►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
C
Great,
so
this
is
the
city
of
ithaca
planning
and
development
board
meeting
on
tuesday
december
20
december
november
23rd,
and
we
will
start
with
introductions
lisa.
Could
I
start
with
you.
E
E
E
C
A
C
Great,
thank
you
next
up
would
be
public
comments.
Lisa.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
public
wishing
to
speak
before
the
board.
E
A
Mike
just
so,
you
know,
when
you
unmute
yourself,
make
sure
your
live
stream
is
off
on
the
youtube.
Feed
and
you'll
have
three
minutes.
C
Mike,
if
you're
ready,
you
could
go
ahead
and
take
your
three
minutes.
C
J
You
could
hear
me
all
right,
yep
and
you're
fine,
great
thanks
for
your
time.
Everyone,
my
name
is
mike
belmont
and
I
live
at
1077
toganic
boulevard.
J
I
believe
on
this
project
for
your
board
to
note
that
the
municipal
code,
2767
c4
states,
the
site
plan
must
contain
no
less
than
25
percent
interior
ground
area
and
the
plan
is
presented
contains
less
than
25,
so
there
should
be
a
variance
required
right
there
number
two
there's,
no
doubt
ambiguity
still
exists.
This
is
with
respect
to
the
communications
tower
issue
around
the
congregation
area
fact
remains
that
there's
a
parking
lot
on
the
project.
Well,
within
the
fall
zone,
it's
the
college.
J
Community
kids
gather
they
gather
before
and
after
sporting
events,
parties
etc.
There's
no
doubt
they're
going
to
gather
in
and
in
the
parking
lot
within
the
fall
zone.
I
know
that
there's
a
requirement
for
signage,
but
that's
not
enough.
Don't
please
don't
gather
in
this
parking
lot.
It's
near
a
cell
tower,
I'm
not
sure
about
that,
and
god
forbid
that
something
happens.
Number
three:
there
will
be
some
information
from
john
snyder
architects
with
respect
to
what
we
believe
there
being
some
errors
in
determining
setbacks.
It's
a
seven-sided
property.
J
It's
pretty
interesting
and
kind
of
unique.
Honestly
when
you
look
at
the
calculations
on
the
setback
for
one
portion
of
property,
you'll
see
this
in
there,
presentations
won't
go
into
it.
It
looks
like
there's
a
8.56
foot
code
violation
where
there's
a
building
too
close
to
the
setback.
So
it
looks
very
clear
from
my
perspective
that
there
needs
to
be
a
variance
with
respect
to
this
particular
setback.
You'll
see
that
in
the
presentation
yep
thanks
number
four
seeker
issues
exist.
J
There
should
be
an
environmental
impact
study
number
five,
it's
very
interesting
and
and
somewhat
concerning
that,
on
the
same
day,
october
28th
this
year,
when
two
of
our
attorneys
russ
mays,
john
tantillo,
were
arguing
in
front
of
judge
mcbride
for
an
injunction
which
was
denied.
We
didn't
continue
to
argue
the
case
for
building
c
on
the
property,
because
there
wasn't
a
permit
issued
for
building
c.
D
Yeah,
I
just
all
the
speakers
tonight
are
speaking
about
815
south
roar
street,
so
I
just
wanted
to
quickly
give
you
a
little
bit
of
background.
I
mean,
I
know
you
have
the
appeal
in
your
packet,
but
just
so
that
you,
you
know,
maybe
understand.
What's
going
on,
so
you
remember
the
project
very
well.
D
I
think,
and
the
some
neighboring
property
owners
have
requested
an
appeal
of
the
determination
of
the
zoning
administrator
and
what
that
means
is
that
when
the
project
was
when
the
zoning
analysis
was
done
for
the
project,
the
zoning
administrator
at
the
time
made
certain
determinations
about
the
the
way
they
met
the
zoning
code
and
they,
it
was
determined
at
the
time
that
they
did
not
require
any
variances.
And
so
the
neighbors
around
some
neighbors
have
asked
for
an
appeal
of
the
interpretation
of
the
zoning
administrator.
D
So,
as
per
the
code,
the
planning
board
has
to
be
given
an
opportunity
to
make
a
recommendation
to
the
bza
about
anything
that
comes
before
them,
and
so
you
have
the
opportunity
to
make
a
recommendation
to
the
bza
regarding
this
appeal
you
do
not
have
to.
It
should
be
based
on
planning
issues
you
do
not
have
to.
D
You:
do
not
have
the
power
to
revoke
building
permit,
but
you
you're
being
asked
to
consider
making
a
con,
make
it
you're
giving
being
given
the
opportunity
to
make
a
comment,
and
so
many
of
the
speakers
are
speaking
to
you
about
that.
So
I
just
wanted
to
give
a
little
background.
E
K
Board
members,
thank
you.
I
am
an
attorney.
I
represent
south
hill
living
solutions,
which
is
a
next
door
neighbor,
along
with
north
shaw
llp,
which
represents
another
one
of
the
neighbors
suzanne
dennis
we,
I
don't
need
to
go
into
the
technical
details,
but
we
have
submitted
proof
that
of
the
of
these
errors
that
we
believe
happened.
The
most
simple
frankly
was
an
error
of
analysis,
mathematical
calculation
that
the
zoning
administrator
put
in
an
incorrect
variable
and
that
skewed
the
results
in
favor
of
developer.
I'm
not
implying
anything
improper.
K
The
only
thing
I
would
add
to
ms
nicholas's
comments
is
that
we
requested
to
be
heard
two
years
ago
and
because
of
a
couple
of
errors,
we
didn't
have
that
opportunity.
So
it's
very
important.
I
believe
that
the
neighbors
be
given
an
opportunity
to
be
heard.
It's
unfortunate
that
they
weren't
heard
before
the
project
started,
but
I
believe
that
you
request
that
the
zoning
board
determine
that
variances
are
required,
so
the
neighbors
can
come
in
and
put
the
input
and
consider
whether
this
project
is
appropriate
for
the
neighborhood.
Thank
you.
D
So
I
don't
see
I
have
a
list
of
people
who
have
signed
up
to
speak.
There
are
people
in
the
waiting
room
and
those
names
don't
match
the
people
on
the
list,
but
you
can't
really
communicate
with
them,
because
so
I
could
just
let
them
in
and
we
could
see
who
they
are
and
if
they've
come
to
sure.
B
E
C
And
then
we'll
let
in
some
people
who
are
on
deck
and
thank
you
both
for
coming
with
us
to
us
to
speak.
L
I
am
here
for
the
the
discussion
that
whiddam's
going
to
put
forth
about
the
kuga
park
medical
office
building.
D
Well,
I
mean
it's
up
to
you
they're
supposed
to
register
beforehand.
I
have
two
two,
but
we
got
a
list
of
people
and
one
person
on
that
list
has
not
shown
up.
John
snyder
got
it.
I
don't
think
that's
john
on
the
phone
is
that
john
on
the
phone
all
right.
Then
I
have
the
two.
So
I
have
the
two
other,
the
two
letters
that
were
requested
to
be
read.
I
can
just
read
those
and
if
john
comes
you
can
decide.
D
C
E
D
Sense
so
the
first
letter
is
from
kathy
crane,
dear
anya,
as
a
neighbor
at
108
grand
view
place
to
the
construction
at
8,
15,
south
or
street.
I
understand
the
planning
board
is
meeting
this
evening
and
that
I
can
both
submit
written
commentary.
Here's
the
comments
as
we'll
be
clear
from
the
photos
on
october
24th,
construction
beyond
the
improved
foundation.
Construction
is
well
underway
already.
It
was
clear
that
the
side
yard
which
faces
due
east
was
not
wide
enough
to
accommodate
the
construction
vehicle
and
consequently
the
boundary
had
been
breached
and
trees
fell.
D
The
video
from
november
2nd
shows
that
the
breach
continues.
The
final
incursion
documented
in
photos
was
the
late
night
laying
a
cement
on
november
17th,
which
had
glaring
construction
lights
that
fell
across
my
house
and
at
one
of
my
neighbors
at
104
grand
view
place.
I
called
yarbrough,
whose
building
inspector
and
left
a
message
and
then
walked
the
site,
and
I
was
told
that
construction
and
the
light
would
continue
until
8
pm,
at
which
point
the
lights
would
be
turned
off.
That
was
the
case,
but
as
well
beyond
approved
construction
hours.
D
D
I
would
like
to
see
at
a
minimum
one
modifications
to
the
design
as
pertains
to
exterior
lights,
to
the
building
that
will
take
the
proximity
into
account
like
directing
light
towards
96b
or
the
interior
grounds,
instead
of
anywhere
out
towards
the
northeast
quadrant
of
the
815
parcel
and
at
singleton
low
neighbors
and
two
financial
accommodations
for
reforestation
to
the
family.
That
owns
the
impact
of
impacted
eastern
property.
D
There
are
many
reasons
this
project
should
not
have
been
approved.
These
issues
will
exist
even
though
the
project
has
been
allowed,
however,
properly
to
commence
construction.
The
many
unresolved
issues,
several
of
which
could
by
code,
require
variants
include
the
parking
lot
driveway
snow
removal,
emergency
access,
plantings,
gathering
area
under
a
cell
tower
traffic
flow,
rear
yard
setback,
transition
to
residential
property
water
supply.
As
you
know,
the
project,
by
order
of
the
new
york
state
appellate
division
third
department,
has
been
remanded
back
to
the
ithaca
bca
scheduled
for
december
7th
2021..
D
The
planning
board
should
have
denied
both
preliminary
and
final
approvals,
and
certainly
the
building
department
should
not
have
approved
full
building
permits
for
buildings,
a
b
and
most
recently
c,
which
encroaches
upon
adjacent
property.
Knowing
variances
were
necessary.
I
thought
the
planning
board
in
large
part
exists
for
the
protection
of
neighbors
and
our
property
rights
with
over
500
citizens
against
the
project
embodying
more
problems
than
stated
above
and
still
the
planning
board
passed
this
project.
D
There
was
a
question
on
the
color.
The
only
way
to
pass
the
project
was
to
bypass
the
the
bza,
which
was
done
that
which
was
done
that
lead
to
where
we
are
now
again.
The
epilep
court
agreed
that
we
were
illegitimately
barred
from
an
appeal.
The
courts
determined
that
this
needed
to
go
through
the
bza.
This
again,
we
will
delineate
the
many
deficiencies
and
codes
that
were
bypassed,
especially
the
setbacks.
This
will
lead
to
the
bza
needing
to
show
why
several
ithaca
city
building
codes
were
not
required
to
be
followed
for
this
project.
D
Quite
frankly,
this
board
should
suspend
the
building
permit
now,
when
our
voices
are
heard
at
the
bza,
and
it
is
shown
that
the
deficiencies
the
building
permits
should
be
revoked
and
the
entire
process
should
begin
again
as
if
from
scratch,
we
are
only
asking
for
adherence
to
our
own
municipal
code.
The
appellate
court
judges
ruled
in
our.
It
ruled
in
our
case
that
this
project's
approval
process
should
have
gone
through
the
bza
and
therefore
the
building
permit
should
not
have
been
issued.
D
To
quote
an
appellate
court
judge
who
reflected
on
what
happens
when
each
board
doesn't
stay
in
their
respective
lane.
Where
do
we
end?
Where
do
we
end
up
in
la
walnut,
and
this
is
exactly
where
we
are
now
in
this
project?
There
is
more
to
these
approvals
than
meets
the
eye.
This
developer
should
never
have
started
construction,
it
was
their
choice
to
start
construction
and
they
were
warned
by
their
own
contractor
that
they
were
proceeding
at
their
own
risk.
D
A
D
A
We
also
have
one
more
person,
lauren
barron,
a
lawyer,
I
believe
who
had
asked
to
participate.
G
D
M
I
had
the
cover
on
my
camera
hi
board
members
good
evening.
My
name
is
lauren
baron
and
I'm
with
the
law
firm
that
represents
815
south
aurora.
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
what
board
member
glass
mentioned
and
lisa
mentioned.
It's
really
not
up
to
the
board
at
this
at
the
planning
board
at
this
point
in
time,
whether
permits
or
anything
should
be
revoked
really.
M
This
is
just
as
lisa
said
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
whether
the
planning
board
wants
to
make
any
type
of
recommendation
to
the
bca
through
the
bza's
process.
The
court's
ruling
only
remanded
this
matter
back
to
the
bza
for
its
review.
So
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
that.
Thank
you
for
the
chance
to
comment.
C
C
Going
once
going
twice
all
right,
I
think
that
brings
public
comment
to
a
close
if
we
could
go
ahead
and
remove
the
members
of
the
public
from
the
meeting.
Thank
you
to
all
members
of
the
public
who
came
before
the
board
to
speak.
C
That
brings
us
to
board
response
to
public
comment,
I'll
open
it
up
to
the
board
in
just
a
second
I'll
say
for
my
own
piece,
it
seems
very
clear
that
our
action
window
tonight
is
limited.
All
we
can
do
is
make
a
recommendation
to
bga
one
way
or
another.
C
D
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
some
of
the
comments
that
you
heard
tonight
were
about
violations
of
the
hours
of
construction
or
noise
and
those
can
be
addressed
through
complaints
to
the
building
division
and
the
code
inspector
and
I'm
happy
to
forward
those
complaints
to
them.
But
if
kathy
crane
is
listening,
she
should
contact
the
building
division
too
and
make
that
complaint,
but
I'll
forward
her
comments
to
the
building
division.
D
C
That
brings
us
to
the
first
project
of
the
evening
cuga
park
site
plan
review
on
it
looks
like
we
have
signage
design
updates.
N
Also
steven
that
maybe
have
a
better
understanding
of
who
else
from
cmc's
attending.
L
A
O
Hi,
yes,
so
this
is
for
the
cayuga
park,
medical
office
building
signage.
As
everyone
knows,
we've
been
previously
in
front
of
the
board
multiple
times
we
have
final
site
plan
approval
for
both
phase
one
and
two
of
this
project.
This
is
the
on
building
signage.
Just
for
the
medical
office.
Building
that
is
building
d,
as
shown
on
the
site
plans
that
were
approved
for
final
cycling.
O
Approval
ife
from
widam
is
going
to
walk
us
through
the
presentation
and
obviously
we
have
multiple
members
from
cuga
medical
here
to
also
help
answer
any
questions
relating
to
signage
ife.
Take
it
away.
N
Thanks
jake,
I
will
share
my
screen.
N
Okay,
can
everyone
see
my
screen.
E
N
N
There
are,
six
of
them
are
being
proposed
on
this
building,
but
there
are
only
two
allowed
by
code,
so
we're
aiming
to
seek
variances
for
those
actual
signage
and
in
this
meeting
we
do
not
anticipate
the
board
to
give
a
visual
recommendation
to
the
bca,
but
we
would
like
to
hear
your
feedbacks
on
this,
so
we
can
make
revisions
as
needed
for
the
december
planning
board
meeting,
which
is
when
we
would
like
to
get
the
official
recommendations,
and
please
note
that
site
sandwich
is
not
part
of
this
application.
N
We're
working
on
the
design
of
the
site,
signage
separately,
so
it'll
be
a
separate
design
or
approval
process
for
that.
So,
as
you
can
see
in
this
plan
we
have
six
of
them
are
being
proposed
and
then.
N
One
thing
I
would
like
to
clarify
is
the
number
three,
as
you
may
have
seen,
your
package
is
over
here,
but
it's
actually
or
here
on
the
upper
level
facing
to
the
root
13
and
then
the
sign
one
two
three
are
more
higher
in
elevation
and
facing
either
towards
13
or
the
inlet
and
four
five.
Six
are
more
on
ground
level.
Human
scale,
building
signage.
N
So
the
following
renderings
that
you
have
already
seen
in
the
sample
approval
process,
we're
here
just
to
present
as
a
reference
to
see
where
the
signage
are
so
the
building
signage
one
will
be
the
one
the
facing
green
star
and
also
facing
inlet
and
then
five
and
six
will
be.
The
ones
are
on
ground
level.
And
this
is
where
the
drop-off
zone
for
the
office
building
is.
N
That
view
of
that,
all
of
the
sign
will
be
internally
illuminated
with
led
lights
and
number
two
is
the
one
that
facing
northbound
for
13
night
vision
and
number
three
is
the
one
facing
southbound
of
route
13,
which
is
higher
up
here
and
number
four.
This
is
the
text
place
order
text,
but
we
will
show
you
the
actual
text
in
the
following
pages.
N
Night
view-
and
we
have
some
elevation
drawings
for
those
signage
as
well,
so
the
larger
sign,
as
you
can
see
over
here,
one
two,
three
and
number:
five
are
50
square
feet
which
is
allowed
by
code
and
then
the
five
and
six
or
the
four
and
six
are
smaller
than
that.
One
of
them
is
15
square
feet
and
another
is
20.
N
so
number
two
and
number
three,
and
this
one
is
the
one
has
like
20
square
feet,
and
so
those
three
are
like
where
people
would
need
to
drop
off
their
page
or
visitors
or
patients.
So
we
think
that
signage
is
really
helpful
for
the
patient
to
get
through
and
see
where
the
actual
entrance
to
the
building
would
be
yeah,
and
here
are
some
technical
short
drawings
for
those
signage
and
how
they
can
be
lit
up
during
the
night.
N
And
then
this
is
the
actual
text
for
those
sign
that
we
talked
about
earlier.
This
one
is
facing
north
and
this
one
is
facing
the
drop-off
zone
of
the
parking
lot.
N
E
C
I
think
I'm
just
gonna
go
around
the
metaphorical
room
for
questions
and
comments
mitch.
If
it's
all
right,
let's
start
with
you.
G
G
C
Oh,
I'm
sorry
yeah,
it
is
you.
H
Okay,
thank
you
yeah.
I
generally
agree
with
mitch.
I
think
the
size
for
what's
proposed
makes
sense
and
in
terms
of
wayfinding
versus
advertising,
I'm
struggling
with
number
one
a
little
bit,
I
feel
like
the
others,
can
be
justified
from
a
wayfinding
perspective.
H
C
I
Yeah,
I
didn't,
I
feel,
like
I've,
maybe
seen
these
before,
and
I
think
I
have
something
about
the
brightness
levels.
I
tried
looking
through
the
materials,
but
there's
quite
a
few.
I
I
didn't
see
anything
about
that
and
I
just
if
I
don't
think
we're
making
a
recommendation
to
the
bz
just
yet,
but
that's
something
I
would
urge
you
to
consider
is
the
brightness
of
the
signs.
If
there
needs
to
be
so
many.
E
F
C
Reasonable
for
my
own
piece,
I'll
say
that
part
of
what
helps
me
feel
some
comfort
with
this
level
of
signage
is
the
highway
context.
You
know
the
fact
that
you,
you
know,
are
right
next
to,
for
example,
to
a
gas
station
with
typical
gas
station
signage
and-
and
you
know
the
big
you
know
pole-
sign
with
large
features,
but
six
is
still
a
lot.
You
know
cj's
points
about.
You
know
the
nature
of
the
sign
being
important,
I
think,
is,
is
well
taken
and
yeah.
C
I
think
there
would
need
to
be
a
clear
rationale
to
get
us
from
two
to
six,
but
I
think
that
there's
probably
a
level
of
support
from
the
board
for
more
than
two,
oh
and
elizabeth.
I
just
saw
you
down
there
at
the
bottom
of
the
screen
and
I
apologize.
Could
I
could
I
get
your
comment
and
I
did
not
mean
to
skip
you.
I'm
sorry
for
that.
P
No,
it's
not
right.
I
I
have
been
having
trouble
with
my
internet,
so
I
think
I
missed
some
of
that
discussion.
P
What
I
heard
is
that
there
are
six
signs
for
the
building
and
the
image
that
I
see
right
now.
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
have
one
to
see
from
the
highway
and
some
for
pedestrian
level
view,
but
I
only
see
three.
P
Yeah,
I
don't
see
a
problem
with
the
signage,
so
I'd
be
in
support
of
a
letter
of
the
bza.
C
Thank
you,
so
I
think
at
this
point
the
applicant
has
heard
a
fair
bit
from
the
board
lisa.
D
So
I
mean,
I
think
that
also
we
don't
generally
have
signs
high
on
buildings
in
the
city
that
has
a
certain
character
to
it
that
I
think
you
should
think
about,
and
yes,
it
is
next
to
a
highway,
but
we're
also
transforming
that
highway
into
an
urban
boulevard
partially
for
that
whole
project,
and
it
does
face
a
residential
neighborhood
across
the
highway.
So
you
know,
I
think,
think
about
where
do
you
want
this
sign
to
be
visible
from?
Is
it
going
to
be
visible
from
west
hills?
D
C
Yeah,
that's
that's
worth
thinking
about,
so
when
I
mean
I
think
it's
worth
thinking
about
the
guthrie
site
more
broadly
and
that
included,
you
know,
site
signage,
of
course,
but
there
was
a
general
sentiment
from
the
board
that
we
wanted
to
allow
for
the
level
of
visibility
and
wayfinding
appropriate
for
medical
use
that
we
didn't
want
people
to
get
lost,
that
we
wanted
people
to
be
able
to
see
the
building.
There
was
a
lot
of
support
for
that,
but
at
the
same
time
I
do
know
that
we
tried
to
get
at.
C
You
know
some
of
those
impacts
in
other
ways
like
turning
things
off
at
night,
and
so
I
think,
thinking
about
things
like
that.
Thinking
about
brightness,
as
cj
mentioned,
and
coming
back
when
you're
ready
for
us
to
write
a
letter
to
the
bza
and
have
those
things
go
ahead.
Buttoned
up
and
addressed
would
be
helpful.
G
C
C
So
that
does
bring
us
to
325
dryden
road.
If
someone
from
the
applicant
team
could
let
us
know
if
we
have
everyone
we're
supposed
to
here,.
Q
Q
D
R
Okay,
jason
demarest
architect
for
the
project.
This
is
325
dryden,
road,
320,
elmwood
apartments.
I
think
I'll
just
jump
right
in
to
following
up
on
the
comments
at
prc.
You
know
I,
I
think
one
of
the
overarching
themes
was
just
a
lack
of
or
I'll
say,
perceived
lack
of
some
documentation.
So
I
just
just
want
to
clarify
that
what
I
have
provided,
because
this
is
a
small
project
on
a
quarter
acre
site,
a
hybrid
plan,
a
site
plan,
grading
planting
plan,
all
the
trees
are
called
out.
R
So
just
hopefully
that's
become
clear.
You
know:
we've
got
the
planting
beds
in
this
light,
green
these
grassy
window
well
areas
in
the
dark,
green
and
then
also
in
the
september,
submission
more
clarity
was
provided
on
various
species
options
and,
and
the
you
know
the
standard
planning,
details
and
notes.
So
that
was
one
comment
brought
up.
Another
thing
you
know
this
is
all
related
to
the
part
three.
R
You
know.
As
you
know,
we
have
some
variances
for
the
project,
and
so
we
really
want
to
clear
that
hurdle
before
we
get
too
detailed
in
design.
So
the
civil
design
aspect
of
the
project
is
actually
very
straightforward.
R
You
know
again
the
site
plan
I'll,
give
it
a
second
to
come
up
here,
but
it
does
show
existing
utilities
and
we're
going
to
tap
into
the
existing
utilities.
I
mean
the
idea
here
is
the
site
is
previously
developed
and
we're
going
to
you
know
tap
into
those
services.
R
I
did
speak
with
the
city
engineers
office,
matt
sajewski
today.
Finally,
I've
had
some
correspondence
v
email
with
scott
gibson,
but
he
confirmed
that
you
know
in
terms
of
erosion,
sediment
control.
R
The
project
does
qualify
as
a
small
home
site
control
plan,
which
is
it's
just
all
the
standard
practices
we'll
put
some
sill
fences
up
tracking
pad.
You
know
basic
details
so
in
terms
of
the
grading
of
the
site,
there's
really
not
much
to
show
in
a
grading
plan,
which
is
why
I
didn't
do
a
separate
grading
plan,
we're
literally
proposing
to
scrape
the
buildings
from
the
site
dig
for
foundations.
R
R
Matt
today,
from
dpw
was
comfortable
that
we
can
work
out
these
details,
and
I
did
did
want
to
say
if
there's
a
desire
to
add
a
a
contingency,
you
know
to
any
environmental
determination
to
provide
any
of
this
technical
civil
detail
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
city
engineers.
R
Open
to
that,
if
that
helps
expedite
things,
let's
see
a
couple
other
things
the
I
did
today
forward
and
I
believe
you,
you
received
the
email
that
I
sent
to
lisa
and
nikki
about
the
rpps.
R
I
did
have
a
conversation
back
in
august
with
julie,
holcomb,
the
city
clerk
and
she
had
clarified
back
then
that
essentially
cr-2
properties,
and
we
now
have
a
separate
building
subsequent
to
august.
It
does
qualify
for
eligibility
for
for
parking
on
street
parking
spaces,
so
in
an
effort
to
provide
the
backup
documentation.
R
I
have
stated
this,
but
just
trying
to
get
that
documentation
into
you
and
then
I
also
wrote
a
little
bit
more
of
an
expanded
narrative
of
a
transportation
demand
management
plan
for
the
project,
even
though
that's
not
specified
or
allowed
it's
it's.
It
was
discussed
at
prc
as
a
as
a
mitigation
measure,
and
I
had
discussed
that
in
the
narrative
for
that
was
submitted
previously
but,
like
I
said,
I
added
a
little
bit
more
detail
just
a
couple
of
notes:
there's
a
car
share
spot
across
the
site
directly
across
dryden
road.
R
As
you
know,
lyft
and
uber
make
it
very
easy
to
get
around
it's
a
quarter
less
than
a
quarter
mile
walk
to
the
core
of
college
town.
It's
a
mile,
walk
or
bike
to
the
vast
majority
of
campus.
The
proximity
or
location
of
this
site
is.
R
So
we
do
believe
that
you
know
transportation
other
than
the
automobile
is,
is
appropriate
and
that's
what
we're
trying
to
promote
I'll
just
leave
it
at
that.
What
else
can
I
tell
you
and
then
just
to
add
a
little
a
little
bit
of
background?
This
is
something
that
has
not
made
it.
Where
am
I
here
and
I
I
won't
read
these
I
can
provide
these
later.
We
do
now
have
three
letters
of
support.
R
One
was
the
adjacent
neighbor
which
we
had
spoken
about
previously
at
earlier
meetings
and
I'd
created
this
map
a
while
back.
I
just
wanted
to
show.
Hopefully,
if
that's
on
screen
now
everyone
can
see
that
yep
blue
dots
are
the
opposition
comments
further
away
and
then
I'll
just
zoom
in
a
little
bit
here
around
the
project
site.
So
everyone
can
I'm
zoomed
in
now,
so
the
dentist
is
adamantly
opposed,
but
the
new
letters
are
from
our
these
two
immediate
neighbors
to
the
east.
R
So
just
kind
of
wanted
to
add
that
to
the
the
balancing
of
the
public
comment-
and
I
I
know
that's
a
little
tough,
these
letters
went
to
megan
and
the
in
response
to
the
bza
process,
so
not
sure
if
that
actually
makes
it
back
to
you
guys.
So
I
just
thought
I'd
comment
on
that
chris
and
greg.
Do
you
guys
have
any
other
comments?
Because
I
thought
I
would
just
open
this
up
to
you
know
any
other
questions
that
the
board
might
have
to
help
with
the
environmental
review.
C
Great
looks
like
we
can
get
into
it,
so
I'd
like
to
take
tackle
this
environmental
review
in
maybe
two
parts.
I
think
the
first
part
is
to
go
through
the
various
things
that
are
not
zoning
related
see.
C
If
we're
comfortable
with
the
level
of
information,
we
have
check
in
with
lisa
that
she
has
what
she
needs
and
determine
whether
or
not
we're
we're
good
and
then
once
we
get
through
that,
we
can
figure
out
to
what
extent
we're
going
to
address
the
issues
related
to
zoning
in
this
part
three
and
then
after
we
get
that,
hopefully
we're
able
to
take
a
vote,
and
I
think
we
just
follow
the
highlights
here
I
mean
I
feel,
like
it's
pretty
spelled
out
to
us
under
project
description,
and
I
realized
the
app
can
address
this
a
little
bit.
C
D
Well,
I
mean
we
can
go
through
them
when
we,
each
of
them
we
get
to
the
different
sections
he
did
provide.
You
know
some
information
today
from
water
and
sewer
about
water
capacity.
I
mean
it's.
D
We
asked
for
geotechnical
information
because
you
know
they're
going
to
be
digging
so
jason
did
provide
a
narrative,
and
you
know
if
that
seems
if
that
seems
fine
to
you.
I
think
we
should
move
forward.
P
D
Groundwater
again
because
there
wasn't
a
geotechnical,
we
don't
know
the
depths
to
groundwater.
In
that
area
there
can
be
perched
water
tables,
so
there
wasn't
any
subsurface
investigation
or
letter
from
an
engineer
about
foundations,
jason
as
a
licensed
architect,
provided
his
assessment
of
what
the
foundations
would
be
like,
and
so
the
issue
with
groundwater
is
that
if,
if
groundwater
is
encountered
during
excavation,
it
has
to
be
handled
in
a
particular
way,
so
we
could
certainly
add
a
generic
sentence
there.
D
In
absence
of
any
information,
we
could
add
a
generic
sentence
about
ground.
If
groundwater
is
encountered
during
excavation,
it
has
to
be
handled
in
accordance
with
all
state
locations.
D
Yeah,
so
that
is
under
plants
and
animals,
so
at
the
project
review
committee
it
because
of
the
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
I
my
understanding,
was
because
of
the
area
variances
green
space
and
lot
coverage.
The
landscape
was
used
as
a
mitigation,
so
it
was
requested
that
a
detailed
planting
plan
be
submitted
as
to
be
able
to
evaluate.
If
that
is,
you
know
sufficient
mitigation.
D
I
will
say
that
you
can't
add
conditions
on
the
negative.
The
applicant
has
to
agree
to
something
you
can
say
you
know
you
can
still
have.
You
have
a
lot
to
negotiate
during
site
plan
reviews,
so
we
can
negotiate
during
sites,
so
planning
plan
was
asked
for
wasn't
submitted.
So
you
know,
I
guess
the
question
is:
how
do
you
feel
moving
forward
without
that
being
submitted?
And
maybe
we
talk
about
that
in
the
variances,
because
it
was
related
to
the
variances
really
because
of
the
law
coverage
and
green
space
nikki.
A
D
Okay,
all
right
transportation
because
of
the
parking
deficiency
the
applicant
was
asked
to
provide
a
tdm.
The
board
is
certainly
allowed
to
ask
for
that.
It
isn't
required
in
this
zone,
but
the
board
can
ask
for
that
and
they
ask
for
that
as
a
mitigation.
So,
and
that
was.
D
For
that,
and
so
that
was
submitted
today-
I
don't
know
if
you
saw
it,
maybe
we
can
go
over
it
and
then
the
other
issue
with
the
transportation
was
the
construction
logistics.
We
were
given
a
a.
D
Narrative
about
how
the
construction
is
going
to
happen,
but
normally
with
transportation,
you
have
construction
logistics.
That
includes
what
sidewalks
will
be
closed,
how
the
pedestrians
will
circulate.
Are
they
going
to
use
the
street?
Are
they
going
to
take
anything
same
with
utilities?
The
reason
we
ask
for
utility
plan
is
because
it
impacts
areas
off
the
site
generally
and
we
don't
have
any
way
of
knowing
what
areas
are
impacted
about
the
site
unless
we
have
that
information.
D
I
mean
it's
not
the
board's
decision,
how,
because,
if
they
have
to
get
a
street
permit,
you
know
the
engineering
department
will
look
at
that
and
make
a
determination,
but
the
board
could
certainly
say
you
know:
sidewalks
should
stay
open.
If
they
don't,
there
should
be
crosswalks.
Things
should
be
signed.
C
D
They're
related
right,
but
so
I
think
I
think
that
covers
it.
What
do
you
think
nikki.
C
So
I
I
I
think
it
I
realize
that
there's
not
a
clean,
bright
line
between
what
we've
discussed
and
the
issues
relating
to
zoning,
but
I
think
before
we
dive
into
the
the
zoning
conversation
because
it
could
get
so
messy.
It's
worth
checking
in
with
board
members
to
see
if
they
feel
comfortable
moving
forward
with
a
determination
sort
of
with
what
we've
heard
so
far
on
what
we've
heard
so
far.
C
Whether
we
feel
like
we
have
enough
information
to
make
this
make
this
judgment
and
mitch
since
you're
in
the
top
left
of
my
grid.
I'm
going
to
start
with
you.
C
H
Oh
thanks
a
lot
mitch
out
of
what
we
just
talked
about.
I
think
we
can
develop.
We
can
work
together
to
develop
a
planting
plan
and
strategy
during
site
plan
review.
I
feel
comfortable,
not
not
having,
and
I
do
see
thank
you
jason
as
you
see
that
there's
more
detail
in
the
plan
that
you
did
submit
so
that
one
I
think
we
could
cover
later.
H
I
Yeah
thanks
for
this,
I
would
ditto
on
the
site
civil
set.
That's
planning
is
looking
for
per
the
excavation
and
also
the
geo
attack.
The
other
question
I
had
was,
I
think,
the
tdm
does
an
okay
job
of
substantiating
of
the
reduction
and
the
requirements
by
just
wondering
if
applicant
would
consider,
because
14
off-street
parking
spaces
are
required,
maybe
just
breaking
down
each
of
those
reductions
from
the
14.
I
All
the
way
down
to
the
it
sounds
like
four
on
street
through
our
bps
are
anticipated
and
then
another
four
on
site.
So
I
think
you
could
do
that
reduction,
be
geographic
location,
residential
density,
the
employment
density,
the
land
use
makes
and
the
transit
accessibility.
I
think
you
definitely
have
the
numbers
there,
but
I
know
that's
probably
a
substantial
variance.
The
things
that
stood
out
to
me
on
the
bza
appeal
were,
you
know,
lot
coverage
by
buildings.
I
mean
the
question
of
course.
I
That
comes
to
mind
to
me:
is
you
know
how
many
less
units
would
you
be
proposing?
Were
you
actually
to
me
the
40
max
or
the
40
maximum,
and
then
the
maximum
building
length
called
out
to
me?
You
know
is
a
pretty
you
know.
65.6
is
a
pretty
significant
number,
but
in
that
I'm
wondering
if
there
was
anything
applicant
wanted
to
consider
adding
to
the
part
3
to
perhaps
explain
why
the
larger
building
with
the
single
footprints
and
all
of
the
shared
units
could
have
an
energy
efficiency
argument.
I
Just
wondering
if
that
was
something
applicant
could
consider
as
well.
Thanks
very
much.
F
F
So
I'm
not
bothered
that
there's
a
maybe
a
few
details
that
aren't
worked
out
yet
because
I
really
want
to
see
what
what
the
dca
is
going
to
do
and
I
think
anything
that
is
once
we
have
resolution
there.
We
can
clean
up
any
anything.
That's
left
over
that
we
don't
have
information,
we
don't
have
tonight
so
yeah.
Let's
move
forward.
P
Well,
I
agree,
I
agree
with
garrick
that
this
is
probably
a
ned
deck
anyway,
but
I'm
not
really
comfortable,
as
emily
said,
going
forward
with
a
neck
deck
without
a
utility
plan,
some
sort
of
drainage
or
grading
plan
construction,
logistics,
narrative,
I
mean
that's
something
that
you
can
put
together
pretty
easily
and
the
utility
capacity.
I
think
those
are
like.
P
Systems
items
that
are
really
important
to
the
project,
but
I
also
agree
with
carrick:
it's
it's
probably
a
neg
deck,
we're
just
missing
information,
so
yeah
lisa
has
something
to
say:
yeah.
D
I
do
want
to
clarify,
if
maybe
I
wouldn't
make
this
clear-
we
did
get
some
information
from
today
from
our
water
and
sewer
or
streets
and
facilities,
engineer
about
the
approach
to
storm
water
seemed
acceptable
and
that,
in
terms
of
water
and
sewer,
there
was
just
to
just.
E
P
Okay,
so
that's
important,
so
I
don't
I
don't
know
I
agree
with
garrick,
but
I
also
think
there's
some
information
missing
and
I'd
go
with
what
lisa
recommends.
If
we
can
review
those
items
during
site
plan
review
great.
C
Fair
enough,
so
mitch
passed
I'll
come
back
to
mitch
in
just
a
second,
but
I
will
say
in
terms
of
what
I've
heard
feel
like
I've
heard
so
far.
There's
a
there
is
a
desire
on
the
part
of
this
board
to
get
this
project
out
of
limbo
and
over
towards
the
bza
to
figure
out
which
way
is
up.
C
There
is
a
general
sentiment
that
maybe
we
don't
have
quite
everything
that
we
would
normally
have
before.
We
declared
an
egg
deck
and
there
is
a
general
sense
that
we
could
work
through
some
of
those
missing
things
in
the
site
plan
review
process
and
that
maybe
some
of
the
stuff
that
we
got
today
addresses
some
of
that.
C
In
addition,
is
that
a
fair
sum
up,
I'm
seeing
at
least
garrick,
seeing
some
more
nods
mitch
with
that?
It's
back
to
you.
G
Yeah
agreed
with
garrick
and
what
you
just
said:
let's
get
it
out
of
limbo
and
see
what
pga
says.
D
So
really,
you
know
what
you
have
tonight
is
yes,
it's
I
understand
that
you
want
to
do.
You
know,
do
the
neg
deck
and
get
it
to
bga,
but
you
you
still
have
a
responsibility
to
review
all
the
information
and
make
a
reasoned
response
to
the,
for
instance,
the
variances,
I
think
we've
we've
talked
about
how
you
could
reason
and
what
would
be
perfectly
acceptable
reasons
for
the
logistics
complaint
plan,
the
utility
plan,
but
for
the
and
for
the
variances.
D
So
the
new
information
that
you
have
is
you've
seen
the
variances
before
we
should
really
again
go
through
the
part.
Three
look
at
the
beginning
of
it
and
understand
everybody
should
understand
the
intent
of
the
plan
and
the
zones
right
and
the
zoning
which
is
written
and
then
the
new
information
that
you
have
is
the
for
those
some
of
you
watched
the
bza
meeting.
D
Some
of
you
didn't,
but
there's
a
synopsis
from
megan
wilson
about
the
bca
meeting,
which
the
chair
of
the
dca
reviewed
and
said
was
fine,
and
then
she
also
added
you
may
or
may
not.
You
should
look
at
it.
Whether
you
want
to
include
this
in
the
bza
packet,
there's
a
memo
about
some
of
the
things
that
have
been
the
inconsistencies
or
statements
that
have
been
made.
That
are
not
true,
so
she
from
a
zoning
perspective.
D
So
she
clarified
that
and
then
there
are
a
couple
new
comments
to
the
bcaa
that
you
put
also.
So
I
think,
as
you're
as
we're
working
through
the
zoning.
Again,
you
should
understand,
read
and
understand
the
intent
of
the
zoning,
and
then
you
know
make
an
argument
about
why
there
is
no
planning
impact
or
or
discuss
if
there
is
a
planning
impact
to
these
variances
and
it's
very
difficult,
because
there's
a
lot
of
them
and
they're
all
interrelated.
E
C
So
I
mean
I,
I
I'm
going
to
kick
it
back
to
you
again,
because
you
know
I
I
do
feel
like.
I
heard
a
level
of
comfort
on
the
part
of
the
board
with
what
we
had
sort
of
absent
this
last
section,
and
I
think
it's
worth
going
through
the
the
last
section
related
to
the
variance
and
and
talking
about
each
one.
But
I
I
guess
that
to
put
an
over
fine
point
at
it.
C
But
I
will
say
that
I
have
no
appetite
to
adjudicate
this
zoning
or
have
an
opinion
on
this
zoning,
because
that's
not
really
what
we
do
here.
So.
D
So
you're
right,
that's
exactly
right,
so
you're
you're,
I
I'm
gonna,
ask
the
applicant
to
stop
sharing
your
screen
because
I
feel,
like
you,
you
know:
we've
we've
heard
ever,
we've
heard
so
much
from
everybody.
It's
really
your
opportunity
to
deliver
it
right.
So
I
mean
your
your
responsibility
is
to
look
at
these
zoning
issues.
From
this
view
of
planning,
you
know
what
does
the
plan
say
what
was
intended
here
and
so
what
are
the?
What
is
the
planning
impact
to
the
variances?
The
bza
has
a
different
role.
D
You
know
they
have
to
look
at
it
slightly
differently,
so
you
know
we
had
draft.
We
have
drafted
based
on
the
project
review
committee
and
some
other
information.
We
have
drafted
some
of
the
responses,
so
we
could
just
sort
of
go
through
them.
If
you
want
to,
let's.
E
D
And
again,
the
the
dance
here
or
the
the
the
there's,
the
intent
of
the
zoning
and
the
intent
of
the
plan,
which
is
to
maintain
the
existing
housing
stock.
Significant
redevelopment
of
these
districts
is
neither
anticipated
or
encouraged
any
new
construction
shall
be
similar
in
form
and
scale.
That's
the
zone
right,
so
you
have
to
say
okay,
but
you
know
why.
D
Why
not-
and
I
think
you've
talked
about
all
of
that
in
all
of
your
meetings,
but
we
have
to
actually
articulate
it
so
so
for
spacing
between
primary
structures.
For
instance,
let's
get
started
there.
The
statement-
and
it's
not
even
highlighted
anymore,
because
I
think
everybody
felt
comfortable
with
it
was
lead
agency,
finds
that,
since
these
buildings
are
related
structures
on
a
consolidated
lot,
the
spacing
is
less
of
an
issue.
Then
the
space
actually
becomes
an
amenity
and
the
space
actually
becomes
an
amenity.
D
The
space
acts
as
an
activated
courtyard
and
benefits
the
tenants
and
both.
So
I
think,
that's
pretty
close
to
a
you-
know:
planning
a
planning
recommendation,
okay
off
street
parking,
so
the
what
was
asked
for
was
okay.
So
it
is
a
significant
ass.
You
know
and
the
their
they
do
have
access
to
four.
They
have.
They
have
eligibility
for
four
spaces
in
a
residential
parking
permit
program
that
the
city
has
they're
not
guaranteed
for
spaces,
but
they
have
acts
that
have
eligibility
based
on
what
we
know
now
have
that's
four
they're
providing
four.
D
So
that's
still
ten
laps.
So
once
that
board
asked
for
a
tdm
plan
or
tdm
strategies
that
they
would
use
to
reduce
or
discourage
their
their
tenants
from
bringing
cars,
and
that
has
been
provided.
I
haven't
actually
looked
at
it
because
we've
got
it
quite
late.
H
I
it
reads
more
like
a
rationale
to
why
less
parking
is
necessary,
which
I
completely
agree
with
build
less.
They
will
bring
less,
but
I
don't
think
it's
a
management
strategy
put
forward
by
the
the
developer
and
the
applicant.
I
I
wanted
to
hear
more
you're
going
to
give
everybody
a
bus,
so.
P
H
D
C
And
obviously
we
can
do
things
like
require
bike,
racks
and
site
plan
review.
I
mean
there's
some
there's
some
ability
to
address
that
sort
of
after
seeker,
but
if
we
think
that
that's
important
and
I
I
think
it
is-
and
you
know
we
have
some
tdm
document
that
maybe
isn't
quite
what
we
want
it
to
be.
D
Well,
if
you,
I
think,
if
the
applicant
agrees
to
develop
the
tdm
plan
further
during
site
plan
review,
and
you
can
tell-
and
we
list
what
we'd
like
to
see
in
it.
I
think
that,
and
you
you
know,
also
reference
that
it's
I
think,
yeah.
I
think
that
would
be
that
so.
C
Let's
include
language
as
the
applicant
will
continue
to
develop
their
transportation
demand
strategies.
Insight
plan
review
now
other
than
saying
that
we're
going
to
look
for
ways
they're
going
to
reduce
automobile
use.
I
don't
know
that
I
have
specific
things
that
I
want
to
see
in
that.
As
of
today.
C
D
Well,
I
think
you
know
maybe
cj
also
talked
about
you
know
specific
metrics
they
could
use.
We
want
you
to
implement
that
you
know
they
have
agreed
to
implement
strategies
such
that
their
parking
demand
is
reduced
by.
I
don't
know,
I'm
just
saying
50
whatever
you
know.
If
they
agree
to
that,
then
I
think
that
is
you
don't
need
to
see
the
plan
as
long
as
that's
what
is
demonstrated
in
france.
R
Well
I'll
see
what
greg
and
chris
think,
but
one
thing
that's
hitting
me
and
we
actually
discussed
this
earlier
today.
I
think
the
owner
would
be
fine
with
a
an
acknowledgement
in
the
lease
agreements
that
whoever's
renting
is
aware
of
the
parking
conditions
in
the
neighborhood
julie.
R
Holcomb
was
you
know,
added
that
in
her
reply
to
me
regarding
the
rpps,
so
we
talked
about
how,
as
long
as
we
make
sure
the
tenants
know,
they're
coming
here,
to
live
and
not
park
a
car
and
store
a
car
unless
they're
one
of
the
lucky
four
and
they're
in
the
lottery
for
the
other
four,
then
it's
very
clear.
They
can't
go
crying
to
julie
about
why
they
didn't
get
the
the
on-street
parking
space.
You
know,
and
then
we
can
talk
about
other
strategies
I
mean
I
did.
R
I
think
I
might
have
done
the
first
tdm
plan
with
140
college
ave
and
we
proposed
buying
car
share,
passes
for
all
the
tenants
and
no
one's
ever
taken
them
up
on
it.
So
I
mean
we
could
look
at
that
as
well,
but
you
know
there's
the
point
is
that
bikes
walking
uber
lyft
there's
just
so
many
options.
You
know
that's
why
parking
requirements
were
lifted,
but
I
get
it.
You
know
where
it's
required
here.
I
I
didn't
see
anything
in
here
about
unbundling,
that's
to
me
a
pretty
significant
strategy,
and
I'm
just
wondering
you
know
that
are
those
going
to
be
unbundled
from
the
rents,
the
spaces
I
mean
the
parkinson's.
R
C
So
it
sounds
like
there's
some
strategies
that
exist
and
that
some
of
those
are
written
up,
but
we
need
to
refine
those
further
as
we
go
forward.
I
will
say
that
personally,
I
feel
comfortable
just
saying
that
in
the
part
three,
but
I
also
I
mean
I
really
want
to
make
sure
we're
doing
things
properly.
You
know
I
want
lisa's
opinion
that
we're
doing
it
properly,
because
this
is
such
a
weird
situation.
D
Yeah,
I
think
that
you
know-
and
I
kind
of
lean
a
little
bit
on
cj
for
this,
like
what
you
know,
I
think
it
all
it's
not
our
job
to
package,
their
tdm
plan
or
rationalize
it.
You
know
I
mean
even
location,
get
a
discount.
You
know
package
that
all
together
and
say
we're
missing,
10
spaces
location
gives
us
two.
D
You
know
I
don't
know
you
know
make
it
into
a
package
with
some
rationale
about
so
you
can
say
we
want
you
to
develop
a
tdm
plan,
which
location
is
one
aspect
of
it
that
will
reduce
the
parking
to
you
know
by
parking
demand
by
50
for
something,
and
then
you
decide
what
works
for
you,
but
there
are
some
things
built
into
it.
It's
just
not
our
responsibility
to
rationalize
that
for
them
so
pick
a
metric,
I
would
say,
and
that
would
be
if
they
agreed
to
that.
I
Yeah
no
worries,
I
don't
know
what
makes
sense,
but
are
you
saying
we
want
to
try
to
calculate
this
right
now
or
like
I.
E
I
H
E
C
D
A
R
C
C
D
D
I
don't
think
you
can
really
look
at
them
separately,
but
maybe
you
can
I
I
can't
so
I
think
it's
like
whatever
reasoning
you
have
for
one
sort
of
would
be
for
all
of
them,
because
it's
about
how
big
the
scale
of
the
building
they're
all
area
variances,
how
big
is
the
building
and
they
all
interplay.
So
I
was
I
I
definitely
want
so
you
know
again.
This
is
about
zoning,
says
this,
and
this
building
is
bigger
than
that.
D
So
what's
the
rationale
for
that
being
fine
in
this
situation,
given
the
intent
of
the
zoning
and.
H
So
I
I
think
that
the
front
yard
is
mitigated.
The
front
air
variant
is
requested
is
mitigated
by
the
stepping
facade.
H
D
Which
is
called
rear
yard
is
there's
an
explanation
of
the
variances
beginning,
so
the
rear
yard
just
go
over
it.
To
make
sure
we
understand
it.
D
The
rear
yard
for
the
consolidated
lot
is
located
in
the
cr2
district.
Their
proposed
site
plan
shows
a
rear
yard
of
8.9
feet
of
the
required
20
feet.
So
there's
a
20
foot
requirement.
It's
8.9
the
rat.
The
reason
for
that.
I
don't
know
if
it's
the
rationale
you
tell
me,
but
the
reason
for
that
is
that
there's
a
curb
cut
and
a
driveway,
and
so
they
can't
push
the
building
up
more
can't
fit
more
building.
If
they
push
it
up
more
and
they
haven't
been
able
to
negotiate
a
shared
driveway
within
them.
R
D
Yeah
corner
lots
are
corner,
lots
can
be
challenging
right
because
the
rear,
the
rear
yard
is
really.
You
know.
C
D
All
right
maximum
lot
coverage,
a
portion
of
the
lot
is
in
the
cr2
district
complies
with
zone,
so
the
cr2
complies
the
maximum
allowed
block
coverage
for
the
cr3.
D
At
the
multi-family
building
is
is
40,
oh
the
lot
coverage
the
proposed
lot
coverage
is
40
percent,
required
luck,
coverage,
40
or
maximum,
and
they
have
53,
that's
13.
So
what
is
what
is
the
rationale
for
saying
that
this
is
it's
okay
to
have
a
much
13
percent
larger
building
than
israel
allowed
bison.
G
R
R
R
O
C
F
C
R
F
C
C
Is
to
say
that
those
seven
units
are
those
seven
bedrooms
are
really
important,
and
so
I
think
it's
worthwhile
for
the
board
to
say
are
those
seven
bedrooms
really
important?
You
know
do
do
we?
You
know.
D
D
C
I
think
I
have
to
drag
this
back
away
from
the
applicant
for
a
bit
because
I
think
the
board
has
to
get
comfortable
with
what
we're
saying
here
in
order
for
us
to
move
you
forward
at
all,
and
you
know,
I
think
that
this
is
the
tricky
part
right.
I
think
we,
I
think
we
can
wrap
our
heads
around.
Maybe
everything
but
lot
coverage
because
lot
coverage
is
the
heart
of
it.
C
You
know
I
will
say
that
for
me,
you
know,
let's
make
college
town
as
dense
as
we
can
in
the
same
way,
and
this
is
the
same
attractive.
Building
like
I
as
a
personal
human
being
can
like
get
behind
that,
but
that's
not
necessarily
what
our
contextual
planning
documents
about
this
particular
spot
says.
D
C
I
Okay,
what
exact
feedback
were
you
looking
for?
I'm
sorry,
some.
C
I
Well,
I
would
say
they
need
to,
I
would
say
they
need
to
if
it
really
is
about
deprivation
of
economic
use,
I
think
they
need
to
maybe-
and
I
would
say
this
is
really
for
zoning
board.
It's
not
a
standard
we'd
really
be
dealing
with
planning
wise,
but
I
think
we
could
probably
flesh
out
the
rationale
of
you
know.
Whatever
the
market
values
are
any
encumbrances
on
the
property,
you
know
if
the
actual
return
is
not
going
to
be
reasonable
under
the
circumstances.
I
I
would
flush
that
out
a
little
bit
to
really
explain
why
you
really
need
this
lot
coverage.
Also,
I
mean
I
would
advance
the
argument,
not
that
I'm
taking
the
applicant's
position
per
se,
but
you
know
the
city
does
have
an
energy
code.
There's
the
green
new
deal
like
if
we
really
can
advance
the
idea
that
this
larger,
singular
mass
of
a
building
has,
you
know,
benefits
from
an
energy
perspective.
I
could
buy
that,
but
you
know
I
think
it's
incumbent
on
the
applicant
really
to
demonstrate.
What's
a
pbm.
D
S
D
It
would
you
know
so
we
got
the,
I
think
we
can
get
there.
We
have
the
plan
that
says
yes,
density
should
be
in
central
college
town,
and
this
is
where
the
density
is
supposed
to
stop.
But
this
is
a
project
on
that
line
and
it's
denser
than
it
it
should
be.
So
why
is
there
not?
Why
is
it
okay
from
a
planning
perspective,
to
have
this
particular
project
in
that
location,
even
though
the
planning
and
the
zoning
say
it
should
be,
it
should
not
be
enough.
G
I
don't
really
either,
but
you
know
from
a
planning
point
of
view,
I
support
density.
I
think
college
town
has
room
to
be
more
dense.
I
think
this
is
a
transitional
transitional
site.
I
think
it's
a
good
building.
I
don't
mind
the
density,
you
know
from
a
personal
perspective,
but
I
don't
know
what
else
to
say
about
it.
P
I'm
not
sure
if
this
is
impactful
or
not,
but
I
would
say
that
we
don't
see
any
negative
impact
to
the
general
character
of
the
neighborhood
planning
wise
with
this
density.
E
C
For
my
own
piece,
I
mean
I,
I
think
that
I
have
to
go
back
to
the
best
place
to
build
student
housing
is
in
college
town
and
though
this
is
a
transitional
zone
within
college
town,
it
is
what
appears
to
be
a
very
well-built
building,
addressing
a
real
need
for
student
housing,
and
it
has,
you
know,
potential
benefits
and
mitigations.
D
Together
the
last
one
is
maximum
building
like
it's
very
related
to
the
rest
of
these.
It
is
a
very
large
change.
65,
let's
see
full
building
length
of
the
pros
project
measures
74.5
feet.
It
exceeds
the
maximum
allowed
zoning
by
65.
D
It
should
be
45..
So
it's
back
to
the
same
issue.
Really
it's
all
about
the
size
of
the
building.
So.
C
Yeah
I
mean
that
definitely
gets
mentioned
here
I
mean
that's
the
part
that
I
think
sort
of
addresses
it.
It
says
the
proposed
mitigation
is
the
utilization
of
the
50
step
back
concept
discussed
to
soften
the
massing
impact
of
the
building.
D
D
C
Okay,
other
questions
or
comments
from
members
of
the
board
or
staff
for
that
matter
on
the
part,
three
anything
that
we
need
to
look
at
or
address
on
the
part
three
before
I
look
for
a
motion
on
the
neg
deck.
C
Thank
you.
I
often
think
I
couldn't
have
done
it
without
you
lisa,
but
this
is
definitely
one
of
the
times
I
felt
it
more.
Is
there
a
motion
for
a
proposed
negative
declaration
on
325
dryden
road?
I
saw
elizabeth
move.
Is
there
a
second?
I
see
emily.
Second,
any
discussion
before
we
move
into
a
vote.
A
C
I
C
Derek
yes
mitch,
yes,
elizabeth!
Yes,
I
am
also
a
yes,
so
we
do
have
a
unanimous
neg
deck
I'd
like
to
thank
the
applicant
for
their
time
and
thank
the
board
for
working
through
that
and
staff
were
actually
telling
us
what
we
had
to
do.
That,
I
think,
is
it
for
this
project
today.
C
All
right
great
see
lisa
with
the
recommendation.
To
what
extent
are
we
addressing
these
variances
individually
versus
as
a
collective.
D
Well,
it's
I
think
that
your
recommendation
is
the
same
as
your
rationale
and
the
part
three.
We
can
take
out
the
explanation
and
just
what
your
recommendations.
That's
often
we
do
that
with
you
know
when
there's
a
you
know,
a
more
complex
part
through
just
part
three
in
the
recommendation.
For
these
reasons,
the
board
has
found
that
there
is
no
impact,
negative
community
impact
or
neighborhood
impact
from
a
planning
perspective.
You
can
just
put
that.
C
P
C
That
makes
sense,
so
we
went
through
this
rationale
and
the
various
sort
of
lenses
on
it.
In
this
section
of
the
part,
three
obviously
we'll
be
able
to
reuse
that
language
is
there
anything
that
any
member
of
the
board
wants
to
make
sure
is
included
in
the
recommendation.
That
is
not
was
not
mentioned
in
our
discussion
of
that
part
of
the
part
three.
C
D
C
Sure
I
mean
I
like
the
project.
I
also
think
feel
you
know
subjectively
that
it's
being
fairly
aggressive
with
the
zoning-
and
I
don't
know
what
bza
is
gonna
do
and
I
have
less
comfort
telling
them
what
I
think
they
should
do
than
I
have
in
other
situations
because
of
sort
of
the
level
of
zoning
aggressiveness
real
or
perceived-
and
I
don't
know
if
other
members
of
the
board
feel
similarly
or
differently
to
that.
F
F
I
I
think
from
a
planning
perspective,
I
would
say
that
I
I
can't.
I
really
can't
move
beyond
that
on
any
of
these
individual
variances.
It
does
lead
to
a
lot
of
density.
F
C
Well,
I
I
think,
that's
all
super
fair
and
I
think
that's
worth,
including
in
the
recommendation
that
this
is
a
high
quality
building
in
a
place
that
needs
high
quality
buildings.
H
U
If
you
see
david
stern's
name
as
well,
I
don't
think
he's
joining.
But
if
you
see
it,
let
him
into
so.
D
U
Okay,
great
so
that
is
us.
I'm
kate
chesbro
here
with
ifeyon
from
woodam
planning
and
design,
and
we
have
a
number
of
things
in
our
submission
for
this
month
that
we
can
go
over
quickly
as
a
little
bit
of
a
recap
and
then
we'd
welcome
any
questions
or
comments.
B
U
While
we're
doing
the
recap
or
happy
so,
the
first
first
thing
was
just
a
quick
update
to
the
site
plan
narrative
related
to
the
parking
area
as
well
as
the
waterfront
and
those
are
reflected
in
the
drawings
that
are
later
in
the
submission.
U
And
then
we
have
the
design
review
application
that
was
prepared
for
the
parking
area
only
just
to
make
sure
that's
really
clear.
Usually
these
are
done
for
an
overall
project,
but
because
of
the
phasing
of
this,
it
was
just
done
for
the
parking
area.
So
most
of
our
responses
are
related
to
the
way
that
the
parking
area
is
being
designed
to
balance
clarity
of
wayfinding,
but
also
screening
views
from
public
areas
of
parking,
because
we
we
know
that
that's
a
primary
goal
of
the
waterfront
design
guidelines.
U
So
if
there
are
any
questions
about
those
we're
happy
to
answer,
the
next
were
our
supplemental
information
pieces
that
we
gave
for
the
fdaf
part
3..
U
That's
all
the
highlights
that
you
see,
so
we
were
able
to
give
more
information
about
material
to
be
removed,
foundation,
narrative
kind
of
a
placeholder
swift,
narrative,
the
shoreline
vegetation,
grease
traps
and
the
number
of
bike
racks
that
are
proposed
versus
existing
and,
finally,
the
more
about
bike
racks.
U
So
I
won't
go
over
this
in
too
much
detail,
but
we're
happy
to
answer
any
questions
based
on
your
review
of
that,
and
then
we
provided
some
drawings
that
encapsulate
some
of
the
conversation
that
we've
had
so
far
about
the
project
such
as
this
one,
the
parking
diagram
that
shows
where
we
are
proposing
different
programs
of
parking
to
be
located
when
the
new
building
is
in
place
or
the
vendors
could
choose
to
do
this.
You
know
anytime,
but
the
yellow
is
the
vendor
parking
on
either
side
of
the
vegetative
firm.
U
This
is
again
not
new
information.
This
is
just
taking
what
was
in
the
civil
sd
plans
and
making
them
more
graphic.
So
these
are
the
vehicular
wayfinding
signs
that
will
be
making
it
clear
where
customers
are
supposed
to
go
when
they
arrive
in
their
cars.
So
there's
that
and
a
materials
board
that
talks
about
the
different
materials
that
pedestrians
in
particular
will
be
experiencing
on
the
site.
U
The
various
concrete
walkways
that
we've
talked
about
for
pedestrian
access,
where
we're
intending
permeable,
drivable,
pavers,
immediately
adjacent
to
the
building
the
covered
bike.
Parking
we've
talked
to
the
market
about
potentially
having
kind
of
a
custom
a
little
bit
funky
design
for
that
some
of
the
aesthetic
that
they
already
have
retractable
bollards,
so
that
only
emergency
vehicles
are
going
here
as
well
as
only
vendors
and
the
lighting
that
will
be
in
place
for
the
parking
area
as
well
as
pedestrian
lighting.
U
We've
put
together
a
planting
palette
for
visual
reference
so
that
the
board
can
see
the
different
canopy
trees,
ornamental
trees,
shrubs
and
perennials
that
are
proposed.
U
These
are
a
majority
native
species
palette
and
are
adapted
to
the
bioretention
conditions
that
can
fluctuate
between
dry
and
very
wet
conditions
and
give
some
seasonal
interest
as
well,
and
we
zoomed
into
the
waterfront
up,
updated
site
plan
and
just
wanted
to
diagram
what
materials
were
in
the
different
areas
to
clarify
some
of
that.
So
this
just
clarifies
what
is
planted
versus,
what's
not
basically
and
the
materials
that
are
used
for
the
not
planted
areas.
U
So
both
of
those
cuts
are
made
where
we
have
these
stabilized
edges
of
the
trail,
which,
as
a
result
of
the
new
building,
will
be
relocated
closer
to
the
water.
So
we
need
some
of
that
shore
line
stabilization
at
the
top.
So
yeah
we're
that's
just
a
quick
overview
and
we're
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
There
might
be.
C
Great
thank
you
very
much
for
that.
Let's
go
around
the
room
and
get
questions
and
comments.
Cj.
Could
I
start
with
you.
C
H
Thank
you
so
much
for
these
sections.
That's
super
helpful.
I
think
the
updates
are
great.
I
wondered
if
either
for
the
thief
or
just
for
design.
You
know
next
design
iteration.
I
saw
that
you're
adding
open
space,
4
500
square
feet
of
open
space.
H
U
Yeah
and
if
I
jump
in
after
this
little
intro,
the
the
big
change
in
what's
proposed
is
that
cars
will
not
be
parked
on
the
waterfront
side
of
the
building.
So
space
that
is
currently
taken
up
by
cars
today
will
turn
into
space
that
can
be
occupied
by
people.
So
that
is
what
drives
that
number
to
be
so
high.
U
H
U
N
Yeah,
so
this
is
kind
of
a
brief
overview
of
what's
added
and
what's
what
is
being
taken,
but
as
kay
was
mentioning
that
we
are
taking
kind
of
all
the
space
in
between
the
trail
and
the
prevailing
as
the
public
space
that
can
be
used
in
future
phases.
So
that's
added.
That's
that's
why
I
kind
of
drive
the
numbers
higher.
U
But
if
that,
if
there
is
a
typo
about
that,
we
can
remedy
that
with
staff.
But
the
point
is
that,
as
designed
we're
adding
public
space
there's
something.
C
So,
to
the
extent
that
there
was
feedback
on
today's
updates
that
say
that
feedback
was
largely
positive,
maybe
exclusively
positive.
The
other
action
we
have
on
deck
is
to
review
the
part
three
lisa.
Can
I
check
in
with
you
as
to
where
we
should
focus
and
what
our
goals
are
for
today's
review,
because
it's
not
like
we're
going
to
be
taking
a
vote
tonight.
D
Yeah
I
mean,
I
think,
there's
one
of
two
ways
you
could
approach
this
one
would
be
to
go.
They've
submitted
a
lot
of
new
information
for
the
part.
Three,
it
hasn't
been
integrated.
We
can
go
through
and
integrate
that
into
the
part
three
for
the
next
meeting
and
as
well
as
your
comments
about
design,
review
the
design,
and
we
can
just
review
the
part
three
next
month.
That
would
be
one
coach
or
we
could
go
through
their
comments
and
see
what
you
think.
D
B
No,
I
think
that
I
think
you're
right.
The
design
review
is
pretty
important,
I
think
before
and
then
the
thief
we
could
talk
about
next
time
as
well.
Once
we
integrate
it.
C
Great
so
when
I
read
through
the
highlighted
updates
from
the
applicant,
I
didn't
see
anything
that
to
me
was
concerning
not
that
I
would
necessarily
catch
it
if
it
was,
but
certainly
that
sounds
like
something
that
staff's
going
to
look
at
integrate
and
get
kicked
back
to
us
next
month.
That
seems
entirely
appropriate.
C
Is
there
anything
we
should
probably
go
away,
go
around
the
room
one
more
time
since
we
are
doing
design
review
and
some
folks
didn't
comment
lisa.
I
saw
your
hand.
D
Yeah,
I
did
have
a
design
review
comment,
which
was
you
know.
I
think
we
really
need
a
very
zoomed
in
very
detailed
design
of
how
these
walkways
that
go
through
the
parking
stalls
along
with
vegetation
are
going
to
actually
operate
at,
because
you
know
we've
seen
situations
like
this,
where
there's
not
much
room
and
you
try
to
fit
a
lot
of
things
and
it
fails.
D
So
I
think
we
really
need
a
very
detailed
drawing
of
that
of
how
that's
actually
going
to
work
so
that
people
can
walk
safely
without
the
cars
coming
over
and
also
there
can
be
actually
bee
vegetation
that
thrives
there,
because
it's
a
nice
idea,
but
it's
a
lot
to
fit
in
one
spot,
and
I
we
really
need
to
see
how
that's
gonna
work.
C
I
think
that's
well
taken
and
I'm
sure
the
applicant
will
get
that
for
us
and
we
will
take
a
look
at
that.
B
With
what
lisa
said,
I
would
also
say
thank
you
for
including
green
infrastructure.
I
really
appreciate
that
in
the
parking
lot
it's
fantastic,
but
I'd
also
like
to
know
how
you're
sizing
it.
I
know
that's
going
to
depend
on
percolation
test
et
cetera,
but
it
would
be
important
to
know
the
size
of
the
green
infrastructures
with
the
impermeable.
U
You
need
that
for
design
review,
because
that's
giving
us
a
little
bit
of
a
headache
trying
to
get.
B
U
P
Yeah
I
was
going
to
ask
about
the
maintenance
of
all
those
plantings
and
if
you
have
some
sort
of
plan
for
irrigation
and
everything
like
we.
Q
U
So
otherwise,
though,
maintenance
is
something
that
we're
sensitive
to
and
the
we're
gonna
make
it
as
easy
as
possible,
like
mow
the
perennials
once
a
year
and
don't
touch
the
shrubs
or
trees
like.
If,
if
that
can
be
the
maintenance
plan,
then
that's
what
we're
going
to
do.
P
S
I'll
just
add
that
the
market
has
it's
a
cooperative,
it's
just
sort
of
like
green
star.
They
have.
We
have
a
working
hours
program.
Everybody
has
to
participate
in
what
we
call
buildings
and
grounds
every
year.
So
we
have
done
a
lot
of
the
maintenance
ourselves.
I
think
it'll
be
less
tangled
in
this
new
iteration
and
maybe
a
little
easier
to
keep
up
with.
So
member
labor
will
be
part
of
the
answer.
C
Great
other
questions
or
comments
from
the
board.
U
I
have
a
quick
question:
if
there's
anything
else
that
might
be
needed
to
complete
the
seeker
for
this,
it
would
be
helpful
to
know
that,
because
otherwise,
we'll
be
proceeding
after
seeker
with
just
a
parking
lot
updated
plans
that
are
based
on
what
you've
seen
so
far,
but
we're
basically
trying
to
wrap
up
what
we
can
otherwise.
C
Sure-
and
so
this
speaks,
I
think
specifically
to
what,
if
anything,
we're
missing
on
the
part
three
and
I'm
gonna
go
back
to
lisa
and
check
in
with
her,
because
what
I
saw
you
know
seemed
to
me
relatively
comprehensive,
but
I'll
say
I
don't
know
that
you
know
we
won't
need
anything
else.
D
U
It's
great
well,
if
that's
all,
then
thank
you
very
much.
C
E
T
D
What's
your
next
slider
vin
so
good
evening,
I'm
catherine
wolf
trevor
with
michael's
landscape,
architects
and
I'm
joined
by
arvin
tiku
of
icon
architects.
Also
john
novar
is
here
with
me
part
of
the
developer
team.
I
believe
phil
poganski's
on
the
is
here
and
herman
sieberdeen
from
iad
also
part
of
the
developer
team.
D
Our
presentation
tonight
is
specifically
addresses
the
comments
that
we
heard
last
time
from
both
the
planning
board,
as
well
as
comments
that
were
submitted
by
the
public,
and
so
we
just
wanted
to
address
each
of
these.
First
of
all,
there
were
some
a
request
for
some
questions
about
impacts
to
historic
resources
and
concern
that
some
mid-block
views
would
be
eliminated
along
college
avenue.
D
I
think
you
asked
if
we
could
you
you
said
it
would
be
interesting
to
compare
shadows
that
would
be
created
by
the
proposed
buildings
as
compared
to
shadows
that
would
be
allowed
as
per
the
zoning,
and
then
there
was
also
a
request
for
additional
information
to
understand
what
are
some
of
the
factors
that
are
creating
the
need
for
the
request
for
the
height
variants,
and
then
finally,
you
requested
that
we
document
our
deconstruction
and
reuse
process.
D
So
with
that,
I
think
we
can
just
get
right
into
it
and
I'll
try
to
move
through
these
fairly
quickly,
first
of
all
historic
resources.
So
here
you
can
see
our
project,
the
catherine,
north
and
katherine
south
sites
and
right
across
the
street
from
catherine
south
number
one.
There
is
the
grand
view
house
to
the
east
of
college
avenue
and
then
to
the
south
of
cook
street
is
the
john
snape
house.
These
are
each
a
local
locally
designated
next
slide.
D
These
views
were
also
intentionally
created
to
make
sure
that
we
were
illustrating
the
view
with
these
historic
resources
in
context
so
that
you
could
understand
how
they
would
appear
argan.
Maybe
you
could
point
out
the
john
snake
house
on
the
left
there,
and
so
that's
just
on
the
south
side
of
cook
street.
You
can
see
there's
a
substantial
setback
from
cook
street
and
actually,
if
you
go
forward
a
slide,
please
we
have
another
view
this.
D
So
this
is
a
view
looking
west
down
cook
and
yes,
the
john
smith
house,
on
the
left,
and
then
you
can
see
that
there
it's
it's
set
back
quite
a
bit
from
cook
street
and
also,
I
think
some
of
the
elements
of
the
new
development
are
beneficial
in
being
a
good
neighbor
to
the
building.
I
think
the
great
amount
of
transparency
almost
complete
transparency
at
the
lower
levels,
the
two-story
height
opening
at
the
corner,
and
then
this
this
terrace
would
the
sort
of
cascading
amphitheater
stairs.
D
I
think
this
sort
of
openness
and
transparency
all
works
together
to
create
a
positive
environment
that
also
creates
you
know,
sort
of
space
and
and
transparency
adjacent
to
the
historic
resource
to
go
to
the
next
slide.
D
This
is
a
view
looking
down
college
avenue
looking
to
the
south
and
on
the
left,
you
can
see,
there's
the
grand
view
house
and
then
on.
The
right,
of
course,
is
the
proposed
project,
and
I
think
that
you
know
in
general,
I
think
it's
been
pretty
well
established
that
architecture
of
all
eras,
eras
and
styles
can
coexist
actually
very
successfully
if
it's
good
architecture.
I
think
that
is
really
what
that's.
D
What
makes
cities
so
dynamic
and
interesting
when
you
write
when
you
have
this
continuum
of
architecture
from
the
past
into
the
present
and
when
it's
good
architecture,
it
all
works
together
very
successfully,
and
we
we
absolutely
believe
that
this
project
will
be
compatible
with
the
historic
architecture
of.
For
that
reason,
there
are
some
elements.
You
know
a
number
of
elements.
I've
already
mentioned.
You
know
a
lot
of
transparency,
high
quality
materials
that
are
contextual,
the
colors
that
feel
contextual
to
the
neighborhood.
D
The
front
stoops
on
the
building
on
the
catherine
south
that
you
see
on
the
left.
These
are,
you,
know,
sort
of
a
nod
to
a
more
traditional
front,
porch
treatment,
and
then
you
know
also
the
the
streets
today
are.
College
avenue,
of
course,
is
completely
run
down
and
dilapidated
and
the
construction
of
the
sidewalks,
the
street
trees.
You
know
all
of
this
together
is
going
to
result
in
just
a
much
improved
environment
that
the
historic
resources
will
fit
in
and
it
will
be
very.
D
I
think
it
will
be
a
very
positive
change
for
the
context.
D
Another
point
I'll
just
point
out.
Actually,
while
we're
still
looking
at
this
view,
another
comment
that
was
brought
up
by
the
public
was
that
along
college
avenue,
views
in
the
middle
of
the
block
will
be
eliminated
and
that
this
wasn't
really
addressed
because,
of
course
now
you
have
multiple
structures
and
there
are
there's
a
separation
between
the
structures,
and
so
you
you.
It
is
true
that
you
can
look
through
those
buildings,
and
it
is
true
that
those
existing
breaks
between
the
buildings
will
be
eliminated.
D
But
this
is
completely
typical
of
a
high-density
mixed-used
district,
and
you
know
this
is,
I
think,
with
zero
lot
lines.
You
know
this
was
this.
This
was
really
anticipated
by
the
zoning
and
the
design
guidelines
and,
I
think,
is
really
expected
in
a
high
density,
mixed
use
area.
I
think
that,
having
said
that,
there
are
aspects
again
to
the
project
that
do
help
mitigate
this.
D
I
think
the
high
level
of
transparency
at
the
ground
floor,
the
setbacks
again
at
the
corners,
really
opens
up
and
allows
light
and
views
through
those
corners.
You
know
through
the
corners
of
those
buildings-
and
I
think
so
this
transparency
at
the
ground
floor
helps
to
mitigate
that
also,
the
upper
corners
of
the
buildings.
D
There
are
glass
so
again
to
create
more
lightness
at
the
tops
of
the
buildings
and
then,
of
course,
you
do
still
have
the
views
through
catherine
street
and
cook
street
the
views
looking
west,
those
those
views
still
are
available,
of
course,
but
I
think
all
of
these
aspects
of
the
project
do
help
to
mitigate
that
and
and
again
in
a
high-density
mixed-use
area.
You
would
expect
this
now
next
slide,
please,
as
you
turn
the
corner
and
go
down
the
side
streets.
This
is
a
view
down
catherine
street.
D
Here
we
do
have
separation
from
the
buildings,
and
so
you
can
actually,
you
know,
look
through
the
buildings
here,
because
this
this
is
a
a
transition
to
the
smaller
scale.
Residential
neighborhood,
downhill
and
is,
you
know,
is
somewhat
different
than
the
high
density
mixed
use
along
college
avenue,
and
so
it's
treated
differently
in
response
to
that,
and
the
same
is
true
on
cook
street
okay.
D
So
the
next
topic
that
was
brought
up
is
there
was
a
suggestion
submitted
by
the
public
to
look
at
this
existing
an
existing
walkway
that
exists
off
of
eddie
street
right
where
I've
been
showing
right
there
there.
So
so
there
is
so
we
did
investigate
this.
D
I
actually
went
out
there
and
I
met
with
the
owners
of
the
college
town
park
apartments
and
they
they
pointed
out
to
me
that
so
this
first,
this
straight
segment
right
there
that
exactly
that
piece
of
it
they
constructed
and
they
built
that
specifically
for
the
convenience
of
their
tenants.
A
lot
of
those
buildings
right
there
that
are
disappointing
to
you
can
only
their
entrances
are
actually
on
the
back
sides
of
those
buildings.
D
That's
the
only
way
you
can
get
to
them,
so
this
staircase
was,
you
know,
really
built
to
provide
access
to
those
structures,
and
then
it
is
possible
from
that
walkway
and
staircase
to
then
walk
north
a
lot.
You
know
going
along
different
property,
private
property
on
driveways
and
parking
lots
and
an
alleyway.
You
can
get
out
to
dryden
road
or
you
can
continue
again.
You
know
you
can
sort
of
weave
your
way
through
parking,
lots
and
driveways
down
to
catholic
all
the
way
up
to
catherine
street.
So
there
is
a.
D
There
is
a
mid
block
connection
that
exists
from
north
south
from
catherine
to
dryden,
and
it
is
true
that
the
college
town
vision
plan
did
suggest
a
mid-thought
crossing,
but
they
really
were.
They
suggest
really
an
extension
right
across
where
arvind
is
pointing
that
that
that's
where
the
extension
is
recommended
and
because
the
really
the
destination
for
you
know
the
momentum
is,
people
are
moving
to
the
cornell
campus
right
or
to
the
center
of
college.
D
Now,
and
so
it's
really
you
know,
north
and
east
is
where
people
are
moving
and
and
so
to
bring
people
down
further
south
around
312
and
to
bring
them
out
to
college
avenue
at
that
point,
you're
so
close
to
catherine
street
that
it
really
doesn't
accomplish
much
and
it's
you
know
it's
so
close
to
catherine,
is
to
be
redundant
and
we
don't
even
see
it
as
something
that
would
be
highly
used
because
again,
this
isn't.
D
First
of
all,
you
have
catherine
street
and
people
are
really
headed
to
the
north
and
the
east
I
mean
a
mid-block
crossing
might
be
a
good
thing,
but
I
don't,
but
I
think
this
is.
We
think
this
is
the
wrong
location.
This
is
really
not
the
direction.
People
are
headed,
and
so
it's
really
not
something
that
the
applicant
is
interested
in
pursuing.
D
Okay,
moving
on
to
the
next
one.
T
Sure,
thanks
kat
thanks
catherine,
it's
something
that
mitch
had
brought
up
at
the
last
meeting
really
was
an
understanding
of
the
sun
study.
And
so
what
we
have
here
is
a
sun
study
evaluated
at
three
times
of
the
day.
T
What
I'll
call
the
bands,
the
yellow
bands
that
are
above
and
beyond
what
the
zoning
allows,
as
per
the
planning
board
submission
packet,
we've
provided
all
four
standard
times
of
the
year,
which
is
the
summer
june
21st,
the
winter
december,
21st
solstice,
as
well
as
the
vernal
march
21st,
and
the
autumnal
september
21st
equinox.
So
we
looked
at
this
carefully.
We
studied
it
and,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
the
amount
of
shading
that
goes
beyond
what
is
allowed
by
zoning
is
very
minimal
of
our
proposed
buildings.
T
D
Yeah-
and
I
would
just
mention
that,
actually
in
your
packet-
maybe
you
said
this
in
the
packet-
we
have
other
three
other
times
a
year
and
sure,
and
it
shows
the
the
yellow
diagram
yeah.
Okay,
we're
almost
done
the
next
one.
So
there
was
some
discussion.
D
Several
members
of
the
board
had
asked
if
we
could
elaborate
on
what
are
some
of
the
factors
that
are
contributing
to
the
need
for
our
our
variance
request,
the
for
the
additional
height
specifically
and-
and
so
you
know,
these
variances
are
necessary
for
for
this
project
for
the
project
that
we
are
proposing
at
this
point
in
time,
the
additional
height
is
what
will
allow
the
project
to
create
the
expanded,
sidewalks
plazas
public
space
and
to
and
have
a
higher
quality
architecture.
D
So,
there's,
I
think,
there's
you
know
three
primary
things
that
we
are
proposing
to
do
that
are
really
substantial
enhancements
to
the
public
realm.
D
That
would
not
be
required,
but
it
is
creating
a
level
a
higher
quality
project
and
so
first
of
all,
is
to
have
a
higher
quality
architecture,
an
exterior
design
and
materials
that
are
significantly
beyond
what
would
be
required
or
necessary,
and
I
think
that
you
know
here
you
can
see
some
of
the
elements
that
contribute
to
this
higher
quality
architecture,
the
double
story
windows,
so
that
you
know
the
large
glazing,
operable
windows,
a
variety
of
materials,
durable,
high
quality
materials
materials
that
are,
you
know,
emphasizing
natural
materials
that
have
longevity
and
also
varying
the
surface
plane
modulating
that
surface
plane
of
the
building.
D
So
you
know
all
of
these
things
will
diminish
the
mass
make
higher
articulation,
increase
visual
interest
and
we
believe,
provide
a
much
more
sophisticated,
sophisticated
level
of
architectural
detailing
than
you
see
in
most
buildings
that
are
being
constructed
intelligent.
D
So
that's
you
know,
so
that's
one
really
important
piece
of
it.
Secondly,
we've
talked
a
lot
about
next
slide.
Please,
of
course,
we
are
expanding
the
sidewalks
to
allow
the
creation
of
public
spaces
and
seating
areas
and
streetscape
amenities
on
the
developers,
property,
and
so
the
developer
is
foregoing
a
rentable
building
square
footage.
You
know,
in
this
case
for
two
stories
in
these
areas
in
order
to
really
create
a
benefit
for
the
public
realm
and
and
then
thirdly,
next
slide
the
nice
egg
is
undergrounding.
D
The
overhead
utility
lines
on
college
avenue
and
the
developer
is
going
to
at
his
cost,
is
extending
that
for
the
upper
portion
of
katherine
street,
so
so
the
city
and
nicely
we're
doing
poly
jabbing
only,
but
the
developer
will
be
removing
some
holes
and
putting
the
overhead
wires
underground
on
katherine
street
at
a
great
expense,
and
so
you
know
all
of
these
factors
you
know
make,
for
you
know
quite
a
costly
project,
and
then
you
know,
in
addition
to
that,
there
are
other
things
that
are
happening.
D
Of
course,
if
you
follow
the
news,
you
know
all
about
the
cost:
inflation
of
building
materials,
the
supply
chain
pressures,
and
so
all
of
these
really
create
pressure
on
the
economic
viability
of
this
project,
and
you
know
as
designed,
make
it
economically
infeasible
without
additional
scale,
and
so
I
hope
that
helps
you
understand
a
bit
about
addresses
that
question
about
the
request
for
the
height
variance
and
then
finally,
actually
we
last
time
we
talked
a
bit
about
the
request
to
move
ahead
with
the
demolition
approvals,
and
there
were
some.
D
The
board
you
know
was
interested
in
seeing
some
materials
about
what
it
is,
the
buildings
that
were
being
demolished-
and
so
we
didn't
add
these
to
the
packet
abatement
is
occurring
on
the
buildings
right
now.
D
If
you
see
activity
happening
up
there
right
now,
it's
not
it's
not
actually
demolition,
they're
actually
doing
abatement
of
asbestos
and
various
materials,
oh
yeah,
and
then,
of
course,
if
a
reuse
is
in
there
and
they
are
doing
their
removal
of
materials
that
they
are
going
for
salvage
and
we
did
provide,
I
think
rob
you
had
asked
us
to
provide
some
more
documentation
of
the
process
that
we
are
going
through
for
the
deconstruction
reuse
process.
And
so
we
did
provide
a
brief
write-up
on
that.
D
If
you
wanted
some
more
discussion
on
that,
herman
sieberden
is
here
with
us
and
he's
really
overseeing
that
and
that's
pretty
much
what
I
have
and
be
happy
to
take
any
questions.
C
Thank
you
very
much.
It's
really
helpful
to
have
the
questions
identified
and
answered
structured
in
the
way
that
you
did
that
it's
nice
to
have
a
numbered
list,
taking
our
comments
and
dealing
with
them.
It's
worth,
I
think,
going
around
the
room
and
getting
response
to
what
we've
seen,
because
what
we've
seen
is,
you
know
substantial
and
then
our
action
on
this
is
to
review
the
thief,
and
I
will
check
in
with
lisa
on
that
after
we
get
questions
and
comments
from
the
board.
Cj
I'd
start
with
you.
I
D
Yes,
so
the
let
me
see,
let
me
get
the
exact
actually
our
bin.
Do
you
want
to
address
that.
T
Well,
the
the
the
view
that
you're,
seeing
right
now
on
college
avenue
is
catherine
north.
For
example,
the
zoning
allows
80
feet
and
five
foot
parapet
so
visually
the
top
of
the
building
is
at
85
feet.
T
T
So
if
you
want
me
cj,
you
have
a
look
of
a
question.
So
if
I
want
to
repeat
that
80
foot
is
allowed
as
per
zoning,
we're
asking
for
90
feet
as
a
variance.
T
T
We
are
through
technically
able
to
do
a
one
foot
power
pit
only
to
then
go
to
91
feet
as
the
height
of
our
building,
so
visually
91
is
our
top
of
coping
height
and
we
could
have
had
a
building
at
85
feet.
Therefore,
visually
you'll
have
a
six
foot
difference.
Only
in
the
mu2
zone
you're
allowed
70
feet
with
a
5
foot,
coping
height,
so
you're
at
75
feet.
T
What
we're
doing
is
we're
going
to
80
feet
and
we
have
another
foot
on
top
of
that
to
basically
be
having
another
four
foot:
height,
variance
in
the
mu2
zone.
D
I
was
also
just
going
to
point
out
that
remind
folks
that
so
the
variances
are
the
height
variance,
is
on
college
avenue.
Only
all
of
the
buildings
going
down,
catherine
and
cook
street
are
consistent
with
existing
zoning.
E
C
H
Thank
you.
I
totally
support
these
variants.
I
think
the
rationale
you've
laid
out
shows
significant
mitigations,
for
what
I
think
is
a
fairly
insignificant
ask
in
terms
of
the
height
variance
just
the
activation
of
the
streetscape,
the
double
height
plazas.
I
think
all
of
that
really
serves
your
purpose.
I
have
a
couple
design
questions
for
next
time.
H
I'm
curious
to
know
the
interface
between
the
two
new
buildings
and
their
adjacent
buildings,
so
I
think
this
is
probably
a
question
for
when
we
dig
in
to
the
buildings
at
the
special
meeting,
but
for
instance,
you
know
where
casper
norris
is
close
to
312
and
118,
where
catherine's
south
is
close
to
127,
captain
street
and
116
cook,
just
just
the
immediately
adjacent
buildings
will
be
interesting
to
look
at
that
from
elevation
from
section
to
c.
H
H
Up
until
now,
I've
been
looking
at
these
staircases
as
kind
of
strange
little
add-ons
and
they're
really
growing
on
me
and
make
me
realize
you
need
something
like
that
to
bring
down
the
scale
of
this
big
building
where
the
sidewalk
is
squeezed.
So
I
would
love
to
look
at
those
in
more
detail
next
time
too.
T
So,
just
to
make
sure
that
we're
we
address
what
your
concerns
are
and
like
one
of
the
issues
really
is
the
adjacency
of
the
2b
building
next
to
the
existing
building
going
to
the
west
you're
interested
in
that
relationship.
Am
I
right.
H
T
And
the
same
thing
would
be
uncooked
where
there's
an
existing
residential
building
and
then
right
cr3
building
at
that
point
right,
yeah,
okay
and
I
think
you're
absolutely
right
about
the
stoops.
We,
the
one
thing
we'll
always
remember
that
in
mu2
you
have
a
five
foot
front
yard
setback
so
really
we're
that
stupid.
T
The
light
stoop
is
really
within
that
five
foot,
so
the
width
of
that
sidewalk,
our
whole
goal
is
to
make
it
appear
as
wide
as
possible
because
our
stoops
are
really
light
and
of
material
and
also
through
its
fenestration.
So
the
thought
is
always
the
building
wall
is
really
what
defines
the
edge,
not
the
stoops
themselves.
So
you
should
always
feel
more
comfortable,
as
you
are
out
in
front
of
catherine,
south.
T
E
F
Sure
well,
first
of
all,
thank
you
for
a
very
thorough
and
well
organized
presentation.
I
just
like
the
way
that
you,
you
know,
like
others,
said,
number
the
questions
and
go
through
them,
one
by
one
by
one.
It
just
makes
it
very
easy
to
follow.
F
The
only
question
I
had
is-
and
I
think
I
had
to
step
out
the
room
just
for
a
minute,
so
maybe
I
missed
it,
but
on
the
demolition
I
understand
there
was
going
to
be
a
decision
about
that
after
last
meeting
that
joanne
was
going
to
make-
and
I
just
somehow
missed
what
the
decision
was
or
where
we
are
on
that,
I'm
all
for
it,
but
whether
we
can
demolish
whether
it's
demolition
or
not.
F
I
mean
I
I
think
I
said
this
last
minute,
but
I
I
would
appreciate
if
we
could
put
some
signage
up
or
something
just
to
the
neighborhood
to
say
something
great's
coming
people
ask
me
about
what's
happening
and
just
any
little
coming
soon.
A
great
project,
I
think,
would
be
a
nice
little
temporary
bow
on
this
project.
But
again
thanks
for
the
presentation-
and
I
really
like
what
I'm
seeing.
D
Right
so
so,
as
the
buildings
are
demolished,
it'll
be
the
sites
will
be
fenced
and
then
we'll
put
that
will
will
do
exactly
what
you're
talking
about.
F
Q
Yeah
it
it
it
is,
in
fact
we
have
demolition
proposals,
price
proposals
coming
in
on
the
29th
and
so
we'll
hope
to
make
a
decision
shortly
after
that
about
who's
going
to
be
doing
the
work,
we've
had
an
on-site
meeting
with
all
the
demolition
contractors,
along
with
folks
from
ithaca,
reuse
and
and
felix
isil
from
the
you
know,
circular
lab
to
see
how
they
can
fold
in
the
deconstruction
of
some
of
these
buildings
into
the
demolition
process.
So
all
that
seems
to
be
moving
along
pretty
well
so
far,.
G
Yeah
I
continue
to
like
the
project.
I
think
the
ground
level
is
great.
Not
much
has
changed
there,
but
I
think
in
concert
with
other
improvements
on
college
av,
it's
really
going
to
transform
this
intersection
in
this
part
of
college
town.
So
it's
great,
I
think
the
top
level
variance
of
six
feet
doesn't
seem
extreme
to
me
and
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
have
a
huge
impact.
I
I
don't
have
an
opinion
whether
it's
related
to
the
ground
floor
work
that
you're
doing.
G
I
don't
have
enough
information
to
really
determine
that,
but
I,
but
I
think
both
appear
fine
to
me.
One
question:
I
have
about
the
historic
structures
and
thanks
for
pointing
those
out
and
showing
those
in
context,
just
wondering
if
your
project
can
have
a
more
tangible
benefit
to
those
historic
buildings,
and
I
don't
know
what
form
that
would
take.
It
might
be
some
kind
of
contribution
to
improving
those
sites
or
improving
those
buildings.
G
I
I
am
not
aware
if
that
happened
on
college
town
terrace,
I
have
a
feeling
that
it
might
have
as
a
mitigation.
G
P
I
hear
that
several
times
a
day
again.
I
think
this
is
a
really
nicely
prepared
presentation.
I
know
this
takes
a
lot
of
time
and
effort.
So
thank
you
for
that.
I
think
what
you've
presented
thus
far
makes
sense.
I
enjoyed
your
sun
studies,
but
I
think
it
would
be
beneficial
to
us
to
see
some
of
your
lighting
design
or
what
your
thought
process
is
for
that
in
the
next
few
presentations
yeah.
P
C
Thank
you,
so
I
feel,
like
we've
gotten
feedback
from
the
board
at
this
point,
it's
worth
checking
in
to
see
what
else
we
want
to
accomplish
today
and
we
have
review
of
a
part
three
outline
on
our
agenda.
Looking
at
the
part,
three
to
me,
it
seems
developed.
You
know
well
beyond
sort
of
an
outline
in
most
sections.
D
So
again,
two
different
potential
approaches
nikki
prepared
most
of
this,
so
she
could
take
you
through
some
of
the
sections,
particularly
that
are
done
so
that
we
don't
have
to
revisit
them,
or
we
could
do
that
next
time
after
now.
The
next
two
meetings,
as
you
remember,
will
be
design
review
so
we'll
start
in
december
and
then
we'll
do
the
rest
at
a
special
meeting
in
on
january
13th
and
all
that
will
be
compiled
in
the
part
three.
C
B
Take
it
away
sure-
and
I
can
just
give
a
quick
summary,
because,
thanks
to
the
booklet,
a
lot
of
the
the
thief
is
already
written,
there's
documentation,
it's
fantastic,
so
we're
we're.
The
sections
that
are
complete
are
basically
the
environmental
sections.
You
know
the
impact
on
land
is
pretty
complete.
Geologic
fish
features,
surface
water,
groundwater
flooding
all
of
that
plants
and
animals,
agricultural
resources.
B
There
are
none,
I
think,
the
places
that
will
get
a
little
deeper,
especially
with
design
review
our
impact
on
aesthetic
resources.
Of
course,
although
we
did
go
through
their
very
complete
vantage
study,
the
viewpoint
study,
so
that's
also
in
the
thief
impact
on
historic
and
archaeological
resources
included.
The
viewpoints
talked
about
that.
We
will
just
need
you
guys
to
give
us
some
input
on
what
you
think,
and
you
did
with
the
round
up
here-
impact
on
open
space
and
recreation.
That's
pretty
complete.
B
You
know
looking
at
their
pedestrian
zones
and
their
new
plaza
spaces
that
they're
providing
impact
on
critical
environmental
areas.
Complete
impact
and
transportation
definitely
has
a
lot
of
information
in
the
booklet
it
needs.
So
we
need
to
add
more
of
that
into
the
thief,
but
I
think
most
of
it
is
there,
if
not
all
and
energy
and
then
impact
on
human
health
we've.
We
have
a
lot
of
information
about
that
and
the
demolition
demolition
of
the
buildings
and
then
with
design
review,
et
cetera,
we'll
get
into
consistency
with
community
plans
and
community
character.
B
C
Fair
enough,
yes,
something
we
could
take
down
the
first
few
pages
at
the
very
least,
and
that
there's
a
fair
bit
done
beyond
that
that
you
know
we
could
we
could
get
to
or
not
today,
and
I
will
say
that
upon
initial
review,
you
know
at
least
up
through
land
geologic
features,
surface
water
and
groundwater.
C
You
know
that
this
all
seems
you
know
pretty
cut
and
dried
and
fine,
or
at
least
you
know
clear,
and
not
necessarily
in
need
of
additional
input.
C
And
then
flooding
same,
which
takes
us,
you
know
towards
halfway
down
page
three.
C
C
As
we
get
sort
of
past
aesthetic
resources
and
archaeological-
and
you
know
some
of
the
more
fleshed
out
ones
with
with
more
substance-
let's
not
get
into
transportation
today,
just
because
there's
so
much
of
it,
but
you
know,
I
think,
those
those
first
three
or
four
pages
are
all
pretty
fair
game
for
questions
or
comments
from
the
boards.
H
I
think
the
applicant
has
given
us
some
pretty
good
mitigations
for
under
aesthetic
resources
on
page
four,
if
I
could
propose
the
last
part
where
it's
asking
about
mitigation
for
views
that
the
proposed
building
stretch
across
the
entirety
of
the
project,
you
know
it.
We
talked
about
how
it's
typical
for
high
density
projects
today
and
there
are
mitigations
on
the
ground
level,
transparency
and
the
extended
street
plazas
that
could
go
there.
D
In
impact
to
land
and
we'll
carry
this
over
to
transportation,
there's
a
fair
amount
of
quite
a
large
amount
of
removal
of
materials
from
the
site,
because
it's
such
a
big
site,
and
so
that
will
have
transportation
impacts
because
of
all
the
following.
So
we'll
put
that
I'm
just
noting
that
as
I'm
going
through
it
so
we'll
put
that
in
transportation
that
that
part
of
that
will
go
to
transportation
so
like
what
their
truck
calling
group
will
be.
Maybe
that's
already
included
in
transportation.
D
What
are
you
moving
to
transportation.
T
A
D
Site
debris
and
then
we'll
look
at
you,
know,
construction
of
bringing
materials
in
and
how
you'll
stage
them
too,
but
in
case
the
transportation
didn't
take
into
account
or
hasn't
yet
hauling
of
materials
off-site
preps
for
sight.
Prep
then
yeah
we
should
do.
It
was.
M
H
E
Q
E
A
C
All
right,
I
think
that
brings
us
to
zoning
appeals.
We've
already
done
what
we
need
to
do
for
325
dryden,
which
brings
us
to
815
south
aurora,
which
is
the
issue
that
a
number
of
folks
spoke
to
at
the
beginning
of
our
meeting
tonight.
C
Lisa
is
going
to,
I
think,
talk
about
what
our
opportunities
and
obligations
are
in
relation
to
this,
but
before
I
turn
it
over
to
her,
I'm
just
going
to
go
ahead
and
said
for
my
piece.
I
think
we
punt.
I
think
that
there's
not
necessarily
a
reason
for
us
to
wade
into
this
and
I'm
inclined
not
to
but
lisa.
What
should
we
actually
do.
D
Well
again,
this
is
a
rare
ish
situation.
We
don't
have
these
a
lot
and
again
the
code
says
that
the
planning
board
is
must
be
given
the
opportunity
to
provide
comments
on
any
action
before
the
bca.
So
this
particular
action
is
a
isn't,
is
an
appeal
to
the
determination
of
the
zoning
administrator.
So
when
this
project
was
analyzed
for
zoning,
it
was
determined
that
it
did
not
require
variances,
and
so
the
appeal
is
that
it
it
actually
does
it's
appealing
that
determination,
which
happened
several
years
ago
at
this
point
or
in
2019.
D
I
think
so.
It's
you
know
saying
it
actually
does
need
a
rare
yard
variance
it
does
need
it
has
access
issues,
it
has
a
front
yard
parking
issue.
So
it's
basically,
you
know
asking
the
eca
to
look
at
the
appeal.
Look
at
look
at
the
determination
of
the
zoning
industry.
D
D
It's
very
technical,
so
you
know
you
would
not
be
expected
to
read
through
the
whole
you
know
and
read
through
and
integrate
all
of
the
the
arguments
of
and
the
rationalization
of
both
sides.
You
just
have
to
look
at
the
project
as
it
is
and
and
how
what
what
are
the
planning
impacts.
C
I
mean
there's
planning
value
in
developers
being
able
to
rely
on
the
determinations
of
administrative
whatever,
but
even
that,
like
I
mean
I,
I
kind
of
I
kind
of
see
it
as
not
our
wheelhouse.
I
just
don't
know,
but
let's,
let's,
let's
ask
people.
D
You
know
the
board,
can,
I
mean,
has
happened
in
the
past.
The
board
has
disagreed
with
the
determination
in
this
case
that
never
came
up
during
a
cycle
interview,
an
environmental
review.
There
was
never
a
question
for
you
about
the
zoning
and
if
it
was
appropriate,
when
the
building
was
appropriate
to
the
site.
I
I
don't
know,
I'm
I'm
wondering
the
extent
of
which
we're
going
to
be.
You
know
assisting
planning
and
zoning
by
commenting
so.
C
F
F
Our
position
hasn't
changed
to
the
extent
I'm
aware,
so
I
I
would
say
we
have
no
further
comment.
F
The
only
question
that
I
ask-
and
it
may
be
a
question
for
lisa-
is
my
understanding
of
this,
which
could,
which
could
be,
and
maybe
probably
is
wrong-
is
that
one
of
the
issues
here
was
that
there
was
not
a
publication
of
the
finding
of
the
project
not
needing
the
variance,
and
if
that
is
the
case,
and
I'm
not
sure
it
is,
I
wonder
if,
as
part
of
our
standard
review,
either
in
seeker
or
site
plan
or
somewhere,
we
should
put
some
boilerplate
language
in
saying
by
issuing
this
neg
deck
or
issuing
this
site
plan
review,
we
hereby
announce
that
you
know
or
something
I
don't
know
if
it's
on
us
or.
D
D
G
C
C
All
right
by
virtue
of
what
I've
heard,
I
think
we
punt
great.
That
brings
us
to
old
new
business.
First
up,
I
see
catherine
commons
special
meeting
thursday
january
13th
of
next
year.
D
Just
a
reminder
we
can
discuss
in
december,
if
there's
anything
you'd
like
to
add
to
this
meeting
or
just
have
it
remember
that
the
reason
was
we.
The
reason
you
agreed
to
it
was
because
you
know
to
do
design
review.
You
really
are
supposed
to
look
at
every
facade
individually
and
all
the
materials,
and
it's
just
too
much
for
one
meeting.
So
breaking
it
up
into
two
meetings
gives
you
a
chance
to
really
focus
on
it.
D
All
in
you
know,
like
maybe
we'll
do
all
the
sight
issues
like
we
were
talking
about
some
of
the
site
issues,
the
first
meeting
and
then
in
december
and
then
have
a
whole
hour
to
look
at
all
the
buildings
and
materials
and
more
detail
on
the
facades.
D
D
Yeah
so
nikki
and
megan-
and
I
have
been
talking
about
the
value-
and
I
think
we've
talked
with
you
about
this-
of
doing
a
joint
training
with
the
bza,
we're
having
you
know
a
couple
cases
or
and
we'll
have
more
where
you
know
there
is
you
know,
the
planning
board
is
looking
at
a
project
that
might
not
get
through
the
bza
and
what
is
the
best
use
of
everybody's
time,
and
how
can
the
two
boards
work
together
better,
so
we
asked
adam
walters
who
had
helped
us
on
at
various
projects.
D
I
think
some
of
you
have
worked
with
him
to
design
a
training
about
that,
and
so
we're
thinking,
maybe
early
february,
would
be
a
good
time.
It
could
also
be
a
you
know,
one
hour
training
and
if
there's
other
things
you
wanna,
you
want
him
to
talk
about.
You
can
also
talk
about
those
things
too
he's
great,
but
I
was
hoping
to
run
that
by
you.
We
could
start
looking
at
dates.
F
Sure,
because
I
know
we
we
did,
it
was,
I
think,
several
years
ago
now,
but
we
did
do
a
a
joint
meeting
with
the
bza,
and
I
recall
that
being
very
helpful
and
I
think,
with
with
changes
in
in
the
board,
people
moving
in
and
out
is
probably
appropriate
to
do
that
again
and
I
think
adam's
great
and
would
really
endorse
him
running
the
training.
D
And
then
the
sexual
harassment
workplace,
sexual
harassment,
training,
it's
a
yearly
thing
if
you've
taken
it
at
work,
you
have
to
you're
supposed
to
send
us
your
certificates.
So
please
do
that
if
you
have
done
it
and
if
not,
you
can
take
it
online.
I
think
you've
been
probably
contacted
by
leslie
muskowitz
moskowitz
about
that
in
the
city.
D
I
did
also
want
to
say
it's
not
on
here,
but
nikki
wrote
a
press
release
and
you
might
have
seen
I'm
sure
you
saw
it
and
circulated
it
very
widely
for
planning
board
members.
We've
got
several
applications,
we're
reviewing
them
now.
E
C
That
probably
takes
us
to
reports.
I
don't
have
one,
but
I
will
say
thank
you
for
you
know
getting
us
through
this
meeting.
We're
gonna
get
out
early-ish,
although
not
early
relative
to
what
we
said
we
were
going
to
do.