Vanita, would you make me co-host, please?

I did.

Okay, thank you.

We can get started now.

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

I'm David Stein, Chair of the Zoning Board, and it is 6 38 on March 2nd, 2026.

The members of the board and the staff are holding this meeting by Zoom video conference.

The public is in attendance, both on video conference and by teleconference.

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

Bill Morris?

Here.

Roseanne McManus.

Here.

Jerry Bozak.

Here.

And now for the staff, Benita Matter.

And Ralph Blessing will be joining us at some point.

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 applicants to please mute their mics when not speaking in order to reduce background noise.

The first part of the meeting is the public hearing during which the public will have the opportunity to speak.

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 through Zoom, please use the raise your hand function and you will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak.

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

When members of the public speak, please state your name and address for the record and whether you are 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 Vanita's email address is VMATHUR at Stanford C T dot gov.

I'm sorry.

You can find the agenda for tonight's meeting and the meeting application and other materials by going to our website www.stanford ct.gov slash zoning.

And this is application two two five-48.

It's a continuation from our last meeting on February 9th.

60 Palmer's Hill Road, site and architectural plans and a requested uses.

Applicants proposing to adaptively reuse the existing two-story building and construct a new daycare facility connected to the existing building, adding 60 surface parking spaces, an outdoor pavilion, outdoor play area, 11 classrooms, and a gross motor space.

The proposed facility is anticipated to serve up to 220 children.

Well, it the opponents had presented information from their consultants, both engineering and traffic.

And we had asked our uh city staff to respond to those.

Um engineering to respond to the uh engineering related comments and um traffic to respond to the traffic related comments from uh from the opponent's traffic engineer.

Uh so tonight um we'll be hearing from both uh the applicant, I assume through uh Mr.

Redness, and um from the opponent through uh attorney Pierce.

Uh and uh so Mr.

Redness, why don't you take it away?

Sure.

Thank you very much for the record, uh Richard Redness, Redness and Mead here with our team, engineer, traffic, um CLC, uh representatives, Mr.

Hennessy, the legal side, and we're all here to answer questions.

Um there were a few things that we were to follow up on.

Uh first, I'd like to thank Mr.

Morris for pointing out the lines in the EPB letter from an early EPB letter, uh, because we were able to uh work with EPB staff and and obtain an EPB permit for the development as proposed.

So we think we buttoned that one up.

Um with respect to um the uh drainage issues.

I think we've answered the questions.

We have a plan that with whatever modifications need to be made after we determine which way we're going to do, whether we all get the solution working with Edge Hill that we want.

Um I've had additional conversations with them.

The uh management of Edge Hill understands and is ready to go.

They're waiting for their recapitalization partner to be in place, and so again, we're all gonna act like that's not gonna happen, but we know that everybody wants it to happen.

So we're gonna do our best to uh to do that.

With respect to the drainage, um, I think you know, listen, we we we learned at the last meeting, they changed attorneys, changed tactics, and basically creating uh uh a record for appeal, and that's fine.

Um we think that the things that they raise are pretty simple things to address, you know, whether it's uh a 1.3 or 1.0 factor that you use, we'll use whatever factor the engineering department feels appropriate.

And if it's 1.3, that's what we'll use.

In terms of things like we didn't model the catch basin being removed, fine, we'll leave the catch basin.

I mean, this is not a hard problem to solve.

It's all a matter of sizing, whatever it is that we're gonna size.

Right now, the water just runs out afterwards, it will be mitigated.

We are going to meet the standards in the um drainage manual, and we'll exceed them because it was pointed out in a couple of places where the state is more conservative.

Fine, we'll we'll do whatever is required to be done.

It's a standard operating procedure.

We'd be doing it anyway, because you have to do it prior to a building permit, and that's what we have to do.

So it will be all mitigated on the drainage side.

That as much as all the words they want to throw and little technical things they want to put in the record, it's not a problem.

This is standard operating procedure, as all the letters from the city have indicated with respect to the traffic.

Uh, you know, I I as I said last time, they want to cherry pick when they follow ITE and when they don't, and they can do whatever they want there.

They they asked us to evaluate under the reasonable worst case peak demand.

That was in the letter that we got today.

Reasonable worst case uh peak case, and we're gonna do that.

We're gonna do that for you tonight.

Um so what I'd like to do is go to the video tape.

Let me see if I can do this.

One video, right, Rick?

Uh it's we condensed it and sped it up.

So it is actually faster, and it is basically one video.

Um I just have to uh there we go.

So this video you're not sharing was taken.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't share.

Um share.

Hold on.

What did I do wrong?

Let me pull it up, Rick.

Uh Dave, you'll put it up?

Yeah.

Okay.

So let me I don't want to close out of here.

I'm gonna uh I'll mess up something.

All right.

Okay.

Sorry.

Okay.

So this video, and you can run it, Dave.

It's taken at 8 42 on the 9th of January.

This is the day that people have to pay, or their kids can't stay in the program.

So not only are parents coming in to drop off their kids, they also have to, and you'll see one of them has to go back to the car to get their method of payment and go back in.

So they have to make two trips, and you can see this is 8 42.

Now the the peaks, the the hours of operation are 7 30 to 9 30, but we picked this time because we wanted to catch the peak on the day when the payments are due, and you can watch and see how it works.

There is not one queued car anywhere near Palmer's Hill, nothing, and that's a very short area to queue, and there is nothing, and all the opposition is based on this is this is gonna be terrible.

This doesn't work, and therefore it's gonna back up, and they showed pictures that we don't know when they were taken, by whom, of what, and when you know there was no reason for them to park now.

Hold off a second, Dave.

So I wanted to the the actual peak hour in this name in this area is 7:30 to 8:30.

So I didn't want anyone to be able to say, oh, 842, that's after the peak.

Okay, that was the peak.

So I asked, and this is all um things that are are taken all the time by CLC.

So I said, let me see eight o'clock in the morning in a midweek day.

Okay, so January 14th.

This is it right in the middle of the peak.

So we could pick any number of times.

I showed what we believe is the peak of the peak, the worst case peak demand, and that's what it is for the existing facility.

So everything else is opinion, speculation, fear tactics, etc.

I think that's enough, Dave.

We don't have to see the whole thing.

It doesn't change, it doesn't change.

So we think we have addressed all the concerns.

We're here for a final site plan with conditions, and the conditions are standard operating procedure that you have to address things prior to a building permit.

And with that, I would conclude and be happy to answer any questions or have the team answer any questions.

Um questions just on the video or just on anything, David.

Well, either on the video or on the project, okay.

Sure, and just for clarification, Mr.

Redness.

The the you you you said you received a EPB permit for your access for which roadway for Oliver.

No, for the project that is before you without the connecting road through the uh Edge Hill property.

What's before you tonight is coming in and out on Door Oliver Drive?

We are not connected as of right now.

We are not connected.

We hope to be, but we are not, and that's what we got the permit for.

Did he get that?

Yes.

What was that?

Um did the board received the permit.

Did they?

I don't I don't know.

We we got it.

Um yes, I think um I send the letter the the letter from Bob Clausi over which included the permit.

When was that sent?

It was sent the day after the hearing.

Uh February 11th, David.

Ah, okay.

And it it it was sent to us, it wasn't uh sent via um email or electronically, I believe.

It was it was mailed, you mean?

Uh yeah, uh yeah, because I got a staple hole in it, so it must have been.

Yes, and this should have been in your package.

Yeah.

In our package.

Yeah, that they have the yeah, they have the uh the permit number is uh but the package came before the meeting.

Yes, I didn't I didn't get one after.

Panita, would you send that to uh just send me a copy, please?

Okay.

Okay.

Um sorry, Bill, go ahead.

The um okay, that takes that that addresses that uh concern, so I can put this away.

The now I assume um that you mr.

Redis, you saw the letter that the board received today from uh TTP.

Yes, I just received that a few minutes ago.

I did.

Oh, you got it only a few minutes after I got it, so don't feel bad.

Yeah, but anyway, um there appears that they he he he seems to have some concerns um with your project.

And I wonder if either you or your traffic uh engineer is going to address those.

Um well, I think well, as I read the letter, what the conclusion of the letter was that the city has a project that it is got funded and is in, I guess final design or you know, for pretty far along.

And they are going to uh depending on what solution we use, if we do get the cut through, a lot of what's necessary isn't necessary, because we'll be using 64 for all entrances at least.

That's not exactly and available for exits.

That's not exactly what it says.

It says the city's um based on the project, there's an opportunity to expand it.

So they're not saying the current project of the city will cover this, they're saying if it's expanded, it'll cover this.

Right.

And if if it becomes necessary, as I read number one at the last uh uh paragraph, so to speak, um, that we will continue to work to if it becomes necessary to expand it so that there's a left turn lane.

Um and you know what, let me pull up the case.

He has a chef and there, I mean, he has like for example, under uh other items to consider for the traffic study.

He has like one, two, two, four different items, which appear to be uh issues.

Um, let's we can go through them if you would.

I I'm happy to go through them.

What I do want to put in perspective, and maybe uh maybe it I guess John Canning, we can promote John Canning, and he can address those.

Um, but I just want to remind you that the amount of cars that were leaving at the peak hour with about almost 400 units available to use this driveway between 77 Palmer's Hill and Edge Hill.

There were 19 cars at the peak hour, three lefts and 16 right.

So we're not talking about a huge amount of traffic, and we go up slightly um to you know, in terms of additional peak hour traffic.

So we're not talking about a huge impact, but John Canning is on and happy to answer your questions.

Yeah, but before he comes on, if you don't mind, uh Mr.

Reddit, but he is he's when I say he, I'm talking about the uh traffic and I mean the TTP uh person.

He says the applicant's project has the potential to limit the traffic reduction benefits of the city's project.

Number one.

He refers to concerns regarding a left-hand turn only.

He has some in my mind, unless I'm missing something, he has some rather major concerns, and if those could be addressed.

Well, sure.

Well, in terms of the intersection, at the the end result after construction of the intersection, is with our project done without any mitigation, it is still better than it is today.

He says it'll get worse, Bill.

Not bad.

I know I read well.

That's what I'm saying.

Somebody has to address this.

Go ahead, John.

Sure.

Thank you.

Um, good evening, uh, Chairman, members of the commission, uh, John Canning with Kimley Horn.

I prepared the traffic study.

Um, Mr.

Morris, if that's okay, first of all, I'll go through the the four items that um uh the TTP identified.

So hopefully we can discuss that.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Sure.

So um the first one is basically a statement, and it's correct that 80% of the traffic to and from the site is expected to come from the east, passing through the intersections of Stillwater with uh still water with Palmer's Hill Road and West Overwood Palmers Hill Road.

We've we've done the traffic studies and it shows that most of the people come from that direction.

Um it's true that if most of the people come from that direction, then you're going to have more of the site traffic there, but it's as Rick indicated, it's a small number.

Um the city um has a plan.

It well, let me get let me get to number two.

That was the first one is just a statement, and it kind of unfolds as you go along.

Uh the current intersection queues on Palmer's Hill Road back up to Door Oliver Drive in the PM peak hour.

100% it does.

I've seen it do that.

The city's project is to fix that specifically.

They're proposing to provide two left turns on eastbound Palmer's Hill Road onto West Over Road.

And our analysis indicates that it completely fixes that problem, and there will no longer be queuing up to Door Oliver Drive.

Um that's in your report, Mr.

Cannon.

Yes, it is.

Okay.

Um without upgrades to the traffic signal.

This is this is the this is the intersection of Door Oliver Drive now with Palmer's Hill Road.

So it's right now it's an unsignalized intersection, even though it's a traffic signal there that used to be on when it was an office, but it's in flashing mode right now.

So without upgrades to that signal, it will go from a level of service B B to a level of service C in the AM peak hour.

And I will note that a level of service C is actually quite good for peak hour conditions.

In the PM peak hour, it goes from a level of service D to a level of service E, which is not great.

But if you look at the analysis, uh two things.

One um it is at 40 percent 46% of capacity, and that's the the lower end of E, not the higher end of E.

So it's not so bad.

Secondly, as um as Mr.

Redness said, most of the people coming out there make a right turn anyway, and operating conditions will be improved by said project city project, which is going to eliminate the queues.

So, yes, it's not great coming out of the driveway, but it will be improved and it won't be impacting traffic passing on Palmer's Hill Road.

Um, the last comment is 80% of traffic entering the site will make a left turn from Palmer's Hill Road onto Door Oliver Drive.

Again, that's a statement.

Um it's again correct.

We have looked at the videos and the videos that we've seen showed that for the most part when people are making a left turn, there's no problem, nobody is behind them.

On the a few occasions that we've seen vehicles behind somebody making a left turn, we've seen them pass them on the shoulder, so we don't see that there's an issue there.

So um those are the the four points that TTP raised.

I do I I could, if it's helpful to you, share the uh level of service summary in the traffic study so that you could see and we could walk through how things will be in the future with and without the project.

Would that be helpful?

I think it would.

Okay, so see if I can do any better than Rick.

Oh, I yes, sorry, Chair, is that okay?

That is okay.

Thanks, Bill.

Okay, now what what screen am I sharing?

This one, okay.

Now I've got to find which document do I want to look at.

Okay.

I'm not sure what I'm saying.

Am I am I sharing a traffic study now?

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

So let me first of all move this panel out of my way.

Let's get up to the level of service results.

So this is a summary of future traffic operating conditions with and without the project.

So no build is without the project and build is with the project.

And we looked at the AMP GR and the PM peak hour.

We looked at let's say six intersections, although some of them are just driveways.

So we started off at the west end of the corridor at the intersection of half a mile lane with Palmer's Hill Road.

Overall, without the project in the AM, that intersection shows us operating at level of service A, 9.8 seconds average delay, and in the future we'll go to a level of service B.

So there's a level of service change, but it's a 0.3 second increase, it goes up to 10.1 on average.

And overall, all the levels of service are B or A, which is excellent.

The PM is not as good, but it's still not bad.

Um without the project, it's overall level of service B at 16.3 goes up to 16.6 overall level service B and C's and Bs and A's.

So that's the analysis indicates a very modest increase in traffic at that intersection.

We also looked at the two existing driveways to 64 Palmer's Hill Road, the West Driveway, which is an entrance and an exit.

Uh so the exit currently operates at level the the westbound left turn in, I beg your pardon, currently operates at level of service A in the AM and B in the PM 8.4 and 10.2, and in the future it will stay at 8.4 and 10.2, mostly because only 20% of the traffic comes from past that driveway, 80% comes to and from the east, and then out of the driveway.

Um delays turning out of the driveway will increase from 10.9 to 11 and 16.8 to 16.9.

So no real impact on the west driveway.

The east driveway is pretty much the same.

Um they have a lot of people going out that driveway in the morning because um because that's where they do their drop-offs, and in the no build, it's uh D at 34.6 and it goes to an E at 35.8, so that's a 1.2 second increase.

Um I'll have to see why there's a zero here in the PM.

Maybe there was nobody going out at that time, and that would explain it.

And then the very it was a it was a poor D, is what you're saying.

It was it was a it was a poor D, and I should correct myself.

My eastbounds and westbounds are a bit mixed up.

The northbound left is really the E the westbound left going into the site.

No, it's not, it's coming out of the driveway.

I know why there's no northbound left.

I'll have to look in.

There's some something wrong with this.

This should not be zero, but I know it's okay, I'll find out for you.

So it's it's it's a bad D going to a good E.

It's a 1.2 second increase.

And the northbound right goes from 11.4 to 11.5, and the PM, oh, I I know what the answer is.

It goes from 188.8 to 19.0.

The reason there's zeros is there were no left turns in the PM peak hour, they were all right turns, which is re-emphasizes the 80% to and from the the west.

Um, the next one is door oliver drive.

So this is where uh all of our at this stage, all of our traffic will be coming in and out, and in the morning, the westbound left turn going in will increase from 8.5 to 8.7 seconds, and in the PM it will increase from 10.3 to 10.7.

So pretty good.

Uh coming out is hard, particularly if you're making a left turn.

If you're making a right turn, it's not so difficult.

In the morning with the increased traffic, it increases from a B at 13.3 to a D at 27.

So that's a considerable increase because that's our primary driveway.

And in the afternoon, it will increase from a C at 24.7 to an E at 40.3.

Um, but I mentioned before the range for level of service E is from 35 to 50 seconds, so we're in the better half of E as opposed to the worst half of E.

And when I check not E is not good, right?

It's not good.

No, I would not I would prefer not to have an E.

I'd love to sit here in front of you and say we're all A's and B's.

Yeah.

But when you look at the intersection capacity, it's operating at 47% of capacity.

So why is that particular northbound lane so terrible?

Because this is where we have drop off, it's pickup in the afternoon.

So our parents come in, uh coming in is not a problem.

That's the westbound left turn, and then they all leave, and we have.

I'm gonna off the top of my head, I'm gonna say 40 or 50 feet vehicles leaving.

And so it's you know, it's a considerable increase, and there's a fair amount of traffic on Palmer's Hill Road.

80% are turning right, it's much easier to turn right than to turn left.

But when you increase the volume on a busy road, that's that's what you get on the minor street.

So um in TTP's letter, they said there's an opportunity to um paraphrasing work on the traffic signal at the driveway at this driveway.

So if and and TTP recommends that the applicant work with the city to see if we can include that.

If we were to reactivate the signal here, everything would be much, much better.

This this E would go down to C or a D.

Alternatively, and I know it's not before you, but just because we should think of all eventualities, if there's a cross-easement access granted between 60 and 64, then we can have uh project traffic enter and exit through 64, and so we'll take traffic off of Door Oliver Drive, which would make it better.

So those really are the big options that are are being considered, working with the city to uh expand this the project to include signal upgrading the signal at this location, or better, I think from the applicant's perspective, and maybe from the cities too.

If when this deal is consummated, they can get an easement across between 60 and 64.

And then just quickly, I uh appreciate your patience, the two signalized intersections, um, where the city's project is really at Stillwater and Palmer's Hill Road, so it's not even though there'll be spillback effects, uh Westover at Palmer's Hill Road will increase from 13.7 to 14.1 seconds, and 13.2 is is not going to change, apparently.

13.2 in the PM peak hour.

Um the big improvements um will be from the no bill to the build.

Oh, the the interesting thing about this is when we spoke with Mr.

Benton Luke Luke, what's Luke's last name, Rick?

Buttonweiser, yes.

When we spoke with him, he said um it's anticipated that the city project will be implemented by the time this project is completed, and therefore we don't want you to take a credit for it.

We want to see what sort of an impact you will have on it.

So the city project is implemented in the no build analysis, and it shows a uh delay of 15.3 seconds going up to 17.3 seconds with the project in the AM peak hour, and in the PM peak hour, it's showing uh a C of 27.3 seconds going up to 29.1 seconds, so about a two-second increase.

If you bear with me for one second, I can show you.

I hope, I think, what it will look like if it was in in the existing conditions.

So ah, I I just is the same table, but I went back and looked at my study and compared it to the existing conditions.

So in the in the build AM, 17.3 seconds is seven seconds lower than it is today, and 29.1 is 30 seconds lower than it is today.

In fact, I can do one better than that.

I can go back here.

Existing.

This is this is what this intersection looks at like today.

Which intersection?

Uh uh still water at Palmer's Hill Road, pardon me.

So it's 24.2 and 50.4 without the city's project, and then when you go down and implement the city's project, it goes from 24.2 to 50.3 and from 50 point something or 15.3 and from 50 point something to 27.3.

So you can see how much better it is, and it doesn't get that much worse with this project.

Pardon me.

So that in a nutshell, uh, is the traffic analysis.

And if you have more questions related to it, I'd be happy to try and answer them.

Yeah, he he he he's he questions, Mr.

Button.

But how's this say his last name?

I'm sorry, Luke.

He questions uh how many designated spaces you have for uh drop off, and I don't see any place in the information that was submitted.

It's it's not I don't believe it is, right, Rick.

Yeah, we we've talked to Vanita and we've indicated that we would make 10 spaces available for drop off.

10 10 for 220 students.

Well, if you look at well, listen, we'll designate whatever needs to be done, but if you look at the example that we showed you with a capacity of 154 plus the headquarters, and you see I I don't think there's 10 spaces that they have, but you know, you showed us one person going in that in the morning.

Is that all they have is one student?

No, no, what I showed you was the peak hour that we were asked to do the reasonable worst case peak demand, and that's the one the only reason I showed you the other one is because it's in the middle of the peak hour, but there wasn't traffic.

The only reason I showed you the other one is because it's in the middle of the peak hour, but there wasn't traffic.

So I I you know, I I wanted to show you.

I did I didn't show you the worst case, and there were other worst cases.

The other cases were you know, minor.

So if you notice that that works with no queuing at all.

So we thought 10 spaces was adequate.

We're happy to do 12 spaces.

It it doesn't matter because it'll they'll gonna be used if they're needed.

Well, yeah, but you see, the spaces would just designate it.

I know over over at the Goddard School Vanita.

How many spaces did we require over there?

And they and they had a limited time they could park in them also.

I don't remember the number of hand, but I can I can take a look.

Um the reason was different because it was um, you know, shared the office uh uses in the building, and here, you know, it's just their facility, so it's much easier to manage.

Um, you know, also depends on I thought they were um spaces just for Goddard.

They there was there were some spaces just for Goddard, yeah.

But but the drop-off spaces, I think was what was referring to.

The drop-off were not shared with the rough.

They had I'm gonna say 2025 uh spaces reserved for uh drop off, you know, with signs and only two parking, five-minute parking, whatever it we will try to pull that up during this hearing.

Mr.

Pinto will look for that.

You know, the the other comment from Luke was detailed pick up and drop-off operations, which I think would be helpful for us to have before we close.

So um, we're not going to close tonight anyway.

So for next week, why don't you get that to the board, please?

Sure.

Thank you.

It was I have the Goddard certificate here.

It was 20 spaces.

Um I'm still gonna remember a couple of things.

And how many?

Yeah, well, we'll look at whatever that was, students different situation, but we're happy to look at it.

And we're happy to uh provide you with any other video proof at any hours, any amount that you'd like, because we have all of that available.

That's that's what's what's really happening and how this operates.

Yeah, I think the operations plan will be important because it'll show whether there'll be cars backing into Dor Oliver, which serves two other properties as well, and that's um that's my concern.

So um, but let's see how the school um what their plan is for the operation.

And I uh Dave, you can go on to one of the other board members.

I do have one more uh question though, but if you want to go to one of the other board members, I don't think all the time.

No, go ahead, Bill.

We got all the time and I I would like to get it for at least for myself.

I'd like to get a clear understanding of um what exactly you're proposing to do.

I understand what you might do, but what you're uh proposing to do as far as the engineering aspects of the of the drainage and preventing uh flooding and that type of thing.

What are you going to do?

So I understand there's other things you might do if everything works out all right, but I'd like to know what you're going to do.

Okay.

Um, I did go through some of those.

Brett is on.

If you'd like him to go through the drainage report and show you know where we have storage, I did that last time.

I'm I can do it again.

Brett can do it, and it will be necessarily expanded, but if we keep the dry well, then you know it'll be a little less necessary to expand, and it'll be worked on with the engineering department.

So everything you see would be expanded to uh increase the capacity.

Um so Brett, if you want to I understand, I understand that I believe me, I understand that, but I just I don't want this application to get lost in the weeds here.

I want to make sure that we know what it is that we're voting on.

Okay.

So you you present whatever information you think we should have.

There you go.

Brett is on, and he can take you through the design.

Hi, good evening.

Uh for the record, Brett Holzworth, Redness and Mead, uh certified uh professional engineer.

Um, you know, there are two concepts, uh, the two drainage concepts, uh, you know, high level.

One is going to the south towards uh Palmer Hill homes.

We have uh a series of three permeable paver uh systems that have uh crushed on reservoir that holds and detain the water.

Um and then that slowly gets metered out uh into the existing system that that continues through uh Palmer Hill homes.

The other system uh going the opposite direction is a series of uh uh underground chambers uh retain it's or galleries that uh that pick up the drainage for the new uh daycare building um that gets you know slowly metered out uh and goes the opposite direction.

Uh, you know, per the drainage manual, we need to it attenuate uh peak flows as well as water quality.

Um, you know, there was uh a question of what the definition of the water quality is.

Uh typically and historically we've been using one inch of rainfall.

Uh, you know, lately um Stanford, uh the Connecticut state has upped that to 1.3.

Uh I don't believe Stanford has uh uniformly adopted that.

Uh so but you know, if they're requiring it now, that's that's not a big deal.

That just means that we're adjusting the outlets to provide a little bit more storage.

Um, you know, to uh a little bit more storage within the the stone reservoir.

So uh that's just uh you know a minor adjustment of uh uh adjusting the models.

Um you know, in terms of the other uh comments that were brought up, there was uh an existing dry well on site, you know, that that accounts for roughly three percent of the entire storage that we are proposing as part of this plan.

Um, you know, these these chambers are really nothing in compared to the the amount of volume that we're proposing uh that's required for for this project.

So uh if we need to add that, that's that's really not uh a big deal.

Um uh to add that.

And you know, typically we do work with the city engineer, we work on it, you know, we have some back and forths with comments, and and that is pretty typical uh that we work through these uh these comments through you know, building permit uh once we get to um you know final stages of uh construction level documents.

Um so um could you Brett maybe you could show the pre and post at the different storm levels?

Perfect.

Um Dave, do you have that uh kind of spreadsheet available?

I don't have it open.

You anticipated my question, Mr.

Redis.

It's been a few years, Mr.

Morris.

I can show you the drainage report.

Um share my screen.

Okay, so there are three different basins, north, south, and east.

Um, and the north portion is just a very small piece that goes directly up to the wetlands uh to the north uh in Edge Hill.

Uh the south is the basin that goes towards Palmer Hill homes, and you can see in both of these, and I'll pan down to the east as well.

Uh existing, these are the flows and proposed are the these are the flows in all the changes, they're all negative.

Uh that means that there are reductions in peak flows in every storm from one to a hundred in in all both peaks and in volumes, all negatives.

And then I will go down to the east basin.

Um and again uh we are decreasing all the way to the 50-year storm, which is what the city of Stanford requires.

Uh they they don't require uh reducing in the 100 year.

Um that just uh is one of their requirements.

And then water quality, uh, we're providing uh a lot of water quality volume.

Um, you know, and per the comments that we received, we'll be uh adjusting these numbers, but um, you know, if you look in comparison with what what is required uh total in site, you know, call it uh a little under 3,000 uh cubic feet.

We're uh proposing way, way more than that, uh, between both the the south and the east basins.

Um so we have the volume, it's just a matter of distributing it and balancing the numbers to make sure that both uh both directions are um are being uh handled.

So just to go back up to that other chart.

I just want to just in terms of reduction was that so I'll go to um the south, which was you know, the the one right.

This the south is the main one.

So yeah, so starting with the one year storm, it's 15 1600 cubic feet.

Um and then it goes up to almost 4,000 re a reduction going in that direction post development.

Yeah, yeah, it really just basically goes over to what 77.

That's this that's over to 77.

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

Is that sufficient answer, Mr.

Morris?

It's good for me.

I don't know.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brett.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Good day, thanks.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

Uh Roseanne.

Uh, I don't think I have anything at this time.

Okay.

Jerry.

Nothing at the time, Chairman.

Okay.

Um, just a couple of kind of housekeeping things.

We'd asked for the applicant to send us some items.

Um, Vanita, can you tell me if we got them?

Um was the revised landscape plan for EPB's comment.

These landscape plan had been deviced before um the meeting.

Yeah, this was at the meeting.

We asked for that.

Um I thought it was provided.

Um I I again, I I thought that was well done.

It's the first time hearing that again because I thought that was requested, and then we provided it uh at that meeting, but we're happy to recognize requested at the meeting.

Okay.

Well, yeah, and requested by EPB, but I don't think we got it.

Well, we got an EPB permit, so maybe maybe that's why we thought we were okay on that.

Okay, so if you could for the next meeting, which next Monday, just get us the updated landscape plan.

Right, please.

The um parking management and transportation demand management documents.

Um separate documents.

Can we get those for the next meeting?

I would assume we can.

Thank you.

We do have them.

Actually, okay, good.

Um so for this we have a request from um from the applicant to kind of um to wave the parking management and transportation demand management.

Um so they did provide the the plans themselves, but they were you know combined together, and what you would ask for was separation, right?

We've asked for that previously, and it's still coming through as a combined document.

Um so it they could just provide them as separate documents for the next meeting.

Um by the way, the parent pickup and drop off operations plan.

Would you also show the queuing on that, please?

Where the cars will queue up waiting to get into the parking lot.

Well, Mr.

Chairman, the reason for the video is to show there is no queuing.

So I don't know what we can show you if there's no queuing, but we will respond.

Let's assume there's that there's more than one car that comes during the peak period.

Um can you show us uh where they will queue up?

No, uh you're only looking at one video then.

Did you see the first video at the peak, the worst time?

There was no queuing.

They eight forty hour.

The 842 to 847, yes.

Um I don't understand how you can have 220 students and no cars.

No cars, it's spread out over a two-hour period that they're coming in.

Okay.

Well, how about it if if it turns out that there are fewer people walking and more people driving because of the location?

Um, show us.

Well, wait a second.

Wait, wait, wait.

There's we made no claim about walkers on this site.

I thought I think there was a mention of the old site having people walking.

Well, that's the old site that had zero parking.

And it was in a different neighborhood.

Okay.

Well, just show us if you re if there was a reason why you would have more cars, show us how they would queue up.

Ron, uh Yeah, yeah.

I didn't want to say anything.

Um, I I'm pretty confident that we can do that.

I don't I want to have a look at where the door is, but my expectation is that the door is a long way from Door Oliver Drive, part of the pump, and most of the drop-off spaces will be down there.

So most of the staff parking spaces will be further away from the door, they'd be closer to Door Oliver Drive.

So basically, when the people come in, when the parents come in, they will pass the park staff and go down to the drop-off spaces so there'll be room for them to queue back in the parking lot.

But we have to show you.

Yeah, if you would and just yeah, and show where the staff parking would be.

Yeah.

As well.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um we go.

Um, is there anything else from the board?

No, right now, Mr.

Okay.

Well, we had promised the uh the attorney for uh 77 Havameyer um for their homeowners association that he would have the opportunity to present since we only gave him a few minutes at our uh meeting back in February.

So um if uh attorney Pierce, if I hope I'm pronouncing your name right, uh we can promote you.

There we go.

Um, and why don't you uh um just uh proceed, please?

Good evening.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, um, and members of the board.

My name is Phil Pierce.

I'm a partner at Kona Wolf, and we represent Palmer Hill Community Association.

Um, before I get into my presentation, um, the I'd like to have the president from the association, Nadine Greenwood.

Um, if she could give just a uh short um comment on the the matter, um, and then I'll continue with my presentation, Mr.

Chair.

Sure.

So is she uh is her hand raised?

Okay.

You have to raise your hand to be recognized.

Is that Miss Greenwood?

Green somebody?

Nadine Greenwood.

Okay, yeah.

No, you can put her Beniting promoter.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes.

Terrific.

Thank you.

So my name is Nadine Greenwood.

I live at 77 Have Meyer Unit 56 in Stanford.

I'm the president of the Palmer's Hill Homeowners Association.

Um, thank you for the chance to offer our views.

We are opposed to the plan that is being presented for a final approval.

Um not the one that might be available in the future or incorporated as part of the building permit process, but the one before the board.

So under this plan, the children's learning center intends to significantly expand its use of our private road based on the position that our current use is supposedly minimal, and their future use is supposedly manageable.

So as far as traffic goes, we've said from the outset that we can't support a plan that uses Door Oliver Road to both enter and exit the site.

The traffic experts are going to disagree a lot.

They can debate methodologies, but we think the focus should be on two things.

The first is that this daycare center is likely to operate at full capacity.

Second, is that even with staggered arrivals, there are not enough parking spaces for the parents of 220 children to avoid having to line up to get their children out of car seats and to enter the building.

It's the lining up of cars that creates a one-lane road and safety issues for everyone.

I did not see in the video that was just posted.

Any uh examples of two of parents taking their children out of cars and entering the building.

So just the drop-off and pickup for 200 children is going to generate 800 additional trips on Door Oliver Road.

An 800 is a long way from 19 cars in an hour.

So just briefly on the drainage.

The current application would use Palmer Hill's stormwater system.

We would like to understand a final um set of explanation in terms of the limitations and potential flooding history that we need to be addressed.

So right now, what we feel we have in front of us is a plan that shifts all the risks and financial obligations to Palmer Hill homeowners.

The idea that an ambulance or a fire truck is delayed because it was having to contend with traffic gridlock at the back gate is unacceptable.

This is the same plan that was presented to us in July.

And we recognize that the timing of its submittal is driven by applicants' financing schedule.

But CLC's timing is not a reason to approve a plan that's not final.

We want to be a good partner and neighbor and looking at other traffic options that do not create significant safety risks for everyone.

Having parents enter on Palmer's Hill Road and exit on Door Oliver Road has been discussed.

We're interested.

We haven't heard any discussion as to whether this facility could be designed where both the entrance and exit was from Palmer's Hill Road.

We continue to ask for a standard traffic light at the intersection of Palmer's Hill and Door Oliver.

We continue to ask for a drainage solution that does not create additional flooding.

There may be other solutions, but they are not before the board, which is why we are asking that you deny the application without prejudice.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So a few main points that I know you've all seen, or hopefully you've all seen the letter we submitted.

So the first is on the limited access rights that the applicant has, as the board knows the association owns.

The applicant owns Door Oliver Drive.

We agree that the board is not deciding title issues tonight, but the board is still obligated to approve a plan where it's shown on this record that it can function safely and lawfully.

We have a landlocked parcel with no public street fronters.

The access is only through a proposed uh private right-of-way.

The board cannot make required findings for safe and adequate circulation within the site if the applicant is not demonstrated enforceable access sufficient to support 220 children attending this facility in the peak period uh vehicle volumes.

On traffic, um, again, the safety issue is not just that intersection where Palmer's Hill meets Door Oliver Drive.

It's the very predictable as uh the president uh Nadine Greenwood just spoke to predictable operational failure that's going to happen internal to the site and on Door Oliver Drive during the daycare pre-arrival and departure windows.

The plan has limited parking relative to the amount of staff and parent activity, and there is dead-end internal circulation.

It's one way in, one way out that doubles the traffic volume each time somebody's getting dropped off, unlike the site at 64, which has separate egress and ingress to the property, has fewer students, it's 154 students, it has some more significant parking relative to the size of the site.

Um you're gonna hear that, you know, they're what they're saying is that there's not gonna be any queuing.

It's an impossibility to us.

Um, what will happen is there'll be queuing on that narrow private road.

It'll functionally become one lane.

You're gonna have impatient parents parking in the lane to get out and drop off their kids because they're busy and they have to get to work and they can't wait 10 minutes to park and drop off their kids in an orderly fashion.

Um vehicles will stop and park uh illegally, and you're gonna have emergency access compromised.

Um, you know, in their uh submission, the applicant's traffic response essentially concedes that point by saying that they'll monitor the situation and apply operational measures if spillback occurs later, but that is deferring the issue.

It doesn't address any of our concerns, and it's not a plan, and they still haven't produced any plan to deal with this.

Um traffic engineer has submitted two letters now.

Um the March one response makes an additional point, um, which is that daycare generator peaks overlap with commuter peaks, and the applicant's methodology does depend on a best case assumption and atypical timing patterns that can't be assumed for the new larger facility.

Um he counted traffic, and it was not the window that was presented in the video.

It was actually in the 9 to 9:30 window, which they didn't show you.

Um, they also didn't show you drop off, which you know, I'm not a traffic uh engineer, but I did have uh very recently two kids in daycare, and I still have one.

And I can tell you that drop-off is way more chaotic.

Sorry, pickup is way more chaotic the drop-off.

They didn't show you pickup, they showed you drop-off.

So I can't that's what the drop-off is going to look like.

I can't imagine what the pickup is gonna look like at this site.

Um, the traffic issues are not resolved for the applicant.

They're asking that they be deferred, and we can't agree to that.

Um, you also keep hearing them refer to the potential resolution with Edge Hill that is not before the board.

If that were before the board, we would love it, not love it, but we would much prefer that as a situation for us to be dealing with.

Uh, is not before you, it's not something you can consider.

If it was, it would mitigate these issues to a large extent.

Um, on drainage, their applicants, you know, the applicant's engineer admits that uh these matters will be revised prior to the building permit.

Um, you know, that they've admitted that the drainage design is not final.

Our peer review by Tig and Bond confirms that without an updated uh analysis and further revisions, that we can't uh the board can't determine whether there are not adverse impacts on a joining and downstream properties, such as Palmer's Hill uh Association.

Um in addition, the city engineering response essentially agrees with the vast majority of the points that Tig and Bond made.

Um if possible, I'd like to share my screen.

I'd like to just show the board some of the pictures from the narrative response that Palmer Hill submitted.

The association submitted.

I don't know if I'm allowed to share my screen.

You should be able to I can see it.

Okay.

Okay.

So the association simulated what queuing will be like.

This is the situation that we're going to be faced with where this road turns into a narrow one-lane road where cars can't pass.

This shows the circulation at the site.

Over here, you see 64, which has separate ingress and egress to the site.

We don't have that.

We have a situation where we have people going to Edge Hill, people going to the association, and then people coming to the daycare facility and having to come out this way if they can't find parking and they'll park in the street.

And then I just wanted to highlight this other photo.

This is the reality.

I'm sorry, going back a sec, those with the one with the arrows.

So it goes up.

Um, and then it there's that short little arrow on the entrance right there.

And then they go to the right when they're coming in.

Then what happens to them?

Then it's a dead end, and they've got to go back out if they don't have parking.

So they do a three-point turn and exactly in in the parking lot, a three-point turn while parents are shuttling their kids from the cars to the drop-off.

What currently exists at the site is they're connected right now between this site and this site.

There's a road that goes here with a gate, and they're actually occupying, they say they don't have the legal right to do it, but they're actually occupying this area, which is Edge Hill's property with a playground and other parking, but they're not seeking that approval right now, and they're not, they don't want to wait to work that issue out with Edge Hill, which is what we've been asking them to do for months.

So that would, I mean, resolve a lot of these issues because you'd have the ability to get access here, but that's not what's before you, and you're not approving it tonight, which is why we're asking this be denied without prejudice, so they can come back and offer that if it's available to them.

Um, and then on drainage, this is the reality.

This is the garage at our association.

This is the flooded community garage.

This is from the summer of 2024.

This is what happens, they're tying into our drainage system, you know, with our peer review from Tig and Bonds uh indicating that they've not um have a they don't have a sufficient analysis to prove that there won't be adverse downstream impacts.

You know, obviously we can't accept this with when we've lived with this even before they start doing that.

If they start dumping into our system, you know, who knows what's gonna happen next.

Um, this is the potential plan that we would like to see that is not before you um that shows ingress coming one way and exiting the other way.

This would substantially reduce um the risk to the association of absorbing the spillover and the queuing effects of the the traffic at the site.

Um hopefully they can get this, and you know, we would ask that it be denied so we can come back and actually see that.

And here's a picture to show that they're currently connected.

So this is 64.

This apparently right here where the playground is, where my hand is, that's actually the edge hill property.

They actually they've been using it as a playground, but this piece right here is edge hill.

So this is 60 in the foreground, and they're connected.

There's just a gate here that they typically keep locked and closed.

And for whatever reason, even though they've improved it with a playground and they've had you know it's paved and improved, they claim that they don't have the right to use it, and that's why it's not before you as part of this application.

So I just wanted to highlight those things.

Um again, for all these reasons, we respectfully request that the board deny this without prejudice.

Um, the association certainly supports the project and concept and recognizes the need for uh child care in Stanford, but uh the board should not be forced to act on an incomplete plan that increases traffic, um, is gonna create safety risks, is gonna impair the association's use of the road and uh potentially increases flooding.

So we we also have um our we have Simcoe, our traffic engineer, and I believe we have our our our drainage expert Tigan Bond on as well.

If there's any questions for them, I'm happy to answer questions as well.

Okay, uh Jerry, do you have any questions for Turney Pierce or his experts?

You're muted.

Right right now, Mr.

Minun, thank you.

Okay, uh Roseanne.

Uh no, I'm good.

Thank you very much.

Bill not at this time.

Okay.

And that I don't have any as well.

So um E Pierce, thank you for your uh presentation tonight.

I'm glad we finally were able to uh get you here to speak.

Um why don't we go to the public then?

Uh if there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this application, either for or against it, please raise your hand and um uh when you're called on, give us your name and address.

I'm looking for the list, but they're no hands raised yet.

Okay, I don't see hands either.

Um so um board.

Um, any those that uh anyone would like to ask about right now, Mr.

Chairman.

No, see if the applicant wants to to uh respond to the gums made uh Mr.

Pierce.

Thank you, Mr.

Morris.

I would uh so in terms of um the uh hours that we uh supposedly didn't show it was mentioned nine to nine thirty.

We didn't show that, and we didn't show pickup.

We'll bring both of those to the next meeting.

Okay, we we we chose uh a condition that is unusual because it has the payments and it had people that had to go back and forth twice to show the worst condition.

But if they think we're hiding something, we will provide whatever hours during the day, pick up drop off that they would like to see.

So we'll we'll do that.

As far as Rick, maybe fewer people show up on payment day.

You never know.

Yeah, you that's that's true.

You're right.

And I certainly can't answer that question.

Um so um, in terms of don't have the right and the things with the gate, the gate that they showed is a different gate.

The gate was off the picture, the larger gate between um uh the the uh the child care um family and children's services, the former one, number 60, and this that gate is always locked.

I I've haven't been there when it wasn't locked.

So that's a different gate.

In terms of don't have the right to use it, I never said we don't have the right to use it.

We don't have the right to unilaterally change it and make an application to EPB on someone else's property.

So that's what we are lacking.

We you know, I we're not we're not here to say that we have a right, don't have a right.

It's been that way for decades, but we we know we don't have the right to make an EPB application on their property.

So and as we've said since July, and we appreciate their patience, and we certainly understand all their concerns.

Their concerns are very real, and the drainage is very real.

So we're we're not making anything light of their concerns with that.

In terms of the operations, we will get you that.

We will get you the videos so you can see.

Um and that's what we will do for next time.

We will get you the uh we'll split the demand management uh document that you want into two.

Um and if to the extent that we need a landscape plan, I'm not sure that we do, but to the extent that we do um if it if it's we we will do that.

Um let's see, I I want to see what else.

Um I think that's but there was the the operation drop off and pick up operations and queuing.

Right.

We will we will we will do that.

Yeah um so I think go ahead.

I think that would I think that would do it.

And again, um attorney Piers, if there's any particular hours that you would like us to submit documentation on.

This documentation uh I is what I've been termed as um court uh testimony ready.

The the way they do their videos, they're admissible.

So I don't know, there's all kinds of stuff that go with what they have to do with their facility.

So um we're not doctoring any of these things.

The only thing we did was speed it up so that you didn't have to watch for a longer period of time.

Um but we will we'll get you that information, and believe me, I try all the time to try to get that connection finalized.

And we'll continue to try.

Uh Mr.

Reds, can you comment on the the uh comment that made by attorney appears regarding possibility of a three-point turn in order to get out of the parking lot?

I think we're gonna take that in terms of our operations plan.

So we'll bring that back to you next week.

I I don't want to you know speculate on that.

We'll we'll let John and the operations people answer that.

Oh the only other item I would uh like to get for next time um is going back up.

I think engineering did an excellent job of responding to the letter from the objectors um engineering company, um, where they was that tie and bond, I guess.

And engineering did a great job of just going through point by point and saying giving the board their advice on what they think um they agree with and what they don't agree with.

Um I think we need a similar kind of thing from the um from TTP.

We'd ask them to do that.

Um at least that was the request made at the meeting that they go through point by point, let us know whether um they agree or disagree with the points raised by Simcoe.

Is that their name?

Yes.

Um yeah, so for the next meeting, if you would ask uh Benita, please ask PPP just to go through the SIMCO letter and tell us because that's the only way we can judge whether these objections are are um have any validity, and I think engineering did a great job of letting us know which ones they thought uh made sense and which they didn't, and I I think it's left us in a very good place because the applicant has agreed to um to follow engineering's advice.

Um I just like to see what um TTP's responses to uh the Simco letter.

I I did speak to uh Luke right before the meeting, and he was able to kind of give me a summary statement that you know he did agree with um the let you know the response from the applicant's uh engineer.

Um and I've I think I've shared that with the board, but if you want more detail, I think I can Yeah, I mean it remember at the the last meeting we said um ask engineering and TTP to respond so we know which objections are are valid and which aren't.

Um and so we we didn't really get that.

I mean the letter from TTP is good and it's helpful.

Um, but it it doesn't really respond to the Simcoe um letter point by point.

So the one that John Canning did in response point by point.

So I I guess what you're asking for is to loop to his own or to look at what Mr.

Cunnings was an agree or disagree with what was presented.

Look, we we hear from two sides here, and each side has its own um biases and its own objectives to convince us that they're right.

Um the impartial, I consider the city's people impartial, and they can look at and say, yes, that's right or no, that's wrong.

So um I would like just as engineering did on the uh Tig and Bond letter.

So I'd like TTP to respond to Simcoe and just tell us do they agree or not?

I mean, okay, if they say all of those points are um wrong, then I makes our job much easier.

Okay.

So Vinita, if you would um work with Luke on that, please.

Yes, yes.

I did uh there is an email that he sent, you know, addressing this, um, which I've sent to the board after the letter.

Um, but you can let me know if uh if you need you know, well if it goes through it and did what engineering does, and does you know Simco said X?

Yeah, don't agree.

It's wrong, or I agree, it's right.

Um, and applicants should do this.

Um, Vanita, did you just refer to an email that came after he submitted his report tonight?

Yes.

Yes, I think she did if you I just got it to I haven't seen it yet.

I just got it's too late.

What's that?

It we can't deal with it uh on the fly.

Well, if if I should you should get a copy, Rick, if it has was not sent to you.

Okay, that's fine.

We'll get a copy and we'll add it to the response.

I just fine.

Okay.

All right.

So um hopefully next week um we close this and vote on it.

Um let's get in the last the last item.

Um and um attorney Pierce.

Um you uh you'll have another opportunity to speak next week.

Um so application 225-48 um is continued until the zoning board meeting on March 9th at 6.30 on Zoom.

Um thank you.

Good.

Thank you all.

Bye-bye.

Um next we have application 225-38, City of Stanford Zoning Board Text Change.

The purpose of this text change is to establish comprehensive standards for the CG General Commercial District, including urban design requirements.

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

Sure.

October 29, 2025, to Mr.

David Stein, Chair City of Stanford Zoning Board regarding ZB application 225-38, Stanford Zoning Board Text Change.

Dear Mr.

Stein and members of the zoning board during its regularly scheduled meeting held on Tuesday, October 28, 2025.

The planning board reviewed the above captioned application, referred in accordance with the requirements of the Stanford Charter.

The purpose of this text change is to establish comprehensive standards for the CG General Commercial District, including urban design requirements.

Ralph Blessing, Land Use Bureau Chief, made a presentation and answered questions from the board.

After some discussion, the planning board unanimously voted to recommend approval of ZB application number 225-38 and found this to be in general harmony with the 2035 comprehensive plan.

Sincerely, Stanford Planning Board, Jennifer Gadzenho, Chair.

Good.

Thank you.

Um Ralph, uh I understand you will be presenting this to us tonight.

And um first uh thank you for doing um an excellent job on rewriting this.

Uh this was an orphan district, right?

Yes, it is.

Uh okay.

Well, um, please please proceed.

Uh thank you for the record, Ralph Blessing.

Uh, land use Bureau Chief for the City of Stanford.

Um, let me share my screen with you.

So um we are talking about um application uh two to five-38, which is uh proposed tax change to add comprehensive um regulation to the CG district.

Um the CG district is a um high density commercial and residential district.

Um you see here a picture of Broad Street with the newly um completed uh Azure on uh building on uh the left side.

That is the type of development you get uh in the CG district.

Um this application is just about the regulations, it's not about expanding the CG district to any area where it doesn't exist uh right now.

So um those are the CG districts we currently have.

Uh you see they are all uh around uh downtown more or less.

Um so uh obviously downtown uh is here, we have the south end here.

Uh the building uh down the former um uh Pitney Bowes uh building uh in the south end is uh zone CG as well.

And you might remember that was it last year or the year before, uh 1600 um uh summer street uh was rezoned to CG, and uh they came up with uh special regulations for uh that district because um the concern was that if you're further away from downtown that all the bonus provision and premium uh provisions uh for the CG would be would create too high of a density uh that far or relatively far away from downtown.

So uh what was created uh were regulations for north of um North Street, um which is located here, um, and uh which has lower densities, uh lower building heights.

It basically just has the basic CG regulations, it doesn't allow for the premiums that you can get um in uh the other CG districts that are closer uh to downtown.

So um what are we proposing?

Uh so the CG is one of the orphan districts that we have.

Uh and in order to demonstrate uh what that means, let me just share something with you.

One second.

So what you see here, those are the regulations for the CG district we currently have uh in our regulations.

It's basically uh a referral to uh appendix appendices A and B of the regulations, uh, and that's pretty much it.

Uh we have a couple of those districts.

Um the CG is one of them.

Um we have a couple of other C districts, the CC, the center city district, the CL, um, the CI district, um, CN, which basically look the same when you look at the zoning uh regulations, and the goal is over the course of time to add comprehensive regulations uh to um all of those um uh districts okay oops apologies so um we only make uh a few changes to the permitted uses um in the uh documentation that was uh sent to you in the spreadsheet.

In the documentation that was uh sent to you in the spreadsheet.

Um those were highlighted in yellow.

Um generally speaking, actually uh we made the uses more restrictive.

Um so we um prohibit, for example, auto sales um uh because I don't think uh that is a use that should be permitted in in a dense downtown um area.

Uh one thing we did permit uh was um, and this is a change that occurred between the filing of the application and uh tonight was to allow buy special permit, uh senior housing and um nursing home facility complex um because that seems a use uh that might be uh appropriate um in the CG district.

Um we try to keep uh the densities and the height regulations similar to uh what we currently have in uh the appendices and appendix B in particular.

Um rather than speaking of ACG north of North Street and a CG south of North Street, we're proposing to uh name the one uh with the lower densities north of North Street to CG1 and all the other ones uh to CG2 so that it's just easier to um uh differentiate between uh the two districts.

Um one big uh change is that we are uh expanding the urban design requirements uh that were currently contained in a footnote uh and make it part of the text.

Um so those design requirements, for example, require that on a um commercial street, um there has to be a certain uh floor-to-ceiling height.

The uh we want active ground floor uses.

Um we um uh want uh glazing and transparent street walls uh on those commercial streets.

So those are all design requirements that we put in the body of the text rather than hiding it in a footnote, and um we also uh established uh stricter review criteria.

Um the CG currently actually is uh is an uh as-of-right district, uh meaning um there is no board review uh for most applications, only uh for very large projects um with more than 30,000 square feet.

Um we uh propose to make uh the review criteria a little bit tighter.

And uh one thing that we've also been doing uh whenever we look at a uh zoning district is to add lot coverage limitations.

Um those lot coverage limitations uh basically saying that there needs to be a minimum of uh certain percentage of the lot area as pervious surface, so that that there can be planting, um, that storm water is more efficiently managed.

Um so a lot of the older districts don't have those lot coverage limitations, so this will be something uh that's added um to the CG district.

So um here uh and I won't go through the whole uh table line by line.

Um, but what you see here are um the uh regulations of the proposed CG1, uh that's the one north of North Street with the lower densities, and the proposed CG2.

Um what you can see here um are uh that in many instances the regulations uh didn't really change, so the minimum lot size, frontage didn't change, the commercial uh density floor area ratio uh didn't change.

So uh currently it's 1.8 um uh in uh the CG north of North Street, it can go up to 2.2 um uh south of North Street.

So we kept uh those density numbers here.

Um change that you see here is that um currently residential density is determined by um uh dividing the lot area by a certain number, uh in this case 450, and that gives you the number of units permitted.

What it does not do is limit the residential floor area.

So what we're proposing is to get rid of this approach to regulating density to establishing uh an FAR, um, and then adding a residential density divider that gives you a maximum number of units.

And we tested that with those numbers, and they are within the range of the densities, the residential densities that you would get now.

But once again, currently what is not regulated, you can have very small units or very large units.

What is not regulated is the total residential floor area you can get, and this tax change would change it.

Building height, we stayed try to stay within the limitations of the current district.

One change here is that for the CG1, we're proposing to go to eight stories or 85 feet.

Stick build is currently the cheapest and most economical way of providing housing.

So we don't want to uh limit the ability and make construction uh more expensive by uh not allowing them to go to the full height.

Uh and it's only one story difference from what is currently allowed.

And once again, the density is not going up, we're just allowing um uh one more story.

Um for uh the CG2, the one closer to downtown, we don't uh propose any changes um as compared to now.

Um I talked about building coverage uh basically staying the same.

Um the uh yards we adjust uh slightly, we uh adding uh wider setbacks for the commercial streets so that we get wider um sidewalks, um, and we also adding a maximum setback so that we force the buildings to come closer to the street line uh so that we have a more active streetscape um uh than we would have if the buildings are set further away, and and obviously that's only something we do in downtown uh setbacks.

Um we um do as we do in many other districts.

Uh we don't require setback within 75 feet of the street line to have a uh continuous street wall, um, but beyond those 75 feet, there is a 15-foot uh um uh setback.

Um, and actually uh with special permits and all those kinds of things, uh, you could get around any setback requirements uh in the CG district uh now.

And once again, uh the lot coverage is something that doesn't exist now.

Uh, we propose to um add lot coverage so uh that we uh get uh more green space um and that uh we um uh make storm water management um uh a little bit easier.

Um we also have been trying to um add um uh graphics to the zoning regulations.

Um so this is just an illustration um of the setback regulations for um uh the CG district.

So this is all information that I just told you.

Um so the building has to set back beyond 75 feet uh of the street.

Those are basically the setback lines, so you couldn't occupy this area.

Um so it's it's a very simple graphic to just illustrate how the setbacks work um uh in the CG district.

Um also what we're trying to do is uh we're trying to rationalize um approvals um for projects in different um uh districts.

The idea is for small projects, uh we want to take the burden off the zoning board um by having staff approvals, and obviously for larger uh projects um we uh uh um want to make sure that the public has an opportunity to speak and that the board um uh can provide input.

So once again, at the moment uh the CG is an as-of-right district, so you didn't see anything that was less than 30,000 square feet uh in um uh the CG district.

Uh if something was more than 30,000 square feet, it required uh large scale site approval.

What we're proposing to do is that for change of use or renovations, you just need uh a zoning permit or a building permit for renovations uh with um on small lots with uh a slight increase in footprint and floor area on lots smaller than 20,000 square feet, you would need architectural review by staff.

We created that uh mechanism um, I believe last year for bigger renovation or for renovations on larger sites.

Um you would need site and architectural plan approval from the zoning board.

Once again, currently um you wouldn't see those types of applications.

Um for new construction uh or development on small lots.

Um you would require staff architectural review.

Uh once again, currently, this is just a building permit, and for new construction or development on uh bigger lots, 20,000 square feet or more.

Um, it would have to come for large-scale uh development review, so that's a special permit with public hearing um and uh referral to um the planning board, and obviously for all the special permit applications, you would still need uh to get um a special permit application.

So, in summary, yes uh sorry.

I excuse me.

Um, this is one of the areas I would like us to um discuss when we get to discussion um or deliberation, uh, just to make sure everyone is okay with when the zoning board will have input and when we won't.

Um, I know we we had discussed it um on an earlier application, I think that Ralph just referenced.

Um I just so we should uh spend a little time on this as well um to make sure that um that everyone is okay with it.

So um to summarize basically what we what we're trying to do is to um come up with comprehensive zoning regulations for for a district that is important because it's near our downtown.

Um we try to uh uh stay um within the general uh framework for the district that exists now with regard to density with regard to building heights.

Um we added additional uh design controls um uh and and zoning controls.

So now we have a limited floor area for the for the entirety of the building um and not uh just a limitation of units.

Um and we uh try to rationalize um the um zoning board approvals that are required with the idea that smaller projects can be signed off by staff and larger projects can be um approved uh or have to be approved by uh the zoning board.

Um uh with the idea being to sort of balancing uh the the um uh the needs for um review and um with that um I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Ralph, thank you.

You did an excellent job on um creating a set of regulations for CG where we didn't have it, and um I think this is very good.

So thank you.

Um Bill.

Yeah, uh Ralph, could you go go back to slide?

I think it was slide number three.

It's the one that shows the setbacks.

That one, yes.

Yeah, no, not that slide.

That one that sorry.

This one?

No, the one has a red building on it.

Oh, the red building, yeah.

That's it, that one there.

The it says over on the right-hand side of this, it says no side yard required.

I get that, but if provided at least 15 feet.

Explain to me what you're trying to say there.

So um the idea is we want buildings to be as close together as possible so that you have a continuous street wall.

Um, what we've seen in the past is that uh people provide basically an air shaft, like a three-foot-wide sidewalk, which doesn't make any sense when you have uh uh uh eight-story building on one side and an eight-story building on the other.

So the idea is 15 feet is wide enough um for a driveway um and a sidewalk.

Um so if you want to provide um a uh setback, then um uh it has to be at least 15 feet wide.

Okay, I get it now.

I just have trouble trying to grasp the concept what you're trying to say, but now I understand it totally.

Yeah, it it used to be it used to be four feet, which which doesn't do anything for yeah, but dirt and garbage, yeah.

It's about it.

Yeah, all right.

Thanks.

Uh actually that's it for me, David.

Okay, good.

Thank you, Bill.

Um Roseanne.

Um, I don't think I had reached out to Ralph and asked a question this afternoon.

Um so I'm good.

Okay, thank you.

Jerry.

I think um I like to the only question that comes through is the criteria in which um the the zoning board doesn't have any input on.

So I think we need we need to talk to collectively about that.

Yeah, we already indicated.

So uh that is that really just keeps resonating with me.

But that's other than that, no.

Okay.

Um I don't have any questions either.

Um so uh why don't we go to the public?

If there's anyone from the public who'd like to speak on this application, either for or against it.

Um please raise your hand and um when you're called on, identify yourself, then give us your address.

Of course, we have Mr.

Michael Moore.

Good evening all.

Uh, my name is Mike Moore, president of Stanford Downtown.

Uh I'm speaking good evening.

Is everyone's fired up for spring to arrive very soon?

Yeah, wait.

Right.

There we go.

Uh I'm speaking tonight on behalf of application 225-38.

That as Mr.

Blessing described, proposes a text change to establish comprehensive standards for the CG general commercial zone.

I first want to acknowledge both Mr.

Blessing and Miss Mather for their patience during the crafting of this language language.

As you may suspect, Stanford Downtown has particular interest in and questions about applications that impact zoning policy in downtown.

Both Mr.

Blessing and Miss Mather engaged in a series of conversation with Stanford Downtown and its consultants over the past several months in order to explain the intent of the application and address our inquiries.

We are supportive of the application because of the introduction of comprehensive design guidelines, the delineation between CG1 and CG2, as described with North North Street being a boundary, the preservation of downtown is the area of the city with highest density, floor area ratio, and height permissions, and the requirement for a special permit for proposed uses over 10,000 square feet.

In fact, Mr.

Blessing specified the uses that are subject to this special permit based on feedback and suggestions from Stanford Downtown.

This requirement was used for as described before, was used for a previous application, 1600 summer, related to property uh north of North Street.

If I may say we hope this is an intermediate step, actually, as Stanford Downtown has been in discussions with Mayor Simmons' office and Mr.

Blessing to create a strategic plan that will identify steps to further evaluate land use policies in downtown and to offer recommendations to further support our growing dynamic downtown.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak and for your consideration of this application, and we wish to voice our support.

Thank you, Mike.

Good night.

Don't see any other speakers.

Monica Twilight.

We have pockets of eight pockets of CG residential commercial districts all over town.

Uh one side is very it's very unbalanced.

I say I would like to see it consistent, what we currently have, maintain all our policies as they are.

Uh do not change them.

As you can see, Stanford is uh uh we have mixed residential.

I live in a residential part, and right next door I have uh big big buildings.

Uh same thing down in the south end.

Uh it's very inconsistent.

Uh don't like it at all.

Uh it's not what I grew up with, and I think a lot of other people in Stanford uh feel the same.

There's that wind draft that's creating, so just keep it with the current, uh what we currently have.

Uh thank you.

Good.

Thank you.

Other speakers.

I don't see any other hands.

Okay.

Um board, uh any questions for uh land use bureau chief?

Not for me.

No, no.

Okay.

Then um any objection to closing this?

No.

No objection.

Okay.

So we are closing application 225-38.

And that's the end of the uh public hearing portion of tonight's uh special meeting.

We're now going into the regular meeting.

The first item is the um approval of the minutes for our last meeting, which was on February 9th.

Um does anyone have any um comments or corrections to those minutes?

Nope.

I move that we approve the minutes of Monday, February 9th, 2026 as presented.

I will second that.

Okay.

Um further discussion.

Um all in favor say aye.

Aye.

The minutes are approved for zero.

Now we're going into the uh pending applications.

The first one we have is CSPR 1226.

Mark Friedman, 150 Davenport Drive proposing to construct a pool, pool patio, limited site grading, installed drainage improvements and landscaping.

The property is within the cam boundary.

Umita, can you tell us about this one?

Property is on the water.

Um what they're proposing to do is uh remove their existing stone patio uh in the back and install a new pool with a pool patio.

Um they're removing some of the existing impervious in terms of parking that's close to their driveway.

So they're kind of trying to mitigate the total amount of impervious that there's on site.

In addition, they're also proposing uh new drainage structures uh to you know for storage of uh runoff.

Um we have a positive recommendation from EPB um dated February 6, 2026.

We have engineering reports prepared by Susan Kiskin dated December 12, 2025 and January 16, 2026.

Um we have a deep report uh dated January 16, 2026, and the Harbor Management Commission letter dated February 2nd, 2026.

Okay.

Is there any discussion on this?

No.

Can we get a motion to approve uh CSPR 1226?

Please with the uh comments from Harbor Management Commission, EPB Engineering, and D.

So moved.

Second.

Okay, any further discussion?

Okay, all in favor of uh approving this, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Uh the application is approved 4-0.

Next is CSPR 1227, Richard Stafford, 229 Davenport Drive proposing you construct an addition over the garage.

The property is within the cam boundary.

Umida, can you take us through this one, please?

Sure.

Um, this one's uh you know much simpler than the other application.

This was uh an addition over the existing garage.

There's no new footprint uh being created on the site.

Um so this hit the threshold of the floor area that triggers the coastal site land review, which is why it's before you.

Um we have an EPB letter dated February 5th, engineering letter dated February 20th.

We have a deep report dated February 20th, and also a harbor management commission letter uh dated February 2nd.

Um there weren't any issues that were raised, there was just standard conditions that uh EPB and engineering uh suggested.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Um questions or discussion on this.

Can we get a motion to approve uh application CSPR 1227 with comments from uh Harbor Management, EPB engineering and deep?

I move it.

We approve application the CSPR 1227 as presented uh and discussed this evening conditions as stated by the chairman.

Is there a second?

Okay, any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

The application is approved for zero.

Um next we have application 225-39, Peter Secora for Rama Tool Leal Alamim Mosque, 80 Lockwood Avenue special permit.

Um is there um who uh who is opposed to this application?

Anyone?

Okay.

I have a point of discussion, Mr.

Chairman or comments.

Okay.

Okay.

No, I just want to know whether we move on to the conditions or um if no one supports it, then there's no need to.

Okay, so Vanita, can we um bring up the conditions, please?

Sure.

All right.

Do you all see the document?

Yep.

Um, I can go straight to the conditions.

Wait, hold on.

We have uh can you go up just to your yellow?

Sure.

Okay.

Okay.

That looks good.

Then we um okay, good document.

Umita.

Yeah.

Oh, scroll up a minute, please.

Um the February 11th documents were all um the revisions that we got for our last meeting that we didn't hold.

Yeah, okay.

These are the findings related to the special permit.

Okay.

Uh, and then we come to the site specific conditions.

Okay, so um first condition is that the work will conform to the uh plans unless approved by the board or my or minor modification by staff.

Uh next is uh landscape plan that um prior to building permit applicant will submit a revised landscape plan uh for at grade open space, subject to review and approval by staff with uh the plans implemented prior to CO.

Any discussion on that?

Okay.

Third one is um lot consolidation.

Number four, vehicle parking, they'll provide at least 29 self-parking spaces.

Number five, no call to prayer outside the mosque building.

Any comments so far?

Umita, what is GE?

General.

Oh, okay.

Um provisions for larger attendance.

So during major holidays or days when larger than normal tenants tenants is expected.

Uh applicant will hold staggered services.

Um we don't tell them how many, but just that they will hold them, that they'll use valet parking for 44 vehicles.

Um, and that if LA is not sufficient to handle all the vehicles, they will rent off-site parking for the additional vehicles.

Um Jerry, I know you had some concerns about this.

Is there anything you would add to this or change?

No, I I think that's uh that's accurate.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I appreciate it.

David, I have a question.

We're not weren't we going to add something that um they'd have to use an off-site location altogether, not just parking, or is that not gonna be a choice?

Do we think just renting off site parking is sufficient?

Um yeah, I wouldn't I wouldn't force them to um reserve off-site space for their services unless they would leave it up to them to make that decision, but uh I don't know, what do other people think?

I mean, kind of all these are left up to them.

They can do staggered services and not then have to do ballet parking, they could do ballet parking and not have to do staggered services.

I mean, it's really kind of all up to them.

I mean, I guess I don't know.

What would you what would you add?

Mr.

Chairman, if I may.

Well, wait, one sec.

Um so Roseanne, what do you have in mind?

Well, it's what they do now.

That if they for any of the some of the high holy days, they um yeah, that's not a bad idea.

Just throw it into the list of options.

Yeah, because none of them were requiring to do this over this.

Um a lot of the specifics will be detailed in the parking management plan.

Um even the renting out of like a hotel ballroom.

Uh no, not that.

But that's that's what I'm talking about, because we discussed that with them that sometimes they do rent um spaces elsewhere.

And uh, you know, it's if if if the other A, B, and C don't work anyway, they're gonna have to rent spaces elsewhere.

Right.

Yeah.

Jerry, what were you gonna say?

So I have here my notes the first time attorney Secora suggested that they were working on an off-site plan.

And now we've we're deviating from that and saying we're giving them the option to.

So unless I ascribed it wrong, they were actually working on an off-site plan for their growth in that community.

So again, uh, we're we're allowing them to kind of manage themselves.

From my understanding from the writings here or the thoughts here.

I I think we should include it as a D.

Okay.

Bill.

Include it.

Okay.

So Rosina, what would you say?

Um parking strategies are not enough to are not adequate, yeah, are inadequate or insufficient.

Um satisfy the satisfy the parking demand.

The mosque will move services to an off-site location.

Well, hold services at an off-site location, yeah, or move services, yeah.

We mean to add services, right?

I mean they could to continue to use what they have to the extent they can um block it.

Well, uh so Benita, let's turn this around.

So, how does that work?

If someone's attending a service for 45 minutes and they show up and it's uh they can't get into service, are they they're not gonna they're gonna wait around for the secondary service, correct?

I mean, how do you know if it's if it's inadequate in the parking and are you gonna go home and then come back?

I mean, I think uh Yeah, it's gonna be one or the other, they're either gonna have the service elsewhere or not.

Right.

So if you're gonna multiple services, well, I'm just gonna wait here until I can get into the the next opportunity, but they're still gonna be on site, which still can it still is an opportunity for congestion.

Well, yeah.

Yeah, go ahead, Panita.

What I was thinking was that you know then creating another up up, you know, opportunity in addition to what they have.

So the kind of splitting splitting the service, so having the site or have and having additional.

I mean what it does is kind of go into a whole different site.

So this is a little um it's it's harder to kind of you know manage or uh regulate.

Absolutely, you know, because you don't know what happens until it's real time.

So you know, it's more a matter of experience, like they know on a particular holiday that they need to move off site.

So I mean, I think if you want to look at you know, saying that's add supplemental capacity for services elsewhere, rather than you know, saying that you know services need to be moved entirely.

Oh I think he offered that up.

That was discussed with him the first meeting.

It was it's not something that we brought up.

How about if we just say we'll hold service?

Do the same thing.

Yeah.

You wanna say that they will hold services at an off site location?

Um at a yeah, and just leave it at that.

It kind of leaves it open.

Could you David, could you repeat that?

We'll hold services at an off-site location during peak peak uh times.

Oh, I guess we that's covered.

Um leave it at that introduction.

Okay.

I guess, but who monitors that who how do you know?

So we don't monitor A, B, or C.

Right.

I mean, we do so I would think you know, the traffic bureau hears about any and all issues that come up with uh you know parking.

So and they will have to provide to uh reports to us, so um you know, staff can ask them to deploy one or multiple of these options um based on what we're hearing from you know either reports from the public or you know, based on what they're what their parking counts are telling us.

You know, look, all of this is left in the hands of the applicant, um just like it would be for a church or a temple or you know, anyone else, they would make their own decisions on how they're gonna handle their parking.

So um, I think we we've pretty much listed the various options here, um, but I don't think there's any way to tell them when they no, I mean I be until it gets to a chronic level, like you know, years ago with the Armand, the Armand Hotel, right?

That was an area that was saturated with services, and you know, eventually we made a decision upon that of extending the back and the patio we you know the last couple years because of you know it was growth, you know.

But it was yeah, but it was the hotel that came to us for permission.

Well, that was after many neighbors complained.

We heard we heard from the the the uh the units on the right hand side there said you know, uh you know it was it was somewhat untenable with all the cars in the car parking lot and the the parking garages.

So um how long you know again, uh you know, uh I guess you're right, they have to manage themselves.

But it's not like the bureau is gonna come back and report back to us.

I mean, let's you know, let's be realistic about it.

Bill, what do you think?

There's only so much you can do with this, you know.

Right.

All right, but Nita.

Unless you're putting some sort of monetary fine on it, it's uh can't do that.

Well, we I guess yeah, if it they violate our conditions, I believe it's a violation of the of a regulation, and so there's the yeah, if someone pursues that avenue, yes, right.

Yeah.

May I ask it just a question?

When is the construction going to be happening at the at the school there on Lockwood?

When's that gonna start?

I think this several years before that happens.

Oh, okay.

All right, so we have we have a couple years to see kind of see where this the growth of the you know of the uh the house of worship as opposed to the construction across the street.

Right.

Yeah, I think this would be in operation before the school starts.

Okay.

Vanita, can you take the at the end of B, remove the and then um at the end of C make it a semicolon and please okay?

I think we have that building use.

Um the upper floors, third floor lock will not be used at the same time as the first floor prayer area.

Um and I think that's a relates also to parking um limiting the the number of people in the building.

Um and I think the applicant told us they don't use any other area while the first floor prayer prayers are going on.

Yeah, they definitely said that um next we have the parking management plan, which is uh we received a draft of um and they've got a report to us on uh parking and uh can I ask to go back to seven?

Sorry, so shn't it say um with the first floor during um services.

I mean, couldn't one or two people I mean I have to say I don't you know it's it's not my religion, so I'm not exactly sure how mosques are used, but if somebody just went into the first floor and was saying a prayer, and it's not during services, wouldn't you still be able to use the second and third floor?

Um yeah, I think you're right.

So anybody disagree or not agree?

That's good.

I agree.

Okay.

That's good.

Okay, we did eight.

Um nine signage has to be approved by staff.

10.

We have uh comments from TTP dated January 1st and February 9th.

It have to be complied with uh 11 compliance with EPB comments dated October 17, 2025.

Well, uh compliance with engineering bureau comments dated December 1, 2025.

Um 13 compliance with fire marshal comments dated November 30th, 2025.

Why doesn't it like uh from the fire marshal there?

No idea.

Doesn't look any different from me to me.

It doesn't.

No.

Okay.

Number 14, uh comply with comments from WPCA dated October 31, 2025.

Um and then we have our standard conditions.

Um further discussion on uh the application.

Oh yeah, any further discussion.

Nothing for me.

Okay, can we get a motion to approve application 225-39 with the conditions as presented tonight?

I'll make the motion to approve uh 2235 as we we was explained to us this evening.

22539, yeah.

Um is there a second second?

Uh any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Uh the application is approved four zero.

Um next.

Yep.

Next, we have uh application two two five-46, Saint John Urban Development Orp 109 Tressor Boulevard, site and architectural plans under requested uses, special permit and coastal site plan review.

Um just sorry for the digression here, but while I'm thinking of it.

Um Ralph and Vanita for the next meeting.

Can we deal with the uh extension of the fee and lo?

Um we'll get we will have requests hopefully from the uh whoever needs to request it.

Okay.

Um anyway, 225-46.

Uh is there anyone who's opposed to this one?

Okay.

Then um, why don't we take a look at the conditions?

Sure.

This is an application I'm very excited to move forward with.

Yeah, yeah.

It's um we've been waiting.

Yeah.

Make the motion.

Okay.

Uh Vanita, you want to show us some conditions for this one, please?

Can this be any bigger?

Let me try that.

Yes, a little please.

Oh, there we go.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

So our eyes aren't as young as Benita's.

No, look at look at this.

Okay, uh good.

Change the date, but I can make those changes.

Oh, this is the correct date.

Moving a week ahead.

Um I'll go straight to the site specific conditions.

So here we've listed the special permits.

Okay.

All right.

Um the work will uh um be consistent with the plans, conform to the plans.

Number one.

What's next?

Affordability.

Okay.

This is where it gets a little interesting.

Um, and um Bill, thank you for um pointing out the uh missing unit.

Um I'm assuming it now adds up to 107.

I haven't choose to see it, but I'm sure it does at this point.

There it is.

We got okay.

Um so let's go up.

The the agreed to build 305 units as affordable housing um at 80 percent or less, including 31 units at or below 30 percent.

Okay, so that was the information we were waiting for, Vanita.

Yes, we have that was all in the affordability plan that they had submitted.

Okay.

The redevelopment will include the fee and loo funding from the Atlantic Station and the Smith.

The escrow agreement for those two requires uh 240 permanently deed restricted at or below 80 percent for the life of the project.

So you'll notice the difference.

The first one is 305 units, but it doesn't say permanently uh deed restricted because there is not that requirement.

Um the the requirement for the 240 comes from the escrow agreements or from the agreement to provide the fee and loo funds.

Um then we go down to the um the next tranche here, and um the 240 permanently deed restricted units will include 30 at or below 50 percent and 77 at or below 65 percent.

Um the 30 is because of our 12 percent requirement, normal 12 percent um requirement, and the 77 units is based on the um affordable units, the naturally occurring affordable units that are being lost from the two towers, and our um regs require that those be replaced at a certain um ratio um with new affordable units, and that ratio comes out at uh to 77 units, and those are replaced at 65 percent.

So um they so they have to have a total of 107 units um that are um that are specified as to the size of the units and the AMI.

The rest of the 240, so it's 107 out of 240.

The rest of the 240 have to be below 80 percent um and include 31 units there at or below 30 percent, but again, not deed restricted for the life of the project.

Any questions on that on the numbers?

No, that'll make sense.

Okay, so here's the uh the 107 units that they have to provide um deed restricted for the life of the project um that they are specifying the 50 percent and the 65 percent units um and here is the breakdown, and there we've added Vanita's added one studio unit um to so we now have 107 okay so far so good, yeah.

Yep.

Okay, um so that's that's it.

So it's 107 at these uh sizes and AMIs, um, another 1 whatever it is 27.

Okay, thank you.

Um will be um at or below at or below 80 percent, uh, but deed restricted for the life of the project, and then the rest of up to the 305 will be affordable for some period of time, and that's probably gonna depend more on what the um the lenders require, like the state um department of housing and um what the state requirements would be okay onward.

Um number three uh applicant will provide relocation assistance to the um tenants who were um having to be relocated out of the uh round towers, and we received a relocation plan, and um this outlines the major points in it want to go to the next one.

Um the applicant is subject to our um publicly accessible amenity space requirement, they have to provide three thousand five hundred and thirty square feet, they come up with a through block connection of two thousand one hundred and forty-nine and public sidewalks, um, which are on their property of 530, and those count towards um towards meeting their past requirement.

So they need to come up with another um whatever eight hundred and sixteen.

Thank you.

And um there it is, yeah.

Uh and uh they'll do that before building permit.

They're still working on that.

Uh but you're not gonna move that sentence that starts with such where's that?

How could I can't believe you missed that?

Oh Bill, thank you.

I was beginning to late.

Okay.

I does it have to go one more over, or is that enough?

There we go.

Gotta get rid of that dash.

Oh it's you know oh the dash is on purpose.

No, it's a redlining, I think.

Can we uh take it off red line?

Yeah, I think this is perfect.

Okay, um, and if they don't uh come up with the uh additional past space, then they'll have they can satisfy it through the uh fee and lokay what's next uh vehicle parking, not less than 213 self-parking spaces with 22, including 22 electric vehicle spaces.

Um then also another 93 spaces, which they currently have over at Atlantic Station Garage under the uh easement agreement, um and that they will um split up the cars roughly 70 30 and assign them to one uh garage or the other, but other than that, they will be the spaces will be unassigned, and they one parking space per unit is at no charge, which is do we think in a building that's all um affordable?

I don't know if it's affordable or not.

There's nothing much in town that's affordable, uh that we should still push on with our um electric vehicle parking spaces, or do we not have a choice and we have to make them do it?

Is it vanita and Ralph?

Is it state law that it has to be 10 percent?

It's 10 percent uh obviously the law changes all the time.

My understanding is that 10% this to be wired already for 10 percent um uh of the spaces, but I don't think it has to be 10 percent uh charging spaces, so they they have to have basically the wiring in place.

Should they re should they their tenants need it?

Yeah, yeah.

We may want to look at it, you know just you know affordable housing building is one thing, you know, supportive housing.

It's the same thing.

Regs don't um say anything different for that.

So yeah, I agree.

I think we should make it more relaxed for affordable housing as affordable housing.

Yes, I agree.

We have well there's a a series of cleanups uh in process okay.

Next uh we have the parking management plan.

Um they will uh provide us with a standalone draft and um then uh they will prior to CO they'll submit a final one for uh uh staff approval um and it'll do all of the oh and it's um it'll require reporting annually for the first three years uh with the counts of uh parking any questions on this turns it if it turns out that there's um I guess too many cars, then um they'll have to come up with uh strategies or car.

Hopefully that hasn't happened in a long time.

No, no, then a transportation demand management plan, they'll submit a standalone to us, um, and then uh a final to be approved by uh staff and um with the the normal reporting requirements bicycle parking.

Uh there'll be 37 class A spaces, including 16 uh spaces that are set up for e-bikes and 31 class B spaces on the property, and all this will comply with our regs and 12 J and be located as close as possible to the building entrance and subject to monitoring, and we have our always uh included bicycle parking performance section.

Um and um this is the same as it always is traffic signal protection.

Umita, can you explain why this went in?

So there is one of uh the city's traffic signal is located um on the applicant's property here.

So um the building footprint is actually very close to that signal.

So the idea is that um when you know the construction and the foundation work goes on, the signal needs to be protected during that period.

So um the city uh wants to be able to monitor and look at the plans and you know make suggestions as to you know what's the course of action, whether it needs to be real, you know, the relocated or um or kept in place.

Uh so that's really what this uh condition is talking about.

Uh okay, during construction.

Yeah.

Um it um it says it'll be approved by the city slash state.

Um that's because it's on Route One, I guess.

Yes.

Yeah.

Um does the in the last sentence the permanent easement.

Do we need to make provision for granting that to the state as well?

Or um is it just on city properties?

Because it's the city signal, that's what we need the easement for.

So the signal, so the easement would be in the favor of the city.

Gotcha.

Touch it.

Okay, good.

Uh signage subject to staff approval.

Uh TTP uh comment letter dated February 9th, the applicant will comply with that.

Uh EPB comment later dated December 29th, the applicant will comply.

Uh engineering bureau comments of February 4th, the applicant will comply.

Fire department comments of January 7th, applicant will comply.

And WPCA comments of February 12th, the applicant will comply.

Applicant will give the city an easement to maintain those sidewalks.

And street trees.

Okay.

We can look that up now or I can put that in later.

You can I'm fine if it goes in later.

We know it's 25 trees, it's just how many on each street.

Yeah.

Okay, and there'll be a $1,000 bond on each tree for a total of $25,000.

And if for some reason trees aren't planted.

Right.

Uh under 19.

Um and that's um 2500 3,000.

Yes, to the 2500.

Yeah.

Okay.

Then the rest are our standard conditions.

Um discussion on this.

No.

No, but I wish the applicant the best of luck in getting all the financing lined up so this can move forward.

Yeah.

Yeah, this is this is a terrific project.

So good for the city.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And we're we're getting um more affordable units than we're losing here.

So this is good.

Um can we get a motion to approve uh application 225-4-6 with the conditions as uh presented tonight?

So moved.

Second.

Good, Gary.

Oh no good.

Okay, second.

Second.

Okay.

Um any further discussion.

All in favor of approving this application with the conditions as presented, say aye.

I okay.

The applications approved 4-0.

Uh good luck to uh Noel and the others who are involved in this.

Um it'll be a good project.

Um okay.

Next we have children's learning centers, which is continued to next week.

And last we have um the text change application we discussed tonight.

Um folks okay if we hold that till next week, or is there a desire to get done with?

No, I'd like to hold that because I'd like to have conversations about that.

Okay.

Okay, I've I agree.

Yeah, let me know if there's anything else you need.

Yeah, yeah.

Try to get to Ralph.

If anyone has questions or comments, get to Ralph before the meeting so you can take care of it ahead of time.

We're we're where we don't need to be, and we're we're they're developing it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, I I would like to look at that as well.

I agree.

Okay.

Um we have a meeting in a week.

Uh just almost like the old days.

Um what's uh what's on the agenda, Benita?

Um so in terms of new applications, we have the CL district exchange, you know, the same lines of the CT.

Um, and then we have an administrative approval of the conversion of 177 Broad Street from commercial to residential.

Um, and that's basically all that is in terms of new applications.

Um have the continuation from tonight for CLC.

Um hopefully we will vote on that.

Yeah.

Um 177's interesting because it's um uh it's administrative.

It is there's no public hearing on that one.

Um just regular meeting.

Um which I have to admit I am still not always uh clear on when we have special um when we have public hearings and when we don't.

Um and one of the changes Ralph and I would were talking about today was to put into our regs actually a list of um when they're a public hearing is required, uh which believe it or not is not there.

So uh does that mean it also didn't have to go to the um planning board since the building's already there, yeah.

And there's no special permit and nothing, no other reason.

Um we'll from our standpoint it'll be a normal a normal hearing.

Okay, good.

Um next week.

Wow.

Man 9 13, yeah.

And and I'd like to congratulate Chairman Stein, who was reappointed by the board of reps this evening.

And I'd like to congratulate Roseanne McManus, who was also uh approved, both on the consent agenda, didn't even take a vote.

Uh so um this is that's why they got to it so fast.

Yeah, and there's also an alternate coming along who I presume was approved as well because he interviewed uh last week with us.

Um Peter Rustin.

And so um hopefully Peter will get sworn in soon and uh we'll begin appearing in our meetings.

Perfect.

Excellent.

Yeah, and we look forward to uh having him.

Remember how hard those first couple of meetings were?

Yes, man.

Years I didn't know what was going on.

And look at you now.

Oh yeah, look at me now.

Yeah, but it takes a while.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Years so um this is good.

Um there is a uh another person who's been um appointed by the mayor who has not yet been interviewed, but um presumably will be next month.

And um, so uh we'll hope that uh he is also approved.

Okay, anything else before we adjourn?

Uh move to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor?

We are adjourned.

Good week, everybody.

Good night, guys.