement here.

Right.

Yeah, I mean I certainly agree in.

Oh sorry, go ahead.

I'm sorry.

As I said, the applicant has no objection to building the sidewalks according to standard, in accordance to what the I just wanted to point out that it just may not make sense in this particular case, but whatever the board decides, that's what we'll certainly live with.

Right.

Um I mean, I mean, I think that I think that if the city does intend to do reconstruction along this stretch in the near future, that is certainly relevant information.

Um another way that we have gone about um sidewalks with other projects is rather than requiring the applicant to do the construction is instead to do a fee in lieu uh that could be put forward uh for um for more complete future construction um by by the city.

Um I don't want to um I don't want to overrule the recommendation of uh transportation's uh department um and uh also I mean I think uh I understand the the practical uh constraint here as well.

Um so uh um uh I think Jennifer precludes the applicant from continuing to speak to the town, you know, and finding a resolution.

I mean, at this point in time, we are just approving the subdivision and you know, I mean they can continue to have this dialogue, they can do fee and leave, they can build this because we don't need to make the decision right now for them.

So I recommend we either approve or not approve the subdivision, and then the process can move forward.

Well, if if we're gonna put conditions on it, we have to put them on now.

No, no, no, we're not we're just going to approve it as it stands with the town's recommendation on record.

Well, so if we were to approve it with no conditions, then there would not be on the record any obligation for the applicant to uh construct a sidewalk to city standard or make a contribution.

No, I think the resolution would be we approve the or not we approve the subdivision.

Uh and you know, with the recommendation of the town to build the sidewalk, and then they can continue to have the discussion and they don't need to come back to the planning board for a change.

So you know that.

So the um the condition could be to um a recommendation for the applicant to work with the city to determine um whether uh rebuild rebuilding the sidewalk to city standard, a contribution of fee in lieu, or um some other uh mutually agreed upon uh method of meeting the the city sidewalk requirement.

Um be part of the conditions of this.

So Jennifer, I'm I'm gonna make a motion to approve it as is with with the city recommendations.

Um I would second that um all right.

So um all in favor.

Um and I I will I'll join in in approval.

That's unanimous.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh our next item on the agenda.

Also, subdivision.

Um, this is subdivision number 4060, Lucas and Georgia Conadreas at 34 Conreas Drive, two lot subdivision.

And Ravi, again, if you could read into the record the public meeting notice.

Sure.

Um legal notice from the planning board, City of Stanford.

Notice is hereby given that the Stanford Planning Board has received the following application.

The subdivision of property into two parcels for review at its January 27th, 2026 meeting, now the third of February meeting, conducted via the internet and our conference call at 6:30 p.m.

This item may be moved to a future mute meeting time and date at the discretion of the planning board.

Subdivision number 4060.

Lucas and Georgia Conandrias.

34 Conan BS Drive, two lots.

Applicant is proposing to subdivide this 3.23 acre parcel into two lots, which is commonly known as 34 Conanria S drive.

The property is located on the north side of Corinthias Drive, approximately 260 feet east of Hunting Ridge Road.

And this is in the single family very low density district, RA1.

Copies of the above reference application along with information on how to attend the meeting will be available on the planning board's website.

The hearing will be continued to such time and place as will be announced by the planning board.

Thank you, Rami.

So if we could have the applicant uh come forward, introduce yourself for the record.

Mr.

Conandreas, if you need help uh unmuting yourself, just let me know.

I guess I can press S to unmute.

There you go.

You are unmuted.

I cannot hear you.

Anyone else?

Well, I'm not talking.

Oh, there you are.

Hello.

Good, thank you.

Um, if you wouldn't mind just introducing yourself for the record and um just explaining uh your subdivision, your proposal.

Good evening, everybody.

I'm Dr.

Lucas Con Andreas, and I have a house next to this proposed property to subdivide and build a house for my son, who has at the present moment two young children, three months, six months, and three years, and we won't accommodate him next to our house, which is uh I believe a good idea.

And I want to tell you that this property was an independent lot from the mid-90s to about 2015, and we joined it at some point because of the low uh uh high taxes and uh and uh at the present moment we need to subdivide it to build the house.

Uh it is a app land property, it has no wetlands.

Um it has a well, it has a septic.

Uh and uh we have reviewed the reviews by the city departments, and we have no objection to any of those.

Uh if you have any questions, um I'm here to answer them.

Are there questions from the board?

Chat has his hand raised.

Yes, thank you.

Um Lindsay this is maybe more directed more to you uh than to Dr.

Ken Andreas.

Um part of the um pub um comment that this planning board has received has been from uh some um neighbors to this property who um are concerned about uh stormwater management as close as I can determine it.

Um I assume that would be environmental protection.

Uh that would be the specific department that would comment on it.

Um do you happen to um or have you seen do you uh can you relay to us um what EPA has recommended that this homeowner do as a part of the subdivision to address the neighbors' concerns?

Yes, sure.

So uh specifically it's it's EPB and engineering, actually, both um go down.

So they got in a complaint from a neighbor on Lawrence Hill Road about some runoff related issues.

Um EPB and engineering went out on a site visit um to see what the issue was and traced the issue back to a specific um single family development lot on uh Con Andreas Drive.

Uh they noted that there were two um elements of the erosion and sediment and erosion control plan that were not installed.

Um they uh spoke with the contractor and said install this now, or we will find you.

Um so they went back the next day, it was installed, and um uh we haven't they didn't get another complaint until this subdivision came up.

So the most that we can do is is ensure that have EPB ensure that the installation of the erosion soil and erosion controls um are installed appropriately and functioning appropriately.

Okay then I then I have a question.

Um sedimentation and erosion control are generally um uh elements that are put in place to prevent runoff during the course of construction.

Um do their reports make uh any allusion to long-term stormwater management issues as opposed to the short-term sedimentation and erosion control?

Yeah, so long term uh the engineering department has a citywide drainage manual and uh low impact development plan that requires uh a certain capture of uh requires that there is no increase in runoff um from the site as a result of development.

So as part of Mr.

Conandre, Dr.

Conandreas's application, um, they needed an engineering statement looking at the runoff that could result as as that could happen as a result of developing a single family home.

Um and basically they had to prove as part of this application that they could meet the city's uh drainage standards um if this lot was developed as a single family home.

Um and they have done they have done that.

Okay, thank you.

That's what I was interested in.

Yes.

Any other questions from the board.

Okay.

Uh it doesn't seem like there's any other questions.

No other questions.

Um, so in this case, um the motion would would need to include um compliance with the EPB recommendations.

And it actually might not.

So let me just double check because EPB has their referral comments, um, are what we use as the basis for our certificate of approval.

And so one of the elements that will be included in the conditions of approval already is so let's see if we can get there with what's included.

Um engineering department approval of the stormwater management plan shall be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit and the start of any site activity.

Uh the next one is the permittee shall, and if you look at EPB's comments, referral comments that you guys got in your package, that's what I'm reading right now.

Um the permittee shall submit a performance bomb to secure the timely and proper performance of project activities.

Uh that includes a $1,000 surety of erosion and sedimentation controls.

Um, and 100% of the estimated cost of the drainage system required for professional supervision certifications.

Um if they don't install it appropriately, the city has money to do it ourselves.

Um sedimentation and erosion controls, including a high visibility construction fence along the edge of the conservation easement area shall be installed and approved in writing by EPB staff prior to the start of any site activity.

There, yeah.

So they they they this is the they they juiced this up.

You can tell this is a little above and beyond what they normally do.

Um next one is upon completion of construction activities on each lot and prior to receipt of EPB authorization for final certificate of occupancy, all associated disturbed earth surfaces shall be stabilized with topsoil, seed and mulch, sod, or other suitable alternatives, not only to lawn and landscape place, but to all gutter outfalls, drip lines, walkways, drives, land areas under exterior stairs and desks.

Um and they actually go on.

There's one, there's two more.

Yeah, they they go on.

EPB.

Okay.

Yeah.

And so this is a more extensive list of um conditions than is typically submitted with one of these.

It is.

It is.

It's a little, it's a bit more specific, yes.

Um I would I think it doesn't hurt to be to have the specificity of the approval uh includes inclusive of the um conditions put forward by EPB.

Absolutely.

Um to have a motion on this item.

Uh Ravi moved for approval, Ravi.

Yep.

He announced yes.

Approval with uh the conditions put forward by EPB.

Um, he's nodding his head yes.

Okay.

Um you have a second on the motion.

Well, I will if Jeremy's not used.

Yeah, you can second this one.

Okay.

Um, all in favor.

That's unanimous.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dr.

Conreas.

Okay.

Uh next on our agenda.

Um zoning board referrals.

Uh ZP application 225-46.

St.

John Urban Development Corporation 109 Tressor Boulevard special permit.

Applicant is proposing an all-affordable apartment building, including a total of 305 units over two levels of parking and double height amenity space.

Uh Ray is on to speak to the project, but before we did, I just wanted to clarify that in front of the board today.

Um, specifically, is the special permit to allow for modification of design requirements for a three-block connection for the publicly accessible amenity space.

Um, I'm sure Ray will might get into this, but the planning board had unanimously recommended approval of a of a general development plan, special permit, and coastal site plan back in June of 25.

Uh Ray, let me know if you need anybody else to come forward, any other panelists.

Sure.

I think um you can add Rick.

Um and I think that's it for now.

Uh, if there are questions, um, I believe uh members of the uh applicant team uh on behalf of the developer are on.

Um, but you know, hopefully we can keep it simple.

So I will share my screen.

Um so you may recall we were before you um for the general development plan.

Um this is the two round towers at the corner of Tressor and Washington Boulevard.

Um the application.

Excuse me.

Okay.

Is um very much in line with the with the GDP plan.

Uh, very much the same plan that you saw.

Um as Lindsay mentioned, typically this the final site plan would not be coming back before you, but we have amended some of the things relating to the public amenity space, uh, which required a different special permit um than was requested before.

Um just while we're here, I'll take you through some of the things that that you that you haven't seen as part of the GDP as the architecture has advanced.

Um so you can see this is the the view from uh the corner of Washington and Tressor, and it's been really well received so far.

Uh Binefield has done a tremendous job of um employing different materials and some uh different fenestrations within the building to kind of break up the facade into different elements.

Uh here's a close-up view.

Um, and then included some elements at the top, including this extended cornice here, just to kind of accentuate uh that that corner feature, um, as well as a blade sign uh along the Washington Boulevard side here.

Um then this is the view from the east end of the building as you go towards uh Atlantic station.

So the use of some different materials on this end with a brick element and then um uh a darker kind of black panel grid line in the middle to serve as a break point, and that is purposefully over the main vehicular and pedestrian entry.

So it kind of serves a double purpose of breaking up the the different materials that extend in either direction and providing some focus on where the entry is, and this is also where the public access will be.

Um so this is a view of the ground floor.

Um so when we were here for the GDP, we had contemplated a few different elements to satisfy the public amenity requirement.

Uh one of which was the through block connection, um serving as a pedestrian access through the site uh to the former Guernsey right-of-way, which then continues out to Federal Street, um, and then eventually back towards uh Atlantic Street, um, with the idea that as the rest of this block gets developed, this could be a nice pedestrian connection um to keep you from having to go all the way around the block, you know, depending on where you're going.

That aspect is still very much in the plan.

We had thought about maybe utilizing some of this ground floor space for either a community room or something uh different.

Uh the way the project had unfolded, that space needed to be recaptured as part of the uh amenity package serving as a laundry facility for the tenants because that while they will have the ability for hookups in their apartments, not everyone is automatically going to have an in-unit washer and dryer.

Um we thought about making that quasi public because there aren't uh really any public laundry facilities uh in the downtown.

Um, but for security reasons, for reasons related to the financing uh obligations that they have and the applications that they have to go through for financing, uh, it really was important to keep things simple when it came to the interior of the building and not complicated with uh different uses that are going to be uh mixing with uh tenant space.

So when we were here uh for the GDP, we did ask for a special permit because we weren't sure how the PAAS was going to be achieved.

We asked for a special permit for the fee in lieu so that anything not being achieved on site um could be handled with a fee payment.

And that you all recommended for approval and the plan of the zoning board approved.

So we do have that flexibility already.

Um what we had not contemplated was the rigidness of some of the regulations uh surrounding the public amenity space.

I don't know if you've looked through the details of section six, but there are a lot of dimensional uh and architectural and design requirements, you know.

So for instance, if you have a public plaza, it's got to be this percent planted and this percent unshaded, and it can be can't be more than 2.5 ratio of length times width.

Um for community spaces and the through block connection, there's uh minimum ceiling heights of 12 foot clear, which are very hard to achieve uh in a lot of instances.

Um also for the through block connection, the total width is supposed to be 20 feet with a 10 foot wide walking path and then additional plantings on either side.

So all of those dimensional requirements can become really difficult to meet, uh, especially in an urban setting.

Um, I would argue that it's really over-regulated uh the way it's written.

But what the zoning board did when they approved the regulation was put in some relief valves.

And one of those is the special permit that's that's before you, which is uh we are requesting uh an alternate kind of uh deployment of uh a public amenity.

So this through block connection is 10 feet wide throughout.

There are areas where it's wider.

Um, but because of columns and certain jogs in the building, it gets as low as eight foot clear, still more than serviceable for a public walk, but doesn't meet the the letter of PAAS requirements.

So that's why we're here for uh the alternate use.

Um here's a view uh from the front.

So as we mentioned, some of the architectural elements kind of focusing on uh this main entry point uh in addition to the the building architecture, what they've done uh within this garage area is create kind of an art installment.

And this is intended to be not just uh uh colors, um, and this this is really more of a placeholder.

The design could end up being something very different, but the thought was to create some 3D elements along the face of the garage here and and try to create something interesting.

Um, and then also we're thinking of maybe marrying whatever that design becomes to what's happening with the ground treatment here or making them complementary in some way to really give uh a sense of place for this public access.

Um, and it's protected by bollards uh to separate where folks are walking uh from where vehicles are traveling.

Um and then it's also treated with um with an actual ceiling, not just the underside of the garage slab as you as you travel the walkway um with overhead lighting as well.

So it really um is becomes a safe and pleasant uh connection through the site.

Um, and as you can see, uh while it's covered, you can see daylight, you know, from one side to the other, so it really will feel more open.

The garage is open on that side.

Um, it's not a mechanically ventilated garage, so the the sides are open, um, except for along the street where the the building uh screens the the garages.

Um so what we're asking for is approval of that alternate um standard or alternate kind of deployment of the public amenity space.

Um the through block connection will account for probably just over 60% of the requirement.

The requirement is five percent of the lot area, um, and this accounts for most of it.

So as a fallback, we do already have the fee in loo approved.

So we're hopeful that after we get through financing and get into um construction, we'll have two years um before this is completed and are happy to think through if we can figure out some alternate solutions where maybe we can grab some space inside or or do something different and create um additional amenity space.

Uh we will do that and then come back to the board if that happens.

But um as a fallback, we're asking for this to be approved, and then we will always have the the fee option available.

Um so that's really what we're asking for.

Um in general, it's very similar and in line with what was proposed uh at the GDP phase, but happy to answer any questions you may have.

Um questions from the board.

Chet has his hand raised.

Uh you're on mute, chat.

Sorry about that.

Um Ray, I'm curious.

The um the the vehicular portion of this um uh area, this cut through the building, um, provides access to the parking under the building.

I as I as I infer from this plan.

Um but um forgive me, I'm not I'm not uh as familiar as I could be with you know the rest of the uh of uh the area beyond the limits of your site um that potentially would be accessible from Guernsey Street.

So are cars that are not affiliated with this development anticipated to be passing through this area?

No, no, only the pedestrian portion is intended to be public.

Um there is a um a right-of-way so that cars right now.

Cars can pass through um not publicly, but occupants of uh the St.

John's Towers can exit onto Guernsey.

So we imagine that the tenants and visitors of the building will have the ability to maintain that access, but it's not meant to be a through street.

Okay, and and presumably that'll be so demarked and you know, for traffic control and that's yes.

There, there's you can see on the plan here as you get into the site, there's a control box which will have an arm and one at the other side.

Okay.

And then kind of related to that, the the driveway that goes uh along the left edge and top edge of the left end of the development.

Is that it it doesn't seem to be providing access to the to the building's parking.

Um is it uh what is that driveway for?

So the the garage height, I believe is like 11 feet clear.

Yeah.

So this exists outside of the building so that trash emergency vehicles and larger vehicles can get uh uh in and around the site without having uh being limited by the garage height.

Okay, thank you.

It's more of a service drive.

Thank you.

That answers my question.

Ravi.

So Ray, uh that pathway that was earlier in emphasized as the public space meeting the public space requirement is not doing so because it is not compliing with the strict requirements under the city code, right?

So the rest it's it's not 20 feet wide and it's not 12 feet tall.

Yeah, so you are proposing to replace that or complement that with this garage entrance.

Well, what it is is it's a public um walkway through the site.

So let's again uh sorry if I'm not understanding, but will the will that passageway that you are showing uh still be there?

Yes, yes, that that we are moving forward with.

That'll still be there.

Now you're going to supplement that with the other picture that you showed.

Uh and that is also meant for the public or not.

This these are this is depicting the same space.

So this is the overhead view, and this is a rendered view of the space at the ground level.

So your when the what your request today is we approve the approval the public space despite the lack of strict compliance to the city code, is it what it is?

Correct.

That that's what the that's specific section is for, and that's why it's a special permit request.

And why would you want to do this now?

As you also said, you are two years uh to go on this whole construction.

Things can change, you're gonna change this plan, it goes going to go come to us and ask for an exception to a city code.

Sure.

Well, this was something that city staff thought was a good idea.

It was actually their initial thought that um triggered this.

And while it doesn't, while we can't meet the full 20 foot width and 10 foot clear, um, we still think it's a good idea.

Um and will serve as an amenity not just for the public for, but obviously for the for the building as well.

Um and we'll we'll serve a useful purpose for the city of Stanford.

So we're committed to moving forward with that.

Um what I meant was that we have two years to to think about it is that this alone doesn't satisfy the square footage requirement.

Um, but we still want to move forward with this, and then it all that remains is how do we figure out the other you know, thousand or so square feet.

Exactly.

So what is our approval required?

That's what I am puzzling puzzling over that.

I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

Well, I agree with agree with what you said, right?

You you proceed with this, and then if there's anything that is not uh being met, you have some other way to solve the problem.

So why do we need the stand the planning board approval for this today?

We need you we need your recommendation on the special permit.

You you get a a voice in all special permit applications.

Yep.

So similar, usually when you get a special permit, it's coupled with uh a site plan approval or or a GDP.

Um here you already approved that you already recommended approval of the GDP, and this is a new special permit that was different than what we asked for the first time.

So that's why it's coming back to you specifically for this request.

Let's see.

Okay.

And in terms of just kind of like not project specific, but in terms of process, um, the zoning board cares what the planning board has to say in terms of a project's compliance with the comprehensive plan.

Um, the planning board's recommendations are read into the record before a zoning board's public hearing on a specific project, and um included in the zoning board certificate of decision.

If an application is approved, uh the certificate of decision will say, whereas the planning board finds this is in compliance with etc.

Uh chat.

Thank you.

Um Ray, um so be um beyond the area requirement that you you have to meet.

Um there are two other specific um things, if I'm understanding you correctly, that that what you're currently proposing does not meet.

Um the walkway is not the compliant with the width requirement or the height requirement.

Is that correct?

So what's on the floor above this um area, this pass through.

This is the second garage level.

Okay, got it.

So what we have the the amenity space uh along the front here and turning on Washington Boulevard, uh, and from this side over is a double height amenity space, so it screens both levels of the garage.

Um and then here above this laundry area is a is a one-story portion, and then there's some storage uh above that, but for the rest of this, it's the second level of the garage.

All this all this gray space, the ramp to get up to the second level is over here.

Okay.

Was um were there any design investigations as to the possibility of making this particular driveway one way and and having the other lane be the other uh driveway used for fire access and and and tall taller vehicles, you know, perhaps one being in only and the other being out only, so that more width can be allocated to the pedestrian to allocate in order to satisfy that requirement.

No, uh it was really more efficient, and especially if it's going to be able to have access um to and from Guernsey, that it kind of align as it as a two-way flow here.

Um so that's why they they stuck with that.

And in any event, we might be able to, even if we could do that, um, we wouldn't meet it here.

Um so we'd still be before you for the same request.

Okay.

Um yeah, understand, but I think um part part of um from the comprehensive plans perspective, um the narrowness and the height uh that you're not achieving under the building is what makes the element a little less desirable to walk through.

So it's it's um the part that's not under the building, uh you already satisfy, you know, uh the height requirement at a at a minimum.

Um so I'd be less concerned about that as much as the you know, whether whether this what you've proposed as the solution, um is the best that can be done relative to satisfying the comprehensive plans, you know, vision for pedestrian access, uh and livening of pedestrian spaces, uh things of that, you know, safe routes, all that those kinds of things.

Yep, no, uh understood it's it's not uh utopia in terms of the the public amenity, but really the public amenity is you know, like this much of the project as far as we're concerned, um, where the big picture is 305 units of all affordable housing ranging from 30 to 80 percent of the uh area median income.

That that's the that's really the focus.

And I think there's an argument to be made that where you are going so far above and beyond um the affordability, um, a lot of times in past regulations, um those other types of kind of burdensome uh uh requirements don't always apply here.

Um, but here they do.

So they're really they're they're doing the best that they can to make everything work.

Yeah, I if I could just ask Ray, the height that you achieve in the garage is not significant, it's not low.

It's it's like 11 feet, right?

But it's not it's not 12.

Right.

So I just you know, we're talking about a one-foot difference, and certainly the quality of the space is as important as that foot.

So I think the the devil's in the details there.

Agree with you, Rick, that um the detail, the detail.

Um, yeah.

Um, but I guess um somebody has made a judgment that um for well uh I I guess another requirement that that we can't achieve because it's under the building is the landscaping, as an example.

Um I correct on that?

The technically that correct, yeah.

That you know wouldn't be feasible.

Right.

Okay.

So um another point, Ray, isn't the uh sidewalk on Washington a little oversized?

And might that you know amount to something?

Yeah, we we do have um more than the minimum requirement for the sidewalk on Washington.

Um and on tressor as well, but we've uh chosen to incorporate uh planting beds here uh along the the building facade.

So in terms of the overall pedestrian experience, you know, we have a lot of street frontage that is enhanced with extra space.

So we think on balance we achieve the you know sort of goals of uh being inviting to the public.

So is any of those shaded ADS in being the amenity amenity ADS open to the public?

Uh no, they are they are tenant amenity spaces.

You wouldn't consider giving access to the public to let's say there's a coffee hose or something inside the place.

I mean public and ongoing and have a cup of coffee with it.

No, and and what we found is that the lender requirements, those things get really complicated and are not looked on favorably.

Um so this application has you know a very complicated capital stack and is moving forward with um applications for financing through CHFA.

Um and they have things that they look for that score well on their applications, and it's it's competitive.

Um so they're really focused on doing what they can to make this the best application that they can for that financing, as this will be the I believe the largest single phase project to go through CAFA Ever.

Okay.

Okay.

Um there are any other questions from the board.

Jennifer, I'll make a motion to approve the special request.

Right.

You know, she developer is just you know putting the best foot forward and and you know trying to achieve the the intent of what was put forth uh you know in in the best way possible with the property.

We have a second.

I'm abstaining, Jennifer.

Okay.

Okay, so a second chat here on mute again.

Sorry, in that case, I'll I'll second it.

Um Jennifer, now you're on me.

Okay, there you go.

Yes, all right.

Um, so we have the second.

Um all in favor, uh, please indicate and I will join in favor.

And Robbie, you are abstaining on this vote.

Okay.

Yes, yeah.

Okay.

Um, so the motion does carry with uh three in support and one abstention.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good night.

Right.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh next on the agenda.

Wait, hold on.

I I kicked out, I made Jeremy an attendee rather than Ray.

But uh let me just bring him back real quick.

Okay.

Uh Jeremy will be rejoining.

Okay.

Here he is.

Sorry, Jeremy.

No problem.

Oh, and Ray is staying on for the next item, so I didn't even have to do that.

Oh.

Yes.

So next item uh under zoning board of appeals referrals is ZBA application 003-26.

Uh Raymond Mazio of Redness and Mead representing Hui Hua Enterprises LLC 75 West Broad Street variants of table two appendix B section 12 D 14, table 12 uh point seven and table 12.5.

Applicant owns a one-story bakery and two-story mixed-use building with a laundromat and one unit of residential on the first floor, and two units of residential on the second floor.

Applicant is proposing to reconstruct the existing building, resulting in one two-story building containing the laundromat and bakery on the first floor, and two units of residential on the second floor.

Applicant is requesting the following in table two appendix B, a front uh street line or front street line setback of five feet in lieu of the 40 feet required, noting that currently there is 4.4 feet existing, a front street center line setback of 35 feet in lieu of the 40 feet required with 34.4 feet existing, a side yard setback of zero feet uh for each in lieu of the six feet required with zero feet being existing uh building coverage of 50.3% in lieu of the 30% allowed with 50.5% existing non-residential floor area of uh 0.5 in lieu of the point three allowed, uh 0.39 is existing residential density of two units in lieu of the one unit allowed with three units exist under section 12 uh point D.14 and table 12.7 allowance of three parking spaces in lieu of the 12 required.

The uh there an existing three provided where 14 are required.

And for table 12.5 allowance of a parking setback of 0.8 feet to an interior lot line in lieu of the five feet required with 0.8 feet existing.

Um, so if uh the applicant's representative would like to uh walk us through the application.

Sure.

Thank you.

Uh Ray Masio, uh Bredness and Mead on behalf of the applicant.

Um, and I'm sorry that you had to go through and read all of those individually.

Um the short story is you know, the existing property is um historically legally non-conforming in a lot of different ways.

Um, and what we're looking to do is kind of uh simplify, optimize, put back what's there in a more efficient and useful way without exacerbating any of those existing nonconformities, but we do need to go through uh and ask for the variances again.

So here's the outline of the property on West Broad Street.

Uh, it currently houses the Matthews bakery uh and a laundromat facility on the ground floor.

Also on the ground floor at the back here is uh one apartment, and then there are two more apartments uh above.

Um here's just a more contextual view of where it sits on uh Broad Street.

Um then here's the view from Broad Street.

Um, so uh like most of the buildings here with that were built at similar times, they kind of maintain that that continuous street wall uh along the hill here.

Um so we're not looking to change that, but we do want to create one unified building.

Uh currently it's two separate buildings with you know a small uh almost inaccessible alleyway uh in between that doesn't serve uh any you know uh useful purpose other than you know trash can blow in it and it's hard to get it out.

Um so here's the the existing floor plan.

So the bakery building is here, that's the one-story uh portion uh laundromat with the residential unit at the back, and then two units above.

So what we're proposing is is a new building, a single building that will still go kind of property line to property line at the sides.

Um, and while it fills in this gap, it will be shorter so that the uh the overall footprint does not increase.

Um, and what we are doing is reducing the number of units from three to two and kind of recapturing that ground floor space um for the retail uses.

Um because the thought was that having a ground floor unit at that back driveway area is not really desirable, and having you know a unit at the back of a laundromat is not that desirable.

We'd rather recapture that space um for the commercial uses and then create two new nicer units on the second level.

So that's what's shown here at the ground floor space, uh, the ground floor level.

So the bakery is on the right side here.

The laundromat now occupies the full uh left side of the building.

Um and the units are above with uh stairway access both from Broad Street and from the back parking area.

So you would come up to a landing and then have your entrance into each of the units.

So it much more efficient, uh, you know, it makes a lot more sense um of the building.

Um each unit has ample light and air space with this one facing the the rear parking area and this one overlooking uh the street.

Um here's the uh the site plan.

So again, we're we're maintaining kind of the zero property lines um on the sides.

We are slightly increasing the setback because they have less than five feet, but really just maintaining that continuous street wall uh along the sidewalk.

Um and by shortening the building here, we're able to get what could be a fourth space, but we're anticipating that for building code, it will need to be ADA accessible.

So um we are we are maintaining the three spaces that are in the back, but one will be ADA compliant.

Um, if that's not required, we can we can add a fourth space.

So uh while we're reducing the required parking, we may have the ability to also increase uh the on-site parking.

And this parking area is accessed by easement uh over this property uh from Adams Street, and and that will be maintained.

Um and then here's a look from the front.

So obviously a much newer, nicer building, um just that really trying to recapture and optimize uh what's there in a more efficient manner.

Um and unfortunately, we need all those variances uh to do it.

So happy to answer any questions from the board.

And Jeremy has his hand up.

Yeah, um, I I guess I I have a statement.

I I think Ray, you answered my question first just regarding that the additional parking space.

Um, this is a a neighborhood that I'm very familiar with, and and I think um while it does not meet the the existing uh zoning standards, you know, it is replacing a two existing buildings with one new building um that is uh much more aesthetically pleasing and keeping the um walkability and and you know two businesses in in the neighborhood here and and providing something that that's a little bit more updated um, you know, and meeting some of those um requirements that we have in the comprehensive plan.

And I guess the last thing that I will say is um on the side of the existing building uh between Adams Avenue and West Broad Street, um it does say you know, additional parking for Matthews bakery uh here.

So it looks like you know, the tenant on the corner or the property owner on the corner, you know, is also allowing them to use some of their parking spaces uh, you know, for any overflow parking that they they may have on the property.

Thank you, Jeremy.

Yeah, it seems they have a pretty good relationship.

I don't know that that is papered up.

Um it seems that you know they have just kind of a looser agreement because as you can see, even the access, you know, they kind of work together so that there's a shared dumpster over here that actually sits in the technical driveway easement and the access, you can see the curb cut is actually over here.

So while we do have the required easement, if anything ever went awry and we'd need to maintain access, they do have it.

But for now, it's been a really nice relationship between uh the property owners.

So we hope that continues.

Um, but for the purposes of the application, we weren't counting any of that and just dealing with what we we know we have control over.

Um, but I appreciate you adding that color.

Here are any other questions or comments from the board.

Um I'd like to make a comment if I may.

Sure.

Um Ray, yeah, I think it's terrific.

Um it's a to my eye, it's a significant improvement to just that one block um from the pedestrian and and street facade, um, making it much more attractive and and by so doing kind of enlivening the street and animating it.

And I think it's very much in accordance with the comprehensive plan in that regard.

Even with regard to the kind of redevelopment of some of these old commercial blocks that weren't maximizing their potential as a way of um addressing housing and the rest multiple other elements of our comprehensive plan.

So I would very much be in favor of this.

And I in accordance with that, I I would just note it that I think that it seems clear that many of the blocks here, um, you know, all of them are existing, non-conforming, and uh given that we do have these objectives in the comprehensive plan around walkability and and streetscape and uh retaining um kind of existing neighborhood flavor.

If this this strikes me as an area of town that should be a priority to look at the zoning such that it can better match the comprehensive plan objectives of a dense vibrant neighborhood like this rather than uh applicants uh having to go through this really laborious process of um variances because they happen to be built the way that things were built a long time ago.

Um so that's not part of the motion, but I think just important to note.

Um so do we have a motion on the uh application for uh the affirmation aforementioned variances.

Ravi is motion two approved.

Okay, I have a second.

Yep, I'll second second by Jeremy.

Okay, all in favor.

Unanimous.

All right.

Well, thank you very much.

And look forward to seeing the new Matthews Bakery.

I know it's a very popular spot.

Yep, I too.

Thank you.

Um, all right.

Next, under the zoning board of appeals, uh referral docket, we have ZB application 00-26.

Uh Daniel Chappelle, uh Carmody Torrents Sundak and Hennessy LLP representing the little workers of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary Incorporated of Stamford, Connecticut at 2627 Glenbrook Road Variances and special permit.

Uh applicant owns and operates our Lady of Grace Preschool and Kindergarten and is proposing to uh renovate portions of the interior of the existing single family home on the property to create additional classroom space.

Applicant is requesting the following special permit approval pursuant to sections 2.5.x35.x6 and 5.x7 and appendix A, Table 1, to permit a school non-public use on the property.

Table 12 uh point six to permit the addition of two parking spaces in the front yard of the property.

Section 12.1 and table 12.5 to permit a surface parking area within five feet of the western property line, section 5.x.6e to maintain a landscape buffer area of less than 10 feet along the eastern property line, section 5.x point 6e to maintain a landscaped buffer area of less than 10 feet along the western property line.

Uh section 12.

To provide zero class A and zero class B bicycle parking spaces in lieu of the one class A and two class B bicycle parking spaces required.

Um so if the applicant's representative would like to introduce yourself for the record and present, please do so.

Hi, uh my name is Dan Chappell.

I'm with the offices of Carmen Torrents and Ecken Hennessey with offices located at 1055 Washington Boulevard in Stamford.

And I'm here tonight with my colleague Madison Smith, who is an associate of Carmody as well.

Uh and we're here on behalf of the applicant, the little workers of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary Inc.

of Samford Conn.

Uh and we'll be referring to them as Related Grace Preschool and Kindergarten.

That's the name of the school they operate currently at 635 Glenbrook Road.

Uh and also here with us tonight is Mary Lou Rinaldi, who works for the the Little Workers.

And I'm just going to share my screen.

Just give me one second.

Okay.

Can everyone see?

Yes.

Okay.

Great.

So Our Lady of Grace owns the property at 627 Glenbrook Road, which is adjacent to their existing school at 635 Glenbrook Road.

And as you know, we're here tonight on a referral from the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special permit and variance application to convert an existing single family home on the property into two classrooms for preschool students ages three and four and to make related parking improvements on the property.

So the property is outlined in yellow here.

As I mentioned, it's right next to the existing school.

And it's in land use category res one, the residential single family zone.

And it's also in the R7 and a half zoning district.

And they enroll students from preschool to kindergarten, and they're considered a school non-public use, which is allowed via special permit from the ZBA in the R7 and a half zone.

And currently Our Lady of Grace is at capacity and maintains a wait list of students who are looking for its preschool services.

So there's definitely a community need for its services.

So we're seeking special permit approval to allow the school non-public use at 627 Glenbrook Road as well.

And we would be looking to establish it in this existing home on the property.

The home was built in 1912, which was before Stanford adopted its zoning regulations.

And because it's a special permit use in a residential zone, we must first come to you and then ultimately go to the CBA.

And a lot of the variances we're requesting are related to the fact that we are converting an existing home and trying to build parking around it versus trying to build something from the ground up.

So I'll just walk you through the changes to the site.

So this is a survey that shows both the existing school building and then the home that we're looking to convert.

So the home is down the bottom of your screen.

We would be right now, there's a driveway and cars go in and out from the same driveway, but we would be converting that to entrance only.

And there would be two parking spaces right when you enter the property.

And then we'd be removing the stone garage and then the driveway goes down, and uh one of the entrances to the classroom would be actually down here in what is now the garage.

So we'd be converting the garage to a classroom.

Um there's a pretty steep change in grade from the entrance down to the entrance of the classroom.

So that's why we're not putting any parking down here.

Um then we'd be making a drop off area as well as um as well as putting two parallel parking spaces out front, and cars will come and drop off students, and they will then go through the driveway onto the 635 Glenbrook Road property and exit from one of those existing curb cuts.

And in connection with this, we would be moving to existing parking spaces over the the front yard of the property at 635 Glenbrook Road, where there's already a parking lot.

Will come and drop off students, and they will then go um through the driveway on to the 635 Glenbrook Road property and exit from one of those existing curb cuts and in connection with um this we would be moving to existing parking spaces over um to the the front yard of the property at 635 Glenbrook Road where there's already a parking lot and then uh these are the architectural plans that show um what we'd be converting so um we this shows the basement area so um we'd be converting the basement into a classroom which would have a capacity of up to 18 students and then this is the first floor and we'd be um converting the existing living room um and dining room area into another classroom that could hold up to 11 students maximum uh and then in connection with this we'd be adding uh an ADA ramp to make sure that uh it's the property is accessible to people with mobility issues and we would also be enclosing an existing stone porch uh and adding another stairway um to provide an additional means of egress, which is required by the building code.

So as I mentioned, um we're seeking your confirmation that special permit and the variance requests conform to uh the comprehensive plan.

And as I mentioned earlier, the property is in the res one residential single family land use category.

Uh this category is primarily dedicated to single family detached homes.

Um the it's it's um also designed to support compatible uses such as schools.

Uh and instead of trying to build something new, we're proposing to keep the existing home, which is over a hundred years old, and by doing so, we'd be keeping a building that has a scale and design that is already in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood and will blend in with the surrounding single family homes in the zone.

Um, and as I mentioned, our Lady of Grace has already operated a school next door and has done so for over six decades without a negative impact on the neighborhood.

Uh, and our Lady of Grace remains committed to being a good neighbor.

Um, and we believe the requested approvals would allow our Lady of Greats to serve the need for child care in the area.

Um, and we request that you find that the proposal is in general harmony with the intent of the comprehensive plan uh future land use category res one.

Thank you.

Um questions for the applicant.

Uh beef.

Sorry.

Um, I do know Mary Lou Rinaldi from the Board of Finance um does want to uh make a statement.

Um, and since she's on the board of finance, we uh would typically give her that that opportunity.

Um Jennifer, I don't know if you want to do that before board questions or after board questions.

Um wait, we can go ahead and do that before.

Thank you.

All right, I will going to promote her to panelist and Mary, you can unmute yourself.

Okay, can you can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

Um I'm not here as a member of the Board of Finance.

I'm here as a uh neighbor of the school and actually a volunteer.

I don't work there, I'm a volunteer and have been for the past 35 years.

And I just wanted to speak in support of uh the application for the school.

They have a waiting list of anywhere from 40 to 50 children every year that they can't accommodate because of the limitations of their existing building.

So the the uh property at 627 would be converted to have two additional classrooms, which would give them more capacity to satisfy what I'm sure everybody knows is a real need in Stanford and its environs.

I mean, we really need more quality daycare.

So um the changes that you see are not going to be for the exterior of the building, it's all going to be an interior renovation, uh, which is supported by the neighbors.

They've been neighbors of the of the school and the sisters for decades.

And welcome this accommodation.

So I just hope that the board will favorably consider this application.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

Okay.

So questions from the board.

I'm not seeing any hands or waves.

Yes.

I do have one.

I think overall the variance is, especially the sighting of the parking makes sense.

As to the variance on the bicycle parking requirement, which you know would be I'm I'm I'm a little bit concerned with uh setting a precedent of waiving the requirement based on kind of an assessment of the bike score as it were.

Um I mean, one that's something that'll hopefully will change over time.

Um I do think that the um being able to have access to the basement storage for bike parking is sh I I think makes sense as a suitable um substitute.

I just wonder if there's a way to formalize that as um an understanding uh should in the future in particular any employees of uh of our lady of grace uh need to utilize that.

Okay, yeah, I we would be open to a condition from the ZBA about adding bicycle parking as needed, because there will be a maximum of of four employees on the site at any time.

So there is a lot of basement storage, and as I mentioned, there would be an entrance to uh the basement classroom directly from the driveway.

So there would be um easy access for someone to leave a bike there.

Um but at this time there we don't anticipate any demand for bicycle parking on the property, but um again, there is space um on the property for to accommodate indoor bicycle parking.

Um so I I think having uh recommending a condition of just kind of uh formalizing an intention should there be need for uh bicycle parking on site to utilize uh the basement storage area, I think would be sufficient.

Um with that, uh, do we have a motion on this item?

Uh Ravi is waving his hand.

Uh is that a motion for approval, Ravi?

Yeah, that's correct.

Yeah, oh Kidoki.

Any seconds.

Jeremy.

Yeah, did he drop off?

No, he's right here.

He he gave the second.

Okay.

All right.

Um all in favor.

Um, and again, it's to me, it's it includes that condition around the allowance of access for indoor bicycle parking.

Um all in favor.

Everyone's raised their hand.

All right, to pass this unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, and last on our agenda.

Uh ZBA application 006-26, uh, Philip and Janice uh Spadaro at 88 Maltby Avenue variants of Table 2 appendix B.

Applicant owns a single family dwelling with associated driveway and landscaping and is proposing to demolish the existing structure and construct a new single family dwelling with associated driveway and site improvements.

Uh applicant is requesting A, a front line uh front street line setback of 19.6 feet in lieu of the 40 feet required, and B a front street center setback of 27.5 feet in lieu of the 65 feet required.

Do we have a representative to present on this item?

Yes, Mr.

Spadaro is here and available to speak.

He's unmuted.

If you have anything that you'd like to say about your applicant, you're welcome to do so.

All right.

Last call, Philip, if you would like to say anything, uh speak up.

Okay, he has put himself on mute, um, which I I think is fine.

It's a very um uh it's a pretty simple request, pretty straightforward request.

Um in my in my memo.

I noted that it's in the residential single family future land use category.

Um, and the setback would actually align with and complement uh the neighboring buildings.

And the uh hardship is the location on a corner lot.

Yeah.

Um questions from the board.

Doesn't look like it.

Okay.

Uh seeing none, do we have a motion on this item?

Ravi is making a motion to approve.

Approve.

I have a second.

Jeremy takes it.

Okay.

I know this one's so exciting.

All right.

Um, all in favor.

And everyone raise their hands.

Uh okay.

And that is our docket for today.

Yes.

All right.

Um, so our next regularly scheduled planning board meetings are um February 10th, uh, February 24th, and March 10th.

Um, and again, as noted at the top of the meeting, uh in discussing capital budget, um, you can the board can expect a draft of the capital budget transmittal letter before we um send that to the mayor.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, everyone.

Have a good week.

Bye, everybody.

Bye.