Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the July 20th, 2026 meeting in the City of Summit, Zoning Board of Adjustment. My name is Scott Leuchetz, I'm the Zoning Board Chair.

Please rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you. In accordance with New Jersey Statute 10-4-10, adequate notice of this special meeting has been provided to a newspaper record. It's been posted here in City Hall. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider reaching a decision. Decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. For the benefit of the interested public, this meeting is being live streamed on the city's YouTube page. It's also being broadcast on Summit's government channel. That's Comcast 30, 34, and Verizon Channel 30. Transcript of this meeting is being taken using audio and video, so we need all speakers to utilize one of the microphones in the room. Please note that the fire exits are to my right, your left, and at the back of the room where you entered. The city has a listening system to assist the hearing impaired. If anyone needs hearing assistance, please obtain the system in the dais and return it thereafter. Okay, Augusto, how do we wanna read the roll? Should we have Andy do it?

Okay, great. Vice Chair Zahn?

Here.

Mr. Yuko?

Here.

Mr. Malay is expected but not yet present. Mr. Mullin? Here. Mr. Nelson?

Here.

Mr. Kieron. Here. Ms. Chifo. Here. Mr. Feskins. Here. Mr. Chanchuli. Here. Mr. Bell is expected but not yet present, and Chairman Moikent.

Here.

You have a quorum. You may proceed.

Thank you so much, Mr. Ball. Andy Ball, who you just heard from, is our zoning board's attorney. Mr. Ball advises the board members on matters of law and is the key interface with the applicant's attorney. Mr. Ball does not vote on these applications. Jessica Sands is a city employee. She's not here tonight. She's our zoning board secretary. Our board secretary works with applicants on preparing their applications, planning our agendas, and keeping our meeting minutes. The board secretary also does not vote on these applications. Also present tonight are our experts who are hired annually by the board to provide input. Tonight we have Marie Raffae from Collier's Engineering. Also present is Ed Snykus from Burgess Associates, and he's our board planner. These experts are seated at the table to the right of the board, the public's left. They also do not vote. Our board consists of seven regular members and four alternates. All members can participate in the hearings tonight, but only a maximum of seven can vote. Most applications require a simple majority to be approved. Before we enter into executive session to vote on the application, you'll be advised of how many votes are required and what are the conditions for approval. Each case will begin with the applicants or their attorney giving an overview of the application process to date, the variances that are required. We then hear from any additional expert witnesses the applicant may have to help explain the applications and why these variances are needed. The board experts, then followed by our board members, may ask questions of the applicant, their attorney, and their expert witnesses. Due to recent cases running excessively long, we strongly encourage applicants and their experts to give brief and concise testimony so we may get to as many cases as possible on a given evening. Once the board members and then the board professionals have completed their questioning, the public will have an opportunity to ask their own questions. It's not a time to tell us what you think about the case. That opportunity comes at the end of the hearing. Please be careful as you phrase your questions. They should not be preceded with a statement about the case. It should be a direct question to the witness. Also, before you ask your questions, we ask that you please clearly state your name, spell your last name, provide us your address. It's important that a court reporter be able to keep a clear and accurate public record. After all the witnesses have been heard, members of the audience have their second opportunity to speak, and this is a time when you may express your opinion, positive or negative, about the application. Then the public part of the hearing is closed, and we enter into executive session. This is where the board members discuss the case, and then we vote. You will be able to listen in on our executive session, but you will not normally be able to participate in our discussion. I ask that each applicant and their attorney at present come up and give a brief synopsis of their anticipated testimony tonight, including number of witnesses, whether they can finish their presentation in 30 minutes or less, but we're gonna skip that tonight because we had two hearings. One is being carried, so 37 Fairview.

We did just receive correspondence from the applicants requesting to carry the application this evening until its next available date, which is September 8th. They did waive the Board's timeframe to act, and they're asking to carry without further notice. Excellent.

So with that, can I get a motion to carry? So moved. Second. Mr. Ball, can you call the roll?

I suppose I can do that. Thank you. Double duty tonight. Mr. Yuko moved and second was? Miriam. Great. Vice Chair Zahn? Yes. Mr. Yuko? Yes. Mr. Malin? Yes. Mr. Nelson?

Yes.

Mr. Kieran? Yes. Ms. Chifo? Yes. Mr. Feske? Yes. All right. Excellent.

All right, so our only hearing tonight is 11-15 Beachwood Avenue. Hillary, you want to come address us? Thank you so much.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Hilary Alls from Dempsey, Dempsey & Sheehan. On behalf of the applicant, MRY Beachwood 11-15 LLC, in connection with property located at 11-15 Beachwood Road, Block 2602, Lot 1 in the CRVD zone. Following the last hearing on April 20th, the applicant carefully consider the comments and recommendations offered by the board, the historic preservation commission and the public working collaboratively with the design team. The applicant undertook comprehensive redesign of the project to respond to that feedback while preserving the overall redevelopment objectives for the property. The revised plans represent a substantial departure from the original submission. Most notably the applicant now proposes to preserve the existing Beachwood road and side alley facades with only limited modifications necessary to accommodate accessibility and functional building access. In addition, the rear parking area has been eliminated. The side and rear setbacks have been increased. Building coverage has been reduced. And the overall building has been redesigned to better respond to the character of the historic district and the concerns expressed during the prior hearing. As a result of these revisions, the relief being requested from the board has also been refined. The applicant continues to request variance relief for building height and appurtenance height, but the height for both have been reduced from the original application. Relief is also requested for the fourth story building mounted lighting, which has also been reduced and illumination at the property line. As the testimony will demonstrate, several aspects of the original proposal have been reduced or eliminated, and the revised application reflects a meaningful effort to minimize the extent of the requested relief while preserving the historic character of the building and providing a functional redevelopment of the site. Tonight's presentation will begin with our architect, Michael Sass, who will present the revised design and walk the board through the architectural revisions, the revised plans, and the design considerations that shaped the proposal now before you. Following Mr. Sasse's testimony, our planner, Paul Breigel, will address the planning and zoning considerations and the statutory basis supporting the relief requested. So with that, I would like to call Michael Sasse.

Any questions for Ms. Ohls before we hear from Mr. Sass? No?

OK. Thank you. And Mr. Sass was previously sworn, correct? Yes. So remain under oath during this hearing. You may proceed.

Ready?

Yes.

Okay. In response to the comments and feedback received from the Board of Adjustment and the Historic Preservation Commission at the prior hearing, can you describe the process your firm undertook with the applicant to reevaluate the design and incorporate revisions to address the concerns that were identified?

Yes, we carefully listened to the board and the historic preservation comments regarding the facade, the Beachwood historical elements of the building, the detail of the horizontal features of it, and also just the nature of the architecture. And we carefully went into the building, took our time to study the architecture, really study the floor, how the building was placed, how it was built, to see if we could actually preserve the facade. After further consideration and analysis, we determined that there's a way to preserve the facade, set new floor elevations, do minor modifications to get ADA accessibility, modify the windows with slight tweaks on the sill heights, and really set the elevation so that we could work with that existing facade. That will require, if you don't mind, I'm going to approach the rendering and point out a few features.

I think you have to turn it on. You can take it off the stand. There you go.

Testing.

Perfect.

So one of the modifications that we have is ADA accessibility. We need accessibility to the office entrance on the left here. So we're setting the floor plate at a lower floor elevation at what it is today. Today it was about 14 to 18 inches above the grade, so you have to walk up steps to the entrance. So we're lowering the first floor so you have entrance at grade from the building for the office space. And then we're holding a modification of the facade where the existing office entrance is, making that our retail elements. so that we can hold those two doors close to each other and get our entrance at the same point. So we don't have any major modifications to the sidewalk or high sloping or steep sloping areas which would exceed ADA accessibility. So those two doors are held close in the middle and then we'll hold the retail to the left. of the building or to the right of the building. The second floor, we have to because of the floor to floor heights, we're lowering the windowsill slightly, increasing the height of that window, but keeping the cornice element that exists there today, restoring it to its existing condition as much as possible. There's some damage that has to be repaired. Rotted wood, rust, repainting and other elements. We're going to repoint all the brick and repair it as much as we can. There are some cracked elements in that building that we previously testified to. We're going to try and reconstruct that if reconstruction does not happen, we'll have to strap it and make a repair to support it. But reconstructing all that, that element and keeping that the third floor windows will be restored to an arch top. They're currently square rectangular windows with a plywood infill on the top. So we want to make that an arch top window and bring that back to a full light. The side facade, same thing. We're going to restore that arch top window on that third floor. And then going down, we're going to infill and make that a full window opening. We'd like to remove as much of the window casing as possible. There is some blocking that will have to stay to put those new windows in, but to widen those out to as much of the masonry opening. The fourth floor is now going to replicate the building in the style of architecture. We were previously modifying that, but we thought that it would be better to, since we're restoring the facade, to keep that similar architecture down the side alleyway, keeping that arch top and then making another cornice element at the top and then opening up because the weight of that, if you don't mind, I'm going to go to drawing A201, it's our Beechwood facade. So due to this type of construction, which I'll get into further in further testimony, we're gonna have this as a lighter frame structure on the front, so it's gonna be more windows and wood style architecture that then mimics the style of the retail in the front entrance. So it has more of that 1897 style of architecture that mimics what was there previously, and we wanted to maintain that similar style of federalist and colonial style of architecture for the building.

So now that you've described the overall changes made to the design, can you walk the board through the revised plans that have been submitted and explain the specific revisions and improvements reflected on each plan sheet?

Yes. So the first thing that we did, because we're keeping the building facade, we've now reduced the building height by about 3.67 feet. So that fourth floor, it was previously 14 feet above the 14 feet floor to floor. We have a reduced floor to floor height. keeping the existing building height, and then reducing that top floor to 12 feet 9 inches. That 12 feet 9 inches allows us to get structure, mechanical systems, and fire sprinkler systems within that clear story as well as our structure. So that was one modification. We've also, I'm going to take you to drawing SP 101. We have set back the limits of the building five feet around the zoning properties. It was previously three feet. So we're giving them more light and air space between us and the adjacent buildings. There's some windows along that existing building that we want to just give them a little bit more space to breathe. And we're also infilling the previous parking area and making that part of the retail of the building. The other element is I'm going to go back to drawing a 201 As a result of the reduced building heights, we're also reducing the appurtenance height that we were requesting. So that is now coming down three feet, one inch. So we've had a decrease in the building height, we've had a decrease in the appurtenance variance request, and we've had a decrease in the building coverage, which was approximately 6% reduced area. We've also reduced, as a result of the reduced building height, the building mounted lights on the plaza, on that top terrace. I'll go to drawing A, I'm sorry, SP 401. So drawing SP 401, we've reduced the height of the terrace-mounted lights, which is a previous variance request. And that's because the building height has been reduced as well. Other modifications are just on the architectural style and location of lights on the building. We're maintaining the horizontal cornice that exists there today. So building signage, lights, and illumination for this moose neck has been reduced in height. We've also added for safety and security lighting around the perimeter on this back alley because now five feet, we want to make sure that's illuminated so that you don't have the risk of somebody wandering back there or if they do, it's a path of egress out also so we have safety on the egress side of the building. And then the last modification was I will go to drawing SP 101 again. But also before I do that, I'll refer to detail three on SP 401 is our trash enclosure detail that has been relocated to the south side on the alley for ease of pick up and drop off for the garbage truck. So on SP 101 is will indicate that location. on the south side so that trash enclosure is located here on the south east side of the building or the southeast side of the property so the garbage truck coming down the alleyway can pick up those trash in recycling containers and keep going down the alleyway as it currently does today and those are completely on the property those are completely on the property and they're screened from the uh from beachwood correct they're screening on the front side here uh so you have screening from beechwood and you also have just some protection on the back side so they don't get pushed into the path of egress coming out the back of the building so they will not be in the across our property or visible from the beechwood walkway

And then since you have that sheet, can you also just talk about the front setback?

Yes. So because we're keeping the building facade, we are holding the four point four zero front yard setbacks. That's an existing setback where our property further goes into the sidewalk area. So that holds that line of the facade. And then we're also holding our side yard setback of 0.06 feet where we were previously going to that property line. It's a minor dimension, but it does hold us to a dimension for our building area.

Mr. Sass, remind us again, what's the setback at the fourth floor?

The setback of the fourth floor? So the fourth floor is setback 16.82 feet. Thank you.

And if you have the site plan, if you could just talk about the drainage and the storm water.

Yes. So that's drawing SP 201.

Detail number two is our site utility plan.

We have currently existing stormwater that comes down from our adjoining property to the north of us. It goes into a leader down the side of the building and then continues along the facade of the building on a roof leader and discharges into the catch basin on the south side of the property in the alley. We need to discontinue that because of the construction. We need to discontinue that leader, and we need to reconnect it underground to existing subsurface piping systems. So we have to figure out the means and method and the best route, but we're thinking to just lower that below the building and come down through and reconnect it back in the same spot that it exists today.

And then can you just I know that we talked about it at the last hearing, but the trees on the sidewalk.

Yes. So drawing SP. 401 is our lighting plan but also indicates our shade tree notes uh we spoke with john linson early on in this uh during the trc and he's requested that we remove those two trees and plant them with two new uh shade trees of his uh selection so we will be replacing them in coordination with them excellent and then um if you could just refer to the roof plan and just go through that please yes So a one Oh six is our proposed roof plan. Um, in order to service the different tenants and the different floors, we'll have five units. We'll have one for the retail on the first floor, one for the common area, the first floor, and then one unit for each floor above that. And those units will be clustered together in the middle of the building to reduce the visibility and screening. So we've tried to get that out of the line of sight in the middle of the building and they will be properly screened in compliance with the city of summit ordinance.

And then I think you have an exhibit which should be marked A4 that goes through the FAR calculations.

So we prepared a drawing AA101. I'll label it exhibit A4. Are we up to A4?

I thought the notes said it was...

Yes, so we had A1 was the rendering, and then we had A2 and 3, which were materials and colors of bricks and things like that.

Okay, I only think I had a note about two, but I'll take your word for it. We'll mark this as A4. Okay.

So drawing exhibit A4, drawing AA101 is our proposed building area analysis. This was an analysis prepared to determine the FAR and how we calculated our floor area ratio. So it is broken down in color coding. as easily as I could. We have office as green, our site circulation, which counts towards FAR in the purple, so that's our stair towers. And we also have support area, which is our mechanical shafts, which count towards your FAR. And then common area and retail. Our basement, our storage is, I'm sorry, our basement doesn't count towards FAR because it will be utilized only as storage for retail, so it's not part of that formula. So our total FAR for the building is 12 331 uh square feet which calculates to 299 percent of uh of a far calculation if you'd like me to i can break down all those numbers yes is there any way you could actually get to that 299 without building the fourth floor No, and I'll have another exhibit that shows you technically can.

But if you wait for the next exhibit, I think it'll lay it out more quickly. And if you could just go through the rendering and discuss the materials and the colors and so

Do we need to bring this one in as a new exhibit?

No, this is part of the file plans.

Okay. Very good. So the existing building is white. It's pretty much washed out. Every cornice, every detail, every element of this building is just the same color. It looks like they just took a roller or sprayer and just sprayed over it. So we want to accentuate some of the details of the building. We want to accentuate with just a light color pop on the cornice on the second floor, the cornice between the second and third floor, and then that cornice element that caps the building also detailing and just giving a slight color pop and variation for the column capitals and then that fourth floor element up above as well as the infill the field of the building will be a off cream or off white color to just give a slight contrast we don't want to do a large contrast or anything along those lines, something subtle that just makes that horizontal articulation kind of accentuate the building and make it feel a little bit more reduced in design. The side facade we're going to paint. The reason why we're going to paint it is because to match that brick from 120 years ago would be almost impossible. So we can find similar style and size. but we will never get a color match. So what we want to do is get ourselves to paint that side facade, keeping that stone rubble stone finish. Our base will be anchored with an off charcoal, something to make that retail entrance and that office entrance kind of pop from the street. So it gives you some nice contrast on the ground floor and then the field of the building neutralizes itself and looks gives balance.

What's the color of the storefront mullions and what's the color of the window frames or the storefront on the fourth floor?

So the window frames will be white on the second, third, and fourth floor. The ground floor will be a bronze. Thank you.

Perfect. We're not to the exhibit yet, but I promise it'll be the one after this one. You've compared you've prepared a comparative zoning chart, which I would ask be marked as a five. And can you explain what this exhibit demonstrates and how the revised plans compared to the original submission from a full zoning perspective?

Yes. So we prepared a letter dated June 23rd, 2026. That was just a summary of our changes to the plan and the approach that we had attached. That is a zoning analysis comparative chart. So that is this document that's attached to that letter.

The air support actually. Yeah. Yeah.

Oh, they did not get that letter. Okay.

So I guess if you go through it and then I can provide the board with a copy.

Okay, so the changes that we made were the first one on my list was building coverage. We had a reduction in the building coverage from 84.10% or 3,468 square feet to 78 point, having a hard time seeing that number. I'm gonna actually bring myself to my line.

Excuse me, you're comparing to the previous submission, not the current construction, just to clarify.

Correct, to the previous submission, correct. So we utilized drawing a, I'm sorry, T002, our zoning analysis and site data. So our building coverage was reduced from 84.10% now down to 78.25%. So we had a reduction of approximately 6% in building area and that's a result of us having that greater setback along our zoning properties on the east side of us. here and to the northeast side of us so setting ourselves back reduced our building coverage calculation so how many square feet does that boil out to be that ends up becoming 3227 square feet where it was previously 3468 so it's about 220 square feet

Okay, so you reduced that, but you actually gained office space by doing parking spots.

Retail space. Okay, sorry, retail space. Yes.

But we also increased the setback in the back of the building, so then that's why there's buildings.

That's where the reduction was. Yes.

And then I think there's also an increase in the total side yard from 0.1 to 0.6 feet.

Yes. So we originally going to build out at that corner of the property, the south side of Beachwood. We're set back just 0.06 feet, whereas previously 0.01 feet.

So 0.06 of a foot.

It's inches. It's inches. Yes. So you went from one inch to six. As I testified earlier, it's a minor, minor discrepancy or change, but it is it is a slight change. We also reduced the building height, though, by 3.67 feet, as I previously stated, and the impertinence was 3 feet 1 inch. We've reduced the mounting height of the facade lighting by 6 inches, and that's, as I was stating here, we've reduced that down to where the existing cornice line is. We've reduced the terrace lighting up on the fourth floor to down approximately two feet or one foot ten inch because the building height came down other modifications were signage mounting that was also reduced in height because again that cornice holds us to a certain elevation because we want to keep that existing corner so not modify that existing facade And then we had a modification in the illumination for our lighting so that we had a progress path from around the backside. We need lighting to illuminate that five foot setback. So again, going back to SP 401, just illuminating this five foot area along the back of the property.

And then the original application also included a fourth floor component. Can you explain how the role and design of the fourth floor has changed as part of the revised plans and how it relates to the other modifications that were made in response to the comments received at the prior hearing using Exhibit A6?

So we prepared drawing AA201. It's just an area reduction analysis of the volume that was lost due to setbacks or other components or site limitations that we had. And if I can, I'll label that A6.

Can you see that from over here? Do you want it in the middle? Would that be better?

So we had a few constraints on the property. We have the existing facade, which is this image in the top right. The blue area is the existing setback of that facade. So that's 4.4 feet from the property line. So 4.4 feet across the property equates to 630 square feet. So that's 210 square feet per floor at three stories, which is permitted by the zone, by the CRBD zone. And that equates to 630 square feet of gross floor area.

If you had built to the property.

If we were to build to the property line, to that front property line, which is permitted also in the CRPD district. We have a slight encroachment of our adjoining properties here on the north side of both of those buildings have a slight encroachment onto our property and the elevators allowed to be eliminated from the calculation. So that across three floors at 119 square feet per floor is 357 square feet gross floor area. Our increased setback of five feet, that L shape in green, that's this one here, is 327 square feet, totaling 981 square feet of total area. And then the limitation of the south facade or the alley facade here in that wedge, that purple wedge, is 723 square feet or 241 square feet across three floors. So that total site limitation factor equates to 269 2691 square feet of lost F.A.R. on the building. We're proposing 2650 square feet on that fourth floor setback 16.4 feet from the property line.

So I don't know if that answers your question.

I followed the math. Okay.

Perfect.

Yeah, I followed the math.

Very creative display. I've never seen it done this way.

So what's the setback for the building currently in the back, the rear setback?

The rear setback is approximately 24.2 feet.

So how much have you gained in square footage by filling that in versus all this?

by filling in that back is 24 square feet.

Uh, 25, 24 by width by about 50. So times three, you've gained that you've gained that from doing the Philly.

Yes, but, but they are permitted a 300% FAR. So if they knock the building down and they built it to the property lines, which they're permitted to do, and they put, they could put 300 square feet on three floors. but that would not be a better design than what they're proposing.

It would stick out beyond the Boxwood property, so you'd have a building that projects beyond the Boxwood building, our adjacent property, which would then reduce the sidewalk.

You'd have a building that was touching the neighbors on all- I'm just saying, you're telling us you lose that, but you gained it with the fill-in of the backyard.

Oh, but from our previous application, we gained 300 square feet from the fill-in of the parking from our previous application.

Thank you.

but the building currently is.

I think it is easier to give a little bit of reference to what exists in this conversation to not just compare it to the previous, because now we have a new set of drawings, and I think that's where some of these comments are.

Yes, but it should also be considered in relation to what is permitted, and what is permitted is 300% FAR on three floors.

This is not a comparison from the previous scheme. This is a comparison versus as of right. As of right, correct. Correct.

Okay. And you also prepared a sight line exhibit A7. Can you explain what this demonstrates regarding the visibility of the fourth floor from the public right of way?

So I'm going to first start with the rendering because that actually depicts it depicts exactly what you would see from the street. So we took this rendering from the opposite side of the property, and you'll get a glimpse of just that slight cornice on the top. We wanted to show the angle because we want to show the architectural style down the building, but if you're walking down Beechwood opposite, on the opposite side of the sidewalk, you would only see approximately two feet of that building across the top.

And you would see it on the side, but because it's now the same architecture, it blends in.

Yes. That was the other reason why we wanted to stick with that similar architectural style is that it would blend with the existing building better. So our line of sight diagram, and I'll come back to this exhibit now. Our line of sight diagram A301, and I'll mark that as exhibit A7, shows a person 68 feet away. about my height with the line of sight that would give you the top two feet of the building.

So I have a question with that because watching the video over the weekend and being out there this morning and now seeing this picture again, that exhibit and the one at the previous hearing, was that not intended to show the view of a pedestrian? Because my reaction was that that rendering looks like I'm a very tall pedestrian if I'm a pedestrian. It's me. It's a person of my height. The rendering, was that the intent to show a pedestrian across the street?

Correct. The rendering is exhibiting from the six-foot eye-level height. From six-foot eye-level, okay. And the same with this? And the same with this one, yes. I know it's a different reference for different people, but I feel like it gives you a different angle and a higher projection line. The shorter you are, the less building you'll see.

And is 68 feet the distance from the building facade to the other building facade directly opposite on Beachwood?

So we went from the face of the building line. Yep. So we went from the face of the building line all the way. This person's about four feet away from the other building. They're not going to walk. If you're walking down the sidewalk, you're not going to be right on that building.

Perfect. And based upon all the revisions that have been incorporated into the plans, including the preservation of the existing facades, the reduction in building bulk, the increased setback and the revised design of the fourth floor addition. Can you explain why you believe the proposed design is appropriate for the property and consistent with the character of the historic district?

Yes. I mean, I guess my first statement would be we met with the historic preservation after we had completed this redesign, and we felt that they were supportive of us maintaining the facade and keeping it. I know they had a few comments in their letter about Moyens and Divide Light, and I'll address that in a few. But by keeping that facade, it meets the intention of the historic preservation. It meets the intention of the CRBD district and the historic district. So we maintain the architectural style, the features, the vertical articulation, that horizontal articulation. I think the painting scheme, or the paint scheme, accentuate some of those features so it's not just a bland facade as it exists today as well. And then from the historic preservation side, I know they had asked or inquired about divided lights. Divided light, in our opinion, is more intended for residential application. This is intended for office use, so we want to give them as much of a clear picture window as possible so that if we were doing this as an adaptive reuse for residential, we would clearly do a divided light window in this application. When we met with them also, they had mentioned doing rectangular windows on the fourth floor and making that larger openings, but as we had discussed with them, we said that the arch top, due to just the hierarchy of architecture, that putting a rectangular window over that arch top just did not seem like the right architectural element in design for the building. That continuation of that arch top on that fourth floor was the right architectural answer to meet that federalist and colonial style.

Perfect. I don't have any other questions.

Board experts, what questions do you have for this witness? I feel like you went through a lot on my memo.

Okay.

To get rid of the tandem parking, I had a few comments on that. going on with the rooftop units, you have that screened and can you explain why they're all put together there? The garbage you said is, did you say it's just on either side?

Yes, so it would be open on the alley side. They're 96 gallon containers, so it would be a rolling container. We calculated that it would be four containers per day on a daily pickup, so two would be refuse and two would be recycling.

Correct.

And that's how the CRB district operates today. One comment you had was about the sidewalk transition. So our sidewalk will maintain existing stormwater flow. We want to make sure that it's positive flow towards the curb line as it exists today.

Have you changed anything about the way that you're constructing this?

Yes. This one took some ingenuity and thought. So we're going to do a timber construction, heavy timber construction, so we can actually go in. And because the walls are not even steel construction, it's going to be very difficult to try and repurpose that facade. So heavy timber construction was determined as the best means and methods in style of construction. to be determined on how we construct it but the way we envision it and we'll work with the contractor is to insert that heavy timber constructed construction then brace the facade from the inside as it exists today and then remove that floor because that floor is bearing inside the masonry wall it's an exterior load bearing masonry wall so we're going to get that timber construction built inside we're going to brace that floor and that wall, and then we remove the old floor so that we can build this and shore as we're constructing. So the primary structure will act as shoring as we're building.

How about pedestrian accessibility outside as this is being constructed?

Yes, we have and I can go to our site plan. So our drawing SP, I believe 302, I gotta find the right angle to pick this over. 302 shows there will be a time where we will have to do a sidewalk bridge to protect pedestrians and maintain sidewalk access. There will be also points where that sidewalk will need to be closed for certain portions of the construction, but the intention is to try and maintain thoroughfare as we did with 475. There were times that we had to close it, and then there were times that the majority of the construction time was over.

Would you be willing to submit a pedestrian detour plan?

Yes, so we'll work with the police department, and we will work with the building department to do pedestrian detour plans, site plans, and maintenance and traffic plans as necessary.

Okay. I think that's all I have.

Ed? Chairman, thank you. A few questions. As was just mentioned regarding the sidewalk area, we had a question that wasn't necessarily identified in our report, but I was thinking about the sidewalk. Do you see any utility improvements and replacement of the sidewalk necessary along the streetscape? There will be replacement of the sidewalk. Okay, so you'll replace it in kind? Yes, that's correct. In accordance with the standards that are out?

Yep, there's portions that will have to be cut up and removed as a result of just general construction, setting the floor elevations, and then also the resloping of that sidewalk to the accessible entrance points. So I can actually show you what the scope is on SB 101. So if you look at drawing SP 101 detail number one, there's a hatched area that we expect that portion of the sidewalk to be replaced. So it will end up having to either tooth into that existing sidewalk, but we wanna match the city standards there.

And that's the hatched area you're talking about on the property. Yep.

So it goes beyond the property because we'll all have to rework some of that slope and rework that sidewalk to maintain accessibility. I see that now. Okay. Thank you for that clarification.

Regarding the dumpster enclosure areas, I think you just identified that you did an analysis to make sure there's enough trap trash area for the rest of the building.

Correct. So that's on drawing SP 401. 401. There's a trash calculation or refuse calculation in the top right corner, which has been revised since our previous application due to the area of the building. Okay.

Thank you. Looking at the architectural rendering that you provided from the street view, the side elevation of the building the alleyway itself is there any need to differentiate the fourth floor from the third floor is there any benefit in doing so from the design standards guidelines it talks about breaking of horizontal or vertical elements i know i don't want to cross over with the historic commission but at the same time is that something you would have an opinion about

yes we wanted to maintain the the third floor uh again uh changing the spacing of the windows and the style of the windows would have changed the hierarchy of architecture so that arch top window on top of an arch top is the the what you would see in the colonial federalist style okay um and then to have like a cornice or a band It doesn't exist today, so we wanted to maintain the existing. Right now, the current facade actually steps past the chimney and drops low. I can actually indicate that line on drawing a 201. I'm sorry, 202.

My only reason why I identify that is because of the view down the alleyway of how you can see.

Understood. So right now, the building continues on a straight line here. There's a slight chimney. I see. And then it continues there as it drops down because this roof slopes in one direction to the rear of the building. And so that's the existing outline of the building there on that line.

And so that would also be interrupting the window pattern. Correct.

Correct. And so as you can see, our addition has similar spacing and vertical positive solid void ratio as what the existing architecture does. And then we repeated that on the fourth floor to maintain similar architectural style.

Okay, thank you. um you indicated the signage will conform with the regulations that's correct future signage okay um you went over the far calculation thank you um just to summarize the variances again you touched on the building height variance that's a d6 variance the maximum number of stories as well you're at four stories whereas three stories are permitted the maximum or pertinence height that's also another variance or relief you're requesting correct that's correct and then also maximum light fixture height due to the fact that you have exterior lighting on that upper floor that's correct okay and then maximum illumination is the lot lines it's really down to i guess 0.1 foot candles uh well we actually have a 0.5 maximum at the property line because we want to maintain egress uh illumination at the back because if i will actually refer you to my architectural plan and so drawing a

102, I'll show you why we are requesting that variance. So drawing a 102, we have a front entrance here for the retail space due to the depth of the retail space subject to occupancy. They may need a second means of egress, which would then have to egress through the back of the building here and then all office corridors or office features in four stories or three stories or more require two means of egress. So we have an egress discharge off the back and we during the nighttime hours, we want to make sure that that pathway along the back property line or that we are property line is eliminated.

And that elimination is occurring at ground level. Correct. And it's really just illuminating the back.

That's correct.

You may have covered this in the prior testimony or prior hearing. What is intended for that upper outdoor space? Are there any events planned or any planned utilization of that, or is that really just an amenity space for the office?

It's intended as an amenity space for the office user. The hope would be it's a single office user that can utilize that space as one, subject to how this building gets leased. But it's intended as the office use. Any outdoor speakers anticipated? No. Anticipated? Okay.

Thank you. There was an application where it was an upper terrace with outdoor speakers. Understood. That's what I touched on. So, thank you.

I believe in our previous testimony we did put hours or kind of a time limit on that.

Hours of utilization, so you're stipulating for that. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Thanks, Ed. Board members, what questions do you have for this witness? Mr. Kern.

Thanks. Appreciate the reduction in the height variance or the request for the height variance from the last presentation, but I'm not sure if I heard it yet or not, but what are the special reasons that exist for us to grant the variance? Um, because it's a D variance and then maybe touch on the, um, positive criteria for, um, that'll further the purpose for the municipal land use law.

So we do have the planner testifying next. Okay. I don't know if. He can answer that question for you.

Thank you.

Tom?

Yeah, so there was a lot of testimony at the last session by Nick, and I won't even try to pronounce his last name. Thank you. He didn't use the word impossible, but it came close saying it would be impossible to preserve the facade. So, and you use words which make me think, is it more accurate to say you're preserving or replacing but having it look similar or is it a mix?

The intent is to preserve it, but we will have to replace certain elements of it if they are found to be damaged. The reason why that testimony was put on the record is because it will be very difficult to do and through lots of conferring with our client he has agreed to undergo that that challenge with us okay so there will be it will be a mix of preserving the material that's there as well as some new material there may be some replacement material we in kind um it depends on what again there's layers of paint there that we have not chipped away yet we don't know if the the cornices are are in great shape on its entire length so there may be portions that have to be replaced in kind

So the cracks that you see now will no longer be there? The intention is to make those all disappear. Okay. And the pedestrian bridge, that was mentioned last time and you mentioned again today. Pedestrian bridge, is that really more, do you mean like a covered sidewalk? Is that what that really means?

Correct. Like you would see in New York City where you would just have a temporary sidewalk cover to protect from falling material or construction loading, things like that. Okay.

I guess this is kind of a question for Ed as well. The FAR calculation obviously leaves teeny tiny margin for error. Ed, are you confident in their numbers and what happens if they're off when they actually start working?

If they're off, they would be back before this board. The testimony is being provided. The evidence is being provided to the board as to their calculations. We've checked the numbers. We agree with the numbers, but yeah. it is right at the limit yeah so if there's any deviation there needs to be a new application made unfortunately so one percent is a very very small margin it's yeah 41 square feet yeah 41 square feet good luck okay that's all right the one benefit is we have the limits of the existing building facade to hold us in check okay um so a couple but just to piggyback off of that is there um

just to have some checks and balances. Is there, in this kind of situation, is there any precedent for sort of setting measurements like in the field before you start, you know, just to make, it's really easy to bump the wall six inches and then all of a sudden six inches by 46 feet, you know, three feet up. Is there a way to put in a condition that's gonna make it easier for us to know if, and maybe Ed has some suggestions so that if someone, if they have to come back or as opposed to, you know finding out after the building's constructed right so correct me if I'm wrong usually they require a foundation inspection there's a foundation inspection and we'll also pin the corners of the building and survey it and get the limits of the building before we construct it okay right so the foundation verifies the ultimate envelope okay so there will be I mean maybe I don't know if that has to be you know I don't you know I don't know who in in the city is going to know how close this is whether that has to be like after the foundation is measured you have to resubmit that you're at 299 or less or something like that if that's a stipulation but um that's a question or something maybe andy can help with that um the so two two other questions one might be for marie um the first one because of the storm water that since they're adding 300 more than 300 square feet Do they have to manage their own stormwater or is it?

I don't think there's any increase in lot coverage.

There's no increase in lot coverage.

Okay. Just because you're taking away the parking and making it building, it doesn't make a difference?

Well, actually, because we're managing it on the roof and we're diverting it through roof drains rather than cheap flow through the back parking area, it will actually be better managed through that system.

okay and then my second question is also related to that that note on sp 201 that says current stormwater discharge from both adjacent structures shall be discontinued owners shall six months prior to commencement of construction inform adjacent property owners to remove discharge and to prohibit future stormwater flow onto the subject property so i i'm a little confused by that it looks like you're planning to manage it with a pipe but it here it says you're not so i'm just one is there some kind of easement or agreement that requires you to manage the storm water and two What does this mean if you, you know, compared to the pipe that's shown on this?

So the current stormwater management, there is no easement in place right now for stormwater, but their current are joining properties actually discharge at great and flow by cheap flow across the parking lot or continue along that rear facade of the building and then go to an underground pipe to that catch basin. So we're proposing to redirect that discontinuing the existing system and then redirect that stormwater through pipes across our property.

Okay. Can that note be updated to say that you will... Absolutely.

Just because I think that maybe leaves some... We can provide clarification for Marie on our...

Thank you for bringing that up because all of a sudden when you started saying it, I'm like, oh, that was something I thought about. It sounded like when we read that that you were just going to discontinue it to heck with the neighbor. No. You're going to disconnect it and you're going to redirect it.

We're going to redirect it. Correct. I think Mark would be very upset if we disconnected it and left his neighbors abandoned.

It could also be a problem for your building itself to have everything come towards it. So that was one. And then the last question I have is just going back to Ed's comment about putting some kind of cornice between the third and fourth floor, some kind of separation. I see what you're saying about the building, sort of the jog. You can go back to that.

Yep, I'll get you the side elevation, 8202.

I guess my question is, is there a place to add something decorative in there? If I'm looking at it straight across anything, maybe something that looks like a sill under the fourth floor window, something that gives it a little distinction to break up the floor to the point that Ed made. Shouldn't there be a hierarchy between the main

Beachwood facade and the alley facade.

Yes, that's, that's what I was going to say is that they're there. I think if we wrap this cornice around, it will take away from the, the Beachwood facade and, um, it would actually accentuate that fourth floor where right now it blends in vertically as part of the field of that, that side alley. Okay. So if we had that horizontal kind of break here, I believe that this would look like a cap on the building rather than part of the building.

Okay.

Thank you.

This may be a better question for the planner, but I'll ask it anyway. Deferred. As you were thinking about this redesign, did you look into the prevalence of structures in the area that are four or more stories?

Yes, and the planner has an exhibit, and we'll testify to that.

Okay, thank you. Excellent.

Just a question with rear yard setback. It's five-ish feet, right? Five feet minimum. That means zone encode and no issues with lot line windows or anything like that?

There are limitations. I believe it's 20% of the facade can be glazing. And we are under 20. Yes. And the analysis of those, all the properties were less than 20%.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand. Are you talking about the rear neighbors?

Correct. I guess it would be on the alley side as well as the north side.

So I'll go to SP 101. So there are windows on our adjoining property here, and then there's a window here, and we're proposing a few rear windows as well. That window to solid ratio can't exceed 20%. the five foot setback so we are under that that calculation all right any other don go ahead are there any exterior sprinklers on that wall no it's a fully sprinkled building though within and we've done deluge systems on facades if necessary but um we would defer to the fire subcode to you know advise us on that if he requires it But again, it meets the building code standards for setbacks.

All right. Any questions? Questions only.

Oh, you said this five units where where the five units is like retail one and then each.

Yes. So I'll walk through each of the floors really fast so that I'll start with drawing a one Oh two, which is our ground floor. So we have the retail as number one, we have the office lobby or first floor common area as two. We want to keep those zones separate. Uh, and then there's three floors. So we have one unit for the second floor, one unit for the third floor and one unit for the fourth floor, which would be the second one on the first round levels. I don't, yeah, because of hours of operation, we don't want to have retail and office commingle on their units.

Great. Do we have questions? Questions only from the public. No? OK. Next witness, Hillary.

Paul Greigel.

And Mr. Greigel, correct me if I'm wrong, we did not swear you in the last meeting. Not in this application. Okay. If you could raise your right hand, do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matters, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. And please state your name, last name.

Yes, good evening, Paul Greigel, G-R-Y-G-I-E-L, professional planner.

Thank you. And I'll note for the record that you've appeared before our board a number of times, including very recently. Any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here?

Not that I'm aware of. My license is still current. I renewed it recently.

Great. I imagine the board would like to accept you back once again. Absolutely. Welcome. Thank you.

Please proceed.

If you could just quickly go through the steps you took to prepare for your testimony before you get into your presentation.

Yes, I've been active in the application in many discussions with the project team regarding the proposed design as it's evolved. I visited the site and surrounding area on multiple occasions, reviewed the city's master plan zoning ordinance, as well as historic district regulations, the CRBD master plan, and essentially became very familiar with the site, surrounding area, the application, and the variance relief that's requested. you're welcome so from there just continue great I don't want to belabor the discussion of the site and surrounding area but some key factors with regard to the property we're dealing with a rather small infill site the lot area is only 4100 square feet but we have an existing building that the applicant is now seeking to essentially restore and expand slightly as discussed by the prior witness uh with regard to the building it's it's older it's not a historic landmark per se but it's in an historic district as we've heard there's been some issues that make reuse and redevelopment of it challenging the context as your board's well aware is a mixed use setting with regard to existing land uses in the area consistent with the crbd zoning which allows all kinds of downtown uses from retail to offices restaurants residential personal services etc So the application, essentially, we've highlighted some factors right at the outset. Ms. Wills mentioned them, that compared to what you've seen previously and what was proposed, reductions in the overall height, the pertinence height, as well as the building-mounted lights we just heard about, these are all variances that are still requested but are less in terms of the amount we're requesting. The application is also reducing building coverage, as we heard, and increasing setbacks to neighboring properties, particularly to the rear, and also maintaining the front setback. So that's the context for what we're requesting. In terms of the zoning, the CRBD is relatively lenient in terms of setbacks and other standards. There are standards such as FAR, which we do meet. We heard it's relatively close, but I do think it's important to remember the context of If this application were to essentially remove the building and start from scratch, there's a certain limit that we'd have to comply with. We do in terms of area. We do not in terms of height. But I think that exhibit A7 was the?

It would be A8.

Well, before we get to this. Oh, so the one that showed the?

Oh, yeah, that's A7, yes.

Yes, that essentially where we were. The limitations. A6. A6.

Yes.

Essentially, the one that we referred to, by maintaining the front setback, for example, we have issues. We could push out to these lot lines, but that would give us extra space, but would be inconsistent with what's out there today, as well as in the rear, not having to provide the five-foot setback. Those types of things all add up to essentially shift the floor area from where, you know, different locations up onto that fourth floor. So I'll get to the details of that momentarily. We already listed out the variances. There was a question from Mr. Snyk as he went through them. We agree with the list that was cited with regard to the height variances and the other variances. So the first one that's being sought and I guess maybe most important in terms of hierarchy from the municipal land use law is the height variance. Since it's more than 10 feet or 10% over what's permitted, we are requesting a D6 height variance. Again, for the record, it's 42 feet permitted in the zone, 52 feet proposed in the current proposal. We also have the second height standard of a maximum of 50 feet with the pertinent structures. In this case, it's 54.7, both reductions from the prior request, but again, over the maximums permitted. With regard to the height variance, some things to note up front. The proofs, there's a question already from one of the board members regarding special reasons. Case law has set forth the standard, the burden of proof being somewhat less for this type of variance than for a straight use variance. In other words, it was a case called Grasso v. Spring Lake Heights, which said that when dealing with height, you need to essentially not offend the purposes of the zoning ordinance, recognizing that building height standards are intended to be taken in context. that you still are providing adequate light, air, and open space and promoting a desirable visual environment. So in other words, it's not just a straight number we're dealing with, or in this case, numbers, but how they fit in with the surroundings next door, nearby, and the broader area. I do think in this case, up front, we are promoting light, air, and open space, as we just discussed, by providing more than adequate space to the rear for the neighboring property. As well as up on the fourth floor, the fourth floor we're seeking has a rather substantial setback and step back from the front facade of the building. And really the overall, I think the way to consider this I would suggest to the board is the overall preservation and rehabilitation of the building in this historic district drives the desire to have the additional partial story on the fourth floor. So some of the objectives as far as the positive criteria is concerned, one is just like the prior application, we are rehabilitating or in this case replacing essentially the majority of the existing building, which has numerous issues today. I won't rehash all of them, but in terms of there were some Certainly, ADA compliance is a major one. Right now, the building is not accessible, so the applicant's proposing to meet all current standards with regard to that, as well as fire codes, all of their building codes, while maintaining and improving the facade. We heard loud and clear from the Historic Preservation Commission, as well as the board and members of the public, about preservation of the facade being important. that said we're also looking to be consistent with the crbd zoning and the master plan for the area with regard to providing permitted uses both office and retail which will help bring activity to the downtown during the day essentially the trade-off though is that these things take money it takes effort as we heard it's not going to be easy to do this but the applicant is looking to preserve the facades and to maintain essentially what you see there today and make it better externally as well as internally to make it a usable building going forth Just more generally regarding the positive criteria, again, we mentioned the reduced building coverage, the improved setbacks compared to what was previously requested. The architecture on the fourth floor, too, we have had some discussion about this. We do believe it makes sense to design it in the way it's currently proposed to make it actually less obtrusive. We have exhibits showing that from different locations. so i think for those reasons we are addressing certain purposes of the municipal land use law purpose a is promoting the appropriate development in the crbd zone that's the general health safety and welfare summit seeks to have these types of uses rehabilitation of existing structures in the downtown purpose c promoting adequate light air and open space purpose g providing sufficient space in appropriate locations for office and retail uses Purpose I, promoting a desirable visual environment, and Purpose J, promoting the conservation of historic districts. Again, in this context, we're looking to address concerns that have been raised about historic district compliance. Uh, but as far as the context of the height, I think now we can turn to that, you know, those are some of the purposes of the land use law in this context. You know, we, we have this height that is more than is permitted, but in summit and the CRVD and adjacent zones, we've identified, and I guess we can mark this now exhibit a eight. Yeah. this was prepared as a collaborative effort amongst our team both through the client as well as the design professionals with our input as well to identify buildings in the vicinity we've identified seven in the crbd zone so the exhibit shows a yellow boundary of the zone itself but close by i think it's important even though you know essentially if you're driving in or out of town walking around you don't know there's a slide on the ground so we also look at what's nearby there's an additional mine in immediately surrounding zone so that's a total of 16 existing buildings in the vicinity that are greater than the three-story height limit and i would actually point out the crbd master plan included a map similar to this that identified differences in height as well point being that again this is not a precedent setting building uh just short distance away we've got the basset building we have other buildings that are above the maximum height that's permitted and the basset building is five stories right yes that's what's shown so 150-ish feet from the subject property we have a five-story building it's actually rather you know sizable in terms of length so it's not just a single storefront but uh the other ones um in the vicinity there are some again other four-story buildings uh throughout here going up to six and seven stories recognizing it's different district different type of use but as you come into town from essentially the north that direction uh you do have some taller buildings so i think that we're dealing with a context here where you have some buildings that exceed the height that's permitted and it's not a substantial you know deviation given the context here also the exhibits we provided i think show that from the sidewalk from neighboring properties it's really not visible the fourth story you know or if it is it's it's been essentially designed to be enhanced integrated with the building as much as possible in terms of the overall appearance of the structure uh yeah we could go i don't think we need to belabor the point of you know what we could go to the 300 percent far but the limitations i think have been put on the record unless you disagree i think we've hit all of them pretty well that essentially the balancing you know of trying to maintain the setback providing you know not pushing out to the side property lines that type of thing limits the amount of space you can have on the lower three floors so i think in summary for the positive criteria we're essentially taking the roughly 2 650 square feet that's on the grid on the top floors proposed is more than that is you know exist could be built on the lower three floors uh through that exhibit that we showed but we've essentially taken put into one place and making it usable With regard to the height, I would also note with the appurtenance height, we're only dealing with a very small area of just over 100 square feet where you have above the roof, essentially on the fourth floor, that's for the ADA compliance for the elevator. It's really minimal. It's not like we're proposing a large penthouse or something. It's not the overall fourth floor that accounts for that overall height above 54.7 feet. So in summary, I think the positive criteria are addressed for the D6 variance. With regard to the negative criteria, again, many of these points have already been made through my testimony and other testimony, but I don't believe there's substantial negative impacts on the surrounding area, given the design of the building and its context. The step back on the fourth floor clearly, as shown on the exhibits, you know, it helps make it less visible or intrusive at the street level or from surrounding properties. Clearly, the architecture has been designed as well to make sure that it's integrated as one building, not having a separate fourth story just sticking up on top. with regard to potential impacts on the master plan or zoning ordinance. Summit's done a lot of studies over the years, a lot of planning for downtown, for the CRBD. A number of master plan goals and objectives are addressed through this application, in my opinion. First, upgrading older buildings to capitalize on their architecturally significant character. That was concern we heard. We believe the application takes a building that has character now, but it's over time has not been Maintaining that existing character, we'll be restoring it to, you know, what it was and in fact enhancing it with some additional architectural treatments. The plan also talks about maintaining and encouraging mixed use buildings with retail on the ground floor and office or residential on the upper floors, preserving historic features and existing buildings and addressing ADA compliance, fire and safety standards. With regard to the zoning, again, we recognize there's a height limit that we're exceeding, but I do believe that in this context, it's a very unique situation. and the balance of providing permitted uses, providing for improvements to this older building, providing for aesthetic improvements, all would not result in substantial negative impacts on the city's master plan or zoning ordinance. uh with regard to the other variances the c variances one is for the number of stories i think the testimony provided with regard to the building height and feet is already you know essentially the same the fourth story you know ties into that the other c variances are just for the lighting again i think we already had question and answer with regard to what specifics are the one the height of the height of the lighting is really due to building the height of the building And having some on the terrace, having some lighting up there, as well as illumination at the property line for safe egress. So I think those variances can be granted under the C2 criteria that the benefits of the lighting that's proposed outweigh any detriments. And those variances can be granted in accordance with that criteria without any substantial negative impacts on the master plan zone according to our surrounding areas. With that, I know I've provided a lot of testimony. As well as I could go into more detail if you'd like. At this point, I can answer questions. Any questions? Great. Thank you.

Board experts, what questions do you have for this witness?

Do you have any?

A few questions. Sure. Thanks. Thank you. With regard to the talk about under the negative criteria, when we deal with the building height and the number of stories, what is the purpose, if you could just identify typically from a planning standpoint, for a building height and number of stories limitation?

right it's to set the overall setting a context of a you know in an area where you have a sometimes lower lower heights generally here you have a three-story limit and the idea is with regard to light air and open space not having you know shadow impacts not having buildings that stand out too much from other ones nearby so i think in this case you know we're we have a context where you have some taller buildings and again it's very limited the height that we're proposing on a portion of the upper floor of the building.

Okay. Wouldn't it also characterize sort of the bulk or the ultimate mass of a structure?

Yes. So one way to do it, great question, you know, FAR is sometimes included, sometimes it's not. In some ordinances, there's only a height standard and then setbacks or, you know, coverage. In this case, there are actually no setback requirements, so the FAR is really the controlling, feature for mass and density if you will so that's the state you know this case the height is not I wouldn't say it's not important, but it's not by taking, say, a five-foot front setback, a 20-foot rear setback, side setbacks, and then having a height and setting a building envelope. Here, the envelope can be, the FAR is intended to be more flexible to allow it to squeeze up to be out in different directions.

Okay. It also goes towards establishing sort of the character of the area, correct? The height does. Yes, yes. And a number of stories. And in your exhibit, you identified, I believe it was seven properties within the CRBB zone, correct? Correct. Yeah, that are above the three-story height limit. Above the three-story height. Does that reference sort of a, are you referencing that as sort of a established pattern or that it's not unusual in the zone?

I don't think it's a pattern per se. I think it's more just the fact that these are, We're not coming in as the first building to exceed the height limit. Generally, in some cases, it's been around some time. These are not generally newer buildings that are of that height.

When you look at the impact of the negative criteria as well, I know I didn't hear a discussion about shadow studies. I'm not necessarily convinced that maybe one is necessary, but if you can talk about this property and any potential impacts from the shadow.

perspective i know you're not an architect but yet that's sort of a feature that we look at in balancing the negative impacts right so a couple mitigating factors here one is that you have the alleyway next door so even though you know the zone does not require setbacks from existing adjacent buildings we have some space in between so by it's very you know the layout right off the bat has a little extra space next to it and that's right to the south yeah correct And then the overall height, again it was 14.7 foot five by right, the top floor stepped back from the front. six well 16 for the property line sorry so i just went right in the middle there so 12 and change up at the top so in other words you don't have a building wall that's going up straight four stories on the street it goes up step back a bit from the street line to start with three stories and then goes back 12 feet or so just over 12 feet and then goes up to the fourth story so That's what the exhibit with regard to the sight line shows, is that if you're looking at a building, again, at an angle, it's kind of, you don't really see the fourth floor from the front.

Okay. The rooftop appurtenances, they are, I think you had indicated they're about 100 square feet.

that's my yeah that's my understanding from uh reviewing the plans uh is that more of the overrun for the elevator is that what that is yeah that's that's exactly right yes so this is not um a bunch of different like a penthouse or other structures it's literally just to make an ada accessible building that's okay but yet all the other mechanicals that may be on the roof will comply i'm sorry if i didn't ask that of the architect i'd have to my understanding is we the only additional is 100 square feet for the overrun so i believe they do that's

Okay.

Uh, that's all the questions I had.

Thanks. Board. What questions do you have for this witness?

don um so you used quite a number of buildings in the central business district i would disallow the other buildings because they're different zones so multiple i think it's multi-family tower and those most of those buildings were except with the exception of the one on the forest and the one behind it were built many many years ago one burned to the ground one was renovated so those are kind of different stories basset building When was it built, do you know? 20s, 30s?

Looking at it, it's 100-ish years old.

Were you involved in the 475 Springfield Avenue project?

My former partner, who's retired now, Paul Phillips.

So this is basically the same type of setup for the buildings, right?

Yeah, our firm has been involved. I was familiar with that, assisted with that. I didn't provide the testimony myself on the original application. I would say it's similar.

So explain to me again why you need a fourth floor. Would the building still meet the master plan requirements with three floors?

Well, there's different requirements. Would it meet the zoning?

Would it meet the master plans?

So the master plan, that's the interesting thing, is planning is taking a lot of different competing objectives and balancing them. So I would say, you used the word requirements. Master plans obviously don't set requirements, but they do have objectives such as economic development, providing for uses that will have vitality throughout the day and night. So that's why you want a mix of uses. The office actually brings... more people to the area during the day likewise there's historic preservation you know theoretically again the applicant could come in and say just demolish the building build straight to the property lines so not trying to be evasive but i'm trying to just say that as a planner you have to take these different factors you know into consideration you also if you want to preserve an older building and just leave it as is there was discussion from the applicant that what would be the point to go through this effort in the 20 years? First of all, not bringing up ADA compliance, not bringing up the codes, leaving the building the way it is wouldn't satisfy, wouldn't essentially be consistent with the overall planning for the downtown. Now, could we comply with the height? Sure, but again, it would involve pushing the building closer. We can fit all the square footage essentially in a three-story building if you push back, you push forward, you push sideways.

So I guess what I'm looking for would be economically viable to renovate the building, but only keep it three stories. Do what you're doing, but eliminate the fourth story.

Well, to renovate. I can't speak to the, I think there was testimony regarding renovation. I mean, essentially take out the interior and to,

No, but I mean, end up with a building like in that picture, but without the fourth floor. Would it still meet the master plan intent? Would it be maybe?

But that's not what's being proposed, and that's not what the applicant is looking to do.

What you're pushing at is that there's so many other buildings here. Those are just odd builds. They just happened to be built recently.

I think that the purpose of the exhibit is just to show the context and that there are other buildings. So this would not be an outlier building where this is the only one that would be four stories.

greater right and what I'm trying to establish is that the zoning is three stories and I know that was a fight many many many many years ago when somebody wanted to build a five-story building and we said we decided on three so if we continue and this I'm not I'm just speaking here not necessarily to your client you know i picture this board in 10 years showing many more four-story buildings with five-story buildings my point is why can't we just stay at the height meet the requirements stay at the three stories do what you're doing and eliminate that fourth floor we didn't talk like you don't we don't show pictures of what that 100 foot overrun for the elevator looks like from neighboring properties because you can't see it from neighboring properties from the five-story building i can't see it

I mean, I guess if you're... You know, it's only 150 feet away.

Yeah, you're only 150 feet away.

But, Don, maybe it's worth asking the architect if you're bringing this building up to fire code, right, which requires modern fire stairs, and you're bringing it up to ADA code, which requires an elevator, that loss of floor area true does that make a three-story modernization even viable i think that's probably how you would want to ask the question thank you for correcting me there i didn't think about that i appreciate it i agree with what the chairman said but no that's honestly it's

the trade-offs that need to be made and i think we're really the clients but certainly working very hard too as you're aware this is a great this is a great design right i'm just worried about the fourth floor right and i will note just with regards to the exhibit we were well aware of the distinction between the zones but we thought i thought as a planner it's important to show that we want to make sure the line is there too for the crp so we're not trying to claim credit for buildings outside the area but just Again, to a layperson that doesn't know what the difference is between zoning districts, you have taller buildings nearby. That was more the intent behind that.

Can I ask a follow-up along those lines?

You made reference before to improvements in ADA accessibility, fire code compliance, and all those things that go with the modernization. Certainly, they apply to a building that was built in 1893, I think was the date. i wouldn't those be applicable to a good portion of the buildings in the crbd with regard to those requirements or just with regard to those improvements from a modernization i imagine a lot of these older buildings ada accessibility is hit or miss at best and fire code compliance again these probably aren't fully sprinkled buildings everywhere all that stuff Right. So I guess to the point Mr. Nelson is making, in the instant case, sure, you can use it as a justification for exceeding the height in the master plan, but then we get another application and another application, and that chart has a lot more green numbers on it in those subsequent applications. So how do we balance that as a board?

This is a unique case because of the preservation of the building. I mean, a lot of other buildings in the CRBD could just be demolished. Maybe they don't have the same historic significance. And then, again, you would be able to put it on the three floors. But because they're preserving the facade and they're keeping the walls where they are and they're not, encroaching on different setbacks and things like that, that's the need for this particular project, which is different than, say, another project that might come before you.

Can you demo this as of right?

Yes.

Okay. So is what you're positing before the board that you're rendering a benefit to the city through this preservation, therefore we should give you the height variance? Is that essentially the crux of the argument?

I would say that if you balance the way that this project is proposed, it is better planning for the city because it's preserving a building. Um, and so the trade-off might be because they're willing to preserve and maintain certain setbacks and provide certain benefits to neighbors that putting a small portion of the FAR on the fourth floor makes better sense.

So as we think about that, just given the age of buildings in the CRBD, do you have any sense of what proportion of the buildings in the CRBD one could apply that argument to?

well again if that's the case they would have to come before this board and make that argument yeah setting a precedent here this could be the only site in the entire district that is not built to the property line and has its neighbor encroaching on its site I mean we don't know so if someone else has those exact parameters and they come before us we can evaluate them then, but I don't know that we're setting any kind of precedent. They're arguing based on the very specific limitations that they have for this site only.

Correct.

Yes. I would just note one other factor is that even if you internally renovate this, I think Mr. Yeager said this at the first hearing. You would not get the same type of tenant if you just take what you have there now and just try to fix up and clean it up. The thorough overhaul is what will get you more desirable space that will be longer lasting and beneficial to get tenants in the downtown that can... We didn't even mention this with regard to parking, et cetera, right near the train station with parking all around in a setting that is desirable for that type of use. I think it's...

holistically a real benefit economic development wise to have that with new retail space new office space on the upper floors as well I have three questions I'll try to make them quick but one is regarding the ad a accessibility and the sprinklers am i correct in saying that this is really not it shouldn't really be a consideration because I if you demolish the building and you build a new building, you're going to have to be ADA compliant, you're going to have to have sprinklers. That's not to me really a positive criteria of this building because I feel that of the level of renovation, even if you renovate this building, you would be required to make those modifications based on the level of work that's happening here. Would you say that compliance would apply to a new building as well?

A new building would have to comply certainly with regard to rehabilitation of the existing, because that's the other alternative here, the rehab subcode. I'm not the architect, so I can't answer it specifically. I think there's some wiggle room, I guess, to leave the existing setup, if you will, if you're only rehabilitating it. A new building certainly would be, but again, the new building then would be able to push out to the maximum building envelope. and be designed differently. But again, it's not the application we're seeking.

We're just comparing to what you could build. But typically, even homeowners have to bring things up to code when they're not, if they're doing the scale of renovation. So that was just a separate question. One is about the shadows, which I know you're not the architect, maybe the architect, but you mentioned the shadows. One thing that I wanted to ask about, the facade of the building faces west, correct? The front facade faces west, yeah. So, you know, where do you think that the extra shadow is going to cast? You know, at the end of the day, sun rises in the east, you know, sets in the west. That extra story, no one really talked about that in terms of impact that's going to go further down, I guess, the alley, right? The shadow behind the building.

I would ask if the architect could answer that question for you.

Okay. I feel like we should, just because the shadows were brought up, I feel like we should.

Sure. So, I will bring up SP 101, because that's probably going to give you the best orientation of the building. Okay. So you're correct. The Beachwood facade faces the west. The sun pattern would be along the south here. So your shadow would be cast starting in the morning, going across Beachwood Road. But because of that setback, it will cast a shadow on the terrace. So it would cast a shadow upon itself. As it comes across the site, you'll have a slight shadow onto the roof of his northern property. And as you continue about midday, and this is only during the winter, you'll have a low sun that then casts a greater shadow onto the roof of the northern property. As the sun sets, you'll cast a shadow into our previously parking area and onto this building to the to the east of us that currently has a shadow on it. So I don't think there will be a negative impact on the shadows from the property. And how many stories is the building behind you? It's a two story.

OK, thank you.

And then the one to the north is a three story building.

OK. So you don't envision any impact from the shadows?

No, it will not exceed the building limits of what's existing.

There's already a three-story building casting a shadow there. OK. And then the last question I had, and maybe Mr. Ball has this, but there was some discussion about noise and when the lights would be used and no speakers. I don't know if that should be a condition. um but also i don't remember i'm sorry i didn't write it in my notes from the last meeting what what were the stipulations about the hours of use for the outside um that terrace because i think there are apartments in some of the buildings right surrounding those office buildings some of the top stories are apartments so just from a

residential you know impact potentially I don't see it impacting businesses at night so we had said hours of operation for the rooftop 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. which is what is has been standard for the other okay and then the lights would be off at 10 p.m.

Yeah. And no speakers. So lights off and no speakers. Can we make those just conditions?

Yeah, I would imagine the applicants would accept those conditions.

Do you foresee any type of picnic tables, patio umbrellas, anything like that out there?

I would say standard as if If you look at the other rooftop amenities in the CRBD, they do have those things. But as Mr. Yeager had testified to, and he can come back up and testify to it, they're all secured. So they're not going to blow around and they're not going to fly around.

But they'll be visible from the street?

bring up our line of sight diagram. So there's a parapet on the, uh, the fourth floor. So that will go up to 42 inches as our fall protection. So the tables and chairs would not be visible, but if they had standalone standing umbrellas, they potentially could have a impact on the lighter side if they were held tight to the front of the property. So you may catch the glimpse of color on that time.

As long as you're back up, uh, where's the HVAC systems, HVAC systems are back. So is that included in that hundred square feet for the elevator? Or is that additional?

The HVAC does not count as an impertinence. It's a piece of equipment that would have to be screened. So, but visually it looks like a square box on top of the roof.

Correct.

Correct. But it would be screened in compliance with the ordinance. How high would that be? About four feet.

And to get to that, is there stairs, ladders?

There will have to be a roof hatch ladder off of one of the egress stairs, either to the north or the south.

What are the questions?

Tom? Yeah, I'd just like to piggyback on the concerns expressed by Mr. Nelson and Mr. Mullen about the four-story aspect of this. So I maybe have a narrower definition than Mr. Greigel's diagram. I today walk an area roughly bordered by Maple, Springfield, Summit, and Union Place. And I noticed the Bassett Building, obviously, and I don't know if that is a name, but there's a four-story building on Summit Avenue kind of across the street from the barber shop and I don't know what else. But the Bassett building and that other four story building, I don't know when they were built, I don't know what the zoning rules were then about stories, but they're certainly both old buildings. And walking on Beachwood and especially Union Place, but Summit Avenue too, there are a lot of one and two story buildings. So, you know, and again, so I'm going to get to a question, but I mean, what I'm trying to get at is my concern about, you know, the city at some point said three stories is what we want limited to. And there are, in fact, a lot of one and two story buildings. And in the immediate vicinity of the applicant, this would be the only force. I mean, I would argue that Bassett Building faces on Summit Avenue. So in terms of Union Place and Beachwood, Springfield, sorry, it would be the only three-story building, the only four-story building, I should say. So aren't we taking a big step going beyond the city's desire to have a limit of three stories in that immediate vicinity?

Again, I do not believe so, given that it's not a full fourth story. That's part of it, and it's a very unique circumstance, mitigated by the alley next door and the setting next to a three-story building. Now, as far as, I mean, one- and two-story buildings, sure, you have some that exist, but the zoning allows the three stories, so it's, you know, over time, you might anticipate that you'll have many of those buildings redeveloped. But, again, I think the, you know, we're not trying to say that there's, you know,

four-story buildings all over the crbd now but it's just basically that we're not coming in with something that's not here already so let me ask you another question i mean obviously the applicant came to you said we'd like to have your testimony reviewed the plans you decided it was okay and it was not a significant negative impact to have that four story what what would have had it what would the application had to look like with that four story for you to say no i can't testify on this because it's just what would it have to have been

you know it's i in fairness i haven't given thought to that but again i think the difference being it was a straight you know a box that just certainly a new building if it was just saying let's build out to the maximum you know the property lines four stories straight up that would i would imagine you know i'd have to consider that very carefully or if at all because it would be i think much you know more impactful but as far as what we have with the step backs and the particular setting here of the building you know, essentially extending it nor, you know, above the existing third floor, I think it's a reasonable, you know, in this location.

So you're hanging that on the fact that the visibility is mitigated by the setback? And is that, that's the primary reason?

That as well as, right, having a neat context here where you can take the additional floor area that As I mentioned in response to Mr. Snikes' question, floor area ratio is a way of being more flexible than just saying, here are the lines, here are the numbers. It's a way you can take the same amount, because the space is the same amount as you would have if you built a three-story building right out to the property lines. So in this case, I think it's a reasonable compromise to get the benefits of preserving the building and providing for new uses that are consistent with the downtown master plan.

Thank you. I just had a question that you made me think of something which I don't know. Given that the pertinence height is above the maximum height too, Has there been any consideration to reducing the size of the fourth floor, perhaps setting back even further where maybe you have a little bit smaller office space upstairs? You can still have roof above the third floor, but move the appurtenances on top of the third floor there, like carve out a place there if you made that building smaller.

The elevators. But actually on this point, while you're doing this, what's the AFF for the finished ceiling height on the fourth floor? What's AFF?

What's the finished ceiling height? The goal is nine feet minimum. So between the HVAC, the sprinkler system, we have 12 and a half feet floor to floor. So that would give us the nine foot clear ceiling height. i was thinking along those lines can you bring that ceiling down but a nine foot ceiling candidly is probably about as tight as you ever want to go yeah so i was thinking can you bring that floor down to get your height down but it seems like you guys are already on that line so to kind of speak to your question about why the 12 feet and why the dimension that we held these two egress stairs need to be remote which means that they have to be one third the diagonal distance of the building and they're actually spaced as far apart as they possibly can. So then that would have actually put the stair on the terrace, and then pushing that back further would have made it, you have to egress through the terrace to exit.

They have to be so far apart? Yes. I thought they couldn't be no more than... They can be closer, but they can't be more than that.

That's the minimum. One third diagonal distance of the building. They can't be any closer. Yes. It can be further. So the stairs are closer to the outer limits of, of where that could be.

I thought you could not be any more than 75 feet from any exit. Not in a sprinkler.

It's a hundred feet, um, on, uh, office use. Well, okay. So it's a hundred feet, but that means you're 75, but I need two means of egress. And those, those, those cannot be more than, um, one third of the diagonal or less than one third of the diagonal distance of the building. No less than one third.

But if you shifted the doors down on that, I'm going to call it down on that drawing, I guess it's south. Then this would project out beyond the. I guess, you know, when you could maybe, could you jog any of that out, make the patio deeper just to make the floor.

How would you be able to rent office space that has HVAC equipment next to it? Yeah, well, I mean, on the outside in the corner.

If I could just jump in, I think that, you know, Michael, you can say it better, but you have gone over this. probably 5,000 times to try to limit and make it work.

I also think a jogged fourth floor or a stepped fourth floor wouldn't work with the architectural style of the colonial and federalist style of the existing building. So if you started jogging and kind of shaping that fourth floor to minimize your line of sight, then I think it will have an impact on how that building will look.

but we're saying that no one is actually seeing the fourth floor.

That's part of the testimony right there.

Yes, but you will see down the alleyway. Well, yeah, I don't know how much you would see from the side, you know, a little bit, but. Well, you'd see it walking up.

You would actually start hitting that sky plane.

And it's very visible walking up and down the street. If you're right in front of it, maybe you won't see it, but walking up and down the street.

Yeah, okay.

Hey, you don't give a view from the, I guess the north side.

From the north side, the boxwood building will mostly screen your line of sight.

Except for the elevator shaft.

The elevator shaft only projects about two feet, you know, two feet above the roof elevation, so you will not see that from the street elevation. If you're looking from above or from a fourth floor, you may see the tip of that, but it's the clear height you need is 16 feet for the elevator, and that's why we need that slight projection. Is it hydraulic? Hydraulic, yeah.

What's the finish of the enclosure for the elevator?

It'll be stainless steel, I think is the standard that we put for this. but it'll be a standard finish from an elevator manufacturer.

I meant the exterior.

Oh, the exterior. Oh, it'll be masonry.

Masonry?

Yep.

To match the building in essence?

To match. It'll be painted. Correct. So I should remember this, but I don't.

So where will the elevator, where will that be?

If I could, it's like behind the window kind of back there. Okay.

Roughly the northeast corner? John?

Yeah, so the elevator comes up here in the building, and this is the only area of the impertinence right there, that small box. So it's set back so far from the building.

So which side is Beechwood on that? Beechwood is on this side here, on the left-hand side of your plan. It's on the side next to Boxwood. Correct.

So this is abutting the Boxwood building.

You might see it from the parking lot across the street. That's about it.

From the parking structure? No. You would have to be almost at Springfield Avenue.

What other questions do we have for this witness? Seeing none. Questions from the public for this witness? No? All right. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Hillary, anything you want to wrap up?

I do have a summation, but did you want neighbor comments first or do you want me to do my summation?

We could do neighbor comments after your summation.

Okay. Okay, so I just want to acknowledge the significant effort that's gone into the evolution of this application. Following the prior hearing, the applicant carefully considered the comments and concerns raised by the board, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the members of the public, and undertook a comprehensive redesign of the project. The plans before the board tonight represent a substantial departure from the original submission and reflect a meaningful effort to respond to the issues that were identified during this process. The applicant has made substantial changes to reduce the overall impact of the proposal, including preserving the existing beachwood road and side alley facades, increasing setbacks to neighboring properties, reducing building coverage and height, and refining the architectural design of the proposed addition to complement the historic district. These revisions demonstrate the applicant's commitment to working collaboratively with the board and the HPC and to achieving a design that balances preservation, neighborhood compatibility, and the reasonable use of the property. We respectfully submit that the revised application before the board tonight represents a thoughtful and appropriate redevelopment of the site and that the testimony presented demonstrates that the requested relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or impairment of the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. And for those reasons, we respectfully request that the board favorably consider the application before this evening.

Thank you so much. Public comments at this time. Sure. Come on up. We're going to swear you in.

If you could please raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matters, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?

I do.

And please state your name, spell your last name.

It's Caroline King, K-I-N-G.

Thank you.

And do you need any other information? Address, please. 38 Gloucester.

Please proceed. Thank you.

I'm here representing the HPC and also the Summit Historical Society because we work together on looking to really afford and educate the town and everyone about historic preservation. So I'm here to say that the HPC truly appreciates the recognition of the historic value this nineteen sorry 1897 structure and it's contributing character to the summit downtown historic district we spent a fair amount of time and we're very appreciative of the board for I think really spending some time with the materials that we submitted and we are truly appreciative of the applicant and their team and the continued dialogue we were able to have with them and the effort which I think was substantial for them to take what would have been a complete demolition if I understood and we all understood the first proposal so the other thing we'd like to share is that as an HPC at least this HPC there are different spectrums of where historic preservationists sit and As a group, we're very supportive of adaptive reuse and the fact that you can't necessarily always be frozen. In this case, it's 129 years, I believe, in time of 1897 buildings. And that we believe that adjustments do need to be made for current needs and conditions, and that that balance needs to be taken. that first and foremost respecting the historic value but certainly in this case there's enhancement and it takes a lot of funding to restore buildings and this is a big difference in choice from complete demolition so we really do believe this proposal is a good example of preservation of the historic character of downtown summit so we support this application fantastic thank you miss thank you really appreciate your testimony thank you

Anyone else? All right. With that, Mr. Ball, can you tell us the number of votes required for approval and the conditions?

Yes, so we do have a D6 height variance involved. Five votes are required to approve the application. I do have quite a few conditions as well as some which I will, like some board input, put to confirm whether we still need them. I will also note, as I discussed with Ms. Ulz, my notes from the prior hearing and the prior conditions, I don't have them on this computer, but I'm sure the Applicant's Council, if we get to that point, would work with us on finalizing any of the conditions involved in the prior hearing as well. So, I do have that the applicant's first, our usual, compliance with conditions noted in the Board Engineer's Memorandum. Second, that the applicant shall replace the two existing shade trees subject to the review and approval of the City Forester. Third, that the applicant shall submit pedestrian access plans and traffic plans to address access during construction subject to the review and approval of the police department. Fourth, that the hours of the roof use will be limited from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and the lights will be turned off at 10 p.m. Fifth, that there shall be no speakers or electronic sound amplification devices installed on the roof patio area. Sixth, that any rooftop furniture shall be secured in a manner to avoid being blown away during any storms. Seventh, and this is one that I wanted to check with the board, we did discuss a, I believe it was a foundation inspection, correct me if that terminology is wrong.

yes i believe that's correct and that's typically a normal course of action but if the board wanted to identify that to be sure of this far being in compliance and who would that be typically submitted to to review would that be to board engineers city engineers inspector would be doing that okay along with confirming that with the zoning officer probably so just a heads up on this one like we should give the jurisdiction to the construction department if they mess up our recourse to them is saying sorry take square footage off the roof

Just to be that clear. I mean, it really is that simple. I don't want to overthink it. But like that's the risk they're running is that they'll have to spend money to literally take FAR to be in compliance. That's the way it's done a lot.

But the guide rails are already in place. Correct. We don't need to add any or codify this in any other way. Right. There's already.

The penalty is so costly that they really shouldn't mess up.

Right. Well, I will say we can't say you must remove it from the roof because they could always come back and apply for additional variance at that point. But I think one way to ensure through a condition that that doesn't happen is that the foundation inspection shall be prepared and submitted to the zoning officer and construction official.

For verification.

Prior to commencing construction to ensure the FAR remains at the proposed 299%.

Prior to constructing the foundation walls.

Okay, sounds reasonable. It's done as a stakeout.

Yeah, so those fake holders of the smell of the place.

all right those are the conditions that i have noted um missiles i do believe you mentioned there was one about establishing an escrow for landscaping there was some discussion at the last hearing about an escrow to ensure that we replace those shade trees um obviously we're covered by the condition that they're replaced subject to the city foresters review so those are the conditions that i have noted if there's any further from the board please let me know

Just to make sure that that note on that SP 201 is updated to reflect that they actually will be ultimately managing the neighbor stormwater via that new pipe. I think the note is just not correct.

So with that, who would like to begin our executive session?

I think Ms. Oles had some neighbor comments that she was going to share. I think she was talking about this.

Oh. Oh.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I think we covered that. Thank you, though.

Great.

Who wants to begin?

Well, first, I thank you so much for coming back with a very revised plan. I wish we started with this plan, but we didn't, but we're here now. And it's really appreciated when the applicant listens to the board, listens to the public, and understands, like the planner said, that how this new application will fit in with the streetscape that's currently there. It's not going to stick out. Appreciate, like I said, keeping the historic significance of it. And visually, I think it's a very nice looking building and I can fully support it. And I appreciate all the extra work that you did and the extra expense, I'm sure it is. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Alison. Appreciate that.

who else jay yep so this was a fun first meeting to review uh on youtube um but i'm really glad to see the revisions here the effort that is going to go into restoring and maintaining that facade is something that i can tell you from personal experience good luck it's a lot of fun but i think it's going to deliver a product that not only fits the town but really drives the master plan and what school is supposed to be delivering a downtown use and a function that is going to benefit not only the street safe by maintaining that entire linear frontage with the neighboring property but ultimately has very limited if any negative impact on the community i think it's the benefits so far outweigh any of the detriments here that I fully support this. Good luck building it. I really look forward to seeing it finished.

sure I also can support this application I am incredibly appreciative of the redesign and the efforts to use reuse the existing facade I I believe this is a good compromise where we are meeting our objectives for the zone by preserving the historic character but also creating a modern workspace. And, you know, I look at it as compromise of I recognize, you know, what would this building look like if you built it out over three floors? You could do that. I don't I don't think that would be I don't think that would be the best outcome for summit. And honestly, I believe that the positives outweigh the negatives and specifically where it relates to the height, because I think that's the biggest consideration here. It does not appear that there's going to be any additional shadow impact from the fourth story because we already have a three story building casting a shadow on a two story building behind it. I think that there's also minimal impact due to the fact that the building is not direct. There's the alley, which sort of buffers the building. I mean, if there had been a two-story building attached to it, I think that fourth story would look very different. but i do think the alley is sort of a you know a benefit that this building has and that it helps sort of break it up a little bit so i think it helps make the visual impact a little bit less and obviously the setback allows that the facade sort of ties into the neighboring boxwood building and gives it a little more of a cohesive look for the block so i i do believe the positives outweigh the negatives and i can support this application

For me, this is a much closer balancing in terms of how I look at it. I think about the master plan and it both advances and detracts from the master plan in the sense of this is clearly an improvement on the original plan and just taking a functionally obsolete building that has a lot of life safety concerns and bringing them up to modern standard is certainly consistent with the goals of our master plan. however our master plan also calls for a particular height in in our downtown district and this is above it and i think we established that the first meeting that when you purchase the building maybe the degree of due diligence that you did in purchasing that building wasn't up to the degree that you probably would have done in retrospect So I think about weighing those things, and then I think about, I'm actually thinking about the old Sherwin Williams paint store in Chatham, that building. And I remember going there one day after not having bought paint in a while and discovering there's a new building there. And I looked at the way they approached it, and it's actually very similar to this building. And I think about... when when you look at that top level does it really interfere with the streetscape not especially you see it but it's not obtrusive so when i think about that sort of structure right here i say it's not going to be quite that obtrusive now the view when walking north of beechwood you're going to see it mr yuko pointed out second you step out of that train station you're seeing that and i guess what i'm nervous about is consistent with our master plan as a municipality, we don't necessarily want to see more of that. And that's something the governing body ultimately has to address. But when I think about all of the balancing that we have to do as a board, I'd probably come out in favor of it, though begrudgingly so.

Well said. Thank you, Dave.

Tom. So I've been listening, and clearly I think my questions earlier communicated some of the struggle I have with this one. First, I want to add to the compliments. Much improved from the first application. Mr. Yeager's projects are always wonderful projects, so that goes without saying. I am concerned about the fourth story, and I know this setback has worked at least one other building I can think of in town and probably other places too. in masking the visibility, not hiding it, but masking it. So I've been struggling with this all weekend, watching the video and walking around the neighborhood today. You know, and I and to Mr. Reichel's point, you know, I think for story without the setback i think would be an easy no for story with the setback is you know it's it's a harder decision um you know i think i'm coming down very reluctantly to vote in favor but it's very reluctant um Yeah, I think that's where I am right now.

We'll put an asterisk next to your vote, all right? So if I may, I think this is a fantastic project. It looks great. Like my cohorts, I am struggling with the fourth floor addition. We do have zoning in place. Again, it comes down to a balancing act. Can you see it? Can't you see it? Just a little history, and maybe I'm going to bore you for the next 40 seconds. That whole block burnt down in the 1800s, so I think that alley serves both as a fire break in old mentality they didn't have any other way to prevent fires from spreading also utility for garbage trucks and stuff like that my big concern is this is a second or third or fourth building that has a fourth story where do where do we where do we draw the line the historical preservation committee member was here that kind of swayed me a lot in my in my thought process Again, reluctantly, I am not in favor of four stories, but this is done in, I guess, the best balancing act of working for the client and working towards the master plan's direction. Maybe not the best way, but I can reluctantly see the positives to this, and I can support it, though I'm not a second asterisk.

And you weren't here for that fight, were you Don?

I got gray hair, but I ain't that old. I would also like to add to the list of kudos and congratulations to your team for hearing the board. I think we can safely say this is a great example of the system working the way it's supposed to. Right. That that you were willing to hear the zoning board, that you were willing to listen to historic preservation means a lot to me personally. I would like to emphasize to everyone that if we grant this variance, it doesn't mean we're rewriting the zone of code, right? This is a very specific set of constraints. I mean, the team did an excellent job of explaining how very difficult this site is to deal with. And I think the last thing anyone would want to see is a building that sticks out four feet beyond Boxwood. It just makes no sense. So to avoid that and to get this, facade restored, I think to have the fourth floor is a small price to pay. And my colleagues said it very well. The setback makes all the difference in the world. It's going to be an improved tenant experience. It's going to be an improved experience from people down on the street. And I just think it's a fantastic project. Mr. Mullen talked about the life safety issue, obviously bringing it up to code and becoming ADA compliant is something that's absolutely in keeping with our master plan and something that we will always support as a board. So with that, I could say I'm very much in favor, no asterisks at all for me. And with that, can I get a motion to approve? So moved. Can I get a second, please?

Second.

Mr. Ball, can you call the roll for us?

Thank you, sir. Vice Chair Zahn? Yes. Mr. Yuko? Yes. Mr. Mullin? Yes. Mr. Nelson? Yes. Mr. Curran? Yes. Ms. Chifo? Yes. And Chairman Lueckens? Yes.

Great. Thank you so much.

Congratulations. Good luck. Do you have to remove the asterisk?

He goes from two down to one after. All right.

We do also have four resolutions on for memorialization this evening, so I'm going to try to struggle through this for everybody here. First up, we have Two Crest Acre Court, application number ZB262328. The eligible voting members are Chairman Leuchetz, Vice Chairwoman Zahn, Mr. Yuko, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Curran, and Ms. Schifo. Can I get a motion to approve?

So moved.

Who was the second?

Thank you.

Sorry about that. Vice Chair Zahn? Yes. Mr. Yuko? Yes. Mr. Nelson? Yes. Mr. Curran? Yes. And Ms. Chifo? Yes. Sorry, Mr. Chairman . Yes.

Thank you, Allison, for the assistance.

Next up, we have 21 West End Avenue, application number ZB252316. The eligible voting members are Mr. Leuchetz, Mr. Malin, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Curran, Ms. Chifo, and Mr. Chanchuli. Can I get a motion to approve?

So moved. Second.

Mr. Mullen? Yes. Mr. Nelson? Yes. Mr. Curran? Yes. Ms. Chifo? Yes. Mr. Cianciulli? Yes. And Chairman Loiketz? Yes. Next up, we have 152 Beekman Road, ZB 26, 23, 32. Eligible voting members are Chairman Loiketz, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Curran, Ms. Chifo, and Mr. Cianciulli. Can I get a motion?

Move. Second.

Mr. Mullen? Yes. Mr. Nelson? Yes. Mr. Kieran? Yes. Ms. Chifo? Yes. Mr. Chanchuli? Yes.

And Chairman Leukens?

Yes. Thank you. And last up, we have 21 Dunder Drive, application ZB262334. Eligible voting members are Chairman Leukens, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Kieran, Ms. Chifo, and Mr. Chanchuli. Can I get a motion?

So moved. Second.

Mr. Mullen. Yes. Mr. Nelson. Yes. Mr. Karen. Yes. Ms. Chifo. Yes. Mr. Chanchuli. Yes. And Chairman Likens. Yes. Thank you. There are no minutes on for memorialization.

I have a question about their, I'm sorry, the applicant that was just here, it said 13 Beachwood, but it was 1115 Beachwood. Does it make a difference that they're all their paperwork?

uh no the the application properties are 11 through 15. yeah that's okay yep sorry no worries um unless there's anything further all in favor aye all right um i will probably not be here on the third