Tell me when uh um we should be good to go.

Okay.

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

Uh apologies for the late start.

We had technical difficulties.

I'm David Stein, chair of the zoning board.

And it is uh 6 41 on March 30, 26.

The members of the board and the staff are holding this meeting by Zoo Conference.

Both on video conference and by teleconference.

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

Bill Moore.

I'm here, David, but David, you're breaking up because you aren't aware of that.

I am not aware of it.

Um Peter Rustin present.

Ralph Blessing.

Here okay.

Uh can you hear me at all?

Yeah, you're breaking up a little bit.

You may well take it slow, probably.

Okay.

Um the first of tonight's meeting is the public hearing where the public will have the opportunity to speak.

Each member will muted an easier turn speak.

If you came in through Zoom, please use the raise your hand and you will be united when it is returned.

If you called in almost telephone conference call phone number, please press star nine, and this will your hand, and then press R6 to unmute when it is your turn.

David, you're still sort of breaking up.

Um, why don't you uh take over with uh starting the meeting?

Okay.

Um the first item we have is uh the annual report uh on the below market rate program by Emily Gordon, principal house planner.

Emily is here, I assume.

Uh yes, let me admit her.

She should be joining shortly.

Good evening, everyone.

Hello, Emily.

Hello.

Hello.

Um I don't know if you're aware, but we're having some technical issues, and David's sort of fading in and out.

So uh here we go.

All right.

Well, good luck to us all.

All right, I'm gonna try to share my screen.

So let me know if there's issues with that.

Okay.

All right, I'm gonna put this into presentation mode.

Hopefully, you all can see my screen, and um you can see me moving my slides okay.

Yes.

Okay, perfect.

Um, so we'll get started.

Um, so uh the bull market rate program.

There was uh a section of section seven that the the board adopted uh a couple of years ago for there to be an annual report for the program.

It's in section 7.4.

Um, so that is why I'm here with you tonight, is to uh provide that report.

Um I do know you have at least one new member to your board, so I'm just gonna do a quick recap of the below market rate program.

I also think it's a it's um a good summary for you all.

I will try to keep this um relatively brief.

But so the below market rate program is just one housing program within the city of Stanford.

Um there are not, you may know there are nonprofits that provide programs, there are private entities that provide affordable housing, and of course we have um market rate housing and naturally occurring affordable housing as well.

So all of these provide different levels of affordability to residents in Stanford, and the below market rate program is one program, you'll see it somewhere in the middle.

It requires no subsidy from the city, but it does require a subsidy from the developers that are providing the units and all new developments in Stanford with 10 or more units have some sort of obligation to provide these units either on site or through another form, whether it's through Fee and Lou.

So it is, as I said, required by zoning for all units, all developments with 10 or more units.

The requirement is generally 10 to 14% of units designated at 50% of the area meeting income.

And these need to be affordable 30%, the rent needs to be capped to 30% of the maximum household income at 50% of the area meeting income if that is the designated unit affordability level.

So for uh Stanford right now, a two-person household at 50% of the area meeting income, the income would be capped at 72,200.

This requirement is generally met through on-site, or as I said, could also be satisfied through a fee and loo contribution to the Stanford Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

And units are permanently affordable for the life of the building.

Most units, about 90% of units of on-site of on-site units, end up being at 50% of the area median income.

Most units are one and two bedroom units.

So we'll go over zoning board approvals in 2025, affordable housing trust fund commitments in 2025, and then we'll go through the compliance reports from the program.

So in 2025, the zoning board approved six projects that had Section 7 requirements, so BMR requirements.

So that's a total of 518 total units and 12 on-site BMR units.

So this is a bit different than the report looked last year.

The total units is about half of the number of units that were approved in last year's report.

There were over a thousand units approved in 2024, only 518 in 2025.

And we saw many more fee and lu ops options for fee and loo.

So while 100% of the units or 100% of the projects in 2024 provided on-site units, only 50% of the projects in 2025 provided on-site units.

So we see lots of fee and loo coming in and very little on-site from this past year.

And again, this is what has been approved.

The developers could opt to do their below market units on-site or could opt for fee and loo.

But the suggestion here is to consider recalibrating Fee and Lou to ensure there's a more healthy on-site and fee and loo balance.

So while Fee and Lou, and we'll talk about this in the next slide, can be really beneficial, and that we're seeing that the trust fund is kind of doing what it was expected to be doing when it comes to the value that it's providing and the fee and loo value.

Does anyone have any questions about this slide before I move on?

Oh Emily, this is very informative.

Just so I understand, we only approved 12 on-site units the last year.

That's my understanding from the information that I have.

Wow.

So compared to 90 from 2024.

Do you think it's we need to do to have more site units?

Yeah, so I I think, and you'll read this in the report that unless the trust fund has a very clear pipeline of projects and of and or a very clear outreach strategy for specific, you know, developers, maybe new developers to come in to utilize Fee and LU funding, then it would make sense to try to make sure that there's a bit of a recalibration on this to ensure that we don't lose that continuous on-site, those on-site units coming online in kind of hope of other projects down the line with Fee and LU.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um so the next section is on the affordable housing trust fund.

So we did see that uh all of the affordable housing trust fund projects that funding was committed to went were for 100%, they were all 100% affordable.

So all the units supported by the trust fund were affordable units.

Um there were four projects, you'll see them listed here.

Two of them were major projects, so redevelopments and new construction.

Um, and two of them were, I mean, one was a rehabilitation project, and then one was a more of a minor repair project.

Um for just looking uh, and we did this in the last report as well, kind of looking at how the funds were being used in comparison to on-site.

Um, so what's the value of an on-site BMR unit?

Um and the funding that we get from that through fee and loo, how is that being used?

Um and the what I found by just looking at the subsidy that's being provided per unit and per equivalent unit, which that equivalency is being pulled directly from the zoning regulations, um, is that there's three to six times greater value um for every dollar being sent spent at the trust fund than when compared to on-site BMR.

Um so that's a little bit better.

Could you repeat that please?

Yes.

So and uh this is maybe better explained in the report.

But if we're getting somewhere between 125 and 200,000 per two-bedroom unit um through fee and loo, uh, and that's a one that's one unit.

Um, we're only spending on, let's say, the Oak Park 2 project and the 66 stillwater, we're only spending about um 30 to 40,000 per unit per equivalent unit on those projects.

So we're getting uh better bang for our buck spending 40,000 per unit there than spending, you know, what would have been 150 or um 200,000 per unit, which is the fee and loo equivalent um that has been assigned to through the BMR program, if that makes sense.

Yeah, so so you're saying then that the fee and lie part of this is um we get more bang for a buck that is preferred over having units on site.

Yes.

But we have to make sure we have projects to put that money toward, which is why I think there's that push and pull between you know, you have a project with the on-site, which is great.

Um, but when we do put fee and loo money toward a project, we do tend to get greater value there.

So um they're both great tools, and um, we just need to figure out how to balance them.

Okay.

Emily, I agree that they're they're both great tools.

Um each uh a purpose in using affordable housing.

Um this chart here, uh am I correct?

There we go.

The 148 affordable units that you're showing there is the total there were 15 that were new units.

Yes, so 15 were new construction.

The Oak Park, the 42 Oak Park, that is a redevelopment.

So those are um though we only see 15 brand new units.

Um, but yes, the as far as the way that the funding's being spent, um, I compared only the the two kind of new construction projects, so the Oak Park 2 and the 66 still water for that value example.

Um, but the Oak Park 2 were existing units just um fixed up or torn down and rebuilt or whatever, we didn't end up with a net increase there in affordable units.

That's right, yeah.

Okay.

the the two kind of new construction projects so the oak park two and the 66 still water for that value example um okay but the oak part two were existing units just um fixed up or torn down and rebuilt or whatever we didn't end up with a net increase there in affordable units that's right yeah okay I mean the the other important thing about sort of the value is also what you see here is that many of the units actually have significantly lower affordability levels so that adds to the value um of the uh fee and lo units versus the um on site units so numerically it's like three to six times bigger but um obviously the the subsidy for a 30% uh um BMR unit is higher than for a 50% BMR unit right and that's that's the benefit of P and Lou is that we can get those lower AMIs that that we don't get with a non-site unit.

And um I think when people question whether P and Lou is is uh a good program that's one of the main um reasons why it was yeah um so now we'll go into the kind of a review of the compliance report so every year and this is in the zoning regulations we require that every building that participates in the program um needs to send us a report so this is some information that we've gathered and pulled out of these reports that we receive every year uh this information is from the reports that we received in January of 2025 and um these are from approximately we have 60 buildings in the program now and so this is a um this is from the 900 and sorry the 798 units that reported to us last year so there's a 3.6% vacancy rate reported which is um is a very low vacancy rate but it it does happen to be double what it was in 2024 I don't think that's anything to be concerned about but because it did double um I think what that shows is maybe that we're not seeing as tight of a um maybe there's not as as much um it's not you know the BMR program quite isn't quite as tight as it was a year before um and but we do see when I broke it out to see kind of where that vacancy is we saw that the three bedrooms are actually uh have the highest vacancy rates and and the studios as well so those one bedrooms um are still uh had the lowest vacancy rate um they also tend to have we'll see it later but the longest wait lists so um the one bedrooms and the two bedrooms kind of continue to be the bread and butter of the program the most units and kind of the most demand it seems to be for those two Emily why do you think that the three bedroom has the highest vacancy rate yeah I've I've been thinking about this I I have heard anecdotally from some of the few buildings that have three bedrooms that some of them do find them to be challenging to fill and I just wonder if there's just fewer qualified households um the average or the median occup uh the the median household size in Stanford is about two and a half people um per household and so most households or at least half households are kind of much smaller than a a three bedroom unit so I just have to wonder how many households are out there that would qualify for a three bedroom unit at the specific AMI that they're designated at and even when we see the you'll see this later the wait list was very very very very long in comparison to how many units we had for three bedrooms last year but um we'll talk about this later um it the the wait list dropped dramatically this year and for three bedrooms and I think it's because as um three bedrooms were added to the program and as building owners worked through the wait lists to try to find qualified residents they weren't necessarily finding qualified residents um they were finding you know people who were interested in the three bedroom affordable unit but finding people that are actually qualified I think is a bit more challenging.

Yeah we're gonna have to keep an eye on this because the board has been pressing yeah what a word to lean towards uh three bedroom units to find out that maybe we don't need three bedroom units I think we have to keep our eye on this and may make a change we have to make yeah yes and it's also it's three one roughly yes and that could just be timing issue um but I think I agree we need to keep an eye on that see if it changes.

Yeah yes and it's also it's three one roughly yes and that could just be timing issue.

Um I think they agree we need to keep an eye on that and see if it changes.

Yeah and I I mentioned that as well that I think that it kind of magnifies if you have one unit, that's a much bigger percentage than one unit, one one bedroom unit or something like that.

So agreed yeah good um so when it comes to the wait list and I and I just mentioned this that um again one and two bedrooms make up the longest wait lists um in relation to supply the biggest backlog is kind of still three bedrooms so when we look at um where I I basically just pulled which building has the longest wait list and then I compared that to how many units we have in the program for each each type.

So uh there is still a preference we saw last year kind of this almost a bigger preference for larger units it looks like that has gone down a little bit we see studios there's kind of an increase in the wait list for studios studio wait lists used to be quite short and now they're starting to get a little bit longer it looks like and the three bedroom wait list as I say has has the and this is just looking at the longest wait list that we have on file um and uh something else to point out is just that 62% of wait lists are closed.

So at the time that these reports were submitted 62% of the wait lists were actually closed and I think that some of the reduction the wait list is just building owners starting to go through their wait lists and um and starting to you know drop people from the wait list as they're either not eligible or no longer interested.

And I think that's why we see such a big drop on the three bedroom side um so it's hard to it's hard to know we're trying to gain things from this from the wait list that we do have but um again it comes down to is this really demand or is it more preference?

It's just hard it's hard for us to tell um we're trying to get information from these wait lists and um and I think it's just something we're gonna have to keep our eye on but we but I would say on the average occupancy we're we saw a little bit of an increase in the um number of tenants in each unit but nothing nothing crazy and um and overcrowding issues continue to you know that's still not a concern because I think that would be another thing for us to keep our eye on when it comes to the larger units is are we having an issue with with occupancy with over occup overcrowding of units and and that's not something that we're seeing.

The count that we have is somewhere around 800 um around 800 but we have more VR units than that don't we?

Yes.

Yes.

So what these reports don't show is like the reports from like a charter of community or I'm sorry like a charter of community or like a nonprofit that has tax credit obligations we don't we don't collect those and and require reporting on that in kind of the same way or in the same we don't we don't scrutinize them in the same way because they have other obligations.

So we we haven't been like paying attention to those reports as closely as we do the private um site owners and that's really what you're looking at here is the kind of the core of the bread of the um BMR program.

So um if I'm a private on-site owner but I have um charter rope manages it for me they would not be included here no we still have those we have though all of those well count charter row but those are we I don't think we've ever included those in our BMRs.

Yeah we haven't we didn't um I've I've requested reports like I'll also give the example of Metro Green I I haven't included those um in here I do receive reports for them I've been asking them for reports they've been giving me reports but I don't include them here because it's it's a bit different um and and the same thing with actually uh still water uh what is it called um still water heights um that that uh the Coleman old Coleman Towers building um yeah they are a tax credit building we did I did include their BMR units but I had to kind of parse through and pull those out so it is um that was the only exception I would say to that um to that rule I did I did include include that building so maybe to just uh give an overview and Emily correct me if I'm wrong so those eight hundred units plus minus are

Um they are a tax credit building.

We did I did include their BMR units, but I had to kind of parse through and pull those out.

So it is um that was the only exception, I would say to that um to that rule.

I did I did incluse include that building.

So maybe to just uh give an overview and Emily correct me if I'm wrong.

So those 800 units plus minus are um in uh in in market rate buildings.

Then there's another 500 units that uh receive some sort of support among other funding sources um from the the BMR program for the units.

So that would include charter op projects that would include the Franklin Street project.

So in total, the program has touched about um 1300 units.

Okay, so these are the the on-site units that came that are came through our approvals.

I'm guessing mostly or many of them uh BLT.

A lot of them, yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you, Ralph, for summarizing.

Um, so we looked at this last year as well, but um 87% of the reporting units were are restricted at 50% of the AMI, that's kind of the standard uh of the program is 50% of the AMI.

But what we're seeing is a miss mismatch of program participants and the units available.

So this is um what I did was I looked at what a household's income was, and these are households that are in the program in a BMR unit.

What is their income and what is the AMI of the unit that they live in?

So basically what's you know, what um does it match the AMI of the unit that they live in?

And what we see is that there is a mismatch.

So we have a lot of units, no surprise at the 50% AMI level, but we're missing um a lot of units at the kind of sub, you know, 45% AMI and below level.

So um we know that that's where the most units are needed, kind of, and that's that's across the state, that's across the city is that deeply affordable level.

But even in Stanford and and here we're seeing that it's not even just deeply affordable, it's also just that that you know, 40% AMI level, um, 35% AMI level.

We're seeing a lot of people at those marks where they're they're in a 50% AMI level and AMI unit, um, and they're um arguably paying more than they can afford even within the program.

So um uh the program, the largest need is really below 25% AMI, which I I think that's not really where the on-site program wants to be serving um because that could require a lot more supportive services and and other um other things that I think would be very challenging to ask private developers and require them to do.

And um, but there are other AMI levels like 40 to 45% or 30 to 35 to 40 percent that um conceivably, you know, if you had if you required fewer units at these AMI levels, that could go a long way to serve the people that are already in the program or in need in Stanford.

Um and uh without kind of changing the the math of the the financial feasibility.

Um you have a suggestion on you said we should consider diversifying.

Do you have a suggestion on how we would do that?

I I do I I wonder if, like I said, if if the program kind of had a new standard instead of 50%, having it having the new standard be if it was 45% AMI or 40% AMI to just start to diversify a little more.

So we didn't have all of these units at 50% AMI.

Um, but that would also mean lowering the percentage of units because you know, I think it I don't know that it would be reasonable to require that lower AMI at the percentage of units that we're requiring the buildings to provide to the program.

So maybe we revise the commission calculation to make it more advantageous for developer to provide a 40 or 45% unit.

Sorry, David, you're cutting out a little bit.

Yeah, and I think I think a little bit of that has been done.

But I think really I think developers are mostly coming in and just kind of okay.

Here's what you're requiring, here's what we're giving you.

And so I think if we were to say, well, here's what we want, um, I think that that would go a long way of of you know actually changing the math and saying, you know, maybe it's not 14% at 50% AMI, it's maybe it's 10% at 45% AMI, and I don't know what that calculation is, but you could do the equivalency that we have to figure out what what the equivalency is of our current program at the lower AMI level, if that's the direction that the board wanted to go.

Okay.

So a good thing to think about.

Yeah, and um let's see.

There's there's another, there's a maybe a counterpoint to the point that I just made in a later slide.

So uh stay tuned.

But um uh oops sorry, um, I mean we can skip right to it right here, um, which is that the geography used to determine our AMI has changed, which did drastically lower our AMI last year.

So this is something that originally um, you know, I would have said exactly what I just said, and and you know, we that we should we should maybe change the the default from 50% to 45% or 40%.

Um but I think we also have to watch for this change in the geography, which is basically artificially lowered our AMI.

Um so this is the way the federal government calculates our AMI because they are including cities now like Danbury and other towns north kind of even uh north in Fairfield County and beyond, um, they've changed the geography, and that has um that has reduced our AMI.

This was just happened last year.

So what we did was we actually froze the BMR limits this year at the 2024 levels.

And the reason we did this is because if we had dropped the AMI in the program, it would have um forced a lot of people out of the program immediately.

Um a lot of people would have become immediately ineligible and had to leave their units.

So in order to kind of maintain um people's ability to stay in the program in kind of a short term, um these levels were frozen for this year, and it also helps the buildings maintain their revenue, so they're not seeing a huge drop-off in rent from the program as well.

So that was something we did this year.

Um, I think it will take a couple years for the the new calculation of the AMI to kind of meet at our frozen level, but that's something that will in the long term it will slightly shift the program to serve lower income residents anyway, um, whether or not we redefine um the program from 50% AMI to 45% AMI.

I'm happy to explain that further or more, it's kind of an artificial thing.

So the AMI just was lowered artificially because of the way it's calculated.

Um that's something we have to watch for.

I'm not sure what you mean by artificial.

You're saying they they change the geographic area, right?

Okay, well, they've got to pick some area, so um maybe they revise to pick one that's more a little more represented.

Um can you go to the slide before this, please?

Yes.

Uh and I just wanted to add um actually this is probably also one of the reasons why we see more fee and loo payments.

Because as the AMI goes down, um providing onsite BMR units becomes less attractive.

And the subsidies higher um from the developer side.

So we're all if let's say 50% of AMI was 70,000 um per family of four, and it goes down to 60,000.

That means that the rent will also go down the rent they pay.

Yes.

Yes, it would, but we froze it at the same level as the year before, and we're now waiting for the AMI to sort of catch up with that 2024 level.

Because otherwise we would have had to kick out um or or the the building owners would have had to kick out uh dozens of of uh people who lived in the BMR units for years and their income hasn't changed.

It's just the calculation has changed, and and uh that that's the issue.

Can we see that pay 11 the one before this?

Yes.

Um this is yes, so this is um talking about the to the AMI in 2024, which we've basically frozen here into 2025 as well.

The AMI was 180,000 for a family of four.

So these are this is the breakdown um at 50, 60, and 80% of the AMI, and that's because as you may know, for the 50% AMI units, we provide flexibility.

So once you're in the unit, um, you need to have an income up to 50% AMI to get into the unit.

But as long as you're making no more than 60% AMI, you can stay in the unit um basically indefinitely.

You are you remain income qualified for the for a 50% AMI unit um through as long as you're making no more than 60% AMI.

Once you make more than 60% AMI, you are allowed to stay for 12 months um longer, so a one-year lease longer, and once you hit 80% AMI, you have to leave in 90 days.

So we actually don't see very many people um hitting these over 60% or over 80% marks.

Um, you know, I think that just shows that there's not a lot of the these policies are really providing enough flexibility for people to stay in the program and provide kind of sustainability um and stability in the program.

And if you look at 50% wise 90,000 per I mean, we're talking about regular um you know, teachers or firemen or whoever these are uh this is really worse housing.

Um we're talking about here serves an important need.

Is there another qualifier that we should be considered using besides AMI since it appears that you know if our AMI went down, that means other cities AMI went up.

So I'm sure everybody's in having issues with this.

So is there something else besides AMI we could use?

Um I don't, you know, we've had this conversation even before the AMI got a little uh wonky, even more wonky.

We had this conversation, um, and I and I think or people have been having this conversation for a long time.

And I I think AMI is really just um we really just need to pay attention to what it is.

It's the it's the standard that's used in in basically every program.

Unfortunately, for the whole state of Connecticut, it's it's we're all playing this catch up game right now because all of our geographies were changed, and that's because the reason for it was because um the counties were changed at the federal level.

So instead of using Fairfield County, they now use our local council of governments as our as our um as our county when they determine the AMI.

So that's the reason why every town in the state of Connecticut is going through the same challenge that we are.

Um, and it's but at the end of the day, I will say that the AMI I think is it's just a tool.

It's it's what everybody's using, which is why it's valuable for us to use it as well.

It's what all the other programs are using, um, affordability programs are relying on.

So there's value in us um staying consistent with that, but we have to be aware of it.

And I think us being aware of it not being quite right for us during this transition and trying to be aware of how it's impacting people in the program and um remaining flexible.

I think that that's really important.

And that's I think what we tried to do this last year when we froze it was to be conscious of how using the actual AMI was going to negatively impact people in the program.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Um, so we're getting we're getting to the end of it here.

Um, but the uh this is mostly the same as what we had looked at last year, which is that 50% AMI units are generally paying 40 to 60% of market rate rentals in the same building.

So I think that's what we want to see out of the program.

We don't want it to be overly wonky in either way.

Um, but it's basically the same as we saw last year, where the studios are actually less subsidized and the three bedrooms are more subsidized.

So for whatever reason, the way that the rents are set through AMI and the way that they compare to the market rate, um, developers or building owners rather are having to subsidize three bedrooms more, then they're having to subsidize something like a studio.

So again, this may be um creating another disincentive to develop those larger units, is because on the long term building owners are having to provide more subsidy to those three bedroom units over a smaller unit type.

And um the difference 50%, let's say studio difference between the 1300 in the chart and the 1421 in the lower is the uh utility.

Yes, the utility allowance, yes.

Okay.

Um and the rents are set by the federal government, right?

Yes.

Okay.

So this is something that's a little hard for us to you know fuss with in any meaningful way.

Um, but it's good for again, it's good for us to be aware of well, where is it?

You know, it's generally working, but we we know that we're actually this is actually, you know, there are additional disincentives to those larger units.

Oh again, this is another thing we looked at last year was the vehicle registration at buildings that provide parking.

Um to most buildings provide parking at no cost to BMR tenants for their first vehicle.

Um what I did was I looked at registration for units to see um are the requirements for BMR parking in the zoning regulations in Section 12 um reasonable, are they too high?

And I think we're still kind of seeing this is basically the same as last year.

The the average number of vehicles registered per unit is is more or less the same as it was last year.

Nothing's really changed there, and the zoning regulations haven't changed.

So we're still seeing the same that parking requirements for two and three bedrooms, especially might be a little bit too high.

Um, so overall, um, I think generally speaking, the BMR regulations are working as we expect them to.

Maybe you guys can be the judge of that based on what you've heard.

But uh Stanford Affordable Housing Trust Fund has committed to has committed to four 100% affordable projects with subsidies expected to produce significantly better value than on-site.

So that's all good news.

Um BMR units are seeing low vacancy rate, heavily discounted units compared to market rates, and there are limited issues with kind of overcrowding or over income households.

But there are a number of places where the program could be tweaked still.

Um, I think the biggest area of kind of um like immediate concern is that fee and lo um should be reassessed to ensure that there's a balance of the on-site and the trust fund contributions.

It's great for the trust fund to be getting a bunch of money.

I know we went through a few years of drought over there where there was basically no money to be had.

So it's very exciting to know that there will be money coming, hopefully.

Um, but we also want to make sure that there's other um other kind of product coming on online and other supply through that on-site program.

Um again, the program could be doing more to serve very low and extremely low-income households who make up a majority of the participants.

So this was an issue last year, and it kind of got to be a little bit, you could notice it a little bit more this year because the ink because the um the AMI shifted just slightly from 23 to 24.

So we could see that shift, and we could see more people um being cost burdened in the program.

Uh so that's uh continuing to be a problem.

There's still a preference for larger units, but again, this is where it gets a little unclear.

Is it a need?

Is it a preference?

But it may um there may continue to be disincentives for developers to produce those larger unit types um if they are needed, assuming that more of them in any meaningful amount are needed.

Um and the change in AMI should be considered when making program changes.

So, like we talked about that geography change should really be considered when if there are any program changes made.

Um it may be an opportunity for the program to shift to better serve low-income residents kind of naturally, but we just have to keep our eye on it to make sure that it's there's no drop-off, you know, of residents.

We need to make sure that like that transition is um is as seamless as possible to the kind of newer AMI geography that we're talking about.

Um, so that is what I have for you today.

Happy to answer any other questions.

I know I've taken up a lot of your time, but I think once a year it's quite important because I know you talk about this program a lot in in every major project.

So thank you very much for your time today.

Emily, do you have any suggestions how we could rebalance the you know, fee and lo in on-site development without changing the regulation?

Is there way to do it that way?

I think Ralph would probably know better what the mechanism is, but I do think we would need to do a little research maybe on exactly like the um to what level it would need to kind of be changed.

I mean, the the two things uh I mean, you probably have to change the regulations.

Um one way would be um, I mean, you could do both at the same time, uh, but one way would to increase the fee and lu uh to make fee and lu less attractive uh for developers.

Um and uh at the same time or independently of that, you could increase the zoning bonus for on-site BMR units.

Um so I think um one thing you could look at uh or or we should look at is um maybe uh in in zoning districts where we have large um uh bonuses for on-site BMRs, if that shows in sort of uh that they provide more on-site BMRs than than other districts.

I mean, I think there's with the um shift to fee and loo that there's two things at work here.

Um is the um uh what we talked about that the AMI went down.

So that makes it less attractive um for developers to provide on-site BMRs.

So if the if we froze it, didn't we?

Yes.

But it didn't change for the developer.

But uh they know that in the future we will be uh freezing the rents and as cost goes up, um it it becomes less attractive um for them.

Okay.

Um so I think that's that's one thing to look into.

And the other thing, um, when when you go back to the uh list of approvals last year, what we've seen was a lot of ownership projects.

Um and there seems to be a much bigger um uh interest in doing fee and loo payments than in rental projects.

So I think partially it also has to do with sort of the shift from rental units to um uh ownership units, like 120 uh um Long Ridge Road uh is uh is a big one.

So there were there were a couple of big um ownership unit, uh ownership developments um that were approved.

And I think in those instances, developers are more interested in buying out than for rental projects.

So those are the things I think we we need to look out for.

And as I said, the the things the the tools we have is to um increase the the buyout amount per square foot, um, but also think about zoning bonuses for um on-site BMRs and increase those bonuses or penalize um if you don't provide them uh on site.

Do you want to um how about this?

Ralph, could you come up with a list of what you think um ways we can do this and why don't we uh spend a little time at our next meeting talking about that?

Okay.

Um and let the board set of the board uh weigh in and um since it will involve it uh a need to amend our regulations, uh whatever we do.

Um let's talk about it.

Okay, I can do that.

Okay.

And if you would please on the agenda for um yeah for next meeting.

Okay.

Uh Emily, is that it?

That's it for me.

Happy to answer any questions, or if you guys want to send questions along to me after the meeting, you should have received the um the report.

And um, yes, happy to clarify anything else or get you any more information that you're looking for.

Um good.

Any questions for uh Emily before we let it go?

Great uh presentation.

Very important.

Thanks very much.

Yeah, thank you.

And um, I think you've you've given us a lot to think about, and um this is good information.

And um hopefully we will use it to uh try to get things more in balance.

So uh thank you again.

Thank you.

Have a good night.

Okay, you too.

Bye bye.

Okay.

We're now into uh meeting, and the uh first item we have.

I'm sorry, let me back up.

Um I don't think we um officially seated Peter.

So if the minute show that Peter is seated as a voting member tonight.

The um the next item we have on the agenda is a public hearing on application 22547, City of Stanford uh zoning board text change.

The purpose of this text change is to add comprehensive regulations to the CL limited commercial district, section 5H.

The CL district is only roughly defined by the use regulations contained in appendix and the bulk regulations at appendix B and contain site and urban requirements.

Appendices A and B would be updated accordingly.

In addition, a definition for a cure street would be added to three, and the regulations for large scale development review section two e could be adjusted.

Also proposed are changed to drive-through standards and regulations and four.

You present this at the last meeting.

Um I guess let's go to the board and see uh any questions from the board uh on this.

Um Bill.

Yeah, well Ralph, you know, the information would you send out to us?

Could you just go over that?

Yes, I can do that.

Um let me just share my screen.

So I uh won't go through um basically uh all the information I um uh presented last time.

I mean once again it's really uh we're not changing so much the nuts and bolts of the regulations, like the density won't change uh um but we will add uh additional design uh safeguards um and for example bigger um yard requirements when uh there are single family districts around those districts but the information uh that you've particularly in particular uh in particular asked for were um informations where let me just get to the right slide there were two pieces of information that you had asked for um uh the first one was a map of the current uh CL districts um so uh this is the map the the dark red uh areas are um the current existing CD uh CL district sorry uh so there is one here uh between Long Ridge and High Ridge that is the whole food site um then here um along Summer Street just south of um Bullshead um there's a little bit on uh West Main Street uh on Broad Street next to or just north of Mill River Park um uh a little bit uh north of downtown so this is Spring Street here uh Bedford and Summer Streets here and then uh bits and pieces um of uh CL um along um uh east Main Street and um as I mentioned before uh we will also have to think about um uh remapping uh um where the CL uh will be going moving forward but um that's that's basic that's a separate step um um uh that that we have to take so that I believe was one piece of information that you had asked for and the second piece of information that you had asked for and I emailed this to you is uh basically when uh there is uh what the current uh review requirements are and what the proposed um um uh review requirements are so um on the top uh you find uh the renovations so um currently um you um only get to see um uh applications in the CL for renovations if uh more than 3000 square feet of area um are touched everything else just needs a zoning permit i.e just goes to the building department for a building permit um what we uh proposing to do is that um for smaller renovations you still only need a zoning permit for sort of mid-size uh renovations uh more than 5,000 square feet of um floor area uh on a zoning lot less than one acre in addition to the zoning permit you would also need architectural uh review by staff uh and then if it's um a larger renovation um increase in building area by five percent or more uh or more than five thousand square feet on zoning lots one acre or more there would be uh a um administrative review um by uh the zoning board so everything in sorry where where I didn't see any about the administrative review is where is that so the green highlights are uh administrative review by the zoning board uh the probably in the final clear right um you broke up there I didn't quite get that we went to add that I mean this this is already this is already proposed in the uh in the text so this is current so you only see it uh for large scale uh development when when the added area exceeds 3000 square feet um and what we're proposing is that if there is an increase of building area by more than five percent or um uh five thousand square feet on a zoning lot with one acre or more then you would do an um administrative review so basically green and uh turquoise are um zoning board reviews yellow is staff uh review and then um for um new construction um on um so currently uh the CL is only subject to large scale development review so only if uh more than 3000 30,000 or more square feet are added um before then it's as of right so so no um uh

So basically green and uh turquoise are um zoning board reviews, yellow is staff uh review, and then um for um new construction um on um so currently uh the CL is only subject to large scale development review, so only if uh more than 30,000 30,000 or more square feet are added.

Um before then it's as of right, so so no um uh review by the zoning board uh at all.

So what we're proposing is um that uh on for new construction, it would be uh site and architectural plan review um for smaller lots, lots less than an acre, and for um uh lots more than an acre, it would be uh large scale development review.

Um uh as currently so um that is actually um I would think tighter than it is um currently uh special permit, nothing changes, and obviously all projects in the um uh CL district require um a zoning permit, and that includes like signs and and and whatnot.

So I think the go I'm sorry, go ahead.

So um I think uh one of the the I think for new construction it is uh probably um uh um similarly stringent as it is now uh with a with a little bit more control for smaller projects because there will be the administrative review by you um for site and architectural plans, um and um I think we're making it a little bit easier for um uh renovations, um, but um we're still keeping administrative review by uh the zoning board.

Yeah, I would I propose that on sorry that on the the second one change of use to reuse that that that would also by the board because it it goes up to one acre and that's pretty large site, so I suppose I guess combining those the second third box um no, I I mean I think that that could be um um a topic for discussion during the deliberation under 2D um any it's clear that any um any site plan approval of 2D goes to the zoning board, yes.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay, I guess I'm asking because the chart you made up uh for us, which is is really helpful by the way.

Um in the the third section down by an architectural review and request does not have a zoning if it's not a district and it's not a large scale of so I'm infused.

Oh when does C go to the board or does it only sometimes so uh 2D always goes to the board.

The the problem is, and maybe we need to change the terminology.

There's we we created the new architectural review by staff that's section two i think that's that's what we see, yeah.

The charts zoning section two D is the one that applies.

Um I I don't have the table in front of me.

Um the the difference uh with regard to 2D is some of the uh architectural plan uh reviews uh under 2D go to the planning board.

Um all of them go to the zoning board, but only some of them go to the planning board and have a public hearing.

Maybe we we could you could take a look at it again because under planning board referral it says so um and maybe it is a terminology issue, um, as you say.

Um and we could just clarify that.

Um but it is as I read any site plan to go to the zoning board.

Site architectural plan review.

Yeah.

So yeah, we have we have architectural review that's only staff that's pursuant to section 2i.

And then a site and architectural plan review and requested uses pursuant to section 2D that always has to go to the zoning board.

Um, if it is in a design district, um, it also has to go to the planning board, and it requires a public hearing.

If it's outside a design district, uh then it doesn't require uh to be referred to the planning board, nor does it require a public hearing.

But it does go to the zoning board.

Yeah.

In all cases.

Yes.

Um 2D provides for the administrative hearing.

Yes.

Ah, okay.

Right.

Bill.

You were that clarified a lot.

I'm glad we went over that.

I have no other uh questions at this point.

Peter.

No, I'm good.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, I think you laid this out is good.

Um, my only question would be that second second row, but we can talk about that later.

Um we ready the public?

Yes.

Yes.

Um, if there's someone from the public who would like to send this application, um, please raise your hand.

And when you hold on, uh give us your name and your address, please.

Okay, the first one we have is uh Mike Moore from uh the uh DSSD.

And he should be joining us as a panelist.

Good evening, all there we good evening.

Hello, Mike.

How are you?

Happy spring.

Happy spring.

Thank you.

Oh, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Uh again, Mike Moore, president of Stanford Downtown.

Um, I had submitted a letter to um Mr.

Blessing and Miss Mather earlier in the month, and I was just going to take a moment to read from that letter, if okay with you.

Um please accept these written comments, right?

These comments from Stanford Downtown on behalf of application 225-47.

This application proposes, as Mr.

Blessing so eloquently uh described, a text change to establish comprehensive standards for the CL Limited Commercial District Zone.

Uh Stanford Downtown wishes to thank Mr.

Blessing and Mrs.

Matt and Ms.

Mather for their guidance during the crafting of this language.

A substantial portion of Stanford's existing CL zoning lies within the Stanford Downtown Special Services District.

As a result, this amendment is not solely a citywide technical update, but a downtown land use and urban form issue.

The proposed regulations position CL as a large format commercial district.

We are supportive of the application because of because the application replaces the CL districts largely appendix-based framework, as Mr.

Blessing just described, with a defined purpose statement, updated dimensional standards, extensive site and architectural design requirements, and a tiered review procedure.

As we as we have discussed, Mr.

Blessing, Ms.

Mather and I, uh, Stanford Downtown's question center on how a district intended for large format commercial development is applied within a downtown environment.

Stanford Downtown's interest is ensuring that implementation of the revised CL district supports downtown's long-term urban design and placemaking objectives, and that the redevelopment of downtown CL site strengthens the downtown fabric.

The introduction of the proposed comprehensive site and architectural design standards will help reinforce the downtown context.

Note Stanford Downtown has been in discussions with Mayor Simmons' office and Mr.

Blessing to create a strategic plan for downtown to evaluate land use policies.

Such an exercise will offer recommendations to further support our growing and dynamic city center.

Thank you again for the opportunity to submit comment.

Good.

Thank you.

Sue, I think you can um unmute yourself now.

Oh, yeah, sorry.

I was talking.

I didn't realize I was muted.

Sorry.

This is Sue Halpern.

30 Elm Craft Road.

30 Elm Craft Road.

Thank you.

I just have a question about the change under renovations, the change of use, renovations or alterations unless over one acre or more.

And I just, you know, I'm concerned.

I would imagine that would include office building conversions.

And I'm just thinking that, you know, I my feeling is there should be a public hearing about some of these building conversions.

Um because, you know, they they it's just a massive change to the the use that's currently there in a lot of these buildings.

So I was just wondering about that.

Um, you know, BLT is converting the Pitney Bowes building down here to 256 apartments or what have you.

And they didn't have to have a public hearing.

There's there's there was no architectural review.

So, you know, I I just think it would be nice if you do have a public hearing for some of these projects and you know, get the thoughts of you know what the neighborhoods would like to see.

So thank you.

Uh next we have uh Mr.

Adams.

Good evening, uh uh zoning board members and uh uh Mr.

Blessing.

I just really wanted to second Sue's comment.

Um I think it really is important.

You know, listen, we come on these uh meetings and and I don't write my my comments out, but uh I'm here to have a conversation with you because I want to understand this.

I want to be able to advocate for the city, I want to be able to advocate for the people that are that need advocating for.

Um I think that these public uh hearings are are really important, especially when you are making such a significant change or you're you're using a building.

And you know, it's uh these public hearings, they're not that bad.

Uh, you know, yeah, it's process and it takes a little bit of time to go through the process, but people aren't making too many crazy comments when you're when we're talking about this specific uh category.

Um and sometimes you get comments that are really beneficial.

Uh, you know, I thank you very much for um getting uh operable windows in these commercial renovations.

Uh I think that's a huge improvement.

But you know what?

If uh Sue and I didn't drill down on it every time we got the opportunity, uh perhaps it would never would have happened.

So uh, you know, I have to I have to say that that, you know, I I see that as a win-win for you guys, uh, for us for the city.

Um so I think those you know retaining public hearing and retaining that kind of oversight is important.

It's the one thing that I'm I'm kind of seeking to comment on on this particular uh text change.

And uh, appreciate your time.

Thank you very much for listening.

Good.

Thank you, Dave.

Do we have anyone else who wants to speak on this application?

Okay.

Um Ralph, the um anything you think needs a response.

Uh yes.

So um uh just just for clarification, obviously uh it'll it'll be up uh to the board to make a decision um uh on uh when they want a public hearing or not.

But I think the CL is a district where we will probably not see a lot of conversions from there's not that many offices in the CL.

So it's it's really intended for large scale retail.

So I don't imagine there to be uh a lot of residential conversions, but those are really big boxes that in order to redevelop uh you would have to you would have to tear them down and build new, and then of course it will trigger uh the public hearing requirements for uh new construction.

Um the the BLT conversion in the south end, uh that's actually a different zoning district.

So um that uh um uh is also before the zoning board, the CG district, but um uh and in the CG district, I um I I agree with uh Ms.

Halpern and Mr.

Adams.

That is a district where we will see and have seen conversions from um uh office to uh residential.

Uh but I think it's it's less of a problem uh in the uh CL.

And then the CG district densities are also significantly higher uh than uh in the CL district.

That's just as a matter of clarification.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Is there anyone else from the public to speak to this uh application?

We uh move on.

Um if not um board it I think we should close this.

Is does that sound all right?

I will close it.

Okay.

Ralph, and anything else you want to get in?

No, I'm good.

Thank you.

Okay, then um we're closing at 225-47.

Um thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Um next up two of them, 225-43 and 2254.

Both of them deal with a 50 summer street, and they are both uh continued until the next meeting of the zoning board on April 13th, 26.

Uh 630 p.m.

on Zoom.

Um we now have uh three new public.

The first is application 226-01, 35 LLC, 35 Terrace Avenue special permit applicant proposing the consolidate properties and the property into small senior living community with a total of six units, including accessibility, landscaping, and drainage system.

Um Bill, could you read the uh planning board letter?

Sure, please.

Uh we have a letter dated February 11th, 2026 to Mr.

David Stein Chair.

It's regarding ZB application number 226-01 for 35 terrace LLC located on 35 Terrace Avenue, special permit.

Dear Mr.

Stein and members of the zoning board, during its meeting held on Tuesday, February 10th, 2026.

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

Applicant is proposing to consolidate and redevelop properties into a small senior living community with a total of six units, including accessibility, landscaping, and drainage system.

Uh Leonard Brahman, Wolfsey Rosen, Questkin and Kurianski LLP made a presentation and answered questions from the board.

After a brief discussion, the planning board unanimously recommended approval of GB application number 22601 and found this to be in general harmony with the RES 1 residential single family future land use category.

Sincerely, Stanford Planning Board, Jennifer Gazino, Chair.

Thank you.

Nice.

Welcome, uh Turney Brayman and um Mr.

DeAndrea.

Um thank you for uh being here tonight.

Um I assume that uh attorney you'll be presenting this initially.

Oh please proceed.

Uh thank you.

Um for the record, uh Lenny Brayman with the law firm of Waffe Rosen for the applicant uh 35 Terrace LLC.

Um good evening, Mr.

Chair, members of the zoning board, uh Mr.

Blessing, and uh the public.

Um the uh the applicant and the owner of the property at 35 Terrace Avenue um seeks to um proceed with a special permit to obtain a special partner for an independent living facility or ILF cluster home development at 35 Terrace Avenue under Section 4 of the Stanford Sony regulations.

With me tonight are uh the owner's principal, Luigi Altamura, Lindy Andrea, uh our engineer of record, Matt Pop, our landscape architect, Jiahua, our architect, and a traffic engineer from AKRF.

Also with me is my colleague Julie Ludwig.

And I'll call on people uh as needed uh in response to questions or to present.

Uh we're pleased to present you to this application.

The applicant wants to develop uh this uh property, redevelop it into a small community for seniors and people with disabilities with a total of six units versus two as of right.

Uh the project has uh attractive landscaping, a state of the art new drainage system, and would be an improvement uh to the neighborhood.

Uh the property would be permanently deed restricted as an independent living facility, and it will be inhabited full time by individuals where in each home one individual qualifies as a senior or has a proven disability, uh according from your regulations.

Uh similar to the wire mail development that was approved recently.

There would be no short-term rentals or accessory dwelling units.

One floor of each unit will be accessible as required by the regs and have the kitchen, one bedroom, and a full bathroom on that level.

And that was confirmed by the building official, uh, Mr.

Ireland.

I wanted to thank Miss Methor as well uh for her comprehensive staff report, uh, which does recommend approval.

Um may I share my screen.

Uh yes, sure.

Thank you.

So here if you can see my screen, uh, this is just orienting us to the project area.

Um the site is uh between Long Ridge and High Ridge Roads, just a few blocks north of Whole Foods.

The prop the property is uh just a little over an acre, 44, um 431 square feet, 1.02 acres.

It is currently in the R10 zone, but it does abut the R7 and a half zone to the west.

Uh it's residential single family and uh res one in the uh the comprehensive plan.

It previously contained a single family dwelling and now it's an empty lot.

Uh turning to the uh the aerial uh from from Google, you can see where the property lies uh on Terrace Avenue between Long Ridge and High Ridge.

It's um near several large commercial and institutional uses.

Um the medical facility uh to to the to the west, the Goddard School to the east.

And uh this is just one of the site photos that we submitted in the applicant the application uh looking north uh uh from Terrace Avenue.

Here is the uh landscape plan, which as you know, we often uh use um to give a sense of the site plan, but I also have the civil plans available if we need more detail.

So um, this is the a color landscape rendering by Mr.

Pop showing the six units, and uh three of them would be uh one car garage.

It's uh dwellings A, B, and C, and three uh would be two car garage D E and F.

Otherwise very similar um between the the two different home types, although although uh they are articulated in terms of how they would look um in color scheme and so forth, which you'll see in the renderings.

Although only six parking spaces are required, one per unit, uh the project does provide nine garage spaces because of the two car garages.

The project is as you can see, a small cluster of single family homes.

It presents no negative impact on traffic, parking, or other aspects of the area.

It's uh heavily landscaped.

And um, in connection with traffic, uh at the request of traffic transportation and parking bureau, we um uh Mr.

Button Weezer, we did submit a traffic generation letter from AKRF, our traffic engineers, which is in the record, confirming that there would be uh negligible impact on traffic from the additional uh dwellings, uh, considering two two homes could be built as of right.

Um, and you know, in the R10 zone, if you just go by by density, 40,000 or you know, 43,000 square feet, um, 10,000 uh foot lots just by by density, that would be four.

Um, but certainly um uh even an increase of uh four dwellings here versus the two as of right, uh negligible increase in traffic.

As you saw from the staff memo, we've also got approvals from for the fire marshal.

Uh, we got technical feedback from engineering, which we addressed, and uh as um Mr.

Morris read into the record with the planning board board unanimously found the project consistent with the master plan.

Um I'd like to uh give you a sense of what the project will would look like if completed uh through our our renderings, uh, which are in the record.

Um I'm just gonna flip through them, and of course, if there's any questions, we can always go back to one of these renderings.

Here you have a view sort of edge on of the the three of the uh six units.

This is uh a close up of the uh the rear of the unit, one of the units showing the patio and uh some screening.

This is uh a view of uh one of the units uh showing uh the garage and the driveway.

This is another uh similar view of the two car garage unit versus the one car garage unit.

And this is uh simulated aerial view showing uh Terrace Avenue and the project in in contacts with the neighborhood.

So with that, I'd like to uh to turn it over to Mr.

D'Andrea to walk through the site plan.

Uh, if you if you would, and I I do have the site plan available, or the civil the full civil set.

Uh so as you like, Mr.

DeAndre.

Okay, well maybe it's easier if I share my screen.

That's fine too.

I'll stop it a try.

As I'm doing that, um, good evening.

My name is Leonard D'Andrea with D'Andrea Survey Engineering PC, and we have been providing the land surveying engineering services for the applicant.

Um, let's see if I can make this work.

Okay.

Um the first uh screen I'm showing here.

You here is the existing conditions.

And the site is about um 120 feet wide, and it's about 380 feet long, and it has a um gradual drop from the rear to the front of only about 16 feet, which is pretty important in this design because of accessibility that we'll get to in a second.

Um, it is as stated, two acres in the um quarter acre or R10 district.

And there was formerly one house on it.

It was subdivided fairly recently into two lots.

The house has since been uh raised, demolished under a permit.

Yeah, let's see.

I'll go to the uh zoning location survey and blow it up a little bit for you.

This is uh a fairly good picture of what we're proposing here.

Excuse me one sec.

Yes, sir.

Going back to your first uh slide.

Sure.

Um the existing are those what were the existing trees on the uh property?

Yes, exactly.

This this survey is um dated back in uh September was the original survey date.

And the dwelling and um the trees are shown on here were um there at that time.

Okay, so you completed the the subdivision of this property.

We did not complete the subdivision.

The subdivision was done prior to our uh client buying it.

And the proposal that we're gonna go forward tonight would then be ultimately consolidating this these two back into one.

Okay, so the previous owner did the subdivision.

That is correct.

All right.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

And uh going back, let's say I wanted to go to the zoning location survey.

Um, this is done nice.

This is nice and clean, and it shows how we're spacing out each unit.

Uh it's just always great if we can get some separation between each unit.

And these are spaced about seven feet apart.

The area that I'm pointing to right now, we've learned over time, it's not wide enough to plant.

So we've decided to put a hardscape material down, that being like a crushed stone, so good for absorption.

Don't have to worry about weeds.

We also did a little staggering here.

If you look closely, and it's not a lot, but it's something staff uh was suggesting, and it does make a difference as you look down the driveway.

It's not just one perfectly lined group of buildings.

Uh then we uh as it just mentioned, we would be we have prepared a draft of the consolidation map, but of course that wouldn't be filed uh unless we were approved.

And going back to the civil set of plans.

This is uh the development plan.

And one of the um challenges, I guess you could call it, but it's it's a it's a great section of the regulations for this type of of uh housing where you're trying to minimize any any thresholds, any in any steps.

And so even though we had 16 feet of change of grade, as we come up through the property, each unit has to be designed so that we can pull in with a nice level driveway.

Then let me blow this up just a little bit more.

Okay, and from the driveway, uh get into our garage, and there's virtually no change of grade.

If you look closer, this garage elevation at the door is 133.4.

The step into the um porch um or onto the porch is 133.6, and that's just two to two and a half inches or so.

And then from there, just a little bit of a threshold into the first floor itself.

Then out the back, 133.7 is the first floor, just a little change of grade into the patio in the back.

And then you'll notice that um these units are proposing basements, the BF.

And that's a great amenity because typically these are empty nesters, but they also typically bring along a few extra pieces of luggage, and they need a place to store it.

So we're gonna, I think we're gonna find that this is actually a great premium to have in a great amenity.

So each unit also, like I said, um has a patio in the back because of this grade change and wanting to provide level areas.

We have these little short walls in between each unit, and on top of that would be a small privacy fence.

The wall, um, in order to create this, you see a bit of a grade change in here.

So we have proposed a retaining wall along this westerly line and full disclosure.

Um, the part of these walls have been built.

You'll see that in the lighter shade of the wall.

At the time that we filed these plans, this section here in the front was still proposed, and I believe that's been completed as well.

And what that wall does for us is a couple things again.

Um it levels out these yards.

You can see how there's very few contouring in here.

It's a very nice level backyard for people to come in and back, you know, back and forth.

Well, at the same time, it levels it out.

So we see the landscaping plan, it really provides a nice area to do that screening and enhancement of vegetation.

The uh to go to the uh drainage plan now.

Yes, before we do that, what are those kind of circular symbols there with the parallel lines?

Let's see.

Uh, is it here you're talking about?

No, to the farward, it'll be easy.

Um sorry, go ahead.

Go to the right.

Oh, go to the right.

Okay.

Right there.

Oh, right here.

Now to your left, right in the middle of the dwelling D.

You see, is that go up?

Oh, you almost had the lines that what that symbol is there.

Oh, yeah.

Is this right?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay.

Um again, when we prepared these plans originally, trees were there.

And also, uh, even if they weren't working with engineering, we're we're not trying to hide anything in the way of taking advantage of a of a of a site that has had trees removed.

So these are this processing in here shows that these were trees that we would have proposed to remove even if we hadn't already.

Again, this one falls right in the unit.

These were in the driveway, these were in an area where we wanted to fill anyway.

So did I answer your question?

Okay, how about the ones on the right?

Over here?

Yes.

So it all these uh again, the trees have been removed, but all these um we're making sure you understand that these trees were there and that they um were scheduled to be removed, and in fact, have been removed.

Okay, we'll get back to those.

Sure.

Okay.

Then I was jumping down to our uh drainage plan.

This is um a more um detailed plan, utility plan.

And in here now we have a lot more lines in here.

Uh, but what we're showing in here is as we start from the back, we have some subtle grading.

The wall captures any runoff and directs it down um towards the southerly side of the property.

Whereas under existing conditions, some of this drainage would slide off towards the west.

So this now protects our neighbors to the west.

And we actually have a decrease in runoff towards the Westley properties.

We did have very good soils out there and uh blowing up a little bit more here.

Each one of these little symbols represents where we took a made an excavation into soil so we could read the soils.

And um our reviewing engineer Susan Kiskin is very thorough, and you can see that we have test pits in this array here.

This is an infiltration system, as one well as one in every single one that we're posing in the driveway.

And these in the driveway are a bit of a cascading effect.

Uh, one fills up overflows to the next and infiltrates into the soil.

Theoretically, there always seems to be theoretically um additional runoff control so that we don't increase the peak rate of discharge.

That will uh tie into the city system, which happens to be in the shoulder of our side of the road, which means we have very, very little disturbance into the roadway.

That even goes uh with the sewer line.

So each unit will come out uh of their uh unit with a its own lateral, and there'll be a clean out as the WPCA would like us to have, and then connect them to what we call a you know, a private common collector line, come down towards the front, and again tie into the existing sewer lateral, which is recommended by the WPCA, so that we won't have to cut into the street.

So that's another positive.

Um on the westerly side, we'll bring in the gas line, and we'll also bring in the water line.

The gas line would be a fairly shallow uh cut, so that would go quickly.

And unfortunately, gas line is on the southerly side of the road.

So that's the probably one of the most disturbances in the road, probably gets done in about two days, and they just do one section at a time so the traffic continues to flow.

Uh garages.

Uh, let's see.

Let me go to the planting plan now because that's a much prettier one than I have.

And we touched on this briefly, but um, this is another nice design feature.

We have one car garages for each.

Plus, because we have the uh available land area, um, our client asked us to see if we could put two car garages, some of these units.

So these back three units do have the two-car garages.

We have uh an extra wide mouth so that we have the fire vehicles being able to turn in.

We've provided this little area here that will have a mailbox stand, and this will allow also for delivery trucks to pull in, back out and go back out onto terrace.

So we won't have to back into the road.

Uh, but also each one of these driveways, we always try to see if we can make these about 18 feet long.

Now that's a full parking space.

And the whole idea is we do not need it for the parking count, but it's nice to be able to come in, drop off, maybe it's family visiting for a little bit of time without having to worry about not having enough room and then seeing people park in the driveway itself.

So we can keep this nice and clear.

All the way in the back, we push this back farther.

So there's always a concern about snow removal.

And this is a site that we do not want to be pushing the snow back out into the street.

So we have um, I'll get into the shoulder in a second, but we have an area fairly deep where we can push the snow into this back location here too.

Uh the fire marshal, we met with them.

They are satisfied with this design.

What we have is a 16-foot wide driveway.

And in addition to that, we don't have any curves on this westerly side where I'm pointing to now.

And we have a low curve on the right side with a shoulder.

So we easily have a full 20 feet, so that should a fire vehicle come in, they can uh span out their rigors and drop them down and have enough stable ground for doing all that.

So Len has the um the city department seen the turning um diagram for fire trucks.

Has the fire marshal seen that and yeah, we we um yes, we've submitted those both as um electronically and hard copy, and I'll bring those up.

I I happen to have those for you tonight.

Um, this is the delivery trucks.

We wanted to show how the mail, the mail uh vehicles now are fairly small, but we all know about the the Amazon, the bigger ones, and so this is what this turning movement plan is.

It's a DL, which is a delivery truck, and that can come in and then back around and go out.

That's for that vehicle, and then we also did one for the large fire vehicle, shows how you can actually make this turn in here being 16 feet wide and 25 feet wide at the mouth.

So that's it going over the curve there.

Um, no, that that's that how do you see the that's the overhang of the vehicle?

No.

So this dashed line right here.

See the little dash line pointing to now, and that's the wheel path.

That's the actual wheel path.

That's like a little bit of the overhang.

You follow that?

Yeah.

Okay.

Um go back to the or attractive landscape plan.

I believe, oh uh, last thing I should not uh miss out on uh describing briefly.

We had comments from um EP Br.

Clausey, and uh this is our separate landscaping or rose control, sorry, not landscaping, a rose control plan.

And this back out this a bit.

This project will be constructed fairly quickly.

They are small footprints.

The soil, um we only found a little bit of ledge that could be considered up in this area we're pointing to now.

We did some recent test bits here for these extra areas infiltration units, and we found very good gravelly soil.

So the digging will go quickly in a job like this.

You want to get all your foundations in, tidy up around that.

But we have uh sill fencing going in here.

Soon this wall would be built.

And once this front wall is built, this site then became comes totally contained by this wall here, the front wall and a side wall here, and then we just need to manage this driveway.

So this is what we call an anti-tracking pad.

We have um also some check dams along the way until the pavement gets done.

Uh lots of silk fencing.

So I think um we're doing a good job as to address um the sedimentation erosion controls or the sedimentation travel that can happen during a construction site.

Again, the good news is this should move fairly quickly.

And I believe that's um a fairly good summary of what we uh were charged with and certainly available to answer any questions you may have.

I have a question.

Could you please go back to the landscape plan you showed a moment ago?

Sure.

Okay, great.

At the bottom there, um, there's some blue circles in the middle.

What are those?

Well, if you're done with me, I'm sure we can turn it over to the landscape architect to explain this far better than I can.

That's actually a perfect segue because that's where I was going next.

Uh so if you have any engineering questions, if not, I'll turn it back over to Attorney Brayman and he will hand off the uh baton.

Thank you.

Could you possibly show us the setbacks to neighboring properties from your buildings?

Uh let's see.

Um, I don't think Mr.

Boris, I have I don't think I have a good one for doing that.

Maybe back to the aerial if and I don't have that.

I'll give it back to Len Brayman then for that.

Uh uh, this one has the setback lines, right?

Well, I'm sorry, if you meant just the setback lines, yes, we have that.

All right, let me go back.

Yeah, the ZLS would be the best.

Uh okay.

So we have on the ZLS, we have a zoning table, and then down here, and I'll blow this up, Mr.

Morris, so you can see it a bit better.

Uh we have the building envelope here, and you'll note that this on the westly side is a 15-foot side setback, which is an increase of five feet over what the standard R10 side yard would be.

Don't mean to interrupt, but it's also uh a bigger setback than existing.

Uh the house was uh closer closer to the neighboring property line.

Right here, that's correct.

We're moving it back.

Right.

And then this is relevant, but okay.

No, sorry.

And then of course, the on the east side, it doesn't really matter.

That's where we're replacing a driveway.

But what is nice to note is that in that 16 feet, we've left quite a bit of room over here.

And this you'll see in the landscaping plan gives us a shoulder that we're we're looking for for the fire outriggers, plus plenty of uh room to screen.

And then in the back, again, here's your 35-foot rear uh setback.

Okay.

All right, with that, I'll stop sharing and turn it back over to attorney Brayman.

Uh so I'd like to get some um Mr.

Rustin's question.

So uh could we uh I guess we already have Mr.

Pott uh promoting the presenter.

So uh uh Matt, would you like to put up uh your landscape plan or would you like me to?

Um if maybe if you could if you don't mind.

I'm gonna start at the street and kind of work uh counterclockwise around the site, and we'll get to those uh bluish circles.

Matt, let's uh introduce yourself directly Matt Pop landscape architect from environmental land solutions.

We're at a Norwalk.

I prepared the landscaping plan.

So if we start at the uh streetscape, um we have uh there's uh six street trees, uh there's four large growing trees, and right at the entrance, there's two smaller growing uh trees, which are cherries.

Uh, some of the trees are actually on the city property.

I think that makes it quite nice because there's quite a bit of room there between the property line, the wall, and the uh road that provides the shading of the uh road, hopefully.

Umce we get into the site, when we go down the uh eastern property line.

So if you're driving down the driveway onto the uh right hand side, we have uh 10 deciduous trees, which are large growing shade trees, and then uh those blue uh circles are an evergreen magnolia.

I thought that maybe you have an evergreen right there, provide just a little bit more uh screening from the where the uh where the uh barrages are double uh wide.

Um so when we get uh keep going to the northern property line, uh right along the northern property line.

We have uh arbor bides, uh trying to the solid evergreen, just trying to screen headlights uh coming down the road from hitting the property to the north.

Uh then between if you just move off that property line, just a little bit to the south.

We have deciduous trees.

Uh when we get to the rear of the property, uh, or the the eastern side, I mean the western side, we have some birch trees uh lining uh the site, and there's a couple of American hollies just to provide additional screening.

Um right in the front of the units, we have again additional small flowering uh cherry trees.

Um all together, I think uh Len mentioned that we uh 48 trees were removed.

Uh we're proposing uh 62 uh new trees that includes uh 18 green giant uh arborbides, uh five uh the evergreen magnolia, uh six uh American hollies, and the rest of the trees are uh deciduous uh trees.

Um it's uh I was pretty pleased again with those evergreens on the uh eastern property line.

Normally we don't have you know, there's not enough room for planting, um, or there's overhead utility lines, and so that I think will provide a fairly attractive uh a buffer up to the neighbors to the uh eat to the east.

Um we have foundation plantings around the site, uh the utility boxes.

There's two of them proposed.

Uh those are screened with uh um uh uh the uh holly it's a steed holly gross about you know five to six feet in height.

Um if the boxes get relocated, the plants get relocated uh with them.

Um tried to keep mainly uh native uh plants.

Uh the cherry trees uh aren't native, but uh, those are just small growings I kept with those, but all of the shade trees, uh the black gums, the oaks, uh the lindens, the river birch, uh those are all uh native.

This so if there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

The ones not native, are they considered invasive?

The the native ones, no, the native um is good, so they're not the non the non-native, the non-wins, no, the cherries, no.

No.

So okay.

But yeah.

Um, Peter, keep going.

Um it it's it's probably insignificant.

But I'm looking at this um landscaping plan that was submitted, the hard copy, and where you've got those evergreens that are in the middle on the plan that I'm looking at, it was just larger, what looks like deciduous trees.

And I'm curious as to why those were changed.

Might have gotten the um this is the the plan was revised.

Um so those uh those hollies were I mean, those uh magnolians were originally in the uh bioterrorist app, but there's underground detention proposed there.

So I didn't want to remove the trees from the count, so we shifted them to keep the same uh trees that were proposed the same numbers.

Okay.

And that's another reason why those uh the black dumps kind of got pushed towards the street, which I think is a great feature.

And you've got how many street trees?

Six four large crowing and two uh smaller ones, and there's a street tree chart.

Yeah, you know, 30 feet credit for the large 20 foot credit for the smaller.

Why are some of them set back street?

Uh set back the two of them are uh um three of them.

Three of them are set towards the towards the road.

Uh those just to keep them away from the underground detention galleries, which are kind of the empty green space.

Okay.

Um are there sidewalks there?

No.

Putting in side no sidewalks are proposed.

Okay.

Um are there any further questions for Mr.

Pop?

Um I wanted to uh just uh confirm quickly the uh project meets all the special permit factors, it's consistent with the neighborhood, it's near nearby to commercial and institutional areas, and it's a staff report notes.

It's accessible to retail and services.

Um the property is located in uh res one uh master plan uh category residential single family.

And uh that is consistent with, among other things, uh senior housing, cottage clusters and small scale infel.

Um this is the planning board's approval letter, which was read into the record, and just a couple of quotes from the comprehensive plan.

Um so this uh type of cottage cluster uh is known as uh middle housing.

It is um a desirable uh type of senior living because um it is you know consistent with and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood.

Um the uh the comprehensive plan, of course, uh talks about uh opportunities for uh flexible housing models for the elderly in locations that are accessible to transit um and enhanced opportunities for senior housing.

Uh we have two uh bus lines on Long Ridge and uh uh high rates that are uh nearby to the development.

Uh obviously uh the population of Stanford is uh aging, like many communities uh Connecticut and throughout the country.

Uh and as the staff report uh agrees, this project would address the growing need for senior housing uh and the um goal of uh more places more uh developments in which seniors can age a place and it diversifies uh housing typologies as well.

Um the um the legal standard for special permit is well known to this uh board, obviously.

Uh you sit in your administrative capacity, you determine whether the proposal meets the special permit requirements and the regulations here, including section four, which it does and section two C2, which it does.

And I think that is clear from the record and what's been submitted in the testimony tonight.

Um happy to take further questions uh or to turn it over to the public.

Okay.

Uh Bill, the uh questions?

Yeah, is this gonna be for ownership?

Good question.

So the plan is for it to be ownership, in which case it would definitely be um a planned community and would have uh homeowners association that would um control the common areas and there would be uh shared um maintenance responsibility.

Um the owner is not um the applicant is not taking a bonus, uh not uh seeking a bonus for ownership.

Um he does want to reserve the right uh to to um have them be rental or to have them be rental for uh some period of time.

So we haven't committed uh to ownership, but the ownership is the is definitely the plan that they all be ownership units and a planned community.

Therefore, in the case that for some reason one of them has to be rented.

Um how would you therefore verify that the renters meet the senior living requirement or handicap?

How would you do that?

Uh well, uh I think that the first uh part of the answer is that uh the restriction requires that whether it's owned or rented, uh one of the one of the occupants has to meet the requirement of a senior person over 55 or person uh with a disability.

So whether that's uh done by the owner and the process of uh renting, um obviously uh this the deed restriction and the uh zoning approvals give the city of Stanford uh jurisdiction uh to enforce that as well.

But the owner um uh obviously in that the rental process can can require that.

Um and certainly in the sale process uh would require it, and the homeowners association would require it as well.

I have a question.

Let's suppose that an owner who was uh compliant with the age restrictions rented to somebody who was not.

Who would be enforcing that?

I think in the first instance, it would be the uh the owner and uh it's also within the jurisdiction of the city of Stanford.

The uh it would be a violation not only of the uh the deed restriction, but of the uh the special department approval.

So the owner wouldn't be enforcing it because they're the one who's renting it.

So let's you have a non-compliant owner who says, okay, I'm 65, I'm gonna rent it in 20 year olds.

So it would be up to the city to enforce that.

Uh not in the first instance.

I I would think that first of all, the obviously the goal is for this to be uh ownership.

Sure.

We did we did not you know to take the ownership uh bonus, but um I think the the intent is for this to be ownership.

Um this is a new regulation, obviously for Stanford.

I think there's only one other approved uh independent living facility at Wire Mill.

Um, I I think that the the regulation does allow the flexibility for ownership, and it gives a bonus and incentive to provide for ownership units, but it does not require um that they be ownership, it allows for the possibility of rental.

So if there's conditions of approval that this uh board wants to impose, that would require um you know the uh the policing of the tent uh to make sure that not only the deed restriction but the special permit approval is uh comply with, uh then that that's something obviously if it's consistent with the regulations requirement that that these only be rent rented to people with a disability or somebody over 55.

That's something that that we would have forced to buy by.

Okay.

Um I'm good.

Okay.

Can I get a couple of questions?

Um could you run through the materials for us?

Sure.

What I might like to do, uh I I know generally the materials that we've used, uh, you know, um, but I wanted uh I probably want to turn it over to the uh the principal, uh Mr.

Alfamura.

Yeah, it should be in the hands.

Yes, it is uh so we can pull up or maybe uh pull up the uh architecturals.

So do you want me to promote Mr.

Altamura?

That would be great, Mr.

Blessing.

Thank you.

Uh and I have uh the two sets of plans up, one a sample each for the two different types of units, and we can see some of the materials here.

Uh but maybe rather than me narrating it, we can have the uh the developer narrate it himself.

Can you make it a little larger?

Yes.

How's that?

Better.

Good evening, everyone.

So sorry, can you for the record, please introduce yourself?

Luigi Altamura.

From where?

From Altamoro Homes, and I'm the owner of uh single owner of 35 Terrace LLC.

Okay.

So the what we did was um we have just for materials to start out, all the units are using hardy board um siding with ASAC trim and asphalt roofs.

The uh color schemes, we have six units with in a total of three color schemes.

So we have um a white hardy board unit, we have a beige ish uh color, and then we have also a gray color hardy board.

So we try to mix mix the different color schemes of not only siding, but siding and roof color as well.

So where we have a white siding, we've chosen a certain type color roof, and the same with the two other other colors.

So we think as you can probably see in the renderings, when you look at all six buildings, there's um a nice you know, difference between the units.

Um and there's also a difference in the architecture of the one-car garage unit versus the two-car garage unit.

Um, what you're looking at right now is the rear of a one-car garage unit, and you can see it has a small shed dorner dormer with a gable on the left-hand side there.

And if you were to look at the two-car garage unit, it's um a complete different elevation on the back side there.

That's it right there.

Go back one.

So this is the two-car garage unit.

Um, the two-car garage unit also has some decorative brackets, um, some different trim details, a little bit uh variation on the window pattern as well.

Um if you go to the prior slide, whoever's in charge here.

That's me.

Lenny, um, I just wanted to show the back of the unit, the the difference between uh the one-car garage and this one.

One second.

So this is the one car garage unit rear, which we saw, and were you able to pull up the two the rear of the rear elevation of the two cars?

Yes.

Right there.

So you can you know just see the difference in the architectural style of the units.

Um again, we also just keeping on the architectural style, um, cottage style.

We tried to keep the the ridge, uh the ridgeline of the roof fairly low.

Um, so you know, off the top of my head, uh Gia might be able to know, but we're we're well below the um height uh limitation for the ridge there.

Um so uh, you know, again, just trying to keep with the the street and make this a good looking cluster of homes in terms of architectural style colors, that's what we were looking to do.

Okay, you refer to some of these as type A and others as type B.

Um that has nothing to do with the uh disability requirements, does it?

That is correct, correct.

Okay, it's just a one car and two car.

Yeah, we should just yeah, one car and two car will simplify uh things for our conversation, but I know what you are referring to in terms of the type B.

What level of disability requirement is being met here?

Um when um the building official, Mr.

Ireland reviewed our plans, he said we are um definitely have reached the type B requirement, and I believe he said also potentially can also be very close to a type A, which would be you know, a level up from a type B where those were his comments um after the plans.

Yeah, I saw that I don't think you get to level A either, but um that it requires um a lot more uh interior accommodation.

Um there's there's steps into the house, um, and I guess steps out the back.

Um are those permitted on a level B.

Yeah, so I you know there I guess I I should ask Ralph.

Do you know?

I do not know.

Okay.

Um where are you seeing the um steps?

Just so we can all reference.

Yeah, I'd like to ask that same question.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, when it was described before I uh he said there were two steps up one of the uh you're referring to my comments.

There I was talking about a differential of about an inch or so, a point one differential.

Uh no, no steps.

There are no steps actually that you would take to get into the unit from the garage or outside the garage into the front door.

And no pack as well out the patio.

Same thing right off the pad patio.

There's basically a one-inch differential.

So an ADA differential in my book.

So what's the what happened between the bottom of the door and that heavy black line?

Um can we go to our site plan by any chance?

Yes.

Okay.

And then uh just the great, yeah.

So blow this up.

Um quite large if you can there.

Raven.

This is uh the development plan.

No, okay, very good.

Let's take any unit like let's take unit C right in the middle.

Um again, we'll we'll show you the garage, the garage floor at the door is 136.7.

And then we have the ability with the driveway to get over to the landing, no steps, a little bit of a ramping effect.

And then to the front.

One of you mentioned there going out, but okay.

If I if if I said it, I said it by mistake, no steps at all.

That that's the key to this design.

No steps in the house or to the back patio as well.

We're talking about a tenth differential between one side of a door and the other.

Yeah, that's uh good point, Mr.

Dimit d'Angre.

If you compare the elevations throughout uh each of the units with uh the base elevation for the uh property, Mr.

Stein, when you're when you were referring to the uh prior architectural plans and you said you were referring to the heavy line, or I'm not sure what you were maybe.

Well, why don't you why don't you go back to it and I'll show you.

So we uh if I may, we we did we caught this in the renderings, and even if you show the renderings, you'll see how that's there's a smooth uh stepless transition from one garage, let's say to the front door.

I'm not sure if you have that.

I'll show the renderings next, if that's uh acceptable.

Okay, okay.

So uh when you go out those doors, it's level the ground.

The patio.

Yeah, so there's one thing to keep in mind.

The patio, you know, obviously has to be built.

The patio will be built level to the door, and then of course there has to be some transition to the grass or the grade.

So when you're looking at an architectural plan like this, you may have seen the patio, let's say a line that refers to the patio, because of course, from the patio, then you have to have some transition to the grass.

So I I think that's what we were looking at on the prior screen.

I think.

Okay.

Um we just need to make sure that someone is disabled that they can easily move in and out of the house.

Of course.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um attorney bring why are why are there no sidewalks provided?

Well, there's no obviously no sidewalks existing.

Uh the regulations do not require uh the uh creation of a sidewalk uh for a project of this nature.

Can you no side show me the regulation you're referring to?

Uh it would be in section 12.

Let me well, uh, the independent living facility regulation does not require uh sidewalks.

I also wanted to mention that uh T T we have other requirements though, besides uh it's in it's in section 12k.

Um and uh the R10 does not require sidewalks, it's in the exemptions.

Thank you, Mr.

Blasing.

But I also wanted to note um that TTP did not recommend any any uh improvements.

Yeah, that's not relevant if it's our requirement.

That is true.

T T T T P does not um can't change them.

That is true.

Um so I'm sorry, you're in what section?

Uh 12k.

Let me get you the exact uh it's in section 12k4.

Okay, that's the exemption section.

A three so um it's uh shall be exempt from the sidewalk requirements.

Um and then when we're in the R 10.

We in the R 10, yes.

Okay.

Um my last question to do with the um the trees that were remote.

And um why were they taking out the subdivision approval said to keep them in where possible?

I'll I'll address that in the first instance, Mr.

Chair.

So the subdivision approval did uh state that um to the extent possible the trees were to be preserved.

Um the applicant did not intend to proceed with the subdivision.

Perhaps if the the lots had been consolidated first, um then there would be no subdivision at all.

But um the the applicant proceeded um to um obtain the demolition permit and pursue approval of this project, uh which obviously has the uh design for removal of uh 48 trees and then the replacement with 62.

Um you're still under the subdivision approval, it didn't go well that is that is true.

So that was premature, Mr.

Chair.

So um it looked to me like there were some trees that could have been preserved that are out of the footprint of the uh the homes there.

I'm gonna let uh Mr.

D'Andrea speak to that a little bit.

As he uh mentioned during his presentation, there are uh um and many trees that obviously would have had had to have been removed in any event.

Um, and then you know the there are others that were that were removed, I think.

You know, and uh an abundance of caution, but um Yeah, well, that doesn't meet the requirement of the subdivision approval, but I'm happy to let's hear from Mr.

D'Andrea.

Um sure.

Uh why honestly, when you look at the um all the work that goes into leveling out the site from unit to unit to unit, there is a lot of grading.

In all fairness to your question, I think if you went to the back end of the driveway, you might find two or three trees that we might have been able to preserve had they not been removed.

Look like more than that.

Why don't you put it up?

Please uh yeah, let me do it here.

It's easier for me then.

Um I go right here.

Okay, I didn't go back to my silver plants.

Uh and this is just fine on this one here, uh blow it up here.

Oops, a little too much.

Um you've seen all this grading in here.

And again, one of the things we have to do here, these designs of the foundations, um, the way it's built, you actually have in the foundation itself uh a shelf, and you're trying to get the required differential between the ground and the wood to a minimum.

Standard um construction, you would put your floor joists on top of the foundation, and then that differential between a finished floor and the exterior grade has to be about 21 inches.

So when we're stepping these foundations, we're really getting that grade down.

We've got to do a lot of work in between to move the grade around so that we can get drainage around it and still keep everything as level as possible.

So as I say to you, as we come in here along this side here, um, there is some grading in here.

Maybe we might have been able to do a couple trees here, but they might have probably most likely died within five years.

I point out these two trees back here for sure.

Those could have been protected, maybe this tree with a tree well.

But other than that, as you look down through here, uh utility services come in, wall being built, the trees had to come down.

They would have had to come down.

No, I understand that most of them did, but it in terms of preserving others where possible, it looks like there's six or those.

Um the only other kind I'll make it.

I don't think it complied with the approval.

And the only other comment I'd make to that when you do have areas that have grown in that second growth, when you start leaving one or two behind, um, I always remember Stone Gate subdivision being a good example of my younger years.

You have um a trunk, and way up top you have a canopy.

And in this case here, we're we're coming back with a totally replacement uh landscape design that in very short amount of time it will start to mature out.

Right, but you lose larger mature trees and you plant much smaller younger trees.

So it's not a one per one.

Um obviously.

Uh you're right.

You're right.

There's a period of time.

You're right.

The only other thing I note is that Mr.

Closy for EPB uh recommended the addition of uh six additional trees, uh large shape trees and understory, and we complied immediately.

So that was added to the plan, and we will plant them.

Right.

But now you're the uh zoning board, and um we'll discuss that during our uh deliberation.

Understood, Mr.

Chair.

Um I think that's all got it.

Um Bill or um no, I'm almost set.

Peter, anything?

I almost said I'm good, thank you.

Oh, so let's go to the public.

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

Um when you're called on, if you would please give us your name and address for the record.

Um be good.

So um Ralph, why don't you uh take it away?

You unmute.

Oh, sorry, we have Ms.

Moeller first.

Hi everyone.

Um, my name is Jaclyn Moeller, and my husband and I live at 7 Jessup Street.

That's directly west of the 35 Terrace property.

Just for the record, a petition amongst the neighbors has been submitted opposing this plan, and we have 22 signatures, which represents over 20% of the residential homes within 500 feet of the subject property.

A few major concerns that we want to note.

For those who haven't been to the site, Terrace Avenue is a very small through street between Long Ridge and High Ridge Roads.

Currently, Waterstone is 150 units senior living on High Ridge and Mosaic Senior Living is being built on Long Ridge and will consist of just over 200 units.

So together there will be over 350 senior living units on both ends of Terrace Avenue.

While the traffic study was done, it only took into account the six proposed units, not the additional 200 plus that will be using Terrace Avenue as a through street next year.

Next, there's an extreme lack of understanding on who will be enforcing the senior living requirement.

If these are rentals, or if the owner rents out the property, and if the project is rentals, who will be maintaining the units?

The current rules only state one person in the dwelling must be senior or disabled.

This could very well allow a young family to move into the community with an older parent, and we could potentially have 40 new neighbors in these six units.

Lastly, the proposed project sits on a one-acre lot where the owner plans to cram in six 2,000 square foot homes.

These homes will be two stories.

Not only will this greatly impact the character and density of the neighborhood, but for us, we'll now have two homes facing into our backyard with 10 windows each looking directly into our house.

This is a significant privacy issue.

So my husband and I strongly oppose this project and the six units being built.

We think the current proposal will be more of a hindrance rather than an advancement to the community.

Um so we hope that the board takes this into consideration when making the decision to grant this permit.

Okay, thank you.

Next we have Mr.

Yeager.

Okay, why don't we well for Mr.

Yeager?

Is there an else?

Ralph.

Yes.

Oh, yes, we can hear you.

Could you hear me now?

Yes.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Stein, Mr.

Rustin, Mr.

Blessing, Mr.

Morris, Luigi, Mr.

D'Andrea.

Um, thank you for listening to me.

Uh I've been here 60 years.

Uh I but the back end of the project.

Um the biggest thing with me is the traffic.

Um that's going to be going up and down Tierrace Avenue.

I do face high ridge road.

I exit to High Ridge Road.

Um, could I ask a question to the builder?

Uh what is the thick, the width of that driveway.

Okay.

The way this works is give us all of your comments and questions.

Oh, I'm sorry.

And and then we will answer them, or the the applicant will answer them when the public is finished.

So get them all at once.

Okay, thank you.

Um, I do have issues with traffic.

Um Terrace Avenue.

Sometimes I go down Terrace Avenue and the lights are backed up five, six cars.

It lets out three cars.

I gotta wait again.

You come up high ridge road, I mean uh Long Ridge Road to High Ridge Road, and you have to wait two or three lights to get out to take a right or a left onto the high ridge road.

Um the traffic conditions here have gotten worse.

And with the building of the stuff on Long Ridge Road with all uh from you if you go up from um Bullsehead to uh the Merritt Parkway, you're looking at almost a thousand units, new units going in.

And the only way to get from Long Ridge or High Ridge to Long Ridge is to go do a cut through, unless you go to the parkway, which you know most of you probably know gets pretty crazy at certain times of the day.

So it's gonna increase not just because of that lot that's being transformed, but also from what's being built on Long Ridge Road.

Um that's a bother.

The other thing is the width of that driveway, which is probably gonna be almost a two-car driveway.

I wanna I would just like to know what the length of that is from street to the very back end of that um that driveway.

Uh the reason reasoning why is I have a driveway which I plow, and it's probably 12 feet wide.

And thank god I have some room in my yard to to place the snow, which we had a lot of this year.

The other part of it, I push all the way to the island, which is on High Ridge Road, which I pile up that's probably eight feet high, uh 15 feet wide, and you know, 10 feet deep.

I don't see enough area for that driveway to be safe enough to to open up, and where are you gonna put the snow?

Uh I know at the very end I see a transformer uh which with bushes around it, and you have a little space to put snow.

I don't see the area enough to cover to to take care of that property uh with the snow removal.

Um that's another thing, but uh again the biggest thing that bothers me more than anything is you were talking about senior housing and uh disabled.

Um I don't see a big need for it.

I mean, you've got stuff on Long Ridge, you have stuff on high ridge that are coming through, and you have a lot of your seniors that can't afford to be even be here.

They're moving, they're moving to Carolinas, they're moving to Florida, and you know, you talk about senior housing, and and I just don't see the big big need for it.

And that that's my questions.

Okay, good.

They will get answered.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um next we have Mr.

Mrs.

Parmar Peter, is that a cat?

You did there.

Sorry, it's actually two cats.

Oh, okay.

Well, they're they're welcome to join.

Yeah, here they are.

Hi, um, this is Frida Permar.

We leave a 19 Jessup sheet um behind the property.

So um when we got this um initially subdivision zoning, um, we're agreed to have like a two-unit initially, now they're saying six units, which our lot is so the the back of the where the planning to build a six units, we're opposing because our property is down, and the property they're going to build, it's on the high, and there is a privacy if they're going to.

I saw the proposal.

We will have like a half and the one and a half unit, which they can see everything from the top to entire house.

So we would not have any privacy.

Other issues you're saying at the back, you your property.

It's our property, we can see the backyard up there property, basically.

From our backyard.

Are you abut the very end of this or what in the middle?

Right in the middle.

Um, 19 Jessup Street.

Okay.

Okay.

Um and you're looking for some screening.

And they can see the our entire house from bottom to the top, basically.

Okay.

Okay.

And even if we go in our back yet, they can see it.

Okay.

So we're fine having the two property, not the set.

And um, the other thing is that um there is a bus stop between the jess up and the terrace.

So the kids can go by themselves because there's no parents going with them.

And if there is a six unit building, and there will be more traffic, and it's you know, sometimes the kids, you know, parents not there, so you don't know.

And there is a resignal having a kids take the bus.

And the bucks come in the morning and in the afternoon, and it's the bus is for elementary, middle school, and the high school.

And this is strictly single family residential area, and we have been living here about 12 years um in this area and very quiet, no issue, nothing.

Um, and you know, my uh even my neighbor stammon which one is this.

Oh, 35 Jessup sheet.

Um, she's also opposing this proposal.

She could not be able to join because she's not she doesn't know how the computer works and the zoning, though she's older, so she asked me to speak on her behalf as well.

Okay, good.

Well, thank you.

And she has been, I'm sorry, she has been living here about over 35 years.

So she also opposing this.

Okay.

Thank you for calling.

Thank you.

Uh next we have Miss Jaeger.

Hi, um, thank you guys for letting me speak.

Uh, I am the daughter of James Yeager at 246, uh, where I grew up, and I now live on the front property at 242 High Ridge Road.

Um, so we have that uh conjoining lot, shared driveway.

Um so the concerns I have, I will say I have a lot of agreements with a lot of people that have spoken already, uh, specifically Jacqueline Muller.

Um pretty much just kind of want to touch base on things she kind of already mentioned, um, which would be the unknown of enforcement for age requirements uh being met and maintained.

Um I'm hearing a lot of our goals, but to me, goals versus reality can be concerning.

Um as mentioned, there's already a senior living on high ridge, and there's one being built on Long Ridge.

Uh, so that's already gonna increase traffic.

So kind of the survey they did, I feel is gonna change a bit once that second building goes up.

Um, because these streets are small and they are residential and are used for bus stops.

Uh, my son has been on Jessup and Terrace taking that bus.

Um, he cuts through the neighboring yard to avoid the main street on high ridge just to be faced with terrace becoming more of a main street, I feel like with the addition of this, it doesn't really it's a beautiful landscape.

I get that, but us where we are, it doesn't fit at all.

Um two houses would have been pushing it, six is just outrageous.

Um the street is already unallowing of two-way traffic as is, and as my dad had mentioned, you're gonna catch that light over and over, and it's just gonna back traffic in both directions on the main strips, which would be high ridge and long ridge.

Um, and to touch base and to get you an idea on Jessup Street, it is way lower than the house or the the what's being proposed.

So I guess what they're saying is they'll have a high advantage of just looking into all their back, you know, properties.

Um, so that would be a privacy concern, so I agree with that.

And the snow being pushed back to the edge of my parents' property.

Uh, I'm not sure if that can affect you know their well water contamination, the runoff of the the snow there, uh just the majority of of problems where I don't see this fitting into our community, and I've been living here 35 years, and it just doesn't seem like it fits here.

And if you look at the zoomed out portion of the photos, you could see what's here versus that, and it even from that view, unknowing of this area, it just doesn't seem like it would fit to begin with.

And it even from that view, unknowing of this area, it just doesn't seem like it would fit to begin with.

And that's it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh next, we have Mr.

Muller.

Okay.

Oh, he's he's back.

Hi, Al, can you hear me?

Yes.

All right, thank you.

Yes, for the record, this is Tommy Muller, reside at 7 Jessup Street.

We'll try to keep this brief.

Don't want to belabor the other points that the other uh neighbors have made, but we'll just list some other concerns.

So, you know, as mentioned, Terrace Avenue, definitely some traffic concerns.

You know, what I will say what hasn't been mentioned.

It's a very narrow street.

Um, residents on both sides of Terrace Park on both sides.

You know, sometimes during heavy peak traffic, I have a hard time fitting my little Mazda down the road.

Um there's no way a fire truck is going to be able to make a left or right into this driveway uh safely, frankly.

Um there are definitely concerns about the quality of the road as well.

Um and also the grade.

It's also very hilly from one end to the other, which isn't necessarily conducive for seniors.

Um I think there's some confusion, so just want to clear clarify.

Yes, gess up is the west side of the proposed property.

Um it is set down from the proposed property.

So all the backyards of the proposed properties will look down into our homes on Jessup.

They're probably a whole two, three stories above us.

So they have a massive vantage point.

Um lastly, I know the charter allows for special permits for senior living.

Obviously, when it's designed, you would like to think of you know, spirit of the rule.

I don't necessarily know by this presentation that the spirit of senior housing is here.

It seems like it's just six units that they're calling senior housing um to try to get around the limit requirement on homes.

Um there's you know, nothing really here that's signifying it as senior living.

No sidewalks are being implemented.

Um, there's nothing really there other than maybe some accessibility in the homes.

And I wonder with that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh next, we have Ms.

Rubandanera.

Good evening.

Can you hear me?

You're so wonderful.

Uh, my name is Julia Rivadinaria.

I live at 52 Terrace.

I've been here for about a year and a couple of months.

And um I find it very interesting that um we're planning to build six huge houses for disabled elderly people that have two floors.

Um, normally when you're older or disabled, unless you have elevators in these houses, um, you have difficulty going up and down the stairs.

Um, secondly, I invite um Mr.

Stein, Mr.

Blessing, Mr.

Morris, and Mr.

Rustin, to please come by and drive by our streets so that you guys can see for yourselves how traffic uh can be here on uh Terrace Avenue.

Um, mind you also, if you're disabled and there are no sidewalks and there's ongoing traffic, and there's cars parked on both sides of uh Terrace Avenue.

It's and you're on a wheelchair and there's no sidewalks, and uh and you're elderly and you want to take the bus either on Long Ridge or High Ridge, it's gonna be impossible.

You're gonna get hit.

It's a it's a it's an accident waiting to happen.

So I I think your best bet would be for you.

I I'm inviting you to please drive by our street so that you can have a better idea of what we're talking about.

One thing is to look at it in plans, and another thing is to actually drive by our street.

We invite you to please not only not only tressor, but just up too, because it's exactly what they're saying.

I really feel for them because they are their privacy is going to be totally violated because it it's just it's a humongous project.

I don't think we have space.

It's a nice idea, even though we have a new uh new um elderly homes on both ends of the street that are being built, but I don't think we need this.

There's no space for it.

I'm so sorry.

And that's all I have to say.

Have a good evening.

Thank you.

Um we have Ms.

Halpern.

Hi, this is Sue Halpern again, 30M Craft Road in the South E.

I just want to say we would love to have this project down here.

Uh we have seven and a half acres.

I just want to tell Mr.

Altamira, we have seven and a half acres down here for sale at Pacific and Woodland Avenue.

And you know, this would be a great, we'd appreciate this development down here for sure, instead of you know, high-rise.

So please take a look at the property down here.

Thank you.

Uh next we have Mr.

Adams.

Good evening.

Good evening, zoning board.

Dave Adams, uh, Glenbrook.

Um I I just wanted to how about a street?

Glenbrook Road.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I just really wanted to back up some of the residents that had spoken uh during this public hearing.

I I travel down Terrace Avenue very frequently.

And in the winter, it is not the most safest road to go down if you're going from high ridge down to Long Ridge, because once you get to the bottom of that hill, it it's uh it's a steep, it's a steep slope, and you can, you know, if it's it's icy, you could slip right into that intersection.

There is a light there, and that is a fast road, uh, even during the winter.

Um, so they're they're right when they say that the the road is hilly, and they're right that they're when they're saying that it's it's often impassable by two cars at the same time.

That is a constant condition.

I think that it's important to reflect upon the fact that Terrace Avenue is is is one of three streets north of Bullshead that people often use to avoid going through the Bull's head intersections.

That traffic is probably only going to increase uh as you see more development occur on either side of this area.

Uh I just think that is something to be of concern here.

I think the traffic flow, I think the the safety issue.

Uh, you know, one of these uh folks, if they are elderly, they get out, they go down the street.

It's it's uh it's an easy way to slip down the the, you know, slip down, get get hurt.

Uh it's very difficult to get up to that bus stop.

If this were two streets south, this would be uh a little bit of a different story, but where it is right where it is is uh it does seem a little irresponsible, just from my point of view.

And that's my those are my comments.

Thank you very much.

Have a great night.

Thank you.

Uh next we have Ms.

Waltman.

Thank you.

Good evening.

How are you all?

I just wanted to.

I got on the the meeting late.

Paul, yes, just introduce yourself and thank you.

My name is Paula Waldman.

I live on Old North Stanford Road, which is in the Bull's Head neighborhood off of Oakline Avenue.

Um, I too, and again, I'm unprepared in uh the comments except to say that I agree with what I've been hearing from the neighborhood.

I've often been in that neighborhood, not only on foot, but also driving back and forth.

It is a cut through.

Oftentimes, if I'm going from high ridge over to Long Ridge, you have to pause because um between the bumps that are put there in the road to slow traffic down and the amount of cars on either side, this would greatly increase traffic and make it quite uh a mess.

I think that the lot is a beautiful lot, and maybe something can be done where you accommodate a much lesser audience because six are homes there for the disabled, it seems an uh counterintuitive to what the scenario we have.

It's been pointed out.

Disabled people trying to get back and forth, um, just um being having the egress to get to cars and such.

So that's my thoughts.

I do think that that is a very, very busy road, and it's very tight now with parking on both sides.

Thank you.

Um we have Miss Palmar um again.

Uh, do you want to let her speak?

Sure.

Um I don't remember her speaking.

But yeah, yeah, my wife, she mentioned about the privacy, and uh she said like uh it's uh good for two residential, we are fine, but six units is too much, and I just want to add on to it.

Um my electricity bill is uh coming like 700, 600 is very high, and we don't have the gas line in our street.

So we were planning to go for the solar.

So if an hour is like uh downside, so if those houses are gonna build on the back of us, and it would totally block our sun thing, so we don't have the option for solar as well.

That's uh another point I want to bring it to you.

Okay, thank you.

Well, do we have any people?

I don't see anyone else at this time.

Uh let me check my email real quick.

Uh no one on email.

Oh, we have uh.

Are you showing Dina?

Yes, she she just raised her hand.

Um I'm allowing her to talk.

Uh hi.

This is Dina Suchu.

So I am right across from the property that is being uh planned to be built.

Um you live on uh Terrace?

Yes, I'm 28 Paris Avenue.

Okay.

Um I can say that over the years, our street had become very traffic.

Um for some reason, if I park my car in front of my house on the right side, in a few years, all my cars were damaged.

Three of them they were hit while they were parked, and they went right on top of the of the electric poles.

That's why our electric pole needs to be changed, because it has been damaged severely over the years.

Uh, luckily and thank God, nobody was in the car.

One time we just got out of the car within 10 minutes when I'm on top of the hill and they're coming from the bottom and they cannot see.

Uh, so the road is very dangerous.

Um plus these houses are gonna build sideways.

Uh, what happened to the layout of the street, which is residential per se?

Uh the traffic.

Um, and I feel sorry for all these senior citizen people, they're gonna stay there when they're gonna try to come out of their driveway and try to be on Terrace Avenue, because they will be hit, like it will be a mess.

There'll be more senior citizens damage than than they were when they're on their property.

So, my biggest concern is traffic.

Um, we wanted to make it on a one-way street, uh, but that was rejected.

And that was the reason they approved to have the bumps.

Does the bumps really help?

Not much because they zooming right through, even though you see on top it says 15 you know, miles limit.

Believe me, they zoom in through.

As far as the uh lights on both sides, high ridge and long bridge.

Yes, there's a very long wait time in a winter time, for example, when I come from work, I don't even dare to come from long ridge on the top because I will never get to so I have to go around to high reach so I can get into my street.

Uh so as I said, I don't mind.

I understand business is business, uh development are happening, but please look into it how this is really gonna be impacted on our street.

Okay.

That's all I have to say.

All right, thank you.

Uh I have no other hands at this time.

Okay.

Uh Trinity Brayman, you want to uh lead off responding to the uh public comment.

Absolutely.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, since a number of members mentioned traffic, uh, I'd like to promote the panelist, uh, Mr.

White Gerber from AKRF, traffic engineer.

Um, and I can put up um the uh traffic generation letter on my screen if it's helpful to Mr.

Gerber.

Sure.

Hi everyone, my name is Wyatt Gerber, traffic engineer from AKRF, and we just wanted to kind of touch upon this traffic engineering memorandum that you can see before you.

This was required for us to do just based on any other development.

This was based on the city's engineering department as well as the traffic and parking bureau, and it really compared two things the as of right traffic, which is two units across both lots, and the proposed six units that we have.

Based on the comparison between those two, we could see that there is a difference of only four vehicle trips, and that is the kind of the peak peak hour, as you might say, from that weekday PM.

You could see that in the AM, there's only a difference of two vehicle trips, so it's slightly less.

Now, this was based on the ITE trip generation manual.

That's kind of essentially the standard guidance for traffic engineers, and it's what's typically seen nationwide in terms of trying to decide what the anticipated uh trip generation might be for a proposed use.

Now, what that does is it assumes that these vehicles will travel across a peak hour when the adjacent roadway is also experiencing its peak traffic with this table in front of you.

You can see again, looking at that peak peak period of that weekday p.m.

that there are four an additional four vehicle trips over a peak hour.

If you were to expand this over that entire hour, that's essentially one vehicle trip every 15 minutes, which is negligible and not considered a significant impact, notwithstanding any other trips that might occur outside of that, right?

There's this is assuming that these uh trips are all occurring over this one peak hour, but it's possible that people might be leaving before the peak hour, after the peak hour throughout the rest of the day, or not drive at all.

So this is essentially more of a conservative analysis meant to try and take in what is uh essentially a worst case scenario.

Now we do want to note there is traffic congestion along long ridge and high ridge road.

We're not going to deny that, but this individual development in itself is not generating a traffic impact.

You know, those four additional peak hour trips is again not considered a significant impact.

It's very negligible.

It's hard to notice any difference from just four.

Addition, this is taken to future uh condition that this takes into account only our proposed development.

This is just a comparison between the six units proposed and the two units that could be built on the property as of right.

And again, that doing that comparison was asked upon us from the engineering department and from the traffic and parking bureau.

And I just want to mention that um, as attorney Brayman said before, there were no comments from both of those departments on this traffic memo.

So they have reviewed it and they didn't find any comments or any significant impacts.

They agreed with our assessment.

Okay.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions from Mr.

Gerber or from the board?

Otherwise, I'll turn to other responses.

No, not for me.

Thank you.

So I wanted to address some of the comments in turn.

In terms of privacy, so Mr.

Altamura has uh spoken with uh the the Mullers um and uh they are you know cooperating on uh uh restoration of the uh fence which had uh fallen into some disrepair.

Um the property line between uh the subject property and the the mullers and also uh the uh Tito property and so uh the there's uh collaboration on a small wall and uh a new fence uh both at the Altamora um company's expense.

In terms of the height, um I think it's important to note that we're actually lower the than the as of right height.

We could have two and a half stories as of right, and we are at two stories.

We could have 30 feet of height as of right, and uh as you can see from our zoning data chart and zoning tables, we are at 22.5 uh or 23.6 feet for the two different unit types.

Um if we had taken uh or if we had saw the density bonus um uh that we could have uh saw it, we could have had seven units instead of six.

Um, so that we're we're below that.

Um, and certainly we are uh in compliance uh with the density requirements of the uh uh I uh ILF regulation uh that the zoning board has enacted.

Um we uh talked about traffic with the traffic engineer.

I think it's important in terms of the need for senior housing to note that it's not only uh the comprehensive plan and uh other um key planning documents uh of the city that note the need for more uh different housing options for seniors to age in place.

It's the market as well.

And Mr.

Altamora uh wouldn't be uh doing this project if you didn't think there was a market for uh senior housing.

These are units where there's a bedroom, kitchen, uh kitchen and bathroom on the first floor, where there's no steps, um, where there's no grade change uh to go uh from uh outside the the unit into the unit and back.

And uh these types of units are ideal for seniors uh to age in place or for individuals with disabilities.

This is the uh the whole point of the ILF regulation uh that's that you have enacted.

And and it does allow not only for ownership units, well, which these are are intended to be, but also for rental.

Um, and you know, that the mere fact that uh an owner could disregard you know, for instance, the BMR regulations in you know, income guidelines for a tenant doesn't necessarily mean that you can't have uh BMR rentals, for example.

Um so uh we also um I think have have addressed um in addition to you know having the uh barriers for for screening, we have landscaping for screening, including uh with respect to the Mar property.

Um and uh I think the fire uh concerns uh have been addressed with the fire marshal and by the fire marshal in terms of the grade changes.

Um I think the development is an improvement uh versus existing conditions because now we have retaining uh retaining walls, we have a new drainage system.

Uh actually heard from uh neighbors, Mr.

Altamura heard from some neighbors that the one of the most important things to them was to prevent uh runoff or to improve the runoff uh from this property because it is at a uh you know at elevation, higher elevation.

And so now that we have uh retaining walls and we have a project that uh proposes a new drainage system that represents an improvement over existing conditions, uh not a worsening.

Uh I'm happy to address uh other questions uh from the board.

And uh we can get you um, I know um Mr.

Yeager wanted to know uh the width of the driveway, so we can we can give that uh one of the team can can give that exact number.

I assume someone can look now, right?

Yeah, okay.

That's what I meant.

Okay, good.

Well, while they're doing that, um I think the fence issue was a good one.

Um, because uh you will have people uh living this property looking into their neighbors.

Um tell me about the fence that's being proposed.

Um I'm gonna call it Mr.

Altamura if I would, if you couldn't make him a panelist.

Uh he's still here.

Okay.

So I don't see him on my screen.

That's all.

Um so if you um were to look at the um Atito property and the Muller property.

There was a uh wooden fence um that ran um between um my property and their property.

It was um you know, kind of falling over on one side, falling over on the other side, it was in really bad shape.

So um while we were there, we had I had um uh discussed with both of them that um our plan would be to build a small with it is a very short wall in those sections, um, build a wall, and in doing so, we would like to take down the um fences because they were in really bad shape.

And then I would I said I would be replacing those at uh my cost and discuss with them, you know, some options and what they would like to do.

So that was a discussion um that we had um some months ago, and we had come to an agreement because there was an existing fence only at um pretty much at those two properties.

The other properties did not have any fence.

Okay.

Um for the uh comfort and privacy of your neighbors.

Would you be willing to put in the fence on the um runs along the the west side of the property?

Um yes, I would.

So down to the end.

So it would screen uh the neighbors from all six houses.

I should speak to that.

This is Lendy Andrea before we get make promises that we may not be able to keep based on zoning.

Um Mr.

Chair, that would be doable up to a certain height of only uh I should say only of six feet combined.

Um but that's exactly why we also have provided some green fence screening.

And again, talking about the height differential, we are looking not down, but out over some of these rooftops.

So it's not really so much of a privacy issue as you might think, given the screening that we're proposing.

Well, I'm not on that west side.

I'm not seeing a lot of screening.

Um, I mean, let's take the the last house there, number six.

Um I'm not there's nothing there.

So and uh house five, there's a a big gap between the the trees.

I think for the most part, that side is not really screened, which is why I um ask about the fence.

Um I I should let Matt speak to it too.

But this what you were just pointing to, unit six, that's where there's actually quite high canopies of trees.

This is the a quite an oversized lot here.

And then on these other ones, because the grade does drop off as you go into the south, that's where we felt the screening was more necessary to begin with.

These views are looking out over everything because they are lower out to the west.

Yeah, I guess well, there's I think we can see on the landscape plan, there's not a lot of screening on the west side.

Um why don't you uh talk about it and come back to us for the next meeting and um see what you can do and um revise the the landscape plan to include uh um a fence there?

Sure.

Uh a fence.

Um this is actually for Mr.

Blessing.

Are we given that this is a special permit?

Are we allowed to go higher than the zoning allowance of a combined height of six feet?

Um I don't know.

I would have to check if we uh if the the uh rec change went into effect, but the zoning board now has the ability uh by administrative approval to allow for higher fences.

I I would have to check if if that's already on the books.

Okay, we'll consult with you.

And then I think there was a question about um driveway and road widths.

Um, since I'm speaking, uh Terrace Avenue, the pavement width is 30 feet.

Right.

And we're proposing a driveway width here of 16 feet, plus as I've said before, the driveways are each 18 feet long.

And so we with this setback, we see this with the uh garage for each, plus an additional car out front, should it be needed.

Plus, we have three units with two car garages, so they can actually have two more cars in front of those garage units as well.

So we're keeping our parking uh off the street.

Okay.

Um, let me ask uh my fellow board members.

Um, would you be open to having a fence that would be higher than six feet when you add it to the wall height?

Yeah, it's gonna serve a purpose.

I'm not sure that I understand what the privacy issue that they're referring to, but uh I probably want to go out to take a look at it, but um answer your question.

Okay, well, we um Peter.

I think I'd have to see what it looked like with some rendering.

Okay.

Um so um Grayman, why don't you uh see what you can get us in terms of renderings for the next meeting?

Yeah, we can ask a question, Mr.

D'Andrea, Mr.

Chairman.

Of course.

Yeah, the the what is the the gray of the the number six property?

I guess the house is in the northwest corner.

What is the grade level there?

And as opposed to the grade level of the property that's on the yellow street.

Is there a big difference?

There is a big difference.

Um how much I wish I could bring up the uh quickly the GIS topographic mapping, you'll see.

And the best way I can describe it right now to you, being out there many times is uh they they are sitting uh lower than we are.

Yeah, and with this design here, we're going to be looking out over a wall end or fence, which projects our eyesight more um horizontally to the west, but not down.

We we would have to walk up to the edge to look down than if we're sitting on a patio.

It's the best way to describe it.

And then again, um at unit six, that's got quite a few trees between us and the house below.

But we we can we can do something better for you.

We can do a drone flight if we need to.

Thank you.

Uh board.

Any other questions for uh yeah, put that.

I'm good for this evening, Mr.

Chairman.

Peter.

I'm good for now.

Okay.

Good.

Um Ralph, I see a hand up.

Is that from before?

I see two hands up.

Two hands up, yes.

Uh Miss Pamar has spoken before, Miss Richards, Miss Richards has not.

Okay, why don't we go to um Miss Richards?

Miss Richards, you can unmute yourself, Miss Richards.

You can proceed.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

My name is Root Richards, and I live at 25 Terrace Avenue.

I believe um I have probably the most impact on the clusters being built.

My house directly face and will face all six properties.

Um that's that's being built on an acre.

Um, I have no privacy at all.

That's my parking lot that's right there.

The front of my house is directly facing the new property.

My driveway, I have a long driveway, which is mine.

Um, I saw in the diagram where the gas line they're gonna cut the road.

That that's my property right there.

I was never told um or informed that that was going to be done.

I also have difficulty coming into my driveway already with the traffic that's there.

Sometimes I literally have to pass my driveway, then drive back down to be able to turn into my driveway, not to mention when there's snow um on the road.

Um I know some other neighbors have already mentioned this.

Sometimes with traffic, we're trying to leave my house and go up long ridge um or high ridge.

Sometimes with traffic, with trying to leave my house and go up Long Ridge or High Ridge, you have to literally pull over for another car or another vehicle to come down because there's not enough space with people parking on both sides of the road for traffic to get through.

Another thing, when you leave my driveway and make a left down the road, if there is a vehicle park there, it impedes visibility where I almost had an accident.

Just and I literally had to ask the neighbor not to park there that I could get out of my driveway.

So I'm very concerned about what's going on.

As well as the drainage that was put down by my property.

I have an issue also with the property line because I think they have in crouch on my property as well.

So I know another neighbor suggests driving by.

Okay.

Thank you.

Again.

Would you like them to speak?

Sure.

Miss Pomar.

Yes.

Hi.

I know you were discussing about adding the fence.

But then even if you adding the fence and if the person can they if the house builds over there, they can see everything from the second floor to my house.

There is two houses, the building D and the building E going to build behind my backyard.

And if someone suggested if you drive by, take a look at the a distance of the high high HD, the land are going to build in my house.

They can entirely see my house.

When we purchase this house, it was just a tree.

There is nothing over there.

And my biggest concern is the privacy.

So I would recommend coming down.

You can see the height of the property they have and the property of my house on the Jessup Street.

So when you do the fencing, it's not going to solve the problem.

And then we wanted to do the solar panel in their house on our roof.

So if they're gonna put the trees, it covers, and we will not get the sun.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

You're there, but I think it uh I don't see anyone else.

Yes.

Oh for it.

Jimmy Year, you're on.

Need to unmute.

Sorry, I apologize.

Um on your traffic control that looked at you know the traffic in the area.

Uh, and he was bringing up maybe two cars every hour.

Uh, I know as a senior or as a handicapped person, it might be a lot more than that compared to a regular household leaving and and coming and leaving, going to doctor's offices and stuff like that.

And and again, um, you know, the traffic, I wish I wish you guys would at least come out and look at the difficulty of these three roads, crossroad, McLean Avenue, Terrace Avenue, uh, you can go up to Cedar Heights, they're all cut throughs, and it's animal house.

I mean, it's you know, again, I don't live on that road, but I feel sorry for these people because to get out of their own driveway, you know, you're not gonna try to pull up and then try to back in because these cars come up these roads so fast, you're gonna get you're gonna have an accident.

And sooner or later, somebody's gonna get hurt and somebody's gonna get hurt bad in this area.

And I hate to say it, but that's what's gonna happen.

Um, and it's the traffic that's gonna be coming up in the next year or so with all these here senior housing that's going on in Bullshead area, the Olin, the uh um the other building right across from uh right across from um Terrace Avenue.

I mean, once those buildings and stuff are put in, the traffic is going to increase, and it's gonna constantly be a cut through.

They're not going to Bullshead, and they're not going to go to the Mira Parkway.

They're going to be using them cut throughs, and it's going to make everybody's life a living heck um in this area because of it.

And I understand he needs to make money, but six houses doesn't sit well with me.

Top notch.

But you know, I'm sorry, but it doesn't fit this area with that many houses.

Um that's what I have to say.

Thank you.

So um board, anything else?

Okay.

So let's continue application two six dash oh one to next meeting of the zoning on uh April thirteenth, twenty six thirty on Zoom.

Um and if you I think that'll give the members time to uh take a look at the uh and uh also if uh the applicant can uh get us some ideas about uh privacy thing and um and just some renderings of what it would look like.

Um I think that would be helpful.

So uh pardon me?

Very good.

Thank you.

Okay.

Good.

So uh this out can just continue the next meeting.

Thank you.

Uh board uh why don't we take a uh quick break?

It's uh nine fifty three, how about ten o'clock?

Uh we'll recess till ten and then come back.

Sounds good, good.

Okay.

Good.

Okay.

That's two.

Okay.

Bill, you got it.

Um yeah, I was looking for something.

I'm ready.

Okay, good.

Um the uh zoning board uh meeting, uh hearings are uh resuming.

It's ten oh three on uh March thirty, twenty twenty six.

Um and we are continuing with uh the public hearing.

Next application is two two oh five, City of Stanford zoning board zone text change.

The purpose of this text change is to make corrections, add additional definitions and clarify regulations for special permit uses in single family districts.

Could you read the planning board letter, please?

Sure.

Uh this letter is dated February eleventh, two thousand twenty-six.

Stein uh chair.

This is regarding zoning application number two six dash zero five.

Uh Stanford zoning board.

Dear Mr.

Stein and members of the zoning board.

During its meeting held on Tuesday, February tenth, two thousand twenty-six, planning will review the above caption application referred in accordance with the requirements of the Stanford Charter.

The purpose of this text change is to make corrections, add additional definitions, and clarify the regulations for special permit uses in single family uh districts.

Ralph Blessing, Lynn Us uh Bureau made a presentation and answered questions from the board.

After a brief discussion, the planning board unanimously recommended approval of ZB application number two six dash zero five and found this to be in general harmony with the two thousand thirty-five comprehensive plan.

Sincerely, Stanford Planning Board, Jennifer Godzino, Chair.

Um, action as we do them uh from time to time.

Um the proposed changes include adding some cross references to uh section three B, the definitions.

And um the proposed changes include adding some cross references to uh section 3B, the definitions, um also adding a new definition for gymnasium or physical culture establishment since uh there has been some confusion uh when uh we have the bathhouse application.

Uh there are some minor errors that we want to correct uh in section four uh and five.

And uh we also proposing to add uh lot coverage standards for special permanent uses in single family districts.

Um so um this is the proposed uh definition for gymnasium um or physical culture establishment.

So uh it clarifies so the the way um definitions and uses work in the zoning regulations is that um if uh a use is not defined, then uh the general definition, the generally accepted definition as uh stated in dictionaries and so on, uh, is the definition.

Um uh uses are only defined if uh there is a need for clarifying them.

Um and uh with regard to the physical culture establishment uh definition.

Um uh there seem to have been a need for for clarifying that.

So uh we're describing what physical culture establishment is, and most more importantly, we also defining um what a physical culture establishment is not.

Um, in particular, any activities uh that would be permitted in an adult uh establishment.

So uh currently um uh physical uh adult establishments are prohibited, and obviously uh that will also be the case uh in the future, and um this will be uh clarified with this text change.

Um then uh the next change we're proposing is um changes to the um lot coverage for special permit uses in single family districts.

So currently uh lot coverage, lot coverage includes buildings, it includes um uh driveways and parking lots, um, but also other facilities.

So if you think about the uh Italian center, for example, the swimming pool, the the patios, the sports courts, they would all be considered um lot coverage.

Um currently they are basically regulated, they have the same regulations as for single family uses in the same districts.

Um and um that seems to be low uh because um a special um permit use like uh uh cultural facility, uh house of worship, or um uh institution like the Italian Center, they um obviously need need more space for uh the uses that just described the parking, um the ball fields or the tennis courts or whatnot.

So um we're proposing to create um separate standards for those special permit uses uh that are slightly higher uh than for single family residential development uh in those um uh districts to uh make sure uh that those uses can properly function.

And um that is pretty much it for uh this text change Peter, any uh questions?

Nope, I'm fine, thanks.

Okay, uh Bill.

Not on this one, David.

Okay, let's go to the public.

There's anyone from the public who wishes to speak on the location now raise your hand.

Uh Ms.

Halpern raised her hand.

Hi, Sue Halpern again again.

Sorry, Ternia Cardroad.

Listen, I just have a question about this physical culture establishment definition, and I know you said it pertained to a bath house, but I don't see anything here about um the use of alcohol.

How does um having an outdoor bar and serving alcohol fit in here and the bath house?

Okay.

Thank you.

Is that any other questions or is that it?

Okay.

Thank you, Sue.

Thanks.

And we have Mr.

Adams.

Hi, uh zoning board.

Uh once again, Dave Adams, uh, Glenbrook Road.

Happy.

Um what is up with these coverage changes?

In RA7 and a half and RA 10, they they look pretty drastic.

20% increases.

Why why uh why such the jump is the question.

And uh also I I second uh series question, uh, you know, is alcohol consumption uh an adult activity?

That's uh I think that's a really important question.

I think that was the question when it came to the bathhouse, at least for me.

Um but as far as uh you know uh why such a significant increase in the lot coverage?

Thank you.

Um do you want me to uh I don't see anyone else at this time.

Okay.

You're on.

So um with regard to um the um so first of all, um the uh uh the bathhouse is is approved.

Um so uh whatever uh is uh uh approved maybe by by this tax change uh doesn't have any bearing on uh the uh the bathhouse um application.

Um to go back to um the sorry about that the um the definition um so uh as you can see here with those individual uses um uh and those are pretty much uh uh accessory uses so so the alcohol um or or the the hospitality piece uh uh cannot be the main purpose of um uh a physical culture establishment but it allows for uh cafe and cafe uh if you look in the zoning regulations allows for uh the serving of alcohol uh under what's called a cafe permit so the cafe permit is a type of uh liquor license um issued by the state um of uh connecticut but once again um the the main purpose uh is um uh of a physical culture establishment is the health fitness uh and wellness and uh the cafe uh and uh a lot of the other uses that are um enumerated here are uh basically um uh accessory uses uh that um are permitted as part of the principal use um that is um a physical culture uh establishment so some gyms for example they sell like fitness apparel or like merchandise um so uh that's something uh that is permitted but it's not permitted as a principal use as part of the uh physical uh culture establishment or gym uh use um with regard to the lot coverage so um as i said before um a um uh if you have um uh uh a special permit use in a single family district and those uses are very limited um so uh they usually are um houses of worship um or institutions like the italian center swim and tennis clubs those kinds of things um they tend to have uh a much bigger footprint uh than um uh a single family house uh so uh by by looking at some of the uh the the real existing uses out there um it became clear that uh if you apply the lot coverage um that uh you allow for a single family house for a church or for a swim and tennis club um uh they basically all become uh non conforming uh and you have no ability to uh make any changes so um the the increase in lot coverage for uh those uses uh is just

Uh so uh by looking at some of the uh the the real existing uses out there, um, it became clear that uh if you apply the lot coverage um that uh you allow for a single family house for a church or for a swim and tennis club, um uh they basically all become uh non-conforming, uh, and you have no ability to uh make any changes.

So the the increase in lot coverage for uh those uses uh is just uh basically um uh a reality check uh with what's already existing uh in many instances and and giving uh those institutions the ability to uh uh to make um changes.

I mean uh if you if you just imagine that you you have a church or house of worship uh and the single family home, uh of course the church with uh uh associated parking takes up more space, and and that's uh where this is coming from.

Obviously, this is not uh those are special permit uses that get also um uh scrutinized by the zoning board, while uh single family development is um uh something that is um as of right.

Um so uh there is also the scrutiny of the zoning board when approving uh those types um of uses and making sure that uh there is sufficient um setbacks from the neighbors and so on and so forth.

Okay.

Um board and any other questions for uh Mr.

Blessing.

Not for me, not me.

Mr.

Adams's hand up again.

Ms.

Mr.

and uh see.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Um I you know, we we talk a lot about tree canopy, and we talk a lot about trees.

These kinds of huge increases are gonna have significant changes on that tree canopy.

And I think that that should be a consideration while you're thinking about this.

And just my opinion, I think that these two text changes should have been separate.

I think they're totally different worlds, and I think they have totally different conversations attached to them.

Anyway, thank you very much for uh second opportunity to speak, and I hope you have a wonderful evening.

Thank you again.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Umjection to closing this.

I would close.

It's fine with me.

Okay, uh application um two two-05 is closed.

Application 250.

That was oh five.

Right.

2506.

Um zoning exchange.

Purpose of this exchange is to make corrections to various sections of the zoning regulation and new definitions of very signs.

Uh Bill.

Can you read one new uh no, maybe?

Yeah, I got it.

Okay.

Uh this is the uh letter dated uh March 17, 2026 from the uh planning board.

Uh addressed to Mr.

David Stein chair.

This is regarding zoning application number 22606 from the Stanford zoning board.

Dear Mr.

Stein and members of the zoning board.

During its meeting held on Tuesday, March 10th, 2026, the planning board reviewed the above caption application referred in accordance with the requirements of the Stanford Charter.

The purpose of this text change is to make corrections to various sections of zoning regulations and add a new definition for temporary science.

After considerable discussion, a motion was made for a recommendation to deny the application, and the motion passed by a vote of four one zero in favor.

Levine, Linder, Salete, and submarine.

Yes.

And opposed was Godzino.

The planning board recommended denial of the zoning board application number 226-06.

As the board feels the proposed temporary signage regulations are not consistent with the 2035 comprehensive plan.

All Planning Board members were supportive of the portions of the text change that corrected errors, and while they all had various reasons for the dissent of the proposed temporary signage regulation, the centers generally agreed to regulation should be less onerous and restrictive.

Sincerely, Stanford Planning Board, Jennifer Godzino.

Good.

Thank you.

This application be continued until the next zoning meeting on April 13th 2026 at 6 30 p.m.

on Zoom.

Okay, that concludes the uh public hearing.

We're now into the regular meeting.

Item is approval of minutes.

Um March 9, 26.

Do we have any uh corrections?

Changes.

Anything on these?

Mr.

Chairman I move.

Do we approve the minutes for the March 9, 2026 as submitted?

Do I hear Peter?

Second.

Okay.

Um any further session?

All in favor aye.

Aye.

And the minutes are approved.

Uh next, we have uh CSPR 1228, Rob Frangioni, Frangioni Engineering, LLC 1834 Chapan Avenue proposing an addition to the first and second floor of a single family home and a patio and remove ways and portions of the scheme driveway.

The property is within the camber.

Uh anything we know about this.

Anything unusual.

And you're on mute.

Sorry about that.

Uh no, it's pretty straightforward.

It's a single family house.

Uh it is in the coastal uh management area.

Uh however, uh it does not have direct access to the water, and it's outside of the floodplain.

Uh and as the docket stated, it's uh additions and the new uh patio and otherwise uh meets all the zoning requirements.

Uh we referred this application out to uh various city agencies.

We received comments uh from EPB.

Uh there is a memo from uh Jacqueline Chapman uh from EPB dated uh February 12th uh of this year.

Uh she has no objections uh but um uh has a couple of conditions.

Uh we received um a letter from Karen Michaels from uh Connecticut Deep dated uh March 13th uh of this year.

Um, and she finds the proposal consistent with the Coastal Management Act.

Uh we received um a letter from um engineering.

Uh engineering has no objections, but uh has a couple of conditions.

Uh this letter is from Willetta Capell and the stated uh March 18th of this year, and uh we received a letter from the Stanford Harbor Management Commission uh signed by uh the chair uh Dr.

Ortelli dated March 23rd.

I think I said that already, but it's getting late.

Um, and uh the Harbor Management Commission also does not have um any uh objections to this applications.

And um, I see Mr Frangioni has his hand raised.

Um, I mean it's not a public hearing anymore, so would you like him to speak or um you should really only be speaking to you at this point?

Yeah um I don't it's really not proper for him to uh be speaking um so yes okay so yeah so those were all the comments um uh that were received uh so uh the staff recommendation uh would be to approve uh this application uh with the conditions uh contained in uh uh the memos uh from EPB uh and engineering.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh any questions on the board?

No, nope.

You can get a motion to approve with comments from engineering and uh EPB.

I'll make that motion, Mr.

Chairman.

Second.

Okay, any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

It's approved uh three zero.

Next we have application two two five-three eight.

Um that's the uh CG.

Um made some changes to the C L, or you clarified what requirements were um regarding um board approval when it would apply and when it wouldn't.

Um this is appears to be different.

Um it seemed to me we would want to have them be uh the same.

Um I thought they were aligned, but let me I'm I'll pull up the text if you give me a second.

Okay, here we go.

So um this is the text change that was shared with you uh in the version of February thirteenth um of this year, and I believe we discussed uh the changes and uh we were discussing this section here, which is the um application and review procedure.

Yeah, so I believe it's aligned with um what I presented to you with regard to the CL district.

Um I mean the the big difference between uh the C L and the CG district is that um the the density's higher.

So um on a um uh one acre lot in the CG district, uh you get um like between one point eight times and four and a half times more density than in a CL district because the FAR in the CL is one point zero, and in uh the CG, depending on the type of development, um uh it's between one point eight and four point five FAR.

Um so what we did here, it's not the size uh the the zoning lots are smaller, uh and you put in the ten thousand square feet uh at the last meeting.

So this one would be um changes in use or uh renovations or alterations um with an increase of five percent or more in build area and uh or additional floor five thousand square feet or on a lot of ten um uh okay with that Bill and Peter didn't we say that in the CG that we were going to it wasn't gonna be an administrative approval, we were gonna require a public hearing under certain circumstances, or did I misunderstand?

Yes, you are correct.

The question is how many the first one is a lot five of so the first one doesn't have a uh limitation in lot area, but there is no significant increase in floor area.

So it's it's it's the change of use of an existing building.

Okay, got that.

Uh then the second one is a lot uh of uh 10,000 square feet or less than 10,000 square feet.

So this one, let's say a uh WE building or another large office building that's being not con not converted for conversions for residential conversions, you need uh administrative approval by the zoning board.

That's in section 10 uh this is this is really um going from one commercial use to another commercial use.

Okay.

This is the WWE building uh changing from like the Swiss bank to uh a multi-tenanted building with WWE and a couple of other office uses that wouldn't require as is currently the case.

No board review.

This is first one.

That's the first one.

The second one and Peter, you okay with the first?

Yep.

Yes.

Okay, second one, yes.

So the second one, uh once again, the first three are um all existing buildings.

So uh this row here would apply um if uh the building is on a lot that's less than ten thousand square feet, um the floor area changes by five percent um or five thousand uh square feet uh or more, then it would require um staff review, staff um architectural review, no uh zoning board review.

But I mean, we just to put it in comparison.

I mean, the the project five um Terrace Avenue, um the lot size is four times as large as as this one here.

Yeah, uh then the next one so okay before we leave this one.

Are folks all right with this?

Yeah, at 10,000, yes.

Okay, next.

And then the next one is also existing building.

Um the building footprint uh um uh increases by five percent or more, or there's an additional floor area of five thousand square feet or more on zoning lots with more than ten thousand square feet.

That would require site and architectural plan review and requested uses by the zoning board.

This is administrative or is it public hearing?

It's administrative, but it's an existing building.

Right.

Um I think that's good.

Okay, Peter?

Yep, I'm fine with it.

Okay.

Uh then the next thing we have is new construction on lots less than 20,000 square feet.

Would require site and architectural plan review and requested uses by the zoning board.

That would be an administrative review.

This seems like a place, the next two a place for a public hearing.

I mean, currently the public hearing trigger.

So this would currently be um a simple zoning permit.

Right.

The public hearing trigger is a new floor area of 30,000 square feet for a large-scale development.

Right.

I think that a new construction here from the public.

What do you general thing?

Yeah, I I could I I concur.

I concur as well.

No, you object is so that the residents of the community are aware what's uh happening that is new.

I don't have a problem with that.

Okay.

Ralph, can we add um coloring here?

Yeah.

Where are we doing?

Um it's clear it's zoning board, right?

Yes.

Okay.

So now we have next we have new development on lots of large 20,000 square feet.

Um that's that's what it is now.

It's a public hearing.

Special permit and public hearing.

Large scale up picks up zone, right?

Sorry, you broke up there.

Picks up what the T is is included under, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

So we're proposing to take um CG out of the applicability list, because the applicability is for floor area of 30,000 square feet and more.

And here we're talking about lot area of 20,000 square feet or more.

That's why we're taking out the CG, but it the the mechanism, the process is the same as in as in uh section uh two e.

Well, two or three says um non-residential of 200 square feet or more for any new residual structure containing 10 minutes.

Um project developing or altering square feet of lot area.

Um so what happens to that 40,000 square feet.

So it simplifies that it just says on any lot 20,000 square feet or more you need large scale development review, even though two E says it has to be thousand square feet per certain.

Yes, okay.

Um this public hearing, yes, large scale development review is a is a special permit, so in includes um a public hearing.

Okay, um Bill, Peter That's good, yeah.

That's good, Mike.

Yeah, I'm fine.

Okay, then we have permit for under 2C with uh public hearing.

Yes, okay.

Um we took out the asterisks, yes.

Okay.

Um what else do we have here?

Anything else where?

Anything else where um I think the only thing is that we uh uh clarify took out the CG here because the threshold for review is different than um uh for the normal um uh large scale development review.

You don't think that's we have prediction this sentence here that uh the requirements shall apply to those districts, and that was the same for all the districts, and quite honestly, for a CN district uh the 30,000 is way too low.

Um but we added or specified in section five.

So the idea is that the large scale development review kicks in at different thresholds depending on the district you're in.

Okay, and then this is just to um uh clarify that um the appendix would be updated with the the requirements in the section, and then uh we had this definition for downtown boulevards in there, um which didn't really make any difference uh with regard to any urban design guidelines, so we decided to just take it out and simplify uh the text and okay.

Uh the same is true for um commercial streets uh because all the streets that are already defined as commercial streets, we we don't need to define any new streets as commercial streets.

Okay, that it's it um okay.

Um is there any other discussion on this?

I think we covered it.

Dave, did you do we miss anything or forget something?

I think we have it.

Um can we get a motion to approve uh application two to five-three eight?

Um as chairman, I'll maybe uh approve application number two two five dash three eight with the conditions as uh modified this evening.

Second.

Okay, further discuss all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, it's approved.

One less two, thank you.

Some all of these are gonna have to be added to the zoning regulations someday, someday.

Okay.

Next we have application two two five-47.

Okay.

That's the um one we that's the CL.

Yes.

We discussed tonight.

Um, folks okay with working on that one.

Sure, it's about it.

We're almost done at that point.

Okay, sure.

Um bring it up, Ralph, please.

Yeah, give me one second.

So uh this is the version of um 218 uh 2026.

I is that yeah, consistent with what you had had before.

I mean what you wrote us tonight.

Um yes, so those I sent those out before uh the last uh public hearing.

Um I just wanted to highlight some of the the changes.

So the changes shown here are the changes between filing of the application and uh before the public hearing.

So this takes into account comments we received from the law department, uh uh transportation uh department and so on.

So I just wanted to highlight that we added a residential density divider here.

uh the last uh a public hearing um i just wanted to highlight some of the the changes so the changes shown here are the changes between filing of the application and uh before the public hearing so this takes into account comments we receive from the law department uh uh transportation uh department and so on so i just wanted to highlight that we added a residential density divider here okay for residential uses uh before you oh wait back up on g lot cover can we just put um percent at maximum yeah okay and then um on l under lots we fill a date in there so it would be uh the effective date uh of this regulation which would be um two weeks from now if we were tonight so that would be um april right yeah all right okay well put it in yeah thirteen thirteen or thirteen um then you on the next page you go ahead and do your thing there and then I got a correction yeah so uh this here just uh replaces front setback with front yard um no change in meeting in the mean sorry I didn't catch that it does not um does not change the no it doesn't change the meaning okay um in two there in the last line of two and shall not shall not front up again after the word front with the word on yeah okay any other corrections on that page okay this page um in F the last line of F that the uh B5 should be B six B six and this here was a recommendation from uh the traffic department that should only be on larger lots and the drive through window at least a hundred feet from any street line I should put an end to the drive throughs yeah um in landscaping second line yeah g1 after all districts a has the word district in closed parentheses just delete closed parentheses yes on that I've not on page five uh okay page six that's where we get into the uh review procedures well no we uh that's yeah before you before you get to it just go to that five H five should be five H six yes same as the other one okay and this is exactly um what I presented to you before okay so um did we the okay second row uh you said is only for off building to office but would not be residential so for res uh conversion uh two residential always requires uh administrative review the zoning board pursuant to section 10 um okay so you don't think some could read this and say that we've changed that requirement um we would tell them that uh no for residential conversion section 10 uh applies and you need to get approval from the zoning board for that okay the next one um where we added um subject public hearing uh we added that here to new construction

Um we would tell them that uh no for residential conversion section 10 uh applies and you need to get approval from the zoning board for that.

Okay.

The next one.

Um we added um subject public hearing.

Uh we added that here to new construction.

We had um what did we what did we do to um so this we left at administrative review for change of use?

We left it at administrative review review by the zoning board.

This is what this is.

Oh uh and here we had um site and architectural review and added uh and subject to public hearing some reason it's very public hearing was in that one, right?

Yes, do I guess yeah?

Did you?

I'm sorry.

Okay, and then this is um large scale development review, so special permit, public hearing the whole nine yards.

I apologize for bringing this.

But where in 2D does it say administrative review and public hearing?

Well, it says reviewed and approved by the zoning board.

I guess that's administrative approval.

Yeah, then the last one is large scale yeah, okay.

Is that it?

Um there more nokay.

Um continuing on through.

Um this is yeah, you pulled CL out of there out of yeah, okay, and you and then we added a couple of uh streets to uh the commercial street definition.

Oops, what happened here?

Okay.

So let me so um I I just turned uh off the markup.

So what what do you see?

The underlines are the streets that we're adding to um the commercial streets, the rest is already existing in the regulations.

Okay.

Then drive through Yeah.

Uh drive-thru um this was something that the Transportation Bureau uh suggested that all drive-throughs should have a dine-in option and that the hours for the dine-in and the drive-through operations shall be the same.

Okay, just a couple of things up um just before where you deleted all the districts.

You want to change TTP to their new name?

Yes, Transportation Department if we actually use TTP.

Then the next paragraph, drive through it's restaurant facilities, right?

Not all through facilities.

Uh where was that?

Second paragraph.

Yeah, it said all drive-through facilities.

I think we're not in code, it's just restaurant facilities, right?

It's not you want to add rest.

No, it does no, this is this is all drive-throughs.

Well, it's all drive-through shall dine in options.

Well, it's all drive-through shall dine in options with the dine in option, yes.

Yes.

I yeah, I was wondering the banks were handled that one.

Yeah, well, they have to serve food now.

Yeah, okay.

Um and then the second.

Okay, and the ours will be the same, and that was added.

The last sentence.

Um, all parking, queuing, and drive-through windows shall be located in the principal building and suitably dreamed.

Um is this all or just restaurant?

I mean, we start all um maybe we should move this uh here to there and move this up before the drive-thru restaurants.

Yeah, yeah.

Maybe separate um how's that?

Oh and that shall be the that's better because it we won't confuse the restaurants.

Yeah.

Um, that's all I've got.

And then you got anything else?

No.

Okay.

Um Bill or Peter, anything else on this?

I'm set.

Not for me.

Okay.

Then we get a motion.

Mr.

Chairman, I move that we approve application number two two five dash four seven with the conditions as uh discussed this evening.

Second.

Okay.

Um further discussion.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Okay, it's approved.

Okay, moving along here.

Okay, two five.

Which is that was four seven.

We just did two to five four seven.

Yeah, we didn't okay.

We're on two on summer street.

Okay, summer street has uh continued.

Um six dash oh one terrace is continued.

Application two two five four five s one seventy-seven Broad Street.

Um LC 177 Broad Street owner LLC 177 Broad Street site and architectural plans and/or requested uses.

Applicants proposing to convert the existing 16-story 180,000 plus or minus square foot office building and a 231 residential apartments.

Um we have conditions for that.

Yes, we do have conditions.

Give me one second.

They looked looked good.

I can't remember if those went to the board or not.

I don't think so.

Um Bill, you said you think so.

I didn't see him, but this is I uh I I don't I don't have issues with this anyway, so you can proceed.

Okay, Peter, any issues on it?

Nope.

Okay.

Let's uh one one question that I had was with regard to uh the parking management plan if we're going to take out number Oh did we yeah, did we get them?

I know you said something about receiving them in your yeah uh did we get them?

Yes, those I forwarded to you.

Okay, then you have to take out the uh and you can make it just the uh the uh second no and okay go ahead.

Yeah, this is one of them is deleted, I think.

It's hard to see.

No, no, in the second column right next to the word to six.

We can it should only be yeah, the BP.

Then the same for T and Play.

Or no one we yeah.

Any other questions, or should we just you want to start from the top?

Uh we can start from the top.

There was also the date for the um the memo from the TTP or transportation department, which we got today, but we we can add it when we go through it.

Okay, from I guess it'll take a while to remember T D.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh Peter, any issues with application?

I don't know if I not me.

Good.

So look um go through it.

We've got the administrative review on the number good.

Oh, um I made a note in there that I don't didn't see whether or not you'd add that the board needed to approve.

There we go.

Okay, thank you.

The architectural, yeah.

Okay.

Okay, so um site specific editions, it'll application will conform with the plans.

Uh prior to building permit, applicant will submit final landscaping plans for public areas and usable open space, including children's play area subject to staff approval.

Stop me if anyone has a comment or question.

No, keep going.

Okay.

Three affordability plan um prior to issuance that should be CO.

Um wait, is this the definition?

Okay.

I guess this is where it came in.

Okay, prior to CO applicant will submit the final affordability plan with uh team not less than 16 DMR units uh at or below percent of A.

There'll be a uh blue fractional unit of point one seven, and uh the calculation is uh twenty thousand seven hundred and eighty three dollars, subject to um construction cost index, um which they be higher or lower at the payment um vehicle parking.

Uh they'll provide 488 so parking spaces and not less than five EV spaces.

Um I think the board has the right to increase that.

Um does anyone feel it higher.

Uh I don't know.

Okay.

Um continuing on numbers.

There's sorry you froze there for a second.

Oh, okay.

Number six.

Um is the parking management plan, which is the same as always.

Yeah.

Number seven will be the transportation demand management plan.

Oh same as always.

Number eight bicycle parking.

Uh class A space, including spaces for 50 e bikes.

And um 25 uh class B bicycle spaces.

Um Peter, if you wants to participate, we got to swear her in.

She says no.

Uh okay.

Then nine is bite parking performance requirements.

Ten is signage uh subject to uh staff approval eleven transportation department comments applicant will complete the comments um next um number 12 PB comment applicant apply with 13 Engineering Bureau comments applicable comply with those 14 fire department comments fire marshal um they'll the applicant will comply with those WPCA comments uh which I guess we just got in applicant will comply with with those well no it's a week ago um easements uh any basically any uh public sidewalks on applicant property app will give the city an event uh use of the sidewalks um subject to review and approval by lawman and zone and staff um seventeen applicant will uh provide 36 street trees um and post a bond of a thousand dollars to guarantee that uh survive for three growing seasons for any trees they don't uh provide uh eighteen says the fee and lo and uh based on the amount specified in twelve case six and on uh on these specific comments um and then we have the uh standard conditions do we have the is the photometric plan in there uh I don't think so.

Let's search no matches um we had uh prior to CEO applicant provided set of standard, usually standard condition, right?

Yeah so we have to see what's going on here if it's the okay if you uh you can add it after we uh okay so I know the photometric plan condition.

Yes.

Yeah, huh?

Weird that's building permit, right?

Yes, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Um any further discussion on this application.

Nothing, Jim.

Okay, get a motion to approve uh application two two five-45 with the conditions as um discussed tonight.

So moved.

Second.

Okay, any further question?

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Okay, the application is approved.

Um last, but certainly not least is CDU Avenue.

Um, which I think the advocate just talked about this.

Amazing.

Surprised that was in there.

Yeah.

Must have been a slow news day.

I was gonna say that, but I didn't want to say that.

Sorry, uh, we have the application two two six oh five.

Did we skip it?

Um I think it's not on the list of pending applications, so we would need a vote to add it to the pending applications if you want to do that.

Are we gonna vote on the same night we opened it?

I'm just saying, um, this one if you want to physical culture establishment and okay.

Yeah, um, I think it's okay.

I mean, it's it's not controversial.

Um, and it really just corrects some issues.

Well, and that increases some live coverage.

Um, so we need a vote to add it to the uh yes, and you want to do the extension first, David.

I'm sorry, we'll do the extension first since we didn't do that.

Sure, let's do that.

I move that we extend application number two two-two-24 for one year period until May 25th, 2027.

Second.

Okay, discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Extension is approved.

Um, can we get a motion to add application 226-05 to the uh list of pending applications?

So moved.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, it's been added.

Um does anyone have any uh issues with this application.

I don't.

I do not.

No issues, no questions, no.

Okay forward.

And we didn't change anything tonight.

Uh yeah, so we have just those changed cross references.

Uh proposing to move water dependent uses to the use section instead of the definitions.

Uh, this is the gymnasium of physical culture establishment definition as presented tonight.

Okay, that's a good change, so we don't get into the whether uh clubs or broths, then here this is just uh correcting some typos, okay.

Update of the to the um comprehensive plan uh versus the old master plan, and then here this is the change uh in the lot coverage, and that's not for single family homes, but only for the special permit uses.

Yeah, this is yeah, okay.

Any discussion on this okay, get a motion to approve uh application two six-05.

So moved, second, okay.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Application 22605 is approved.

Wow.

Big night.

Big night.

We got those text changes um done, which was good.

And um, I think there's three more coming, so don't get too excited.

Ross.

Um vacation, please.

Okay.

Um so um for our next meeting.

Um, I don't know if you've got the adjustment round, but um I'm assuming um it's the continuation uh from today, so that would be Terrace.

Uh 1150 um Summer Street uh is on there, and then uh yeah, we do actually have a couple of our own text changes on there as well.

Glad to hear that.

Glad to hear that and we're gonna throw on a discussion about um uh BMR, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, good.

All right, folks.

We got a lot done tonight, though it is getting a little late.

Um okay.

Anyone want to adjourn?

Go ahead, Peter.

I move that we adjourn.

All right, good.

We're adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.

Thanks, everybody.

Good night.

Okay, good night.