WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=WPne0mIRtlw

Part: 1

1
00:10:12.800 --> 00:10:31.440
20th 2026 meeting of the city of summit zoning board of adjustment. My name is Miriam Zan and I'm the vice chair of the zoning board. Please rise and join us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

2
00:10:31.440 --> 00:10:49.760
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. In accordance with New Jersey statute 104-10, adequate notice of this special meeting has been provided to a newspaper of

3
00:10:49.760 --> 00:11:06.560
record and has 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 in reaching a decision and decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times

4
00:11:06.560 --> 00:11:21.920
for the benefit of the interested public. This meeting is being livereamed to the city's YouTube page and also broadcast on Summit's government channel which is Comcast channel 34 and Verizon channel 30. A transcript of this meeting is also being taken using the video and

5
00:11:21.920 --> 00:11:37.600
audio. 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 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

6
00:11:37.600 --> 00:11:53.440
system at the deis and return it thereafter. Miss Sans, please call the role of members. Vice Chair here. Mr. Yuko is excused. Mr. Malay is excused. Mr. Mullen, >> here. >> Mr. Nelson, >> here. >> Mr. Mr. Curran >> here. >> Miss Chief

7
00:11:53.440 --> 00:12:09.120
>> here. >> Mr. Feskins is excused. Mr. Chantuli >> here. >> Mr. Bell >> here. >> Chairman Lyz is excused. You have a quorum. You may proceed. >> Thank you. Andy Ball is the zoning board's attorney. Mr. Ball advises the board members on matters of law and is

8
00:12:09.120 --> 00:12:23.920
the key interface with the applicant's attorney. Mr. Ball does not vote on the applications. Jessica Sans is a city employee and is the zoning board secretary. Our board secretary works with applicants on preparing their applications, planning our agendas, and

9
00:12:23.920 --> 00:12:38.800
keeping our meeting minutes. The board secretary also does not vote on the applications. Also present are our experts who are hired annually by the board to provide input. Tonight, we have Marie Rafé from Collier Engineering and Tom Barren from

10
00:12:38.800 --> 00:12:55.360
Burgess Associates, our board planner. These experts are seated at the table to the right of the board, the public's left. They do not vote on the applications. Our board consists of seven regular members and up to four alternates. All members can participate.

11
00:12:55.360 --> 00:13:10.240
Oh, I'm missing a page. But only seven can vote. Um, yes, missing a page. That's too bad. So, we're just going to um we're going to just skip to the important part. Everyone's going to have

12
00:13:10.240 --> 00:13:27.920
a opportunity to ask questions after each witness is heard. When we're done hearing everything, then the comment then the public will have the opportunity to comment. Um when it is time to comment, please be careful as to how um that your comments are relevant.

13
00:13:27.920 --> 00:13:43.839
And when you're asking questions, make sure that the questions um are not proceeded with a statement about the case. They should be a direct question to the witness. And before you ask your questions, clearly state your name, spell your last name, and provide your address. It's important that our court

14
00:13:43.839 --> 00:14:00.320
reporter be able to clear have a clear and accurate public record. After all witnesses have been heard. Oh, there we are. All members of the audience will have their second opportunity to speak. And at that time, you may express your opinion, positive or negative, about the application, then the public hearing is closed and we

15
00:14:00.320 --> 00:14:16.720
enter into executive session where the board members discuss the case and vote. You will be able to listen to our executive session, but you will not normally be able to participate in our discussion. Tonight we only have one applicant, so I think we're going to skip over giving the synopsis and just

16
00:14:16.720 --> 00:14:39.360
get right to it. We're doing um hearing 11 to 15 Beachwood Road. So um yeah, good evening madame chair, members of the board. Hillary Als of Dempsey Dempsey and Sheen appearing on behalf of

17
00:14:39.360 --> 00:14:56.320
the applicant MRY Beachwood 1115 LLC for the property located at 11:15 Beachwood Road in the CRBD zone. This application seeks preliminary and final major site plan approval together with limited variance relief to permit the

18
00:14:56.320 --> 00:15:12.480
redevelopment of a longstanding but significantly deteriorated mixeduse building. Specifically, the applicant requests a D6 height variance to permit a building height of approximately 55.67 feet where 42 feet is permitted and an

19
00:15:12.480 --> 00:15:29.839
overall building height of 58 ft with the pertinances where 50 ft is permitted. A variance to permit four stories where three stories are permitted and lighting variances for terrace lighting height of 49 feet 8 in where 15 ft is permitted and for maximum

20
00:15:29.839 --> 00:15:45.120
illumination at the property line for the entryway and signage lighting on Beachwood Road. The existing building, while historically old, is functionally obsolete. It does not comply with ADA requirements, modern life safety codes

21
00:15:45.120 --> 00:16:02.320
or current build building standards. and it contains documented structural deficiencies and environmental concerns. Rehabilitation would not yield a viable or meaningful improvement. In contrast, the proposed redevelopment will deliver a safe, code compliant, and

22
00:16:02.320 --> 00:16:18.560
architecturally compatible building that enhances the streetscape and advances the city's planning objectives. Although parking is not required in the CRBD zone, the proposed application is driven by the goal of preserving the on-site existing parking, which is a

23
00:16:18.560 --> 00:16:35.440
benefit to the downtown. Relocating that floor area to the fourth story is what drives the limited height and story variances before you tonight. The fourth floor has been carefully designed with substantial setbacks to minimize visual impact, preserve light and air and mean

24
00:16:35.440 --> 00:16:51.600
consistency maintain consistency with the surrounding area. The proposed building is below the permitted F and is appropriate, comparable and fully compatible with surrounding development. The lighting variances are equally limited and tied to safety both for the

25
00:16:51.600 --> 00:17:07.679
rooftop terrace and for pedestrian access at the ground level and have been designed to minimize any off-site impact. The requested variances for height and lighting are modest, purpose-driven, and directly tied to advancing sound planning objectives, including safety,

26
00:17:07.679 --> 00:17:24.240
accessibility, and ADA compliance, economic vitality, removal of environmental hazards, and is an aesthetic improvement. The proposed development replaces a substandard structure with a high quality compliant building that stren

27
00:17:24.240 --> 00:17:40.080
strengthens the downtown and aligns squarely with the master plan. The benefits are substantial and the deviations are modest and well-contained. The testimony will demonstrate that the proposal satisfies both positive and negative criteria, can be accommodated

28
00:17:40.080 --> 00:17:56.720
on the site without detriment, and represents exactly the type of thoughtful redevelopment the CRBD zone is intended to encourage. I am happy to answer any questions or I can call the first witness. >> Do our experts have any questions? Um,

29
00:17:56.720 --> 00:18:12.720
not for this one. >> Board members, any questions? >> Are you planning on calling the applicant? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thanks. >> I I have just one question. You said, will you go in more detail? You said aligns with the master plan. You'll go in more detail with that. >> The planner will. Y.

30
00:18:12.720 --> 00:18:38.720
>> Okay. So, call your first witness, >> Mark Jerger. All right, if you could raise your right hand. >> Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And please state your name, spell your last name. >> Mark Jagger. Ye A ge r.

31
00:18:38.720 --> 00:18:55.919
>> Thank you. >> Uh, what is your occupation? >> Uh, real estate investor and developer. >> And have you developed any property in the city of Summit? >> Uh, yes. Uh since 2010 uh I have developed several new construction projects at 1 to Forest Avenue, 466

32
00:18:55.919 --> 00:19:13.760
Springfield Avenue, 29 Uclid Avenue, and 125 Summit Avenue, and uh have undertaken significant renovation projects at 25 to Forest Avenue, 475 Springfield Avenue, 40 Beachwood Road, 343, and 344 Springfield Avenue, and 535

33
00:19:13.760 --> 00:19:29.760
Springfield Avenue. >> Thank you. And what is your relationship to the applicant of the subject property? And are you authorized to speak on behalf of the applicant? >> Yes, I am. I am the owner and the current the applicant of this uh of this site plan application. >> And can you tell the board what is the

34
00:19:29.760 --> 00:19:45.760
goal for this property? >> Certainly. as a as a 30-year resident of Summit and having had my office in town for the past 16 years and having completed almost a dozen projects in uh the downtown Summit area since that time. The goal in all of the projects

35
00:19:45.760 --> 00:20:02.240
that I've been involved with in Summit is to try and create spaces and environments that people are anxious and excited to work and live in. places that are functional and modern, attractive, and create those spaces in a way that embraces the architectural charm and

36
00:20:02.240 --> 00:20:17.679
character of the neighborhood and surrounding area. If we can accomplish that goal through preservation and renovation, that would always be our first choice. But if not, and unfortunately, as is the case with the 11-15 Beachwood Road property, which is

37
00:20:17.679 --> 00:20:34.480
suffering from significant structural code, safety, and infrastructure deficiencies, then removing older buildings to create new buildings, which will add value and opportunity for the city is required. I hope that the past work I have done in town demonstrates that approach and the projects that we

38
00:20:34.480 --> 00:20:50.640
have created are ones that the community is happy with and proud of. Recognizing that the architect will testify in further detail about the condition of the property, can you just touch upon some of the deficiencies that you're referring to? >> Yes, I'm happy to do that, but but first

39
00:20:50.640 --> 00:21:06.080
I just want to be clear that when I acquired the Beachwood Road building, I had no predisposition on a salvage and renovate redevelopment project versus a demolish and rebuild new. As a matter of fact, the first direction I gave the Taposeris

40
00:21:06.080 --> 00:21:21.679
architectural and engineering firm was to complete a structural and infrastructure assessment of the existing building and to complete that evaluation with the mindset of accommodating an expansion to the rear of the building as I knew the CRBD zoning would have permitted me to do

41
00:21:21.679 --> 00:21:38.720
under today's zoning guidelines. It wasn't until the evaluation was complete that it became clear that not only would expanding the existing building not be feasible, but even renovating the existing building in its current state would be equally as fruitless. The reasoning behind that

42
00:21:38.720 --> 00:21:54.960
assessment was founded in three basic categories. The first is that the current building is not remotely close nor could it be adaptable to become code and ADA compliant. The ground floor of the building is not at grade. There are steps into all of the spaces and

43
00:21:54.960 --> 00:22:12.320
therefore is not wheelchair accessible. Additionally, there's no elevator nor would it be structurally possible to add one given the existing structural limitations of the building. Also, the current secondary means of fire egress are exterior fire escapes with drop down

44
00:22:12.320 --> 00:22:29.440
ladders at the rear of the building that are accessed by climbing out of second and third floor windows. Also, there are no sprinklers in the building, nor could there likely be added because of the structural and space limitations throughout the building in its current configuration.

45
00:22:29.440 --> 00:22:44.720
And lastly, the building is laden with asbestous, which creates a significant potential health hazard for any occupant of the building. After we reviewed the code and safety issues, we discussed the second set of issues associated with this existing building, and that is its structural

46
00:22:44.720 --> 00:22:59.679
liabilities. As you have seen in the materials that we previously circulated, the foundation, which is made out of very, very old rubble wall, is cracked and deteriorating, as is the front facade, which is also cracked and rotting in

47
00:22:59.679 --> 00:23:16.559
several places. There is extensive water damage throughout the building from years of leaks and other issues. And each of the threetory floors are sagging and in need of significant reinforcement. Lastly, there are randomly placed loadbearing walls throughout the three

48
00:23:16.559 --> 00:23:33.280
floors that prevent re repair and rehabilitation from effectively taking place without further compromising the exist existing structural integrity of the building which in no way is designed to handle more weight or greater loads that would be created by adding

49
00:23:33.280 --> 00:23:48.720
additional structural reinforcement of the building's current skeletal structure. Lastly, and from our viewpoint, equally as important in the thoughtfulness of the exterior design and architecture and the importance of creating a street

50
00:23:48.720 --> 00:24:04.480
facade that is respectful and compatible with the character of other architecture in the neighborhood in the downtown is how the building functions and operates behind the street facing facade. I think of it as a movie set where everyone sees

51
00:24:04.480 --> 00:24:20.240
the facade and it's really important that be done well. But what is of equal importance it was is what goes on behind that facade that no one ever sees except for those people working or living in the building. So with all due respect to the comments received from the historic

52
00:24:20.240 --> 00:24:36.960
preservation committee which strangely did not address any of the changes we made to the facade based on their input during our two meetings over the past several weeks which we think made the design better for sure. And those changes our architect will address shortly. But the historic preservation

53
00:24:36.960 --> 00:24:53.200
committee's job is not to take into consideration the functional aspect of the space in which people are working. I understand that. Their job is to talk about historic pre preservation of architectural design features. But from a standpoint of practicality,

54
00:24:53.200 --> 00:25:10.080
what goes on behind that facade and how that space function is is as of equal importance. And under what would be very complicated and ineffective rehabilitation scenario, what those employees working in that space would find would be window air conditioning

55
00:25:10.080 --> 00:25:26.000
units and an oil tank in the basement that produces steam heat with no thermostats or controls. More modern and contemporary heating and air conditioning systems such as rooftop mounted units, for example, are not feasible because structural members

56
00:25:26.000 --> 00:25:41.520
would have to be added to the under deck of the roof to support those units and also to remediate all of the sagging floors throughout the building. And all of those structural members would be so thick that it would make already very low ceilings even lower, which space was

57
00:25:41.520 --> 00:25:57.679
also needed to be able to accommodate duct work to distribute the air conditioning and heat throughout the space. And those structural members would have to be supported by columns that would reach all the way to the basement whose rubble wall construction is not capable of supporting additional columns and

58
00:25:57.679 --> 00:26:14.880
additional loads and adding other basement structural components would be placed on a 125y old concrete slab. None of which makes any sense. And I want to touch on the low ceilings comment too. Modern office space ceilings are 9 to 10 ft high. The

59
00:26:14.880 --> 00:26:30.559
current ceilings in this building are 8 feet high and would become even lower with attempting to add all of the structural reinforcement that we're talking about. Those current very low ceiling heights are determined by the front facade window placement and can't

60
00:26:30.559 --> 00:26:45.600
be changed or modified without altering the facade in the windows, which is exactly what the historic preservation committee is suggesting that we do not do. Lastly, of all these with all these necessary new columns would create even more obstacles in addition to the

61
00:26:45.600 --> 00:27:03.039
previously mentioned loadbearing walls and uh the ability to lay out functioning, efficient, well-lit, desirous open office environments that are required by today's office users would be virtually impossible. >> And based on those conditions and the recommendations of your professionals,

62
00:27:03.039 --> 00:27:18.960
was there a decision made to redevelop as opposed to rehabilitate the building? Yes. After a thorough investigation of the property by the professionals and experts analyzing various options and a lot of internal discussion, we reached the conclusion that attempting to

63
00:27:18.960 --> 00:27:33.679
rehabilitate the existing building would result in a significantly substandard building that would be unable to fully comply with all current construction, life safety, fire, and accessibility codes, including full ADA compliance and

64
00:27:33.679 --> 00:27:49.679
fire sprinkler coverage. In essence, we would attempt to do all of this renovation work and what we would end up with is a building that no one would want to work in. And to do all of this solely to try and preserve a deteriorating and cracked facade that probably has a half a dozen coats of

65
00:27:49.679 --> 00:28:07.600
paint on it, has non-original old replacement windows, window air conditioning units, and retail storefronts that have been replaced and altered several times over the many over the past many years. is not a responsible or reasonable

66
00:28:07.600 --> 00:28:23.039
approach to take. The reality is unfortunately there isn't anything really worth preserving with this building that's suffering from years of deferred maintenance. It is old, but it is no longer historic. With new construction, however, all of these building

67
00:28:23.039 --> 00:28:38.159
deficiencies can be satisfactorily and adequately addressed and will also allow for existing environmental hazards to be removed and remediated. all mechanical systems to be modernized and structural components and challenges to be reconstruct reconstructed resulting in a

68
00:28:38.159 --> 00:28:53.200
safe, totally code compliant, marketable and viable redevelopment. >> Can you briefly describe to the board what is being proposed? >> Yes, the property is 84 ft deep and the existing building is 60 ft deep. This

69
00:28:53.200 --> 00:29:09.120
allows for four tandem parking spaces at the rear of the building. Knowing how much parking is at a premium in the CRBD, we thought a reasonable and responsible plan was to try and preserve that parking on site and design around it. The parking and service area we

70
00:29:09.120 --> 00:29:25.679
would create would be approximately 2,000 square ft. So by preserving that area for parking and building services, we shifted that floor area to the fourth floor to allow us to maintain the permitted 300% F that the downtown CRBD zoning permits. We've designed the

71
00:29:25.679 --> 00:29:42.880
fourth floor to set be set back 12 feet from the Beachwood Road elevation to reduce its visual impact from the street. From a neighborhood context standpoint, the fivetory Basset building is 150 ft away and the rear roof peak of the 50 foot plus 33 Union Place building

72
00:29:42.880 --> 00:29:58.159
is immediately adjacent to this Beachwood property. These building heights together with several other four-story buildings in the CRBD make this proposal with a recessed fourth floor compatible with surrounding properties and consistent with this area of the CRBD.

73
00:29:58.159 --> 00:30:12.720
This concept of having on-site parking on a D block and shifting the displaced four floor area to a setback fourth floor is the same situation that we encountered and that was approved by this board and delivered in our 466

74
00:30:12.720 --> 00:30:30.080
Springfield Avenue project in 2016. >> And can you please tell the board what uses are proposed for the building? on the first floor facing the street, any commercial or retail tenants as permitted in the CRBD and any permitted office use in the CRBD and the remainder of the upper floors of

75
00:30:30.080 --> 00:30:44.880
the building. The building is designed to provide a little over 1500 square ft of ground floor commercial space and approximately 11,000 square ft of upper floor office space. >> Um, and on that step back fourth floor, there's a terrace proposed in the front.

76
00:30:44.880 --> 00:31:00.799
Can you describe generally the terrace space and who will have access to that space? >> Yes, the terrace space will be private space utilized only by the building's office tenant or tenants and their invitees. We have created outdoor terrace space similar to this and a number of our other developments in

77
00:31:00.799 --> 00:31:16.480
town. And we regulate use hours, operating restrictions, furniture safety, etc. in the leases that we enter into with the tenants of those buildings. assume hours of operation will be a question that will come up. In most of the other examples that I point to,

78
00:31:16.480 --> 00:31:32.320
those hours have typically been 7 a.m. to 10 pm. >> Um, and you stated that one of the main objectives was to preserve the parking in the rear of the building. Can you explain to the board how the parking will be distributed to the tenants of the building and touch on the circulation?

79
00:31:32.320 --> 00:31:48.720
>> Uh, yes, we propose to preserve the current four spaces at the property. We anticipate assigning three of those spaces to the office tenant or tenants and one of the spaces to the first floor commercial tenant. Because of the different hours of operation, we would anticipate that the office user users

80
00:31:48.720 --> 00:32:04.320
utilizing the two front spaces and one of the rear spaces and the ground floor commercial uh tenant would use one of the rear spaces. And under, you know, a unique set of circumstances, if one of the office tenants that's blocked in by the commercial tenant needs to access

81
00:32:04.320 --> 00:32:18.799
their vehicle during business hours, they'd simply walk into the into the store, ask the proprietor to move their car, and they shift them around. It's it's not an uncommon practice in downtown given the parking restrictions that we face. >> And can you describe the pickup of

82
00:32:18.799 --> 00:32:35.519
garbage and recycling? Uh yes, we've located the trash enclosure uh closure close to the alley uh to make pickup as easy as possible for the city's DPW. Uh the city's garbage and recycling vehicles enter the alley, the service alley from Union uh from Summit Avenue

83
00:32:35.519 --> 00:32:51.200
and service all of the Union Place stores and restaurants from that alley. So we would anticipate their last alley pickup each morning as they exit onto Beachwood would be our enclosure on the right hand side of the alley. Um and there was a question in the engineers review regarding construction

84
00:32:51.200 --> 00:33:07.120
logistics. Can you walk the board through that process? >> Uh yes. So we have we have encountered uh the situation in downtown logistical challenges many times with the projects that we've previously done in summit and specifically in the in the CRBD. So I'm

85
00:33:07.120 --> 00:33:22.960
I'm very aware of what needs to be done and how to ensure uh safety and compliance with all the requirements from the city. Uh typically approvals are received there will be coordination meetings with the city on the staging and phasing and means and methods of the

86
00:33:22.960 --> 00:33:38.960
construction that will include the city's construction officials, engineering group uh and police and traffic officials. Given the logistical challenges of this particular site and with many of the details need to be worked out by the city, it's it's highly likely that we

87
00:33:38.960 --> 00:33:53.600
would seek to close the western portion of the service alley for intermittent periods of time during the de demolition and base building structural and finishing portions of the project. Given the use of heavy equipment and cranes

88
00:33:53.600 --> 00:34:09.919
and dumpsters, trucks, scaffolding, it'd be without question the safest way to complete this work until the shell of the building is completed and the work is focused on the inside. So, the details of this work along with the erection of sidewalk, bridges, and all the other safety measures around the

89
00:34:09.919 --> 00:34:25.119
site will be worked out with police and traffic safety and the city's construction officials at the appropriate time. >> Um, and did you have an opportunity to share these plans with the adjoining neighbors? >> I did. Yes, I I met with each of the adjoining property owners before we

90
00:34:25.119 --> 00:34:40.879
filed the application to let them know what our thoughts were and what direction that we may be uh taking this and then uh forwarded the plans directly to them. At the same time, we submitted them to the city uh and have had a couple of follow-up discussions with

91
00:34:40.879 --> 00:34:59.119
some of them on questions since then, but have not heard anything from an objection standpoint from any of them today. >> Perfect. I don't have any other questions. Any questions from our experts? >> Um I think I'll save one for the engineer.

92
00:34:59.119 --> 00:35:14.640
>> I'll just comment briefly. It m Mr. Jagger, how are you? First of all, good evening. Um you touched on one of probably one of the biggest questions, you know, the reason to uh as from your standpoint to demolish the building versus renovate. And I I suspect one of your maybe your architect will give some

93
00:35:14.640 --> 00:35:30.640
additional details about those aspects that you mentioned. Um I'm I'm just referencing the uh construction officials comments. So while um I guess you you might have spoken with the joining property owners, do you have any form of I don't know he says written consent. Would that be required at least

94
00:35:30.640 --> 00:35:46.480
from the the one with the shared building wall? >> Is that something? So my assumption was that we would go through this process first and >> okay subsequent conditions >> certain I certainly would would approach them uh at the conclusion of this discussion as to what the plan is to

95
00:35:46.480 --> 00:36:01.839
move forward with those discussions and details for certain. >> All right thank you. >> I'm sorry just to follow uh with 475 and 466 I believe it's it's a code requirement or you know it's it's a requirement that you receive their consent to have the construction. So

96
00:36:01.839 --> 00:36:17.119
that's something you had done before. So, you're just going to follow the >> It would be obtained at the appropriate time. Okay. And um last question would be I think an adjoining building has their heating equipment on your Could you just explain that relationship? >> Yes. So, one of the adjoining property

97
00:36:17.119 --> 00:36:33.680
owners, which is 18 Bank Street, has a three- foot wide service easement along the north property line of the 11 through uh-15 Beachwood Road property where they have uh an air conditioning unit that services one of their office suites on it. Um, we've had

98
00:36:33.680 --> 00:36:50.079
conversations with them about relocating that to their roof at our expense during this process and they've uh appeared to be amendable to that discussion. >> Very good. Thank you. No further questions. >> Questions from board? >> Right. Go ahead. >> Go ahead. You go first.

99
00:36:50.079 --> 00:37:06.720
Um, maybe this will come up in the architectural presentation to follow, but since you mentioned internal bearing walls at random locations, your words, there's no documentation of that that I've seen in the drawings that I looked at again just now. There's a demo plan, but it's a site demo. You're not

100
00:37:06.720 --> 00:37:23.119
demolishing interior partitions specifically. Will the architect talk to that where those are and why they could not be accommodated? >> Yes. Yes, he will. >> All right. Thank you. I guess uh prior to acquiring this building, what level of due diligence

101
00:37:23.119 --> 00:37:39.440
did you do on the physical condition of the building? Did you get a property condition assessment prior to closing? >> Uh not not a technical one though. It was it was a was a unique set of circumstances. If you call the former owners of this project, the property Gilorin uh passed away very suddenly.

102
00:37:39.440 --> 00:37:56.079
his estate was anxious to to work through a process to dispose of the building very quickly from estate planning purposes. So we agreed to a very expedited due diligence period and we had done walkthroughs and stuff but we had not really conducted an extensive detailed

103
00:37:56.079 --> 00:38:11.920
>> typical architectural engineering. >> Gotcha. I mean it's typical to get a PCA before you close on a commercial real estate transaction. So didn't you take on a good degree of risk going in there? Yes, it was, like I said, it was more of an accommodation for the family. The time the time frame, the accelerated

104
00:38:11.920 --> 00:38:28.079
time frame to close. We we didn't do a typical 90 120day due diligence period where we did those kinds of assessments, which you're right, I would typically have conducted. So, as an accommodation to the family, we accelerated it and closed very quickly. So knowing now what

105
00:38:28.079 --> 00:38:45.359
you didn't know then would you have closed and or would you have sought some sort of price adjustment given the condition of the building that you found? >> The only we did seek a price adjustment based on the asbestous situation that we found which was as I'd mentioned extensive. So that was the only thing

106
00:38:45.359 --> 00:39:01.440
that we did that was different relative to relative to the existing the initial agreement. So yeah, it's hard. I don't know. I can't I can't say with any degree of certainty as to whether or not I would have thought about it differently or approached it differently other than the circumstances that we had

107
00:39:01.440 --> 00:39:16.240
in front of us. >> I I guess what I'm trying to ascertain is is this exclusively a situation of the building physically being not capable of being remedied internally or is this a case of it just

108
00:39:16.240 --> 00:39:32.640
not being economically viable? In my estimation, this is a case of the building not physically being able to be remedied into into anything that would be marketable by today's space users.

109
00:39:32.640 --> 00:39:51.680
Low ceilings, no ADA code compliance. There's there's so many issues. sagging floors, HVAC, sprinklers, fire exits out of windows. You know, there's all those kinds of things that the building, given its age

110
00:39:51.680 --> 00:40:08.480
and state of deterioration, is not capable in our estimation of structural rehabilitation to allow for anything that resembles kind of a modern environment to be to to be created. >> Gotcha. Just switching gears slightly.

111
00:40:08.480 --> 00:40:24.960
What's the current use of the upper floors? Is it officer or is residential? >> The second floor was a law office by Mr. Orin which has been closed for quite some time and the sec the third floor was a combination of office and two apartments. >> Okay. So it's a current both floors are currently vacant.

112
00:40:24.960 --> 00:40:42.079
>> Uh there's one apartment user remaining in the building who will be leaving over the next several months. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Sir, >> I I have a question. um you're mentioning that it's you know to make the building marketable but currently

113
00:40:42.079 --> 00:40:58.880
the building is almost 100% occupied except for the Mr. Orin's old office. I mean the two retail spaces have been um businesses that have been there for years. So obviously they did they did not leave to seek um new accommodations.

114
00:40:58.880 --> 00:41:14.720
Um, how can you I mean just can you explain why if it's fully occupied how I'm just trying to figure out your justification on saying that it's not marketable. >> So to be clear uh the second floor is vacant. Most of the third floor is

115
00:41:14.720 --> 00:41:32.000
vacant. There was only one apartment user in it and if you were to see the condition of his apartment, he's been in it for many years. You would not find that to be tenable at all. The front half of the third floor was office space that's been vacant for probably two

116
00:41:32.000 --> 00:41:49.839
years. Uh the ground floor retail spaces um are both anxious to relocate given the condition of their space as well. There's been numerous instances of water damage, other issues with product being

117
00:41:49.839 --> 00:42:06.480
uh destroyed because of water infiltration and problems with the building itself. So both of those tenants throughout the last many months of conversation are actually anxious to go find. >> So they were they were planning on leaving. They it was after you purchased the property that they

118
00:42:06.480 --> 00:42:23.040
>> I approached them during before I acquired the building. I approached them and had these conversations and they were very cooperative and we'll be relocating over the next couple. >> So the relocating because there was there's not because the building's going to be because you you purchased the building and that you're going to be

119
00:42:23.040 --> 00:42:39.440
renovating it or or Yeah, we had Yeah, we had conversations >> that wasn't they're not leaving on their own. They're not leaving. They're leaving because of this you're the new owner. >> When approached with the idea of relocating, they were very receptive. >> Well, and I think also relocating is not as easy because there's not that much

120
00:42:39.440 --> 00:42:55.440
space in the CRBD that's vacant for them to move to. >> Correct. But both I'm happy to report that through a lot of work of both both of those tenants have found alternative locations to relocate to in the coming months. And then the asbestos I mean is

121
00:42:55.440 --> 00:43:12.319
that I mean it's it's only after after any sort of construction's done. It's not >> that has to be remediated before >> but is it an issue right now for the current tenants? I mean there's >> it's encapsulated. >> Yeah. But as soon as you disturb it because it's in the plaster pipes etc.

122
00:43:12.319 --> 00:43:27.520
As soon as you disturb it and it becomes airborne it becomes >> but is I mean isn't that is right now isn't that common with most buildings in the um historic district? >> I couldn't say most. Certainly, it's an issue with some depending on their age and condition, but we found this to be

123
00:43:27.520 --> 00:43:43.280
this this situation to be extensive. >> And and your other buildings that you have rehabilitated in um the downtown district, have you come across asbestos issues also? >> Yes. Not to this extent though. >> So, it was tested. >> Um

124
00:43:43.280 --> 00:43:58.400
>> there's a way to test to see what level it is. Okay. >> Absolutely. Yes. Very much so. Thank you. So, I just um after you had all this engineering studies done and you were talking to your architect, was there any discussion about maybe extending the

125
00:43:58.400 --> 00:44:14.720
second and third floors over over the back and have covered parking as like 475 Springfield Avenue? >> Yeah, that's what I had mentioned in my in my opening statement. The first direction I had given them was to look into expansion of the existing building just as you >> I thought you meant the whole building.

126
00:44:14.720 --> 00:44:32.240
>> Yeah. Or even the second and third floor. And it was it was determined that given the existing the condition of the existing structure that there was not a logical or feasible way to tie in an expansion of that building with things

127
00:44:32.240 --> 00:44:48.880
like the structural deficiencies and it's got low ceilings, no mechanical systems, no sprinklers, not ADA compliant. There are lots of reasons codewise, structure-wise, infrastructure-wise that expanding that building just did not make any sense.

128
00:44:48.880 --> 00:45:04.240
>> How about with the new building? So, you don't have to go for a height variance. Could you do it with with a new building and just extend out? >> That's what we are doing. >> There's going to be covered parking. I didn't I didn't see that on the plan. And you still need a fourth floor >> because Gohead. >> Yeah. No. Yeah. Exactly. So, what I had

129
00:45:04.240 --> 00:45:19.440
what I had stated was because we thought preserving the existing parking >> So, you're going to move that area up. We're going to take that like that block of space literally and move it up to >> That's not the way I I interpreted it. >> 12 ft. So it's not imposing on the streetscape. >> Okay. >> But that way it's still within the

130
00:45:19.440 --> 00:45:36.079
permitted F of the CRBD. So we're not seeking a density variance. >> And that way at the same time we're preserving the parking. >> I didn't see that when I looked at the plan. So I apologize. >> Well, I I just have a question to piggyback on that so that we don't go back and forth on that. Um,

131
00:45:36.079 --> 00:45:51.359
I'm a little confused about how, you know, shifting that area from the parking is it's going to the fourth floor. Really, the building is 4,000 square ft bigger than the existing building. It I'm not talking about F, but I don't really see a shift. I just

132
00:45:51.359 --> 00:46:08.720
see an added floor. I see more floor I see more floor area, more footprint for the whole building and a fourth floor. So, can you I'm a little confused about what the shift is because I thought we went from like 7,000 something square feet to 12,000 square foot building and

133
00:46:08.720 --> 00:46:25.760
an extra 2700 square ft on the fourth floor. >> So, he'd be permitted as of right to go to the planning board and just get site plan approval and have a building that big >> for three floors, >> right? >> So, instead of doing the three floors, what he's doing is he's taking just that

134
00:46:25.760 --> 00:46:41.440
small portion. you would still be entitled to go all the way back, right, and make the building bigger than it is, but preserving the parking was more of a benefit to the downtown. So that's why he's taking that small portion and

135
00:46:41.440 --> 00:46:57.200
putting it on top, which then required the height variance. So I I see that as sort of an interpretation in the shift, you know, as opposed to >> So the the site's plus or minus 4,000 square feet. So, as of right in the CRBD zoning, you can have a 12,000t building.

136
00:46:57.200 --> 00:47:14.640
So, that's what we're proposing. And what what we've said is that because we do think preserving that parking is a benefit is to take that portion of the space and put it on the fourth floor, which is why we're here in front of the board of adjustment as opposed to the planning board.

137
00:47:14.640 --> 00:47:31.200
>> Are potential users of the office going to be expected to get employee permits and park in the tier garage? Is that the is that the plan >> typically what happens? Yeah. People who occupy office space, office tenants who occupy office space in downtown Summit understand that that's part of the

138
00:47:31.200 --> 00:47:47.920
that's what they do. >> So what percentage of the expected parking demand at this office at for the office use is going to be accommodated by those spaces? >> Oh, a small portion at the end of the I mean, if you have, let's say, uh, three

139
00:47:47.920 --> 00:48:03.280
employees per thousand square feet, four employees per thousand square feet, let's say that's probably 35 to 40 employees potentially. So, a tenth of them maybe on-site balance of them will go into the city system. >> So, it's not a material portion of the

140
00:48:03.280 --> 00:48:19.440
demand that we're we're serving by preserving these parking spaces. >> I I guess that's relative. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. So >> I would I mean the I think preserving the parking is also a benefit to the tenants I would imagine. Right. It' be nice to have a spot

141
00:48:19.440 --> 00:48:34.400
>> near the building. >> Sure. >> And and there will be additional parking than currently is in place that's going to be within the summit system based on the plans, right? Because there will be larger footprint, probably more people, right?

142
00:48:34.400 --> 00:48:51.040
>> Yeah. Or even right now there's no demand because there's no tenants in the space, you know. So y >> kind of the trade-off, right? But yes, for sure. So I would say like of the first 7,000 square feet, >> it is what it is today. >> Y >> versus the additional square footage that will be added.

143
00:48:51.040 --> 00:49:07.920
>> Um that would all flow its way into the park city of Southern parking system. >> But just to there's also people that take the train. That's one of the draws of working at Summit. >> Yes. For sure. Within walking distance of the train station. >> Yes. For sure.

144
00:49:07.920 --> 00:49:24.240
>> Okay. Um, Mr. Chulu, do you have any questions or Okay. Um, I just have a couple. Um, when you said you spoke to the neighbors, did you speak to the people from lot four? It's the one that's behind on the alley because, you know, their building is going to be

145
00:49:24.240 --> 00:49:39.040
would be impacted by a fourth floor in terms of the windows that they have on the third floor there. >> Is that 18 Bank Street? >> Yeah, I assume so. It's the L-shaped building around our lot. >> Um, >> it's on the north and the east side. Yeah, it's on I think it's called lot

146
00:49:39.040 --> 00:49:55.839
four is what? >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. Yeah. Oh, three. Okay, that's four, right? >> Yeah, I guess. Yeah. So, okay. And then um in terms of asbestous abatement, >> did you want me to answer that?

147
00:49:55.839 --> 00:50:12.240
>> Oh, I thought I thought you said Oh, yes, because you said you did speak to the for sure. And when we designed our building, so their second floor windows are not going to be impacted be under our plan because we're proposing that to be parking. So that space will be open.

148
00:50:12.240 --> 00:50:27.599
Their third floor windows, we've purposely set our building back on the north and east elevation 3 ft. Not required, but out of courtesy to them to maintain natural light into those windows, we set our facade back. The

149
00:50:27.599 --> 00:50:43.680
fourth floor there that's a those are two and three story buildings. So the fourth our fourth floor is not going to necessar not going to be impactful to their buildings. That's their roof. >> Okay. Thank you. Um in terms of asbestous uh

150
00:50:43.680 --> 00:50:59.920
you would have to do abatement of asbestous whether you renovate the building or demolish the building and start new. Is that correct? >> Yes. The issue under the renovation scenario is that because the predominance of the asbestous is in the

151
00:50:59.920 --> 00:51:17.280
plaster walls themselves. It's some of it's on pipes but not much. Some of it's in floor tile, some of it's in roof mastic. The majority of it is in the plaster walls given the age of these walls. So when those walls start coming down in order to remediate is where we

152
00:51:17.280 --> 00:51:31.280
start getting into some of the structural issues that we've talked about giving the given the current structural dynamics of this building. >> Okay. And then just two other questions. one

153
00:51:31.280 --> 00:51:49.359
is um you know you're talking about the low that there that the building's not tall enough to sustain the duct work and uh you know give the kind of office space that that um I guess modern clients are looking for and I just think

154
00:51:49.359 --> 00:52:06.000
it's interesting that the Boxwoods building which is right next door is the same height and they seem they seem to be doing it. So, is there something and I don't see like window units in the front of their building or you know I'm just wondering how did you know did you

155
00:52:06.000 --> 00:52:21.280
explore how they how they accomplished that because it's actually their building's a little bit shorter. >> I I don't I don't I don't know. I was not involved with Dr. Hoba's purchase of that building and the renovation work he did. I'm not sure what conditions he found and and what he did at that time.

156
00:52:21.280 --> 00:52:37.040
>> Okay. And then um I guess the last question I have is um of the buildings and I'm I wasn't there was a long list of buildings that you've worked on and and in summit um constructed or renovated um which can you give examples

157
00:52:37.040 --> 00:52:54.400
of buildings that you did rehabilitate versus demolish and build in Summit? So 475 Springfield uh was a building that I was in front of this board for a couple years ago. Um

158
00:52:54.400 --> 00:53:10.720
was a re was a re a significant rehabilitation demolition but preservation of some old infrastructure in new construction. Um 25 to Forest Avenue, uh the old Boris building was a significant

159
00:53:10.720 --> 00:53:26.640
interior renovation, uh rehabilitation, windows, lobbies, common space, site work, etc. Um uh 125 was new, one forest was new, 466

160
00:53:26.640 --> 00:53:43.680
was new. Yeah. And then other we've done other smaller uh mixeduse buildings in town. Uh 344 Springfield Avenue. We did 535 actually the office building across the street which was was more of a cosmetic

161
00:53:43.680 --> 00:53:59.839
renovation and rehabilitation. But those are a couple of examples. >> Thank you. >> I have a question. Those buildings um are any of them historic? The ones that you mentioned they seem like they were all pretty newish buildings. Well, again, it's

162
00:53:59.839 --> 00:54:16.480
important that these buildings, when you say historic, the the the C there's a the portion of the CRVD, the downtown is a historic designation. Buildings themselves are not designated as his historic. So, when we worked on 344

163
00:54:16.480 --> 00:54:33.839
Springfield, 343 Springfield, 355 Springfield Avenue, all in the historic district, I don't know that any of those buildings, >> any of the buildings more than 50 years old. >> Oh, yeah. Oh, most most of the buildings downtown are 1920 1930. >> Of so of those rehabs were any of them

164
00:54:33.839 --> 00:54:48.480
from >> those were all those buildings are all like 350 Springfield Avenue was was the city hall in the 1940s. That building's been there since 1928 29. So all those buildings are 100 years old at this

165
00:54:48.480 --> 00:55:04.559
point. like DeForest the 25 DeForest is an old and for >> 25 DeForest was a is an office building that's not in the designated historic district nor was one the forest >> and 475 Springfield is >> 475 is in the historic district but it's not considered a historic district

166
00:55:04.559 --> 00:55:24.400
>> it's not okay >> any other questions from the board >> so just so I'm square there's going to be four floors of office All commercial on the first floor, office space, office space, office space, utility space.

167
00:55:24.400 --> 00:55:40.319
>> That's the That's the proposal. >> So, it's actually five stories if you count the utility space sitting back. >> No, no. The the fourth floor office space is set back. >> Okay. >> The rooftop mechanical units, which will be screened as is required, sits on top of the fourth floor.

168
00:55:40.319 --> 00:55:56.319
>> So, that that's not considered a floor. That's considered service. >> Would you need a ladder to service the equipment? Oh yes. Yes. >> But I mean by the definition >> I got you. I get But if I were to have to ladder the building, I'd have >> but it's like every other building in

169
00:55:56.319 --> 00:56:11.920
town is that spaces. >> Yeah. One of the things I'm struggling with is we don't see a any comments from the fire department on this and that's not on the checklist. I know it's not important to you guys, but I think it's important that they have some sort of comment on that. I know it'll be done in

170
00:56:11.920 --> 00:56:27.920
the construction process to have to meet fire code and all that, but um it's just in my my old world, if I had to put a ladder up, it was five stories. >> But it's important to note along those lines, too. I mean, we've worked with the fire department all these projects

171
00:56:27.920 --> 00:56:45.240
is the idea that this building is incapable of being sprinklered in its current condition. >> It says a lot in itself, >> but I'll leave it at that. Okay. Thank you. questions from the public.

172
00:56:46.160 --> 00:57:07.040
>> No questions. Okay. >> Okay. Uh the engineer. >> Good evening. >> If you could raise your right hand. >> Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth? The whole truth. Nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> And please state your name. Spell your last name.

173
00:57:07.040 --> 00:57:24.240
>> My name is Nicholas Tapitz Harris. Her last name is T S A P A T S A R I S. >> Thank you. And can you briefly describe your background and experience for the board? >> Yes, I am a licensed professional engineer.

174
00:57:24.240 --> 00:57:41.440
Uh my offices are at 20 at 10 Wilsy Square in the village of Ridgewood. Um I've been practicing as a professional engineer since 1992 and as an architect since 2000. Um

175
00:57:41.440 --> 00:57:59.040
I've appeared uh well education wise I went to Worcester Polytechnic Institute undergraduate the degree in civil engineering and then Worcester Polytechnic Institute uh after that for a master's of science degree in structural engineering and then after

176
00:57:59.040 --> 00:58:15.760
that I went to MIT and got a master of science in real estate development. I've been practicing for over 34 years. Uh, I've appeared before this board. I've appeared before many boards in the state of New Jersey as well as having also

177
00:58:15.760 --> 00:58:31.839
volunteered on the village of Ridgewood Board of Adjustment where I live for many years. I'm no longer a member of that port, but um, >> thank you. Any questions from the board or would you like to accept his credentials? >> Any questions? >> We'll accept. >> Thank you. Go ahead.

178
00:58:31.839 --> 00:58:46.880
>> Okay. Um, and can you just tell the board the steps that you've taken to prepare to give your expert testimony in this matter? >> Yes. Um, I've inspected the site. I've reviewed the application. I've prepared these plans and reviewed

179
00:58:46.880 --> 00:59:03.440
the administrative reviews uh as well as your ordinances. And recognizing that the site is fully developed with an existing building, parking, and other improvements, did you prepare civil engineering plans in accordance with the requirements of the applicable city ordinances and the municipal land use law?

180
00:59:03.440 --> 00:59:19.520
>> Yes. >> And using the plans that you prepared and that were filed with the board, can you describe the site plan from a civil engineering perspective? >> Yes. I would like to refer the board uh to sheet SP101

181
00:59:19.520 --> 01:00:09.720
and I will approach the board that I prepared to present. Everybody hear me? >> I think you have to turn it on. That should be better. >> Yes, it is. >> Yes. >> Yep. Thank you.

182
01:00:22.400 --> 01:00:38.799
>> Okay. So, um I'd like to begin uh with SP 101 and I will go through the site plan drawings. So, the lot uh is located at the intersection close to the

183
01:00:38.799 --> 01:00:53.920
intersection of Union and Beachwood. So, it's pretty much near the train station. The lot size is 4,124 square ft. The proposed building that you see on

184
01:00:53.920 --> 01:01:15.359
detail one of SP 101 is 12,02 square ft. So the existing three-story building as the developer testified to has substantial deferred maintenance.

185
01:01:15.359 --> 01:01:32.400
It is not in compliance with the IPC code today. It is not handicap accessible. Nor is it fire rated or compliant. The mechanical systems are outdated. Structural

186
01:01:32.400 --> 01:01:47.920
defects include differential settlement throughout all of the floors. There is a step crack in the rear right foundation and a number of other issues on the facade uh in terms of cracking that have

187
01:01:47.920 --> 01:02:04.960
resulted from water infiltration and settlement. We've had a geotechnical report prepared and it is my professional opinion that working with the existing building, although not impossible, would not meet

188
01:02:04.960 --> 01:02:21.440
the goals that the developer has suggested of reinforcing the structure, adding helical piles in the back right, um, and removing so many existing partitions that at one time were

189
01:02:21.440 --> 01:02:35.440
partitions and now it is my professional opinion that they've started to take load from the building. So um I would like to also refer the board to a report that I prepared. It's in your

190
01:02:35.440 --> 01:02:53.920
package dated December 29th, 2025. And the majority of this report will be testified to by the architect from my office, Michael Sass. But I did want to bring the board's attention as I

191
01:02:53.920 --> 01:03:09.440
talk a little bit more about the existing building to the second paragraph of that report and read from it that struct I wrote this on December 29th, 2025 after my own inspection of the structure

192
01:03:09.440 --> 01:03:26.240
that quote structural deficiencies that would require significant repairs as part of any potential renovations. substantial cracks at the rear foundation wall would require in my opinion helical piles to stabilize the

193
01:03:26.240 --> 01:03:41.760
structure uh in the event of any substantial renovation. And photograph 11 of this report shows some of those issues uh with the building. There are also some front and the front

194
01:03:41.760 --> 01:03:56.480
facade has a number of step cracks that would require restoration and structural strapping. Uh there's step cracks. A step crack is not usually good because it means that it goes with settlement. It's not uh an expansion contraction

195
01:03:56.480 --> 01:04:11.440
crack. So again, final thing that I want to refer to on this report until the architect gets on later is that on the interior there were areas on the third floor ceiling that had collapsed due to water damage. So I popped some ceiling

196
01:04:11.440 --> 01:04:28.000
tiles, tried to ascertain the structural reasons for it, but layers and layers of older partitions and ceilings were there. going back to the site plan drawings.

197
01:04:28.000 --> 01:04:47.520
Um, and before I get there, basically I would again put in for the record that I know having seen uh the reports that there is asbestous, there's an oil tank, there is lead paint, there is water infiltration, rotted woods, doors and

198
01:04:47.520 --> 01:05:07.599
floor systems in the building. At this point, I'd like to start to talk about the proposed building. And I show that on drawing one of SP 101. Like I said before, it's a 12,000 uh square

199
01:05:07.599 --> 01:05:23.440
foot building. Uh that is within and under the limits of the city of Summit's F, which is 3.0. In fact, I think if I'm not mistaken, we're approximately 300 ft less than what would have been permitted. The original design charge

200
01:05:23.440 --> 01:05:38.799
that our client gave us was to do whatever we could to preserve those four parking spaces at the back of the building. And in doing that, um the concept was whatever volume of building

201
01:05:38.799 --> 01:05:54.319
ex would have existed in the back for a compliant 3.0 O F application we would take that extract it and in our design bring it to the top. We have successfully done that for our client at

202
01:05:54.319 --> 01:06:11.039
475 Springfield Avenue where there was as one of the board members mentioned uh a very small but valuable uh parking area at the back of that. So in essence this is very similar. That's the concept that I think the chairwoman was asking about also is that that space gets put

203
01:06:11.039 --> 01:06:30.400
on the roof and again it's all within what is permitted uh with your ordinance of 3.0. So um I'm pointing again to one. Can everybody see the spaces in the back? There are four spaces back building right now. They function with a

204
01:06:30.400 --> 01:06:49.760
municipal alleyway that runs east to west. If you looked where I'm pointing now at detail two, it shows how far back the fourth floor will be set back. It's about 11 ft. And again, very similar to

205
01:06:49.760 --> 01:07:06.480
what we did at 475, but it's set back uh to also not be as visible, which the architect will testify to from the ground. As you can see in the rendering to my left, not quite sure if we should

206
01:07:06.480 --> 01:07:27.839
enter this, but uh >> we can enter that as A1. >> So I'll mark it as A1. So the upper fourth floor level that I'm pointing to right now that's shaded differently is what I am showing you

207
01:07:27.839 --> 01:07:51.200
over here. So in our design, we analyzed from an engineering perspective lines of sight so that it would be set back and not as visible. In terms of parking and circulation, um you could still go in from Beachwood

208
01:07:51.200 --> 01:08:07.039
from east to west and uh the turning radi work fine to be able to make a left or right in and out of those parking spaces. To the right of the parking spaces, we've left some space for refues, and

209
01:08:07.039 --> 01:08:27.279
I'll get into that in a few more sheets. And as the developer testified to earlier, if you look at the bottom of detail 2, we've left a three-foot space between the proposed building and the neighbors building. There's an existing

210
01:08:27.279 --> 01:08:55.319
uh easement that way, and the developer uh has asked us to keep it 3 ft away, which makes it a good thing for the neighbors. I'd like to move on to sheet SP 2011. The next sheet over

211
01:08:58.719 --> 01:09:14.400
this sheet is the grading and utility plan. The first thing I want to bring to the board's attention is on detail one. There are some arrows that point into the building at the front and into the

212
01:09:14.400 --> 01:09:31.040
building at the back. From an engineering perspective, we often try and accommodate handicap accessibility. As the building is today, when you go to the front of the building, both the retail space and the entrance to the

213
01:09:31.040 --> 01:09:48.640
second floors have steps right there. That would be an a very difficult problem to solve even though it's possible to make them handicap accessible because you can't go out into the street to the public right ofway. So what you would have to do is open up the

214
01:09:48.640 --> 01:10:04.239
ground. You'd have to remove a portion of the ground floor to get either a ramp or some other way to get you in and then there would have to be an elevator somehow put in the building. Not just for the retail. The retail is not accessible right now. and and there's a

215
01:10:04.239 --> 01:10:19.280
slight slope in the ground which makes it even more difficult to get the left side of the building, west side, the north side done. So the proposed solution both at the front the west part

216
01:10:19.280 --> 01:10:36.080
of the building and at the right the rear part of the building is to have a design that's in full compliance of course with the Americans with Disabilities Act where it it's a it's right at grade and we've done the design so that there's two different grades and they they they both go in at the right

217
01:10:36.080 --> 01:10:58.080
elevation. Um that leads then into the grading of this property, leads then into our uh storm water management study. So I would also refer the board to a storm water management study that I prepared

218
01:10:58.080 --> 01:11:14.800
on uh January 8th, 2026. Um >> and that was filed with the board. >> Yes, it was. In summary, the entire site is covered with imperous area and it will be

219
01:11:14.800 --> 01:11:29.679
continued to be covered with impervious area. The results of my analysis from a drainage perspective were that the post development flow would increase by 0.001

220
01:11:29.679 --> 01:11:46.560
cfs, which is negligible. Basically, um it's a covered site. There's existing conduit. Uh we're replacing some of the conduit that's there in on the back right of the property and putting new conduit in.

221
01:11:46.560 --> 01:12:04.159
So from a from a drainage perspective and from a storm water management perspective, this is in essence a solution that will be provided if the application is approved from the building department where you have to design roof drains, conduits coming down

222
01:12:04.159 --> 01:12:21.440
and then coming out. Um, in order to be sure that our solution will work, uh, our office did video all of the utilities, the water and su the storm water and the sewer, and we're confident that the sewer will work, but the storm

223
01:12:21.440 --> 01:12:38.920
water. Uh, we also have a suggestion to connect to the catch basin that's in the alleyway. It is our opinion that with brand new pipes from the new building coming in, it will be an improvement to storm water management.

224
01:12:46.080 --> 01:13:06.800
Furthermore, there is exist an existing electrical service on the southeast portion of the property. Our office has also communicated with Thanks. Our office has communicated with

225
01:13:06.800 --> 01:13:21.679
the utility and we're in the process of arranging for a design and a load letter being accepted to permit for the electric to be on the eastern side of the property close to where it is right

226
01:13:21.679 --> 01:13:38.880
now underground as opposed to overhead. Our water is coming in where it comes in now. There's a 4-in line there that that is uh that is sufficient. Um and then there's an existing

227
01:13:38.880 --> 01:13:54.640
underground gas service that will remain. And we're also upgrading proposing to upgrade the 1-in water line from Beachwood to a 2-in water line. and we videotaped the 4-in sanitary and it is in good condition and we would

228
01:13:54.640 --> 01:14:23.040
recommend that it remain um the rest of the information on the right hand side of detail 2 I've testified to already through my drainage report and has to do with drainage. So with that,

229
01:14:23.040 --> 01:14:47.440
I'd like to refer the board to sheet SP302. This is a school. >> Oh, sorry. Is that 301? >> I apologize. >> Thank you, council. Um,

230
01:14:47.440 --> 01:15:04.560
this is the soil erosion and sediment control plan. If this were a much larger property that had um an area of of exposed soil, it would actually have to be approved by the uh

231
01:15:04.560 --> 01:15:19.840
another authority. At in this point, it's less than 5,000 square ft. Um, we are proposing that the existing inlets that discharge into the city system are covered and you can see that

232
01:15:19.840 --> 01:15:37.040
on detail one of that sheet. And if necessary, we also have a standard detail on our drawings that we call cost for a hay bill. But to put this simply, it's a small building. uh the process of demolition is not

233
01:15:37.040 --> 01:15:52.159
going to create a situation there where you could have any real soil wash away. Uh there is a basement. So uh again this will be more of a a city construction type

234
01:15:52.159 --> 01:16:10.000
environment but not withstanding that we've proposed uh protection for any runoff that could exist that could happen. I'd like to move on to uh sheet SP

235
01:16:10.000 --> 01:16:34.480
302. This sheet is the proposed site demolition plan. Basically um the building will have to be uh demolished. This shows the extent of demolition.

236
01:16:34.480 --> 01:16:49.840
Um it also shows something important which are the two trees in the front. During the technical review committee we did meet with the city um forester and uh his recommendation was to remove and

237
01:16:49.840 --> 01:17:06.880
replace those trees. So the applicant has agreed. That also has another benefit which is makes construction easier without the older trees there. Um and also facilitates the installation of a sidewalk bridge much like you would

238
01:17:06.880 --> 01:17:21.679
see in any downtown construction which is shown on my detail number two to protect the the safety of the public. This is common in New York City. Obviously you've seen these uh

239
01:17:21.679 --> 01:17:49.840
protective structures. And my final sheet that I will present on is sheet SP41. Earlier the developer did testify on the refuge.

240
01:17:49.840 --> 01:18:05.600
I'll get into a little bit more detail about that, but this this sheet basically shows the um site lighting uh refues and and that's about it. But if you look

241
01:18:05.600 --> 01:18:23.040
at the top right of sheep SP 401, um you'll see the refuge calculations that we've done to confirm that the number of bins, which we estimate should be four, are sufficient. And we've actually shown six on our drawings. The

242
01:18:23.040 --> 01:18:40.320
area uh is going to be shielded with two little screen walls on the north and to the south. Um, if the board wants to, I can get into the details of it, but again, top right can read for yourselves. If there's any questions, I can answer them

243
01:18:40.320 --> 01:18:58.640
on the on the reason that we have so many uh bins. Um, I could get into the site lighting and if this was one of these large site plans with parking everywhere, I'd probably have to testify

244
01:18:58.640 --> 01:19:14.320
as a professional engineer. However, in this case, I would like to defer uh my testimony until the architect speaks because the majority of light lighting here is off of building. It has to do with the under the area that's being lit

245
01:19:14.320 --> 01:19:31.520
underneath the back. Um where we show the illumination here from anywhere from 0.1 to 3.2 foot candles. Um and also in the front entrance we have uh illumination.

246
01:19:31.520 --> 01:19:48.840
But again in terms of the upper level and the lower level because it's part of the building I think the architect will be able to provide you with a better idea of why illumination was provided in this in this way. Um,

247
01:19:52.800 --> 01:20:09.600
>> other than comments from your professionals, which I can respond to, that concludes sort of my review of the drawings. >> Um, I just had one question. And I think that you addressed most of the board

248
01:20:09.600 --> 01:20:28.560
engineers comments um in your testimony and anything not addressed will be addressed by the architect in his testimony. But can you go through the city engineers comments? >> Yes. So that would be um the March 5th, 2026

249
01:20:28.560 --> 01:20:53.920
letter. Correct. Comment letter. So um in the third paragraph, the comment is that the replacement of the street trees should require approval of this office and the city forester to

250
01:20:53.920 --> 01:21:11.760
select a tree and tree well replacement uh since the existing well will likely be damaged during removal. We agree that's a good idea and we're we're appreciative that the trees are older and should be replaced. It makes things a lot easier. There's also a comment

251
01:21:11.760 --> 01:21:25.440
about the sidewalks and given our experience in working in Summit and downtown. Um, most of the material goes through and is delivered through the front of the building and the sidewalks

252
01:21:25.440 --> 01:21:43.120
do suffer. And we again agree with um the fact that construction will most likely need to replace it and and whatever condition uh the board would ask, we uh would be would agree to that.

253
01:21:43.120 --> 01:21:58.719
And then um what about the comment regarding restoring the alley um after repaving? >> Absolutely. Yes. And again, the alley may again suffer because of um

254
01:21:58.719 --> 01:22:16.960
the loads applied during deliveries. And again, the developers agreed to restore it to a condition that's satisfactory to the city >> or or coordinate an alternate option because I think they what he's saying is that they're proposing to repave it in

255
01:22:16.960 --> 01:22:36.000
the summer of 2026. So either have them hold off on that portion >> or something that works with the city engineer will be very >> that that would be ideal. >> If there's no more questions in this important section

256
01:22:36.000 --> 01:22:51.440
questions from our experts. >> Uh sure. Um yeah I think you've t you've taken care a lot of what was in my letter. Um, but in hearing some of what the developer was discussing and your testimony, could

257
01:22:51.440 --> 01:23:07.440
you talk a little bit more about the garbage pickup during construction, the alleyway might be closed off? How would um how would access to the alley for the garbage truck to get other um buildings in that alley be accomplished? That's

258
01:23:07.440 --> 01:23:23.120
something that um we have thought about and uh during construction there will have to be a heightened level of communication with both the city and the adjacent property owners to make sure that uh when that alley has to be closed

259
01:23:23.120 --> 01:23:40.719
for certain construction activities that it's well coordinated and prepared. Again, we've um we have some experience doing this in the city of Summit. Um, a lot of the deliveries do come from the front and um, we've had experience in having to reserve and pay for uh,

260
01:23:40.719 --> 01:23:57.920
parking spaces that are directly in front of the sites that we construct. Um, in most cases, debris is taken out that way and um, uh, dumpsters are cordoned off and put in the front of properties usually.

261
01:23:57.920 --> 01:24:12.880
So again, it's going to be a construction coordination to make sure that everybody's informed and that when the building has to be serviced from the side easement that everybody is aware of it. That's that it's a construction

262
01:24:12.880 --> 01:24:28.000
means and methods coordination matter. >> Okay. um on your um the lighting plan that you were just talking about that um the dumpster enclosure detail. Um I don't know that I had noticed before, but if

263
01:24:28.000 --> 01:24:43.600
you're going to have the board on board um visual screening around those um if there's cars parked in those parking spaces, then the garbage cans can't come out. those those bins can't come out to

264
01:24:43.600 --> 01:24:59.440
be loaded into a garbage can after construction is completed. >> Am I right on that? >> Yeah, there there's only a cheek wall on each side. So, we didn't put a we didn't enclose the the front of it. >> Okay. >> So, it's only the sides. There was

265
01:24:59.440 --> 01:25:16.159
because you're right. If you did put swinging doors, you would never be able to. >> So, that's why we we we >> you just you just put a screening across the sides of it. Okay. >> So, again, it's behind the building. Um, it's not visible from the street, >> right?

266
01:25:16.159 --> 01:25:31.840
>> Um, we felt that the best way to have a car in a tight spot and those bins is to have many small ones, not a few big ones, and to be able to take them out that way. >> Okay. Um,

267
01:25:31.840 --> 01:25:47.520
>> I think the applicant is going to respond. >> Sure. >> If I if I if I could. So garbage pickup in the CRBD is typically done by 6:00 a.m. So we don't anticipate there would be any cars, >> okay, >> associated with our building in that lot. So whatever Mr. Tapiser said talked

268
01:25:47.520 --> 01:26:06.800
about in terms of the design of the enclosure, I don't think that there's going to be a lot of conflict with trash pickup and recycling at that hour in the morning. >> Great. Thank you. And I don't know if this is something that maybe the architect would talk about, but was there was there any consideration given um for to Ballards

269
01:26:06.800 --> 01:26:22.400
at the um location? >> Yes. >> The parking the tandem parking areas >> and we did we did struggle with this internally in our office. There was a big debate about it and it was my professional opinion that in this particular case they would be in the way

270
01:26:22.400 --> 01:26:38.639
and create a worse situation. It's too tight of a space. Uh if if anything bad happens, that cheek wall might get hit, but I think that putting ballards there would just make it so much more difficult. And all you would be

271
01:26:38.639 --> 01:26:55.040
protecting is a plastic bin. So, you know, it was my opinion, but again, others can decide, not me, but it was my opinion not to put the ballards there. Um, a ballard, by the way, regardless of where you put it, has to

272
01:26:55.040 --> 01:27:10.800
be designed a certain way. So, this would have to be four feet, I think, four feet deep and 3 ft high. It's meant for somebody really hitting it. You'd never get the velocity here to even use the ballard. Uh, I think that most people by the time they make the turn

273
01:27:10.800 --> 01:27:25.679
into the back of the parking lot are going to be slow anyway. And so in summary, I wanted to give the vehicle and the plastic containers some room and some space. But again, we're not opposed to if Ballards if the engineering

274
01:27:25.679 --> 01:27:42.560
department and your opinion is that Ballard should be there, we would I would certainly be amicable to adjusting for sure. >> Well, I I think um I think we had actually spoken about this during the TRC. So, I just kind of wanted to put it on the record that it was considered that you had thought about it and that

275
01:27:42.560 --> 01:27:59.440
was your your opinion that it was going to be more of a hindrance than anything else. So, I just wanted to kind of make sure that we we discussed that. Um, I think you already talked about the sidewalk replacement, um, construction sequencing. Um,

276
01:27:59.440 --> 01:28:15.840
would would we be talking about roof mounted mechanical equipment with the architect? Okay, I'll hold off on that. Um, okay. I think I think I'm I think that's all I had. Thank you. >> Hi, good evening. Uh, just a few

277
01:28:15.840 --> 01:28:31.920
questions to follow up. This is more of a comment than a question. I think I had missed um the extent to which tandem parking is permitted by ordinance. I just don't know if that technically raises a uh compliance question. Uh that's the existing configuration. Um

278
01:28:31.920 --> 01:28:48.480
I'm just addressing it now because I know you have subsequent professionals. side. >> I don't see anything in the ordinance that prohibits tandem parking. >> I think it's silent on it. I'm just >> just raising the qu it's a question in my mind at this point. So, I just wanted to point that out. Um,

279
01:28:48.480 --> 01:29:05.120
>> and again, I'm not taking issue with the functional. I think Mr. Jagger addressed how it would all work with the tenants. It's just uh just wanted to point that out. Um, just going to go through my I did have one comment about lighting in our memo pertains to the terrace lighting. Um, it's wall-mounted. I believe it's

280
01:29:05.120 --> 01:29:20.960
carriage lighting. Is that something you'd testify to or the architect as far as impacts? Okay, that's fine. >> Um, there's an existing utility pole that appears to be on the property based on the survey. And when I was out to the site today, it seems like there's a lot going on there from a connection

281
01:29:20.960 --> 01:29:38.480
standpoint. Uh, as well as a a light um that I guess services the alley. I did not see that replicated on the plan any Do you have Yes. >> You know how it's going to be addressed? Yes, we have had uh conversations with the utility and although we also thought

282
01:29:38.480 --> 01:29:55.280
it was major, there's not much that's doing >> and they've agreed that it's going to be removed and we're going to go underground with a better service. So although we also agreed that it looked more substantial, it wasn't.

283
01:29:55.280 --> 01:30:13.159
>> Yeah, fair. And um the alley light though, is there a need to replace the illumination in the alley from a safety access perspective? Because it looks like it might illuminate, you know, obviously your property's access, but maybe adjacent properties.

284
01:30:14.880 --> 01:30:30.639
>> We could certainly I I'd defer that to the architect that's off the building, but >> uh we'd be open to any further commentary at the >> I'm just raising it as a safety question, not >> Yeah. pertinent necessarily to the application. >> We tried to keep the number of foot candles to a minimum at the property

285
01:30:30.639 --> 01:30:46.400
line. I think we already have uh >> one on the east that's a little high. So again, if more light is better, we could >> something to think about. Okay. >> And and then finally, um you testified as an engineer. Are you also testifying as a structural engineer based on your analysis?

286
01:30:46.400 --> 01:31:02.880
>> Yes. I I I guess I just have a few general questions and and the question would be maybe would you be able to elaborate on some of the structural issues? I think that's you know one of the board's main concerns is that you touched on the floor is sagging and some foundation issues. Could is there any

287
01:31:02.880 --> 01:31:20.159
opportunity to elaborate or maybe um utilize the the photos in your report to help with your your commentary in that regard? I I just think it's one of the the more significant aspects of the application. I think that's a good suggestion. If I could direct the board to my report

288
01:31:20.159 --> 01:31:37.520
dated December 29th, 2025, I think one of the photographs that would be most illustrative is are photo three, photo 4, and one

289
01:31:37.520 --> 01:32:01.600
that I feel is the most important is photo 11. I'll wait for the board to get there. So, if if the board were to see photo 11,

290
01:32:01.600 --> 01:32:21.480
that is at the back right of the building and the foundation has undergone settlement. The facade has a step crack in photo four. Now,

291
01:32:22.159 --> 01:32:37.120
as a as a structural engineer, we know how to read what cracks mean. Certain cracks say a different story, right? So, a step crack at the top right of a building is indicative of settlement of

292
01:32:37.120 --> 01:32:55.040
the foundation. That's one clue that I saw. was that the top right had settled. That made me want to look deeper and that's when I went to the back right and saw photo 11. So, one thing that's

293
01:32:55.040 --> 01:33:11.760
happening is that the building has settled. It has one part has settled differently than another. Um, when that happens, the loads that were intended to go from side to side of the building start to

294
01:33:11.760 --> 01:33:28.239
then go where their nature is taking them. In structures, we often don't just sit in a room running calculations. We have to see what the building will do when it starts to settle. What I can tell you has started to happen in this building is that the

295
01:33:28.239 --> 01:33:44.719
interior non-loadbearing partitions that existed over 100 years ago are now holding the load of the roof. Over the years, what people do over hundreds of you over 100 years, what people do is that they need an opening. So, they'll make an opening.

296
01:33:44.719 --> 01:34:00.320
There's no column that was put in. I struggled trying to even understand the inside of that building and to give the developer an open area that I felt comfortable with. And in fact, the only way to

297
01:34:00.320 --> 01:34:16.000
really do that is because I don't have X-ray vision only from what I can see visually and the ceiling tile that I popped is to start construction and to demolish everything. I mean, if I wanted because there is no room for guessing in structures. I could not tell you today

298
01:34:16.000 --> 01:34:30.880
what's going on until you abate the asbestous. I can get in there and I'll put my eyes on all of the structure, not a bit of it, so that I can sign off on public safety. And um

299
01:34:30.880 --> 01:34:47.199
it's complicated in there. You know, there's an apartment next to a office that somebody needed to put together and then all of that has to go through to existing tenants. where the column's going to go. So again, I'm not going to say it's

300
01:34:47.199 --> 01:35:04.000
impossible, but it's not an easy solution to put a modern office an open office concept or even a less congested office concept there. Um so structurally speaking, um the

301
01:35:04.000 --> 01:35:21.199
building uh has issues on the outside. It has differential settlement on the inside. the floors have settled and the partitions, many, many, many little partitions that are there have all started to work together to take the load that they shouldn't be taking. >> Question for you on photo 11.

302
01:35:21.199 --> 01:35:37.440
>> Yes. >> Um, when I look at this photo, >> Mr. Chenuli, you just use the mic. Yeah. >> When I when I look at photo 11, I mean there I mean the foundation is clearly cracked, but in my opinion, um when I

303
01:35:37.440 --> 01:35:54.639
look at this, uh this crack doesn't transfer up into the brick. So to me, it's, you know, a typical foundation crack, and it doesn't appear to be that serious to me. Um, I I spent 10 years as a home inspector and

304
01:35:54.639 --> 01:36:09.840
to me this looks like a typical foundation crack which isn't transferred. I mean, if it was that bad and it was unstable, I would expect to see some travel up into that brick and I don't see that. >> No, I'm talking about in photo 11.

305
01:36:09.840 --> 01:36:26.400
>> But but photo is above it >> is above on the front. >> Photo 11 is in the back. >> 11 is in the back right. But the fact >> Yeah. But I'm asking you about this this photo right here. >> Yes. >> I mean, to me, that doesn't appear to be that serious.

306
01:36:26.400 --> 01:36:42.000
>> No, it it's differential settlement in the back. You from the inside, you can see the cracks from the inside in the in the foundation. >> Yeah, I understand that. But when I'm saying it to you, if if this was unstable, I would expect to see some step cracking going up into that brick. And I don't see that.

307
01:36:42.000 --> 01:36:56.960
>> There is right to the top right. There are >> Look carefully above. I think that the uh the printout might be a little less quality than >> if you zoom in on it if you were on your computer. >> You can see to the top right. Look above.

308
01:36:56.960 --> 01:37:13.040
>> Oh, okay. I I see I I think I faintly see it now. >> Yeah. But um but but what again I would say in response to your question is that type of evidence where you cannot see it

309
01:37:13.040 --> 01:37:28.560
probably occurred on the front right and caused the step the step cracking at the top right that's at the top of the building right that didn't happen because a lentil is bad. It didn't happen. See, again, if you look at photo four, it goes from

310
01:37:28.560 --> 01:37:45.920
the top to the middle to the foundation. That didn't happen that way because the foundation didn't move. >> Look at photograph four. And if you look at photograph four carefully, you'll see a step crack at the top above the arch. Can I approach?

311
01:37:45.920 --> 01:38:09.600
>> Point to it. >> Yeah, it's okay. I'm sorry. >> Okay. This is above. >> Can you please speak into the microphone for the record? >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, I I basically pointed to photograph

312
01:38:09.600 --> 01:38:25.199
four, which is the top right of the building. And if you look at photograph four carefully, there is a step crack at the top right. >> Maybe turn that around and just point to >> Yeah, I see it. >> Can see >> there's a step crack at the top right. That's not only the step crack. There's

313
01:38:25.199 --> 01:38:41.119
another step crack below that on the second floor. As a professional structural engineer, I can say that step cracks are not the best cracks to have. And they didn't happen in a vacuum at the top and middle

314
01:38:41.119 --> 01:38:55.760
of a building. It starts where the building hits the earth. And again, to be clear, I'm not saying that if you asked me to, like I've done before, I couldn't design a strapping system like I put in my letter to reinforce it or my

315
01:38:55.760 --> 01:39:13.119
opinion is to put helical piles in the back because for that to have moved, it means that it lost its soil bearing capacity. For this step crack to have occurred, it means that there was zero bearing capacity. I know it's everybody says, "Well, the building

316
01:39:13.119 --> 01:39:35.920
didn't collapse." Well, it doesn't matter. It It settled. And so >> in photo 11, can you just show the crack that moves up into the brick so >> Yes. photo Photo 11 is at the bottom.

317
01:39:35.920 --> 01:39:52.480
And the crack is pretty apparent here at the bottom of photograph 11, but it does continue up. Yeah, I see. >> Yeah, I'm going to Although I can't I couldn't see it because it's covered from years of paint and plaster and repairs that they've made. It's been

318
01:39:52.480 --> 01:40:07.520
concealed in my opinion in the front. That's why I can't see this happening in the front. You can't get to it. >> All the details. >> Can we just We I just want to make sure Tom is at We're kind of gonna forget to get the rest of Tom's questions.

319
01:40:07.520 --> 01:40:24.480
>> I'm I'm done. I think you're answering. Well, well, I'm I'm I'll done, but I do have one more comment slight question. So, um you know, you're going through your uh structural conditions analysis as as I requested. Could you just explain what a helical pile is? Just so we like we understand what that

320
01:40:24.480 --> 01:40:40.000
involves. >> So, that would be a solution. If the building were to be kept and restored, my advice would be to take the back right of the building that that crack, this crack in particular,

321
01:40:40.000 --> 01:40:56.880
right? There's different solutions for doing this, but a helical pile is a way to reinforce the back to reinforce a building by almost taking like a corkcrew. You know, when you open up a bottle of wine and you have a corkcrew that that you you put in. So there, what

322
01:40:56.880 --> 01:41:12.960
you have to do is dig it out until you get to the bottom of the footing. And then in this particular case, you might put three or four of these helical screw jacks in until you can't screw it anymore. And then when it comes to the top of it, you pour some concrete and

323
01:41:12.960 --> 01:41:29.199
you engage the bottom of the footing. It's not going to look any better. But it's cosmetic. You basically are able to stop the damage. You can never really fix this. It's a shame that it happened. I mean, it's a shame that the back happened, but the more difficult part to

324
01:41:29.199 --> 01:41:45.040
fix is what I have on four. But so to answer your question, helical piles would be one way to fix the back and that's a screw jack and there'd be three of them. Um, just to be clear, I don't I don't have a an

325
01:41:45.040 --> 01:42:03.520
elegant answer for how to fix the front. >> So, all all of these uh deficiencies in the building were evident from a cursory visual inspection. So, I'm gathering from your testimony. >> Yes, but I also went inside. I popped

326
01:42:03.520 --> 01:42:20.239
ceiling tile. I tried to do some minor uh invasive exploration, but again, the only way to know 100% is to >> remove it. So in in your experience when people are doing historic rehabs of historic

327
01:42:20.239 --> 01:42:37.280
properties and going forward with a preservation mindset will they employ these techniques u putting aside the increased cost associated with them? >> I think that it really depends on the

328
01:42:37.280 --> 01:42:54.080
inside use. It depends on what you want to do on the inside of a property. How the property is going to live. Structure is one thing and if your question to me is isolated only to structure I I don't know if I could answer it because in most cases

329
01:42:54.080 --> 01:43:09.360
what I design as a structural engineer has to go with a potential use on the inside. How many columns? What kind of spacing what's going to happen to the inside of of an adaptive reuse or or historic restoration? And then I'm able to design the

330
01:43:09.360 --> 01:43:25.679
structure accordingly. Sometimes you see um things that are stitched together that still have a inside that doesn't function. So if I'm to understand it correctly, so you would look at a different solution associated with an

331
01:43:25.679 --> 01:43:44.400
office use where you'd want Yes. >> like very limited column columns infiltrating the office as opposed to a multif family use where you might be able to accommodate more partitioning in the interior. >> Correct. Gotcha. Thank you. I'm going to repeat the question I asked

332
01:43:44.400 --> 01:44:00.880
the developer um in expectation that there'd be a professional engineer or architect able to better answer it. Um you started by saying that the interior partitions that are now potentially holding up some part of the roof load um

333
01:44:00.880 --> 01:44:18.239
weren't necessarily designed to do that. Um the developer mentioned that they were placed his word randomly. Um, I'd like to understand better where they are because there's no drawing that shows where they are currently. At least I haven't seen one. There's no interior existing condition plan uh on any of the

334
01:44:18.239 --> 01:44:38.960
levels. Um, so I don't understand why they couldn't be maintained asbestous notwithstanding uh and and still create a functional interior for the purpose that the developer has in mind, not the existing purpose. And the question particularly concerns

335
01:44:38.960 --> 01:44:55.119
alignment. Um, if they were randomly placed and don't align floor to floor, uh, not to question your assumption that they are holding up some part of the load, but how are they doing that if they don't align and that makes them not quite random?

336
01:44:55.119 --> 01:45:13.280
>> So, um, as part of our analysis, we did have the building measured. Uh, we had a third party go in there and measure everything. It's a good question because I was trying to figure it out. I tried to see where the loads were lining up. I tried to expose the roof to see where it was

337
01:45:13.280 --> 01:45:28.480
going. I made an assumption from the top based on the partitions. And there's there's no rhyme or reason that the stair goes up the middle, then the stair goes to the right. And so it's a honeycomb in there. And and the that's a it's a good

338
01:45:28.480 --> 01:45:44.719
observation. The third floor does not translate well to the second floor. >> There's a main stairwell that goes up and then the stores seem to be kind of open below. Right. I then go to the basement. The basement is kind of

339
01:45:44.719 --> 01:46:04.480
shallow and there's um several spines that go front to back and that's it. Then the beams run horizontally, very very shallow. So I could not come up with a logical reason

340
01:46:04.480 --> 01:46:22.639
of how the roof translated into the third floor, third floor framing, second floor framing. We use the existing partitions that we had the third party um put together. And it's my professional opinion that the only way

341
01:46:22.639 --> 01:46:39.440
that this is holding up without having seen or measured the beams is that they've all engaged and sit in the middle of things everywhere. In my opinion, the only way to do it is to start to rip it apart, remove the asbestous, rip it apart, see where the

342
01:46:39.440 --> 01:46:57.040
beams are, and there's deflection. I mean, usually I don't like to see more than, you know, quarter of an inch here or there. there is there's two or three inches in certain areas of of deflection and and with my experience I it's not normal that that is that way.

343
01:46:57.040 --> 01:47:14.400
When you dig up from underneath and you expose a piece, in some cases you'll see that the original connection, which in this case is probably mortis and tenon, right? It's probably not even put together with uh structural clips,

344
01:47:14.400 --> 01:47:31.360
um hasn't engaged and it goes onto a it goes onto some some wall. So, I wish I could answer with a high degree of certainty as to how it engaged, but it's there. it's deflected and um I in my opinion the the

345
01:47:31.360 --> 01:47:47.679
partitions that exist are t they have to be taken the load down. I mean I saw it that there's there's partitions that don't line up and they're taking it down to the floor. So to fulfill the architectural charge of having an office in there um

346
01:47:47.679 --> 01:48:04.159
how do you know what to take down and how would you open how would you make an opening if you don't know that when you make a wider opening you have to put two say we made made life simple and made a sixoot opening somewhere which is not what the client wanted but you minimize and don't open the whole thing up if you make a sixoot

347
01:48:04.159 --> 01:48:21.119
opening you're concentrating loads on each side of that sixoot opening you've You've got to make sure that you look below. A lot the mistake that a lot of people make sometimes and carpenters make is that they only look above and they don't look at where the loads go. The load has to get to the earth. >> And so point loads then would have to go

348
01:48:21.119 --> 01:48:36.960
from the second floor to a retail facility and down to the basement. I hope I'm I I hope I'm answering the question. I don't know if I am, but yeah. >> Um I I'm an architect and I teach in an engineering school. So civil engineer so engineer. But I do understand what

349
01:48:36.960 --> 01:48:54.800
you're saying and the question is kind of loaded. Uh um just picking up on the prior question um if the developer had come to you and he said he did you know and to your colleague um with a preservation mindset you know

350
01:48:54.800 --> 01:49:10.320
that let's try to do everything we can to save a contributing building in the historic district. Would your advice have been maybe this is too hypothetical a question is it within the realm of possibility at no significantly greater cost to preserve all aer part of the

351
01:49:10.320 --> 01:49:28.000
building in your professional opinion? >> I could not answer that question because I don't think there is an expert born yet that has x-ray vision that would know what they would find when they started to open up. >> So, so let's take the front facade for

352
01:49:28.000 --> 01:49:43.840
example. You know, I understand the cracks. I went to look at the building today and I saw them. I didn't go in the back. I should have. I didn't. Uh but uh if the facade were significantly important as a contributing element in

353
01:49:43.840 --> 01:50:00.639
the historic district um without any implied denigration of the facade that we're looking at in replacement, potential replacement. Um could it be um part of a hybrid let's call it project where there's

354
01:50:00.639 --> 01:50:18.239
significant demolition um uh which makes yes the asbestous easier. It certainly would make the heights different. I fully understand the developers um concern about floor levels as they relate to the existing windows. But um

355
01:50:18.239 --> 01:50:35.440
as you've expressed uh and is evident, you know, on the ADA compliance aspect of your report and the discussion, um the demolition of interior floor levels would also help to partially rectify that. They might not be perfect alignment, but many existing adaptive reuse projects don't have windows that

356
01:50:35.440 --> 01:50:53.199
look logical and you know um uh in in terms of what the prior floor levels were and there could also be some accommodation made. without going into the details of how that's done. You know it and I do. Uh all that to say, uh in your professional opinion, can the facade be retained?

357
01:50:53.199 --> 01:51:10.000
>> I don't think so in this case. And you're speaking to a member of a historic preservation commission member in the village of Rididgewood. So that's not what I'm testifying as here today. I'm a structural engineer here in >> a civil. >> And um we do adaptive reuse projects.

358
01:51:10.000 --> 01:51:25.920
I'm not saying that it is impossible. However, in this particular case with the floor levels, with the ADA accessibility, with an attempt to try and extract the glue that is putting together the

359
01:51:25.920 --> 01:51:41.920
inside structure from the facade and prying it away on a structure that's already cracked. And is that the It'd be hard. I I think that I've seen these things done in the city. never done one like that. But um in my professional

360
01:51:41.920 --> 01:51:58.719
opinion in this case it's either one or the other, right? And I think that if one tried to keep this fragile facade, albeit at the wrong heights as a civil engineer in the front and trying to attach a building to it afterwards, you

361
01:51:58.719 --> 01:52:14.080
know, because lateral stability would have to be done somehow, right? I'd have to somehow make a connection on old brick. I would struggle with how to connect it again. Would I be able to figure something out

362
01:52:14.080 --> 01:52:29.920
perhaps? But I nothing comes to mind right now that would be um a solution where I could take that old facade and connect the lateral loads into the building carefully. I I'd have to think about it. >> Well, thanks for your care. Thank you.

363
01:52:29.920 --> 01:52:46.400
>> One follow up to light question. We were talking about all those solutions to uh shore up the building while you investigated. Is there a material likelihood that after doing that investigation you would come to the conclusion that the building

364
01:52:46.400 --> 01:53:11.440
itself was not salvageable? That that question comes with money and I'm not prepared to answer that. If money was no object and you wanted to keep the existing building, um,

365
01:53:11.440 --> 01:53:26.960
structurally one can stabilize something, but it will not be a product that is level unless you fake the levelness and you make it level. Um, and we we've had these discussions with our client and one

366
01:53:26.960 --> 01:53:43.119
thing that was compelling because we did try, right? We did try and the initial plan was to try at the end of the day. Um the product would be forget the exact word our client used but it would not be a product that anybody would want inside

367
01:53:43.119 --> 01:54:00.320
after we were done with all of these um connections reinforcements on the inside. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Um I have a >> can I ask just one more question? Um, in your professional opinion,

368
01:54:00.320 --> 01:54:14.239
are you saying that none of these structural deficiencies could be corrected with steel? They certainly they can. Sure. I I'm not saying that um if I were hired to

369
01:54:14.239 --> 01:54:32.560
reinforce a building, one could do it. I would not I am not declaring this unsafe or um un salvageable but the question is if you look at photograph

370
01:54:32.560 --> 01:54:48.719
four how would you reinforce that that one? I mean >> well I'm talking about how you're referring to the you know the sagging and the floor loads. I mean steel eliminates all that. you would still have a floor that that would have to be

371
01:54:48.719 --> 01:55:04.560
packed in to become level. Your your final product would have to be leveled. So assuming you could reinforce structurally the underside of the building with flitch plates or any other means or new beams,

372
01:55:04.560 --> 01:55:20.719
new connections, right? Figure out where the load is going. The product at the end would not be flat. You you wouldn't be able to jack this thing back up to its original condition. you would only have be able to stop it from moving. And so I would never be able to guarantee

373
01:55:20.719 --> 01:55:36.800
our client what he wants, which is a a flat floor that doesn't uh creek. If you were to do that, you could only do it cosmetically afterwards. You'd have to go and put plywood, layers of plywood onto something to try and get it to look flatter, but you'll never get it

374
01:55:36.800 --> 01:55:54.080
to be this building will never be unless it's completely removed, right? But to try and keep that existing structure and not have to explain why there's dips, it'll be I I don't think that that's possible without extensive cosmetic work

375
01:55:54.080 --> 01:56:10.320
after you've reinforced the structure. >> I I have questions. Um so since it is a historic structure, aren't there state and federal resources um experts out there? And I I know there is money out

376
01:56:10.320 --> 01:56:26.320
there to help reinvest in and into these historic structures and and to preserve them. Wouldn't wouldn't if if you were tasked with that to save as much as you can of the existing structure, whether or not be you know was it whether be the

377
01:56:26.320 --> 01:56:42.560
the building or just the facade. I would think if you're not if that's not part of your expertise, you'd be able to use these resources, like I said, state and federal level um with the funding to help in this with this

378
01:56:42.560 --> 01:56:58.880
project. Is there a reason why that wouldn't be? >> I think that's a question better for the developer council. I haven't looked into programs. I mean, I've heard that there's tax credits, but that's not my area of expertise. uh every historic restoration that I have done and there

379
01:56:58.880 --> 01:57:15.199
have been many that have some that have been demolished, some that have not have not been with those programs, they have been um without the benefit of those programs. So I I'm I'm sorry, but I either developer or somebody else can answer back. >> And then I have another question. Is

380
01:57:15.199 --> 01:57:31.679
this a one is this your this is your um exhibit? Is that um an accurate image um photograph of what it would be like standing across the street on Beachwood looking at the building? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I'm just confused because you

381
01:57:31.679 --> 01:57:48.239
said the the um the fourth floor the is really not really visible because it's set back. I think it's very visible from this angle. Is there a way that it could have been like this is across the street and you just you do see that whole floor? where

382
01:57:48.239 --> 01:58:04.000
I was expecting at this angle to not be able to see anything because it would be so far back if there's I guess there's some sort of overhang that's really protruding um along the front. >> So the front is about 11 ft back from

383
01:58:04.000 --> 01:58:19.520
the building but six 16.4t from the property line. So we took as much as we could from the most visible side which is Beachwood. So from this side um you do you're right you do see

384
01:58:19.520 --> 01:58:35.840
the side the side we only set back about a foot this side right so this is are you referring to the >> I'm talking about the whole the whole gray um third floor it is very visible from from the way you explained it and then when you look at the >> fourth floor or third floor

385
01:58:35.840 --> 01:58:51.760
>> the fourth floor >> fourth floor >> the fourth floor the way you explained it is that you know it's going to be step back so it's not visible if this is the street you I think it's very visible from there um from this angle. Um is there a way to make it so that you do

386
01:58:51.760 --> 01:59:09.199
not see any of that fourth floor from from the from the street level? The problem is that without exceeding the F we tried to take the volume from the back and just take that volume without

387
01:59:09.199 --> 01:59:26.880
asking for another variance. So to keep the F at three, that's what you wind up with. It's a good question. And any farther back, you would go less than what we currently have, which is about 300 feet or so,

388
01:59:26.880 --> 01:59:43.920
approximately less than um what's permitted. So, and that's we did it for good reason. Like what you said, we wanted we wanted at least have 11 foot balcony, but if if you do any more then um you can't get the space.

389
01:59:43.920 --> 01:59:59.199
>> What's permitted for the F just to tag along on to that question? I think it's you know the one of the things that I'm sort of struggling with to is that it's really not about the F. It's about three stories. That's what's permitted. So it

390
01:59:59.199 --> 02:00:16.159
doesn't matter that you're below the F. one story above and even without that story, if you were to remove it, it's still a bigger building than it was before. So, I it it's the conversation is making it sound like what's making it

391
02:00:16.159 --> 02:00:32.080
four stories is that, you know, we're we're moving things around. That's from like the maximum building if you were going to build it three stories, which is still an option, correct? To just build three stories and maximize your F in three stories. that is still an

392
02:00:32.080 --> 02:00:48.000
option. >> I I I wouldn't answer that. That's a question for the >> I mean, it's an option when you're planning a new building. That's the point, right? There it's a choice to keep the the parking versus maximize the F and stay within the um the the number

393
02:00:48.000 --> 02:01:04.320
of loud stories. >> The other, if I understand you correctly, the other choice would be build it to 3.0 F at three floors. Is that your question? >> Yes. >> Okay. I I'm not Yeah. Again, that's not

394
02:01:04.320 --> 02:01:20.239
the application here this evening, but uh 3.0 would be a zero lot line, three times the area of the property, which would be more than this building, >> about 300 square feet, you said before. >> Well, more more because we also chose

395
02:01:20.239 --> 02:01:36.800
not to I didn't mention this earlier, but there's an angle uh on the property. the east the um the city street on the side the alleyway is at an angle. So we chose to make it orthogonal

396
02:01:36.800 --> 02:01:52.800
thereby losing that strip. So theoretically a little more complicated structure but you could make the building taper a little bit and then get 3.0. There's a way. But again, it

397
02:01:52.800 --> 02:02:10.080
takes away from a 3-foot offset for the benefit of the neighbors. It takes away from an orthogonal building. And it takes away from our clients as a civil engineer charge of trying to at least keep four two tandem spaces. So that's

398
02:02:10.080 --> 02:02:26.400
the >> Sorry, did you have any >> I I have a somewhat related question and I'm sorry that you're getting peppered by questions that might be better asked of the developer, but it's a pretty simple one. Who owns the alley?

399
02:02:26.400 --> 02:02:42.320
Is it the Is the alley part of the >> city of Summit? >> The city of Summit. >> I should know that. Thank you. >> Any >> Yeah, I just got I'm a little confused about these cracks. So this is a wood frame building

400
02:02:42.320 --> 02:02:58.800
with a brick facade. >> Yes. >> So technically speaking, the brick facade is not structural. >> The wood's holding the building up. >> Uh it is structural because there's a wind load, there's seismic, there's wind. It's not seismically.

401
02:02:58.800 --> 02:03:17.520
>> So if the if the brick were to fall down, the wood frame would remain or would the whole thing fall down? >> I >> Is there a gap between the facade and the structure? Um, we'll leave that for the Arctic. But I would You're the engineer, so I thought you would. >> But to be clear, I have not seen, and

402
02:03:17.520 --> 02:03:33.920
that's what I testified to before, and I'm not going to guess. Structural engineers don't like to guess. >> I did. I have not with my own eyes seen the connection, all the connections between the facade and the inside. And until I see that, I don't know. Because

403
02:03:33.920 --> 02:03:51.840
usually facad sit on a steel ledger, >> right? No, the brick facade. Not this one. So, how how does the how does the brick facade rest? Is it on a footing? >> Based on my experience, it's uh it rests on a rubble. It rests on a stone, not

404
02:03:51.840 --> 02:04:09.840
rubble, it's a it's a stone round uh footing foundation wall that comes up. It's about 20 in thick. The brick then rests on that and the old heavy timbers are pocketed into the facade. Yeah.

405
02:04:09.840 --> 02:04:26.880
>> But there's no steel in the facade in my opinion. >> Um but for those step cracks to occur, I would want to see how that engages and how the loads are transferred. Not just the vertical loads. >> Kind of goes to my question. The structure, the wood frame

406
02:04:26.880 --> 02:04:43.119
could theoretically be fine and the facade is what's moving >> except that >> mortar could be worn away by rain. >> As you go inside, the floors are dipping everywhere. >> Buildings,

407
02:04:43.119 --> 02:04:58.239
>> they do. >> How old? Two almost 200 years old. >> Well, the one next door is 1892, so let's just assume it'sund and something years old. I mean, there was construction done. Uh, well, let's not get into that. I'm I'm trying to figure

408
02:04:58.239 --> 02:05:15.520
out how this facade is considered structural other than the the attaching points that are holding the facade to the wood frame. There might be L brackets. They might be star I don't think there's any star hold compressors in there, things like that. So, while

409
02:05:15.520 --> 02:05:31.920
we're touting that there's cracks in the facade, >> I'm struggling with the fact that you're you really haven't talked about the structure of the building itself other than the corner in the back where the foundation is. We all know found, you know, well, I built a house in town and

410
02:05:31.920 --> 02:05:47.840
I really shouldn't say this, but cracks happen. You know, it happens. It just happens. And um I kind of see water intrusion in the back from poor maint maintenance of the gutters. The facade crack in the the crown molding that

411
02:05:47.840 --> 02:06:04.000
looks like it's wood, not part of the structure. So that's that happens on every building. I was just trying to get my hands around the the frame of the building is wood frame. I'm 99.9% sure of that. The facade is attached to that wood frame. So the

412
02:06:04.000 --> 02:06:19.679
facade can be removed and the structure could be reinforced, so to speak. But I'm not an engineer. I don't know. I'm just trying to get my hands around. We're touting how these cracks are are structural, but I think they're structural in the facade, not the structure of the building other than

413
02:06:19.679 --> 02:06:36.079
the settlement of the floors, which the building's 180 something year. My math I was never good at math. So, but it's it's a pretty old building. I mean, my father had a house in town and the floors dropped. You dropped the marble, it went zoom, >> right? >> Yeah. >> The new the new person who bought the

414
02:06:36.079 --> 02:06:52.639
house fixed it. >> So, I I can tell you that this facade is not a curtain wall. >> Okay. >> It's not an independent uh architectural ele element. It is part of the structure. It takes the lateral loads when the wind blows and transfers them

415
02:06:52.639 --> 02:07:09.280
into a horizontal diaphragm of wood that is made up of heavy timbers, plywood, and stuff like that. supporting the roof. >> It is. It is. And it could be supporting some of the deck of the roof, maybe not the entire roof. And there's a pocket there.

416
02:07:09.280 --> 02:07:25.360
>> There's a pocket in the front. And the spine runs front to back on this building. >> So, and the structure runs left to right. So, we know that the brick takes it >> uh on in the pockets. But >> in this type of vintage, >> the facade is part of the building. It's

417
02:07:25.360 --> 02:07:41.679
again, I have to repeat, it's not a curtain wall. It has to take the wind load. It has to take the seismic load and then transfer that to the floors from the floors into the earth. So separating them in this case is a hard

418
02:07:41.679 --> 02:07:58.400
one. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Curran, did you have any questions? >> Um I think I I think I have two. Um, one is, uh, related to, um, the soils

419
02:07:58.400 --> 02:08:15.119
beneath the building. What do you know about what lies beneath the building? Is it clay? Is it what do we have there? >> We hadings. Yes. Yes. We had a geotechnical report done and the soil is

420
02:08:15.119 --> 02:08:32.880
um fairly solid at approximately now this is from I don't have it in front of me but it's about 20 ft or so it's very strong up until 8 or so feet it's uh somewhat loose and then we have um

421
02:08:32.880 --> 02:08:48.000
approximately and we're still waiting for the geo part of the geotechnical report but I think we have approximately three tons per square foot at the proposed footing at the bottom. So, it's it's uh it's not that bad. The soils are

422
02:08:48.000 --> 02:09:03.360
not that bad. We did one boring at the center of the proposed parking lot. And so, for the proposed new building, will there be uh I'm just I'm asking this because I'm wondering what kind of structural support will be required for

423
02:09:03.360 --> 02:09:18.800
that building. Will that have helical piles? >> No. No. That's a that's a great question. And so I've I've designed the structure of the proposed building. The proposed building will uh have beginning with the basement a 20 or so inch thick

424
02:09:18.800 --> 02:09:33.360
reinforced concrete wall poured on the inside. We don't want to mess with too much of the old rubble. Basically it's useless. Right. So upon demolition

425
02:09:33.360 --> 02:09:51.440
um there will be an interior wall poured that's thick that will take the load from a proposed structural steel and metal deck system. We're going to take the second floor and can lever it over and as one of the your board fellow

426
02:09:51.440 --> 02:10:07.199
board members said a modern system more like a curtain wall is going to hang a galvanized angle and then put the brick and the facade that you see on that way. So these will be on uh on galvanized angles, but the primary structural

427
02:10:07.199 --> 02:10:24.320
system will consist of brand new independent spread footings in the middle, concrete footings. In the middle, a continuous wall footing around the perimeter that's fairly thick. The columns will go on that and then after

428
02:10:24.320 --> 02:10:40.800
we get to the the top, they can lever over and you build the building. So it's independent. It's as if the old stuff didn't exist anymore. >> And how deep are those footings? >> Great question. So, you have to be very

429
02:10:40.800 --> 02:10:58.079
careful before you begin to look at your adjacent structures. Uh we will we've been and we'll go into uh the adjacent basement. We measure the bottom of footings. We estimate the bottom. So, you never go below the bottom of footing

430
02:10:58.079 --> 02:11:13.760
around the other properties. You could, but in this case, we are not recommending that we underpin either the building to the the left or behind it. Um, the elevator, proposed elevator in this

431
02:11:13.760 --> 02:11:31.920
building doesn't go to the basement. So, that's by design so that we don't have to go below the bottom of the footing on any of the adjacent properties. So, as long as you go to the bottom of the footing, you should be safe. Our specifications for the structure include

432
02:11:31.920 --> 02:11:48.320
um a requirement that if this is approved that our consultant will come out upon excavation to confirm that the basement is of sufficient loadbearing capacity uh as sort of like a belt and suspenders to confirm that we have three

433
02:11:48.320 --> 02:12:04.480
or five tons per square foot to put our new footings on because right now there's a building there. So um >> I mean I guess part one of my reasons for asking that is one if you could put helical piles if you need helical piles under one building you and you know the

434
02:12:04.480 --> 02:12:21.119
existing building. I was wondering if you needed them for the new building. But the other one is obviously the structural stability of the surrounding buildings. I mean the deeper you excavate the more likely you are to impact the stability of those buildings around you. Um which is a concern. um

435
02:12:21.119 --> 02:12:36.560
you know keeping a structure in sight and put in place and putting a helical pile under it is less likely to impact the neighboring building than a deep excavation you know depending on what you're doing with the foundation. So that was and we typically do get like

436
02:12:36.560 --> 02:12:52.639
structural drawings for this something of this scope but there were no structural drawings. So I don't even know if we're asking all the Marie might have other structural questions. I don't know all the questions that we might have asked if we had seen a drawing, but seeing as there aren't, um I'm just

437
02:12:52.639 --> 02:13:09.440
taking a stab at some of the questions that we might have asked. The other one is related to um in downtown Summit. Is there any um are there any buildings that we're aware of where they've had to do, you know, jackhammering or, you

438
02:13:09.440 --> 02:13:25.360
know, blasting or anything? I know we don't allow blasting, but jackhammering to get your foundation work done because I know it's happened in some neighborhoods in Summit and again that would impact the surrounding buildings. So before uh we do anything and we've

439
02:13:25.360 --> 02:13:40.480
done some of these in the city of Summit already, we painstakingly go to every property around us before we start construction and we take photographs and measure any cracks, foundation cracks,

440
02:13:40.480 --> 02:13:58.239
uh water, and so we clearly document everything on the basement of the buildings around us. We've done this on 475 Springfield, for example. Again, it's very important for me to reiterate that upon excavation, my design as it

441
02:13:58.239 --> 02:14:15.199
stands today does not go below the bottom of footing of any of the adjacent buildings, which in structures is a good thing because we're not proposing to underpin the building to the left or underpin the building to the back.

442
02:14:15.199 --> 02:14:33.599
You're correct when a proposed building has a need for a deeper basement and then you have to underpin which we've done before. Underpinning is not difficult uh especially here in Summit because the soils are quite tight and do well with

443
02:14:33.599 --> 02:14:48.960
underpinning but again that's not contemplated here. I hope I've answered your question in that the existing stuff is basically staying so it doesn't get removed. doesn't matter and a brand new independent system not below or in any

444
02:14:48.960 --> 02:15:03.840
way affecting the adjacent structure. So, uh, one more thing again without being repetitive, the code, and that was something that I believe was testified to earlier, uh, requires an engineer to look at the adjacent structures before.

445
02:15:03.840 --> 02:15:20.000
And part of that consent, I think, is what we've also always done is to confer with the adjacent property owners to make sure that the proposed construction does not in any way exacerbate an existing condition or, you know, make it make it worse. So that's all part of

446
02:15:20.000 --> 02:15:34.639
doing construction next to existing buildings. I hope I've answered your question. Again, we're not going below the the footings. >> Okay. And I guess the the second question I have is, you know, sort of related to other questions that

447
02:15:34.639 --> 02:15:51.599
have come to the board from the board um starting with Mr. Chenuli and sort of the load supporting beams. Um, if you keep just the exterior structure and you demolish everything on the inside because your goal is to just preserve the streetscape,

448
02:15:51.599 --> 02:16:07.520
um, you could you design this where it doesn't matter anymore. You don't have any floors. Doesn't matter that they're not level. You could start over from the inside. Could you I mean you had suggested that you could by demol like when you said oh if you wanted to make

449
02:16:07.520 --> 02:16:23.679
the um that you know entrance ADA compliant you'd have to demolish the stairs and you know put an entrance well if it were a blank slate and just somebody said this is a box that you you have to work with could you design a an

450
02:16:23.679 --> 02:16:40.399
interior to the building that would um be structurally sound? I'm not quite sure I understand. But >> so if you demolish so keep the facility. >> I live in a house that is not, you know, not labeled on the historic registry,

451
02:16:40.399 --> 02:16:57.200
but it's a historic looking house in a neighborhood. And when we renovated it, we pretty much gutted the inside of the house, but intentionally kept the outside of the house to keep with the streetscape. And you can start, you know, you can you can start if you did something like that and you just had an

452
02:16:57.200 --> 02:17:14.080
open box. If with this building, could you do you think you could >> design something within the current just footprint and maybe add on the back >> and and keep which facade? Keep just the front. >> The front or and the like the front and the side if you were going to keep that

453
02:17:14.080 --> 02:17:30.800
look. Just keep the exterior and demolish the interior knowing that you have to do a asbestous abatement. Either way, that's going to happen either way. You can't just if you demolish it and correct me if I'm wrong, but you cannot just go and demolish the whole building because you still have to go in and

454
02:17:30.800 --> 02:17:46.960
remove all the asbestous first, which you would have to do if you were renovating as well. Is that correct? >> Not necessarily. I mean, the building currently can be occupied. I think the removal of asbestous is required when you touch it.

455
02:17:46.960 --> 02:18:02.800
>> What? Right. When you demolish a building that has asbestous in it, you can't demolish the building. You have to do because you're you're then you're letting the fibers out into the people in the street. Right. >> So if you were to renovate the building, you would still have to selectively um remove asbestous if you were opening.

456
02:18:02.800 --> 02:18:17.359
>> Right. Understand? Right. I understand that. So what I'm saying is you have to let's just say you have to remove the spe asbestous anyway. Regardless of what you do, you have to remove the asbestous. So you've done that. Now you and you've gutted the whole building with what you have on the outside. Could

457
02:18:17.359 --> 02:18:35.519
you could this just the exterior be used? Put in supporting beams, you know, and so that you can get your design that you want open spaces, whatever you want. Could you use the exterior of this building to make >> as my professional opinion as a

458
02:18:35.519 --> 02:18:50.559
structural engineer, but I'll extend into I've already been qualified as an architect. Um, my the answer is no. I think it's either one or the other. I think that if you tried to take an existing facade that has a

459
02:18:50.559 --> 02:19:07.359
step crack on the third level, on the second level that you can see and a foundation and try to gingerly and selectively and carefully extract from it the beams that are resting on it in my opinion as also as a contractor.

460
02:19:07.359 --> 02:19:23.280
Again, I haven't been qualified as such, but you will mutilate that facade in the process. And I think it'll be very difficult for a person like me to certify it without starting it and trying to do it and seeing what what what comes up. These

461
02:19:23.280 --> 02:19:41.359
are filled with surprises. And I see certain signs that the surprises might not be that easy to resolve. So to answer your question, my opinion is I don't think at least my office would be capable of

462
02:19:41.359 --> 02:19:58.080
extracting the facade from the structure inside and meeting the goals that uh the developer has of a office building that uh as an architect would would rent would be needed >> and most likely the facade would not be

463
02:19:58.080 --> 02:20:14.960
saved, right? It would >> you would only know when you start to remove everything on the inside. A pocket after 120 years does not come out of that brick nicely. You would have to chip around it, shake the facade above

464
02:20:14.960 --> 02:20:31.040
your head, one that's already cracked. Again, it's a tough one to do in the way you're suggesting. a home is somewhat easier because if the outside is wood or wood, it has more give and take perhaps

465
02:20:31.040 --> 02:20:47.760
uh a home. Um but this particular building would be hard to remove one from the other. In my opinion, they go together. >> Thank you. >> So, so that kind of gets back to my question. Um, if you were to strip the

466
02:20:47.760 --> 02:21:03.439
inside of this building down to the wood frame, all that's left is the four exterior walls and the wood frame on the inside. That would give you a better understanding of whether you could salvage what you have or not. >> Yes, it would.

467
02:21:03.439 --> 02:21:20.240
>> So, with your preliminary um review of the building, you said you you removed some drop tiles on the third floor. So, what's the actual ceiling height on the third floor? about eight feet or so I think >> with the drops with from the drop ceiling down or from the original

468
02:21:20.240 --> 02:21:42.080
ceiling down >> 9 foot three to the framing. So there is there is an option. I know I know I know with commercial structures we want to have you know 10 12 foot ceilings with the bar joists so we could run everything inside and be hidden and all that but with a with a 10 foot I'm sorry

469
02:21:42.080 --> 02:21:56.479
what' you say 10 foot 9 foot >> 9 foot three >> you could theoretically run AC duct work electrical wires communication wires and hide them with a

470
02:21:56.479 --> 02:22:15.359
>> I mean it's doable walls. >> It's done all the time. >> Sprinklers. >> And sprinklers. You could run sprinklers. >> But again, the ceiling would be at 7 foot6. >> If you took 9 minus duct work,

471
02:22:15.359 --> 02:22:32.960
>> uh you'd get down to a seven 76 ceiling. You wouldn't get to eight. >> I'm not I'm not an expert, so I don't know. >> Here's what we do. But from from clear structure, we always all lot two feet. Would that be a fair number? So 2 feet minus 9 foot3 would leave you with a 7

472
02:22:32.960 --> 02:22:49.840
foot3 clear office space which >> Okay, that makes sense. >> Yeah, makes sense. But that but then um and I'm just asking questions. So above the so on the third floor you dropped some tiles and you saw tin ceilings,

473
02:22:49.840 --> 02:23:06.000
whatever you saw. Is there room there is there room above those or you don't know? Is there is there a loft or attic space or >> No. No, >> it's just the layers of drop ceiling. Um, other types of ceiling that are there, those with the holes in them.

474
02:23:06.000 --> 02:23:21.280
>> Okay. >> I I think the applicant also wanted to respond to your com. >> Okay, good. >> Apologize. Thank you. >> So, I just wanted to address the question about, you know, if you stripped everything inside, left the walls, what would you be left with? And I think it's really important to

475
02:23:21.280 --> 02:23:36.080
understand what you'd be left with. you'd be left with a facade that has not just lots of cracks and fractures. You have rotting cornises that need to be dealt with. You've got

476
02:23:36.080 --> 02:23:53.359
brick pieces of brick that are missing and not compatible in terms of probably lots of patching work that's gone on over the years. You're going to need new new windows. You have storefronts that, like I said, there's there's nothing

477
02:23:53.359 --> 02:24:08.640
historic or contextual about those storefronts. They've been modified many times over the years. And that's assuming you can still deal with the ADA compliance issue and the ceiling heights because the windows, the position of the windows are what dictates floor heights.

478
02:24:08.640 --> 02:24:24.160
And I I firmly agree. You're talking about ceiling heights less than 8 feet. That's not that's not readily acceptable in any condition from an occupiable standpoint. So you're you go to all this work to try to figure out how to create

479
02:24:24.160 --> 02:24:41.040
a structure inside a box to preserve a box that at the end of the day, as I say, has very little historical context remaining. How many coats of paint, missing brick, rotted cortises, old cheap replacement windows, and a storefronts that don't really have any

480
02:24:41.040 --> 02:24:58.080
context. So, I just think it's important perspective-wise to understand you could if you could do all this work, which I agree. I'm not a structural engineer. I think it would be very difficult to support exterior walls with no interior

481
02:24:58.080 --> 02:25:15.120
framing to try to figure that out. Um, but and what you're left with is to me a really compromised, right, >> exterior situation. >> So, so here's what I'm struggling with. Downtown's declared a historical district. Not so much the buildings per se, but

482
02:25:15.120 --> 02:25:31.680
the district. So, we're changing the face of that. I think it's a beautiful building, don't get me wrong. We're changing the face of that historical district and what based on if we were to if we were to do this on every block, would we lose that historical district

483
02:25:31.680 --> 02:25:48.080
feel? That's kind of what I'm struggling with. So, if I can just jump in, I think that's why there's the historical preservation design guidelines so that any new building can infill and match up with some of the existing historic

484
02:25:48.080 --> 02:26:05.359
buildings, which the architect is going to testify to as to why this meets all of those >> Okay. >> design criteria as well as the um the design guidelines in the ordinance. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, but that but but you're going for the extra height. It's it's not I mean

485
02:26:05.359 --> 02:26:21.920
for me I can I mean I could live with you know the design of the building. It's it's it's the height. So you're going you want that extra height. So it to me it's more like it's something that you want but you don't really need to

486
02:26:21.920 --> 02:26:37.760
have it. It's it it you're going through it so why not do it? It's not something that's needed. So, what changes the whole scope of the thing is the height of the building with that extra floor. >> And I think >> and I think the I think the main driver of why

487
02:26:37.760 --> 02:26:53.760
um you don't want to put the effort into restoration is because you mentioned the height of the basement. So, I think you're going you're looking for a higher basement height. You That's what you That's what you

488
02:26:53.760 --> 02:27:09.920
said. you you said the the basement was low and that you want to increase the height of the basement. So that would make it more difficult to preserve, you know, the facade of the building because you want to raise the height of the basement. >> Uh I apologize for that um

489
02:27:09.920 --> 02:27:26.880
misunderstanding, but to be clear, the basement in the proposed building is staying at uh 7 foot zero. We're not making it deeper. >> And the elevator is not going to go to the basement. It'll be dead. No, I apologize. It's going to be dead storage uh if anybody needs it. The developer

490
02:27:26.880 --> 02:27:42.399
has decided not to go deeper and that goes with the chairwoman vice chairwoman's suggestion that we're not digging adjacent to anybody's footings. Um, I have a question about the height the I'm a So if the if the floors are,

491
02:27:42.399 --> 02:27:58.160
you know, 9 feet 3 in, right? Times three, that's 28 ft with a little bit of space between the the um with, you know, each story couple feet, right? That's 32 feet. This building, existing building

492
02:27:58.160 --> 02:28:14.160
is 41 ft. So, it doesn't actually make sense to me that the the maximum height is only 9 ft either. So, there's some something in the height that I think we're missing. >> I think the first floor is different, but the architect can Do you want him to answer that now or

493
02:28:14.160 --> 02:28:30.560
>> I guess I guess we can we'll wait for the architect. There are other questions from the board. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, I'm waiting. >> Apologize. Sorry. I wanted to address uh this gentleman's question about the height and and if I understood it

494
02:28:30.560 --> 02:28:45.280
correct I just want to make sure I frame the question correct is that we're seeking the fourth floor and the height variance that and that's the driver behind wanting to do a new building >> I understand that but I I thought he had

495
02:28:45.280 --> 02:29:02.560
mentioned that um one of the one of the problems was the basement height was very low and I thought that was your intention to try to increase your height of the basement. >> Uh, no. No. The while, and I'm again,

496
02:29:02.560 --> 02:29:18.880
I'm not sure I'm going to answer the question the way that you're thinking about it, but in the in the new proposed building, we were going to create a new functional basement, the existing basement. >> Same height. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's I think the base the the first floor is going to determine the

497
02:29:18.880 --> 02:29:33.600
depth and height of that basement because we're not digging down. We're not going to lower that level of the basement floor because of all the structural underpinninging reasons that Mr. Tapseris uh alluded to. So, we anticipate having the height of the basement the same. Um

498
02:29:33.600 --> 02:29:50.319
it's it's really dungeonous down there right now. You wouldn't want to spend any time down there. So, we'll make that as part of that new box that he was referring to new. Um does that answer the question or is there something else about the fourth floor? I don't have any numbers that I could look at to see what the basement height is now on the

499
02:29:50.319 --> 02:30:05.040
existing building and what the basement height will be on the new building. >> Yeah, there's no proposed change on the on the the height of the basement. That's not a driver. If you want to go to the elevation sheet, most important thing we're doing

500
02:30:05.040 --> 02:30:21.760
is making sure that from the sidewalk you now go a little bit lower on the with the first floor so it's handicap accessible which will just basically make the basement 7 foot0. >> Is that what it is now? >> It's about 73 7. It's a little higher,

501
02:30:21.760 --> 02:30:38.800
but by the time we take out that height when the step when you walk in the front door, when you shave that out and the the front the ground floor is flat, in fact, we'll lose some depth of the basement to 7 foot0, but the proposed design does not contemplate making it

502
02:30:38.800 --> 02:30:53.760
deeper or >> Oh, well, I didn't I understood that you couldn't make it deeper. I just thought you were trying to elevate the whole building in order to accommodate. >> Great. >> Great question. So again, to be clear with my answer, if anything, it's the other way around because we're

503
02:30:53.760 --> 02:31:10.840
eliminating steps that go up for h for and so we're actually going the other way digging into our space into the basement. Yeah. >> No other questions from the board. Are there questions from the public?

504
02:31:12.319 --> 02:31:32.000
>> Please state your name and your address before you ask your question. Uh Caroline King, 38 Gloucester and disclosure, I am chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. Um so, um what I'd like to do is because um I'm sorry I

505
02:31:32.000 --> 02:31:48.399
can't pronounce your name properly. >> Um this is I just like to >> is just for questions of this witness at this point. >> It's not for comments, but it might help the question because um since he's the architect and this is the These are two

506
02:31:48.399 --> 02:32:04.319
photos from his website. So, these are all questions based on well that he has these photos and I think they're relevant because in his um certification, right? >> So, is this for Mr. Tapiser?

507
02:32:04.319 --> 02:32:19.200
>> Engineering or architecture because the architect hasn't testified yet. >> Um well, this would be engineering because on his website he shows his portfolio, right? and he's chosen um not

508
02:32:19.200 --> 02:32:35.600
that many photos on his website and two of them are you know what I don't have any details on what he put but two of them are historic so from an engineering standpoint the questions uh would be around you know his uh past experience

509
02:32:35.600 --> 02:32:52.319
or what he's showing on his website as what appear to be so I think without the picture it might be difficult but I'm sure he knows what is on his website um but I thought it might be helpful for the board to see that. Um, and it's from background. >> If you're going to raise those points,

510
02:32:52.319 --> 02:33:07.840
that would be in the public comment portion at the end. Um, I mean, I'll defer to Hillary if you object to the introduction of those as part of the question at this stage. >> Okay. So, the the architect is going to

511
02:33:07.840 --> 02:33:25.280
talk about both of those properties in his testimony. So, maybe your question might get answered or it might be better addressed to him. Okay, that's fair. I just his name is on the firm. So that's why I thought this was the appropriate time. But I I think the question would

512
02:33:25.280 --> 02:33:43.439
be again if the diff is is there a difference in your opinion um professionally when you say the words you're working with the existing building and working with it would not be impossible but then you're saying however it it does not meet the

513
02:33:43.439 --> 02:33:58.720
requirements or the goals of your client. So I think it's a question between the use of the building versus the ability to rehabilitate the building, right? And so I think the question is structurally and from an

514
02:33:58.720 --> 02:34:14.720
engineering standpoint, is it actually feasible? And this is not the economic question or that would be what was raised earlier by another board member. And so if you looked at those two points independently, the building

515
02:34:14.720 --> 02:34:32.399
itself, could it be preserved? And so if you change the use or this concept of adaptive reuse, right? It's how you're adapting or what the use is. So if those are two independent questions, you could preserve the building and that's the question. Could you in your professional

516
02:34:32.399 --> 02:34:49.680
opinion and you know we're talking about whether you have a completely open modern floor plan, right? So I think that's the question first and then I could follow up. >> So to be clear on the question whether

517
02:34:49.680 --> 02:35:05.439
or not use can be separated from structure >> but that's not the application here. The application is for a modern office building. Um

518
02:35:05.439 --> 02:35:21.439
I am going to answer a theoretical question. if one had nothing to do with the other, which is not what we were hired to to do. Um, your question then would be on the first part, can this building be

519
02:35:21.439 --> 02:35:36.560
what is the exact question? Salvaged or made >> rehabilitated or adaptively reused, right? Preserved. >> Again, that then we're blending the question. But if I if I can draw a line, >> you're asking whether or not this

520
02:35:36.560 --> 02:35:53.120
structure can be structurally made safe and rehabilitated. I previously testified to that it could. I said that in the front page of my report that uh parts of the foundation would require helical piles to stabilize them. That's

521
02:35:53.120 --> 02:36:10.240
my professional opinion. I think that the cracks uh can be repaired. you would have to do further invasive testing. Uh but based on my experience, the solution would not

522
02:36:10.240 --> 02:36:26.760
be attractive. There is no way that that step cracking will ever disappear. You will always see it even if you tried to fill it in and even if you there's no way you could jack it up. That's my opinion. >> Could it ever be compliant?

523
02:36:27.120 --> 02:36:44.000
>> Yes. structurally kept accessible and all of the other things >> that goes beyond into the architect's testimony, but from a purely structural engineering perspective, >> um I think I've answered that. But if you get into the other questions that council raised, the answer is no. You'd

524
02:36:44.000 --> 02:37:02.000
have to remove a structural part of the floor to create a handicap accessible ramp. So then I think the other question is and and I'm not sure who to address this

525
02:37:02.000 --> 02:37:17.040
to because it's been said multiple times. Um but in terms of talking about have you you know as a firm worked with historic properties and and you certainly you know in your um website

526
02:37:17.040 --> 02:37:39.319
have a few photos. Uh, I think the question is in terms of have you worked with historic properties that are on the national register of historic places. >> We have um in our portfolio

527
02:37:39.920 --> 02:37:55.680
worked on Gunther Mill. We have worked and restored uh the playhouse in the village of Rididgewood. But in none of those examples has the structure been in the condition that

528
02:37:55.680 --> 02:38:12.560
this particular building is in, especially when it comes to answering the question of function on the inside. So our buildings have won some awards, but they've won awards because they're functional. And

529
02:38:12.560 --> 02:38:29.280
history uh has gone with my expectation. hopefully another 200 years into the future. But in all of the buildings that we've restored that are on our website, the insides had a very different scenario than what

530
02:38:29.280 --> 02:38:46.160
is presented here. And the facades were very different >> is not the same. Not the same. This was unique. >> And I would say of all those different structures, if they were all historic, were they each unique? In other words, you're saying this one is unique? And I

531
02:38:46.160 --> 02:39:01.680
think it is. But were the others that you restored unique to each other? So when you're saying this one's unique, I would ask you in your professional opinion of the other ones. Were they also unique? >> Unique. Uh my definition of unique here

532
02:39:01.680 --> 02:39:17.920
was that there are step cracks on the top right middle of the building. Um we don't know how it's connected and the foundation has signs of differential settlement. In the other ones that I have restored, we did not have to contend with that level of repair

533
02:39:17.920 --> 02:39:32.800
because again, it is my professional opinion as an structural engineer that you can never mask those scars of settlement no matter what you do unless you stuck it, which is not in

534
02:39:32.800 --> 02:39:49.359
my opinion a good answer here. Uh a solution is strapping it which we've done in other places which would mean put steel straps on the inside and outside of the corner to stabilize it and through bolt it is not going to be attractive.

535
02:39:49.359 --> 02:40:07.040
So uniqueness is because of the set of circumstances that this property faces in connection with the proposed use of the inside. That's what makes this more complicated than others and unique in its own way. And you mentioned that um I

536
02:40:07.040 --> 02:40:24.399
think you mentioned earlier um in your uh speaking that you knew of buildings in New York City that were potentially similar in terms of level of um uh challenge or difficulty and that

537
02:40:24.399 --> 02:40:42.800
your firm wasn't necessarily prepared. I don't want to sort of put words in your mouth, but um to address those and is it the case that there could be a firm that could address that for the city of Summit? >> I'm not quite sure I understand the

538
02:40:42.800 --> 02:41:00.880
question. Well, I I don't I I think if there's a recording on this, but the fact that you said that you had seen buildings in the city and that they've been able to hold up the facade essentially and preserve it and then I

539
02:41:00.880 --> 02:41:18.160
think if I heard you correctly, but there are a lot of people in this room that perhaps your firm wasn't equipped to do that, but could the city for example or are there other architect text that you think could provide that service?

540
02:41:18.160 --> 02:41:34.720
>> I don't think so. But again, I don't know if I could answer that question to your your satisfaction. I'm sorry. >> Okay. And then I think in terms of um definition of historic as it relates to summits, ordinances, our DRRO, and the

541
02:41:34.720 --> 02:41:51.439
master plan. Um the question is, is this building historic based on the definitions in the city's documents? I'll have to defer to the architect. >> Okay. Um because there's been multiple conversations here about whether this

542
02:41:51.439 --> 02:42:06.640
building is historic and whether it's just in the district and I'd like to confirm that. Um so if that's not your question, you know, we can defer, the architect can answer that. Uh, but I'd just like to correct for the record

543
02:42:06.640 --> 02:42:24.240
because on the HPC website, we do have the actual application of the historic summit downtown district. And I just like to correct it for the record. And >> Miss King, I think that's going to go towards public comment, which we want,

544
02:42:24.240 --> 02:42:39.280
we definitely want to hear it, but do it in other part. it's been discussed so many times that >> it turns, you know, something that's potentially not correct. So, I'd just like to correct that for the record. It's listed on the National Register.

545
02:42:39.280 --> 02:43:01.680
>> That's if you could bring that up during public comment, that would be great. Thank you. >> Yes. Uh, I'm Jim Bergmeer. I live at 167 Kent Place Boulevard and I'm also on the historic preservation committee. Uh, I do have a question. You did address um,

546
02:43:01.680 --> 02:43:18.880
a question regarding the u underpinning of the existing footings, but uh, I'm also concerned about just basically the safety procedures you have uh, to uh, on the adjacent buildings to protect them during the demolition. what procedures

547
02:43:18.880 --> 02:43:33.439
do you have in place? >> So the the means and methods of that will be something that the general contractor will um work on. It's you know we have on our drawings uh our

548
02:43:33.439 --> 02:43:50.240
design which contemplates not as I said before going under the bottom of footing of the adjacent buildings. Although our client in this case decided not to put the elevator to the basement which in which case we would have had to

549
02:43:50.240 --> 02:44:07.600
have underpinned it. He made a decision to keep things simple. He he made a decision to move 3 ft away from both the buildings in the back >> which I think complicate my design for me but it makes the life

550
02:44:07.600 --> 02:44:25.359
of the adjacent property owners a lot easier. So that three feet is the first response that I have around the back away. And the second thing that I want to reiterate is that the existing uh conditions will not change inside. We're

551
02:44:25.359 --> 02:44:42.160
not making the basement deeper. We're just going to put a new reinforced concrete wall on the inside and that will extend to the bottom of the existing footings of the adjacent building. Um,

552
02:44:42.160 --> 02:44:59.279
fairly simple, not not too complicated. >> Okay. Uh, the buildings, your building and the adjacent building, there is no connection between the two >> as far as structurally. >> Whi- which buildings? >> Uh, the adjacent building to your building. One to the Yeah. The one to

553
02:44:59.279 --> 02:45:15.279
the left. >> Yes, that one. >> None whatsoever. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And also u aren't most um settlement cracks happen shortly after the construction of the building? >> Not these.

554
02:45:15.279 --> 02:45:31.680
>> If somebody had left those cracks for a hundred years doesn't make sense that those cracks in my opinion are perhaps in the last 20 years they're not original. Okay.

555
02:45:31.680 --> 02:45:53.359
>> Yeah. In my opinion, they look pretty new. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions from the public? >> I just have one question and follow up to that. How can you tell that the uh settlement cracks are pretty new as you

556
02:45:53.359 --> 02:46:11.359
said? So, um, usually what people try and do is mask them. And, um, you'll see in a painted building. If you look at the pattern, you'll be able to see that they've been covered. This building must have been painted 20

557
02:46:11.359 --> 02:46:26.479
years ago. It doesn't look like maybe 30, 40 years ago, whenever it was painted. Those those cracks are I can see they're fresher. They're they're they would not have existed for so many years. especially the one in the back right and they usually happen because of

558
02:46:26.479 --> 02:46:43.680
drainage issues in my opinion. So sometimes if a leader leaks and it doesn't get repaired the water is the biggest enemy it reduces the soil bearing capacity from leaks leaks leaks and that's what causes these uh step cracks and settlement cracks. I I in my

559
02:46:43.680 --> 02:46:59.680
opinion it wasn't from the beginning. I don't know when it was, but if I had to get it closer, 20 years, 30 years, these cracks formed. It's in the later part of its life. It's not in the beginning of its life. You you also haven't done a test to see

560
02:46:59.680 --> 02:47:16.960
if those cracks are stable. Right. >> I can tell you there they're anything more than a sixeenth of an inch for us. >> I know, but you I mean there's there's straps you can put on there with a gauge that measures >> an inclinometer. Correct. Yeah, you could put an inclinometer on it,

561
02:47:16.960 --> 02:47:32.760
>> but you haven't done that. >> No, no, no. >> So, they may be stable. >> We'd have to put an inclinometer on. >> If you don't do the test, you don't know, >> right? But anything that large moved. >> Well, I was there today and they looked that large.

562
02:47:34.479 --> 02:47:50.240
>> Okay. >> I I have one one question. Um, how do you know regarding um Mrs. 's question that there's no I know there was a building on um Maple when they did construction they realized it was like they shared

563
02:47:50.240 --> 02:48:06.399
the the joining wall. How do you know do you know for a fact that these are these walls are these two buildings are separate? I don't know what happened. I mean something >> or that boxwoods is not leaning on this. Well, no. Yeah. Like the Elks building

564
02:48:06.399 --> 02:48:21.279
they had, wasn't it? The problem was that they had one they were sharing the wall >> the exterior wall. Was this was it shared wall? Do you How do you Do you know? >> I don't know. But I I don't think so because again I I look at the basement and I see the same interior foundation

565
02:48:21.279 --> 02:48:37.680
wall that looks like it's beneath the building. So, and we did measure the thickness around the perimeter. I'm fairly certain that the adjoining wall is independent because again when you look at the basement it's a it's the same stone around it and it goes the

566
02:48:37.680 --> 02:48:55.040
brick goes above it. >> So I'd also like to address that there's a joint if you look at the building there's different there different bricks different brick patterns and you can see a joint that separates the two buildings which I think is a pretty clear indicator they're two separate independent buildings. Do we know when

567
02:48:55.040 --> 02:49:11.600
this building was constructed? The the >> 1897. >> So, yeah, because some some Well, there's there's a joint there. So, there's a seam, but sometimes the party the party wall the joists the joists

568
02:49:11.600 --> 02:49:27.840
from both buildings sit into that with the fire cut and all that kind of stuff. So, you you're you you're pretty confident that doesn't exist. Again, I'm saying that because if you go to the basement, it's the same wall around and you look up and that's where the

569
02:49:27.840 --> 02:49:44.160
structure goes up and based on what my client said, it's chances are is the general contractor that you're using going to carry liability insurance sufficient to address any potential damage to surrounding buildings?

570
02:49:44.160 --> 02:50:00.080
>> Yes. >> Thank you. >> It's on the drawings. It's a good question. We we list not only what the general contractor has, but the architects the the top left of our construction drawing sheets has all the insurance requirements. >> What what's the face amount?

571
02:50:00.080 --> 02:50:15.920
>> Sorry, >> what's the face amount of the insurance? >> Oh, it is uh one, two, and then five I think we have on the Again, we haven't done the construction drawings yet, so we'd be it could be five for sure on a project like this, but again, we haven't

572
02:50:15.920 --> 02:50:32.160
u finished the construction drawings. Usually we have one to two, two aggregate and five. >> Do you know if there's a minimum that they need to carry for that? >> The state requires I think half a million for a contractor, but we have at least a million to aggregate on our

573
02:50:32.160 --> 02:50:46.800
drawings. >> Perhaps we could craft some condition around that arrive at some sufficient >> because most most of them are 500 million minimum and if they only have the minimum that they make a mistake, they're out of business.

574
02:50:46.800 --> 02:51:04.359
Somebody gets hurt. Good question. >> Any other questions from the public? >> All right. Seeing none, I think we're going to take a five minute break here before we hear from the architect. >> All right. Thank you.

575
03:02:32.800 --> 03:02:49.920
Okay, we're going to resume um the meeting, the hearing here, and we're going to hear from the architect. Just for the public's benefit, um we wanted to let you know that we don't think we're going to get through the full testimony today. There's still a planner after the architect and for tonight. Our

576
03:02:49.920 --> 03:03:04.640
goal is to wrap things up probably around 11 or whenever the architect's testimony ends. Um, and we'll see whether we get to questions for the architect tonight or the next time. And we would be looking at carrying to June

577
03:03:04.640 --> 03:03:31.800
1st. Is that correct? Okay. >> Let's see. Make sure it works before we Yeah. Yeah. >> Any meeting after June 1st is also open. June 1st, June 15th, July 6th, July 20th.

578
03:03:33.840 --> 03:03:56.080
>> Yes. >> We don't need to decide right now either. >> Okay. So, we'll say June 1st for right now. If there's an issue that we can Okay, I guess we're ready to hear from the architect.

579
03:03:56.080 --> 03:04:15.200
>> Sure. Michael Sass. >> All right. 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? >> Yes. >> And please state your name. Spell your last name. >> My name is Michael. Last name is Sass E S E S E S E S E S E S E S E S E S E S is in Sam. A S is in Sam. >> Thank you. you and can you briefly describe your background and experience

580
03:04:15.200 --> 03:04:30.880
for the >> uh I'm an architect uh graduated from Pratt uh with bachelor's degree in architecture. I've been with Nick Sapiteras Associates for over 20 years. Been a licensed architect uh since 2010. State of New Jersey, state of Washington, state of Maryland, uh Pennsylvania, and uh nationally

581
03:04:30.880 --> 03:04:45.359
accredited. >> Any questions from the board? Would you like to accept his credentials? I >> think we'll accept. >> Okay. And uh just tell the board the steps that you've taken to prepare for your testimony. um reviewed uh the property. We did a

582
03:04:45.359 --> 03:05:00.720
walkthrough, a visual inspection. Uh we have uh looked over the application as built drawings. Uh development regulations, development guidelines and preservation guidelines as well as uh reviewed uh and prepared the plans uh conferred with the historic preservation

583
03:05:00.720 --> 03:05:17.120
commission um and reviewed all the staff and uh review letters. Um, and I know that the engineer went through it, but um, as an architect, can you describe for the board the existing building and go through the building condition and assessment analysis prepared and filed as part of the application?

584
03:05:17.120 --> 03:05:33.040
>> Yep. The building was constructed in 1897 of a federalist and colonial revival style. Um, the colonial revival is mimicked in the archtop windows of the existing building. Uh, the federalist element is more of the the plain facade that you see on that second floor. Um, the building is exterior

585
03:05:33.040 --> 03:05:49.279
masonry structural facade. Uh it's integrated with the the wood floor framing. Uh the entrances include two retail uh left and right flanking the front entrance with the uh centered for the uh office and residential on the second and third floors. Uh there's uh

586
03:05:49.279 --> 03:06:04.960
decorative moldings uh on the existing building which you would see in our report that is dated December 29th, 2005. on that front facade picture. Photo number one, Beachwood facade. Um that shows a cornice, a wood cornice

587
03:06:04.960 --> 03:06:20.479
element that kind of anchors that uh first floor and then sets the the base work for the second and third floor. The as mentioned the the second floor is kind of a plain uh running brick facade. Uh there's not really any detail or decoration to it. It's a painted uh

588
03:06:20.479 --> 03:06:37.840
white brick. The between the second and third floor you have a coreboard brick cornice that kind of sets a foundation to the uh doric pillisters and then that sets an intabe of a of a another core brick and then cornice uh on the on the

589
03:06:37.840 --> 03:06:54.880
freeze there. The arch top windows are then anchored and detailed with a uh stone and brick mimicked uh or stone and brick uh archway. Um so that existing facade is um I would say historical in nature but it's a

590
03:06:54.880 --> 03:07:11.200
question of whether or not the the building is historical. Uh it is listed on the HPC's website but uh with a subet note that is questioning whether or not is applicable to the boxwood building which is not listed on their website that I could see. Um so it's whether or

591
03:07:11.200 --> 03:07:28.240
not the information sought is applicable to the other building. uh we would you know like to determine that that information. >> So I I think they're confused if we just very confused. >> I see a lot of confusion. >> I'm sorry. Yes. >> Also because there was something on the National Historic Registry that was

592
03:07:28.240 --> 03:07:44.560
listed in one of these >> so reports. >> Yep. So part of our submission included the uh New Jersey Department of Engine um environmental protection for the the building and in this report uh it talks about five bay facade the stone face. It actually describes the building fairly

593
03:07:44.560 --> 03:07:59.840
well, but then on the second page of it is it describes the location and significance and states should this be information for the building next door. And when we looked at the HPC's website, um we did not find uh the Boxwood

594
03:07:59.840 --> 03:08:14.960
building listed and we are questioning whether or not this information is actually applicable to that building next door with the short significance of the property. And that same report you just referred to that is in um the historic preservation is on their

595
03:08:14.960 --> 03:08:30.479
website. It's part of like the the list of all the properties and summit and they go through um the historic designations for each property. >> The NJD report is on the historic preservation >> committee's website. >> This

596
03:08:30.479 --> 03:08:46.800
if you don't mind I can just Yeah, I'm confused. >> Our our visual insect report. >> Okay, we have that here. Yeah. But I think >> I believe that's also part of the um >> Oh, in the comment letter as well. >> It's in the comment letter also. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Mhm.

597
03:08:46.800 --> 03:09:03.200
>> And that's that's on um the HPC's website. >> Okay. >> So, what you're saying is we don't know. Right. We're even though it clearly describes this building with the description, the significance of this building is in question based on this

598
03:09:03.200 --> 03:09:19.359
information and and whether or not yes, it has historical nature. It's been built in 19 1897. It's over 100 years old. It is described as a historical site for the definition of the development regulations. Um, however,

599
03:09:19.359 --> 03:09:34.640
the information and and kind of the anchoring purpose of this building is uh we're we're trying to navigate that that element and because of that question and we didn't write that report. We think it is applicable to the the

600
03:09:34.640 --> 03:09:54.479
Boxwood building which is not listed in their in their property. Just wait. Can I I scratch? So just in terms of what was the the original occupant of the building is unknown is the is the part that you're saying that that in terms of there's no historical

601
03:09:54.479 --> 03:10:10.840
reference to what the building was built for or who was the first occup who were the first occupants and who was built for and founded by and kind of giving it some presence of the historic nature of the property. >> But it was all around the same time as the other buildings. >> Correct.

602
03:10:13.600 --> 03:10:28.319
So >> I can keep moving if you want me to. >> I'm just wonder So then this report all the all this paperwork we don't really know what it's for. >> I we have reviewed it and again it is described uh it describes the five bay

603
03:10:28.319 --> 03:10:44.240
building. It describes the the the property in question 13. >> You go back through the pictures and it shows like a references building and yep I mean excuse me L-shaped building and Okay, thanks. >> So again, we we didn't find that this

604
03:10:44.240 --> 03:11:02.560
property was in the national registration. We didn't find that this property had any history in the library or the historic uh research that we had done from our office. Um so the exterior inspection as has been stated by the applicant and the

605
03:11:02.560 --> 03:11:19.359
engineers not accessible. The the two or the three entrances to the building require steps. uh there's a variation of between 7 and 12 in depending on what side you're on in the building. So accessibility to the building without encroaching into the right ofway would be rather difficult without truly

606
03:11:19.359 --> 03:11:34.720
disassembling the the building itself. Um the step cracks were quite detailed in the engineering testimony. Um and the office entrance uh has a crack in the corners which it's wood. It could be repaired and reset but uh is unsightly

607
03:11:34.720 --> 03:11:52.720
in nature. Um on the interior we saw some visible cracks uh when we were able to pop some tiles and uh there there was some rot and deterioration of the wood that we could see from water damage at some time and staining of the wood. Uh the windows have been replaced with a vinyl clad window. The arch top windows

608
03:11:52.720 --> 03:12:09.200
are not original anymore. Uh they've been filled with a plywood and uh we use window AC units. And then as described in our reports, you can see in picture number five, there's a fire escape which utilizes the means of egress for the back of the

609
03:12:09.200 --> 03:12:25.279
building on the second and third floor that is in disrepair and uh is needs significant repair to to bring it up to code. Um during our interior inspection, uh we saw that there's no accessible entrance as previously stated. the

610
03:12:25.279 --> 03:12:42.080
second floor offices and uh third floor uh or the second floor offices are more on a a kind of a residential arrangement. It was clear that this was a residential building at a time um and then somebody has occupied it as their office in a broken up nature. Um the third floor consists of both office and

611
03:12:42.080 --> 03:12:57.600
residential spaces. The third floor offices do not have a second means of egress because they are blocked off by the uh residential units on the back side of the building. So those third floor offices should have a second means of egress for safe compliance with fire

612
03:12:57.600 --> 03:13:14.240
code. Um the building is designed in a quadrant layout with a number of framing directions uh primarily in the north, south and east, west direction and then the joist sort of bearing on the masonry wall on the exterior. Uh the existing stairs go up the center of the building

613
03:13:14.240 --> 03:13:30.160
and then uh turn right and kind of snake up through the building. And so that arrangement of egress uh in current the stair current stair arrangement would not allow for a second means of egress within the current footprint of the building. Visual inspection kind of

614
03:13:30.160 --> 03:13:45.279
uncovered uh floor deflection sagging. Uh I believe Nick had testified to about 2 to 3 in which is almost uh we're incapable of rectifying. So even if it were occupied as a residential unit, that sagging of the floor would still be

615
03:13:45.279 --> 03:14:00.080
maintained. Uh and that use would still be not uh sufficient for any uh kind of uh use of the residents. If they saw 2 in of sagging floor, they would think it's structurally unsound and uh have would not want to live in that that

616
03:14:00.080 --> 03:14:15.840
unit. Um, again speaking about the water damage, there was uh sagging in those joists and and apparent staining in the wood uh which shows that there was water damage at some time and could continue to to happen over time. The small punched windows don't allow much natural

617
03:14:15.840 --> 03:14:32.319
light into the building and uh the low ceiling heights in the upper floors don't allow for much HVAC sprinkler distribution uh to even adaptively reuse it in to an office space as it currently stands. There's no entrance lobby. There's no space for an elevator.

618
03:14:32.319 --> 03:14:48.319
There's no arrangement or uh possibility for interior uh ramps to maintain those existing stairs. So, if we were to make the building accessible, the whole building would have to be gut rehabbed down to basically the the bones of the building

619
03:14:48.319 --> 03:15:04.399
uh and still would have difficulty making accessibility happen. So, uh, the rear shed is deteriorating. Um, there is a discharge of, uh, storm

620
03:15:04.399 --> 03:15:19.840
water onto the grade. Most of it goes underground, but there are points in the corner where it does discharge to grade. Um, in any adaptive reuse, we'd want to I don't want to use the term modernized, but we want to make it comfortable, a comfortable indoor environment, which

621
03:15:19.840 --> 03:15:37.120
you can have climate control. You have daylighting, you have nice power, you have level floors, you have a space that you feel comfortable in and want to live in. And unfortunately, the building as it currently stands makes that very difficult. Um, and can you explain to the board why

622
03:15:37.120 --> 03:15:53.680
redevelopment for this site was more appropriate in this case than rehabilitation? >> Um, after we initially we were initially hired to actually try and maintain the building as it was making an addition off the back of the building. Um, that was when we asked to go inside and

623
03:15:53.680 --> 03:16:10.000
complete our visual inspection, see what the floors are like. Uh, there's a broken up floor plate. um opening it up to an office or even making it a suitable uh residential space uh was very difficult to do with the the floor plate in the existing structural walls

624
03:16:10.000 --> 03:16:27.600
that maintain in this in the building. Um we have designed and built and uh adaptively reused a number of historic buildings. Uh I believe um uh Caroline had brought two to the the bench. One was Gunther Mill. Uh it's a 200,000

625
03:16:27.600 --> 03:16:44.640
square foot uh silk mill that we had uh adaptively reused into um residential units and industrial arts. And the other one is our office, the playhouse uh which is where we maintain our office that was formerly the playhouse in the village of Ridgewood. Again, those two

626
03:16:44.640 --> 03:17:00.560
buildings were not in the condition of this one where we had nice level floors. The the building was not showing signs of crack or deterioration to this extent. Um so once we all looked at these elements of deterioration uh we

627
03:17:00.560 --> 03:17:16.000
went to Mark our our uh applicant and and client and described the conditions we found and uh he asked if we could salvage it and we were unable to come up with the game plan that was suitable to maintain this building and this place.

628
03:17:16.000 --> 03:17:33.040
Um so even though demolition is not the direction we wanted to go initially it seemed like it was our only solution. Um and part of that is again the concern of uh impacting neighbors. Um when you demolish a building there could be

629
03:17:33.040 --> 03:17:49.760
impact to the neighbors. So it will be have to be done safely and uh as you have described a coverage uh in some manner for insurance protection uh and to take care of uh the adjacent properties during construction. So we would work with the contractor for means of methods to write and describe how to

630
03:17:49.760 --> 03:18:10.560
do that. So demolition of this building would have an effect on the neighborhood but we feel that the new design will bring back the same character that the existing uh building had on that structure. It has the same uh character

631
03:18:10.560 --> 03:18:27.439
elements with the coral design, the vertical um uh uh articulation and the horizontal articulation with the bands. Uh we we tried to mimic some of the features with the doric columns. Uh we wanted to have a nice cap on the the building with the the decorative cornice

632
03:18:27.439 --> 03:18:43.680
and then maintain that retail frontage and and kind of that human scale to the building. Um so that the existing building has that nature with the broken up facade. So we have a nice comfortable lobby. It's not grand. It suits the the scale of the building. And then we

633
03:18:43.680 --> 03:19:01.760
extended the retail facade and broke up the facade in a nature that um you have a divided moyans in more of a picture window as you would see historically in a in a building uh of this time period. Um I believe there is a question about the

634
03:19:01.760 --> 03:19:17.840
um whether or not the construction would impact uh neighboring merchants. Of course, any construction will shut down sidewalks, but uh there will be temporary protection and measures. Uh our site plan describes a tunnel to allow for pedestrian access through

635
03:19:17.840 --> 03:19:31.920
during construction. Uh there will be points of closure. Uh but we feel that the the retail presence and the uh the type of tenant that could occupy this building uh would actually bring a better character and better environment to the merchants and more foot traffic

636
03:19:31.920 --> 03:19:51.680
uh along this area as well. And we we also agree demolition is not a free option. Um cost if cost was an option uh or really the driving factor the answer would be to

637
03:19:51.680 --> 03:20:07.279
repaint the the the interior uh keep the lead paint in place, keep the asbestous in plate, you know, keep the sagging floor. really cost is this issue, then we would be just giving this thing a facelift and and hoping to um get a

638
03:20:07.279 --> 03:20:23.600
tenant into the building. Um it's not free, but is it we feel that this is the best solution unfortunately for this building at this time? >> Um and can you go through the plans and highlight um that it was important to

639
03:20:23.600 --> 03:20:40.560
retain the parking in the rear? So, I'm sorry. Can you describe what is proposed since it's late? >> So, um we were tasked with um having a retail element as always with uh being in the CRBD. So, the the front retail

640
03:20:40.560 --> 03:20:57.359
facing is a 1500 foot retail space uh on the right hand side or the south side of the property. On the north side, we have the the lobby entrance. Um if you don't mind, I'm going to walk over here and I can have it a little bit better. Um, >> and you're referring to A1.

641
03:20:57.359 --> 03:21:12.479
>> Yes, referring to exhibit A1. Um, we have the the front entrance uh to the lobby uh which is more to a a scale. It will be an accessible entrance. Um, you have a a decorative wood uh retail uh

642
03:21:12.479 --> 03:21:30.239
frontage with broken uh facade and then we have an anchoring element here, a horizontal break between the first and second floor. Uh, this sets the foundation for our building. uh then the office could be constructed upon it. Um the core elements of the lobby is a

643
03:21:30.239 --> 03:21:45.520
vertical transportation to fire stairs so that we can meet egress and fire code and then also utilizing that 1500 foot retail space. Uh the pro pros rear parking is designed in the tandem arrangement as it currently stands. Um but the parking area is primarily

644
03:21:45.520 --> 03:22:06.800
covered in permeable pavement. Um so uh we would also have accessible entrance from that back entrance. So all points of entry now in this building are accessible. So the the building design we followed the um development regulations, the

645
03:22:06.800 --> 03:22:23.200
guidelines. We wanted uh something that had nice scale and balance fenestration uh between the solids and the voids. Uh we wanted to maintain the similar decorations and features of that existing building. Uh we we capped our windows with a limestone key uh and then

646
03:22:23.200 --> 03:22:39.680
the uh the fallen brick uh lentil and then also the limestone heed um lintil on the top with a doric cap. Uh we accented the second and third floor with a corbold brick to kind of mimic that existing style that remains today. Um and then we capped it with a nice

647
03:22:39.680 --> 03:22:56.479
decorative cornice as currently exists. Um but with a different element to accent the the architectural element here. Uh the design is kind of we we wanted to maintain that federalist style um and we also divided the windows to create a little bit better balance um

648
03:22:56.479 --> 03:23:12.080
instead of having the previous picture windows. So I'm going to actually refer back to our original design that was submitted and then some of the improvements that we made to um to make this building I think better to scale in the neighborhood based on our conversations with HBC. Um, so the

649
03:23:12.080 --> 03:23:27.520
original facade uh had larger picture windows. Uh, and to do that we narrowed the window a little bit and then broke it with a mullion to make a more mil mold window and bring the scale to that that entrance in smaller panes of glass. >> Sorry to interrupt. Is this from your

650
03:23:27.520 --> 03:23:43.120
plans or is this a separate document? >> I'm sorry. This was in our um >> that was in the original >> um >> but the the sidebyside comparison is >> Yes, it was in our March 25th summary report. >> Okay. as exhibits A.

651
03:23:43.120 --> 03:23:58.960
>> Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. >> Just wanted to be sure. >> Yes. >> Um, so we, as I was saying, we were divided up the windows. We mold them together to to create better balance. We narrowed those windows a little bit to create better scale between the solids

652
03:23:58.960 --> 03:24:14.720
and the voids. Um we created a a horizontal corn uh corbolt uh break in the the second and third floor as well as another corbolt brick uh at the top here as it as it's represented existing building. Uh the the top penthouse stays

653
03:24:14.720 --> 03:24:30.720
set back 12 ft from the building. Uh it gives you 11 ft clear on that patio. So you do have a little bit of a line of sight, but we wanted to set that back to try and bury that four fourth floor uh into the skyline a little bit more. Um, we also turned that that scale of the

654
03:24:30.720 --> 03:24:54.319
window down the the side alley facade um so that we have less um a little bit better proportions in in our glazing system. So, a few things that we want to just point out is just the the more decorative elements in the

655
03:24:54.319 --> 03:25:18.080
vertical um articulation, the horizontal anti articulation. We felt that after our conversation with HBC, those were important elements in scale to bring back to the building. have jumped around. >> Yes, he jumps around a little bit. Um maybe if you could talk about um the

656
03:25:18.080 --> 03:25:37.640
height of the fourth floor and the impertinence um mounted. >> So um the height of the fourth floor is um we we go to 58 ft. I'm sorry um >> my elevation

657
03:25:38.080 --> 03:26:07.920
refer to refer to drawing A201 detail number one. We have to building height of 58 ft. Uh that includes the two parts where the building height itself is 56 ft. Um the pardon is uh for the elevator bulkhead

658
03:26:07.920 --> 03:26:25.600
to maintain accessibility to that fourth floor. Um in order to get that clear height and accessibility above that fourth floor by 2 ft. Um >> and how how much square footage is that? >> Um it's 111 about 111 square ft of of

659
03:26:25.600 --> 03:26:43.200
area. Yes. >> And so that's even further set back from the facade. As you can see, it's not visible from the street at this point. So that would exist beyond this uh front facade here.

660
03:26:43.200 --> 03:27:00.800
>> So the building height is 58 uh 56 ft. Um we're proposing >> 55.67 to be exact. Is that right? >> Yes. 55.67 ft. Correct. Proposed building height.

661
03:27:00.800 --> 03:27:17.279
And we're asking for that fourth floor so that we can maintain those four parking spaces in the rear. Um that way uh we have a place for the merchants to park, also a place for a scale of a a merchant of this scale. Uh usually loads from a van or their own personal

662
03:27:17.279 --> 03:27:34.399
vehicle. So this allows them to to utilize that back parking space for that type of use. >> And then can you just talk about the roof mounted mechanical equipment? >> Yep. I will turn back the page. to drawing A106.

663
03:27:34.399 --> 03:27:51.960
Uh we have a mechanical rooftop area which will be screened. Uh this will capture >> Mr. Sass, could you speak into the microphone, please? >> Sorry. Thank you. >> Um so we have a mechanical rooftop unit area which will be screened uh in compliance with the applicable uh ordinance.

664
03:27:52.000 --> 03:28:11.279
And again, this is set back far enough that it won't be visible from the line of sight in the street. Um okay. And then um can you just touch upon the engineers report item number 13?

665
03:28:11.279 --> 03:28:28.319
It has to do with uh the following. >> Oh yes. So I'm going to go to drawing A102 is our first floor plan. Um I believe the engineer was referring to the columns at the back parking area in that comment.

666
03:28:28.319 --> 03:28:43.520
uh we are going to encase those two columns in concrete. Uh we found that the followers would actually encroach into the parking space a little bit further and that encasing that in concrete and reinforcing it in concrete was a better solution to protect the building in the the structure.

667
03:28:43.520 --> 03:29:00.640
>> And then is there a reason there's no ADA parking proposed in the rear? >> ADA parking is the primary entrance to the building would be from the front for the retail and the lobby. um they would utilize the um the street parking as is typical in urban setting. Um there's not

668
03:29:00.640 --> 03:29:16.640
adequate space in the back for ADA spaces uh or uh ability to provide the the clear uh unobstructed clearances for that space. So in a tandem arrangement you wouldn't be able to provide that um uh barrierfree pathway. Uh the other

669
03:29:16.640 --> 03:29:32.560
element is that the your entrance way is from the front retail is from the front. Um so our primary entrance for accessibility uh which is the requirement of the accessible parking spaces would be from the front of the building. >> And then I believe you already describe the architecture of the proposed building.

670
03:29:32.560 --> 03:29:48.720
>> Yep. I can elaborate a little bit further on that. >> Sure. So, as I had mentioned, we as part of our collaboration uh with HPC in this design, um we we found that the scale of the the facade as it was originally

671
03:29:48.720 --> 03:30:04.319
designed was just not adequate for the the neighborhood. And um as we present this new building um with the space and the the void solid void ratio, um more brick, more decoration, more horizontal and vertical articulation. Um we feel

672
03:30:04.319 --> 03:30:20.279
that this brings ourselves more into guidelines uh through the design guidelines and the the um development regulations >> and then can you describe the lighting that's proposed for the building? >> Yes, I am going to roll back to

673
03:30:22.720 --> 03:30:47.359
SP something. I'm drawing SP 401 as our site lighting plan. Uh in our back parking area, we're going to do a layin ceiling tiles with a layin light fixtures. Um this is similar to what we did at 475 Springfield. Uh

674
03:30:47.359 --> 03:31:05.040
this allows for uh the most reduced illumination that we could find for uh provide safety egress and pathway. It does create a slight variance on the property line of 0.4 four where it should be 0.1 but to provide the illumination for um accessibility and

675
03:31:05.040 --> 03:31:21.840
and safety in that parking area. We felt that that variance was a suitable request. >> And and where is it spilling off onto? >> Uh it's spilling off onto the the the face of the building and it's a brick facade there. Um on the front we have uh two can lights on the canopy and then

676
03:31:21.840 --> 03:31:38.640
one in the recessed retail entrance and that's then shedding light greater than 0.1 onto the sidewalk. But again that's way finding and provide proper safe entrance to the building. Uh the other variance that we're seeking for >> and so the spillage is just onto the sidewalk, right?

677
03:31:38.640 --> 03:31:54.080
>> It's onto the sidewalk going to affect any vehicular track. >> No no it's strictly down lighting onto the sidewalk. Uh the other variance we're seeking for site lighting is a mounting height uh for the terrace lighting. These are building mounted lights. They are less than 15 ft above

678
03:31:54.080 --> 03:32:11.439
the third floor. Uh I'm sorry, above the fourth floor. Um but because of the the fact that they're building mounted, they're mounted on the fourth floor. They are actually mounted at 49 ft uh 8 in. And so therefore, it is a variance for the height of sight lighting, but

679
03:32:11.439 --> 03:32:27.439
that light does not spill off the property for more than 0.1. And there will also be a down light uh to be a little bit more environmentally conscious of no uplighting or illumination. >> So it complies with the ordinance but for the height. >> Except for the height,

680
03:32:27.439 --> 03:32:48.040
>> but it's not on a post that's higher than 15 feet. It's just on the building. And >> that's correct. On the building, just mounted high because of the terrace. >> Perfect. Um, and is there any signage proposed? >> Yes, I will point you to drawing

681
03:32:55.760 --> 03:33:11.600
A201. Detail number one, we have a building signage and retail signage. Uh, both of those are compliant signs. Uh, they will be channel letter. Um the retail signage is proposed to be lit with gooseeneck lighting from the front uh to comply with the ordinance and and

682
03:33:11.600 --> 03:33:27.279
requirements. If a potential retail tenant were to uh seek a different design, then they would have to be in front of the board for uh compliance with with their design, >> but the proposed signage also >> but the proposed sign all per comply. And then with regard to the

683
03:33:27.279 --> 03:33:42.640
administrative comments, I think that the um engineer touched upon it, but can you respond to the city forers's comments? >> Yes, there are I'm going to flip back to drawing A41. There are existing two trees and in our

684
03:33:42.640 --> 03:33:58.160
conversation during the TRC, uh John Linson said that uh the two trees had overgrown and outlived their expected uh expectancy and he would actually recommend to remove them and replace them. And so we will comply with that comment and take no exception to it.

685
03:33:58.160 --> 03:34:12.560
>> And I think that there was a condition um that there be a $3,000 escrow established for the replacement of those trees and the applicant agrees to that condition. And are there any other comments from the administrative reviews that you can

686
03:34:12.560 --> 03:34:40.239
comment on? Let's see. Talked about the te I think the engineer might have talked about >> I believe he talked about all of them at this point. >> And then um the only other one was the sidewalk to be replaced. I think there's a note on the plan. >> Yeah, I believe that Nick had testified

687
03:34:40.239 --> 03:34:56.720
to the the sidewalk being replaced and there is a note on drawing SP 101. >> I don't have any other questions. Okay. Do we have um questions from our experts? >> I don't think I have any additional

688
03:34:56.720 --> 03:35:15.200
questions. >> I might have a few. Bear with me. Sit through my paper. Um Okay. So, I guess the first would be well

689
03:35:15.200 --> 03:35:31.200
regarding the extent to which this is a historically significant building. um was built in 1897, which is within the historic district's period of significance. >> You've raised one question about whether or not it's actually historically designated. There's there's lots of

690
03:35:31.200 --> 03:35:47.760
paperwork that said that indicates it's at least within the historic district, built within that period. I'll let the HPC maybe opine as to its significance. But how how do you as an architect determine in in such a district what what buildings are architecturally

691
03:35:47.760 --> 03:36:04.560
interesting, worth preserving as compared to others that are built within maybe a similar period. >> I I would say the boxwood building would be a prime example of it. it has uh defined architectural features that make it uh character characteristically um uh

692
03:36:04.560 --> 03:36:20.640
kind of unique in the the uh streetscape. Um so I I would say that a building like that would define the characteristics of historic building though the time period. Yes, I agree with the that it is built in in the time period and and within the designated

693
03:36:20.640 --> 03:36:38.479
area. It just the um uh historical significance of the building. It's it's a um federalist colonial revival style um that you can find uh typical in that time period. >> All right. And and you touched on some of the features that would be that would

694
03:36:38.479 --> 03:36:54.399
reflect I guess that federalist style. Yes. >> From that period that you're you're looking to carry forward, >> my understanding. >> Correct. >> Looking at that rendering that you prepared, u one of our design requirements is that building facades facing a public alley reflect the essentially the front building facade.

695
03:36:54.399 --> 03:37:10.399
Do you believe that this that's been captured here or could the alley be uh I don't know facade be embellished a bit further? Do you think that's sufficient? >> Uh we turn the corner um on some of the architectural elements. We we carry the horizontal band in some of the

696
03:37:10.399 --> 03:37:27.279
architectural featuring of the windows and the the divided panes. Um it could be more decorative, but we're also resembling trying to mimic what was uh existing there as it stands, which was a very plain facade uh going down the alleyway. >> Okay. U recognizing that you're

697
03:37:27.279 --> 03:37:44.080
requesting relief for the fourth floor u part of the building. um how would you contrast the design of that part of the building uh or how does it relate to the rest of the building from a um I guess a material and color

698
03:37:44.080 --> 03:37:58.880
standard? >> Yeah. So um I can actually grab some materials really fast. So the the existing uh or the the proposed brick would be uh kind of a textured uh >> red brown brick uh exhibit A2. Um

699
03:37:58.880 --> 03:38:14.239
>> that would be the first three floor which >> that would be the first three floors. Yeah. One through three. Um the limestone and the uh cornice and the stucco in the rear would be uh more of a neutral tone in the sand tones which would have a

700
03:38:14.239 --> 03:38:30.880
matching uh grout tone as well in there. Um and you're correct. We would have a more modern element on the top as a penthouse. So we would have a panled system with uh black extrusion and that black extrusion would match the window extrusion in the front facade. Uh this

701
03:38:30.880 --> 03:38:45.840
color would then be carried into that retail um color of the the facade. So you have some connection between that top and bottom. Um so visually it's a little bit more of a modern element up there, but we're bringing the characteristics and scale

702
03:38:45.840 --> 03:39:01.920
of the facade up onto that element. So it's just a matter of material. Uh typically in a historical building, the the pen houses were built after the fact and in a more modern design uh at the time it was built. So we wanted to replicate that kind of penthouse

703
03:39:01.920 --> 03:39:18.720
afterthought. >> I'll leave it at that. Um in in your review of surrounding buildings, I think there was some testimony that referenced u buildings of a similar height, let's say. Could you maybe again remind us of what exists in in the vicinity of this

704
03:39:18.720 --> 03:39:46.160
building that uh it would be consistent with from a height perspective. So, I believe Bob, our applicant had testified to specific addresses, but I on Springfield Avenue, we are located here on Beachwood. Uh, one block away, you have a a fivestory uh multif family

705
03:39:46.160 --> 03:40:04.160
residential. Um 46 uh 466, Mark. Yeah, that's another uh four-story building across the street at 475 is a four-story building. And um I mean, one to four is outside the CRBD, but that's a four-story building as well.

706
03:40:04.160 --> 03:40:20.560
And there's another one I think within another 50 ft within that four and five story range. >> All right. Thank you. >> The Basset building. >> The Basset building. Yes. >> Thank you. Um I think I have Well, the issue of neighborhood consistency is interesting because on the one hand,

707
03:40:20.560 --> 03:40:37.760
you're trying to reflect the historical features of a historic building. And so there's the question of >> I mean, it seems like you've done that to some extent. I'm not an architect, but um and and the question of how does that relate to the broader, you know, u historic district, I suppose. I I think

708
03:40:37.760 --> 03:40:54.479
you you've addressed some of that. Um just from a code compliant standpoint that the ordinance does require a cool roof treatment, I guess, on the uppermost roof of the building. Is is that something you guys would consider? >> I have no exception to that. I think there are a few uh GFA and um I'm sorry,

709
03:40:54.479 --> 03:41:10.399
GAF and uh certainty products that are cool roof uh required. >> All right. And then finally, um it looks like above the office entrance there's sort of a canopy feature. >> Um would there be an awning or similar above the retail? >> So I believe it was questioned by uh

710
03:41:10.399 --> 03:41:26.479
Miss Chief >> Chief Chief um what this projection was and that is actually acting as a canopy for wind and rain protection uh for the entrance and exit onto that can um onto the the balcony area so that the doors don't open, you have a little bit of protection and you don't get as much

711
03:41:26.479 --> 03:41:43.600
wind driven rain into the building. Okay. And and as finally as far as the height, could you explain I guess the different floor heights starting with the first floor? The first floor is retail and then you'd have three floors of so um what we found in in office building uh and retail mixed use is that

712
03:41:43.600 --> 03:41:58.479
uh 14 ft uh floor to floor is the ideal application. This allows you 18 to 24 in of structure. It allows you the mechanical chase and the sprinkler as well as lighting and illumination. So in order to get a 9 1/2 ft ceiling, you

713
03:41:58.479 --> 03:42:15.680
need between 13 1/2 and 14 ft of uh floor to floor height. So first floor of retail to um or first floor to second floor is 14 ft and 14 ft thereafter because it's a it's a modular that works for a modern uh office user or any office user these days.

714
03:42:15.680 --> 03:42:32.399
>> But the interior is not 14 ft. >> The interior is not it's 14t floor to floor which then provides for you between 9 and 1/2 and 10 ft of clear height. So, the ceiling height is >> the ceiling height. Yes. Okay. >> All right. I have nothing for Thank you. >> Can I just ask you a quick question? I'm

715
03:42:32.399 --> 03:42:49.200
sorry. Um, in your professional opinion, is there any portion of the existing facade that you would consider historic or worthy of preserving? The third floor of the existing facade has architectural features that are um I

716
03:42:49.200 --> 03:43:04.080
would say historically have a representation of the time period. I would say that those features are the only elements in the building that that are um worth preserving with the arch top, the stone accents um

717
03:43:04.080 --> 03:43:20.080
that those elements. But in the the case of this building, the arch top glass window has been removed and replaced with plywood and vinyl windows. >> And it's been repainted. >> It's been repainted a number of times over. Um, and we don't know if there's

718
03:43:20.080 --> 03:43:36.640
patchwork of brick behind that either. So, it the the the brick work and the the detailing are it's a it's a feature that I would say could be um uh resto, you know, preserved, but it is

719
03:43:36.640 --> 03:43:55.840
a feature that is not really um the windows are not really original at this point anymore. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Well, I'm sure the board is burning to ask their questions. Um, I know I am, but I I fear that if we start that,

720
03:43:55.840 --> 03:44:10.960
we're going to be here for another hour just getting to the board's questions and then, you know, uh, yeah. So, we should probably stop here and, uh, then carry till June 1st. >> I'm willing to answer some questions.

721
03:44:10.960 --> 03:44:27.199
>> Yeah, I it's hard to start I know and then decide who we're going to cut off. Um, so I think it's probably better to just hold the question. >> I can resummize at the next meeting. >> Yeah. >> So I'll ask are waving the time frame to act. >> Yes.

722
03:44:27.199 --> 03:44:43.040
>> Thank you. And I imagine we are looking to carry it without further notice until June 1st. >> Yes. >> So we just need a motion and there's a move. >> Second.

723
03:44:43.040 --> 03:45:08.800
>> Thank you. >> Vice chairs on. Yes. Mr. Mullen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Curran. >> Yes. >> Miss Chief. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chantuli. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bell. >> Yes. >> Yeah. That what? And that

724
03:45:08.800 --> 03:45:27.760
I guess. Do we want to say something right now from >> um so before before you leave the one rendering we don't have that that's A1 and then the building material will be A2

725
03:45:27.760 --> 03:45:45.120
and do do we need a copy of that to put on the public record since we already heard that part of the testimony. We'll need uh both exhibits yes before the like >> so I can email you this one tomorrow. >> Okay, sounds good. You want

726
03:45:45.120 --> 03:46:00.760
the samples? >> We can leave the samples with you. >> Is the picture sufficient or do we want the actual >> Well, you should hang on to the actual >> Well, we'll need the actual samples. >> Yeah. No, I know. But I'm saying for the

727
03:46:01.520 --> 03:46:21.840
picture. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Does that work? >> Thank you. >> That's the only way. We have church building material. >> Yeah. >> We we have two resolutions for

728
03:46:21.840 --> 03:46:39.600
memorialization. Up first is 55 Tulip Street, zoning board application number ZB-25-2320. The eligible voting members are Mr. Mullen, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Curran, Miss Chief, and Mr. Chantuli. Could we get a motion to approve? So moved >> and a second.

729
03:46:39.600 --> 03:46:54.640
>> Second. >> Second. >> Mr. Mullen? >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Curran? >> Yes. >> Miss Chief? >> Yes. >> Mr. Chantuli? >> Yes. >> Up next, we have the resolution for 46 Colt Road, zoning board application

730
03:46:54.640 --> 03:47:12.160
number ZB-25-2318. The eligible voting members are Mr. Mullen, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Curran, Miss Chief, and Mr. Chantuli. Could we get a motion to approve? >> Some moved. Second >> Mr. Mullen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson,

731
03:47:12.160 --> 03:47:27.600
>> yes. >> Miss Mr. Kern, >> yes. >> Miss Chief, >> yes. >> Mr. Chantuli, >> yes. >> Thank you. And then there are no minutes for memorialization this week. So, a motion to adjourn. >> Some move. >> Second.

732
03:47:27.600 --> 03:47:33.960
>> All right. Thank you. We're done. All right.