November 1, 2023 PB Regular Meeting Minutes

6:30PM to study the parking. He noted that the maximum time that parents parked was between 5-7 minutes for dropping off and pick up taking 6-7 minutes. Mr. Seckler estimated that if they added 60 students and 7 faculty it would result in 41% higher use of parking so in the morning hours there would be an expected 33 cars parked (Instead of the 23 currently at that time). Mr. Seckler noted that at day cares there are usually more than one child dropped off per car because many people car pool and there are multi-child families. Mr. Seckler opined that there is sufficient parking at the site and there will not be any off- site traffic impact. (They do not have to show traffic impact in any event because this is an approved use.) There will not be any change to the drive aisle or parking space dimensions. The Applicant is requesting a c (2) variance for parking for the increase in students and staff. The expert noted that if they increased the parking area it would also increase impervious coverage. The day care/school is an inherently beneficial use. Also, due to the fact they are removing the cell towers, they are removing a non-conforming use from the site. As to the other variances for side/front yard setback these are pre-existing conditions and can be granted as a c (1) variance. They are improving the lot area by consolidating Lot 1 with the existing lot 5.01. Mr. Seckler opined that EV spaces are not needed (And no variance for not providing EV spaces is required.) The parents drop off their children and do not park. This is a secure site and having EV spaces could invite people to come to charge up their vehicles. They want to limit use of the site to the children and their parents. Additionally, EV spaces for this project are not required by Statute. Mr. Seckler stated that the benefits outweigh any negatives and all the variances, with the exception of the parking variance are pre-existing c (1) variances. While the lot coverage is pre-existing and non-conforming, they are improving lot coverage. BOARD QUESTIONS Chairman Bagoff pointed out that there might be some staff that may want to use the EV parking. Mayor McCarthy disagreed with Chairman Bagoff and stated that the testimony was that 80% of the staff takes mass transportation and parents really do drop off so she did not think it was reasonable for the Applicant to be required to have

Bagoff and stated that the testimony was that 80% of the staff takes mass transportation and parents really do drop off so she did not think it was reasonable for the Applicant to be required to have EV parking. Mr. Cardoza asked if he could ask the architect another question. Mr. Cordoza asked if the ground floor has three pillars in the middle and if they will be padded. The architect confirmed the pillars will be padded. Mr. Cordoza also asked if there will be enough natural light at the lowest level classroom. Ms. Schweiker testified that not all the first level is below grade level and that there would be windows. Chaiman Bagoff stated that the project was inherently beneficial. The Applicant is taking a building in disrepair and improving it. The project complies with the Master Plan goals. PROFESSIONAL QUESTIONS Doug Rohmeyer asked about ingress and egress at Mt. Pleasant Avenue and whether most of the trips into the property are from Mt. Pleasant Avenue. Mr. Seckler stated that most of the trips come from Marcella Avenue.