Do we think that uh the public has been admitted?

Yes.

Okay.

Let's do it.

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

I'm David Stein, Chair of the Board, and it is 634 on January 5th, 2026.

I hope everyone had a good uh new year and uh happy new year to you all.

You too, Mr.

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

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

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

Uh Bill Morris here.

Roseanne McManus.

Here.

Jerry Bozat.

Here.

And uh for the staff, uh Ralph Blessing.

Present.

Uh the board's microphones will be open throughout the hearing tonight.

The applicants' mics will be open during the public hearing when their application is being heard.

However, I would ask each of the applicants to please mute their mics when not speaking in order to reduce background noise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The board requests that members of the public limit your comments to three minutes so that everyone will have a chance to speak.

If you are trying to uh raise your hand and it's not working, or you're having some other issue with um trying to um uh speak, send an email to um Ralph Blessing, please, and um he will um work it out.

The uh email address is R B L E S S I N G at StanfordCT.gov.

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

And you can find the agenda for tonight's meeting and all of the meeting applications and other materials by going to our website www.stanford ct.gov slash zoning.

Uh the uh first application we have tonight is application 225-24, uh, which has been continued from uh December 15th, 2025.

This application is for 492 Glenbrook Road, uh 37 and 41 Parker Avenue.

Um the applicant is 492 Glenbrook Road uh LLC.

I'm sorry, the it's for 488 Glenbrook Road and 37 and 41 Parker Avenue.

Uh site and architectural plans and or requested uses and special permit.

Applicants proposing to construct a multifamily residential community consisting of 19 apartments, 28 off-street parking spaces, and associated site improvements.

Um do we have uh the applicant here or someone speaking for the applicant?

I see that Turney Klein has raised his hand.

I'm promoting him to panelist and also his colleague.

Uh Jenny, is there anyone else you would like us to promote?

Um, you know what?

We can you do is it is it myself and Madison?

Uh yes.

We can start there for now, and then maybe we can um if if we need to add, we have our uh other project professionals here if there are other questions.

Um for the record, and we can add them in as as if and when needed.

I'm hoping that um I'm hoping that uh perhaps that's not the case.

Um for the record.

Oh, sorry, Mr.

Stein, go ahead.

Um do you want to uh Jay, put your camera on?

Yeah, I I do.

Uh I'm echoing Miss McManus's uh comment at the start of the maybe we can get a two for one deal somewhere, Roseanne.

Uh because I'm I'm feeling your pain here.

So you're not missing out on any.

I've got you know, uh uh uh I've got an old jacket on, and you know, so it's it's better for everyone this way, perhaps.

Okay.

Um in any event.

Uh please proceed.

Sure, sure.

Uh Jay Klein of Carmedy Law joining you from our offices in Stanford on Washington Boulevard.

Um, my um uh my associate Madison Smith is here as well, and we're here to um start the new year with all of you on a project from last year that I think we're on the cusp of wrapping up.

And and uh I hope you all had a great new year and holiday with your family and friends too.

Um if it's okay, Madison is gonna share the screen uh to just briefly run through uh some of the modifications that were made to this project since the last time we were all together on December 15th.

You all had a couple of um you know really good suggestions for us, you and and and staff to make a good project even better.

Uh having no pride in authorship, we uh cribbed many of those ideas from you all and incorporated them into the project design.

So, Madison, why don't we scroll to the uh rendering uh that shows the updated changes?

You see the old building, and this I think does a nice job of really uh capturing the key asks or ideas that you all gave us back in December.

Uh the first you see on the top um is to uh and this is the proposed building, the facade facing Glenbrook Road.

This was the focus of our discussion the last time we were all together.

And it was either you, Mr.

Stein, or perhaps Miss Mather, who suggested that the cornice band uh that you see on the roof, if you recall when we were last together, it it was just on the corners on the north and the south side.

Um the suggestion was made that the cornice band continue across the entire roof line.

So we took that idea and incorporated it into uh the into the Glenbrook Road uh frontage.

Another comment that was made, and you see this depicted on the rendering.

If you look at um what's on the left side of your screen, that would be the south side of the building.

Uh that six faux windows be added to uh the southerly facade oriented towards Glenbrook Road.

Uh, we've done that.

And Madison, I think does the next slide?

It's the black and white elevation that might it shows that condition.

Oh, let's go to the next one, maybe actually.

This is the south elevation.

You see those six windows added to the southerly facade.

I think the the idea being, you know, as folks are driving or walking up Glenbrook Road, it would be nice to have those windows rather than just uh uh the siding uh treatment.

So we've we've incorporated that modification.

Um I will say a comment that was made by staff in between the meeting on the 15th and the meeting that we're all you know, the this evening's meeting was hey, you know, since you're adding those foe windows to the south side, does it make sense to incorporate a similar design enhancement on the north side?

Uh and the answer is yeah, probably.

So if you go to the next uh elevation, um Madison and Madison showing you see those six faux windows added to uh match uh uh the the south side so that you know passers by have the same pleasant experience if they're going south as they are coming up north.

Um I think that summarizes really all the design um modifications that we made.

I know uh Madison did send you all a letter that summarized Mr.

Stein, you had asked, you know, hey, can we just double check the math on EV and bike parking spaces?

And we did that, and we've we've got all that's required that's in the record.

I think Madison, you know, put the equations in the letter that she provided uh to you all.

Um and yeah, I mean, this is a project that we were eager when we first brought this uh a couple of months ago, and we're we're hopeful that we uh have we will earn your approval uh this evening, and we're happy to answer any questions or comments that you folks may have.

I think you guys have done a very nice job.

Um I would just point out you also added the AZEC trim around the window to the left of the front door that we had requested.

I think you did.

Yes, we did, and I'm sorry, I didn't thank you.

That's correct.

And um, I think it it looks very good.

Let me ask you a question on the roof line, the cornice.

It I guess it's been it's not the full cornice that gets extended, right?

I mean, there's much of it that's on the other building, it looks like the part that protrudes from the roof got extended over the edge.

Um, along with some of the detail.

Um can that be done there?

Um I don't know that I'm understanding the question.

Could you um apologies?

Can we can you rephrase that, David?

Mr.

Sank.

Yeah.

Something 492.

I'm looking at 492.

And the cornice goes around the corner.

And the the cornice consists of the um the part that's uh you know, the one foot or so of wood that comes down the front.

Then it's got the part that sticks out, the you know, kind of crown molding look.

And then it's got the dental look, you know, with those uh little pieces of wood going all the way across the front there is which was done on 492, it looks like um was what was the thinking on 488?

Yeah, I think the if they are slightly different.

So I I think the thinking here, I don't know if it was at the December 15th meeting or at the November meeting, uh, but at uh at somewhere somewhere along the path here, the comment was made.

You know, is there anything that can be done to distinguish or differentiate uh the buildings at 488 and 492?

So there are slight differences in the roof lines, and and I think you hit on them.

I mean, I like that word the dental, and and Ravi Ahuja is here, he can come in and and use the more artful terms if if you all think that that is helpful.

But uh the those are there are more of those at four on the 488 roof line than there are at 492, and the uh the the it there is a greater uh protrusion at 488 than there is on 492, so that's why there's the the difference between the two roof lines.

Well, what I was talking about was the southern the southern elevation where it turns the corner, staff's comment was that it continue around the corner.

Um I guess I would ask Ralph since this did come from staff.

Is this um is this acceptable?

Is this what you guys had in mind, or did you have in mind that it would be all of the detail would continue around the corner?

Um I think it is.

Um, I mean, usually if if you look at uh um like uh that style, um they have the the cornice in the front is very pronounced.

I mean the uh this is also a zero lock line building.

So at some point, and that's that's why there are fake windows and not real windows, because at some point there can be uh another building going up uh on that side, basically covering all of the uh southern um uh elevation and facade.

So um we we don't want to overhang over uh the neighboring um uh property and allow for the the building to basically touch um the existing building.

The idea about the VC is really to create this uh continuous um uh street front uh in the long run.

So at the moment, obviously um there's there's like bits and pieces missing, but as hopefully um Glenbrook Road sees um additional activity, then uh we we would have uh a building being right next to that southern um facade.

And you know, I I will say another good reason perhaps that my camera's not working tonight.

You all would have seen Madison handing me a post-it note making that observation, which is the zero lot line.

So thank you, Ralph.

Okay.

Um board members, any uh questions?

Bill.

No, nice job, Jason.

Nice job.

Thank you, Bill.

Thank you, Mr.

Morris.

Hey, Roseanne?

No, no questions on the design.

Uh you may you may need to mute the phone.

Um Jerry.

Jason, I think you did a great job.

Uh really had some um really had some nice presence uh for that neighborhood.

I I just commend you on that.

Really, really great job on it and my support.

Thank you, Mr.

Bozak.

Um Jay, are you um fine if we go to the public?

Sure, yeah, please.

Okay.

Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application?

Um, either for or against it.

Um would you please raise your hand?

I do not see anyone at this point.

Yeah, nor do I.

Um if there's no objection, um, I think we should close this application.

Um board members.

You good with that?

Absolutely.

Um, I'm the only thing I'd just thank you all for your time and attention.

I I'm always pleased, uh, particularly you know, when we have a project and you don't hear opposition from the public.

I think it's notable that you know, both we had a zone change for this site a couple about a year ago.

We've got this application.

We've had three nights of hearing, not a peep of negativity from the neighborhood.

And to your point, Mr.

Bozak.

Oh, we know when this thing gets built, uh, it'll be a real ad to the community.

So thank you for the time.

A nice project, Jason.

Really is good.

You guys, and you guys responded uh very well to the staff and to the board.

So we appreciate that.

Thank you.

Um application 225-24 is closed.

Now we are going on to the next application.

It is 225-37, 5 Harbor Point Square LLC, Harbor Point Master Unit S5, AKA Zero Washington Boulevard number S5, general development plan, site and architectural plans, and or requested uses and coastal site plan review.

Applicants proposing to transfer 34,000 plus or minus square feet of commercial floor area from block P7 to the property to facilitate a new health and wellness use known as bath house.

Um is um presenting on this one.

We opened this on December 15th, I guess, and um, but we did not hear a presentation.

Is this Turny Feinberg?

There we go.

Looks like my camera works.

Nedam, maybe you can help out Jay with uh his camera.

Uh out of the two of us, I don't know who's worse with technology.

So do a contest.

Um good evening, everyone.

It's great to see you all.

Uh for the record, my name is Lisa Feinberg.

I'm a partner at Carmini Torrent, Sandak and Hennessy, our offices here in Stanford at 1055 Washington Boulevard.

With me tonight is my colleague uh Karina Aradondo.

Uh also Matt Pop from Environmental Land Solutions, Brian McMahon from Redness and Mead, Mark Vertucci from Fuss and O'Neill, Eugene Kohlberg and Greg Hajdo from Kohlberg Architecture, uh, and Jordan Hummel and Joyce Salazar from Bath House.

And on behalf of the applicant, Five Harbor Point Square LLC, which is an entity related to building and land technology.

I believe Connor O'Neill is here.

So as you uh know, we're here tonight to discuss a proposal to construct a new health and wellness facility called Bath House on the property known as Block S5 in Harbor Point.

But before getting into the details of the project, I would like to start by just asking Jordan to briefly tell you a bit about Bath House.

It really is a unique operation, and I think having a bit of context uh before we get into the details of the proposal will be helpful to the discussion tonight.

So Ralph, I don't know if you see Jordan.

There he is.

Jordan, there you go.

Hi, how are you this evening?

Evening.

Just introduce yourself, please for the record.

Sure.

I'm Jordan Hummel.

I'm vice president of real estate at Bath House.

Good.

Tell us about Bath House.

Sure.

So bathhouses or you know, thought 5,000-year-old business.

Uh bathhouses is truly a modern take on uh your old ancient and you know uh Russian and Turkish uh bathhouse traditions.

So we're a social wellness and recovery destination, not your traditional spa.

Uh and our venues emphasize social gathering and community more than your typical spas.

Uh so our venues are places for people to go to relax together.

Uh and that's done through either a day pass or a treatment reservation.

Uh the Stanford facility will offer uh thermal pools, cold plunges, saunas, steam rooms, uh hamams, and spa services like massages and scrubs, uh along with a small food and beverage component.

Uh, and both the interior and rooftop will be actively programmed with those offerings.

Um we currently have two uh locations open in New York City, one in Manhattan and one in Brooklyn.

Uh, and we're in the midst of a national expansion with plans to open four new locations uh this year and four new locations uh next year in 2027.

Thank you.

Thanks, Jordan.

Sure.

Okay.

Let me just share my screen.

Anyone have any questions on the board for Jordan?

No.

Okay.

Okay.

So am I good.

I know.

Am I echoing?

No.

Okay.

So uh as many of you know, Harbor Point is a 60-acre mixed use community in the south end of Stanford.

Uh today, Harbor Point consists of over 2800 apartments, hundreds of which, as you know, are below market rate.

Uh, 343 square feet, 343,000 square feet of office space, 52,000 square feet of retail, about 12 acres of parkland and uh around 5,000 linear feet of waterfront access.

As one of the most active and vibrant communities in the city, it only makes sense for Bath House, you know, a health and wellness facility to want to make Harper Point its next home.

The site is known as block S5 in the Harbor Point Plan community and consists of just under two acres.

It's located in the SRDS zone and the MU3 mixed use urban land use category in the new comprehensive plan.

It is generally located in the northwest corner of Harbor Point.

It's bounded by Washington Boulevard on the east, Atlantic Street to the south, Sprague Energy is over here to the west, and then there's a condominium complex uh to the north.

Yeah.

As you may know or recall, this site is one of the last development parcels in Harbor Point.

The Harbor Point General Development Plan was originally approved around 2007, and it's been amended several times over the years.

As a planned community, all of the development rights for the 60 acres were specifically allocated to each block, including residential density, commercial square footage, building area, and open space.

So although currently improved as a surface parking lot, this block, block S5, which is up here in this corner, um, has long been designated for redevelopment.

The current Harbor Point GDP contemplates the construction of 60 residential units on the property and no commercial square footage.

In order to facilitate this particular proposal, one of the pending applications before you request the transfer of approximately 34,000 square feet of commercial floor area from block P7 down here, the 14-acre site up to S5.

This would reduce the available development rights on block P7 to around 104,000 square feet.

However, there is absolutely no proposal for any development of the 14-acre site.

The current proposal involves the construction of a roughly 34,000 square foot two-story building.

The facility will offer, as Jordan explained, what's called contrast therapy.

It's the practice of alternating between extreme heat and extreme cold.

And then there are will also be opportunities for non-alcoholic driven social engagement.

Eugene or Greg will walk you through the details of the facility itself shortly, but generally it will include a variety of sauna, steam rooms, pools, warm, neutral, and cold, as well as treatment rooms for massage and body scrubs.

In the warmer months, the rooftop will feature a large outdoor pool equipped with cabanas and lounge chairs, as well as several gathering spaces to relax and socialize.

And then there'll be a small concession on the rooftop that will offer prepared snacks, wine and beer, and then occasionally a craft cocktail.

A total of 68 parking spaces are required for the facility.

We will have 133 spaces on site.

Any excess parking will continue to be available to the other establishments in Harbor Point.

There will be 15 EV parking spaces, which are shown over here, and 24 bike parking spaces right here by the front.

So with that sort of general overview, I think I'd like to turn things over to other folks on my team to get into the details.

And I thought we would start with Brian McMahon.

Brian, you need to unmute.

There you go.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Great.

Well, good evening.

My name is Brian McMahon.

I'm a licensed professional engineer with Redness and Mead.

We are the site civil engineers and land surveyors of record for this project.

And I'd like to share my screen, if you don't mind.

Here we go.

So this is this is the current site plan that you have dated January 2nd, which was revised most recently.

There have been some changes to it since the uh original September uh plans.

Uh the EV spaces have been all moved to the north side of the parking area here on the north side of the building.

Uh some of them had been up on this bay of parking here, and the fire marshal wanted them uh further away from the building.

Uh just in consequential, the bike racks were moved, some inconsequential uh minor uh changes per staff comments, but one of the fundamental changes between the original um uh September plans and these plans are the points of access from the roads.

I'm just gonna toggle back to the original submission.

This was from September, and it shows two two-way driveways off of Washington Boulevard.

They are largely this northerly one is uh essentially exactly where the existing uh curb cut is on uh Washington.

And this southerly one is shifted slightly to the south to accommodate the building here.

And it would have been two-way access in, two-way access out, and cycle through.

And you see this drop-off area in front of the main entrance of the building here.

And one of the one of the comments we received recently was a set of comments from TTP, uh, transportation traffic and parking.

And fundamentally, they had objected to having they they were asking to abandon both of the curb cuts along Washington Boulevard and to reestablish uh a historic uh curb cut along Atlantic Street.

Uh that curb cut still exists out there, although it hasn't been uh functioning, it's been blocked off for about the past nine years.

And so we've had conversations with the um TTP staff over the past few weeks, and we uh they come to an agreement where we would keep the northerly two-way curb cut off Washington as is, and we would uh re restore to for reuse the existing curb cut on Atlantic, although it is shifted very slightly about eight feet to the west uh along Atlantic.

And so what we have is two-way access through the site still, all the way around, two-way in and out at both curb cuts.

But in order to preserve some means of sort of pickup and drop off in front of the main entry here, we had to revise it to create this loop here for that purpose.

And so the net effect of uh between the September plan and this plan is what it was a net reduction of seven spaces in September.

The original plan is 140 spaces, as Lisa mentioned, it is now 133, but still well above uh almost twice as many as is required uh by zoning.

Um so except for this little one-way loop here, everything in proposed in the site and the circulation through the site is proposed as two-way and at both entrances, Atlantic and Washington.

Uh part of part of that coordination with TTP staff was a recognition that perhaps the the lane assignments in Washington Boulevard uh could be a rearrange.

So I'm gonna stop sharing just for a moment and uh then share my um screen with the overhead.

Sorry.

Sure.

Let me just bring it up.

Oh, that's not it.

Apologies, Mr.

Chairman.

Seems like we're all having some technical difficulties tonight.

Can you see my screen?

No.

All righty.

There we go.

Found it.

Apologies.

So what what we did uh what the TTB's TTP staff suggested was that we rearrange the lane assignments.

There are northbound, south bend, and turning lanes along Washington Boulevard here.

And what they what they suggested was that the amount of stacking lane for people turning south in the left hand uh uh heading south and turning left onto Atlantic was probably much more than it needed to be.

On the other hand, the amount of left turn lane heading north on Washington and turning left at Pulaski uh could stand to be uh a bit more.

And so part of the conversation with uh eliminating the curb cut on Washington here and re-establishing it on Atlantic was was also to restrike those lanes so that we'd get much more stacking room heading north in the left turn lane, which would not only serve as Pulaski Street, but would serve as our our site here, and it would be reduced for the folks traveling south and turning left on Atlantic.

Um as far as drainage and utilities are concerned, uh is pretty straightforward.

There are all of the uh normal required utility services that we'll bring it be bringing into the site from the from the street frontages.

Uh sewer will go out to Atlantic Street.

Um drainage-wise, it's pretty simple.

The site right now drains entirely down.

The entire parking lot drains down to a couple of catch basins in the southerly part of the parking lot through an existing connection into Atlantic Street, pipe connection into the system in Atlantic Street, which we are planning to reuse.

What we are doing though is we are introducing a number of drains on the site, all with deep sumps and bell traps on the outlets as well as an oil grit separator uh into the uh system on site.

So it's a it's a big improvement, and we are reducing the amount of impervious coverage on the site by just about a quarter of an acre, uh almost almost 11,000 square feet uh on the site because it's entirely paved now.

And so we're reducing runoff, and we've introduced improvements into the system on the site that will enhance the water quality of what's being discharged off the site.

We've received comments from both WPCA and Engineering Bureau, uh, both of whom are supportive of the application moving forward.

They both suggested some conditions that they they indicate can be satisfied at the time a building permit is sought.

And with that, I think I'd like to turn it, unless you have any questions, I'd like to turn it back to Lisa.

Thanks.

Um board members, does anyone have a question for um Brian?

Uh not Brian, I have a question for Jordan when it comes time.

Um we get Jordan back.

Sure.

Just Mr.

Grozak.

I'm where you were.

Great, thank you.

Hey, I I like the concept uh of the bathhouses, and I see that you have location in in Mahattan, and I guess Chicago also.

Uh I am concerned because you had 17 sanitary complaints in 2019 in the Williamsburg soda factory.

Um, how are you addressing those complaints?

And um with those complaints, you ended up opening up your Manhattan um chapter.

Um how are you, you know, and there, I guess is and I'm I'm over here and I'm looking at Reddit.

There's a lot of complaints there about the UTI issues and sanitary issues.

How are you addressing that as a business?

Sure.

So the first thing I'll say is uh the New York City Department of Health comes unannounced uh inspecting very frequently.

We're on very good terms with the New York uh City Department of Health, and we've never had any issues.

Um if you came in and we have two open locations, one in Flatiron in Manhattan and another in uh Williamsburg, Brooklyn, which is the one that that you're referencing, uh the the Fulton Street, the the Chicago we're actually building currently.

Uh, but but the uh unfortunately the the bad press with respect to the UTI was a customer who claimed that they um got that.

Um it was not science founded, it was not a um uh accurate happening.

Um there was actually uh they they redacted you know their their statement after the fact.

So from a from a cleanliness standpoint, um if you come into our facilities um and you saw the the hygiene and and the way in which we run our facilities, um those are you know paramount to to you know us running uh uh the the level and and caliber of business we have, especially uh you know, at the format we are at 30 or 40,000 square foot facilities.

Um we have several um uh layers of of filtering in our pools that um are not even necessarily needed by code.

So we have um ozone filters, which means that you don't smell pools when you you don't smell the pool like you would in, you know, sometimes if you go into a gym, you smell the pools.

Um we have uh sand filters, we have um UV light, I mean just a tremendous amount of of um filtering and sanitation that's taking place.

We also have um what are uh three certified pool operators on staff at all times who actually uh monitor the uh chemistry of our pools uh every two hours and are taking um uh basically uh taking samples of the pool and if the the chemistry is off, uh they make those adjustments uh in advance.

Um when our facilities are down, we have staff draining and discharging the pool and replenishing the pool.

So we we take the uh health and sanitation uh you know very very seriously.

Uh unfortunate that we had that press and and that a customer, you know, um Jordan, not to interrupt you.

I think that's all great, and that's the nature of the business, right?

Sure, sure.

But there's 17 of those.

It's not just one.

There's 17 complaints.

Yeah, so the article in Reddit, there's 17 complaints.

I'm looking at it now, 17 separate complaints with the Department of by individuals, correct?

By by individuals, right?

So the Department of Health didn't make those claims, and the Department of Health came and inspected, and we have a complete and clear, which uh, you know, Lisa can certainly share with you as well, uh a clear bill of health with uh with the New York City Department of Health.

But what happened is individuals made those claims.

Um again uh not to very very politely, you know, and in for the sake of the customers, you don't get UTIs from a pool.

Um otherwise uh if you think about it uh a place like Las Vegas, it would be you know, uh a mat house, right, with with thousands of people, you get UTIs from uh not taking off your bathing suit, uh and and more of a hygiene standpoint.

It it you you don't get them from um from being in in pools and um cold plunges, etc.

So it was a uh it was customers who were uh one customer came forward, another customer came forward, et cetera.

So uh we have since you know resolved any issues and had not had uh those those issues, but that was uh you know, unfortunate uh uh uh thing that a few customers came forward and uh have not had issues since then.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate it.

Sure.

You mean all 17 of them had complaints that weren't valid?

That that's correct.

There were there was there was no founding of of uh of any health issues that anybody had from our facilities.

That is absolutely correct.

What about the complaints regarding mold?

Was there any mold there?

No, there was there was not mold.

Uh that was basically our our uh as I mentioned our our uh pipes are cleaned out on a uh uh and and flushed uh and uh uh employee uh who an employee who was fired and and uh uh had left our had left our our company, had taken photos of uh pipes that had been flushed out afterwards and and it looked like mold, but it was the we had not had again from from the New York City Department of Health.

Uh we did not have any uh mold issues or or um citations.

Okay.

Um board, any other questions for Jordan?

Thank you, Chairman.

Sure, but Jordan, thank you.

Yeah, absolutely.

Okay.

Um I think we'll move on to Matt Poppin and talk about the landscaping.

Oh good evening, uh Matthew Pop.

Um, I'm having I think problems with my video also.

Um, but anyway, uh I prepared the landscaping plan.

Um Alisa, do you want to show that or uh place that there?

Sure.

Yes.

But I think uh along the site is basically a parking lot uh with a few trees along the very far perimeters.

Most of those trees, maybe like four to five of them or so are Norway maples in uh um approximately three to four of those trees are going to be removed.

They're kind of small.

Uh they're sort of the bottom of the sheet.

Um right, but to the west of the existing west of the proposed building, you can see there's in the parking spot, there's two to be removed.

Um, and then it's right above the scale right there.

And then I think along the perimeter, uh, as the site gets developed, there's probably gonna be I think another two to three uh being removed.

Again, they're Norway maples.

Uh we are proposing uh 44 uh new trees, deciduous trees, plus uh 57 evergreen trees that include evergreen trees include uh six American alley and uh 51 uh arborites.

Um for the street trees, we have uh a total of 22 uh street trees.

Uh 18 of them are on uh Washington, and we're proposing uh uh four additional on Atlantic and right in the corner of Atlantic, um, at the far uh south uh western corner of the site, there's an existing tree.

So there's five trees, uh street trees on Atlantic.

Um the in the interior of the site, it's you know each island has uh you know two trees, parking islands have two trees along the perimeter of the building.

Uh the the landscape islands have uh trees also.

Um again, um I think that is it just uh quickly.

Uh we have evergreens uh shrubs along the building foundation in the front, uh foundation plantings or evergreen plantings within the planting islands, and I think it's uh fairly well uh landscaped.

Uh the rendering that we saw earlier had the uh birch trees in the front of the building, what that would look like.

So I think that's pretty close to um accurate trauma.

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

Uh board, any questions?

No, sure.

I have one.

Um the street trees on the upper right here.

There you go.

Um can those be moved to the street.

There's a sign that's gonna be proposed right there.

Uh so we're just trying to keep a clear view to that sign.

Well, look, if we if we want to go by our tree planting manual, the tree pits have to be contiguous to the curve.

Okay.

Um that would be fine.

What would be fine?

No, either, you know, we could push shows closer to the uh sidewalk.

Uh sometimes I think they're nicer along the parking area because it provides some additional shading of the parking area.

Yeah, but they don't provide the shading to the public.

Um there.

And that's I think that's part of the reason for street trees.

Um more for the public than for the applicant.

So um I think at a minimum those five trees need to be moved up to the uh sidewalk.

Well, we could do the the three trees uh to the uh left, just to the north of Red Maples, we could probably uh push those closer together and then you know those five, maybe like we could push them you know closer to the sidewalk against the sidewalk, but still keep some visibility to the sign.

So it would be consistent.

Or can't you just move the sign to the right of the of those five trees?

Yeah, right there.

Um I think you know, um, I don't want to say offhand right now because there's some utilities underground.

There's a uh there's a light pole and there's some crosswalks.

So I think there's some underground utilities there.

Um, but we could look at that.

Okay.

Well, those trees, those five should should be moved up to the sidewalk at a minimum.

Okay.

Um I think that was my only comment on my own screen.

I I just have one question, David.

Um if you go back to the full screen, the bottom left.

Yeah.

What's that area?

I hope you're not asking me.

The bottom.

No, right where you just had your cursor.

Go ahead.

I'm just gonna scroll it, get closer.

Go.

Oh, there you go.

Yeah.

That back corner.

So the the bottom, but those are uh normal American Holly.

There's five of them, and there's an existing uh Norway maple there.

So American Holly, and then there's shrubs or uh Bay Berry, which grow maybe you know, seven, eight feet in in height, so it's kind of forming a thicket in that corner.

So it's just uh grassy decorative corner.

Uh well, that corner, uh, one say what's not really grassy.

It's gonna be fairly well uh I would say more wooded with you know five large growing evergreen trees with you know a somewhat large growing shrub.

All right.

That's it for me.

Okay.

All right.

Um, Eugene, are you gonna take everyone through the building or Greg?

See there are them raising their hands.

Oh, I have one question.

Who does question about the bike rack?

Is that for Matt?

Um you can ask.

Uh maybe it's for me.

Either us, either me or you know, Redis C.

The um are those spaces covered.

Those those are uh I believe they're not covered.

Okay.

I the the spaces, sorry, this is Eugene Colbert, the architect.

The spaces are covered by a seven foot deep uh overhang on the building.

Okay, what plan would that show on?

In terms of a drawing, we're showing it on our architectural plan as well.

And you can see the extraordinary.

Okay, I think it needs to be shown there as well, doesn't it?

We could show a dash line on that for the overhang.

Are you ready to move on, Mr.

Chairman?

Um, yeah, please do.

Hi all uh for the record, my name's Eugene Colbert, principal at Coldwork Architecture and Architect of Record for the project.

I'm gonna run you through our plans, um, which we can go into detail of the different spaces and um and we can start with the um with the uh with the bike parking.

Um I'm gonna share my screen.

Let me know if you can see it.

And in our case, just as a as a quick reference, in our case, we're showing north is up.

So to to the right hand side of the plan is Washington Boulevard, right?

And our entry, so this is rotated from uh from the other side plans, which which we're showing north uh to the left.

Um so in here we have our building entry, which is on the southwest corner.

So this is adjacent to the um the the curb cut that was removed and relocated to Atlantic, and we're showing the drop-off zone uh that you saw previously on the landscape and on the side plan.

Then here we have our um bike racks.

We have 12 of them for 24 bikes, and this dash line is the overhang of the building.

And the the depth of the overhang is about seven feet.

Um, and it provides shade, some of the shade for landscaping, and it provides covering for those bike racks.

Um any questions on that before I move in?

Yeah, just one follow-up on the um the letter we received from Lisa outlining the changes.

I believe it mentioned um e-bike facilities.

Can you just tell us a little bit about that?

We have the so we're required four spaces for e-bikes, uh and and we're providing uh two racks for those.

And what makes them different than the other rack?

At the moment we only have one rack specified.

Um, but we do have more space around those racks, allowing for larger e-bikes.

Okay, it doesn't provide for charging or anything, it's just a little more space.

At the moment, yes.

Okay, we're having a condition that requires that, Mr.

Chairman.

Charging.

Yes, we understand that that's required.

Okay.

Um the plan I you said the plans do not show the additional space for the e-bikes yet.

No, they do, they're included in in uh they're included in this area here.

We just didn't include the specs for the e-bike charging, so we can provide that.

We're happy to do that as a condition of approval.

Um that'll be great.

Thank you.

Sure.

All right, thank you.

So we'll we'll move in uh just to give you a quick a quick uh tour of the inside of the building.

You come in through a lobby, uh, which you would check in um for for the facility.

This is typically done through a self-check-in with assistance from the facility staff.

Um, as it is required by um DOH, uh, you move into gender specific blocker rooms and bathrooms.

That those two spaces are um bisected with uh utility rooms like laundry um and storage to service those areas, and then once you come out of the um of the locker rooms uh here and here, um, you come in into what's the main amenity of the ground floor, and that's composed of an open space that contains three pools, one of which is the the cold pool, another one which is a neutral pool, which is just kind of regular temperature, and another one which is uh a hot pool, um, which like the name says it's it's the water is warmer.

Those spaces are flanked by thermal rooms, um, and we have a handful of those.

We have uh a sauna, we have an infrared sauna adjacent to it, um, and then we have a banya or what's called a banya, which in essence it's a it's a different type of sauna, um, and a steam room.

Those are towards the middle of the space, and and so I'm gonna highlight them here.

Um, and they're flanked by by the pools.

In addition to that, we have available to customers.

We have an area, as Jordan said, one of the services that they provide is treatment rooms, whether there's crubs or massages, we have an area for that as well.

Um, and then the balance of the ground floor is employee areas, which we have um kind of administrative areas of offices towards the front of the building where we have the windows.

Uh we have brick room lockers for them, bathrooms for them, and then towards the rear of the building, which would be the north.

We have all of our pump rooms, electrical rooms, service entry, uh, trash room, um, which kind of jives with um service area here on the parking, um, and then our two egress exits.

In the main space of the building, we have a large elevator that takes you to the roof, and then a convenience stair that kind of circulates around that core and takes you to the roof.

Do you want me to move to the roof or do you have any questions on the first floor?

Uh I don't have it.

Anyone else?

Onto the roof.

All right.

So we you can either uh take the stairs or the elevator to the roof.

Once you're on the roof, um there's a there's a small uh kind of bulkhead uh volume, which will host uh bathrooms, storage, and a concession stand, uh, which the facility will offer uh pre-packaged uh food and beverage items, and to the west, so facing the the water tanks in that facility.

Um there's a long pool, and then facing the other side, uh we have um a pool and some exterior sauna spaces, and the the balance of of the rest of the area will be landscaped and and we'll have uh lounge furniture for folks to enjoy.

Um as I mentioned before, we have our two egress exits, uh, which egress the building uh on the on the north side, and then we have towards Washington.

Um we have our mechanical units, which are behind a um a tall screen.

The gene, yeah.

Where will the landscaping be?

The landscaping is shown uh in the kind of the dotted area here.

So we have um, you know, so we have these areas um towards the middle of the space, and then we also have around the entire perimeter um we have landscaping.

The landscaping is set up against a seven-foot-high fence.

Um on some of the sections and some of the views.

Um but the layout of the of the roof is basically the the volume where the stairs in the elevator comes up, and that hosts the concession stand and the bathrooms on one side there's a pool, and the other side there's a smaller pool um with uh with the different saunas and then uh kind of lounge furniture and landscaping uh around the landscaping been um planned yet.

Do we have a plan for it?

Not at the moment, um, but it's typically the um it would be set in planters that are about um 18 to 24 inches tall, and it would be uh combination of um of just kind of grass type um plantings and um bushes and kind of smaller smaller trees.

Okay.

We have a couple of images, I believe, further down in the presentation, which I think show some of the landscaping or might show some of the landscaping from the Brooklyn facility, and that might give you an idea of our thoughts.

Um in terms of the the elevations, like Lisa said, we're talking about a two-story building.

Um with uh it's mostly um a masonry uh construction.

Uh where I'm gonna go up a couple of slides so you can see um some of the materiality.

We have uh we're hoping to use brick on the areas that face Washington and the entry to give you a smaller um smaller scale material, and then on the northwest and and the balance of the south facade, um cement panels that are that are sort of larger scale.

You can see in here some of the landscaping on some images of the landscape in the roof, and then and then on the ground floor.

Um is there anything that breaks up these long panels there on the wall?

We have two i two elements that do that.

One is the horizontal shift on the building, which create the overhang and that shadow line, right?

So it's it's this line here.

Um and then the panels themselves have joint lines that that are fairly noticeable that that create that cadence.

But in essence, it wants to be uh you know, a uh use with kind of no daylight inside.

Um and the areas where we do have daylight, like the offices and the lobby in the front, that's where we have the window and the the kind of the smaller scale uh brick material.

It's it's a very sterile looking building.

Yeah.

And I have to admit I'm a little concerned about you know the parking areas on the western side of the building and on the northern side of the building.

I mean, it looks like pretty scary areas.

I mean from security point of view.

That there are no windows there where you see the concrete wall.

Yeah.

I don't even think there's any lights on the on the outside of the building.

I looked at the photometric plan.

It shows you know where street type lights are, but doesn't show any lights on the side of the building.

It looked kind of dark, also.

So we can comment on that.

Yeah, we haven't we haven't looked at the lighting yet for the site plan, but the idea would be that um obviously we'll have the required lighting, not only to to meet code, but also to feel safe, right?

Um and then in terms of of the windows and the facade, the the use of the building is is a use that doesn't want windows.

Um you want to be able to control that environment.

Um you also from a from uh perspective of we've seen it on our other projects in urban locations where you want to maintain privacy um and so on.

Um that's where we have the windows towards the front towards the street where where the use uh kind of merits that.

Um the walking to submit any security cameras then looking out to the parking lot?

Oh, 100%, yes, 100%.

You can talk about that a little, please.

Yeah, um, we haven't gotten to that level of detail yet.

Um, but security cameras lighting, obviously the the lighting on the parking, um, and we would have security cameras as well on the roof.

Yeah, I'd like to go back.

Um can we see for the next meeting?

Can we see the lighting that you're proposing for outside the building?

Uh but I agree with Bill, it's it could be a scary place to walk around at night with no windows there.

Um so if you can um we'll elaborate that to the plans, please.

Yeah, we'll elaborate on that, and then we can we can also show um camera locations if that helps.

Um, but I also I agree with Bill, it it does appear pretty sterile.

Um, and I understand that the building doesn't want windows, although that's probably a matter of opinion.

But um, is there anything you can do to the building to um make it a little less brutal looking?

Well, we have um in the front of the building uh we have uh we have two sort of rich materials, um, rich in terms of texture and size um that we're planning to use.

One is the what's shown here as the light gray brick.

Um, this is a handcrafted uh brick that's about um 20 inches long.

Um is that at the bottom?

Is that what we're seeing?

Correct.

Yeah, this is this.

So the brick, um, you know, the brick is all of this.

Eugene, maybe you can go to the material sheet.

Yeah, here's here's a close-up of the brick.

Okay, but it wasn't is that only in the that's in right, correct.

That's in the lower portion in the front.

So looking from the southwest, it's in this area looking uh from Washington Boulevard, right?

It's all of this here.

Um, and then looking from the north, it kind of turns around and and kind of does that.

Yeah, that and then there's go ahead, sorry.

No, no, no, sorry, go ahead.

No, we finish up, please with uh telling us about the materials.

Oh, what I was gonna say was that so the the volume in the front is brick, and then the volume in the back with the fence, that's where we have the textured cement panel.

Um right, so you can um you can see it in the rest of the facades, right?

So this the area back here is the cement panel, the area back here is the cement panel.

So the areas close to the street and close where the customers are gonna interact with the entry and the sidewalk.

Um those are the the kind of the texture heavy rich materials.

We also have right on the corner of the building.

Um we we are introducing some again, some kind of texture stone, and that's a language that we're bringing in to the interior of the building to the lobby and then to the to the main amenity.

Um if you look at the lower right there, the southwest view.

You've just one right here.

Yeah, you have that whole side of the building, which is the same color and texture um from that view.

Um with nothing to break it up.

Um we have the sorry, go ahead.

As well as in the back, I think you have the same thing on the left, yeah.

As well as in the back, I think you have the same thing on the left, yeah, the one to the left there, the north east view.

Yeah, this is the north.

So the north we have half of the facade and brick, which is the volume that's closer to Washington, and then in the rear, we have the cement now.

Yeah, I I agree with Bill that it needs something more there to, and I would say it on the northeast view as well.

Um, I think it would help if we got some up close um images.

I mean, from these dip from these distances, it's hard to see.

You're saying that it's brick, but it's hard to see it.

Yeah, it all looks from this distance, it all looks the same.

It just looks like cement.

Judine, I have a question for you.

Is this industrial kind of aesthetic look?

Is that normal with these bathhouses?

Is that is that the look as chairman said, that brutalistic kind of design or that minimalistic kind of design?

Is that is that normal with the bathhouse look because of that's a good question.

Um, there's so there's two items there.

One is the the look of the brand um that that we have, and both as a sort of brand business, and then the other one is the look of the type of facility, right?

Right.

So on the type of facility, this is typically done in existing buildings, right?

Um, this is if you if you the one in Chicago um is another one, right?

They're typically not done.

This is this is also a reinterpretation of a of a of a type of program that hasn't been around recently, right?

So we're trying to sort of kind of recreate it in a in a in a way that's that's modern and contemporary.

Um, usually on the inside, this type of facility, um, you can either go both ways, um, sort of hyper traditional, um, kind of Turkish bathhouse looking, it's almost like a caricature, um, or a lot more kind of modern um in in the sense of using materials, using textures, using lighting in in a way that's that's kind of available for our use based on the D on the different DOH standards.

Um, and then in terms of the the brand, the brand has stayed true to being honest about materials using brick, using stone, um, and not um not kind of deviating from that language.

Um, you know, for example, in the Manhattan location, um, which again it's the sort of interior, right?

But um there's a lot of stone, there's a lot of tile.

Um, in the in the uh Chicago location, which is also a new building.

We're not involved in that one, but the you know, the building facade uh has brick and and it's kind of similar openings.

Um so it is it is fairly typical both for the the kind of the type of building and the kind of following the brand standards.

Yeah, because I was wondering if that this is just a repurposed kind of a look, because that's how you started out, or if this was actually your branding.

Um I think Stanford has, in my opinion, only I think this board has really tried to make some segue to um more of a um uh different types of design.

If you look around Stanford, there's a lot of that type of design already, that gray blockish look, that brutal look.

And um this just seems to be more of that.

So I just didn't know if that was your brand itself.

I think if I can just jump in for a second, Eugene.

I think you know the the approach here is to try to create something super sleek and uh you know sexy.

Like if you look in the interiors of these buildings, and we have a lot of those images from the flat iron and from uh here are some of the images for Brooklyn.

You can see they're carrying through what the interior does to the exterior, and there is a bit of a challenge here, you know, the folk these rooms don't lend themselves to windows, right?

Right, it's like a yoga studio or any of those things where you you wouldn't have windows.

So the building naturally has to be a little bit enclosed.

I will tell you, and I you know, we've had a lot of conversations recently about architecture, and it is incredibly subjective, but I received unsolicited, you know, praise from an architect in town who I think you all greatly respect, Ryan Salvatore, when the uh the article ran in the Stanford Addic Advocate about you know the about bath house and how excited he was for the use, and also how beautiful he thought the building was.

So, you know, I think it it's just a matter of taste.

There, you know, I think that we should be excited about having these, you know, natural materials.

We're not seeing any ethos, we're seeing, you know, stone and brick, and they're really trying to create variation in the facade through texture where you can't do it with windows.

And so I think, you know, that's sort of the approach that they've taken.

Yep, and I and I agree with you.

It is subjective.

Uh, I'm more of a cornish guy, and I think find that more.

Um, I don't find this uh something that would be sexy at all.

I would think, you know, I like more, I like more of a buttress and a uh, you know, of a cornice on my development, but you're right.

It's it's subjective.

You're right.

Good point.

I also think part of it is we can't tell because these images aren't allowing us to really see what it's actually going to look like.

Okay, that's fair.

It almost remind me of the old door Oliver building.

Do you remember that?

That when you're you almost kind of remember that kind of those 1970s kind of that look, but but again, that's subjective, you know.

So why don't we get some up close views?

Yeah, for sure.

And I think there's more than subjectivity.

I think it's the sense of safety of the people who are.

I understand.

I understand that.

So we will definitely get you the details on the the lighting and um some of the information on security.

Yeah.

And then think about how you might give some more detail to the walls.

I mean, that stone to the right of the front door.

Um maybe it should be used uh more extensively than just in that location.

It's uh on those you've got those two blank walls.

Um then you would take away the continuity of the sleek look, Mr.

Chairman.

Well, and we'll we're also being budget conscious too, but yeah, cost the cost of we'd love to wrap the entire building in that stone, but uh wouldn't be able to afford that.

The natural materials we just heard about that includes concrete.

Yeah, it includes uh concrete panels, uh the handcrafted brick, um stone.

So a lot of manufactured uh materials as well as natural okay.

So for the next meeting, um, yeah, why don't you get us the close views and then um I think if you have any ideas uh for any thing that would break it up, I think that would be good as well.

Okay.

Um board, anyone else want to oh one last question.

I did I think I missed this question for you.

I I it's uh I'm obvious.

So I'm thinking I'm answering my own question.

It's gender specific locker rooms.

Is there gender specific pool areas?

Uh basically community.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So the way the way that it works uh would be that you have your your gender-specific locker rooms and bathrooms.

Right.

And once you go into the facility, uh both on the ground floor and on the roof is a co-ed facility.

It really is meant to be sort of a social atmosphere.

Jordan, maybe you can talk a little bit about the really large sauna and that experience.

Sure, yes.

Or our uh saunas is you can see Eugene if you want to point out the sauna or our event saunas.

Um and uh in in this location, I forget exactly how large I would imagine we accommodate somewhere between 60 and 80, but some of our even larger facilities sometimes are saunas or accommodating as many as a hundred people.

Um and you may not be familiar with the custom of of what's called off goose, but essentially there are um rituals where you have what are called a sauna master, and every two hours um somebody uh uh trained at bath house comes in and they melt a snowball that has a high grade essential oils on those rocks.

Uh steam starts to uh come up and they uh do kind of a towel waving ceremony to to music.

Um sounds a little bit hocus pocus, but uh it's 15 minutes and it it um is really an aromatherapy kind of sauna um class essentially done for for fit 15 minutes that people just love um at our flat iron uh location in in Manhattan, uh sometimes at six o'clock, uh a 60 person sauna, your your shoulder to shoulder with people.

People, you know, really like that.

And then following that, um, you you leave the facility and you uh you know enjoy a cold plunge um or go to the steam room and and you know experience the rest of the facility.

So it's it's something where you know we certainly encourage you know our uh our uh you know internal conversation, the company is no cucumber eyes, right?

So we're we're encouraging people to go together to have a conversation.

Um sometimes instead of a uh uh you know a coffee business meeting or a coffee meeting, people are are going to bathhouse and and having their meeting there for for an hour and kind of sweating it out together and uh leaving and doing something good for their body and feeling better afterwards.

Waving towels.

And and for for reference, this is this is a uh photo of the uh steam room at the uh Brooklyn location.

This is about six hundred and fifty square feet.

That's right.

Um the uh and then the other one that I want to show you was the this is the other sauna, which is our body, right?

Um and then example of the hot pools and um and flat iron.

Um and these are neutral pools and hot pools.

Um you'll be carrying carrying it through these designs and size to this location.

Correct.

That's correct.

Yeah.

Uh the the pool, I will say the the pool pictured uh is much larger than than we would have uh, you know, at the at this facility, but yes, uh otherwise uh very similar in in shape and size.

There's an interesting um article that was written in the Wall Street Journal last year um that featured Bath House, and I'll I'll share that with you all um before the next meeting because you know it it this was all very new to me also um but it's it's very interesting to me, and I think the health benefits are proven.

So the fact that they have chosen Stanford when they're in places like the Flat Iron in Brooklyn and Chicago, I think is really telling about Stanford, and I think it's exciting.

Um so I I'm hoping that that you all will see that too.

But anyway.

Are we Gene?

Did you wrap up?

Should we move on to Mark or Mr.

Chairman?

Did you have additional questions of the board have additional questions?

When you show the lighting, the lighting uh along the building.

Um just add that please to the photometric plan.

Okay.

All right, we'll do all I've got um this so far.

Okay.

Um Mark, I think you're up for Tucci.

All right.

Uh good evening.

Uh Mark Fertucci, I'm a senior transportation engineer or Fuss and O'Neill or located at one financial plaza in Hartford.

Also a registered professional engineer in Connecticut and a registered professional traffic operations engineer.

Um Fuss and O'Neal did prepare a traffic impact study for this uh proposed bathhouse.

And I just want to briefly describe our findings for you here this evening.

Um as maybe we can pull the uh pull the uh site plan up, Brian or whoever has uh has it just uh just for reference as I'm talking.

Um Brian had mentioned our site access uh scheme.

We have two full access drives proposed, one on Washington Boulevard and one on uh Atlantic Street.

Uh I wanted to point out the existing surface lot actually has two uh site driveways on Washington Boulevard.

So in reducing that down to one, we are providing some really good access management here.

We're reducing uh the number of turning conflict points uh on Washington Boulevard to one location.

So that that will provide for safer operations uh for site access.

And having that second driveway as well on Atlantic Street, uh will give patrons the option of being able to pull out and make use of that traffic signal at Washington and Atlantic.

Uh if it's a busier time of the day in the afternoon peak hour, uh they'd have the option to to use that light to make a left-hand turn uh out.

So uh as we had mentioned, uh we have discussed this access scheme with uh the traffic and transportation department and uh Luke Button Weezer, and this is uh the scheme that um we we agreed upon with them that made sense for the best uh safest access and and site circulation.

As part of the study, in addition to looking at these two site access driveways, we also reviewed operations at the Washington Atlantic intersection there adjacent to the site, as well as the Washington at Pulaski intersection off to the north.

Both of those intersections are signalized.

We did conduct new turning movement traffic counts at both of those intersections back in May of 2025.

And the counts did reveal the peak hours out there were 7 to 15 to 8.15 in the morning and 5 to 6 p.m.

in the afternoon.

So we did subsequently analyze those highest volume hours of the day as part of this study.

Now we did take those volumes from 2025.

We grew them to the anticipated design year of 2027.

We did use four-tenths of a percent growth rate, which was provided to us by the DOT.

And we also included traffic from several other developments in the South End that were recently approved or had been previously approved and not fully constructed and occupied.

Those include the Harbor Point S1 and S2 blocks, the Silicon Harbor Office Building at Dyke and Elmcroft, which is in the process of being converted to residential units, Harbor Point Parcel 6, and also the wood woodland at a Pacific development, which was previously approved for 540 units.

So all that traffic is in our background condition.

Now, as far as the the uh traffic that will be generated from this bathhouse, we did utilize rates provided in the ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, which is an industry-accepted resource for determining traffic generation.

Is this a bit of a unique use, uh, no specific use to this in the ITE manual?

We did uh utilize the next closest thing, which is a health and fitness club.

Um the rates for the health fitness club, uh, using those rates, uh, we anticipate this development will generate uh 44 trips in the morning peak hour and up to 121 trips in the afternoon peak hour.

Now we do feel uh these rates are very conservative for a couple of reasons.

One being the um while the ITE health fitness use uh does account for pools and whirlpools and sauna, which we have here, but they it also those types of facilities typically uh include fitness and workout areas as well as some have athletic courts.

We don't have any of that here.

So uh those rates are conservative.

Also, we expect a very heavy patronage um of this facility to come from nearby residents.

There's 2800 apartment units within walking distance in this area uh and also offices as well.

Uh so we expect a uh a pretty high percentage of people utilizing this site are going to be walkers or it's going to be pass-by vehicle traffic, people already on the road network going home or leaving from their home.

So we did not take credit for any of that uh walking use.

Uh we assume they would all these would all be driving trips.

So again, these rates are conservative.

Uh so determine the uh to determine the impact of this development.

We we took our 2027 background volumes, we added the traffic generation I just described to come up with our 2027 design year uh build or combined traffic conditions, and then we then conducted capacity analysis at each of our study intersections, uh comparing that background to the build condition.

Um we do the capacity analysis as you probably know uh our analysis rates these intersections on a level of service scale, which is a rapport card type scale from A to F, uh, where A is a condition of very low delay, efficient traffic operations, uh F is significant delay and congestion.

Typically the DOT considers level service D isn't dog as a minimal uh acceptable level of service.

And what our analysis showed was both of these signalized intersections on Washington Boulevard uh at Pulaski and Atlantic Street, they both operate acceptably today at level of service C and will continue to do so upon inclusion of the development traffic and the site driveways.

Uh we anticipate the Atlantic Drive will operate efficiently for exiting traffic at level service A and B in the morning and afternoon peak hours, and the Washington Boulevard exit will operate acceptably at level service D in both peak hours as well.

I wanted to point out there are a number of intersect infrastructure improvements that have recently been completed in this area or are in a plan to be completed in in the near future that really have or and will continue to improve the safety and efficiency of traffic operations in the South end.

The Atlantic Street Portal project, obviously, the state project was completed a few years ago to widen that uh underpass under Metro North uh from two to four lanes, that is improved operations there.

Uh the Greenwich at Pulaski Roundabout is functional uh uh well through that intersection.

Uh the lower Atlantic Street corridor from uh the transitway south to the Washington Boulevard intersection here near our site uh is actually currently under design by our firm.

Um we're working for the city there on that streetscape uh design, which will improve uh not only uh pedestrian um accessibility in the area, but also uh vehicular uh traffic operations.

Uh that's in preliminary design right now.

And the final improvement um is one we're proposing as part of this project.

Brian had described that earlier.

We are going to be extending the restriping Washington Boulevard, the northbound shared left through lane uh approaching Pulaski Street will be extended um to 400 feet.

So it will not only provide more queue storage at Pulaski Street, but also the tail end of that northbound left turn lane will be able to be utilized for traffic entering our site to queue two to three vehicles.

Um so that will be helpful as well.

Uh lastly, I wanted to just touch on safety.

We did measure intersection site distances from both of the proposed site driveways and looking in both directions from both driveways, the site distances do exceed DOT criteria for safe egress.

Uh as far as a crash history, we did review the latest three years of data from the Yukon crash repository for the study intersections and Washington Boulevard along our site frontage.

There were no abnormal uh crash patterns, frequencies, or severities in the study area uh that could be exacerbated, that that our development traffic could exacerbate.

Um so with that again, just to conclude our uh traffic impact uh study findings were that the proposed bathhouse will not have a significant impact to traffic operations in the study area.

Uh and upon implementation of that recommendation to extend the northbound uh through left turn lane and Washington Boulevard.

Uh it is our opinion that traffic accessing this uh site can be safely and efficiently accommodated.

Um and with that, uh I can take any questions or we can turn it back to Lisa.

Um okay, Jerry, any questions.

Jerry, you're muted.

Sorry, Ms.

Chairman.

What what are the hours of operations for the facility?

Jordan, you have to take that one.

You're muted also.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, it does.

I'm sorry, wouldn't they have to factor into the traffic study?

That's right, Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

Mark.

Well, Mark uses the peak hour, but go ahead.

So what we did is we right.

I mean, the the I I'll let Jordan answer the question on the hours of operation, but um it's going to open before the morning peak hours and close after the afternoon peak hours.

So the highest uh adjacent uh peak hour traffic of the day.

Um, when you take that and you add in the traffic from this development, the A plus B, that's the highest, those are the highest volume, highest impact hours of the day.

So that's what we reviewed as part of the study.

Actually, at least answered my question.

It was it was attorney Steinberg.

Um regards to what were the you know you use the peak hours for your study.

Correct.

Yeah, so that was thank you.

Uh Roseanne.

No, I don't have any questions.

Uh Bill.

No question regarding the traffic.

Mark, what's it you mentioned uh increasing the length of the left turn lane, northbound left turn lane to 400 feet.

Um you said that's a through left turn lane.

What is that mean?

Uh so as you approach uh on Washington Boulevard northbound at Pulaski Street, so it's currently one lane and it opens up to a second lane as you approach the intersection.

And from that second left lane, you can either take a left or go through um on Washington at Pulaski.

So it's it's kind of like a shared lane.

So the right lanes through and the left lane is is through or left.

Yeah.

So you see the the arrow there with a combined through.

Got it.

Left.

So yeah, today, I mean that you know that lane is only about a hundred feet of storage.

So by extending it to 400 feet, we're really providing a lot more, you know, another 300 feet of queue space.

So that'll help with the capacity at Washington at Pulaski, um, independent of this development.

But extending it that far back, we can also make use of it too to provide uh, you know, a couple of vehicle length storage for a left turn, uh left-turning vehicle into the site.

Okay.

And that would be important too, Ms.

Chairman, because there is on-street parking for that as well.

It's heavy traffic there in the morning going up going on to Pulaski.

There's on-street parking on Pulaski or on Washington.

On Washington Boulevard when you're making that turn.

So what happens is there's there's there are cars that park on Washington Boulevard all the way up to the church, and there's a left-hand turn.

So what happens are the folks that don't want to make the left-hand turn, they're dodging around those left-hand turn people that you know that you're going up to the street because you have the cars on the left on the right hand side.

Do the cars that are parked, are they in the through lane up, the right-hand through lane?

Uh there's a uh small condo development.

So it basically comes up from the residential, and then you have a um there's a small development there, then you have the church um the convent, then you have the church parking, then you have the the daycare, and there's there's on-street parking all the way through there.

So in the morning it gets a little congested because you have folks that are making the left-hand turn um onto Pulaski.

So they're trying to avoid the parking that's on the right-hand side.

Okay, I got it.

Okay, thank you.

Lisa, who's next?

I think that's everybody.

That I think that completes the presentation we had for you all tonight.

Okay.

Um, any questions before we uh head to the public?

Yeah, I got two simple ones, probably for Lisa.

Uh the first one is uh regarding the transfer of the uh non res non-residential rights.

Where does the board get the authority to do that?

Or how do we do that?

So because Harbor Point is just this massive zoning tract, if you will, all of the development rights were based on the 60 acres, and they were kind of divided up by block.

So you can change those development rights within that zoning tract just by modifying the GDP.

So the general GDP exactly.

Yes, I had there's an application pending to modify the GDP, yes.

And that's the condition 10 that you had talked about.

Yes.

Can I Bill?

Can I just follow up?

Sure, go right ahead, David.

Um how what is how is it and maybe this is a question for Ralph more.

How is this um how do we keep track of this?

How does this get memorialized?

Next question.

I mean, that's that's the filed uh and recorded uh general development plan.

So every as we move um development rights around, is there some place where this information is kept as to what the current status is?

It's on the map.

So uh if you look at the GDP, it says uh parcel s5 has 60 residential units currently.

In the future, it will say uh parcel s5 has 34,000 uh square feet of non-residential floor area and 60 um uh residential units, and for uh parcel P7, where the the development rights are coming from, uh it says currently that there are 140,000 square feet of non-residential uh development rights, no residential development rights.

Um this is the proposed that we filed that errors but what you see on the right side uh block P7, it has the the square footage.

Pretty interesting.

I'm sorry, there's P7 on the right and P7 on the left.

It's a match line, it's a match because it's big.

So this line matches this line.

The right hand one is the southern part of P7.

Exactly.

Exactly.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Phil, sorry for the interruption.

All right.

And then uh regarding the uh at least regarding the parking.

Now I believe you required to have 66 spaces as I recall.

Will those 66 spaces be designated just for bath house customers only, or just gonna be uh open to anybody?

I don't I don't know that we decided that they were gonna be set aside.

Um I can it I don't know.

Um I guess if there becomes a parking issue for some reason, then they would.

I can tell you that we took counts.

Um I can share with you actually just to kind of understand the usage of the uh parking lot today.

So the reason that there's no night here is because I asked uh Connor to start counting night, I guess on the 15th.

Um, but you can see, you know, oh whoops.

Um, you know, the average totals down here.

So we're gonna have 133, 68 of those are designated if they even were completely designated for bathhouse that leaves 65 spaces.

So we feel confident that there's there's plenty of parking.

Okay, but that answers my question.

Uh that's it for now, David.

Okay, anyway.

Uh anyone else.

No, the parking chart answered my questions.

Right.

Good.

Um, just one question about the EV spaces.

Um since they're supposed to be as close as possible to the front entrance.

Can we move them to the front?

Well, so here's the issue that we're running into, Mr.

Chairman.

We certainly can, except that the fire marshal specifically asks to move them away from doors.

So there's a little bit of a conflict between the regulation and what the the fire marshal is looking for.

Well, could we put them in the front?

Um as far from the building as they are in the back.

I mean, if they're 50 feet from the building in the back, then we put them 50 feet from the building in the front.

I think that the idea for putting them over there is that you know, nobody we have this regulation that requires a certain percentage um of EVs, but nobody really knows exactly what the need is going to be.

I I can tell you I've never I've never seen that many EV vehicles at one time in a place.

And so that that parking on the south side of uh the building is sort of I would consider the more prime parking, both for bathhouse and for Harbor Point in general.

And so dedicating it to EV just didn't make practical sense.

Um so I'd I'd ask you to consider that.

The percentage is state set by the state, right?

No.

The uh didn't come from them.

I think that's for for uh multifamily and uh it's also uh I think it has to be equipped for up to 10%.

Require 10% versus actually having the charging stations, which we're required to do.

Okay, well, our our regs require that they be closer than that than where you've got them now.

Um it would be another reg we should look at.

Yes.

Yeah, I think it says as possible.

What what's the exact language, Mr.

Chairman?

Do you have it open?

I'm sorry.

Or I can pull it up if you don't.

I don't know.

Um it's uh zoning rates.

We don't have them printed anymore because Ralph keeps changing them.

I know Ralph, would you stop that?

Okay.

Maybe that's true.

Let's see.

12.

12L, I believe.

Hi, Jay.

Hey.

Wondering if there's a little discretion that can be involved.

There we go.

So yeah.

Somebody needs to charge their EV while they are going to the spa.

Then they've got problems.

Why?

What's I think the idea is to encourage the use of electric vehicles.

So the more places there are to charge them.

Doesn't that encourage them people to use them?

I would encourage them to charge them at home.

I think that's just a big question mark out there at this point on as to like actual usage and whether you'll need 15 at one time.

And so then those those spaces are allocated for that.

Nobody else can park there.

Then the all those spaces stay empty.

Okay.

Well, then it that's an issue for revising our regs, it sounds like whether we want to decrease the percentage that's required.

And especially with the battle that we have with the with the fire marshal who wants them as far away from the building as possible.

Sorry, I just want to see if there's any discretion, Mr.

Chairman.

And if there is, I would ask you to consider it.

Um I apologize for holding this up.

But I can I can look at it.

We'll be back in front of you, so I can take a look at it.

Um I'm not that's funny.

I'm not seeing it, but I know it's there.

Maybe you know what?

I think we had this conversation with Luke, and I think it's not there anymore.

But we can we can take a look and circle back to you on it.

Um I don't want to hold everybody up.

Yeah.

Um, well, I would say we we should at least get some of the spaces in the front.

Um yeah, I I can't imagine.

Well, maybe we took it out.

We might have uh taken it out because of the fire marshal concerns.

Yeah, it's not the first time it's come up.

Right.

Yeah, no, that's that's true.

We'll we'll have another look.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

So I'll just we'll you would just um get back to us on that.

We'll do.

Oh, so is there anything anyone else from the board who wants to uh say anything before we go to the public?

Okay, so is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this application uh either for or against it?

Um please raise your hand and when you're called on, um, if you would introduce yourself and um give us your address, please.

Yes, we have Miss Helpern.

Yes, there she is.

Hi.

This is Sue Halburn.

Am I on?

You are.

Thank you, thank you.

Where do you live?

Hi, I'm down the sound.

So I go both.

Um I don't know how many times a day, but anyway.

Um thank you for allowing me to speak.

You know, I have a number of issues with this um project, and I sent in an email yesterday evening, but right.

We did we did get it.

Yeah, thank you.

I'll just I'll keep my three minutes here anyway.

But I I appreciate that you did mention that you think the building is brutal and sterile looking.

It it is an unattractive building, I have to say, but my issue really is you know, has to do with the comprehensive plan and and what was just recently approved in the comprehensive plan.

But my issue really is, you know, has to do with the comprehensive plan and what was just recently approved in the comprehensive plan.

You know, uh, one of the five core visions of the comprehensive plan was to increase and maintain open space, prioritize trees and shading, and improve air and water quality.

This application to build a 34,000 square foot structure does none of that.

The South End has the poorest air quality in the city due to the industries it supports, the I-95 traffic, and very little tree canopy.

The life expectancy in the South End is 11 years less than North Stanford.

It surprises me that no one has mentioned that the ONG cement processing plant is directly across the canal that produces a tremendous amount of dust, cement dust.

And you're talking about putting a pool and a bar up on the roof.

You know, I just it's not healthy.

It's bad enough.

You know, I hear people from the beacon complain that they can't open their windows because of the dust that comes across from the process, cement processing plan.

And you know, I I just have to say the action steps in the comprehensive plan include enhance and expand green space by creating a more interconnected network of parks, open areas, public plazas, and waterfront access.

You're supposed to prioritize the completion of the Mill River Greenway to Long Island Sound.

That Mill River Greenway goes adjacent to that property uh where Sprague Company is and where this parking lot is.

Um, you know, this is an opportunity to acquire land, and you know, they're talking about the blue green link system.

Now, this is supposed to be a Keystone proper plan.

Oh, so I think we lost you.

Oh no.

Uh we can hear you again, but you were out there.

Maybe you can repeat your last sentence.

Oh, yeah, no, I was just saying how, you know, the comprehensive plan, you know, this is an uh opportunity to acquire some land that would expand, connect, and enhance our open spaces along the waterfront.

The the comprehensive plan talks about a blue-green link system, which is a project that connects uh Mill River to Miscalsey Park to Long Island Sound.

And you know, this is an opportunity for you know, and you know, we we can have a vision here for this piece of property to put a parkland, maintain the parking lot, which is a real asset to the neighborhood down here.

You know, you can you can come up with these numbers, but I see people parking there, guests from the high rises, people who are going to the restaurants at Harbor Point.

So, you know, I think it's important to leave this.

This is an asset to the neighborhood.

So please consider my ideas instead of agreeing to this application.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sue.

Next, we have Miss McGaulie.

She should be on any second.

Uh Miss McClaudy, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay.

Um, good evening, Elizabeth McAuley, South End property owner at 18 Walter Wheeler Drive.

Um, I'm opposed to the application for a bathhouse on this parcel five.

The public parking has been there for as long as I can remember from the grandfathered courtesy and community-mindedness of Pitney Bowes, the prior owners.

This law is used by Holy Name of Jesus Church for overflow parking and special events.

It is also used by South End residents having visitors to multifamily homes such as my own after all the street parking was taken away.

It is used by the Harbor Point visitors and restaurant patrons since those roadside spots are taken up by residents who avoid paying their parking fees.

And the parking could also be used by those coming from other places to walk on the Mill River Greenway, for which millions of dollars was spent.

And it would be nice to even put a sign in the parking lot about the greenway.

If part of the lot was to be developed, what are some other alternatives that are being considered to be of more use to all residents and the general public?

At least put in something that the bulk of the community could use, not something so specific as elected wellness and related socializing.

Anything built there should have a design aesthetic in the character of the South End neighborhood.

And personally, I would rather look at the existing oil tanks and keep the parking lot.

At least then you could still see the beautiful colors of the sky over the water at different times of the day, which will now be blocked for walkers, bike riders, or tenants in the multifamily area.

And gone are the days of the Pitney Bows Gardens and their community interest as nothing like that will ever be seen again under the current management.

And again, this parcel should remain for parking with surrounding green space.

The article in the Stanford Advocate was contradictory, saying that one purpose of these contrast therapy soaking tubs and bathing pools would be for socializing away from alcohol consumption.

Yeah, it stated that the rooftop pool area would be serving beer, wine, and cocktails.

So I don't think our residential area needs another health facility or pool and definitely does not need another bar, such as Fortina or the Whale, where policing is going on for poor behavior from drinking and drug use.

Those seeking such social interactions at the bathhouse in later evening hours will cause a disturbance of the general peaceful nature of that parking area.

And per the traffic study, adding congestion, a 44-weekday and 121 weekday trips, cause potential neighborhood issues and even possibly tarnish the neighborhood reputation, resulting in diminished property values.

And I say not in my front yard, and please do not approve this application.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You should be uh the number is ending on zero zero.

You should be able to unmute yourself.

This is Peter Quigley.

Thank you.

Uh Dr.

Blessing.

Peter Quigley, I'm recently moved as a five-year resident at 101 Washington Boulevard.

I've been asked to speak by officers of the NRZ in the South End.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr.

Stein and members present.

I am opposed to this application 22537 to rather suggest the city and all, including developers, should continue to support the endorsement of the millions of dollars 50 million plus invested in the Mill River Greenway Walkway extension to support the Mill River Plan, as should all residents, planning and zoning, all the Board of Reps in the Mayor's administration, and to deny this application to 2537 for continuation of the Mill River Plan at this site.

The Mill River runs through it.

Now, I stand opposed to the application or any similar one that will disturb this toxic carcyogenic site.

And where now toxins are going to be added from 17 different people in different locations.

The questions the use of this site.

Is the use of cleaning fluids and uses going to be dumped into the harbor?

And what about the stormwater?

Serious issues in the South End.

Is there an MS4 permit for this application?

So you have toxic site.

You need soil testing at these sites.

I get the BNF carding, Brick and Dork, and the K Park.

Okay.

Now, I do stand to endorse at this site a continuation of the city's investment in the Mill River Greenway Walkway Extension Plan.

Past the Beacon High Rise, across the street from where I lived to the magnificent boardwalk, ending up at the former boatwalk boatyard site with a terrific design of a harbor-dependent facility, like the one designed and presented five years ago by the boatyard committee to build on that site and which the City Harbor Commission liked, liked it a lot.

All city and state master plans, including its Mill River, Greenway, multi-million dollar plan by the citizens and residents of Stanford, all speak to open space.

Use just a portion of that parking lot area where the application is to locate a small park extending to the Mill River Beacon Harbor Apartments Boardwalk with access to the water dependent resources for residents, visitors, and guess what?

The good old boaters.

Let's speak to the water dependent issues by master plans at both local and state levels for Harbor Point and consideration by you guys and gals here for the Mill River Walkway Extension Project as the number one priority.

Truly, water-dependent uses, the restoration of a walkway, boardwalk, small park here, open space, greenery, and maybe a boat yard, a water dependent facility, like designed five years ago to support boating that was supported, I recall, by the city's harbor commission.

There's nothing in the master plans for more boat boat bathhouses, rooftop bars, congestion noises at bars, 2 a.m.

2 a.m.

in the morning, like next door at your friends aside of the whale.

I live there.

Does area need you may not have lived there.

I lived there for five years, folks.

Does area need more drinking, noises, traffic, drug use, potential illegal behavior of a red light district, or do not need any further disturbance of soil that are proven health hazards of carcinogenic toxins in the South End next to Sprague Energy oil tanks.

I move because of health issues.

Anyone wants to know what they are?

I'm happy to talk to you about them.

Okay.

The city is losing its character of the historic places in its south end waterfront uses.

Harbor Point ought to be restored and renovated for its beauty, character, and maritime legacy by continuing the investment of millions of dollars in the Mill River plan, in all plans, and not lose what could be a terrific attraction for the city and for everybody.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Sure, I'd be happy to.

So there were some questions about the comprehensive plan and whether this proposed use would conform to the comprehensive plan.

I'd start by saying that you know this is a permitted use in the SRDS zone, and unlike a lot of applications that become that come before this board, it's it's not a special permit use.

It's a it's a permitted quote unquote as-of right use, which is why it didn't have to be referred to the planning board.

There's an assumption that this use already conforms uh to the comprehensive plan.

Um I heard some questions about maintaining open space.

Uh, I I guess I would just point out that today this and for a long time this has been a parking lot.

Um, we are going to be reducing impervious surfaces.

We're going to be adding, I believe Matt Pop said around 44 new trees.

Um, Harbor Point in itself has 12 acres of parkland.

Um, that doesn't include K Park.

I would venture to say, I don't know this to be a fact, but I wouldn't be surprised if Harbor Point in the South End has more publicly accessible parkland than any other uh neighborhood in the city of Stanford.

Um there was a question about the public parking, uh, the use of the public parking lot.

Uh it is a private parking lot to the extent that folks are utilizing it overnight for their tenants.

That's that's not a permitted use.

Um, it's not a city-owned parking lot.

Uh we talked a little bit about the the architecture, and I I realize that folks are going to have their own opinions about that, like they do about any sort of um you know art or our creative outlet.

So um I I can't I can't say much more on that.

Um, in terms of the the structure itself blocking uh the sky, that this is a two-story structure.

Um, I think that you know there'll be great visibility of the sky.

Um, and then the question, I think there's maybe a little bit of confusion about uh the location of the site.

It is not waterfront.

Uh it is divided from the water by the spray site.

So there is no impact on the mill river plan.

Um, this site is fully interior and and does not uh have that access to the water.

Um we will of course uh conform to all of the city's engineering requirements, including MS4, and I think Brian took you through those.

Um I think I think that's it, unless you think I missed something, Mr.

Chairman.

I think you covered it all, and you you answered a question I had, and that was um whether this property had waterfront access, because it did sound like it from some of the questions we got.

Um but it's um I guess we need to wait until uh the spray energy site is developed to uh have access there.

Yeah, well, we did the uh the zoning change for the spray energy side.

Uh we put in requirements um for the continuation of the waterfront across the spray energy side.

So uh that side will then connect to um uh uh Water Street Park, which is just north of the spray energy side, and uh the boardwalk further to the south.

Good.

Jerry, you uh uh yeah, please.

I I don't want to lament this point, but it was a good point that Sue made.

Um what about the air quality on there with the ONG and having the outdoor pool and up, you know, having the uh you know social amenities up on the roof?

Is anybody looked at that?

Is that been given a thought?

I I mean this I think there's probably no area in Stanford that has more had had more focus from the folks up at Deep than uh Harbor Point.

There are outdoor pools on in every single apartment building down there.

This is it's not a new thing, and I can assure you that if Bathhouse was concerned about the air quality, they wouldn't be investing in Stanford.

No, I no, I didn't know it was that that piece of the project.

So I just didn't know how that worked out.

But nice.

Okay.

Uh we've gone to the public uh board.

Any other questions?

No, just uh okay.

Um so let's just talk for a second about um what it is the applicant will provide for the next meeting.

I don't think there's that much.

Um the first is the uh up close views of the building.

Um and if it can be on all four sides, that would be helpful.

Um next is uh the lighting, the outdoor lighting being added along the building, and um also to the photometric plan.

Uh the for the landscape plan, the five street trees will be moved up to the sidewalk.

And um we're gonna try to figure out um what's required with the EV spaces.

If they're it turns out they're not required to be up uh close to the entrance, um I would ask the applicant to consider putting at least a few up there for people um who uh who are driving electric car.

Uh board, was there anything else that we were looking for on this?

They're doing some investigation regarding security or outward security cameras, I believe.

Security cameras, yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Um Lisa, anything else that you want to put in before we uh we continue this?

I don't think so.

I would just ask you all if if you have any questions that come up in the interim, um, if you can pass those along to staff so that staff can then pass them to our team.

I'd I'd love to try to wrap things up at the next hearing if that if at all possible.

Yeah, that's a good idea.

Thank you.

Um we are continuing application 225-37 to the next meeting of the zoning board, which is January 26, 2026, um, at 6.30 p.m.

Uh on Zoom.

Excellent.

Thank you all for your time tonight.

Good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is we have two new applications.

The first is application 225-4-1.

City of Stanford zoning board.

The purpose of this text change is to correct mistakes and streamline the zoning regulations.

Roseanne, could you please read the are you okay reading it or you want someone else to read it?

No, that's all right.

Okay.

4-1 is first.

Correct.

4-1.

Yes.

November 20th, 2025, to Mr.

David Stein, Chair City of Stanford Zoning Board.

Excuse me.

Regarding ZB application number 225-4-1 Stanford zoning board text change.

Dear Mr.

Stein and members of the zoning board during its regularly scheduled meeting held on Tuesday, November 18th, 2025.

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

Purpose of this text changed is to make corrections and streamline the zoning regulations.

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

After a brief discussion, the planning board unanimously voted to recommend approval of ZB application number two two five-4-1 and found this to be in general harmony with the 2035 comprehensive plan.

Sincerely Stanford Planning Board, Jennifer Gazzino, Chair.

Good.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Yes.

Of course.

So we have two applications today from the zoning board.

And the second one, which we will come to later, hopefully is an update to reflect the new comprehensive plan categories.

So once in a while we do those actions to correct uh errors and make smaller updates to the zoning regulations.

And this is uh no difference.

So those are um the most important things that we're proposing to do uh with regard to this cleanup.

Um when we reorganize the zoning regulations, um we uh created uh unintentionally some duplicative language uh that is basically twice in the zoning regulations.

So uh we um proposing to delete this duplicative uh language uh and this is language regarding uh the role of the ZBA and variances.

Uh the next one is uh that we want to clarify and update notice requirements um for zoning board actions, so you all know um that there are uh the requirements to send out letters, the the signposting requirements for map changes and special permits.

Um we just wanted to make it a little bit clearer.

They were all sort of hidden in the in the zoning uh regulation changes.

We just want to make it clear that it's not only for those, but also for other zoning board actions, also the signposting requirements, they still uh refer to in-person meetings at City Hall, which have not happened for five years.

Uh so um there's there's some updates uh also posting the website where information can be found about those applications.

I think that's important uh uh to do as well.

Um we propose an update to the light and air requirements.

We had a lot of uh conversions of office buildings to residential buildings.

And uh in many instances, uh the applicant was not providing operable windows.

So uh we're adding um the little word operable to the light and air requirements.

Um uh and and state that this is a requirement uh to meet the light and air uh requirements.

There's a small technical update to the floor area ratio regulations.

Um we exclude everything uh that has a ceiling height, floor to ceiling height of less than seven and a third uh feed.

Uh that that does not count towards the the FAR.

Uh this is in alignment with the building code, which basically says that uh it's not habitable space if it's less than uh seven and uh a third uh um of uh then it's not a room, it cannot be used as a room per building code.

So that's um an alignment with that.

Um we are up proposing to update the parking lot design requirements.

Um we learned that so we have the parking lot uh design requirements that shade trees need to be planted.

Um but what we want to make sure is that they really plant large shade trees and not just ornamental trees to really reduce the the heat island effect and provide more shade.

Um so that's uh one of the um uh changes we're proposing.

Um we uh are proposing um to clarify the street definition.

Um you might recall with regard to 700 uh Fairfield with that application.

There was um uh a uh question if um uh gatehouse road is a road or not.

Uh and if it creates a street tree requirement, we hope that that uh clarification uh solves that issue.

Um you might recall that we uh when we talked about the the first senior housing uh project, uh deed restricted senior housing project, that there was some uh um confusion about the ADA requirement, what we uh should require, should it be fully ADA required, or should it be uh the the type B that it can be easily um updated and upgraded to full ADA requirements?

Uh so we clarify we want to clarify that it has to be uh uh easily upgradable um to uh meet all the ADA requirements, uh but it doesn't have to be from the get-go um fully uh ADA uh compliant.

Um we're also adding some requirements for shared parking facilities, uh and then there's just some technical uh updates uh to appendix A, the use regulations, um uh where we uh just uh correcting um uh uh mistakes, and we also uh proposing to delete the requirement that a small retail use in industrial areas needs uh a special permit.

So if you want a bodega uh or or sandwich shop in an industrial area, uh currently you need a special permit for that.

We're proposing to not require that uh anymore to make it um a little bit easier.

And that's pretty much it for um what we're proposing for uh the cleanup once again.

Uh it's nothing uh earth shattering, it's um really um corrections, um updates, sort of reacting to some of the the things that we hear um in connection with applications that we haven't really thought um about or um that came up that we wanted to address.

Ralph, did you say that there was also a change?

You are making a change to the text.

Um application where um there is a result of one of the comments we got from uh city department, we were changing something.

Oh, there's the one about the street definition.

Um, no, not that one.

It was a different one.

Different one.

Um the driveway.

Yes, that's the one.

Yeah, yeah, the street definition and the driveway definition, yeah.

Did you said you were making a change in what's been proposed?

Uh it's just basically uh deleting um uh uh a couple words.

Um I can I can show you the change now or uh once we discuss it.

No, why don't you why don't you put it up now so that um give me one second?

It'll because it's a change from what we got in the package.

Yeah, yeah.

So can you see the text change?

The text.

Yes.

So the engineering department uh in their referral comments, uh, they they had two points.

Uh one was uh they were opposed to uh deleting uh the reference to the uh engineering bureau's list of uh Stanford Roads.

So that is something uh that the board might want to consider.

And then uh for the driveway definition, uh the engineering department had comment that uh a driveway doesn't necessarily have one uh uh exit uh to a road, it can have two exits um uh or more if you have a large parking lot.

So um in order to address that comment, um I would uh uh uh propose to delete uh those uh last five words um and end the sentence um uh uh here and delete without connecting to other streets.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

Um there were a couple of other changes uh that were minor.

Um let's go to the board.

Uh Bill.

Any questions.

I must I didn't was kind of curious why Roth had picked seven and one third feet, and now I know why.

Oh, that no, I really have no other uh questions, Dave.

I'm good with it.

And that should really depend on how tall the uh occupant is.

Well, I guess, but I agree.

Makes sense.

I'll have to explain it why you did it, but yeah, it does.

Uh Roseanne.

No, no, it's it's important that we do all this cleanup, so thank you.

Um Jerry.

No, Mr.

Chairman, thank you.

Okay, and um, I don't have any comments or questions.

Uh so why don't we go to the public?

Um just maybe before we go, um, I just wanted to mention that uh referral comments.

We already talked about um the uh the engineering bureau, they had comments, but I just wanted to um state um uh on the record that uh obviously you heard the planning board uh comments, EPB had no objections, the fire marshal had no objections, the harbor management commission had no objections, and uh West Cog, which is the regional planning um uh agency didn't see any regional impact with this um application.

Okay, good, thank you.

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

Halpern has a comment.

Sue, long time no here.

Hi, thank you.

This is Sue Halpern again, Alm Crum Drive.

I just want to say one thing.

I think it's great that you're making that change to add in operational windows.

So I just want to say it's wonderful.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And thank you for being supportive of our application.

You're welcome.

Yeah, that's great.

It's all good.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh I don't see any other speakers at this point.

Okay.

Um reason why we shouldn't close this application.

No.

No.

Okay.

So we are closing application 225-4-1.

Next application we have is number two five-42, City of Stanford zoning board zoning text changed.

The purpose of this amendment of the Stanford zoning regulations is to update the references to the city's revised comprehensive plan, formally the master plan in the zoning regulation.

Giving that land given that land use categories were changed as part of the plan update, these categories will be updated as well.

Roseanne, could you please read the planning board letter?

Certainly.

Data November 20th, 2025 to Mr.

David Stein, Chair, City of Stanford Zoning Board regarding ZB application number 225-42, Stanford zoning board text change.

Dear Mr.

Stein and members of the zoning board.

During its regularly scheduled meeting held on Tuesday, November 18th, 2025, the planning board reviewed the above captioned application referred in accordance with the requirements of the Stanford Charter.

The purpose of this amendment to the Stanford zoning regulations is to update the references to the city's revised comprehensive plan, formally the master plan.

Given the land use categories were changed as part of the plan update, these categories will be updated as well.

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

After a brief discussion, the planning board unanimously unanimously voted to recommend approval of ZB application number 225-42 and found this to be in general harmony with the 2035 comprehensive.

Sincerely, Stanford Planning Board, Jennifer Godzino, Chair.

Thank you.

Yes.

So yeah, as you all know, um the um new comprehensive plan is in effect uh I believe since October.

Uh and uh the zoning regulations in many instances refer to the comprehensive uh plan or to the master plan.

So uh this is just uh adjusting uh the old master plan categories to the new um uh comprehensive plan categories.

Um and uh the way it works is uh basically uh you can see here on this table.

Uh sometimes it's just changing the word master plan with comprehensive plan and the zoning regulations, but uh in some instances we refer to specific uh like master plan or comprehensive plan categories, and this is sort of the equivalency between uh the master plan and the comprehensive plan categories.

Um so uh master plan category one, very low uh density single family uh and uh uh master plan category two low density single family.

Uh they are now uh new comprehensive plan uh category res one.

Uh so we don't differentiate anymore between very low density and low density single family residential.

So this just shows sort of the equivalencies between the old um master plan categories and the new comprehensive plan categories that we used to uh update um if there was a reference to the comprehensive plan in the zoning regulations, and um that's basically it.

Okay.

Um questions from the board.

No, Mr.

Chairman.

No.

No.

Anything okay?

I've got no questions as well.

Uh so why don't we go to the public?

If anyone from the public wishes to speak on uh this application, uh please raise your hand.

Okay.

I don't see any hands raised.

Okay.

Any reason why we shouldn't close this?

Oh okay, then we are closing application 225-4-2.

Um, this concludes the uh public hearing portion of tonight's meeting, and we are now going into the regular meeting.

Um the first uh item we have here is the uh minutes of uh December 15th.

Um does anyone have any I'd like to make a motion to approve those minutes?

I'm assuming no one has any comments to change it.

Just wanted to open it up second.

All right, it is now open.

Um discussion.

Okay.

Um all in favor of approving the December 15th minutes as presented, say aye.

I um opposed abstentions minutes are approved.

Um Mr.

Chairman, can we take five minutes before we get into pending applications?

I think that's an excellent idea.

Perfect.

Let's do that.

Okay, so um it's now um about nine o'clock.

Why don't we come back at um 9.05?

Perfect.

And can we uh stop the recorder?

Jerry, are you back?

Sorry, I have to keep sneaking away to go blow my nose.

There he is.

Okay.

Um the uh zoning board meeting of January 5th, 2026 uh is resuming.

Um we next have uh pending applications, and the first one is application 224-18, Continental Family Holdings LLC by Michael Caquet, 1111 Summer Street, Stanford Connecticut zoning map change.

Um based on um discussion at the board at our earlier meetings.

Um staffs provided a memo which outlines reasons for denial of uh this application.

Um is there anyone um who does not agree with the reasons set forth in the memo from staff?

Chairman, I I actually am in favor of this application.

I think uh speaking to the residents there, uh I just um I think it's uh something that's uh it's willfully wanted down in that area uh by the vast majority of the residents.

Um and um, you know, basically I'm I'm in for the application for the change on both both positions of this um this application.

Okay, thank you.

Um I think that there is um the board, I think everyone on the board would support an application um that uh was not did not have the density that this one has.

Um but I think this project that's being proposed is really um for the reasons that uh I think people will discuss um is um too much for that area.

Uh can we get a motion to um deny this application mr.

Chairman, I move that we deny application number two two four-18.

Is there a second?

I second that.

Okay.

Um and Mr.

Chairman, yes.

I I think um instead of just denying it, I I think it would be important that we read into the record um some of the staff's report with the denial of the application.

I think it's important that that information be part of the record.

Does um does everyone um I think I'd ask, but uh other than Jerry, does everyone agree that this um summary of grounds for denial?

Um is um we agree with it.

Uh yes, and and I think that is evident, quite evident by the way the meetings were held.

I think the concerns uh that the board had regarding density and the effects of that were well stated throughout the entire hearing process, starting with the uh first meeting through the last meeting.

So I don't see I don't personally see anything uh that's in here that we did not discuss during the actual hearing process.

Okay.

And every everyone agrees with what's in here.

Um I do, and I appreciate that the um applicant um attempted to reduce some of the numbers of the units, but I don't think it went far enough.

Okay.

Roseanne, you want to start off with the reasons why this application should be denied.

Um, sure.

Um looking at the staff's memo, it starts um the reason number one is density and scale incompatibility.

Um the most significant concern with this application is the excessive density proposed for the RMF portion of the site.

The RMF zoning district would permit up to 40 units per acre with the BMR bonus, allowing for 205 units on the rear, 5.13 acre portion alone.

The density is grossly inconsistent with the surrounding residential neighborhoods.

The adjacent R6 district, which borders the site to the east allows approximately 14 units per acre when developed as two-family units on subdivided lots.

The R7 and a half and R10 single family districts to the south and west allow even lower densities of seven and four units per acre, respectively.

The total potential of 265 units under the proposed split zoning represents a density that is nearly double that that would be permitted if the entire state site were zoned RM1, which would allow approximately 137 units.

This represents dramatic increase in density compared to the surrounding area.

The comparative sites identified by the applicant are located on the opposite side of the neighborhood along the west branch of Stanford Harbor across the water from the higher density development at Harbor Point.

Okay, thank you.

Bill, uh, you want to continue with concerns.

Um the height and building scale concerns that once again we you know we talked about during the hearing process.

Uh but what it states, the memo states that section five excuse me, five FF.1 of the zoning regulation states that the RMF district intends for new development to be harmonious incompatible with the existing buildings.

The proposed rezoning fails to meet this fundamental requirement.

Four-story buildings adjacent to the areas zoned for single-family and two-family homes, which allow for a building height of only two and a half stories.

This would create a visual and visual incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

In addition, a 200-unit apartment building creates a significant larger bulk than single and two-family homes.

Excuse me, and two-family buildings in R7 and a half and R6 or districts are 60 and 55 respect, 60 and 50 feet, respectfully.

Compounding this problem is the fact that the site would have only a single means of access on bury place serving both the RMF and RM1 portions of the development.

This creates a bottleneck condition where all traffic from 265 units must funnel through one access point onto an inadequate street network.

The lack of alternative access routes and the limitations of the existing roadway system presents serious concerns about traffic safety and neighborhood livability.

These issues are aggravated by the introduction of a new significant traffic generator, the Wings Arena at 50 Berry Place.

Applicant has not provided any data taking this new use into account.

It should also be noted that the comparative sites identified by the applicant are located on a much larger street, South Field Avenue, which serves as the major access road to the neighborhood and has seen significant recent improvements with the construction of the Pilaski Street roundabout and the reconfiguration of Davenport Street and Greenwich Avenue.

The proposed site is also farther away from the Stanford Transportation Center than the comparison sites.

The closest comparison site is 16 minutes walking distance from the transportation center versus 31 minutes from the subject site.

And therefore provides less incentives to avoid car trips.

In addition, pedestrians from the subject site would have to walk through an active industrial area with limited availability of sidewalk.

The Stanford Sustainability Scorecard, which is a requirement for developments like this, considers the location only as somewhat walkable with a walk score of 51 out of 100, providing only minimal bike and providing minimal bike infrastructure, a transit score of 42 out of 100.

Do you do you want me to read the rest?

Why don't you read the next section?

The next item uh listed is split lot configuration deficiencies.

The proposed split lot zoning configuration creates additional planning problems that undermine good site design principles.

The RMF portion of the parcel does not have direct frontage on Bury Place and would instead be accessed through the RM1 portion of the site.

This arrangement effectively negates the front setback requirement for the RMF portion and the rear setback requirement for the RM1 portion, which are important dimensional dimensional standards designed to ensure appropriate spacing, light, air, and compatibility between different uses.

The split lot approach is designed primarily to maximize density on the site rather than to create a development pattern that responds appropriately to the site's context and constraints.

Okay.

And the the um as I think we made clear at the uh meetings, there are better alternatives available than the um zones that have been proposed by the applicant.

Uh staff has identified the R5 zoning districts as a way to better serve the site and surrounding area while still meeting the city's goals for middle and affordable housing.

Specifically, the R5 zoning district would allow buildings up to three stories and 30 feet in height, which provides a much more appropriate transition to the adjacent lower density residential areas.

The R5 district would permit a density of approximately 22 units per acre with the BMR bonus, resulting in approximately 2008 200 units for the entire 9.13 acre site.

This represents a meaningful reduction from the 265 units proposed under the split RMF and R1 zoning, while still providing substantial housing opportunities.

Additionally, a lower density district such as the R5 would allow for the creation of meaningful at-grade open space, which would improve the quality of life for residents and better integrate the development into the neighborhood fabric.

Is there any further discussion on this application?

I think that report says it all for me.

Yeah, and I just want to reiterate again that you know the items which were very well put together, you know, in this memorandum from staff were discussed throughout the entire process.

It's not something that we just came up with again.

These concerns were raised, and obviously the board didn't feel that the concerns were addressed uh efficiently or I think the board did um suggest to the applicant that the R5 zoning district would be a better way to go.

Um to our concerns, and um the applicant um did not choose to make that change.

Um is there any further discussion on this application?

No, Mr.

Okay.

Then we have a motion on the floor to deny it.

Um, all in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Jerry, are you voting?

Yeah, uh I oppose.

Okay, good.

So the vote is three in favor, one opposed.

The motion to deny the application uh passes.

The next application we have is the application two two five-23 continental family holdings, twenty-three berry place, site and architectural plans and or requested uses and special permit.

Uh Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, pursuant to appendix A table one.

Neither single two or multifamily dwellings are permitted in use uses, excuse me, are permitted uses in MG zoning districts.

Uh this property is still MG zoning district.

Uh therefore uh this you know application would violate the zoning regulations, and I move that we uh deny the application for those reasons.

Okay, is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

Um further discussion, chairman.

I think everything we said about um application eighteen carries is really about this.

Okay.

Um all in favor of the uh motion to deny application two two five-23.

Say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Okay, the um the motion carries application two two five-23 is denied.

Uh next we have application two two five-24, four ninety-two Glenbrook Road, uh 40 Glenbrook Road LLC, 488 Glenbrook Road 37 and 41 Parker Avenue.

Uh site and architectural plans and are requested uses and special permit.

Um is there anyone on the board who is opposed to this application?

No, it's a pretty good application.

Great application.

Um why don't we uh review the proposed conditions?

Um that uh staff is prepared for this.

Um I think we can scroll down.

Um sorry, I'm having difficulties finding the button.

The button.

I have to share again.

Sorry about that.

Okay.

There we go.

So make it larger.

No, I think it was big.

It was big enough before.

Um and this has been updated for the plans that the most recent set of plans that um we received.

Yes.

Okay.

More plans.

Um they are um seeking a special permit um under this application.

Um to permit construction of a building facade more than 50 feet in width that exceeds 30 percent of the vertical plane area of any individual facade or portion of facade.

Um assuming uh Ralph, this is not something that uh we should have any objection to no.

Um next we have our special findings, um, which are the usual.

Um it and did it says it's uh in keeping with the master plan because it was approved under the master plan by the uh by the planning board.

Can I just ask quickly if what we're seeing on the screen is the same as we received last week?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Thanks.

No changes.

No changes.

Okay.

Okay.

Um site specific conditions.

The first is the work will conform to the uh building and site plans listed above, unless otherwise approved by the zoning board or by staff if it's a minor modification.

The um next one is landscape plan.

Um applicant will submit plans for at grade open space and child play area, including plantings and amenity space to be located in the building, subject to review by uh staff.

The building as um discussed in one of the hearings, the building will be ADA compliant at type B units, which are the units that are not fully ADA compliant at this point, but can be converted to ADA compliance easily.

And um the it says such plans will be subject to review and approval by the zoning board and the building department staff.

Do we want those to come back to the zoning board or do we want staff to review them?

Staff yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Um next is lot consolidation of 48 Glenbrook 30 with 37 Parker Avenue and 41 Parker Avenue.

Get that common.

Good job.

Um next, BMR affordability plan.

There will be three BMR units on site.

Um prior to CO applicant will provide a uh final affordability plan conforming to the draft that we are approving, um, subject to staff approval.

Uh and it will comply with our zoning regulations and be uh recorded on the land records.

And the three units will be for tenants earning uh no more than fifty percent of the area median income.

Uh we have vehicle parking prior to CO applicant will provide and maintain uh minimum twenty-eight unassigned self-parking spaces and not less than three EV spaces.

Um please uh if you have any questions or comments.

Um bicycle parking, there will be not less than four Class A bike parking spaces and two Class B bicycle parking spaces, and we have this one bicycle parking performance.

Um there will be a bicycle parking maintenance agreement.

Uh there will be uh they will have to submit to TTP and land use bureau staff information regarding the bicycle racks and systems, and um prior to building permit, add detail to notes on the plan to demonstrate compliance with the bicycle parking requirements.

Signage is subject to approval by staff.

Uh the applicant will comply with comments from TTP dated August 9th, comments from EPB date is July 24th.

Umgineering Bureau comments date October 28th, fire marshal comments dated August 18th, WPCA comments dated August 20th.

Keep going.

There'll be a photometric plan subject to uh staff approval and sidewalk easements.

And sidewalk easements.

They'll submit and report on the land records and easement map showing all easements on the property.

And that map was subject to review by the I'm sorry, the agreement and map or subject to review and approval by the law department and zoning board staff.

And then last uh site-specific condition is street trees planted by the applicant.

Prior to CO applicant will provide and plant not less than three street trees along Glenbrook Road and four street trees along Parker Avenue in conformance with our regulations and submit a um cash a bond or cash deposit of a thousand dollars for each tree to warrant it for three growing seedings.

Any on the site specific, any discussion on any of those?

No, Ms.

Chairman.

Nope.

No.

Anything we left out.

Uh okay.

Uh then we have our standard conditions that are standard.

So um I don't think we need to go through those.

I'm assuming everyone has read them.

Yes, sir.

So um any further discussion on this application?

No, Mr.

Chairman.

No.

I'm good.

Bill, you good?

I am good.

Okay.

Can we get a motion to uh approve application 225-24 with the conditions as presented tonight?

So moved.

Second.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

Okay.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, the application is approved.

Uh 4-0.

Um the next application is the bathhouse, which has been continued.

Um, then we have the two text changes, um, which I think we can vote on.

Uh the first is 225-4-1, City of Stanford zoning board, zoning text change.

Uh is there anyone uh opposed to this?

No, Ms.

German.

No, I just I do have one question about uh item that was actually brought up, the operable windows.

Yes.

So that's a large operable window.

Is it 12 square feet?

Is that the size of it?

Um so that would be two by six or three by four.

I mean, a lot of times, you know, there's like big windows and just a small and for this being operable.

Is this doesn't cover um conversions?

It does.

It does.

If you look at the next paragraph, um the one says conversions of non-residential floor area.

Yeah.

Uh shall not be subject to unobstructed space requirement, but shall provide operable windows.

So they they don't have to have the 30 feet of unobstructed space between them and the next building, but they do need operable windows.

And and we don't think this will prevent some buildings from being converted because of the cost of replacing windows.

Uh I mean, I I'm really just asking as I know we're trying to encourage as much of the conversion as possible.

So it it requires one window of twelve square feet uh in a room.

Um, which means every so every unit, you know, if there's a one bedroom unit would need two operable windows, basically.

Right.

So if there's a hundred units, you know, it's so it's 200 windows that would have to be changed out.

I I just thought we should have the conversation.

I mean, it's really the alternative converting a building uh versus having it an empty building and yeah.

I think I think it's important to be able to have at least a couple of operable windows in a unit.

I mean, I probably wouldn't rent a space that doesn't, but you know, there's a lot lots of apartments that are so I just have the conversation that when we go to talk about changing BMRs, that you know, increasing BMRs will slow down conversions.

Well, no, I think it's it's worth raising.

Um I think we should try it and see what it what happens because it's uh it's important that people get be able to get uh air in their apartment outside air.

Um I think you can you can always make the argument that um I mean when when we introduced the light and air requirement a couple of years ago, uh you could argue okay, someone might rent an apartment without any windows, um because it's cheap.

Um but I think it's also setting sort of a minimum standard um for um for certain things.

I I don't disagree.

Okay.

Um the the one thing we may want to add there where it says but shall provide operable windows.

I think we need to refer back to the prior paragraph.

Um because it's a little unclear the way that that's written.

Um provide operable windows um I don't know, um to the extent set forth in the immediately prior paragraph.

Are people good with that?

Yes, Ms.

Yeah, that's better.

Yeah, and if I'm the only one that thinks that it's an issue, I'm happy to support it.

Okay.

Does anyone have any other issues on this?

No, I'm sure.

So I'm just scrolling through there to make sure that we discussed all the changes.

So this we talked about this is the driveway and street definition.

Oh, here um I wanted to highlight this one.

Uh uh this has to do with uh senior housing and independent living facilities.

Uh and we're proposing to increase the lot coverage uh slightly.

Uh first of all, adding a lot coverage limitation.

Currently it's governed by the single family standard, but obviously you get you get more units, so you need more lot coverage than um the single family standard provides.

Yeah.

So we propose to increase that slightly from 50 to 55 percent.

Do you think that's enough?

That's I mean, it's another item that we should be encouraging.

Yeah.

No, uh, we it was based on discussions or things we heard.

Um and uh I mean would they like more?

Yes, but this seems to be something uh that uh developers can live with okay.

Is there any discussion on this application?

Yep.

Okay, um can we get an application a motion to approve application two two five-42?

Um I'd like to make the motion as presented tonight.

Uh might make the motion for the application two two five-41 as presented this evening.

Uh 42.

I'm sorry.

Is it 41?

Yes, sir.

I'm I'm uh getting ahead.

Yes, 4-1.

Okay.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

I it's approved 4-0.

Um next we have application 225-4-2, City of Stanford zoning board zoning text change.

This is the one that changes master plan references to comprehensive plan or comprehensive plan.

Yeah.

Um is there any discussion on this?

Nope.

No, Mr.

Chairman.

Um okay.

Can we um get a motion to approve application 225-4?

I'll make a motion, Mr.

Chairman.

Well, thank you, Bill.

I'll second.

All right.

Any further discussion?

None, Chairman.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

It's approved 4.0.

Um, Roseanne, you raised an interesting question about the EV, number of EV spaces.

Um, you know, I know I I completely support what we're trying to do.

Um I think it's something that should be looked at probably every two or three years to see how things change.

Yeah, the whole the whole EV progression, I think is taking a different turn now.

Maybe slowing down.

I think it's slowing down.

I don't think it's turning as much as it's like e-books with publishing.

Everybody thought it was gonna completely take over.

It got to 15%, it's holding steady.

I think EVs are gonna be like that for 10 years.

Yeah, at least, yeah, because even the car manufacturers are pulling back on there, so it's inevitable.

And they have a lot more research on this than we do.

Obviously.

Yeah.

Well, what do you think about changing our percentage?

I mean, what we could do is we could do a little bit of research what the actual numbers are.

Um obviously um the environment, no pun intended for EVs has changed.

Uh so um well, we can come back to you and and maybe have some numbers.

Um what what actually the the usage is.

I mean, as an owner of an electric vehicle, I'm obviously uh in favor of things supporting EVs, but I see the point that that it has to be balanced.

It is a cost factor.

Uh we want to create, we want to make it easy for people to use EVs.

Um, but once again, it it needs to be balanced.

And um also speaking from from uh like personal experience.

We charge the car at home.

Um and um rail uh if ever somewhere else.

Yeah.

So I mean, if you're not traveling on the highway, yeah.

I I don't know anybody with an EV who goes to the supermarket and looks for the charging station.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

So we can do we can do a little bit of research.

I hope we don't have to give our awards back.

Yeah, and I don't think we should change things for residential units necessarily.

I mean, we have to change it because of the fire marshal.

Yeah, we have to look at see what we need to change.

I think it's more the you know, you know, like the uh application we heard tonight and shopping centers and movie theaters and all the rest, like yeah, yeah, who's plugging their car and I'll bet 10% is probably a little high, and um but yeah, I'd like to see what Ralph what you come up with.

Um yeah, we'll we'll do a little bit of research.

Yeah, it's so funny.

I noticed I you know, I live right near the Ridgway shopping center, and obviously it was built well way before our EV regulations, but so the lower level, they have EV plugins now, but they're way up in the corner on the lower level, you know, million miles from the uh supermarket.

It's a long walk to that stuff and shop from there.

You know, you're going to the grocery store for even if you're doing your big weekly shopping, I mean, how long are you there for?

Yeah, yeah.

The um yeah, no, and I mean it also depends on on the level of charging.

I mean, we require level two, which um, I mean, that's that's basically like an overnight charge.

So you plug it in in the evening and you charge it from 20 to 80 percent, and then in the morning it's it's up to uh 80 percent.

I mean, that's a different story if you have the like superchargers and and the level three uh which which can give you uh uh uh a full charge in like half an hour or something like that or or 20 minutes.

Um and maybe that's that's the other thing.

Maybe we require level three, but at a lower percentage.

Um like the level twos for residential buildings or something like that.

An interesting thought.

Yeah, because the the non-residential buildings, as Roseanne said, the people are not going to them for long periods of time.

So uh yeah, that's an idea.

I mean, it's also like yeah, in a government center, you have a couple of chargers, and people, yeah, they're there for eight hours, so it's makes sense to to plug in your car.

Um, but yeah, you go shopping, you you're not staying eight hours just because you want to get your chart uh car charged.

So yeah.

Oh while we're on this, is there any other uh things that we need to uh mend or look at at least so maybe one thing uh that's coming up that we're working on uh is uh sustainability tax change to require uh on larger roofs that they are green roofs or uh that they have solar panels.

Um and uh David had suggested to move the street tree requirements to uh the sustainability section and maybe add other planting uh requirements as well.

Um obviously currently it's currently in the sidewalk section, yeah.

Um and and obviously that is directly connected to um the comprehensive plan and and addressing urban uh heat island effect and those kinds of things.

Um we also working on a revision of the sustainability scorecard.

Um we've seen a couple of projects where the scorecard just doesn't work particularly well because it's really sort of intended or or made for downtown buildings, but if you have a large commercial building, it just doesn't work, and it is a lot of requirements that just don't apply to that type of building, and then they get a low rating, which obviously doesn't make uh uh a whole lot of sense either.

So um I expect that uh those changes will probably be forthcoming in like March of this year.

well because it's really sort of intended or or made for downtown buildings but if you have a large commercial building it just doesn't work and there's a lot of requirements that just don't apply to that type of building and then they get a low rating which obviously doesn't make uh uh a whole lot of sense either so um i expect that uh those changes will probably be forthcoming in like March of this year so obviously reviewing the scorecard is pretty uh complicated uh and and updating that but the idea yeah the idea Ralph is that there would be separate criteria for different kinds of buildings so they would each have their own yeah it would be sort of a residential slash office building um uh rating and then for like large scale commercial and industrial buildings um and i mean this the smaller building single family homes and so on they're not subject to the scorecard anyway um uh we also want to maybe think about standards for uh renovations like substantial renovations um so that's that's something that staff is currently researching how we can upgrade it and obviously all the sustainability stuff is sort of a moving target so the standards get get updated uh every couple of years and get stricter so um we we're doing a comprehensive review of the scorecard and hope we have that done um as i said hopefully by by March um of this year and then um what do you've seen with the with the um or there will be uh uh some changes coming up to the CL district and the CG district those are the districts that don't really have regulations they're just hidden somewhere in the appendix uh so there will be uh some text changes coming um forth uh for those districts um as well the goal is to not really make any substantive changes like increase the density or the building height or anything like that but add really um design standards and and um uh sustainability features to the existing districts good idea yeah it's it makes it a little um harder for people who are not familiar with our regulations to try to look up a district to see what's required and they look in the book and there's no district there at least at the now we have cross references so that didn't exist before okay we're getting there that that was always sort of the the the test for new planners at the land use bureau you made them look for a district that only exists in the appendix and then you had a good laugh when they came back and like I can't find it and yeah yeah okay um our next meeting is in uh three weeks um if you were Vanita I would ask you what's on the agenda for the next meeting but um I won't do that um I actually went with Courtney over it uh today but I forgot so okay it it was it was not that much actually it was like two or three things it didn't seem to be a very uh busy agenda well it seems like we're we're back to being on top of everything again um which is nice okay um can we get a motion to adjourn Mr.

Chairman I just like to make one comment before we close of course uh I like to commend staff it was a very nice meeting with going back to Zoom with people being on and being seen so thank you staff for uh for going back to the old way sometimes the old ways are better so I will make that motion for uh for closure of the meeting uh back at that we are adjourned thank you everyone good night everyone good night