That was fun.

Yes.

Only the other day I was telling Lindsay.

Oh, we've known how that meeting ended.

Because she was having that problem with the planning board meeting.

Here we are.

Okay.

David, I think needs help.

I've got course David's person that's not here because David should be joining right now.

David, are you there?

I'm here.

Yeah.

So we have four attendees.

I don't think we can, I don't know what happened.

It's recording.

Everything's working.

It is.

The question is, did it knock out the public?

But they just have to come back on just like we did.

And you made that announcement to them.

I think we should get moving.

Okay.

Let's do it.

Um okay, the uh zoning board is resuming uh its hearing of uh November 24th, 2025.

It is 952 p.m.

The next item we have is application 22532, uh City of Stanford zoning board zoning text change.

The purpose of this proposed tech change is to streamline the current VC district regulations, add illustrative graphics and add regulations for staff level architectural review.

Um Roseanne, could you please read the planning board letter?

Uh yes, and this is 32.

32, yeah.

Yeah.

October 29th, 2025 to Mr.

David Stein, Chair, City of Stanford Zoning Board regarding ZB application two two two five-32 uh text change.

Dear Mr.

Stein and members of the zoning board.

During its regularly scheduled meeting, Helen Tuesday, October 28, 2025, planning board reviewed the above captioned application referred in accordance with the requirements of the Stanford Charter.

Purpose of this proposed text change is to streamline the current VC district regulations, add illustrative graphics and add regulations for staff level architectural review.

Ralph Blessing, land use bureau chief, made a presentation and answered questions from the board.

After some discussion, the planning board unanimously voted to recommend approval of ZB application two two five-three two and found this to be in general harmony with the 2035 comprehensive plan.

Sincerely Stanford Planning Board, Jennifer Casino, Chair.

Good.

Thank you.

Um Ralph, do you want to um take us through this uh text change, please?

Okay.

Can you see my screen?

Yes.

Excellent.

Now you so um you made a few changes to it.

Right, but um yes, I sent out the changes uh this morning.

Um the VC changes were uh minimal.

It was uh basically um editing uh for the most part.

Oh yeah, so um we cannot miss those when we um maybe when we vote on it.

Um just I'm sorry, Ralph, excuse me, one sec.

Um for anyone who's on for the hearing of um application 22529, which is for 120 C Long Ridge Road.

Um that application has been continued until our meeting on December 1st at 6:30 on teens.

Okay, go ahead, please.

Yeah, so uh tonight um we have uh two zoning board applications um for you.

Um the first one is uh 225-32, which deals with um the VC district.

Um and uh so just as an introduction, um those are the VC districts we have uh in Stamford.

So we have uh the ones in Springdale and Glenbrook.

And uh we have um uh two on the west side and uh one in the south end, and currently the differentiation.

Currently have one in the south end, yes.

Um it's okay.

It's the uh on Pacific Street, it's a small stretch where the firehouse is.

Yes, we rezoned it to VC um a while back.

Okay.

So uh currently we identify them as VC Springdale and Glenbrook and VC uh all other districts.

So uh one of the changes we're proposing is uh actually call it VC1 and VC2.

So VC1 would be the ones uh that are in Glenbrook and Springdale.

They have lower densities, uh lower building heights uh than the other VC districts and the districts currently known as VC districts, all other would become uh VC2.

Um and what we really try to do um with this text change is um add illustrative uh graphics.

So there's actually no substantive changes in the VC district regulations.

We're not changing any building heights, we're not changing any setbacks.

Uh it's just um uh reorganizing um the regulations and adding uh those illustrative uh graphics.

So this just shows the um setback regulations in the VC district.

Um and the next graphic or the second graphic we uh are proposing uh shows um the height regulations um within the VC district.

Once again, we're not proposing any uh changes to uh the actual height limits uh as they currently exist.

So one of the reasons why uh the VC district is a little bit uh convoluted is that uh it was actually one of the first new um zoning districts that had a lot of urban design uh guidelines, um special parking requirements and so on.

Um but as time went on, we incorporated a lot of those things that we sort of piloted in the VC district and added them uh to the general regulations so we can make the VC regulations uh actually shorter than they currently are and uh um thus also make it easier to keep the zoning regulations updated.

Um so uh a lot of the things that would lead it in the VC district regulations actually are in other places of uh the regulations because uh it turned out they work well and uh uh so therefore we uh gave them broader applicability than just the VC district.

than they currently are and uh um thus also make it easier to keep the zoning regulations updated um so uh a lot of the things that were deleted in the vc district regulations actually are in other places of uh the regulations because uh it turned out they work well and uh uh so therefore we uh gave them broader applicability than just the vc district so um another thing that uh the proposed changes add is are the designation criteria so the designation criteria really uh are a guideline for when an application comes in uh if a rezoning to the vc is appropriate so um there needs to be a minimum size of the area to avoid spot zoning uh and the other thing that the designation criteria uh contain are uh obviously the vc district has to be aligned with certain master plan or comprehensive plan categories so um the designation criteria uh would say uh the vc district is appropriate for master plan categories um um uh old master plan would be category six local retail uh the new uh comprehensive plan category would be m2 which is uh mixed use neighborhood center uh we already talked about the renaming of the Glenbrook and Springdale uh VC2 VC1 and the VC2 um we uh talked about adding the graphics um a thing uh that is genuinely new is that um we're proposing to add uh staff level architectural review so currently everything in the VC district uh has to come uh to the zoning board um so uh what we're proposing and I'm not sure why uh this um writing is there in the middle of the slide um everything uh in the VC district has to come to the zoning board for uh architectural and design review you might remember a couple of months or even years ago excuse me Ralph you said comes to the zoning board yes currently or in the future currently uh um so uh a couple of years ago we had an application where they wanted to basically uh re uh uh side um a convenience store for an existing um gas station which was uh the minimus project uh it still had to be reviewed by the planning board so uh by the zoning board so what we're proposing is that uh we would add a new section two i uh which would uh establish criteria for staff level architectural review and in the vc district what it would do is that everything on sites that are less than 20,000 square feet the staff would um make sure that um uh it complies with the design regulations of the VC district so that uh includes compliance with uh sidewalk requirements street tree requirements obviously parking um but there's also a lot of design um uh uh requirements with regard to materials which ones to use which ones not to use uh basically a lot of the things that uh Venida or I are uh doing already uh and once again the idea is that uh uh for small projects it would uh basically um uh just be staff review for larger projects on sites with more than 2000 square feet it would still come uh to um the zoning board for review and that's pretty much it for um the first application for tonight okay this is um you may have noticed on the uh the text change when it was sent out this last point about the architectural review is highlighted because I wanted um the board to see that what it's saying is that new construction alterations expansion redevelopment adaptive reuse for a lot with less than 2000 square feet so slightly less than half an acre um would go to staff and no longer go to the board i'll just I I ask uh Ralph to highlight it just so everyone will see it and understand what's being um proposed here and see if if people feel that that's um okay that you know half acre lot would just be staff review um anything above that would be uh board review is there anything that we have reviewed in the last two or three years that we would could use as an example of something we wouldn't see anymore I don't know how about the 492 Glenbrook would that have been uh it might have been more than 2000 this one is 19 the one that you're looking at um today is 19 yeah

Is there anything that we have reviewed in the last two or three years that we would use as an example of something we wouldn't see anymore?

I don't know.

How about the 492 Glenbrook?

Would that have been uh it might have been more than 20,000?

Um this one is 19, the one that you're looking at um today.

48.

Yeah is what 19,000 square feet.

488 is 19,000 square feet.

Well then 492 would have been less than that, could it uh tucked in the price?

I think it was wider.

I can go back and check.

I've got some concerns that um there could be projects like 492 that would fall under the 20,000 square feet that we still want to um pass on.

I mean one of the things that actually um the master plan or comprehensive plan says is that we should look into um streamlining our regulations and that would be part of that effort.

Um I mean what we could do is we could lower the thresholds for when um staff review is um allowed.

I mean, the thing is also for uh single family homes, they have much larger lot sizes in many areas.

So it's really trying to find a balance uh between um staff level review and stuff coming to the zoning board.

Yeah.

Even the like 20,000, I think if we have, you know, because the district has clear standards, I think sometimes it's about you know just going through the checklist and seeing if they meet everything or not, uh or everything is implemented or not.

Um so it's it's very yeah.

Remember 492 where we had quite a bit of discussion about how to improve it.

Um and um I think the board added a lot to it, even where there weren't regulations on um exactly what needed to be done.

I I don't I would be okay lowering the threshold, keeping a threshold, but having it lower 15,000.

Either 10 or 15.

Um let's see.

Bill, what do you think then?

I'm thinking 10.

Also our and uh it is uh corporation council had any comment on whether we could do this or not?

Interesting.

I mean the 20,000 is the threshold in other district other design districts.

Um RMF, RM1 or 5.

I think many other districts have the 2000s.

I see many other districts it's 30,000 square feet, like in the RMF it is 30,000 large scale development reviews 30,000 so I think VC has some smaller properties in it though.

Um I would I would agree with Bill and go with Ken.

Where are you, Jerry?

I would go with Roseanne 15.

125, anyone?

125.

How about if we split it?

You guys good with 12.5.

I think it's it sounds like you and Bill don't want this to happen, period, right?

I mean, how many 10,000 square feet have we ever looked at?

Well, let me ask you this in this way.

Well, what are what are the benefits of doing that?

At 20,000.

What are the benefits?

I think you know that many applicants or property owners would be encouraged, or like the process would be able to move faster.

Not for none of your fault, it's just the fact of how you know what the the entire process is, uh the pre-process before they get here, the noticing requirements, the department review that happens before, um, all of that, and and they have to wait in line behind bigger projects.

have we ever looked at well let me ask you answer this in this way what are what are the benefits of doing that at 20 000 what are the benefits i i think you know that many applicants or property owners would be encouraged or like the process would be able to move faster not for none of your fault it's just the fact of how you know what the the entire process is uh the pre-process before they get here the noticing requirements the the department review that happens before um all of that and and they have to wait in line behind bigger projects um so other bigger projects might continue at multiple times so it might be four three or four months before they even get to the board and then they get a sense of whether or not um they have to change things so I think you know having the predictability or like you know of you know getting their review done faster makes a difference in whether or not somebody takes on a project at all it it also adds a lot of cost when you're only building 15 or 20 units on that smaller piece of property you know it's basically the same amount of money as if you're building 250 units right like presently any change of use in the VC has to come to the board there's no threshold um and that is an impediment in people thinking about who they can rent uh space to like if it's in that case it's much easier for them to just go to you know continue with the same tenant or go to the same use if it's a different tenant rather than market it to something else if if a change of use has to go before a board and I mean it's it's really yeah it's really sort of the the the the balance between uh like a big project that obviously should should get um uh uh uh full review thorough review and uh hearing and all those things and as I mentioned before that one example where um like someone wanted to change the siding on a gas station uh on a convenience store in a gas station where um uh it it had to come uh to the board no change in floor area uh no change in use just because um in the VC district everything has to go to um the uh to the zoning board and I think the point that Venita makes so maybe the point is that that if it's minor it should skip the board but look in 488 Glenbrook the application we heard tonight under this we wouldn't get to hear it um and that one I think is significant enough that the board should be weighing in on it absolutely yeah but you're right it's not about the size it's about what the change is and what the proposal is yeah like what you mentioned Ralph if we shouldn't see that you know I mean if the threshold was 15,000 you would have seen um tonight's project right yeah maybe that's the right number for VC versus other districts I mean one other thing is that you know that a lot of times you know buyers are looking to buy a property and they need to make a decision um zoning wise whether it's going to work or not and when we tell them that you know this need we cannot give you an answer it has to be reviewed by the board yeah um well they to others that's what zone is you know it things gotta come to the board um I I think you know we need to you know things do need to keep moving to be able to kind of you know be uh you know rather than something being vacant because of the threshold of review I think it's been much just because it's in the VC yeah if it was one block over we wouldn't be seeing it and right I mean the idea is to have a white you know revitalized area to have things occupied um and developed rather than you know just you know have to wait to do the same thing that they could do elsewhere well look it's are we if we're talking about major changes then I think we need to have a say in it if it's minor changes then I would I would have no problem skipping the board and going right to staff.

Yeah more important than this the size of the yeah if it's 2000 feet and they just want to change the siding or something like that or redo their roof why should we see it I agree so Ralph what if we changed the language to talk about you know minor changes not a legal term we've we've written that language before in other places yeah I know I think the the the nice thing about a square footage is it's clear yeah and I mean I would be fine with 10,000 square feet I mean I would prefer 15 but I would be fine with 10,000 and I mean 10,000 square feet at a FAR of 1.5

the s the size of the yeah if it's 2000 feet and they just want to change the siding or something like that or redo their roof why should we see it I agree so Ralph what if we changed the language to talk about you know minor changes and what would it's not a legal term we've we've written that language before in other places yeah I know I think I mean the the the nice thing about a square footage is it's clear yeah and I mean I would be fine with 10,000 square feet I mean I would prefer 15 but I would be fine with 10,000 and I mean 10,000 square feet at a FAR of 1.5 that would give you 15 probably less than 15 units unless actually in Glenbrook and Springdale because I think that I mean if this 19,000 lot is giving them 19 units so really it would be more like 910 units.

Do we I guess again do we do we want to have no say over that it's a I it's the the balance between you know allowing development to happen at the pace that it needs to happen versus having you know more control.

I think I think if people are building 10 to 15 units yeah they're gonna shy away from it if they have to spend the time and the money coming to the board right and it goes down to the rents because it the cost that's where the cost will come out of or it just won't get done.

Yeah and I mean the thing is like how about 10,000 then how about 125 since two of us want 1500 and two of you want 10 we're split down the middle Jerry you still at 15 he's here you're muted I I'll go to 125 but I think David I think you made a good point you know with Glenbrook Road we would we have heard that project and is it important for us to see that is it the quality of the project or the size of the project I mean the the the thing is when when the VC was created there were no light and air requirements there were no street tree requirements there were no sidewalk requirements um the architectural requirements were um significantly less so um a lot of things have changed and have become uh more stringent over uh the course of the year open space usable open space requirements didn't exist uh pervio surface requirements didn't exist so all those things that um are a concern are now part of the zoning regulations yeah so um uh that's why I think that that um 125 or 10 is is a good threshold I'm good with 125 yeah that that works until until we have a building that comes along that people say well how come the zoning board let that one happen right well then you can say you can blame it on staff no but it's 1000 square feet i there's I don't think there's gonna be a whole lot of complaining no no well you know but yeah 15 units and I I know in our world that's not a very big project but you know if that's across the street from you 15 units could have some concerns yeah Vanita said it's it's about one unit per thousand square feet so it'd be like 10 units or 12 and a half yeah then you probably get a bonus in there too for something I mean the thing is the thing is also it's it's happening it's happening in a district where you can have pretty big buildings so um I mean if you look at a fight I just I I just just remember we had this conversation yeah yeah oh okay are we uh where are we 125 yeah 125 yeah like I said I'm not gonna fight it but I just remember we had this conversation right I mean again it could be a good sized building you're right um so okay 125 we um we've made that change Ralph while we're at it you want to just tell us what you changed uh yeah I think for the VC it was um

Right.

I mean again, it could be a good sized building.

You're right.

Um so okay.

12-5.

We um we made that change.

Ralph, while we're at it, you want to just tell us what you changed.

Uh yeah, I think for the VC it was um the the biggest change was probably uh deleting at the end to note that uh on the zoning map we would change uh the nomenclature from V from VC to VC one and VC2.

Uh that's that where is that?

Um that's all the way at the end on the last page.

Oh yeah.

And we we move that information into the first footnote under um the uh the table.

That's page five, I believe.

Yeah, can you just show it to us?

Uh one second, I'm trying to find the application.

Yeah, page five, you're right, Phil.

Just because I asked Ralph about it.

Yes.

I couldn't find it.

There it is.

Okay, can you see my screen?

Yes.

So yeah, it's really uh we added footnote one.

Uh that's the one about uh the VC district uh Glenbrook Springdale is the VC one and all others are VC2, and then of course we needed to update the numbering of all the other um footnotes.

Uh but there was nothing changed in those footnotes, and that was really the biggest change, and then we deleted uh that that last sentence about renaming it on on the zoning map.

Okay.

Yes.

And I think we sort of circumvent the issue of the map change that way.

Good.

Okay.

Um can we go to the public?

Sure.

All right.

Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this application, either for or against it?

Uh please raise your hand.

Um I don't see anybody.

Anybody behind.

Mr.

Dave Adams.

Mr.

Adams, you should be able to unmute.

Ah, now it's working.

That's good.

Um, thank you, uh Vanita.

Uh thank you, Chair Stein.

Uh one thing I want to say real quick before I uh say anything.

Uh is uh uh teams is terrible and it is a huge frustration.

Uh I hope we uh never use it again.

I hope we really move away from the system as soon as possible.

Um it's so frustrating.

Uh and you know everything that's going on.

I appreciate the correction earlier, Ralph.

Thank you very much.

I don't know what I was going what was going through my brain at the time.

Uh I was extremely frustrated with the with the with the program and I have got like a million different things going on all at once.

So thank you for the correction and my apologies.

All right, I'm sorry.

Uh on this particular uh, you know, tax change.

Um I don't I don't like uh the idea of you uh removing your your authority over these uh projects 125 or you know 12 units is is is a lot of units and I I think that people should stop for consideration when they're when we're thinking about putting in um you know developments like that and I don't think that they're it should just pass without consideration those are my thoughts uh I hope you know I'm sure they're expected I hope you uh all have a wonderful evening good thanks Dave um let me see who else do we have um I don't see any other hand okay um um don't see any speaker I mean I just want to reiterate that in in all the literature uh that that deals with the housing crisis the big thing is or is is uh for for zoning is yes the zoning in many places is not dense enough but it's also that too many approvals are discretionary i.e.

have to go to a board versus being as of right it creates time delays it increases cost and it creates uncertainty so um once again i think it's finding the right balance we we don't want to uh give the store away but um that's that's not only what what we are saying because we want more work it's i think uh um in in many instances uh um uh many many uh people housing advocates uh pointing to that issue okay um david before we sorry um yes if you could announce the continuation of the uh 488 application again um just in case anybody's confused okay let's um we'll just get finished with this one is there anything else on this before we continue it okay then application 225-32 um is continued until the zoning board meeting on December 1st 2025 at 630 on teams now umita mentioned we also continued the application for 48 Glenbrook Road that's 225-24 um and that one was continued to December 15th um at 630 uh on teams next we have application 22540 which is uh also zoning board text change purposes text changes to update appendix b tables two and three including the notes no substantive changes are proposed um can we hear the planning board letter please uh Roseanne yeah October 29th 2025 to Mr.

David Stein Chair City of Stanford Zoning Board regarding ZB application 225-40 Stanford zoning board text change dear Mr.

Stein and members of the zoning board during its regularly scheduled meeting held on Tuesday October 28 2025 the planning board reviewed the above captioned application referred in accordance with the requirements of the Stanford Charter the purpose of this text change is to update appendix B tables two and three including the notes no substantive changes are proposed Ralph Blessing land use bureau chief made a presentation and answered questions from the board after some discussion the planning board unanimously voted to recommend approval of ZB application 225-40 and found this to be in general harmony with the 2035 comprehensive plan sincerely Stanford Planning Board Jennifer Gazzino Chair okay thank you um well if you want to uh continue your presentation please um on this one and when you get done let's just quickly go through the changes you set out today yes um okay uh can you see my screen yeah so um appendix B uh currently consists of two tables that have the uh bulk regulations for residential and uh non-residential districts um so uh one of the things we're proposing is to combine the two tables into one so that all zoning districts are in one place uh it's also um we have a lot of districts that are actually mixed use districts so

So appendix B currently consists of two tables that have the uh bulk regulations for residential and uh non-residential districts.

Um so uh one of the things we're proposing is to combine the two tables into one so that all zoning districts are in one place.

Uh it's also um we have a lot of districts that are actually mixed-use districts, so you don't really know should you look in the residential table or should you look in the commercial table.

Um the other thing is that uh the uh appendix B, the table doesn't contain all zoning districts, so we are adding a couple of zoning districts that are currently not in there, uh like the VC district uh and the CG district, the T C D district.

Um and also what's currently not in uh the table in appendix B, but in the district regulations are some of the parameters that are in the district regulations, uh, but they're not uh in appendix B in the table.

So you don't find all the information that are relevant to a specific district in the table.

Uh for example, floor area for commercial uh for residential development, we added that for the single family districts.

Um we are slowly moving to adding uh lot coverage uh uh i.e.

um pervious surface requirements to districts, they have not been uh in appendix B uh classically um setbacks from curb line versus setbacks from uh street line.

So those would all be added uh to um the table in appendix B.

Uh once again, those requirements already re exist.

They just were not contained uh in the table.

They are in uh section five in the district regulations.

Um the other thing that we're proposing is to um update the notes in appendix B.

Uh so there's a lot of them, uh about 30 or so.

Um, however, some of those notes were um or are outdated.

Uh we found when we went through all the notes references to districts that don't even exist anymore.

Um, and obviously with adding new districts, uh we had to add uh new notes um there as well.

But once again, uh no uh substantive change uh changes are proposed.

I'm now switching to um the actual text.

Give me one second.

And I have to say all that makes a heck of a lot of sense.

Yeah.

So um I sent out the changes this morning.

Um, and uh the really the big change is uh we also currently have uh a tax change in the works for um the CG district.

It's one of the districts that doesn't really have a chapter in the zoning regulation, so we're uh proposing to add that.

Um we filed that earlier than this text change, so we had hoped that uh this would be done by now, but it isn't.

So the big change is that we um took out all the regulations that refer to the proposed CG regulations and put it back to um the current CG regulations.

Um, because obviously we cannot preempt uh the tax change uh that we're proposing for the CG.

So um that's that's the only big change uh we're proposing for um or that's different from what was filed originally.

So the CG1 would be the what is currently known as the CG north of North Street, the CG2 would be the uh uh CG, the CG district south of North Street, but those are the current regulations um as they are uh in the table in the current table of appendix uh three um uh as published uh right now.

Uh and that was really the yep if the property is on North Street, then it would just be the north side of it would go with CG1 and the south side with CG2.

Uh probably, but luckily we don't have CG districts on North Street yet.

So good.

Okay.

Um so yeah, the the one we have actually only one CG district north of North Street, and that's 1600 um uh summer street that was uh rezoned, the big office building that was rezoned uh a couple of months ago to allow for the potential conversion uh to residential um of the building.

And uh I mean as I said before, we added the VC district, we added the RHD district, we added the TCD districts, but once again, this is not new regulations, new standards.

This is taken from the district regulations in section five and just moved um to the table.

I mean, the idea being that yeah, you have all the information about all the zoning districts in one table.

Uh we're not quite done yet.

There's still a couple of uh districts missing, but um we are we are at least uh moving in the right direction.

Okay, good.

Um this is the uh okay.

And there were no changes just to put that on the record.

Uh there were no changes in the notes uh to appendix B, uh, which I had also sent out this morning.

With the exception we added one footnote um with regard to bonus heights in the CG districts because of the we had to change it back from the proposed to the current regulations.

Okay.

Um questions.

Oh, I don't have any questions in this one, David.

It's pretty straightforward.

Yeah.

I I I have um not a question about this, but so we we're gonna change the tables, it's gonna be all updated, and then when we change um any of our regulations throughout the year, does will this table get automatically updated, or then do we have to vote on that again?

Um it would be part of the application.

So usually what it says is make those changes in the CG district and update table uh appendix uh uh B table.

I mean, it only will be one table now, but yeah, uh it'll be referred there and and updated uh that way.

Great.

Thanks.

Okay.

Uh is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this application, either for or against it.

Um I don't see any hands.

Okay.

Then um application 225-40 is being continued until the uh next zoning board meeting on December 1st at 6 30 p.m.

on teams.

W why are we continuing it, Dave?

Yeah, why can't we vote on this?

Um you know, because of the technical issues, people might have had trouble, like many people got kicked out of the meeting and they had to rejoin and you know, even out for a period of time.

So I think it'll yeah it's a big government, yeah.

We don't it's not that big a deal to wait, and it takes away the risk that someone will challenge it because of uh they couldn't get on and speak.

So it's it you know it's just better to be safe than sorry.

Okay.

Um regular meeting, approval of the minutes of November 10th.

Um which we have multiple copies of in in several packages, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Uh does anyone have any changes on this?

This was uh I move that we approve the minutes of the regular meeting on Monday, November 10th, 2025, as presented.

Second.

Okay.

Um I can't vote because I wasn't there.

Um, but uh all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Jerry.

Oh, I saw you look I saw your it's lighting up, but I'm not hearing anything.

Is that must be a yes?

This is unbelievable.

Yeah.

Jerry, are you able to speak?

You can blink.

Blink once if it's a yes.

Okay, good.

Minutes are approved.

I can't take it.

But we are we need we also need to vote on um 120 long ridge.

Um Jerry, is there any way you can speak?

Yeah.

We don't have uh the chat doesn't work right.

It should work.

Um does the QA.

Um Jerry, are you able to type into the Q ⁇ A or the chat?

Sure.

Let me call Jerry.

Oh god.

Yeah.

That's how I feel, Bill.

Thinking about all the cooking.

I have to be need to we don't love teams either.

Yeah.

It's on our Christmas list, I guess.

On of ours.

You want to zoom back.

I'm back here.

I'm in David.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yep.

I get back on.

Okay.

Good.

Um, so the the next item we have is voting on uh approval of 120 long ridge road.

Yep.

Application 225-28.

Site site and architectural plans and a requested use is in special permit.

Um is there anyone who's opposed to uh this application?

No, but no Jerry, you're good?

No, I'm good.

Okay, then can we uh put up the conditions?

Yes.

Right.

Can y'all see it?

Yeah, can you yeah?

There we go.

Good.

Um so we okay, yeah, keep going.

Um David, I I added one of the comprehensive plan references.

Um I left the other ones in the master plan references.

You left in the master plan.

Yeah.

I just proposal okay.

I mean they're still relevant.

Well not really.

It doesn't apply to this application, does it?

I mean it was approved by well again.

I'm not sure planning board did not opine on this when being consistent with the um comprehensive plan.

So the comprehensive I'm sorry.

They did uh their letter reference of the comprehensive plan um categories.

It's comprehensive, not master plan.

Yeah.

So what's just above that reference to comprehensive plan?

Okay, so one of them one of them, yeah.

The planning board did not talk about we can take off.

We can remove this.

Hello.

We're here.

Okay.

I just got a okay.

Jerry, can you see what the conditions?

Yeah, I just uh yes, I can see the conditions, yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

I didn't make any other changes.

Um, the closes.

Okay.

Yeah.

So we have um uh section one that the uh work will be consistent with the plans, unless otherwise approved by the zoning board for um staff if it's minor section two landscape.

Um prior to building permit applicant will submit plans for at grade space, including programming play equipment, um, and the play and amenity space.

Um which it says to be located in the building.

Is that where we where we ended up with that?

Um so you know it it incorporates both for any ad grade open space as well as you know any play area or amenity in the building.

Okay.

Okay.

Any comment on that?

No.

Okay, it's number three.

Out after BMR, right in the the heading there.

Sure.

Thank you.

Um this is the uh they will satisfy the BMR requirement by making an a payment to the um affordable housing trust fund uh based on the uh seven percent of the square footage because that's the percentage we use for um uh conversion.

Um it's 125 dollars a square foot uh times the current multiplier, which builds in um inflation, so it's roughly 2.7 million dollars final amount to be determined at the time of payment.

Okay.

Um next uh prior to CO applicant will provide 267 self-parking spaces, including which includes 27 um electric vehicle spaces.

Um they will be put near the entrance uh as close as possible to the entrance of the building.

And they'll be unassigned, which is what our regs say.

Um the the parking spaces, there's some of them that are eight and a half feet wide, and we're in um category three here, which requires nine foot wide spaces.

Um just vanita is that correct?

It is category three.

Okay.

Um so they'll the applicant needs to um redo the plans uh prior to building permit and submit it to staff for their review, um, showing that the uh the spaces have been restrictive to make them nine feet wide.

Okay, um far?

Questions?

I just have a general question.

Why are our requirements different sizes for different parking lots?

Why aren't they consistent?

So the parking category one is where the the transit-oriented um districts are um and more more dense districts, and that's where we allow a little bit more flexibility with the width of the spaces.

So this is parking category one is downtown south end, but in category two are close to the train stations, uh the other train stations.

Um so that was the idea too.

So you have cramped parking where everything is kind of more expensive, and we make everybody have less cramped parking elsewhere.

It does I was so you have to have more, you have to have more of a footprint outside of the downtown and the train station areas.

Yeah, that is right.

I guess it maybe it also has to do with the cost of land and development.

You have more space outside of downtown.

No, I I get that, but I really don't get the reason why it's eight and a half in some places and nine feet and another.

Right.

Actually, so I was I was talking to Luke about this um saying if he felt strongly one way or the other world about this conversion kind of retrofitting their spaces.

He said you know, really eight and a half is fine across the board if we wanted to go to that standard.

get that but I really don't get the reason why it's eight and a half in some places and nine feet and another right actually so I was I was talking to Luke about this um saying if he felt strongly one way or the other well about this conversion kind of retrofitting their spaces he said you know really eight and a half is fine across the board if we wanted to go to that standard so it really isn't that big of I'm not sure eight and a half fine I mean that's that's pretty tight sometimes um you know how many times you have to get out of your car and you know you're squeezing out of the the the driver's side door because there's barely enough space um yeah I just I'm not sure that that's yeah I understand that with space you know that it's expensive and in the certain districts we we want to have more parking at less cost um and allow the eight and a half foot but anyway it's a good question Rosie um okay so we have the parking management plan which we are all familiar with and then we have the transportation demand management plan which is the same as always um we have bicycle parking um there are uh 26 class a and 20 class B and um for the class A they need to be as close as possible to the building entrance including 247 video surveillance by building personnel where it can't be seen from the uh from the building office no and facilities they've got a we now um require that um e bikes there be facilities for charging e-bikes in the bike room um bike parking performance our standard provision on um um what they have to do regarding the bike room no change on this one um off site traffic improvements they're gonna contribute 150 000 for safety and operational updates to traffic signal on long ridge and 50 000 for pedestrian upgrade to the bull's head area signage uh to be approved by staff then um they will comply with the comments from TTP the comments from EPB comments from engineering comments from the fire marshal comments from WPCA um they'll provide a photometric plan um for staff approval um our standard sidewalk easement provision which basically says that uh if there's if any of the public sidewalks are on their property that they will give an easement to the city um to permit the use by the public um we have uh street trees um they'll protect two existing trees plant not less than 39 street trees um and submit a bond um for a thousand dollars for each tree for a total of 3900 and that's it and we have our standard conditions um any comments questions discussion no it's good if we're all in agreement can we get a uh motion to approve application 225-28 with the uh conditions as um reviewed tonight so moved second okay is there any further discussion um all in favor say aye i aye aye okay the application is approved four zero and that um brings us to the end of our meeting um so manita what do you have on for next week um so in terms of continuation we have the two text changes from tonight um the new public hearing that we have is the conversion of the old wwe building on the on east main street to residential units they have a text change and a site plan application okay and then we have the continuation for um I see one twenty c 120 c is continued to December 1st and then the um two berry place applications those did we move them to December 15th yeah they're the 15th yeah you're right no it's Glenbrook is the thing

Okay, and then we have the continuation for um I see 120c.

120c is continued to December 1st.

And then the um two Barry Place applications.

Did we move them to December 15th?

Yeah, they're the 15th.

Yeah, you're right.

No.

No, it's Glenbrook is the 15th.

No, I think we moved Berry Place the 15th.

Once we found out traffic wasn't coming back till December 2nd.

You're right.

You're right.

Yeah.

Okay.

Good.

That'll spread things out a little better.

Yeah.

Okay.

Good.

Then we have our meeting on the 15th where we get to finish up anything that's left over from the first.

Is there anything new on the 15th?

Um we have the general GDP modification on site plan for the bathhouse in Harbor Point.

For what house?

Bathhouse.

The bathhouse.

Yeah.

That's a new building.

Yeah.

They're building down in Harbor Point.

Okay.

And the meeting on the first, we have um the East Main Street building.

Yes.

That came in the packet this week.

The WWE.

Yeah.

Whole WWE.

No, that's not the WWE building.

It um 1241 East Main Street.

Hold on.

Yeah, 1241 East Main Street.

That's not WWE.

That's down the street from Holly Pond, like two blocks up.

Two blocks towards downtown.

Yeah.

Um in between WWE and Holly Pond.

I thought this is that.

No, go on.

Go go go go ahead and Google 1241 East Main Street.

It's not the Bartley.

It's not WWE.

Is it the Bartlett building?

No.

No, the four stories.

It is WWE.

No, it's not what it's shows up on Google Maps.

Yeah.

Yeah.

This is showing WWE.

Titan known as Titan Tower.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's a WWE.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, it looks like we're going to be in business for another few weeks.

Okay, guys.

All right.

Anything we need to discuss before we adjourn.

No.

Okay.

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving, everyone.

Hopeful Thanksgiving.

Thank you.

Okay.

We adjourned.

Thank you.

Night, everybody.

Good night.