We can start the meeting.

I'd like to welcome everyone and call tonight's zoning board meeting to order.

I'm David Stein, Chair of the Zoning Board, and it is 638 on December 1st, 2025.

The members of the board and the staff are holding this meeting on Zoom Video Conference.

Thank God we're back on Zoom.

And the public is in attendance both on video conference and by teleconference.

I'd like to first do a roll call of board and staff.

Bill Morris?

Here.

Roseanne McManus.

Here.

Well, you know, roll calls is too fast.

We need some more people.

And now for the staff, uh Ralph Blessing.

Yeah.

And Vanita Mother.

Yeah.

The board's microphones will be open throughout tonight's hearing.

Applicants' mics will be open during the public hearing for their application.

However, I would ask the applicant to please mute their mics for not speaking in order to reduce background noise.

Each member of the public will be muted until it is your turn to speak.

Here's the procedure for the public to let us know that you would like to speak.

If you came in through Zoom, please use the raise your hand function, and you'll be unmuted when it is your turn to speak.

If you called in on a telephone conference call phone number, please press star nine, and this will raise your hand, and then star six to unmute when you are called on.

When members of the public speak, uh please give us your name and address for the record and whether you're in favor of or opposed to the application.

The board requests that members of the public limit your comments to three minutes so that everyone will have a chance to speak, and we will let you know when you uh hit the end of your time.

Uh the meeting is being recorded and will be posted at the zoning board's website.

Um you can find the agenda for tonight's meeting and the meeting applications and other materials by going to our website, www.stamford ct.gov slash zoning.

If you're having trouble, by the way, getting on, um, you've raised your hand and it's not working.

Um send an email to Vanita.

Her email address is V, that's V isn't Victor, V Motor, M-A-T-H-U-R at Stanford C T.gov, and she will try to get you on.

Um we're now um going to the public hearing, our first public hearing, and that is uh application uh 225-29.

That's continued from our meeting of November 24th.

Um it's 120 C Long Ridge, LLC and Toll Northeast V Corp.

Uh 120 C Long Ridge Road, site and architectural plans and our requested uses and special permit.

Applicant is proposing to construct 44 two-story carriage homes and 58 three-story town homes with associated improvements and amenities.

Uh I see uh attorney Feinberg is here.

So um welcome and um please proceed.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Just just to be clear, we're starting with the text change, correct?

Um we're on 120 C Longridge.

Oh sorry.

My mistake.

Um when we get there, we'll do the text change and the public hearing, and then separately we'll do the um Thank you.

We'll do the site plan.

Okay, let me just may I go ahead and share my screen?

Uh yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Can you all see that?

Yep.

So for the record, my name is Lisa Feinberg.

I am a partner with Carmi Torrent, Sandak and Hennessey.

With me tonight is Matt Pott from Environmental Land Solutions, Eric Lynquist from Tie and Bond, Thomas Wamser from Tie and Bond, Dr.

Donald Poland from Goman and York, our urban planning and strategy consultant.

And we're all here on behalf of the applicant and contract purchaser Toll Northeast V Corp, represented here tonight by Kevney Moses and Michael Zamola.

So as usual, I'd like to start with orienting everyone to the development site.

So as contemplated, the property is about 19.5 acres.

It's bordered on the eastern side by Long Ridge Road and across Long Ridge Road, of course, you'll find Whole Foods and Saxaw Fifth, Pepe's Starbucks, Shake Shack, and CVS.

The 120 Long Ridge Road office building you recently approved for conversions that's directly north and west of the site, and then the Rippewam River is further west, and to the south are single family homes.

It is located in the CD zone and the newly adopted MU-2 mixed use community campus, formerly known as Master Plan Category 8.

So as you know, uh the CD zone has long been considered our suburban office park zone because it was crafted to accommodate large companies looking to relocate their headquarters from New York City.

These companies were quite literally looking for greener pastures, and they found them in Stanford.

As you may recall from our presentation on 120 Long Ridge Road, uh, this site served as the home to the given sanitarium from the early 1900s until the late 1960s when it was sold to Olin Chemical.

Olin purchased this 60 acres to develop as its headquarters.

It was subsequently subdivided into three parcels with the office building in the center.

As you know, the office building was most recently home to GE and then Gen Ree and will soon, of course, be home to 196 apartments.

The northernmost parcel in the subdivision is also being redeveloped with 210 senior housing units, uh, the mosaic senior housing development.

The subject site is the final component of the property's transition to residential housing.

And this evolution is not unique to Stanford, as you know.

Over the last uh couple decades at least, companies uh began prioritizing proximity to the train and convenient access to amenities you find in a downtown environment.

Then after the pandemic, the demand for office space diminished even further, and the vacancies became even more pronounced.

At the same time, uh the housing shortage escalated.

This board attempted to address uh this issue by amending the zoning regulations in 2021 to permit multifamily housing in the CD zone.

And the current proposal advances this goal.

The property which is vacant today would be redeveloped by Toll Brothers as a common interest community with a total of 102 homes for sale.

44 of these are proposed as two-story carriage homes, and 58 are proposed as three-story townhomes.

All are three to four bedrooms between 2,000 and 3,000 square feet.

They have an option for a bedroom downstairs.

All of the homes have driveways and private garages with additional parking for visitors in the driveways and within the property as well.

There's indoor and outdoor amenities for the community to share, and it would be a condominium structure with an HOA to handle maintenance and improvements.

As you can see, uh Toll has chosen an attractive modern farmhouse style, uh, although the community will not be visible from any public space.

What you see on your screen right now is an example of a group of the carriage homes.

There are three floor plan options, um, and this image captures all three of those options together.

This is an example of the town homes, which are uh really a single unit type with subtle differences in the exterior finishes.

Both the carriage homes and the townhomes will be constructed primarily of fiber cement planks or panels and a sophisticated color palette of grays and white and black.

Uh windows and doors will be black, creating some contrast and depth.

The three story town homes are primarily located within the site interior or tuck under model, like you see in this image.

Every unit will have uh high end finishes with a custom with custom options for the homeowners to choose from.

Uh, there will be a private clubhouse featuring a fitness center, social space, seating areas, and restrooms, um, outdoors.

There will be a pool for the residents to enjoy, and there will be a child play area.

There are more than two acres of calculated usable open space.

We were very conservative in that calculation because more than 61% of the site, so over 11 and a half acres uh of the site will remain pervious and unimproved.

And almost 60,000 square feet of publicly accessible amenity space consisting of a network of trails adjacent to Long Ridge Road.

You can see that over here, uh, will also be provided.

The existing access and circulation on site would remain largely the same uh with the signalized intersection to the north and the unsignalized drive to the south.

Although this site technically has frontage on Cold Spring Road here and old barn road over here.

Uh, no changes or access are proposed at these locations.

Um with that overview, it's probably a good time for me to turn things over to some other folks on the team to walk you through some of the details of the proposal.

Uh Eric, why don't we start with you?

Okay.

Is that the Eric we want?

There we go.

It is the Eric.

It is.

Uh good evening.

For the record, my name is Eric Linquist.

I am a senior project manager at Tie and Bond and a licensed engineer in the state of Connecticut.

Uh, what I'm going to do is I'm going to share my screen and go over uh just the basics for the uh grading and drainage for the site to uh give you an understanding of how we laid out the site and what the general approach to our uh design was.

So let me make sure I'm getting the right screen here.

That should be the right one.

Okay, good.

Uh let me know when you guys are okay and able to see that.

There we go.

Okay.

Perfect.

Small though.

Can you make it bigger?

Um I'm going to be zooming in a little bit and doing some other slides.

So hopefully this will be good enough.

I've pretty sure I've got it blown up as much as I can at the moment.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, so this is just the overview of the site.

Um, as Lisa went through.

Um, this is uh basically going to be set up on the south side of the existing garage and the existing office building shown here.

And I think that the best way for me to kind of go through this is to uh first show off how the existing site is graded.

So what I've done is um I have this is from our watershed map.

This is from our inside our engineering report.

Um you'll see there's a centralized high point within the site right here.

And this yellow line represents uh watershed delineations for the site.

So everything in existing WS1B to the east of this line, or to the west of this line is going to the to the river.

Everything to the west of this line is going to the wetlands that is located to the south of the garage.

And that includes the drainage and runoff from the garage itself.

So as we go to the proposed condition, you'll see we tried to mimic and maintain this to the best of our abilities.

Um the high point still remains in this general location.

Um, this yellow watershed line going through the site that identifies what is going over towards this pond to the north here.

And the on the other side to the east of that line is everything going to this pond, uh, which is on the east side of the site.

So the relative areas are approximately the same.

Uh there's a little bit of difference between the two, seeing as we're obviously trying to match up with our proposed drainage system and trying to do the best of our abilities to separate that.

Each one of these ponds is sized to maintain the water quality volume for the site.

Uh they provide water quality with the structures and the and the just methodology of the treatment train approach to uh providing pre-treatment and then the the wet ponds, which provide further nutrient removal and uh sediment removal as well.

Both of these side ponds are also sized to retain volume on site so that that we can meet peak flows going out to each of these areas so that we're not increasing flows to the river and that we're not increasing flows to this wetlands.

Um if I go back to our plans, um, I can show you what these ponds essentially look like.

Uh, these are zoom ups of the ponds.

This is the pond uh along the river.

So runoff will come into a sediment four bay.

Uh this pond is sized to maintain the water quality volume.

It'll have a standing pool of water in it, and then it will discharge over on the far side out to the river.

Uh we do the same thing with the other pond.

This is the pond to the south of the uh parking garage.

Uh once again, we have the sediment four bay here, the wet pond over over at to the east, and an out control structure uh which will then discharge to the wetlands.

We've maintained the discharge over here that goes to the wetlands currently.

There is runoff from the garage that comes out and discharges over here as well.

So the intent here is like I said, to maintain our drainage and our grading to the most the maximum extent practical to the way it is currently on site.

A couple other things I just wanted to point out to you while I'm uh while I'm going over the site plan.

Um I also wanted to go over circulation.

Um this uh I know Lisa touched on this, but this green uh line here indicates the path that the uh fire apparatus or any emergency vehicle used to enter the site.

Um we just made a meandering path through here to show that the fire apparatus can pretty much all zoom in here.

Um the fire apparatus can get make every corn uh turn within the site and get fully through here.

Uh we did create a a turnaround area for this vehicle here.

That's why there's an extended uh bulb out here at the end here.

Uh this is not designed to carry emergency vehicles through.

Um, since these are going to be two separate lots, we made sure that circulation can be fully maintained within the site.

And that would be able to come.

Excuse me.

What do you mean two separate lots?

Well, there's the 120 site to the north.

There's the office building site, which is getting the conversion, and then there's the residential site to the south, which is the toll brothers piece.

So the there'll be um runoff of water into the pond that's on the site of 120.

Uh this pond is on our site.

The property line is right here.

Okay.

When you said it's a separate lot, you meant outside of the pond.

Correct.

Yeah.

The drive goes up here and continues off up here.

So we're trying to make sure they can circulate within this the site proper without having to go maneuver on another site.

So that was the goal here was to be able to maintain maneuverability within the site.

Um, so that essentially is um a sum a high little summary of the drainage and our approach and methodology for that and the grading and how we've tried to mimic the existing conditions.

I'd be more than happy to answer any other questions on utilities or site layout or drainage.

Other than that, I could pass it along to uh to Matt if you want, Lisa.

I'm not sure who you want to go to next.

Eric, before you uh pass it along.

Yep.

Um the the two ponds, are they in need of any repairs or maintenance or dredging or anything like that?

They are brand new ponds.

They are the what's what's over here on this side, there's a depression.

If I zoom in here, it's probably better for me to go to the grading plan.

Let me do that.

Uh that's okay.

We're we're good with that.

So this is a blow up of that that area to the south here.

So currently there's a uh there's a roadway that comes in here and services the lower side of the garage.

This entrance is going away.

There's already two entrances to the garage that are over here.

There's one here and another one up to the north.

So this entrance is going away to provide a little bit bigger of an area for this pond.

There is a localized low point here with it which acts as a an area that can detain water.

It really doesn't because there's not enough going to it, but it's a depression that we're essentially enlarging to provide for the pond and provide better uh retention in that area because it wasn't big enough, obviously, to maintain the increased flow going to this area from our site.

So this is a brand new pond to the south of the garage.

And likewise to the to the north, this is also uh going to be carved out of the hillside uh in this area here, which is currently not there.

The roadway will need to be adjusted a little bit over to give it a little bit more room, but by and large, this is just a slope down the hill that we're carving out to create this pond in.

So you're not worried about these new ponds uh sort of dewatering the existing wetlands or regulated areas?

No, they're they're up high.

They're they're higher than the this slopes down a good 10 feet.

I I don't have the contours in front of me on this plant.

Uh you know, there's a decent amount of uh grade change here as well as these are wet ponds.

They're maintaining a four-foot permanent pool of water in them.

So they won't be dewatering the wetlands in any way.

They're they're located higher than and they're maintaining a wet pond.

Thank you very much.

Yep.

Roseanne.

Uh no, nothing on this.

Um question.

There's um supposed to be a road from this parcel that connects to 120.

Where would that be?

Are you talking about the main entrance drive through here?

The one that that um Toll Brothers needs the easement in order to use.

Correct.

That's that's let me go to the circulation plan.

That's probably the best one to go to for this.

So this is the 120C uh designated entrance.

The signalized entrance is the one up here.

And this is the unsignalized entrance that to the south that will be used for the entrance over here.

Will the one will 120C be using the signalized both?

Sorry, Eric.

I that was one of the things that Luke asked, is that they also be able to utilize the signalized intersection.

Okay.

So where's the road that would take them uh from the signalized into 120C?

Right through you'll see this dashed line that's the water easement or water.

Um for coming through the site to service 120C.

It's it's going underneath the roadway, so it goes right through here.

Okay.

Um is there any thought of whether the people coming out of the unsignalized um can make left turns?

Is um it it as I understand it, there's no restriction on lefts in or out.

Is that correct?

Well, I would say Tom Wamser is about to give the traffic presentation and he could go through a lot of the stuff and maybe answer your questions when he gets his presentation and go into a little bit more detail on that when he gets there.

Okay.

Good.

That's all I had.

Thank you.

Did you want Matt to go next, Lisa?

Or do you want Tom to go next?

Um, I had planned on Matt, but Mr.

Chairman, if you would prefer to hear uh from Tom on traffic first, that's we can I don't want to interfere with your order.

So uh do it however you planned.

Um I just wanted to make sure I had the screen share set up because I'm sharing Matt's screen for him.

So thank you.

Thanks, Sarah.

Yep.

So Lisa, I'm sorry, who is next?

Matt Pop.

Okay.

Is Matt on.

I just promoted him to panelist.

Um joining now.

Okay, I think he's he's here.

Good evening.

Uh Matthew Pop, landscape architect from Environmental Land Solutions.

I prepared the uh landscape and plan that you see before you.

This is the uh rendering it shows the entire site.

Uh there are the black and white ones that are five sheets that have some more of the details, the plant list, the the detail of the light fixture, um, some of the enlargements of uh the the individual units and around a pool.

Uh but this one just in general, um, you know, it shows um you know a number of uh street trees.

Uh I'll just go over some of the data.

Uh no, the project's gonna remove approximately 184 trees uh total.

A lot of those are on the uh west side of the site.

There's a stand of spruce.

Um so most of those trees are right in that stand.

Um and so again, we're moving 184.

We're proposing the 525 uh trees.

Uh 309 of those trees are evergreen.

So we're trying to replace those evergreen.

Um the deciduous trees, there's total of uh 57 uh street trees, shade trees, the larger growing trees.

Those consist of uh red maple, uh river birch, uh sweet gum, white oak, uh pin oak, linden.

Uh we're proposing 105, you know, smaller uh understory trees, small flowering trees, such as yellow wood, uh shad, uh cherry, uh hot porn bean.

Um as far as evergreens, again, like I said, we're proposing 109.

Those include uh red cedars, uh spruce, Dori spruce, uh, white pine.

Usually I don't use white pine, but there's some areas that where we're far enough away uh from uh structures.

Um again, sometimes the white pines, the wood is uh weak, uh, but they're very good trees for wildlife habitats.

So I try to use them when I can.

Um, and a number of arbor bitey.

Uh the evergreens are located mainly along the perimeter of this site along uh the west side, which is the left side behind the units, and then at the bottom of the sheet, uh on the south side.

Um, and there's also a number of evergreens proposed uh between the units uh to provide screening uh in the backyards.

Um we've worked on a number of projects uh told brothers similar to this, and uh this is kind of typical, but they uh prefer again the screening in the back.

Um we do have a small pollinator garden uh right where the existing uh garage is the the kind of the brownish structure on the large brownish structure on the uh right uh below that there's a detention basin and right adjacent to that detention basin, we have a small pollinator pollinator garden, and there's a separate plant list for the pollinator garden garden.

So pollinator garden is located.

You can see there's a small, you zoom in.

There's a small structure for the PAAS trail, and right uh to the right of there's a you see the far four car parking space.

That's the yep, and there's a structure for the PAAS uh trail, and just to the uh right of that, the lighter green is the pollinator uh garden.

Um as far as uh lighting, we're proposing pretty low level lighting.

Um every um projects like this where we have condos.

Um I would assume that everybody's gonna have a light at their door, so I try to keep the levels low.

Uh, we're proposing 18 light fixtures, they're 12 feet in height, so it's kind of a low scale pedestrian scale, uh, downward pointing, warm tone 3,000 a K.

Um, and then there's just a few bollars around uh the swimming pool area in the clubhouse.

We're proposing as far as uh street trees uh on long ridge road.

There's um a number of uh street trees.

I counted about 10.

There's probably more than 10.

Um show us that, please.

We could zoom in.

Keep going.

So there's three trees right where it says long, just to the left of the word long.

Those are the new trees.

Uh, there's a number of trees from that from the word long down to the word road.

Um and it is a few above that to the north.

I don't I'm sorry, I'm not seeing anything until we get to those two by road.

So there's exist a lot of existing trees, which I didn't show the individual trees on this.

Okay.

For the tree count, we're gonna need to see that.

Okay.

Um could you for the next meeting show us a something showing all of the street trees?

Yep, on uh on she uh LP4, the black and white one, which we don't have up.

I do have the charts.

I know the charts, but I want to see the trees.

So okay, we could we could show that.

Um so on uh the Long Ridge Road.

Um we added three trees to come on compliance, like those three.

Then down on cold uh spring road.

That that is just that's wooded.

There's a retaining wall there, and it jumps up.

You know, there's at least eight trees there.

Um maybe you could even just uh have a photograph of that so you can see it.

Right on the street.

Right on well, there's a retaining wall on the street and it jumps up and it's it's wooded.

Um but is it on the street?

Correct, yes.

The trees.

I mean, if they're if they're way back, I don't believe it.

No, no, they're right on the street.

I would say they're within, I kind of assume anything within like 10 feet of the property line would be a street tree.

So they're they're they're right on the street.

You'll show them all when you get revised plan.

And then an old barn road.

We're not proposing any street trees.

That's mainly rock there.

Um, so four trees would be required.

So we're gonna have to uh do the fee and loo payment for that area.

Where is your frontage there?

Oh, it's there it is.

It's kind of it's it's you know, it it property line fans out at the street.

So like pairs at the neighbor's driveway, you know, crosses over and um so I can think that's that's all mainly all rock in that area.

So we didn't propose any trees there.

And then four trees would be required.

Okay, are those the only fee and loo trees?

Correct.

Four old barn, old barn north.

Yep.

Sorry.

Okay.

You can see on this sheet the uh evergreen screening behind the uh units uh bordering the residential properties.

And Eric, maybe we could just keep on scrolling uh towards the west, so we can just kind of go up and we could see there's a retaining wall on us, and then we're just screening the the wall area.

So that's the landscaping plan.

Um quickly.

We're I you may not be the right person to ask, but the entrance to the uh public amenity space, the auto entrance, is off of Long Ridge or off of Cold Spring.

It's if you follow that trail, it's off of uh Long Ridge.

It kind of wraps up and around it goes through there.

This kind of thought was kind of if you wanted to walk to Bull's Head area, you know, you could walk up and you know walk through that trail system to get in to the site.

Okay.

Now, if I wanted if I were driving, where would I park?

I would come in on maybe we can zoom in that one, Eric.

But I would come in off of Long Ridge, not off of Cold Spring.

Correct.

There's no uh access way off of the okay.

I couldn't, I couldn't tell.

Yeah, we again there's a retaining wall jumps up, you know, probably maybe seven, eight feet in height at the retaining wall.

No, on one of the the plans, I saw old barn east as a road that was along the property.

Can you show us that we can jump down?

That's the north, yeah.

It might not show up on this plan.

Uh it's there it is.

So you'll see, yeah.

It's okay.

Not important, it's just the paper street.

Okay.

Are you um what are you doing with you?

Let's see.

There's a wetland in that area.

Gotta check.

Um, so trees along Old Barn East.

Are you putting them there?

Uh no.

No, that would then you you would need to do a fee and loo for that.

I'll count those trees to make sure some existing trees.

Again, we'll we'll figure that the total out.

I don't think that's technical frontage for us, but we can look at it.

I don't know what you call it.

It is part of your you let's see you're on the street.

Not sure that that's it's it's wood is because it's not a big street.

I don't know that that's an exception, but it is no, I'm not suggesting that.

I just I don't I didn't think that that was actual frontage.

We'll double check the survey, and if it is, of course, we will comply.

Um okay, just um yeah.

Um and that I I'm assuming um you're not gonna put a sidewalk there either.

Correct.

Okay, yeah, we didn't want to have uh I think maybe traffic through the residential neighborhood.

Okay, but it if it does front on the street, I think it would require then a fee and loo for the sidewalk, wouldn't it?

I believe so.

Um attorney Feinberg, would you just net for next meeting?

Let us know.

Yes, sir.

I'm sure you're gonna take a look anyway.

Um Roseanne, any questions on the landscaping?

Now uh my initial questions are always how many trees are you taking down, how many are you planting?

And that was the first thing that uh Matt told us, and um it's a good aggressive planting plan, so I don't have any questions.

Um I have a question, but not necessarily Matt's area, but I'll ask it now because it came up in a conversation you had with Matt.

And that's to do with the uh the parking for the uh the pass area.

And you mentioned how you can get in there.

Is there an easement for the public to go down that driveway?

There is an easement, yes from Long Ridge Road to the parking area for the public.

Well, have to be if they're gonna use it, yes.

Well, there is supposed to be an easement that they give for the pass area.

Um, so see it would need to also pick up the road then, right?

Correct.

That was a reason for my question, David.

Yeah.

No, I had to.

You need it not only for the vehicles, but you need it for uh you know walking access, also.

If you can drive on, you can walk in there too.

Correct.

Um we it would need to include the road.

Um, both for vehicle and walking.

I think that's as we specifically stated for uh walking also.

The P A S uh plan does show the the easement basically followed the road.

I'm sorry for the question.

Yep.

No, there we go.

You have it there.

I know you would know it.

I knew you'd know.

The beige area.

Is the road?

Well, I don't see the road there.

I guess it's kind of the beige area follows the road, the curb line.

Gotcha.

Gotcha.

And that what is the um I can't read it.

What does it say?

The uh Beiges proposed the limited public access.

Okay.

Okay.

Good.

Um, let me see if I hit anything else on landscape while we're here.

The one thing I will say about this plan, I kind of disagree with that there's a sign every 60 feet.

That seems like it's too often to have a sign when you're walking on a trail every 60 feet.

It's not a that's uh I think there's some validity in your comment.

Yeah.

Um to clarify, I think the sign um what when you have like a public plaza that is like a hundred feet wide, uh, then you're supposed to have a sign every 60 feet.

Um, I think in this case, you would have to have a sign at the access point.

So you would have one at the parking lot, and you won't have one at Long Ridge Road.

Yeah, we may want to change that since it is the 60 feet is a requirement now.

Yeah, or maybe 250 or something, you know, or yeah, 200.

Ralph, why don't you make a note for the next uh cleanup?

Yeah.

Um the question.

Well, this may be more for um attorney Feinberg.

You mentioned in in one of the documents that the only space in the C D used to calculate the pass is the um, I guess is the C D zone.

What other space is there?

I'm not sure I understand your question, Mr.

Chairman.

I think it's it's the R6 and R7 and a half portions of the site.

Oh, oh, oh, the law area.

Yeah, correct.

Yeah, put note four of the narrative.

Yes.

So the portions of the site with those with frontage on um Cold Spring Road and Old Barn Road are actually in the R6 and R7 and a half.

So we did not include that in our underlying lot area for purposes of calculating.

Is that is that what the reg says?

Is what what the reg says that you exclude any other land.

I I think it'd be challenging to do it any other way because the R6 and the R7 and a half have their own density coverage requirements.

So they don't have a PAS requirement.

Right, yeah, they're not subject to a PS requirement.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Um the I think you Matt, you probably hit on it, but this street tree chart shows eight trees on cold spring.

Those are the ones that you said are above the retaining wall.

Uh yeah, it's uh okay.

So when you if you could just include those when you give us the full show approximate location on those.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, that's all I have.

Great.

Who's next?

Uh Tom.

Okay.

Thank you, Matt.

You're welcome.

Thanks, everybody.

I'm just going to share my screen real quick before I introduce myself.

Just introduce yourself for the record, please.

Yes, certainly.

My name is Thomas Wamser.

I'm a professional engineer, a professional traffic operations engineer and a road safety professional, level two infrastructure.

I'm a traffic engineer at Time Bond.

I'll now uh start sharing my screen and go through a presentation for you.

Can everybody see that?

Yes.

Yep.

Excellent.

Okay.

So first I'll begin with an orientation of our site with respect to the surrounding roadway network.

So again, north is upward.

And then right here is the approximate location of the 120C Long Ridge Road townhouses just south of the apartments.

So to the east of the site, we have Route 104 Long Ridge Road and Circled in Orange.

We have the two site driveways that access the property.

To the south, we also have Cold Spring Road, Route 137, which then hooks up to the north, takes a 90-degree turn east of Longridge Road and goes under the designation of High Ridge Road.

We analyze some additional intersections as part of this study.

Those are circled in yellow.

So we have the intersection of Long Ridge Road and Cold Spring Road, Cold Spring Road and High Ridge Road, High Ridge Road, Long Ridge Road, Summer Street, and Bedford Street, and then to the southwest, we have Cold Spring Road at Old Barn Road South and Randall Ave.

So as part of the traffic study, one of the main things that we do is we assess the volume of traffic that's going to be generated by this development.

And to do that, I want to first set the stage about the methodology that we use.

So as traffic engineers, we rely on the trip generation manual, which is a publication produced by ITE, the Institute of Transportation Engineers.

So to just give some background on the trip generation methodology, it is driven by data from real-world examples.

So the manual sites studies taken from uh various land uses all across the country.

And it's very transparent in that where you can check the appendices.

You could see the number of studies where they were conducted, uh, all that information is provided therein.

And this is a methodology that is tried and true.

It's the industry standard.

Uh we use it as traffic engineers uh throughout the country.

It's what we hang our hat on.

And it's also using it in our regular.

There you go.

Um getting ahead of me with my next point is that it's recognized by many state DOTs and local agencies.

So it's it's recognized throughout.

Um then another important thing to note about it is that it is adaptable.

So we don't just take one number that it spits right out.

As engineers, we apply that number and we make sure it's calibrated to the local conditions, and we can uh make conservative assumptions based on uh the bounds of the data that it outputs to make sure that we're analyzing critical scenarios properly.

So, in using that methodology, we develop here the site generated traffic volumes.

So keeping to the left side of this slide first, uh, those are the volumes that are generated by the 102 townhouses, and we analyze this for three different peak periods.

The weekday morning generated 49 vehicles, 12 of which were entering, 37 were exiting.

The weekday afternoon peak, 58 vehicles, 34 entering, 24 exiting, and then finally the Saturday peak, 68 vehicles, 33 entering, and 35 exiting.

What hours did you use for each of those?

Yep.

So weekday morning, we look between 7 a.m.

and 9 a.m.

Weekday afternoon is 4 p.m.

and 6 p.m.

Saturday midday is between 11 a.m.

and 1 p.m.

And then the way that the traffic analyses work is we collect data throughout that larger peak period and we pick the most critical hour within.

So if you're curious what that specific hour is, I I have it.

I would just have to dig it up real quick.

Um, but that's it's the morning commute, the afternoon commute, and then the Saturday mostly commercial midday chore sort of commute uh or peak time.

So over on the right, we have some similar or some permitted uses that could be developed on the site as well, just for comparison purposes uh to show how the 102 townhouses stack up against some other alternatives for how the site could be developed.

So again, to rehash 102 townhouses is 49 in the morning, 58 in the afternoon, and 68 on Saturday.

The site could also potentially be feasibly developed into 250 apartments, which generates some higher numbers 93 in the morning, 98 in the afternoon, and on Saturday.

We also looked at a potential mixed use development consisting of 10,000 feet split 5050 between daycare and commercial.

And that was generating 67 in the morning, 89 in the afternoon, and 42 on Saturday.

Another permitted use on the site is school.

So we looked at both a public and a private high school, and those numbers are much, much higher even on Saturday for the public school.

But we're looking at 872 in the morning or eight or 799.

Lower in the afternoon as school dismisses earlier, but still much higher than our site, uh north of 200 or 300 in some cases.

So across the board, we're the townhouse development is a lesser use than some of the other feasible alternatives that could be developed on this site.

Another important thing to note about that comparison to be conservative when we do the analyses, looking at the townhouses, we're using the upper bound of what the manual suggests to make sure that we're not cutting any corners.

And then for the comparison, I pick the lower bound.

So in reality, the numbers may be uh that the site is not as critical as we show, and that's again just to make sure that we're thorough and we check all the boxes.

So now I want to go through some of the overall findings of the traffic study.

So the first thing is what we call level of service.

It's essentially a letter grade, sort of similar to what teachers use in schools, and we assign this to intersections or individual movements uh to show how much delay is experienced on those movements or at those intersections.

So there's a comprehensive table pictured there on the right.

It depicts the operations at all of the study area intersections I had mentioned.

So, and across all three peaks that I had mentioned, and we can see there that everything is operating acceptably at level service D or better.

Um, and then the site driveways, we have the signalized driveway to the north, which is operating well, and then the unsignalized driveway.

We look at in a slightly different way, being that uh only certain movements are delayed, be left turns coming off of long ridge road into the site, as well as movements coming out of the site driveway, which are operating under stop sign control.

And those operations are typical of what we would expect with you know the most delay being experienced at the driveway, but we're not at the point of failure.

Um, and to answer a question that was brought up earlier about those driveways, uh, the unsignalized driveway, you are permitted to make any movement.

You could make a left or a right out of there.

It's the choice of the driver.

We did do a trip distribution percentage where we would assign trips to either the signal or the or the unsignalized driveway, and taking into account that the majority of drivers are going to opt for you know whatever the path of least resistance might be.

So we we did assign some to make sure that we're analyzing that movement properly, uh, but drivers will calibrate to the condition and they'll be choosing whichever way gets them in and out of the site easiest.

Um next, we also looked at safety, of course, crucial part of traffic studies, and we looked to see if there are any existing collision patterns on the roadway that our site would then exacerbate by building it.

So, and we didn't see any such patterns.

We have no reason to suspect that this development would negatively impact safety on the surrounding roadway network.

Uh I also want to note that this study was reviewed by Stanford TTP.

We received comments and responded to them, and they were satisfied with those results.

So, with that, that concludes what I had to discuss about traffic.

Uh, I can answer questions or I can hand it off to whoever would come next.

Um, I don't have any questions, uh, Bill.

Yeah.

Uh the intersection of Cold Spring Road and High Ridge Road.

Now, will you take when you give it that ring?

Do you also look at the intersection of High Ridge Road going on to Cold Spring?

Or is that two separate analysis?

Nope, it's comprehensive.

So everything that happens at the intersection relates.

So we have to look at it holistically.

We analyze that.

So the traffic that's generated in a Q and is generated on high range road trying to get on the Cold Spring Road.

That's in these calculations.

Yes, it is.

And it's still got a C.

Yes.

That's an overall C.

I find it.

I know.

Hard to believe.

I find it absolutely hard to believe.

We're getting stuck at that intersection for next week.

Yeah.

While you're at it, how about long range and cold spring where people block the box?

Do you pick that up in your uh analysis?

So we do queuing analysis to see that.

And you know, when we're analyzing the site too, we're looking at the we're comparing the background condition of how things are operating in a future year, assuming no development and comparing it to the impact that our site has on it.

So there may be some existing issues on select movements, um, but the development of the moderate levels of traffic that we're implementing from our site aren't really exacerbating anything to the point where it's it's tipping over the scale to failure creating any new problems.

How for a C for a C grade, how many light changes do you have to sit through before you can get through the intersection?

I can pull that up from one of my appendices.

Um I think it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 or so seconds is the average delay per vehicle.

Um the cycles here are very long, actually.

They're I I think they're two full minutes.

So in theory, you should be getting through in one cycle, but it that's an average.

So if you hit it at just the wrong time, you could sit for a full two minutes, but you could also happen to hit it on green.

Uh that's kind of the nature of just working with averages.

And that's that's awesome.

There's definitely sitting through light changes.

It does depend on the movement that you're making as well.

So in this table, I'm reporting the overall operations.

Uh the signals are timed, so you know, the heaviest volumes, mostly through traffic on state routes, uh, get the priority.

So they're experiencing the lesser of the delays, but select movements typically left or side streets are going to experience higher delays.

Anything else from the board?

Okay.

Thomas, thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Tom.

So uh as you all know, in addition to the site plan application, there are technically two special permit requests before you.

I'm sorry, before you you go on for that.

Um, and I apologize for interrupting you.

Um is Matt Pop uh Matt, are you still there?

Yes.

Yeah.

Um can you show us where the child play area would be?

Right next to the pool.

Where the clubhouses the area marked lawn.

No, um, um marked playground.

Playground right there.

Oh, there.

And how big is that?

We could put a dimension, but I would assume it's going to be um, you know, probably 25 feet by yeah, 30 uh five feet.

Well, much equipment in there, can you?

We could look at that, you know.

If we need it, so we could probably move the pool back and enlarge that slightly.

Yeah, that sounds pretty small for that.

I mean, these these townhouses, given their size, will probably have kids.

Um, I I think it's pretty safe assumption.

Um could you take a look at that?

Certainly.

And just for our next meeting.

I thought it was all gonna be seniors who are downsizing.

Uh I'm sure there will be some.

Before before Matt goes, uh, I read in one of the reports, I don't know.

I can't put my hands on it right now, but there was some concerns raised regarding the size of the power uh pollinator garden, and there's some discussion about enlarging it.

If you had that discussion with anybody, um I have not.

But with a site this large, there might be more than one locations where that might be feasible.

So, you know, that's something that if you could take a look at and see if it is located next to the detention basin, which I would assume would almost act like a pollinary pollinator garden, which would be cut, you know, not that often.

So it would as similar type habitat.

Right.

Maybe a second one over near the other pond.

We could look at that.

Thank you, Matt.

Welcome.

Bear with me a sec.

Um I had a question about the parking spaces.

Lisa, um, there are well, I get let me do that one first.

Oh, I'm sorry, let's go back to traffic.

Um traffic uh expert.

Is there a traffic management plan and transportation demand management plan?

Yes, there is.

We developed both of those.

I didn't see them.

Where are they?

No, they weren't required for this one, Tom.

Uh Luke uh button we searched did not believe that it was an appropriate request for the townhomes.

Okay, I must have been thinking of BLT.

You're thinking of, yeah, the office building.

Is it um notwithstanding that is there isn't it required under our regs?

It can be waived.

And we requested a waiver.

These really operate like single family homes, so it's really challenging to do any sort of TDMP with you know single family garages.

You did request the waiver?

I did.

We didn't see it.

It's supposed to go to uh Luke and Ralph.

So that's it too.

Can we can we see that, please, Ralph?

Yes.

Um, it says there's 21 visitor spaces.

Can you show us where those are, please?

I'm not sure which of your experts is the right one to ask.

I mean, I can bring it up.

Eric's got it.

Just looking for my new button.

I'll be more than happy to go through the uh spaces.

So they're they're spread throughout the site.

So there's the most of them are located in front of the pool area.

So you can see that strip along there.

They're also how many are there?

Uh one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.

Looks like ten, unless I miscounted.

Okay.

And then there's additional another five located at the end of this cul-de-sac or at the end of this uh hammerhead.

And if we go to the north up here, you'll see there's another one, two, three, four, five, six up here.

Okay.

So that's the 21.

And the four for the past, uh, I know where they're located, but what what count are they in?

I thought they were in the 21.

They're not.

Those are separate.

Well, not if there's there's 10, 6, and five.

Uh obviously, uh I I and they wouldn't.

I don't think they would be part of it.

Well, I don't know.

I guess my quail, I mean, we state my question.

Those are those in the entire total count of the number of parking spaces that are on the site.

That includes the 21 for uh the public, the four pass, and the remaining for the homeowners.

Correct.

Okay, so the number the total number is accurate.

Okay.

I mean, we could triple check it just to make sure, but that that is my understanding.

Okay.

If you would, just make sure.

Thank you.

Mr.

Morris, we're also we're overparked if that helps at all.

We only are required to have 230 spaces and we can accommodate 371.

Okay.

Uh Lisa, the um architecture plans are marked preliminary.

Is the applicant is acceptable to the applicant that we use those in our approval as plans that they are um agreeing to comply with?

Yes, I think the reason they're marked that way, Mr.

Chairman, is because this is sort of a unique situation where the homeowner gets to choose certain details.

And so we're doing our best to demonstrate what the units will look like, but there could be some variation there.

But the materials, of course, will be the materials and uh generally they they appear as they would.

Can we can we get something from the applicant explain then what what would not be what we can't rely on?

Sure.

Because we're going to include them in our in our certificate of approval as um plans that the applicant is required to um to build in compliance with.

So um we just need to know what what to exclude from that.

Okay.

Are you ready for me to move on, Mr.

Chairman?

Yeah, please.

I interrupted you when you were starting a new uh new topic there.

No problem.

Uh so just circling back to the special permits.

Uh we already you know noted that we uh have a request for uh fee and loo exemption from the technical sidewalk requirements on Old Barn Road North and Cold Spring Road.

I did take a look while other folks were talking um at the old barn road east, it's interesting because it is marked as not in physical existence on the survey.

And when you go to Google Earth, it's not there.

My my belief, and we will confirm this for you is that it was a paper road.

It's it's just it's not an actual road.

Um, but it you you did pick it up, it is on the survey, uh, but it is marked as not in physical.

If a surveyor went out and surveyed it, what is it they were looking at?

It's part of title.

So it's not it's called a paper road, it's it's not in physical existence, but it was shut, it was part of the subdivision at the time.

It's not unusual.

Yeah, no, that wasn't my question.

If a surveyor goes out and surveys, don't they they go out and they look at the land and and do the measurements at all?

How did they come up with a road?

Ums from Toll Brothers.

Good evening, Chairman, members of the board.

Sorry to to chime in here.

So David, a day to or an Ulta survey is a combination of both physical uh on-site characteristics and title search.

So when Lisa says it's a paper road, it appears on the survey not because the surveyor found that in field, but because it appeared as part of the title search.

Um these roads are very common, not only in our area, but many others.

Um they're legacy roads, as Lisa said, that are part of legacy subdivisions that never came to fruition.

Um oftentimes appear on title because at some point in time uh there was a map associated with them that was recorded.

Um so that's merely all it is.

Okay.

So are you saying Lisa?

You just verified that it is just a paper road.

Yes.

Chairman, just one brief comment if I could pivot back to the architecture.

Yeah.

The front facades would not be the piece of the buildings that could change.

Um the options that Lisa mentioned are typically on the rear facades, i.e.

um, you know, a deck, cover deck, uh a patio, etc.

Um so architecturally speaking, the front facades would not change.

They are, I believe, representative of what you have in front of you.

Okay, that's good to know.

And um, we just memo.

We just need to know what what besides those then could change.

Yes, sir.

We'll get that to you.

Okay.

Um Lisa, please continue.

Okay.

Oh, so the reason that we've asked for the fee and lo is because while these are technical frontages, as you saw, we don't think they're appropriate locations for new sidewalks and TTP supported our request.

Um, right now uh we calculate that the fee to be around $50,000 for for that frontage.

Um, notably, this is an addition to the 200,000 that TTP has requested or required rather uh for traffic and pedestrian improvements, which consisted of the 150,000 um for the traffic signal and an additional 50,000 for pedestrian improvements in the bull's head area.

Do we have a calculation showing frontage and of those roads?

That's normally something that you include as a condition, but I calculated it based on the 190 feet of linear frontage, and then it's a 250, you know, adjusted by inflation.

So I got 49,11.

Okay.

And that's for the sidewalks.

That's for the sidewalks.

Okay.

And then the trees are in addition.

Okay.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

Please continue.

So the other special permit uh relates to the multifamily use.

Um, as you all know, a special permit use is a use that is expressly permitted in the regs, uh, but pursuant to specific standards that are also outlined in your regulations.

It recognizes that the use is generally compatible with the applicable zoning district, but requires the board to consider the specific location and details of the proposal and to ensure it's compatible with the surroundings and remains consistent with um other permitted as of right uses in the district.

But the CD zone is somewhat unique because every use uh in the C D requires a special permit.

And you heard from Tom a little bit about how the different uses compare from a traffic perspective.

Uh between tonight's presentation and our submitted materials.

I think we have addressed all of the standards in your regs, but before we conclude our presentation, at least, I'd like to ask uh Dr.

Poland to spend just a little bit of additional time highlighting the nature of the proposed use and its impacts on the city.

Lisa, if you'd just give me a moment, I will share my screen.

So for the record, my name is Donald Polland.

I am with the firm of Governor York uh property advisors based in East Hartford, Connecticut.

And I will be presenting uh an abbreviated version of a report that we prepared that is part of the record.

And just give me one moment here.

There we go.

So do you guys have the split screen or the full screen?

Full screen.

Full screen.

Full screen.

Okay.

Thanks.

So I'm gonna, in the interest of time, I'm gonna skip the site characteristics, other than we're talking about 104 units in total, uh, all of which will have three bedroom apartments.

Uh three three bed will all of which will be three bedroom units.

That becomes important when I get to the fiscal impact portion of this.

So uh just a little background here.

You know, markets change, land use change over time.

And uh ultimately we're in a place now where, you know, pre-World War I, south of 95 is where you had your higher density urban development post-World War II, north of 95 is the suburban era.

And today there's really been a shift back towards regional centers uh and a shift towards multifamily and a shift towards communities with rich amenities.

And as you see here on the right-hand side, uh, this shows permits, housing permits in the state since 1997 till now.

I just want to point out this one bar here, and that is that a larger share of multifamily housing is being built today than any time previously before.

And I want to talk about the demographic changes and the things that have influenced that.

Because they get at the kind of fiscal impacts that development has on communities.

So there's a symbiotic relationship between housing and commercial development.

Housing is where jobs go at night.

Housing provides discretionary income for commercial establishments while commercial establishments provide convenience and amenities.

So we see a shift towards what I call mixed proximate uses.

And I have two examples of purpose-built mixed proximate uses off to the right there, where multifamily housing has been added to commercial developments to enhance them.

Stanford's going through a similar uh experience of mixed proximate, where you're seeing these conversions of properties or infilled developments, adding higher density residential within to your commercial corridors.

So some macro level trends.

The United States is aging.

What's key here on this graphic?

We can see the young person population under 18 basically stays flat while our eldest population increases.

And those changes in demographics are ultimately impacting real estate markets and housing markets.

This is Connecticut in 2000, what its population structure looked like.

Connecticut's become this silo over time.

And that is a result of us aging.

It also shows that we used to fail to retain and attract young professionals.

And that's something that's changed that becomes important to Stanford.

Connecticut's older than the nation as a whole.

So isn't Stanford, but not as old as Connecticut as a whole.

So these shifts and changes really have to do with household structure, household sizes, and so forth.

In 1940, only 8% of households were single person.

By 1960, it was 13%.

And by 2022, it was 28.5%.

In Connecticut, uh 29.9% are all households are single person.

22% of owner occupied.

And if you combine one and two person households, they account for 63% of all households and 59% of owner occupied households.

That's really an amazing number if you think about it.

That 60% of owner occupied households only have two persons, uh, one or two persons residing in them.

Once again, this leading into this move towards a greater share of young professionals and also a greater share of empty nesters.

Some things that are impacting this beyond just the fact that we're aging are things like we marry less, we marry later, and we have fewer children.

Therefore, our household sizes are decreasing in size.

From a population standpoint, I like these tables here and the comparison.

This is Stanford total population.

Well, Connecticut only grew by 1% and Fairfield County by 4%.

Stanford actually grew by 10%.

Well, I know a lot of people react sometimes negatively to growth.

Demographically, growth is really good.

And uh it's really good to see Stanford growing.

If we look at adult population, your adult population over 18, uh, 18 and over increased by 13%.

That's where we know that you're still aging.

But you buck the trends, uh, well, every category, the state and all the counties lost persons 17 years uh and younger.

Stanford actually grew by 1%.

And that's a really good demographic to have to be in Connecticut and actually experiencing growth in children.

These population pyramids show the United States, which looks like a silo.

Uh, Connecticut, which looks like a silo, and then Stanford, which actually looks very dynamic.

And this is where you've done what Connecticut has struggled to do.

You've retained and attracted uh 30 and 40 something year olds, which is also the demographic most likely to have children, and that's why you've actually had that 1% growth in school-aged children.

Well, demographics are hard to conceptualize.

I like to use TV sitcoms to just give a brief kind of 70-year history.

DV used to focus on the leave it to beaver era, you know, 1950s, the family.

You start seeing family change, but large family households in the 1970s with the Brady Bunch.

Mary Tyler Moore shows us the single person striking out on their own, but families dominate through the 80s.

You see the empty nesters emerge with Golden Girls.

But it's in the late set late 80s and early 90s that we see the shift to shows focused on friends.

Seinfeld, the show friends, and sex in the city.

And this is that Hollywood saw our demographics coming.

They were paying attention and they knew we were changing.

And these next two graphs show that.

Went from 40% to the households in 1970 down to 19.6% in 2012, while single-person households increased.

Over here, we see one person and two-person households increase over the same period, why three, four, and five or more person households all decrease.

So Stanford from 2007 on until 2023 added 7500 housing units.

That's probably the most for any community in Connecticut.

84.3% were multifamily, mostly rentals in or near the downtown area.

This is the shift to multifamily housing that we're seeing throughout Connecticut.

Large portion of your uh housing is for renters at 40 almost 49%, especially young professionals.

Uh, and that's why you're seeing the fact that you've retained and attracted those 30 and 40 something year olds.

But there is ample space for more homeownership housing style, uh, such as what's being proposed.

And that would fall into the missing middle category.

Uh so while you're outpacing the state on multifamily, and you're falling you're below in the single family.

The townhouse style or carriage house style housing is a single family product, but built in the density of a missing middle.

So some talk about school enrollments.

Uh, I know the chairman mentioned before, and someone else on the board also mentioned the uh that there'd probably be some children in this uh development.

So I want to touch a bit on housing and school district enrollments.

One, there's tons of myths out there, especially that every housing unit produces one, two, three or more school-aged children.

Statewide, our housing produces only 0.35 enrollments per housing unit.

And in Stanford, it's only 0.29.

So think about that.

Only one in three housing units in Stanford actually has a child associated with it at most.

Excuse me a second.

Are you distinguishing between three and four-bedroom townhouses versus studio or one-bedroom apartments?

I will get to that.

Right now I'm just looking at total housing units.

Okay.

And that's um.

Um that's children of all ages, not necessarily school-aged children.

You know, what could be from birth to five years old.

I'm sorry, I just want to make clear.

The 30%.

Um it's children of all ages, not necessarily school-aged children.

Right.

Absolutely.

No, with a lot of our high rises.

Yep.

When kids become school-aged, often the people move.

Yep.

Thank you.

I appreciate you noting that.

Uh, so then number two is uh this idea that new housing adds two or three or four school-age children per unit.

And in Connecticut for new construction, it can range from 0.02 for studios and one bedrooms all the way up to 1.54 for single-family detached with five plus bedrooms.

Uh, and ultimately, we're going to look at specifically this style of housing.

So the 7500 housing units built since 2007, during that same period, Stanford only added 1,223 school district enrollments, which is actually 0.16 enrollments.

So running about uh 50% less than your overall housing stock.

New ultimately new housing creating fewer school-age children than existing housing, and that having to do with the apartments that have studios and one bedrooms.

Uh the key thing is that demographics and bedrooms drive enrollments, not so much housing units themselves.

And then the last myth I just want to address is there's this assumption that every student costs 20,000 that you add.

And that's not the case.

When you look at the average cost or the marginal costs over time, uh, it's actually only about six to thirteen thousand per student.

And that depends, the the range is wide depending on what occurs in a given year when enrollments enter into a school system.

So, with that said, uh, you know, big picture.

School district enrollments are driven more by demographics uh than they are by new housing.

As population ages, uh the resultant number of children has decreased, and that's a factor related to fertility rates.

Uh fertility rates are extremely low in the U.S.

at 1.64 and at 1.51 in Connecticut.

We are just generationally, if you go back to 1960, fertility rates are around 3.0.

We are just having fewer and fewer children generation by generation.

Look at this statistic.

In 1970, 67% of households of Americans age 24 to 49 were living with a spouse and one or more children.

That dropped uh by 2020 uh to 37%.

That just shows how our household structure is changing.

So the proposed units in this housing development.

The first thing we did was test the multipliers that we use from Rutgers and from the South Central Connecticut Crog against your existing housing stock.

And what we basically find is when we apply the multipliers to your existing bedroom counts, it tells us that your enrollments would be 832 higher than what your actual enrollments are today.

I do this to show you that these multipliers typically overestimate rather than underestimate.

So then our actual calculations.

We've got 102 units, with all of which have three bedrooms.

The basic multiplier uh from the Rutgers data, and the South Central Cog data is 0.31 per unit, which would give you approximately 32 enrollments in total.

But we also do a new to district calculation.

That is every household that moves in isn't gonna be from Stanford.

I typically run it at 50%, but because these are owner occupied, because they are three bedroom, I wanted to be conservative, and I assume that 75% would be new to district.

So we're coming up with an estimated 24 enrollments or 24 school age children within this development, and that would run at about 0.235 per unit, still lower than what your overall housing is running at.

That being said, I'm convinced, you know, as a comment was made earlier.

Isn't this supposed to be empty nesters?

I'm convinced this will mostly attract empty nesters, and I think the multipliers are overestimating.

So there's often skepticism around these types of projections.

We looked at five developments, similar style of housing already in Stanford, and the board of ed provided us with the actual enrollments, and 461 units over five developments produce 41 enrollments or 0.089.

So that's basically less than one enrollment per 10 units.

We then also compared the abutting single-family detached residential neighborhood with 43 units, producing 18 school age children for 0.419, higher than the rate in Stanford itself.

So you know, I have to go by the data.

I have to go by the projections.

We're coming up with 24 enrollments.

But if I was a betting man, I would say it would be less than that based on the type of housing, and based on the fact that it will most likely be empty nesters that are attracted to it.

So the last thing we did was a fiscal impact analysis.

We looked at the value of the units, the tax rate, we also looked at personal property taxes for motor vehicles, sewer usage fees, and then we also looked at the enrollments and their costs on the expenditure side, and at general government expenditures, things like providing a community center, swimming pools, all that other stuff, you know, your planning staff, all that other stuff that Stanford's government does for the community.

And with the enrollments, as we projected, uh we come up with, so just running through this, we come up with 200 2 million dollars in residential property taxes, personal property taxes around 45,000 for motor vehicles, another 10 grand in uh sewer usage fees for about 2.1 million in revenues, take out almost 300,000 for enrollments, which I feel are overestimated.

Uh and then about 500,000 in general government services for a total of just shy of 800,000.

The development ends up in that fiscal positive about 1.3 million to the community.

And you could actually add like you know multiple times the number of enrollments.

If for any reason I was severely wrong and you ended up with twice as many enrollments, you would still very much so end up fiscally positive.

So, in the interest of time, I will end there, but I am available if any of you have any questions.

Thank you.

You're muted, David.

Sorry.

Try that again.

Roseanne, any question?

Yeah, no.

Bill?

Uh not at the time, no.

That's good.

Okay.

Uh Dr.

Pullin, just one question.

What's your basis for saying that most of the people there will be empty nesters?

What's the research?

From me doing this, you know, dozens and dozens and dozens of times.

It's the price point of the unit.

You know, from a school-age children enrollment standpoint, you're looking more towards a younger first-time homebuyer demographic to generate those kind of enrollments.

And uh, and I just think these kinds of units at this kind of price point is ultimately not a first-time home buyer.

It's leaning more towards an older home buyer who is equity in the property to move to it, and is for looking for kind of a lifestyle change, and that's your empty nester demographic.

Couldn't it be someone selling their first or second home and moving to a larger home?

This is the whole thing.

People moving up to a larger home are usually people with children.

And people with children in a single family detached on a private lot are less likely to upgrade into a larger unit that's in the common interest community.

They would probably upgrade into a single family detached law elsewhere.

Uh so once again, it's it's the demographic, it's the household structure that drives me in that direction.

Okay.

Um and you said the price point.

What price point are you using for your conclusions?

Uh we were in the range kind of when we did the fiscal impacts, looking at projected, you know, sales value and stuff.

Uh in the area of around 1.1, 1.2 million.

These aren't changing.

No, but that's about what they go for nowadays.

So okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Very interesting.

Lisa, back to you.

Mr.

Chairman, that that about completes what we had in terms of presentation.

Okay.

Um if there's nothing more from the board, why don't we go to the public?

Go to the public.

Sorry, Bill.

I said let's go to the public.

If there's anyone from the public who would like to speak on this application, either for or against it, um, please raise your hand and when you're called on by Vanita, give us your name and your address, please.

We have Ms.

Born.

Hi, this is Sue Halburn.

Can you hear me?

Yep.

Yep.

Hi, good evening.

Sue Halpern, Elmcroft Road.

I'm glad to see you're on Zoom again.

We are too.

Yay.

Um, I I just want to say, you know, I under, you know, what concerns me is pedestrian safety here on Long Range Road.

You know, I know there's an acknowledgement that there's going to be an increase in pedestrian activity and there's contributions going to be made for safety updates and uh traffic signal updates and such, but you know, just again today, another pedestrian was hit by a car on High Ridge Road near the Apple school there.

Um two o'clock in the afternoon, and there was a fatality a couple of weeks ago, somebody crossing High Ridge Road and High Red Road and Long Ridge Road are such wide streets.

Uh I'm just so concerned.

I mean, if people are only going to be able to cross at bull's head, you know, and traffic.

I I just think there either should be an extra crosswalk, like further up the hill on Long Ridge where people be going across to go do um Whole Foods or what have you.

I don't know.

And you know, people are speeding all over the place.

It's it's just concerning, and I I'm not sure what the final um output was uh as far as a sidewalk on Long Ridge Road on that side.

I I don't know what the the final say was on that, but I just want to say I'm just so concerned about pedestrians on these two major roads nowadays, and whatever is done.

I I really hope that they do something to really slow down traffic in that area.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sue.

Vanita, I can't hear you.

Is it me?

I don't see any other hands from the box.

Okay.

Um Lisa, is there anything else you would like to say before we uh continue this?

I don't think so, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay.

Any questions from the board?

No.

Further.

Okay.

So we got a few items for the we've asked the applicant to provide for the next meeting.

And um not a lot.

This is a uh a good application.

So um we will uh continue application 225-29 until the next zoning board meeting, which is on December 15th at 6:30 on hopefully Zoom.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thanks, everybody.

Um our next application is uh application 225-3-2.

It's a zoning text change.

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

Um this one is also continued from our last meeting.

And um we'll uh Ralph, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much.

So um as you recall, since uh Teams sabotaged us uh in the last meeting and uh turned off the um uh the recording and kicked out people from uh the meeting.

Uh we had to continue this to this week.

Um there were uh no significant changes made to the uh VC uh text change application we discussed last week uh to lower the threshold for the uh zoning board review uh from 20,000 square feet uh lot area to 12,500.

So that is a change uh that was incorporated in uh the draft.

Um other changes that have occurred since then are really just uh editing and spelling.

Uh one other change that we made was um since the application was filed before the new comprehensive plan was adopted.

It had the old master plan categories in there, so we updated uh the master plan categories as well.

But it's really the only thing that has changed uh since uh last time we talked about this item.

Good.

Um are there any questions from the board?

No, not for me.

Okay, nothing.

Then um let's go to the public.

If anyone from the public wishes to speak on this application, um either for or against it, uh please raise your hand.

Anita, do we have anyone?

Okay.

Um Ralph and Bored, are we okay to close this?

Let's close it.

I don't see any reason not to.

Okay, then application two two five-three two is uh closed.

Next we have application two two five-40, also a zoning text change from the uh zoning board.

Uh purpose of this text change is to update appendix B, tables two and three, including the notes.

No substantive changes are proposed.

Um so uh basically uh the same story.

Um I gave a presentation about this the last week, and uh really the only change that happened between the filing of the application and last week was that um we uh thought that our CG new CG text would be approved by now, and we had incorporated that in the proposed uh change for table uh two.

Uh that did not happen, so we had to change it back to the current regulations.

Um and uh since then, since last week, uh the only changes that have been made to the text were some minor editing errors and and punctuation and and those kinds of things.

Uh and uh as I said before we uh updated uh the master plan categories changed to comprehensive plan uh categories to uh take that into account.

Okay, well good.

Uh Bill, any questions?

Oh, sure.

Uh Roseanne.

Nothing.

Okay.

Uh if there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this application, um, either for or against it, please raise your hand.

No, no, Vanita.

Okay.

Um, I'm not hearing you.

Um is it in the middle?

Okay.

Yeah, I think you may have to get closer to it.

Um we okay closing this application?

Yes.

Yeah.

You good?

Okay.

So application 225-40 is closed.

Next, we are going on to application 225-3-4, 1241 East Main Street, associates LLC, 1241 East Main Street.

Uh text change.

Applicant is requesting a text change to permit portions of a non-conforming building or structure exempt from building height to be converted into floor area.

Um, and I see we have attorney Feinberg joining us again.

Welcome back.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Please proceed.

Um, do you want me to read the planning board letter first?

I'm sorry, yes.

Please do that.

November 3rd, 2025 to Mr.

David Stein, Chair City of Stanford Zoning Board regarding ZB application 225-34.

Um, Carmody Torrent Sandack and Hennessy LLP representing 1241 East Main Street Associates text change.

Here, 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.

Applicant is requesting a text change to permit portions of a non-conforming building or structure exempt from building height to be converted into floor area.

Lisa Feinberg, Carmedy Torrent Sandek and Hennessy LLP made a presentation and answered questions from the board.

After some discussion, the planning board voted by a vote of 310 in favor.

Godzino, Linder, and Salett opposed subromanian to recommend approval of ZB application 225-3-4.

Mr.

Sub Romanian was opposed to the text change as he feels the non-conforming spaces must not be used for residential apartments.

The board found this to be in general harmony with it.

Sincerely Stampered Planning Board, Jennifer Gazzino, Chair.

Thank you.

And as I mentioned earlier, this application is being heard separately from this site plan.

Um architectural plan application for this building because this application requires a public hearing, while the site plan application does not uh require it under the city charter.

So attorney Feinberg, why don't you uh take us through this?

Please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, for the record.

My name's Lisa Feinberg.

I am a partner at Carmeny Torrent Sandack and Hennessy.

My office is here in Stanford at 1055 Washington Boulevard.

May I go ahead and share?

Yeah, please.

Okay, great.

Okay, so um, as you just noted, we are here tonight uh in connection with a proposal ultimately to repurpose this building known as 1241 East Main Street.

Um, but there are two components to that.

First is the text change, which we're gonna talk about uh now, and the second is a site plan.

Um while the text change is not limited to the specific proposal, I think it would be helpful just to provide some context.

So I'd like to use 1241 as a bit of an example.

So 1241 is a legally non-conforming office building.

It is commonly known as the former WWE headquarters.

You can see it here on the screen.

The black area at the top of this image with the WWE sign is actually a mechanical penthouse.

You can see the penthouse up close here and the type of equipment that's held inside of it.

The existing office building had a central plant in that existing rooftop area that serviced the entire building.

However, once the building is converted, the units will be a split system that serve each individual unit and have connecting mechanical condensers on the roof outside of the penthouse.

Thus the mechanical penthouse no longer becomes needed.

So instead of leaving it unutilized or demolishing it, we thought it would be more appropriate to convert it to housing.

So as you know, uh the general rule is a legally nonconforming use or structure is permitted to be maintained, but it cannot be expanded.

Notwithstanding this general rule, Section 10 of your regulations recognized that certain changes or alterations to a legally non-conforming building may be warranted or even maybe should be encouraged.

For example, a parking garage like the one in this building, uh which is incorporated incorporated beneath the structure is not counted as floor area for purposes of calculating a floor area ratio or FAR.

However, absent a rule providing otherwise, the conversion of that same square footage into habitable space would technically increase the building's FAR.

Because this type of change does not technically it would or it wouldn't.

From a strict uh definition perspective, once it goes from parking to habitable space, it counts, but the structure itself doesn't change in size.

Gotcha.

Okay.

So the zoning regulations permit this type of change where you convert that parking beneath the building into a habitable space in section 10 C1D.

We're actually relying on it for the application to come.

The proposed text seeks to apply this same concept to the top of the building.

At the time the building was constructed, mechanical penthouses were exempt from FAR and building height.

However, like the example I just gave, once they became habitable space, the same space was no longer exempt.

The text change addresses this inconsistency by modifying section 10 C1 to permit the conversion of these types of structures when the actual height and massing of the building does not increase.

So the structure is there, it's just how that is used.

In this instance, if the text change is adopted, the mechanical penthouse would become three penthouse apartments.

We think that the change makes practical sense and really leverages the investment in an existing asset with existing infrastructure support.

We also think the proposed change furthers the city's housing goals.

As you know, conversions of legally non-conforming buildings are recognized as a great tool for increasing housing supply and ultimately improving affordability.

And that's really it.

That's the text.

Bill, any questions on the text?

Yeah, I've read this several times, but question for you, Lisa, is that the way this is worded, is this going to apply then only to conversion to a residential building or does it go to any building?

I believe that it would apply.

That's a good question.

I believe it's in the conversion section, so it applies to residential only.

Let me pull that up.

You're right, Mr.

Chairman.

It's in the same section as the other uh existing conversions of existing space.

So, like the conversion of a parking garage, if it's incorporated beneath the building, if the space is there, it could be used.

So I do I guess so.

Should we consider restricting just the residential conversions?

If that's something that that the board thinks is appropriate, it certainly wouldn't be a problem uh from the applicant's perspective.

I you know, I think for consistency's purposes, um, maybe it doesn't make sense because just you know the concept is if you have a building there and you're not making it any taller, you're not making it any bigger, and you can park it, then there's no impacts on the neighborhood.

So why not utilize the space, make it taxable, all of those things?

But certainly if you think that it's best to limit it to housing, then that would be fine.

So, Bill, are you thinking that if for some reason, you know, and things reversed and somebody did this and wanted more office space?

Yeah, exactly.

There'd be issues, possible issues with that.

Could be because now you you you you would have office space which would generate a whole different set of problems that don't exist in the building.

Uh I envision I could be wrong.

I just I'm trying to think this through since this text is going to apply, you know, citywide.

Yeah.

Um help from anybody who wants to add something in there.

And and I'm just wanting to talk this out.

But I mean, even if it did um uh if it was for everything and was office, I mean you'd still have to have the appropriate parking.

You'd still have to have what else parking is like the biggest you would yeah, you would have whatever parking would be required under our non-conforming section.

Right.

So whether it was residential or office, you'd still have to have the appropriate parking, you'd still have to have the appropriate egresses and doesn't change.

Anyway, Bill, I don't I'm just trying to I don't talk about it out loud to see how I feel about it.

I'm not seeing why we would do that.

But I'll defer to Ralph and Benita on that.

I think in the case of an office, if you don't have the parking, you would make an existing non-conformity worse.

So you wouldn't be allowed to do that.

So I think uh if if you if the building was overparked before, uh and the conversion uh can be accommodated with with the existing parking on site, then you can convert it to office space.

But if they were under parked before and they add commercial floor area, then it would make the non-conformity uh worse.

Uh the parking non-conformity, and therefore they couldn't do it.

Okay, even though the possibility would exist that you maybe the traffic generation would be more, but you'd have number parking places, so it wouldn't make a difference, I guess.

Yeah.

I'll think about this a little more.

We can go on to something else.

It's just that food for thought, as they say.

I mean, the the thing is also if you think about it, I mean, I think this this is actually probably a good example.

Um, so it's an older building, and uh they have probably air conditioning equipment in there that is ancient and not particularly effective.

So um uh they're putting in more energy efficient greener uh uh HVAC uh uh equipment, and they gain a little bit of floor area.

Um so why shouldn't they benefit from that?

So I think it also creates sort of an incentive for use space more efficiently and have it not be part of uh like oh, we're not doing anything because we can't use the space anyway.

Well, the except that putting in the individual units is so that they can charge the individual apartment owners, have it built directly to each unit owner.

Yeah, no, I mean that's that's true too, but I would think that um uh a split level units from 2025 is more energy efficient than I have no idea how old the HVAC system up there is, but uh no, you're you're probably right.

It's it's it's quite old and not as energy efficient as anything uh they they are required to put in nowadays.

I mean, energy codes change and all that stuff.

Yeah, yeah.

Uh okay.

I think you're you make a good point, Ralph.

Well, you know, Lisa Ian or Ralph or Vene for that matter.

Is there any other buildings uh do you think that might use this type of a uh use this text change if it were to get passed down the road?

Uh do you think that might use this type of a uh use this text change if it were to get passed down the road?

How about the one on Summer Street?

You know, the big silver one that 1600 Phillips on it, yeah.

Could they uh if they have a mechanical penthouse, then certainly they could convert it.

I'm not sure, you know, I didn't I didn't think they do how many, but there, you know, there are a lot of non-conforming office buildings in the city.

Uh but I mean the thing about the Phillips uh building was also, I think density-wise, with changing it to CG, we brought it into conformance.

That's right.

Um uh whatever they do now, they whatever they convert, they cannot become non-conforming with with regard to density and fluoride.

It would take another text change.

Yeah.

Which we know could I thank you?

I'm good.

Roseanne.

Uh you seem puzzled.

Well, I'm just thinking through what we just talked about.

Um, I've got to think about it, but I don't think I have questions about it.

Okay.

I've got a couple of questions.

Um, I'd like to see this written made a little clearer.

Um, if it's okay.

Um the first thing would be the uh exempt.

Um maybe just say something about what that means.

Um also from building height pursuant to 3B, can we say where in 3B it is?

Well, it's the definition section.

They're not numbered any further than that.

Okay.

So in the depth, just can we say in the definition of height or whatever it is?

Sure.

Um the part about previously exempt, I would that concerns me, and I would take that out.

Um I I don't want to have to go back and um you know for the last 50 years and see where it it could have applied.

I think we need to use our current regulations.

Um so I would stick with being exempt currently.

Well, the re uh it doesn't it doesn't matter for this particular building, but just so you understand the rationale, my rationale, it's otherwise you're not you don't have a legal non-conformity if you haven't demonstrated that you were previously exempt.

No, no, it says it's a um if you're you know you could have exempt before and no longer exempt and you'd be legally non-conforming.

Well, if then we could say which is legally non-conforming as to height, if that's the question.

But I I the the previously exempt is I think is vague and and open to a lot of different interpretations.

Okay.

So let's um if we want to say Can we pop it up on the screen?

Sure.

I would I think that the point is that um I think the point you're trying to make is it's currently legally non-conforming as to height.

Correct.

Okay, so let's add that um the and then take out the part about previously maybe convert it to floor area.

Now it was um notwithstanding the building structure already exceeds the permitted building height.

Um I would take out four FAR.

Um because this is a height section.

If we need to make a change in the FAR section, which I think is uh farther down, um I would I would like to see it done separately.

Um but I don't think you need it.

Doesn't the FAR section already give you what you need?

I don't think so.

I think it only uh relates to parking beneath the building.

I'm not sure that it relates to space above the building.

Yeah, I think it only it only says that uh if you basically have a have a covered um area.

Okay, then I would I would suggest having if you want to make this an exception to the FAR, I would suggest doing it in the FAR section.

Okay.

Um the FAR section picks up the garage, I guess, but doesn't pick up the penthouse.

Correct.

Yeah.

Could you um play with this and and revise it and come back to us?

Sure.

Please.

Um and let's but I think the concept is fine.

I don't have a problem.

If we're not going to increase the height, and all you're doing is um converting existing building into uh into um residential.

I think that's fine.

Okay.

Um before we go to the public, Bill or uh Roseanne, anything?

Uh the only comment I want to make is that the sentence that precedes this particular addition that we're looking at right now, it also refers to section 3B of these regulations.

So you're gonna have to make that consistent with what you want to change in this section.

That's a shall not apply the building features exempt from height pursuant, yeah.

We should add the height definition, pursuant to the height definition.

Okay, thank you.

That's a good point in section 3B.

Would you Lisa, could you add that to your yes?

Rewrite.

Thanks.

Roseanne, did you uh yes?

Well, this is a text change for the whole city.

Um with regard to the building at 1241.

Um, how many additional units would this give you uh if this is uh passed?

Three.

Okay.

Thanks.

Interesting.

Um I thought I knew the answer, but Lisa, tell me why do we need this?

Because the building will be, I guess we're making it taller.

Okay.

It technically becomes taller, although it hasn't changed at night.

No, I that's right.

Okay.

Um why don't we go to the public?

If there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak on just the text change, um, please raise your hand.

I don't see any hands right now.

Okay.

So um why don't we uh can we go ahead and continue this bill?

Yeah, you have to okay.

So we're continuing application 225-3-4 until the next zoning board meeting.

Is that well, let me ask the attorney.

Is that okay?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Um till the next zoning board meeting on December 15th, 2025 at 6:30 on Zoom.

Um now we um have an administrative review of the um site and architectural plans for this building.

That's application 225-35, 1241 East Main Street Associates LLC, 1241 East Main Street, site and architectural plans and a requested uses and coastal site plan.

Applicant proposes to convert the office vacant office building to approximately 84 residential units.

So it will just be the uh the board and the applicant discussing this.

So please proceed.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

For the record, my name's Lisa Feinberg.

I'm a partner with Carmen Torrent, Sanneck and Hennessey with an office at 1055 Washington Boulevard.

With me uh tonight is Celin Pather and Lance Parasat from Binefield Architects, Eric Rains from uh from Eric Rains Landscape Architecture, Chris Mohica from AKRF, our traffic engineer, and Brian McMahon from Redness and Mead.

And we're all here on behalf of the applicant 1241 East Main Street Associates LLC, represented here tonight by Michael Massimino.

As you know, uh, as we just discussed, we are here in connection with a proposal to repurpose the property known as 1241 East Main Street.

I'm just gonna share my screen.

And you can see it here outlined uh in black.

So the property consists of uh about 1.19 acres and is generally bordered by East Main Street or Route 1 to the north, uh home court to the west, Houston Terrace to the east, and uh R5 housing uh to the south.

It's really just west of the Darien border.

Today uh properties located in the CN zone and the MU1 mixed use neighborhood center land use category of the new comprehensive plan.

As we just discussed, the building was previously home to WWE, however, uh WWE relocated to 707 Washington Boulevard in 2023, leaving this building entirely vacant.

Our client purchased uh the vacant office building and now plans to repurpose the space as housing.

The current proposal contemplates the conversion of the entire building into 84 units, mostly one bedrooms, 59 one bedrooms, 23 two bedrooms, and uh two three bedroom units.

Six of the units will be designated as BMR on site.

It also utilizes um some of the existing parking uh as well as the mechanical penthouse uh for housing, the latter being the subject of the proposed text change we just discussed.

Um that's the general overview.

So I'd like to dive right into some of the details and ask Lance to walk you through the design.

Uh can everyone hear me?

Yep.

Yes.

Okay, great.

Um, for the record, my name is Lance Paris.

I'm an associate at uh Bindu Architecture, and I'll give you some of the concepts of the architecture.

And everyone can see my screen.

Yep.

Awesome.

Okay.

Um, so yeah, I'll start off with this uh photo realistic rendering that we have.

Um so this view is taken from the corner of uh housing terrace and east main street.

And so overall, the architecture is you know, we're taking the adaptive use concept and transforming this existing office building into a residence aided by um this articulate facade that we're creating uh with existing parking raised.

Um we think it strengthens the streetscape and enhances the pedestrian experience.

The design strategy begins by wrapping the former parking garage with new residential units and then using the garage's existing structural grid to pattern the case.

This approach breaks down the massing, introduces a consistent rhythm, and significantly reduces the perceived bulk and visual impact of the building.

So the idea here is to create a strong base on which the glass box uh rests on top of it.

So this is the second view.

This view is looking from uh East Main Street itself.

Similar concepts before, um, again, breaking up the facade and sort of energizing with the streetscape.

Uh so you guys saw this before, so I'll go on to uh our site plan really quick.

So this overall site plan is showing existing building outline, parking, and new outdoor energy concept.

I'll go further into depth as uh as we flip through the pages.

So this is uh the first level of of what of parking.

Um so uh programmatically remaining, you know, uh loading storage, back of house, mechanical, um, as well as a kids' room uh with bike storage.

And then moving up to uh the second level is when we start to integrate those units into the into the facade.

Lance excuse excuse me one sec.

Is do I remember that one of the curb cuts has been eliminated?

Um yes, uh the the curb cuts would be on east on East Main Street.

So I oh it'll be on the next floor plan.

I'm sorry.

It's the the curb cuts are on East Main Street, so it'll be the next the next floor plan up.

So it'll be this one.

Next one.

Okay, yeah, thank you.

Um and so yeah, parking B, we're reintroducing the or we're introducing the units uh for the first time.

So we have a new amening space, the double height gym fitness area that uh is fronted by the former main entrance into the building.

The exterior landscape has now been uh created to sort of curate a more guided formal entrance that speaks to that sense of entry to the future tenants.

Um I'll leave the landscape details to be described by Eric Green's office in more depth.

Um but yeah, moving up.

Uh so um you're sort of we're seeing more into East Main Street um and the the third level of parking with units around.

Um, same idea with uh the amenity in the center.

And then moving up to our final lay our final uh level of parking.

Um so this is when the the buildings actually recessed a little bit back into the garage a bit.

So parking D was formerly one of the vehicular entrances serving home court.

Um we are retaining this access point and converting it into the primary entry and drop-off area of the residential building.

Um so a dedicated outdoor amenity area, including the pool will also be incorporated uh adjacent to the drop-off, as you can see there.

The idea is to again create this sense of entry within the architecture and the building so that there's a more dedicated way people introduce themselves to the building and approach the building.

So you would come in from you'd come from home court there, and you have a main entryway, uh big glass entryway into that lobby leasing that looks out onto uh onto the opposite side.

And then moving up.

So this is our typical floor.

Sorry, did we pass the curb cut?

Oh, yeah, sorry, the curb cut is uh the curb cut's right there.

I think using the main floor.

That would be here.

Where?

On East Main Street.

Yeah, where was it?

Uh it's it's around this area.

It'll be more detailed in the in the the civil the civil plans.

Okay.

Mr.

Chairman, you can see it there in that lighter green.

Sorry.

Lance, can you zoom in in that section?

So that was a driveway, and now it'll be lawn.

Oh, okay.

Good.

Thank you.

Yeah, of course.

Um so moving up.

So this is the floor plan, those look those floors one through floor four.

Those are the uh that glass box, the original building that you're seeing.

So this is how we're sort of creating that space again.

Um so this is the typical unit layout that you're gonna see throughout those four floors.

Um, and then the amenity uh co work space in the center to create a more residential feel.

And uh lap is the uh is the roof plan.

So transforming the existing mechanical spaces into new residential units while also re purposing the building's roof deck to a more updated version of what's currently there.

And uh I'll go I'm sorry, go back.

The co-working space you showed us on the slide before this, is that will be on all of the uh residential floors.

Yes.

Right?

Okay.

Good good use of the core there.

Yeah, I think I think uh you know, the way we we divide these units is to really integrate the space and make it work.

Yeah.

Um so uh the roof plan again, just uh uh using that rooftick, and then uh for our building materials.

Um so the garage level that we we talked about before, which is where we're we're uh defining most of the architecture will be wrapped in that limestone cladding uh with the recessed aluminum windows.

There's gonna be uh a darker aluminum siding will be used for the vertical wheel that breaks up the facade, so those lines you see going down.

Um and then the former roof deck mechanical space now converting to units will also be clad in the same aluminum siding for a more cohesive uh games.

And yeah, that's uh the architecture.

Okay.

Board, any questions for um, yeah.

Lance one, do any of the windows open?

Uh so currently the uh the the windows that we're adding in to the uh parking level are operable.

Um the uh the glass box portion above the curtain wall system.

Um they're they're not operable, but um, but you know, could be potentially.

I'm sorry, they could be uh the applicant, Mr.

Morris.

I can address that.

The applicant's gonna explore the possibility of incorporating some operable windows in in each unit, but at this point hasn't you know made a commitment to it?

It it's an expensive endeavor, but they are they would like to explore it.

Would they like to get back to us in two weeks and let us know how they feel about it?

Mr.

Chairman, as you know, there's no requirement for operable windows in a in a converted office building.

So if they are able to do it, then they will okay.

Well, they're able to do it.

The question is, do they want to do it?

If it's so uh feasible.

Okay.

Please continue.

Yeah.

Well, I'm sorry.

Um did you have anything?

Yeah, um, with this photo reel um image.

Do you have a photo reel image that includes the rooftop?

Um, unfortunately, these are the only two.

We have this, this one and then the the second one you saw earlier, which is looking from East Main Street.

Okay.

Okay.

Would you get get that for us, please, for the next meeting?

Mr.

Chairman, can we take a look at the elevations and see if that maybe satisfies Roseanne?

The the renderings just take a lot of.

I'd like to I'd like to see it as well if the um elevations uh are not satisfactory.

Um do we have renderings for the other sides of the building?

Uh so I have I have elevations um of all four sides of the building.

I can I can show those if that uh probably a clear image for you guys.

Um so this is the view from this is the view from uh from house's sheet.

So the uh you're looking at the the uh roof chairs on that side and then it wraps around the entire uh that material wraps around the entire four sides.

Roseanne, what do you think?

Uh I'm fine.

I I know how difficult those renderings are, and I just wondered if they had one.

It's up to you.

No, these are not bad.

I can live with this.

Yeah, me too.

Okay.

Um, what else is occurring on the on on the that area where the three bedroom units are going to be, the old uh air conditioning part of the building.

Is that gonna be open space used plants or just so the rest of the roof portion of the building um is we're only using the existing existing footprint of what's existing on that rooftop.

Um you're not gonna be able to walk out of those units onto the existing rooftop.

Well, we have a dedicated, so we do have a dedicated roof deck that the that the pup the entire building and the penthouse scene is can you can you enlarge that?

Yeah, absolutely.

It's so real even more.

Thank you.

Um sorry, go ahead.

Sorry, go ahead.

Yeah, so you know, we're just using the existing foot.

This is the existing um the existing mechanical space that was there.

Uh we're just repurposing it uh for the the for those three bedrooms and then adding the the terraces.

The roof deck and the terraces are not currently part of the penthouse, right?

Uh the roof deck is.

So there is an existing if if you would look at a satellite image of of East Main Street, that building, the WWE building, there is an existing roof deck there now that was used by I'm assuming the office employees.

But that's not in closed space, Mr.

Chairman.

Does that count as FAR?

It does not.

Because it's not enclosed.

Only enclosed space counts as well.

They all has to have the roof and has to be fully enclosed.

And the um terraces that are marked there are private for those apartments.

Yes.

Thank you.

Interesting.

Um, I uh before I forget.

The um there was a question put in by the uh the fire department regarding um I think they want a 20-foot wide curb cuts, is and you had to meet that requirement.

Have you done that or do you meet that requirement?

Um I would defer that uh question to one of the civil engineers um project.

Yeah.

Okay.

So why don't we keep going through the uh the different members of the team?

Lisa, who's next Eric uh Eric Rains.

Eric.

Good evening.

Just introduce yourself, please.

Uh good evening, Eric Raines, the uh landscape architect for the uh for the project team.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So Lisa, if you can pull those up, uh probably the rendering would be the good start.

Um on the site development side of it, um we have addressed the on the planting side.

We've addressed the uh street tree requirements and um and Lance had mentioned earlier the development of some exterior space related to a new amenity areas, particularly on on East Main Street.

Um so starting at the bottom, uh the south edge of the site on the bottom of the page, uh the long green rectangle across the bottom there would be a dog run area for the residents.

Um they would access it through a sidewalk that would connect to the sidewalk on Houston and um and be usable for the residents, and then moving up Houston, we part of the street tree requirements would be the installation of street trees, a rhythm of street trees that go up uh toward the north on the on on Houston Street.

When you get to the corner of East Main and Houston uh is an exterior amenity space uh adjacent to uh some of the interior amenity spaces, and that is comprised of of an open lawn area uh in the middle there, uh a seating area, and then to the east or to the west, those uh those smaller areas are um are just smaller smaller areas for uh various kinds of seating.

So again, this would be accessible to the residents of the building and be buffered from the sidewalk uh in various degrees by with the use of plant material.

Um Eric, is there a um and I apologize?

It's um I read so many things this weekend I can't remember.

Um is there a street tree calculation showing frontage and number of trees for this?

There is on page of uh let's see.

On SPL 1.0 in your package there in the upper right.

Okay.

Can you just break that down, please for the next meeting?

Give us the frontage on each uh street.

On each street, okay.

Yeah, we can we can break the chart into um into street sections, yes.

And um I think I read that you're removing current street trees.

Why is that there um in in several inch instances they um they're there the scale of the trees isn't what we would like for them to be um for the size of the or the space of the the the volume of space that's uh that exists within the edge of the street and the building.

So we're what we're what we're proposing to to plant are trees that would have a larger canopy and um and we feel do a much better job of of transitioning from the vehicular um portions of the perimeter and the pedestrian portions of the perimeter up to the facade of the building.

So we just would like to put in trees that are that that would um basically do a better job of street trees.

Now are these considered small, medium or large?

Uh well in most cases around the perimeter the can't their canopy trees uh which would be a larger canopy size, like an elm tree, for example, um versus a more ornamental size tree that um that would be there today.

Um so yeah, so they're much they're larger canopy size trees.

Um the um engineering had requested that there be more streetscape improvements.

Um does this reflect that or is that something that you guys are working on?

Uh well, with the removal of the curb cut on um on East Main, we we we were able to add another tree and then and then replace the pavement that's there with um with green surface um lawn at this point.

And um, and so there has been that improvement.

Yeah, they asked that it there be improvements on um all three streets.

Uh is that a would you guys look at that, please?

Well, certainly look at it, yes.

Um because um since if it doesn't happen, it'll be just added as a condition.

So yeah, uh, if you could take a look at it for the next meeting.

Yes, we will.

We will.

Uh the and they also engineering said there were trees on private property labeled as street trees.

Do you know what they're talking about?

Well, if you go back to the well, even here, Lisa, you can see if you zoom out, um, you see on Houston, for example, the um the sidewalk has a very narrow snow shelf, if you would, between the curb and the sidewalk.

Um we which is off our property.

So the site is I'm sorry, the sidewalk is narrower, the amenity strip.

What is it that's narrow?

So uh so is Lisa.

If you could zoom in on those trees on on Houston, um there.

So the property line is basically the uh on the on the western edge of the sidewalk along Houston.

Um this is regenerating.

So yeah, there's the property line there.

And there's there's no room off our property to plant the trees because the sidewalk is so narrow.

So what we what we're doing is we want to plant on on the west side of the property line, which is which is on our property, but uh utilize the much more available soil area, so the trees would have much more room to grow.

So that's I believe I believe that's what they're talking about.

But that's not private property.

That's your property, right?

Well, it's private to the it's private to the to the to our client.

Um got you.

Okay.

Okay, gotcha.

Uh okay.

Can please continue.

Um so if you Lisa, if you go back up along East Main Street, uh over toward the um the swimming pool edition.

So on the upper level where Lance had described the main entry, the new main entry into the building.

Computer's a little slow tonight.

I don't know.

Wow.

We're taking advantage, we're taking advantage of space up there and proposing a swimming pool addition that would be on the same level off of the uh home court entry while while that's regenerating.

And you'll see that in the um in the plan.

That that as all the other amenities there, uh, as all the other amenities, this would be private to the residents of the building, but separate from the visibility from East Main Street and from home court.

Uh, we're utilizing the shape of the existing parking access that exists from that level down to lower levels today to to claim that space as amenity space.

Is that ground level on any of the it's above the it's above street level on East Main?

It's on level with home court.

Gotcha.

Okay.

But you've got enough screening, you think, so that there'll be privacy there?

Yes, there's a there's a solid parapet wall that runs around the perimeter of it today that will retain, and then we have the canopy trees that we were just mentioning going around the edge of that uh down at ground level.

Okay.

We have this the roof space allocated now.

We've not done we've not done um uh design work there yet.

There will be landscaping there.

Oh, yes, most certainly.

So if we would like to see it, um you think it'll be done for the next would it need to be a condition, you think?

Uh if you'd like to see a layout, we could certainly do that.

Yeah, please.

And then within the drawing package, you'll see there where it's labeled motor court, we have paved, we're you know utilizing modular pavers uh within our drawing set are photographs of what those um would be uh for decor, you know, like a decorative entry um element uh related to the new main entry of the building, as well as the paving for the amenity uh that's on the corner of Houston and East Main.

Those images are in the in the plan as well.

Okay.

It looks good.

Yeah, it's an exciting project that uh we're very we're really pleased with with to be a part of it.

Okay.

Um anything else, Eric on the landscaping.

Um not just now.

If there are more questions, certainly, but uh but that I think that's it for now.

Any questions for Eric?

No, I'm good.

No, I'm good.

Okay, thank you.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Uh why don't we move on to Chris?

Good evening.

Um Lisa, if you're able to pull up the screen, that'd be great too.

Well, give it a whirl.

Sure.

Can you see it?

Is this your first slide?

Nope.

Still says Lisa Feinberg has started screen sharing.

Wow.

There we go.

Oh my computer is literally having a tantrum.

I can I can try sharing it, that's easier.

Why don't you?

Because one second.

See if this works while you're there.

You go.

Oh, it's showing.

Most of it.

There.

Yeah.

Can you see it?

Most of it.

Yes.

We see it now.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, we'll we'll give this a try.

If anything, I can always um share my screen.

Um, so good evening, everyone.

For the record, my name is Christopher Mohica.

Uh, I'm a senior technical director at AKRF with an office in Stanford.

I am a licensed professional engineer, certified um professional traffic uh traffic operations engineer and uh certified road safety professional level one.

Um I prepared the traffic impact study that was included with this application.

And in the interest of time, I did want to provide a uh a high-level summary of the traffic impact study, but with that said, certainly happy to answer any questions you may have.

Uh so this first slide just shows you high level what the overall study area is.

Um working with Luke at TTP, we identified four intersections that would likely have the greatest potential for impacts with this um redevelopment that's proposed for 1241 East Main Street.

So the four intersections are essentially East Main Street starting from Seaside Avenue over to the left part of the uh of the map, um, working its way over, passing the site, um the northern side boundary and continuing further east to um Hamilton and Waterbury Avenue.

Uh the traffic study focused on weekday morning and weekday evening peak hours.

Uh the peak periods are the peak periods that were utilized to identify the peak hours were um 7 a.m.

to 9 a.m.

and 4 p.m.

to 6 p.m.

Um our peak hours were were around 7.45 to 845 in the morning and 5 p.m.

to 6 p.m.

in the afternoon.

Um we did not look at a a Saturday, and that's primarily because the traffic volumes on East Main Street are about 20% lower.

And when I talk about the results here, um essentially the amount of trips that would be that are expected to be generated by this development on a Saturday are comparable to a weekday, except that there is about 15% less traffic.

So the impacts would be um lesser than what would be stated here in the report during the weekday.

Um you can go to the next slide, please.

Hopefully it works.

Perfect.

So you already heard the explanation about trip generation, but you know, uh the 15-second summary of trip generation is just that it is the standard practice and the repository for all of the data that that traffic engineers uh rely upon, and it's been accepted obviously by the city, accepted by Connecticut DOT.

This became the basis for us to estimate the travel demand going to the proposed redevelopment of 1241 East Main Street.

The comparison shows two different land uses.

The first one being the corporate headquarters building that's the current land use right now, which is the WWE building.

Um the amount of trips that are generated with that specific development.

Um the second line item here for the proposed project is the 84 um dwelling units that are proposed for this site.

Um, what you'll see right away is that what is actually proposed for the site with a dwelling units are significantly lower when compared to an overall office use.

So the actual 84 unit proposed development will will generate a maximum of 33 vehicle trips entering or leaving the site during any peak hour.

It's roughly copable during the weekday morning and weekday afternoon peak hours.

But in comparison to the existing office use, we're looking at um approximately a hundred vehicles less um entering and exiting the site when you compare the land uses.

So, and that's really just to say that um this in a sense, the the conversion of the land uses in itself is is a traffic enhancement just from the peak hour travel demand that would be anticipated along study area roadways and at the building itself.

Um next slide.

So I'll go through these bullets a little bit more, but this is really just the high-level summary of the overall report.

Um, from an impact perspective, we're always looking at future conditions without the project versus future conditions with the project.

Um, in terms of traffic operations, there are really negligible changes to overall levels of service that that we've identified at each of the intersections.

There is congestion on East Main Street, but the amount of um incremental traffic that we're adding in the realm of 30 vehicles during the peak hour is not significantly increasing or or changing the amount of uh travel delay or the amount of queuing at each of the intersections that we looked at.

Um the other thing to note too obviously we talked about the curb cut, um the the driveway that's on the northern end.

The removal of that driveway is is really beneficial from an access access management and the safety perspective.

It is something that Luke also uh recognized, and I I will say from prior experience, um, because it is a state road, this would be subject to um you know an encroachment permit review by Connecticut DOT.

They are also very in favor of removing curb cuts on the state roadway network.

So um that will also make a difference in terms of just reducing the amount of entries and exits to and from East Main Street and restricting those access points to and from the site from home port and Houston's Ferris.

Um, I talked about the fact that it was a traffic enhancement, um, but the last thing I do want to note here is that this site as it currently stands with uh within office land use is considered by Connecticut DOT as a major traffic generator, and that's primarily due to the square footage of the building.

Um with this conversion and the fact that it is under 100 units.

This technically Connecticut DOT does will no longer consider this site as a major traffic generator per the regulations.

So besides a outreach to them to formally decertify the site as a major traffic generator, um, this site would not be subject to future DOT reviews unless there were any changes to um their actual right-of-way, anything along East Main Street.

Um again, this is a very high-level summary, but very happy to go into to further details on different elements of the report.

I just wanted to be cognizant of the board's time.

But I thank you for the opportunity to do the presentation.

Bill?

No, I don't think uh I need any more information on this.

It's pretty self-explanatory.

Roseanne?

Yeah, well, I you know kind of chuckle a little at the fact that there's under 30 outgoing trips, it certainly is going to be less than uh what was there two years ago.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um just is there a um, I don't know.

Again, uh Chrissy, if you're the right one.

Is there a uh parking management plan and transportation demand management plan?

From my understanding, and and Lisa, please correct me if I'm wrong here.

I believe that was also weighed for this site.

That's correct.

We're happy to provide that.

Why was it weighed?

Because it's such a traffic reducer.

Uh I don't think Luke felt that it was necessary.

We were reducing the parking significantly, removing a bunch of parking spaces.

Um I don't have any questions uh for Chris.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Who's up next, Lisa?

Mr.

Chairman, I think that that that's it in terms of what we had planned for presentation.

Okay.

Uh just a couple of other questions.

Um first ones for um Benita.

Did we get comments from TTP?

I didn't see them.

I can address that, Vanita, if you'd like, because I spoke to Luke.

He was leaving for vacation, so I don't think he ever uh was able to put them in writing.

Um we can certainly follow up with him now, but he did relay to me his desire to have the East Main Street curb cut closed, and so we incorporated that.

He said he didn't have any concerns otherwise.

Manita, could you get a uh letter from uh TTP, please?

Thank you.

And um uh we'll be getting a staff report on this, I assume before the next meeting.

Okay.

Um let's see.

Do we are there parking calculations?

Is there a parking calculation chart for this?

Yes, we included a parking breakdown in the application materials.

Can you just tell me where?

Sure, it was in the schedules uh to that to the application.

It's called parking breakdown.

Schedules.

Um schedule the zoning chart.

It's right behind that.

Ah, okay.

Okay.

Well um.

Yep.

My mistake.

Thank you.

No problem.

Umsable open space.

Is that calculated?

Yes, we have a sheet that Binefield produced.

It's on the schedule E right before.

There's also an actual plan.

Yeah, but that one doesn't show the the breakdown, does it?

No.

Would you like me to no that's that's okay?

Um, the usable open space plan.

Um, can you pull that up, please?

Sure.

May not be as easy.

Ah, there we go.

Can you see it?

Yeah.

Um so the where the child play area.

It's a little hard for me to see this on this one.

Um we did it in the room.

Is that in a the child player is in a parking lot?

Um well it's interior space, which is Oh no, I was looking at the one below it.

This here.

That's interior.

Keep going down.

Keep going down.

There you go.

That's an arrow.

Pointing to the blue space.

Gotcha.

That would yes, that would not have been appropriate.

We're making David go and play in the parking lot.

No, no, no.

Um, and that's on the which level is this?

Is this the motor court?

I believe so.

Lance can is this is the parking level A.

So it's the first level, but that's all um that's all interior space.

I mean, we're seeing um the right.

That's all interior space.

So you can get to it by both stairs and elevator?

Yes.

Okay.

Not in not an outdoor area, but uh indoor.

Yes.

Okay.

Um is there something on D, level D.

Or is that just open space?

This is just open space.

You mean in terms of a child play area?

Yeah.

No, this is just open space.

Does this open space of 6,493?

Are you including that in your open space calculation?

Yes.

Does it need our requirements for dimensions?

I believe he's pointing to this space.

I think that whole that narrow portion along the parking spaces.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um, did you does that meet our requirements?

Uh in terms of dimensions?

Yes.

I believe it does.

I don't think so.

In terms of overall square footage or actual length and width.

We can double check that, Mr.

Chairman.

But I'll tell you, we're far we far exceed the requirement.

The requirement's 6300, and we have over 24,000.

Okay, but it's that's fine, but we shouldn't be counting space that doesn't comply.

Um let's see, I have one other question.

Sheet S E one.

Can we get that up?

Is that the civil sheet?

Um, I guess it is, yeah.

So look for that.

Give me just one second.

Can you see it?

Yep.

Brian McMahon.

S E one.

So these have you know what that that one is fine.

I you covered my question on that.

Um I think Brian can address while we have him the the question on the curb cuts.

It was a minimum of 24 feet, Brian.

Is that accurate?

That's what's requested.

Yes, for the record, Brian McMahon, licensed professional engineer with redness and need and the fire marshal requested a minimum of 24 feet on the curb cuts and both curb cuts to remain on Houston and on Holmes Court, are in excess of 24 feet.

They're about 33 feet now.

Okay.

Okay.

I I don't have any other questions.

All right.

Board, any other questions?

Yeah, I don't know who would address this, but there was some question regarding width of the uh sidewalks only being up to five feet.

Are you looking for something?

If you could explain that, please.

And where are you talking about?

Brian, do you want to address that?

Would you like me to?

Is that uh will let us comment?

Well, the I think we said that the some at certain portions of the existing sidewalk were under five feet, and so we were going to redo the sidewalks and ensure a minimum of five feet.

Is that what you're talking about, Mr.

Morris?

Yes.

And where are you referring to?

With no amenity strip, I think you would ask for it.

Correct.

Yeah.

Do you want to bring Eric's uh plan back up here?

I can try.

Will the rendered view show it, Brian?

Try this one.

Shouldn't the civil plan show uh widths?

Well, it's consistent.

The civil plan, Mr.

Chair, is consistent with the rendered plan that's on the screen now, I believe.

Right, but this has this has no dimensions.

Yeah, uh, I don't know that we have it on ours or not, but the intent as Lisa may uh said is to achieve the minimum five foot widths where they are deficient.

So why can't there be an amenity strip on East Maine?

I don't think we have the width.

I mean that the the building, because this is an existing structure, we have to work with the footprint that we have.

Okay, can you show us show us the widths?

Yes.

Uh I don't know.

I don't I don't have them dimensioned on mine uh on SE one.

So we can we could certainly add that next meeting.

Okay.

Bill, we may get an answer yet.

I'm sure we will by next week.

I find it surprising since you're asking for relief, they don't have it, but that's okay.

Uh yeah.

Yeah.

When you receive the letter from Luke, he actually asked me why we were replacing the sidewalks.

Ah, okay.

Um, anything else?

Uh no, I believe that's it.

Uh Roseanne.

No, nothing else.

Okay.

So um the things I have for next meeting.

Um engineering's request for more streetscape along all three streets.

Um roof deck landscaping and um just dimensions of the uh uh sidewalks uh so that we can see why there would why the requests for no amenities.

Is there anything else we were looking for?

I don't think so.

Lisa, you have anything else on your list?

Um I think you wanted the letter from TTP.

Right, but that's stat yes.

Um from us.

I do I do have a question on the rooftop deck.

It it's sort of unusual to provide all of the details for the space that isn't within any sort of public view, and a lot of that space is amenitized, so I don't know that it'll be formally finalized.

I'd hate to be locked into a specific design up there at this point.

Would it be acceptable to provide you with a concept that could be subject to staff's approval?

Um a concept is kind of um meaningless.

Um we know that there's a you that you could have a concept, but it doesn't mean that's what'll get done.

Um I'm okay to make it a condition.

Um normally I think when we get landscaping, we we see the rooftop area landscaped.

Um that that's okay.

Uh that can be a condition.

Thank you.

Um let's see.

Okay.

Uh board.

Anything else before we continue this?

I don't think so.

Or okay.

Lisa, you got anything else for tonight?

So okay.

Then uh application uh two two five-three five um is continued until the next zoning board meeting on December 15th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m.

on Zoom.

Um thank you.

Thank you all.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you.

All right, everybody.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, all.

Um nice project.

Uh okay.

Regular meeting.

Um approval of the minutes from our last meeting.

Uh is there uh any changes?

Are there any changes to the minute?

Uh not for me.

Not from me.

Ms.

Chairman, I move.

Do we approve the minutes of November 24th, 2025 as presented?

Second.

Okay.

Further discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

They are approved.

30.

Next, we have um uh application two five-three two City of Stanford Zoning Board zoning text change.

Uh this is the VC uh district.

Um what do people think of this?

I'm good.

I'm good too.

Okay.

Uh so am I.

Can we get a motion to approve it, please?

I move that we approve application two two five-three two city of Stanford zoning text change as presented earlier this evening.

Second.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

It is approved 30.

Next application 225-40, City of Stanford Zoning Board Text Change.

This is the one that uh deals with appendix B.

Um this is even an easier one than the previous one.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Chairman, I move that we approve application number two two five-40 as uh discussed and presented this evening.

Second.

Okay, further discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

It's approved 30.

Um, next we have request for an extension of time on application 221-29, South End Pacific LLC.

Um 648, 670, 686, and 690 Pacific Street and 171 Henry Street.

Um, this is the firehouse.

Yeah.

Um, and they are requesting extension of time to uh February 23rd, 2027.

Umita, is this one actually moving along?

Had uh conversations with them recently, and they feel that they're they're intent on preparing the building plans.

They feel that they won't be able to get the permit in time.

So yeah, so hopefully this comes to fruition.

I see the request mentions that they're moving towards a home ownership model.

Am I um which I didn't remember that being part of it?

Uh that's a change.

They they're going from uh rental to homeownership.

That's good.

Yeah.

Um that also requires them to uh redesign uh the building a little bit and sort of rethink the amenities and those kinds of things.

This is is this the one where there was a church on the site?

Yes, yeah.

Okay, okay.

Um with a couple of buildings together, right?

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Um can we get a motion to approve the extension of time?

So move second.

Okay, uh in favor of uh extension of time on application two two one-29 to February 23rd, 2027.

Say aye.

Aye.

It's approved 30.

Last but certainly not least, application 223-48, zero West Park Place.

Um there requesting extension of time to February 20th, 2027.

Um what property is this?

Yes.

Or the next Columbus Park.

The one on Columbus Park.

That's a parking lot now, David.

Next to Curlies?

Next to Curly.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

Got it.

Um can we get a motion to approve the extension of time?

I move uh that we approve application 223-48 request for an extension of time till just left my brain.

20.

There you go.

2027.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Okay.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

It's approved 3-0.

Um that brings us to the end of our agenda.

Um possibility that uh between now and the end of the year we could uh make a decision on a couple of these applications, otherwise I'm gonna have to get like put another extension on my house.

Oh nobody's gonna be able to stay in this room for at Christmas because it's about to open it.

We have to before we take on anything new, we gotta get rid of somebody old.

You know, New Year's and all that kind of stuff.

Let's get rid of somebody old stuff.

Um not a whole lot of paper with the text changes that we would like it was like six sheets.

Yeah, um either what do we have on for next time?

A lot of stuff, Barrie Place 120C.

East Main Street, Barry 120C, East Main.

Glenbrook Road, Glenbrook Road.

Oh, that's the uh Parker Avenue and Glenbrook Road, and then we have the bathhouse in Harbor Point.

The witch house?

Oh, bathhouse.

Yeah, you know, we're never gonna get to it.

Yeah, yeah.

We can open it and continue it, but I would let them know that um yeah of the three applications you just mentioned, not including the bathhouse.

There they did all of those are still open.

They've been continued, which means you'd the best we can hope for is to close them on the 15th.

Yeah, there's four.

We got Barrie, 120C, East Main, and Glenbrook Road.

Why can't we vote on a couple of them?

Because I thought we were getting away from closing them and voting on the same night.

Well, we're getting to the end of the year.

I mean, 1241 is should be pretty easy.

I agree.

Um ready with Glenbrook Road would be good to have.

You could have conditions for that too.

Glennbrook had a lot of stuff they needed to provide.

Um we can yeah, that should that one I think is probably I'm hoping that they'll be able to get us everything, but that had the most work that had to be done.

Um I think one twenty is pretty is pretty close.

Say that again.

120C seems to be pretty close.

Yeah, it's pretty minor things that we asked for.

That's true.

I mean, we were we would have we were close to closing it.

Um I don't know, you want to try to vote on them?

True.

20 C and 1241 shouldn't be an issue.

Well when they get the uh stuff in, yeah, and um why can't Barry Place?

Oh, we're waiting on the uh traffic report.

Um but once we get that's you want to vote on it too.

I don't see why not okay.

Um maybe push Glenbrook Road to uh unless people want to throw in an extra meeting on the last Monday of the month.

Are you kidding?

Just throwing it out as an idea.

Okay, no, you know.

Umbe they'll give us a raise.

No.

Um so why don't we try to vote on Barry 120C in East Maine?

Absolutely.

Sounds good.

Um that's like that's like two of the piles here.

Yeah, you'll be able to replace it with new piles.

Um we'll need conditions for that as well.

Okay.

Uh that's a good suggestion, though.

Let's we can move this stuff along.

This is this going on in the somebody's have hair on them, as you uh they say.

Um yeah, yeah.

Okay, good.

Umita, is there anything new that's on?

The bathhouse application is the only new one, but you know.

Okay, yeah, I think that's um that one will have to wait till January.

Okay, and there's nothing else that's uh major.

Is there anything after that coming up that's pretty major that's on the agenda?

Um we have 27 highways road coming up in January.

Um that's the parking lot for home goods.

That's gonna need a meeting all its own.

Yeah.

Um that will uh yeah, that'll take a little time.

Is that on for the first meeting of January?

I hadn't promised that because you know I want to see what what's getting over from December, but we could potentially put it on.

Yeah, why don't you put it on and we'll and then um we've got another couple of our own text changes that have been sort of lingering.

That's what I was gonna say.

You want to um put those on for the that first meeting of January?

Unless I think next meeting might be a little tough.

And continue.

Okay, why don't you put them on and we'll open and continue for for next meeting for December 15th?

We'll continue them.

It'll be like the bathhouse.

We won't actually have a hearing on it.

Okay.

I think we should be able to do that.

We couldn't hear you, Anita.

Um, I think we we'll have to put the notice in the newspaper.

Um that is wait till January.

Yeah.

Wanna do that?

Okay, so we'll put it on for the first meeting in January.

Okay.

Okay.

Good.

Um, Bill, I saw some golfers today over at Hubbard.

Were they wearing hats and gloves?

I drove by and there seemed to be a lot of cars in the parking lot, and I thought, oh, everybody's having lunch at Sodies.

And then I drove by and I saw Yeah, there are there are those those days are over for me.

I can't can't do it anymore.

Too much stuff.

They are hardy.

I used to I used a couple years ago I used to do it all.

I played all winter, but no more.

My knees start aching, my shoulder, it's it's looks like yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, guys.

Um, anyone want to make a motion to adjourn?

Happy to motion that we adjourn.

Second.

Okay.

We're adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you.