Good evening and welcome to the July 20th, 2026 meeting of the city of Summit Zoning Board of Adjustment. My name is Scott Loy. I'm the zoning board chair. Please rise and join us in the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it
stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all this. >> [clears throat] >> a little lopsided today. >> Yeah, >> thank you. In accordance with New Jersey statute 104-10, adequate notice of this
special meeting has been provided to a newspaper record. It's been posted here in city hall. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider reaching a decision. Decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must
be maintained at all times for the benefit of the interested public. This meeting is being live streamed on the city's YouTube page. It's also being broadcast in Summit's government channel. That's Comcast 30, 34, and Verizon channel 30. Transcript of this meeting is being taken using audio and
video. So, we need all speakers to utilize one of the microphones in the room. Please note that the fire exits are to my right, your left, and at the back of the room where you entered. The city has a listening system to assist the hearing impaired. If anyone needs hearing assistance, please obtain the system in the DAIS and return it
thereafter. Okay. Um, Austo, how do we want to read the role? >> I'll handle it. >> Should we have Andy do it? Okay, great. >> Uh, vice chair >> here. >> Mr. Yuko >> here.
>> Mr. Malay is expected but not yet present. Mr. Mullen >> here. >> Mr. Nelson >> here. >> Mr. Kieran >> here. >> Miss Chief >> here. >> Mr. Fes >> here. >> Mr. Chantuli >> here.
>> Mr. Bell is expected but not yet present. And Chairman Mo >> here. >> You have a quorum. You may proceed. >> Thank you so much, Mr. Ball. Andy Ball, who you just heard from, is our zoning board's attorney. Mr. Ball advises the board members on matters of law and is the key interface with the applicant's
attorney. Mr. Ball does not vote on these applications. Uh Jessica Sans is city employee. She's not here tonight. She's our zoning board secretary. Our board secretary works with applicants on preparing their applications, planning our agendas, and keeping meeting minutes. The board secretary also does
not vote on these applications. Also present tonight are our experts who are hired annually by the board to provide input. Tonight we have Marie Rafé from Collier's Engineering. Also present is Ed Snikis from Burgess Associates and he's our board planner. These experts are seated at the table to the right of
the board, the public's left. They also do not vote. Our board consists of seven regular members and four alternates. All members can participate in the hearings tonight, but only a maximum of seven can vote. Most applications require a simple majority to be approved. Before we enter into executive session to vote on the
application, you'll be advised of how many votes are required, and what are the conditions for approval. Each case will begin with the applicants or their attorney giving an overview of the application process to date, the variances that are required. We then hear from any additional expert witnesses the applicant may have to help
explain the applications why these variances are needed. The board experts then followed by our board members may ask questions of the applicant, their attorney, and their expert witnesses. Due to recent cases running excessively long, we strongly encourage applicants and their experts to give brief and concise testimony so we may get to as
many cases as possible in a given evening. Once the board members and then the board professionals have completed their questioning, the public will have an opportunity to ask their own questions. It's not a time to tell us what you think about the case. That opportunity comes at the end of the hearing. Please be careful how you phrase your questions. They should not
be proceeded with a statement about the case. It should be a direct question to the witness. Also, before you ask your questions, we ask that you please clearly state your name, spell your last name, provide us your address. It's important that our court reporter be able to keep a clear and accurate public record. After all the witnesses have
been heard, members of the audience have their second opportunity to speak. And this is a time when you may express your opinion, positive or negative, about the application. Then the public part of the hearing is closed and we enter into executive session. This is where the board members discuss the case and then
we vote. You will be able to listen in on our executive session, but you will not normally be able to participate in our discussion. I ask that each applicant and their attorney if present come up and give a brief synopsis of their anticipated testimony tonight, including number of witnesses, whether
they can finish in their presentation in 30 minutes or less, but we're going to skip that tonight because we have we had two hearings. One is being carried. So 37 Fair View.
Yeah, we did just receive correspondence um from the applicants requesting to carry the application this evening until its next available date which is September 8th. Um they did wave the board's time frame to act and they're asking to carry without further notice. >> Excellent. So with that, can I get a
motion to carry? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Oh, >> all right. Mr. Ball, can you call the RO? >> I suppose I can do that. Thank you. Double duty tonight. Mr. Yuko moved and second was >> Miriam. >> Great.
>> Um, vice chair Zan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yuko. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mullen? >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Kieran? >> Yes. >> Miss Chief? >> Yes. >> Mr. Fes? >> Yes. >> All right.
Excellent. All right. So, our only hearing tonight is 11-15 Beachwood Avenue. Hillary, you want to come address us? >> Thank you so much. >> Okay. Um, good evening, Mr. Chairman,
members of the board. Hillary Als from Dempsey Dempsey and Sheen on behalf of the applicant MRY Beachwood 11-15 LLC in connection [snorts] with property located at 11-15 Beachwood Road, block 2602, lot one in the CRB zone. Following
the last hearing on April 20th, the applicant carefully considered the comments and recommendations offered by the board, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the public. Working collaboratively with the design team, the applicant undertook a comprehensive redesign of the project to respond to
that feedback while preserving the overall redevelopment objectives for the property. The revised plans represent a substantial departure from the original submission. Most notably, the applicant now proposes to preserve the existing Beachwood Road and side alley facades
with only limited modifications necessary to accommodate accessibility and functional building access. In addition, the rear parking area has been eliminated, the side and rear setbacks have been increased, building coverage has been reduced, and the overall
building has been redesigned to better respond to the character of the historic district and the concerns expressed during the prior hearing. As a result of these revisions, the relief being requested from the board has also been refined. The applicant continues to
request variance relief for building height and a pertinance height, but the height for both have been reduced from the original application. Relief is also requested for the fourth story uh building mounted lighting, which has also been reduced and illumination at the property line. As
the testimony will demonstrate, several aspects of the original proposal have been reduced or eliminated, and the revised application reflects a meaningful effort to minimize the extent of the requested relief while preserving the historic character of the building and providing a functional redevelopment
of the site. Tonight's presentation will begin with our architect, Michael Sass, who will pre present the revised design and walk the board through the architectural revisions, the revised plans, and the design considerations that shape the proposal now before you.
Following Mr. Sass's testimony, our planner, Paul Brigel, will address the planning and zoning considerations and the statutory basis supporting the relief requested. So, with that, I would like to call Michael Sass. Any
any questions for Ms. Ols before we hear from Mr. Sass? >> No. Okay. Thank you. >> And Mr. Sass was previously sworn, correct? So, >> remain under oath during this hearing.
You may proceed. >> [snorts] >> You ready? >> Yes. >> Okay. In response to the comments and feedback received from the board of adjustment and the Historic Preservation Commission at the prior hearing, can you describe the process your firm undertook with the applicant to re-evaluate the
design and incorporate revisions to address the concerns that were identified? Yes, we carefully we listen to the board and the historic preservation comments regarding the facade, the beachwood historical elements of the building, the detail, the um horizontal features of it
and uh also just the the nature of the architecture and we carefully went into the building, took our time to study the architecture, really study the floor, how the building was braced, how it was built to see if we could actually preserve the facade. Um after further
consideration um and analysis, we determined that there's a way to preserve the facade, set new floor elevations, do minor modifications to get ADA accessibility, um modify the windows with slight tweaks on the sill heights, and um really set the
elevations so that we could work with that existing facade. Um that will require, if you don't mind, I'm going to approach the rendering and point out a few features. This is Is this one off? >> I think you have to turn it on. >> Okay, >> you can take it off the stand and there
you go. >> Testing. >> Okay, >> perfect. >> So, one of the modifications that we have is ADA accessibility. Um, we need accessibility to the office entrance on the left here. Uh, so we're setting the floor plate at a lower floor elevation
at what it exists today. Today it was about 14 to 18 in above the grade. So, you have to walk up steps to the entrance. So we're lowering lower lowering the first floor. So you have entrance at grade from the building uh for the office space and then we're holding a modification to the facade
where the existing office entrances making that our retail elements uh so that we can hold those two doors close to each other and get our entrance at the same point. Um so we don't have any major modifications to the sidewalk or high sloping or steep sloping areas which would exceed ADA accessibility. So
those two doors are held close in the middle and then we'll hold the retail to the left of the building or to the right of the building. Uh the second floor we have to because of the floor to floor heights we're lowering the window sill slightly increasing the height of that window but keeping the cornice element
that exists there today restoring it to its existing condition as much as possible. There's some damage that has to be repaired rotted wood rust repainting and other elements. We're going to repoint all the brick and repair it as much as we can. There are some cracked elements in that building
that we previously testified to. We're going to try and reconstruct that. If reconstruction does not happen, we'll have to strap it and make a repair to support it. But reconstructing all that that element and keeping that. The third floor windows will be restored to an arch top. They're currently square
rectangular windows with a plywood infill on the top. So, we want to make that an arch top window and bring that back to a full light. Uh the side facade, same thing. We're going to restore that arch top window on that third floor. And then going down, we're going to infill and make that a full
window opening. We'd like to remove as much of the window casing as possible. There is some blocking that we'll have to stay to put those new windows in, but to widen those out to as much of the masonry opening. Um the fourth floor is now going to replicate the building in
the style of architecture. We were previously modifying that, but we thought that it would be better to if we're since we're restoring the facade to keep that similar architecture down the side alleyway, keeping that arch top and then making another cornice element
at the top. Um, and then opening up because the weight of that, if you don't mind, I'm going to go to drawing a 2011. It's our beachwood facade. So, due to this uh type of construction, which I'll get into further um in my in further testimony, we're going to have
this is a lighter frame structure on the front. So, it's going to be more windows and wood style architecture that then mimics the style of the the retail in the front entrance. So, it has more of that 19 or 1897 style of architecture that mimics what was there previously.
and we wanted to maintain uh that similar style of federalist and and colonial style of architecture for the building. >> Perfect. Um so now that you've described the overall changes made to the design, can you walk the board through the revised plans that have been submitted and explain the
specific revisions and improvements reflected on each plan sheet? >> Yes. So the first thing that we did because we're keeping the building facade, we've now reduced the building height by about 3.67
ft. So that fourth floor, it was previously 14 ft above their 14 ft floor to floor. We have a reduced floor to floor height, keeping the existing building height, and then reducing that top floor to 12'9 in. that 12 ft 9 in allows us to get structure mechanical
systems and fire sprinkler systems within that uh that clear story as well as our structure. So that was one modification. We've also going to go take you to drawing SP 101.
We have set back the limits of the building 5T around the the zoning properties. It was previously 3 ft. So, we're giving them more light and air space between us and the adjacent buildings. There's some windows along that existing building that we want to just give them a little bit more space uh to breathe. And we're also infilling
the previous parking area and making that part of the retail of the building. The other element is I'm going to go back to drawing A201. As a result of the reduced building heights, we're also reducing the pertinance
height that we were requesting. Um, so that is now coming down 3 ft 1 in. So we've had a decrease in the building height, we've had a decrease in the pertinance variance request and we've had a decrease in the building coverage which was approximately 6% reduced area.
We've also reduced as a result of the reduced building height uh the building mounted sign uh lights on the plaza or on that that top terrace. I'll go to drawing a I'm sorry SP 401 dislodged.
So drawing SP 401 we've reduced the height of the terrace mount to bites which is a previous uh variance request and that's because the building height has been reduced as well. Um other modifications are just on the architectural style um and location of
lights on the building. Uh we're maintaining the horizontal cornis that exists there today. So building signage lights and illumination for this gooseeneck has been reduced in height. Um, we've also added for safety and security lighting around the perimeter
on this back alley because now five feet we want to make sure that's illuminated so that you don't have the risk of somebody wandering back there or if they do um it's a path of egress out also so we have safety on the egress side of the building. Then the last modification was I will go
to drawing SP 101 again. Uh but also before I do that, I'll refer to detail three on SP 401 is our trash enclosure detail that has been relocated to the south side on the alley for uh ease of pickup and drop off for uh the garbage
truck. So on SP 101 is will indicate that location on the south side. So that trash enclosure is located here on the souththeast side of the building or the southeast side of the property. So the garbage truck coming down the alleyway can pick up those trash uh in recycling
containers and keep going down the alleyway as it currently does today. >> And those are completely on the property. >> Those are completely on the property within the property and they're screened from the uh from Beachwood. >> Correct. The there's screening on the front side here. Uh so you have screening from Beachwood and you also have just some protection on the back
side so they don't get pushed into the path of egress coming out the back of the building. So they will not be in the uh across our property or visible from the Beachwood walkway. >> And then um since you have that sheet, can you also just talk about the um front setback?
>> Yes. >> Side setbacks. >> So because we're keeping the building facade, we are holding the 4.40 front yard setback. So that's an existing setback um where our property further goes into the sidewalk area. So that holds that line in the facade. And
then we're also holding our sidey guard set back of 06 ft where we were previously going to that property line. It's a minor dimension, but it does hold us to a dimension for for our building area. >> And Mr. Sass, remind us again what's the set back at the fourth floor? >> The setback of the fourth floor. So the
fourth floor is set back 16.82 ft. >> Thank you. Um, and if you have the site plan, if you could just talk about the the drainage and the storm water. >> Uh, yes.
So, that's showing SP 2011. Detail number two is our site utility plan. We have currently existing uh storm water that comes down from our adjoining to the north of us. Um, it goes into a leader down the side of the
building and then continues along the facade of the building on a roof leader and discharges into the catch basin on the south side of the property in the alley. We need to discontinue that because of the construction. We need to discontinue that leader and we need to reconnect it underground um to existing
subsurface uh piping system. So, we have to figure out the means and method and the best route, but we're thinking to just lower that below the building and come down through and reconnect it back in the same spot that it exists today. >> And then can you just um I know that we
talked about it at the last hearing, but the trees on the sidewalk. >> Yes. So drawing SP 401 is our lighting plan but also indicates our
shade tree note. Uh we spoke with John Lson early on in this uh during the TRC and he's requested that we remove those two trees and plant them with two new uh shade trees of his uh selection. So we will be replacing them in coordination with them.
>> Excellent. And then um if you could just refer to the roof plan and just go through that please. >> Yes. >> So drawing A106 is our proposed roof plan. Um in order to service the different tenants and the different floors, we'll have five units. We'll
have one for the retail on the first floor, one for the common area of the first floor, and then one unit for each floor above that. And those units will be clustered together in the middle of the building to reduce the um visibility and screening. So we trying to get that out of the line of sight in the middle of the building. They will be properly
screened in compliance with the city of summit ordinance. >> Perfect. Um and then I think you have an exhibit um which should be marked A4 that goes through the F um calculations.
So, we prepared uh drawing AA 101. I'll label it exhibit A4. Are >> are we up to A4? I thought the notes said it was >> So, we had um A1 was the rendering and then we had A2 and three which were
materials and colors of bricks and things like that. >> Okay. I only think I had a note about two but I'll I'll take your word for it. We'll mark this as A4. Okay. So drawing a exhibit A4 drawing AA 101
is our proposed building area analysis. This was an analysis prepared to determine the F and how we calculated our floor area ratio. Um so it is broken down in color coding as easily as I could. Um we have office as green, our
site circulation which counts towards F in the purple. So that's our stair towers and we also have support area which is our mechanical shafts which count towards your F and then common area and retail. Our basement our storage is I'm sorry our basement
doesn't count towards F because it will be utilized only as storage for retail. So it's not part of that formula. Um, so our total F for the building is 12,331 uh square feet, which calculates to 299%
of uh of FA F calculation. If you'd like me to, I can break down all those numbers. >> Mind if I ask a quick question? >> Yes. >> Is there any way you could actually get to that 299 without building the fourth floor? >> No. And I'll have another exhibit that
shows you. >> Technically, you can, but if you wait for the next exhibit, I think it'll lay it out more clearly. >> Um, and if you could just go through the rendering and discuss the materials and
the colors and um, >> so do we need to bring this one as a new exhibit? >> No, this is part of the file plans. Okay. Very good. >> Very good. So we the existing building is white. It's pretty much washed out.
Every cornice, every detail, every element of this building is just the same color. Looks like they just took a roller or sprayer and just sprayed over it. So we want to accentuate some of the details of the building. We want to accentuate with just a light color pop on the cornice on the second floor, the cornice between the second and third
floor, and then that cornice element that caps the building. uh also detailing and just giving a slight color pop and variation for the column capitals and then that fourth floor element up above as well as the infill. The field of the building will be uh a off cream or off-white color to just
give a slight contrast. We don't want to do do a large contrast or anything along those lines. Something subtle that just makes that horizontal artic articulation kind of accentuate the building and make it feel a little bit more reduced in in design. Um the side facade we're going to paint. The reason why we're going to
paint it is because to match that brick from 120 years ago would be almost impossible. Um so we can find similar style and size. But we will never get a color match. So what we want to do is get ourselves to paint that side facade
keeping that stone rubble stone finish. Our base will be anchored with an off charcoal something to make that retail entrance and that office entrance kind of pop from the street. So it gives you some nice um contrast on the ground floor and then the feel of the building
uh neutralizes itself and looks gives balance. >> What what's the color of the storefront mullions and what's the color of the um the window frames or the storefront on the fourth floor? >> So the window frames uh will be white on the second, third and fourth floor.
Okay. The ground floor will be uh a bronze. >> Thank you. >> Perfect. Um we're not to the exhibit yet, but I promise it'll be the one after this one. Um you've compare you've prepared a comparative zoning chart, um
which I would ask be marked as A5. And can you explain what this exhibit demonstrates and how the revised plans compare to the original submission from a bulk in zoning perspective? >> Yes. So, we prepared a letter dated June 23rd, 2026. Um, that was just a summary of our
changes to the plan and the approach that we had attached. That is a zoning analysis comparative chart. Um, so that is this document that's attached to that letter. Um, the area >> sure if the board actually >> Yeah. >> Oh, they did not get that letter. Okay.
>> So, I guess if you go through it and then I can um provide the board with a copy. Okay. So, the changes that we made were the first one on my list was building coverage. We had a reduction in the
building coverage from 84.10% or 3,4868 ft to 76 uh 78 having a hard time seeing that number. I'm going to actually bring myself to my
>> Excuse me. You're comparing to the previous submission, not the current construction, just to clarify. previous submission. Correct. >> So, let me utilize drawing a I'm sorry, T002, our zoning analysis and site data. So, our building coverage was reduced
from 84.10% now down to 78.25%. So we had a reduction of approximately 6% in building area and that's a result of us having that greater setback along our adjoining properties on the uh east
side of us here and to the northeast side of us. So setting ourselves back reduced our building coverage calculation. >> So how many square feet does that boil out to be? >> That ends up becoming 3,227 ft where it was previously
3,468. So it's about 220 ft. >> Okay. So you reduced So you reduced that which you actually gained office space by doing right away with parking spots. >> Retail space. >> Retail. Okay. Retail space.
>> Yes. >> But we also um increased the setback in the back of the building. So then that's why there's >> that's where that's where the reduction was. >> Yes. Um and then I think there's also um an
increase in the total sideyard from 0.1 to 6 ft. >> Yes. So we originally going to build out at that corner of the property south side of Beachwood. We're set back to 06 feet where previously 01 ft.
>> So it's 06 of a foot. >> Six inches. >> It's inches. Yes. >> So you went from one inch to six. We as I testified earlier, it's a it's a minor >> minor discrepancy or change, but it is it is a slight change. Um, we also
reduced the building height though uh by 3.67 ft as I previously stated and the pertinance was 3 ft 1 in. Um, we've reduced the mounting height of the facade lighting to uh by 6 in. And that's as I was stating here, we've
reduced that down to where the existing cornis line is. We've reduced the terrace lighting up on the fourth floor to uh down approximately 2 ft or 1 ft 10 in uh because the building height came down. Uh other modifications were uh
signage mounting that was also reduced in height um because again that cornice holds us to a certain elevation uh because we want to keep that existing corners and not modify that existing facade. Um and then we had a a modification in the illumination for our
lighting so that we had uh rest path from around the backside. We need lighting to illuminate that 5-ft setback. So again, going back to SP 401, just illuminating this 5-ft area along the back of the property.
>> Okay. And then the original application also included a fourth floor component. Can you explain how the role and design of the fourth floor has changed as part of the revised plans and how it relates to the other modifications that were made in response to the comments received at the prior hearing um using
exhibit A6? >> Yes. So we prepared drawing AA201. It's just a area reduction analysis of the volume that was lost due to setbacks or other components or or site
limitations that we had. And if I can I'll label that a >> six >> six. >> And I can you see that from over here? Do you want it in the middle? Would that be better? >> You can easily. Yes. Okay. >> So, do you want to just move it to the
middle because I can see it better? >> Thanks. So, we had a few constraints on the property. Um, we have the existing facade which is this image in the top right corner. The blue area is the existing setback of that facade. That's
4.4 ft from the property line. So 4.4 ft across the property equates to 630 ft. So that's 210 ft per floor at three stories which is permitted by um by the zone by the CRBD zone and that equates
to 630 ft of gross floor area >> if you would build to the property >> if we were to build to the property line to that front property line which is permitted also in the CRPD district. Um, we have a slight encroachment of our adjoining properties here on the north side of both of those buildings had have
a slight encroachment onto our property and the elevators allowed to be eliminated from the calculation. So that across three floors at 119 ft per floor is 357 square ft gross floor area. Our increased setback of 5T that L shape in
green that's this one here is 327 square ft totaling 981 ft of total area and then the limitation of the south facade or the alley facade here in that wedge that purple wedge is 723 ft or 241 ft
across three floors. So that total site limitation factor equates to 269 uh 2,691 square feet of lost F on the building. We're proposing 2,650 ft on that fourth floor set back 16.4 ft from the property
line. >> So I don't know if that answers your question. >> I followed the map. >> Okay, >> perfect. >> Yeah, I follow the map. Very creative display. I've never seen it done this way. >> So, what's the setback for the building
currently in the back? The rear setback. >> The rear setback is >> approximately 24.2 ft >> times. So, how much have you gained in square footage by filling that in versus all this? >> By filling in that back is 24 square
feet. Uh 20 I'm guess >> 24 by width >> by about 50. So, >> times three. Yep. >> You've gained that. You've gained that from doing the filling. >> Yes. But but they are permitted a 300%
F. So if they knock the building down and they built it to the property lines, which they're permitted to do >> and they put they could put 300 square feet on three floors, but that would not be a better design than what >> it would it would stick out beyond the
boxwood property. So, you'd have a building that projects beyond the boxwood building, our adjacent property. You'd have uh which would then reduce the sidewalk. Um >> you'd have a building that was touching the neighbors. >> Well, I'm just saying you're telling us you lo lose that. >> Well,
>> but you gained it with the fill in of the backyard. >> Oh, but yeah, from our previous application, it was only we we gained 300 feet from the fill in of the parking from our previous application >> times four, 1200 ft. But the building
>> I think it is easier to give a little bit of reference to what exists in this conversation to not just compare it to the previous because now we have a new set of drawings and I think that's where yes some of these comments are. >> It should also be considered in relation to what is permitted and what is
permitted is 300% F on three floors. >> This is not a comparison from the previous scheme. This is a comparison versus as of right. as of right. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um, and you also prepared a sighteline exhibit A7. Can you explain
what this demonstrates regarding the visibility of the fourth floor from the public right away? >> So, I'm going to first start with the rendering because that actually depicts the test.
It depicts exactly what you would see from the street. So, we took this rendering from the opposite side of the property and you'll get a glimpse of just that slight cornice on the top. We wanted to show the angle because we want to show the
architectural style down the building. But if you're walking down Beachwood opposite on the opposite side of the sidewalk, um you would only see approximately 2 feet of that building across the top. Um, >> and you would see it on the side, but because it's now the same architecture,
it blends in. >> That was the the other reason why we wanted to stick with that similar architectural style, um, is that it would blend with the existing building better. So, our line of sight diagram, and I'll come back to this exhibit now. Our line of sight diagram A301 and I'll
mark that as exhibit A7 shows a person 68 ft away about my height with a line of sight that would give you the top two feet of the building. So, I have a question about that because watching the video over the weekend and being out there
this morning and now seeing this picture again, that exhibit and the one at the previous hearing, was that not intended to show the view of of a pedestrian? Because my reaction was that that rendering looks like I'm a very tall pedestrian if I'm a pedestrian. Um,
>> yeah, it's me. It's it's a person of my height, [laughter] six feet. >> But I mean, what was that the rendering? Was that the intent to show a pedestrian across the street? >> Correct. Correct. The rendering is exhibiting uh the from the six foot eye level height. >> From six foot eye level. Okay. >> Okay. And the same with this
>> and the same with this one. Yes. >> Okay. >> I know it's a different reference for different people, but um I feel like it gives you a different angle in a higher projection line. So the shorter you are, the less building you'll see. >> And is 68 ft the distance from the
building facade to the other building facade directly opposite on Beachwood? So whatever >> we went from the face of the building lineer. >> Yep. So we went from the face of the building line all the way. This person's about four feet away from the other building. They're not going to walk, you know, if you're walking down the sidewalk, you're not going to be right
on that building. >> Okay. >> Perfect. Um and based upon all the revisions that have been incorporated into the plans, including the preservation of the existing facades, the reduction in building bulk, the increased setback, and the revised design of the fourth floor edition. Can
you explain why you believe the proposed design is appropriate for the property and consistent with the character of the historic district? >> Uh yes, the I mean I guess my first statement would be um we we met with the historic preservation after we had completed this redesign and uh we felt
that they were supportive of us maintaining the facade and keeping it. Uh I know they had a few comments in their letter about um uh Moyans and and uh divide light and I'll address that in a few but uh this by keeping that facade it meets the intention of the historic
preservation it meets the intention of the CRBD district in the historic district. So we maintain the architectural style, the uh features, the vertical articulation, that horizontal articulation. I think the uh painting um uh scheme or the paint
scheme accentuates some of those features so it's not just a bland facade as it exists today as well. And then from the historic preservation side, um I know they had uh asked or inquired about divided lights. Um,
divided light I in our opinion is more intended for residential application. This is intended for an office use. So we want to give them as much of a clear picture window as possible. So that if we were doing this as an adaptive reuse for residential, we would clearly do a divided light window in this application. Um, when we met with them
also they had mentioned uh doing rectangular windows on the the fourth floor and making that larger openings. But uh as we had discussed with them, we said that the arch top due to just the hierarchy of architecture that putting a rectangular window over that arch top just did not seem like the right
architectural element in design for the building. That that continuation of that arch top on that fourth floor was the right architectural answer the to meet that federalist and colonial style. >> Perfect. I don't have any other questions. >> Great. >> Board experts, what questions do you
have for this witness? I feel like I feel like he went through a lot on my on my memo. Okay. Um um get rid of the tandem parking. I had a few comments on that. I think you've addressed that. Um the I was curious about what was going
on with the rooftop units. You had that screened and you explained why they're all put together there. Um the garbage you said is Did you say it's just um on on either side? There's
>> Yes. So, it would be opening open on the alley side. They're 96 gallon containers. So, it' be a rolling uh container. Uh we calculated that it would be four containers per day on a daily pickup. So, two would be refuge and two would be recycling. >> Um and daily pickup,
>> correct? And that's how the CRB district operates today. >> Okay. Um >> yeah, I don't have any >> um one I one comment you had was about the sidewalk transition. So our our sidewalk will um maintain existing storm
water flow. Uh we want to make sure that it's positive flow towards the curb line as it exists today. >> Have you changed anything about the way that um you're constructing this? Um, [laughter] >> yes, there's a This one took uh some ingenuity and and thought. So, we're
we're going to do a timber construction um heavy timber construction so we can actually go in and because the walls are not even steel construction is going to be very difficult to try and um repurpose that facade. So, heavy timber construction was determined as the best
means and methods in in style or style of construction um to be determined on how we construct it. But the way we envision it and we'll work with the contractor is to insert that heavy timber constructed construction then brace the facade from
the inside as it exists today and then remove that floor because that floor is bearing inside the masonry wall. It's an exterior loadbearing masonry wall. So we're going to get that timber construction built inside. We're going to brace that floor and that that wall and then we're going to remove the old
floor so that we can build this in shore as we're constructing. So the primary structure will act as shoring as we're building. >> How about um pedestrian accessibility outside as this is being constructed? Any >> Yes, we have um and I can go to our site
plan. So our drawing SP I believe 302. I got to find the right angle to pick this over. 302 shows there will be a time where we
will have to do a sidewalk bridge to protect pedestrians and maintain sidewalk access. Um there will be also points where that sidewalk will need to be closed for certain portions of the construction. Uh but the intention is to try and maintain thorough affair as we
did with 475. Uh there were times that we had to close it and then there were times that the majority of the construction time it was open. So are um would you be willing to submit a a pedestrian detour plan? >> Yes. So that's Yep. So we'll work with the police department and we will work
with the building department to do pedestrian detour plans, site plans, and maintenance of traffic plans as necessary. >> Okay. >> Um I think that's all I had >> chairman. Thank you. A few questions as was just mentioned regarding the sidewalk area. We had a question. It
wasn't necessarily identified in our report, but I was thinking about the sidewalk. Do you see any utility improvements and replacement of the sidewalk necessary along the streetscape? >> There will be replacement of the sidewalk. >> Okay. So, you'll replace it in kind. >> Yes. >> That's correct. >> In accordance with the standards that are out. >> Yep. There's uh portions that will have
to be cut up and removed um as a result of just general construction, setting the floor elevations, and then also the resoping of that sidewalk to meet our accessible entrance points. So, um I can actually show you what the scope is on SP 101 the board.
So if you look at drawing SP 101 detail number one, there's a hatched area that we expect that portion of the sidewalk to be replaced. So it will end up having to either too thin to that existing sidewalk, but we want to match the the city standards there.
>> And that's the hatched area you're talking about on the property. >> Yep. So, it goes beyond the property because uh we'll we'll have to rework some of that slope um and rework that sidewalk to maintain accessibility. >> I see that now. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Um regarding the dumpster enclosure areas, I think you just
identified that you did an analysis to make sure there's enough trash area for the rest of the building. >> Correct. So, that's on drawing SP 401. >> 401. There's a trash calculation or refuge calculation in the top right corner which has been revised uh since
our previous application due to the area of the building. >> Okay. Thank you. Um looking at the uh architectural rendering that you provided from the street view um the side elevation of the building, the
alleyway itself, is there any need to differentiate the fourth floor from the third floor? Is there any benefit in doing so from the design standards guidelines? It talks about breaking of horizontal or vertical elements. Um I
know I don't want to cross over with the historic commission but at the same time is that something you would have an opinion about? >> Yes, we wanted to maintain the the third floor. Uh again uh changing the spacing of the windows and the style of the windows would have changed the hierarchy
of architecture. So that arch top window on top of an arch top is the the what you would see in the colonial or federalist style. >> Okay. And to have like a cornice or a band that would >> it doesn't exist today. So we wanted to maintain the existing. Right now the the
current facade actually steps uh past the chimney and drops low. Um, I can actually indicate that line on drawing a uh 2011. Oh, I'm sorry, 202. >> My only reason why I identify that is because of the view down the alleyway of
how you can't see. >> Understood. So, right now, the building continues on a straight line here. There's a slight chimney. >> I see. >> And then it continues there as it drops down because this roof slopes in one direction. uh to the rear of the building. And so that's the existing outline of the building uh there on that
line. >> And so that would also be interrupting the window pattern. >> Correct. >> Correct. [clears throat] [snorts] >> And so as you can see the our our addition has similar spacing uh and vertical uh positive uh solid void ratio as what the existing architecture does.
And then we repeated that on the fourth floor to maintain similar architectural style. >> Okay. Thank you. Um you indicated the signage will conform with the regulations. That's correct. >> Future signage. Okay. Um, you went over the F calculation. Thank you.
>> Um, just to summarize the variances again, you touched on the building height variance, that's a D6 variance. The maximum number of stories as well. You're at four stories whereas three stories are permitted. The maximum or pertinance height, that's also another
variance or relief you're requesting. Correct. >> That's correct. And then also maximum light fixture height due to the fact that you have exterior lighting on that upper floor. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And then maximum illumination [snorts] is the lot lines. It's really down to I guess 0.1 foot candles. Uh
well we actually have a point uh five maximum at the property line because we want to maintain egress uh illumination at that back because if I will actually refer you to my architectural plan and so drawing a 102 I'll show you why we would are
requesting that variance. So drawing A102, we have a front entrance here for the retail space. Uh due to the depth of the retail space uh subject to occupancy, they may need a second means of egress which would then have to eress through the back of the building here. And then
all office corridors or office uh features in four stories or three stories or more require two means of egress. So we have a egress discharge off the back and we during the nighttime hours we want to make sure that that pathway along the back property line or that rear property line is eliminated
that elimination is occurring at ground level. >> Correct. >> And it's really just eliminating the back out. >> That's correct. Okay. >> Um any you may have covered this in the prior testimony or prior hearing. What is intended for that upper outdoor space? Are there any events planned or any uh planned utilization of that or is
that really just an amenity space? It's an intended as an amenity space for the office user. Um the hope would be it's a single uh office user that can utilize that space as one uh subject to how this uh building gets leased. Um it would but it's intended as the office use.
>> Any outdoor speakers anticipated? >> No, that space. >> Okay. Thank you. There was an application where it was an upper terrace with speakers. That's why I touched on. So thank you. I believe in our previous testimony we did uh put hours or or kind of a a time >> hours of utilization. So you're
stipulating that. Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks, Ed. Board members, what questions do you have for this witness? >> Mr. Current, >> thanks. um appreciate the reduction in the height variance or the request for the height variance from the last um
presentation, but and I'm I'm not sure if I heard it yet or not, but what are the special reasons that exist for us to grant the variance um because it's a devariance and then maybe touch on the um positive criteria for um that'll
further the purpose for the m municipal land and use law. So, we do have the planner testifying next. Okay. >> I don't know if >> he can answer that question for you. Y >> Thank you. Great. Tom. >> Yeah. So, um there was a lot of testimony at the last session by Nick
and I won't even try to pronounce his last name. >> Thank you. >> Um he didn't use the word impossible, but it came close saying it would be impossible to preserve the facade. Okay. So um and you use words which make me think is it more accurate to say you're
preserving or replacing but having it look similar or is it a mix? >> The intent is to preserve it. Um but we will have to replace certain elements of it if they are found to be damaged. Um the reason why that testimony was put on
the record is because it will be very difficult to do. um and through lots of conferring with our client uh he has agreed to undergo that that challenge with us. >> Okay. So there will be it will be a mix of preserving the material that's there as well as some new material.
>> There may be some replacement material we in kind um it depends on what again there's layers of paint there that we have not chipped away yet. We don't know if the the cornises are are in great shape on its entire length. So there may be portions that have to be replaced and cut. So the cracks that you see now will
no longer be here. >> We are the intention is to make those all disappear. >> Okay. And the pedestrian bridge I was mentioned last time and you mentioned again today. Pedestrian bridge is is that really more do you mean like a covered sidewalk? Is that what that really means? >> Like you would see in New York City where you would just have a temporary
sidewalk cover to protect from falling material or or construction loading things like that. >> Okay. And I guess this kind of a question for Ed as well. The F calculation obviously leaves, you know, teeny tiny margin for error. Um, Ed, are
you confident in their numbers? And what happens if they're off when they actually start working? >> If they're off, they would be back before this board. Um, the testimony is being provided, the evidence is being provided to the board as to their calculations. We've checked the numbers. We agree with the numbers, but yeah, it
is right at the limit. >> Yeah. >> So, if there's any deviation, there needs to be a new application made, >> unfortunately. So 1% is a very very small margin. >> It's 41 square feet. >> Yeah. 41 square feet. >> Good luck. [laughter] >> Okay. That's all. >> The the one benefit is we have the
limits of the existing building facade to hold us in check. >> Okay. >> Miriam. Um, so a couple, but just to piggy back off of that, is there um just to have some checks and balances, is there in this kind of situation, is there any precedent for sort of setting
measurements like in the field before you start, you know, just to make it's really easy to bump the wall 6 in and then all of a sudden 6 in by 46 feet, you know, three feet up. Um, is there a way to put in a condition that's going to make it easier for us to know if um,
and maybe Ed has some suggestion so that if if someone ha if they have to come back or as opposed to, >> you know, finding out after the building's constructed, >> right? So, >> correct me if I'm wrong. Usually, they require a foundation inspection. >> There's a foundation inspection and we'll also pin the corners of the
building and survey it and get the limits of the building before we construct it. >> Okay. >> Right. So, the foundation verifies the ultimate envelope of >> Okay. So there will be I mean maybe I don't know if that has to be you know I don't you know I don't know who in in the city is going to know how close this
is whether that has to be like after the foundation is measured you have to resubmit that you're at 299 or less or something like that if that's a stipulation but um that's a question or something maybe Andy can help with that.
Um the so two two other questions. One might be for Marie. Um the first one because the storm water the since they're adding 300 more than 300 square feet.
Um do they have to manage their own storm water or is it >> I I think because it's >> I don't think there I don't think there's any increase in lock coverage. >> There's no increase in lock coverage. >> Okay. It's just because you're taking away the parking and making it building,
it doesn't make a difference. >> Well, actually, because we're managing it on the roof and we're diverting it through uh roof drains rather than sheet flow through the back parking area, it will actually better be better managed um through that system. >> Okay. And then my second question is also related to that that note on SP201
that says um current storm water discharge from both adjacent structures shall be discontinued. Owners shall six months prior to commencement of construction inform adjacent property owners to remove discharge and to prohibit future storm
water flow onto the subject property. So I I >> I'm a little confused by that. It looks like you're planning to manage it with a pipe, but it here it says you're not. So, I'm just one, is there some kind of easement or agreement that requires you
to manage the storm water? And two, what does this mean if you you know, compared to the pipe that's shown on the >> So, the the current storm water management, there is no easement in place right now for storm water. Uh but their current um our droning properties uh actually discharge that grade and
flow by cheap flow um across the parking lot or continue along that rear facade of the building and then go to an underground pipe to that catch basin. So we're proposing to redirect that discontinuing the existing system and then redirect that storm water through pipes across our property.
>> Okay. Can that note be updated to say that you will it just because I think that may be legal. >> We can provide clarification for Marie on our >> Yeah, that's Thank you for bringing that up because all of a sudden when you started saying it, I'm like, "Oh, that was something I thought about like it sounded like when we read that that you
were just going to discontinue it to heck with the neighbor and so you're going to disconnect it and you're going to redirect it >> and we're going to redirect it." Correct. I I think Mark would be very upset if we disconnected it and and left his neighbors abandoned. It could also be a problem for your building itself to
have it everything come towards it. So that was one. And then the last question I have is just going back to um Ed's comment about putting some kind of cornice between the third and fourth floor, some kind of separation. I see what you're saying about the building
sort of the jog. Yeah, you can go back to that. >> Yep. I'll get to the side elevation A202. I guess my question is, is there a place to add something sort of decorative in there? If I'm looking at it straight across, like anything, you know, maybe
some something that looks like a sill under the fourth floor window, something that gives it a little distinction to break up the floor to the, you know, the point um that uh Ed made. I mean, there seems likely between the the main
Beachwood facade and the alley facade. Yes, that's that's what I was going to say is that there there I think if we wrap this cornice around it will take away from the the Beachwood facade and um it would actually accentuate that fourth floor where right now it blends in vertically as part of the field of
that that side alley. >> So if we had that horizontal kind of break here, I believe that this would look like a cap on the building rather than part of the building. >> Okay. Thank you, >> David.
>> This may be a better question for the planner, but I'll ask it anyway. Deferred if it is. Um, as you were thinking about this redesign, did you look into the prevalence of structures in the area that are four or more stories? >> Yes. And the planner has an exhibit and
will testify to that. >> Thank you. Great. >> Excellent. >> Just a question with rear guard step back. Um it's fiveish feet, right? >> 5T. >> Um that meets owner code with the and no no issues with lot line windows or anything like that. >> That's correct. There there are
limitations. Um I believe it's 20% of the uh facade can be glazing >> and we are under neighbors that have existing windows in that >> and the analysis of those all the properties were less than 20%. >> I'm sorry I didn't understand the are
you talking about the rear neighbors? Yeah. >> So, >> correct both on the I guess it would be on the alley side as well as the north side. >> So, I I'll go to SP 101. >> So, there are windows on our joining property here and then there's a window
here and we're proposing a few rear windows as well. Uh that that window to solid ratio can't exceed 20%. >> With the 5ft setback. So, we are under that that calculation. All right. [clears throat]
Any other Don? Go ahead. >> Are there any exterior sprinklers on that wall? >> No, it's a fully sprinklered building though within. And we've done deluge systems on facades if necessary, but um we would defer to the fire sub code to
>> you know advise us on that if it requires it. >> But again, it meets the building code standards for setbacks. >> All right. Any questions? Questions only. Oh, >> go ahead. >> You said there's five units. Where where are the five units? It's like retail one
and then each >> Yes. So, >> I'll I'll walk through each of the floors really fast. So, that'll start with drawing a 102, which is our ground floor. So, we have the retail as number one. We have the office lobby or first floor common
area as two. We want to keep those zones separate. Uh, and then there's three floors. So we have one unit for the second floor, one unit for the third floor, and one unit for the fourth floor. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Which would be >> the second one on the first on the
ground level is >> I don't Yeah, I don't because of hours of operation, we don't want to have retail and office coingle on their units. >> Great. Um, do we have questions? Questions only from the public?
No. Okay. Next witness teller. >> Uh Paul Gel >> and Mr. Gle, correct me if I'm wrong. We did not swear you in last. >> Not on this application. >> Okay. 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, last
name. >> Yes. Good evening. Paul Grigel, G R Y Gel, professional planner. >> Thank you. And I'll note for the record that you've appeared before our board a number of times, including very recently. Any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here? >> Not that I'm aware of. My license is
still current. I renewed it recently. >> Great. I imagine the board would like to accept you back once again. >> Absolutely. Welcome. >> Thank you. Please proceed. um if you could just quickly go through the steps you [clears throat] took to prepare for your testimony before you get into your um presentation. >> Yes, I've been active in the application
in many discussions with the project team regarding the proposed design as it's evolved. I visited the site and surrounding area on multiple occasions. uh reviewed the city's master plan and zoning ordinance as well as historic district regulations, the CRBD uh master
plan and essentially became very familiar with the site surrounding area, the application and the variance relief that's requested. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> So from there just continue. Great. I don't want to belabor the discussion of
the site and surrounding area but some key factors with regard to the property. We're dealing with a rather small infill site. The lot area is only 4,100 square feet, but we have an existing building that the applicant is now seeking to essentially restore and expand slightly as discussed by the prior witness. Uh,
with regard to the building, it's it's older. It's not a historic landmark per se, but it's in an historic district. As we've heard, there's been some issues that make reuse and redevelopment of it challenging. Uh the context as your board's well aware is a mixeduse setting with regard to uh existing land uses in
the area consistent with the CRBD zoning which allows all kinds of downtown uses from retail to offices, restaurants, residential, uh personal services, etc. Uh so the application um essentially we've highlighted some factors right at
the outset. Miss mentioned them that compared to what you've seen previously and what was proposed uh reductions in the overall height the the pertinance height as well as the building mounted lights we just heard about. These are all variances that are still requested
but are less in terms of uh the the amount we're requesting. Uh the application is also reducing building coverage as we heard and increasing setbacks to neighboring properties particularly to the rear and also maintaining the front setback. So that's the context for what we're requesting.
In terms of the zoning, the the CRBD, excuse me, is very um relatively lenient in terms of setbacks and other standards. There are standards such as F, which we do meet. We we heard it's relatively close, but I do think it's important to remember the context of if
this application were to essentially remove the building and start from scratch, you know, there's a certain limit that we'd have to comply with. We do in terms of area. We do not in terms of height, but I think that exhibit Aop A7 was the >> It would be A8.
>> Well, before we get to Oh, I'm sorry. The one that showed the >> Oh, yes, that's A7. >> Yes. That essentially where we the limitations. No, >> A6. A6. >> Yes. >> Essentially, the one that we referred to, you know, by maintaining the front setback, for example, we have issues.
Um, you know, we could push out to the to these lot lines, but that would, you know, give us extra space, but would be inconsistent with what's out there today. As well as in the rear, uh, providing, you know, not having to provide the 5ft setback. Those types of things all add up to essentially
shift the floor area from where, you know, different locations up onto that fourth floor. So, I'll get into the details of that momentarily. Uh, we already listed out the variances. There was a question from Mr. Snipers as he went through them. We agree with the list that was cited with regard to the
height variances and the other variances. Uh so [snorts] the first one that's being sought and I guess maybe most important in terms of hierarchy from the municipal land use law is the height variance. Uh since it's more than 10 ft or 10% over what's permitted. We are requesting a D6 height variance. And
again for the record it's 42 feets permitted in the zone 52 feets proposed uh on the current proposal. We also have the second height standard of a maximum of 50 ft with a pertinent structures. In this case, it's 54.7. Both reductions from the prior request,
but again over the maximums permitted. Uh with regard to the height variance, some things to note up front, the proofs, you know, there's a question already from one of the board members regarding special reasons. Uh case law has set forth the standard, the burden of proof being somewhat less for this
type of variance than for a straight use variance. In other words, um it was a case called Grasso v Spring Lake Heights which said that when dealing with height, you need to essentially not offend the purposes of the zoning ordinance. You recognizing that building
height standards are intended to be, you know, taken in context that uh you still are providing adequate light, air, and open space and promoting a desirable visual environment. So in other words, it's not just a straight number we're dealing with or in this case numbers, but how they fit in with the
surroundings next door, nearby, and the broader area. I I do think we in this case, you know, up front we we are promoting light air and open space as we just discussed by providing more than adequate space to the rear for the neighboring property as well as up on the fourth floor. The fourth floor we're
seeking has a rather substantial setback and step back from the front facade of the building. And really the overall I think the way to consider this I would suggest to the board is the overall preservation and rehabilitation of the building in this historic district
drives the desire to have the additional partial story on the fourth floor. Uh so the some of the objectives as far as the positive criteria is concerned. One is just like the prior application we are rehabilitating or in this case re replacing essentially the majority of
the existing building which has numerous issues today. I won't rehash all of them but in terms of there were some uh certainly ADA compliance is a major one right now the building is not accessible. Uh so the applicant is proposing to meet all current standards with regard to that as well as fire
codes all of their building codes uh while maintaining and improving the facade. We heard loud and clear from the historic preservation commission as well as the board and and members of the public about, you know, preservation of the facade being important. That said, we're also
looking to be consistent with the CRBD zoning and the master plan for the area with regard to providing permitted uses, both office and retail, which will help bring activity to the downtown during the day. Essentially, the trade-off though is that these things take money, takes effort. As we heard, it's not
going to be easy to do this, but the applicant is looking to preserve the facades and to maintain essentially what you see there today and make it better externally as well as internally to make it a usable building going forth. Uh just more generally with regard to
the positive criteria, again we mentioned the reduced setbacks uh and reduced building coverage, the improved setbacks compared to what was previously suggested uh requested. Uh the architecture on the fourth floor too. We has had some discussion about this. We do believe it makes sense to design it
in the way it's currently proposed to make it actually less obtrusive. We have exhibits showing that from different locations. Uh so I think for those reasons, we are addressing certain purposes of the municipal land use law. Uh purpose A is promoting the appropriate development in the CRBD zone. That's the general health, safety
and welfare. Uh summit seeks to have these types of uses rehabilitation of existing structures in the downtown. Uh purpose C pres promoting adequate light, air and open space. Uh purpose G providing sufficient space and appropriate locations for office and
retail uses. Uh purpose I promoting a desirable visual environment. and purpose J uh promoting the conservation of historic districts and again in this context we're looking to address concerns that have been raised about historic district um compliance.
uh but as far as the context of the height I think now we can turn to that you know those are some of the purposes of the land use law in this context you know we we have this height that is more than is permitted but in summit in the CRBD and adjacent zones we've identified
and I guess we can mark this now exhibit A8 >> uh this was prepared as a collaborative effort amongst our team both through the client as well as the design professionals our input as well to identify buildings uh in the vicinity We've identified seven in the CRBD zone.
So the exhibit shows a yellow boundary of the zone itself, but close by, I think it's important, even though you know essentially if you're driving in or out of town, walking around, you don't know there's a line on the ground. So we also look at what's nearby, uh there's an additional nine in immediately
surrounding zones. So that's a total of 16 uh existing buildings in the vicinity that are greater than the three-story height limit. And I would actually point out the CRBD master plan included a map similar to this that identified differences in height as well. Point
being that again this is not a precedent setting building uh just a short distance away. We've got the Basset building. We have other buildings that are above the maximum height that's permitted. >> And the Basset building is five stories, right? >> Yes. That's shown.
>> Yeah. So 150ish feet from the subject property we have a fivetory building. It's actually rather, you know, sizable in terms of its length, too. It's not just a single storefront, but uh but other ones um in the vicinity, there are some again other fourstory buildings uh
throughout here going up to six and seven stories. Recognizing it's different district, different type of use, >> but as you come into town from essentially the north that direction, uh you do have some taller buildings. So I think that we're dealing with a context here where you have some buildings that
exceed the height that's permitted and it's not a substantial you know deviation given the context here. Also the exhibits we provided I think show that from the sidewalk from neighboring properties it's really not visible the fourth story you know or if it is it's
it's been essentially designed to be enhanced integrated with the building as much as possible in terms of the overall appearance of the structure. uh you know we could go I don't think we need to belabor the point of you know we could go to the 300% F but the limitations I think have been
put on the record unless you disagree I think we've hit all of them pretty well that essentially the balancing you know of trying to maintain the setback providing you know not pushing out to the side property lines that type of thing limits the amount of space you can have on the lower three floors so I
think in summary for the positive criteria uh we're essentially taking the roughly 2,650 square feet that's on the on the top floors proposed is more than that is you know exist could be built on the lower
three floors uh through that exhibit that we showed but we've essentially taken it put into one place and making it usable. Uh with regard to the height, I would also note with the pertinence height, uh we're only dealing with a very small area of just over 100 square feet where you have the above the the
roof essentially on the fourth floor. That's for the ADA compliance for the elevator. Um you know, so it's really minimal, not it's not like we're proposing a large penthouse or something. It's not the overall, you know, fourth floor that accounts for that overall height above 54.7 ft. So in
summary, I think the positive criteria addressed for the D6 variance. With regard to the negative criteria, again, many of these points have already been made through my testimony and other testimony, but I don't believe there's substantial negative impacts on the surrounding area given the design of the building and its context. Um the step
back on the fourth floor clearly as shown on the exhibits, you know, it helps make it less visible or intrusive at the street level or from surrounding properties. Uh clearly the architectural uh has been design the architecture has been designed as well to make sure that
it's integrated as one building not having a separate fourth story just sticking up on top. Uh with regard to potential impacts in the master plan or zoning ordinance uh summits done a lot of studies over the years a lot of planning for downtown for the CRBD. Uh a number of master plan
goals and objectives are addressed through this application in my opinion. uh first upgrading older buildings to capitalize on their architecturally significant character. That was concern we heard. We believe the application takes a building that you know has character now but is over time has not
been maintaining that existing character. We'll be restoring it to you know what it was and in fact enhancing it with some additional architectural treatments. Uh the plan also talked about maintaining and encouraging mixeduse buildings with retail on the ground floor and office or residential
on the upper floors, preserving historic features and existing buildings and addressing ADA compliance fire and safety standards. Um, with regard to the zoning, again, we recognize there's a height limit that we're exceeding, but I do believe that in this context, it's a very unique situation and the balance of
providing permitted uses, providing for improvements to this older building, providing for aesthetic improvements, all would not result in substantial negative impacts on the city's master plan or zoning ordinance. Uh, with regard to the other variances,
the C variances, one is for number of stories. I think the testimony we provided with regard to the building height and feet is already, you know, essentially the same. The fourth story, you know, ties into that. The other C variants are just for the lighting. Um, again, I think we already had question and answer with regard to what the specifics are. The one the height of the
height of the lighting is really due to building the height of the building and having some on the terrace having some lighting up there as well as illumination at the property line for safe egress. So I think those variances can be granted under the C2 criteria that the benefits of the lightance
proposed outweigh any detriments and um that variance those variances can be granted in accordance to that criteria without a substantial negative impacts on the master plan zone or surrounding area. With that I know I provide a lot of testimony as well as I can go into more detail if you like. At this point I
can answer questions. >> Any questions? >> Great. Thank you. >> Board experts. What questions do you have for this witness? >> You don't have any? >> Uh a few questions. Sure. >> Uh thank you. Um with regard to the >> talk about under the negative criteria when we deal with the building height
and the number of stories, >> what is the purpose if you could just identify typically from a planning standpoint for a building height and number of stories limitation, >> right? It's to set the overall setting context of a uh you know in an area
where you have a sometimes lower heights. Generally here you have a threetory limit. Um, and the idea is with regard to light, air, and open space, not having, you know, shadow impacts, uh, not having buildings that stand out too much from other ones
nearby. Um, so I think in this case, you know, we we have a context where you have some taller buildings. And again, it's very limited the height that we're proposing on a portion of the upper floor of the building. >> Okay. Um, wouldn't it also characterize sort of the bulk or the ultimate mass of
a structure? >> Yes. So, one way to do it, great great question. uh you know F is sometimes included sometimes it's not in some ordinances there's only a height standard and then setbacks or um you know coverage in the in in this case there actually no setback requirement so
the F is really the controlling feature for mass and density if you will so that's the st you know in this case the height is not I wouldn't say it's not important but it's you know it's not the it's not by taking say a five foot front setback a 20 foot rear setback
back side setbacks and then having a height and setting a building envelope. Here the envelope can be F is intended to be more flexible to allow it to squeeze up to be out in different directions. >> Okay. It also goes towards establishing sort of the character of the area. Correct.
>> Of that zone. Correct. >> Yes. Yes. >> And the number of stories. And in your exhibit you identified, I believe it was seven uh properties within the CRB >> correct zone. Correct. >> Now they're Yeah. that are above the threetory height limit. three story height. Does that reference sort of a a
are you referencing that as sort of a established pattern or that there it's not unusual >> uh in the zone? I don't think it's a pattern per se. I think it's more just the fact that these are ex we're not coming in as the first you know building to exceed the height limit that you have
some that are generally in some cases pretty you know been around some time. These are not generally newer buildings that are have that height. when you look at the impact of the negative criteria as well. I know I didn't hear a discussion about shadow studies. I'm not necessarily
convinced that maybe one is necessary, but if you can talk about this property and any potential impacts from a shadow perspective. I know you're not an architect, but yet that's sort of a feature that we look at in [snorts] balancing the negative impacts. >> Right. So, a couple mitigating factors
here. One is that you have the alleyway next door. So even though you know the zone does not require setbacks from existing adjacent buildings, we have some space in between. So by its very you know the layout right off the bat has a little extra space next to it >> and that's right to the south. >> Yeah, correct.
>> And then the overall height the again 14.7 foot right the top floor step back from the front >> 16 >> well 16 for the property line >> for the property 12 and change. >> Sorry. So I just went right in the middle there. So 12 and change up at the
top. So in other words, you don't have a building wall that's going up straight four stories on the street. It goes up step back a bit from the street line to start with three stories and then goes back 12 feet or so just over 12 feet and then goes up to the fourth story. So
that's what the exhibit with regard to the sight line shows is that if you're looking at a building again on an angle, it's kind of you don't really see the fourth floor from the front. >> Okay. the rooftop apartments, they are um I think you had indicated they're about 100 square feet.
>> That's my Yeah, that's my understanding from uh reviewing the plans. Uh 2.7 the overrun for the elevator. Is that what that is? >> Yeah, that's that's exactly right. Yes. So, this is not um a bunch of different like a penthouse or other structures. It's literally just to make an ADA accessible building. That's
>> okay. But yet all the other mechanicals that may be on the roof will comply. I'm sorry if I didn't ask that of the architect. I'd have to My understanding is we the only additional is 100 square feet for the overrun. So I believe they do >> that's okay. Uh that's all the questions I had.
Thank you. >> Thanks board. What questions do you have for this witness? >> Don um so you use quite a number of buildings in the central business district. I would disallow the other buildings because they're different zones. So multi I think it's multif
family tower and those most of those buildings were except with the exception of the one on the forest and the one behind it were built many many years ago one burned to the ground one was renovated so those are kind of different stories building when was it built you
know 20s 30s >> looking at it if it's 100ish years old >> were you involved in the 475 Springfield Avenue project >> um my part my former partner who's retired now Paul Phillips was >> so this is basically the same type of same type the setup for the buildings, right? >> Yeah. Our firm has been involved. I was
familiar with that, assisted with I don't I didn't provide the testimony myself on on the original application. >> Similar. >> So, explain to me again why you need a fourth floor. Would the building still meet the master plan requirements with three floors? >> Well, there's different requ So, for >> would it meet would it meet the zoning?
Would it meet the master plans? >> So, the master plan that's the interesting thing is planning is taking a lot of different competing objectives and balancing them. So, I would say you you use the word requirements. Master plans obviously don't set requirements, but they do have objectives such as uh economic development, providing for uses
that will have vitality throughout the the day and night. So that's why you want mix of uses. The office actually brings more people to the area during the day. >> Likewise, there's historic preservation. You know, theoretically, again, the applicant could come in and say just demolish the building, build straight to
the property lines. So not trying to be evasive but I'm trying to just say that in as a planner you have to take these different factors you know into consideration. You also if you want to preserve an older building and just leave it as is there was discussion from the applicant that um you know what
would be the point to do go through this effort in 20 years first of all not bring it up to ADA compliance not bring it up to codes leaving the building the way it is wouldn't you know satisfi wouldn't essentially be consistent with the overall planning for the downtown. Now could we comply with the height? Sure. But again, it would involve pushing the building closer. You know,
we can fit all the square footage essentially in a three-story building if you push back, you push forward, you push sideways. >> So, I guess what I'm looking for, would it be economically viable to renovate the building, but only keep it three stories? Do what you're doing, but eliminate the fourth story.
>> Well, to renovate, I can't speak to I think there was testimony regarding renovation. I mean, to essentially take out the interior and to >> Mhm. No, but I mean end up with a building like in that picture but without the fourth floor. Would it still meet the master plan intent? Would it be uh maybe
>> but that's not what's being proposed and that's not what >> what we're what you're pushing at is there's so many other buildings here. Those are just odd bolts. They just happen to be built recently. >> I think that the the purpose of the exhibit is just to show the context and
that there are other buildings. So this would not be an outlier building where this is the only one that would be four stories and greater. >> Right. And what I'm trying to establish is that the the zoning is three stories. And I know that was a fight many many many years ago when somebody wanted to
build a five-story building. >> Sure. >> And we said we we decided on three. So if we continue and this I'm not I'm just speaking here not necessarily to your client. You know, I I picture this board in 10 years showing many more fourthstory buildings and five-story
buildings. My point is, why can't we just stay at the height, meet the requirements, stay at the three stories, do what you're doing, and eliminate that fourth floor. We didn't talk like you don't we don't show pictures of what that 100 foot overrun for the elevator
looks like from neighboring properties >> because you can't see it >> from neighboring properties from the fivetory building. I can't see it. >> I mean, I guess if you're you know, said is only 150 ft away building you would see. >> Yeah, you're only 150 ft away. So, >> but Don, maybe it's worth asking the
architect if you're bringing this building up to fire code, >> right? Which requires modern fire stairs, and you're bringing it up to ADA code, which requires an elevator. >> That loss of floor area. True. >> Does that make a threetory
>> modernization even viable? I think that's probably how you would want to ask the question. >> Thank you for correcting me there. I didn't think about that. >> Appreciate I agree with the what the chairman said, but no, that's honestly it's trade-offs that need to be made and I think we're we're really clients certainly working very hard to as you're
aware. >> This is a great this is a great design, right? >> I'm just worried about the fourth floor, >> right? And I will note just with regard to the exhibit, we were well aware of the distinction between the zones, but we thought I as a planner, it's important to show them, but we want to make sure the line is there too for the CRV. So, we're not trying to claim credit for buildings outside the area,
but just again to a lay person that doesn't know what the difference is between zoning districts. You have taller buildings nearby. That was more the intent behind that. >> Can I ask a followup along those lines? So, you made reference before to improvements in ADA accessibility and
fire code compliance and all those things that go with the modernization. Certainly, they apply to a building that was built in what 1893 I think was the date. >> I I wouldn't those be applicable to a good portion of the buildings in the CRBD
>> given with regard to those requirements or >> just with regard to those improvements from a modernization. I imagine a lot of these older buildings ADA accessibility is hit or miss at best >> and fire code compliance again these probably aren't fully sprinkler
buildings everywhere all that stuff >> there's not >> right so I guess to the point Mr. Nelson is making in the instant case. Sure, you can use as a justification for exceeding the height in the master plan, but
then we get another application and another application and that chart has a lot more green numbers on it in those subsequent applications. So, you know, how do we balance that? >> This is a unique case because of the preservation of the building. I mean, a
lot of other buildings in the CRBD could just be demolished. Maybe they don't have the same historic significance and then again, you could you would be able to put it on the three floors, but because they're preserving the facade and they're keeping the walls where they are
and they're not encroaching on different setbacks and things like that, that's the need for for this for this particular project, which is different than say another project that might come before you. Can you demo this as of right? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, is what you're positing before
the board that you're rendering a benefit to the city through this preservation? Therefore, we should >> give you the height variance. Is that essentially the crux of the argument? I would say that if you balance the way
that this project is proposed, it is better planning for the city because it's preserving a building. Um, and so the tradeoff might be because they're willing to preserve and maintain certain
setbacks and provide certain benefits to neighbors that putting a small portion of the F on the fourth floor makes better sense. So, as we think about that, just given the age of buildings in the CRBD, >> do you have any sense of what proportion
of the buildings in the CRBD one could apply that argument to? >> Well, again, if that's the case, they would have to come before this board and make that argument. >> I just want to get setting a precedent here. This could be the only site in the entire district
that h is not built to the property line and has its neighbor encroaching on its site. I mean, we don't know. So, if someone else has those exact parameters and they come before us, we can evaluate them then. But I don't I don't know that
we're setting any kind of precedent. They're arguing based on the very specific limitations that they have for this site only. >> Correct. Yes, that would just know one other factor is that even if you internally renovate this, I think Mr. Eager said this at the first hearing, you would not get the same type of
tenant if you just take what you have there now and just try to fix up and clean it up. It's the the thorough overhaul is what will get you, you know, more desirable space that will be longer lasting and beneficial, you know, to get tenants in the downtown that, you know, can again, we didn't even mention this regard to parking, etc., right near the
train station with parking all around in a setting that is desirable for that type of use. So, I think it's holistically a real benefit economic development wise to have that with new retail space, new office space on the upper floors as well. >> I have three questions. I'll try to make
them quick, but um one is regarding the ADA accessibility and the sprinklers. Um, am I correct in saying that this is really not a shouldn't really be a consideration because if you demolish the building and you build a new building, you're going to have to you're
going to have to be ADA compliant. You're going to have to have sprinklers. This is really not like that's not to me really a positive criteria of this building because I feel that of the level of renovation even if you to renovate this building you would be required to make those kind of
modifications based on the level of work that's happening here. Would you say that is that that compliance would requ would apply to a new building as well? Yeah, >> a new building would have to comply certainly with regard to rehabilitation of the existing because that's the other
alternative here, the rehab sub code. I'm not the architect, so I can't answer it specifically. I think there's some >> wiggle room, but I guess to leave the existing setup, if you will if you're only rehabilitating it, but um you know, a new building certainly would be, but again, the new building then would be able to push, you know, out to the
maximum building envelope and be designed differently. It's but again, it's not the [snorts] application we're seeking. comparing typically, you know, those kind of even homeowners have to bring things up to code when they're not if they're doing the scale of renovation. So, I just that was just a separate question. One is about the uh
shadows, which I know you're not the architect, maybe the architect, but you you mentioned the shadows, so I'm going to um uh one thing that I wanted to ask about the facade of the building faces west, correct? >> The front facade faces west. Yeah. So, um,
[clears throat] you know, where do you think that the extra shadow is going to cast? You know, at the end of the day, sun rises in the east, you know, sets in the west, that extra story. Um, no one really talked about that in terms of impact that's going to go further down,
I guess, the alley, right? The shadow behind the building. >> I would ask if the architect could answer that question for you. >> Okay. Um, I feel like we should pro just because the shadows were brought up, I feel like we should. >> So, um,
I will bring up SP 101 because that's probably going to give you the best orientation of the building. So, you're correct. The um the the Beachwood facade faces the west. We have
the the sun pattern would be along the south here. So your shadow would be cast starting in the morning going across Beachwood Road, but because of that setback, it will cast a shadow on the terrace. So it would cast a shadow up itself. Uh as the as it comes across the the site, uh you'll have a slight shadow
onto the roof of his northern property. And as you continue about midday, and this is only during the winter, you'll have a low sun that then casts a greater shadow onto the the roof of the northern property. As the sun sets, you'll cast a shadow into our previously parking area
and onto this building to the to the east of us that currently has a shadow on it. So, I don't think there will be a negative impact on on the shadows from the property. >> And how many stories is the building behind you? >> It's a twotory. >> Okay. Thank you. Um and then >> and the one to the north is a three-story building.
>> Okay. >> So you don't envision any impact from the shadows? >> No, it would not exceed the building limits of what's >> there's already a threetory building casting a shadow there. So okay. Um and then the last question I had because and
and maybe um Mr. ball has this but uh there was some discussion about noise and uh when the lights would be used and you know the no speakers I don't know if that should be a condition um but also I
I don't remember I'm sorry I didn't write it in my notes from the last meeting what what were the stipulations about the hours of use for the outside um that terrace because I think there are
apartments in some of the buildings right surrounding those office buildings some of the top stories are apartments so just from a a residential you know impact potentially I don't see it impacting businesses at night
>> so we had said um the hours of operation for the rooftop um 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. which is um what is has been standard for the other rooftop amenities in the CRBD.
>> Okay. And then the lights would be off at 10 p.m. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> And no speakers. Like we So lights off and no speakers. Can we make those just >> conditions? Yeah. >> I would imagine the applicants would
accept those as conditions. >> Yes. >> Do you foresee any type of uh picnic tables, patio umbrellas, anything like that out there? I I would say standard um as if if you look at the other rooftop amenities in the CRBD, they do have those things, but
um as Mr. Joerger had testified to, and he can come back up and testify to it, they're all secured. Um so go around and they're not going to fly around, >> but they'll be visible from the street. >> Bring up our line of sight diagram. So
there's a parapit on the uh the fourth floor. So that will go up to 42 inches as our fall protection. So the tables and chairs would not be visible, but if they had standing umbrellas, they potentially could have uh impact on the light of sight if they were held tight to the front of the property. So you may catch the glimpse of color on that top.
>> And as long as you're back up, uh where's the HVAC systems? >> The HVAC systems are back. >> So is that included in that 100 square feet for the elevator or is that additional? The HVSC does not count as an impertinence. It's a piece of equipment that would have to be screened.
>> So, it's gonna So, but visually, it looks like a square box on top of the roof. >> Correct. Correct. But it would be screened in compliance with the ordinance. >> How high would that be? >> About 4T. >> And to get to that, is there stairs, ladder? >> There will have to be a roof hatch ladder off of the one of the egress
stairs. Uh either to the north or the south. What other questions, Tom? >> Yeah, I'd just like to piggyback on the concerns expressed by Mr. Nelson and Mr. Mullen about about the four-story aspect of this. So, I maybe have a narrower definition than Mr. Griel's diagram. I
today walk an area roughly bordered by Maple, Springfield, Summit, and Union Place. And I, you know, I noticed the Basset building obviously and I don't know if it has a name, but there's a four-story building on Summit Avenue kind of across the street from the
barber shop and I don't know what else, but the Basset building and that other four-story building, I don't know when they were built. I don't know what the zoning rules were then about stories, but they're certainly both old buildings. Um, and walking on Beachwood and especially Union Place, but Summit Avenue 2, there are a lot of one and
twotory buildings. So, you know, and again, so I'm I'm going to get to a question, but I mean, what what I'm trying to get at is my concern about, you know, the city at some point said three stories is what we want to limit it to. Um, and there are in fact a lot
of one and twotory buildings. Um, and in the immediate vicinity of your of the applicant there, you know, it this would be the only four. I mean, I would argue that Basset building faces on Summit Avenue. So in terms of union place in Beachwood it Springfield sorry
um it would be the only threetory building the only fourstory building I should say. So is aren't we taking a big step going beyond the city's desire to have a limit of three stories in that immediate vicinity? >> Again I do not believe so given that
it's not a full fourth story. Uh that's part of it and it's a very unique circumstance with the mitigated by the alley next door and the setting next to a three-story building. Now as far as I mean one and two story buildings, sure you have some that exist but the zoning allows the three stories. So it's over
time you might anticipate that you'll have many of those buildings redeveloped. Um, but again, I think the, you know, we're not trying to say that there's, you know, fourstory buildings all over the CRBD now, but it's just basically that we're not coming in with something that's not here already. So,
let me ask you another question. I mean, obviously the applicant came to you said, "We'd like to have your testimony, reviewed the plans, you decided it was okay, you know, was not a significant negative impact to the four story." what what would have had it what would the application had look like with that four
story for you to say no I can't testify on this because it's just what would it have to have been >> you know it's I in fairness I haven't given thought to that but again I think the difference being if it was a straight you know a box that just certainly of new building if it was just saying let's build out to the maximum
you know the property lines four stories straight up that would I would imagine you know I'd have to consider that very carefully or if at all because it would be I I think much you know more impactful but as far as what we have with the stepbacks and the particular setting here of the building you know
essentially extending it nor you know above the existing third floor I think it's a reasonable you know in this location >> so you're you're hanging that on the fact that the visibility is mitigated by the setback um and is that that's the primary reason
>> that as well as right having a unique context here where you can take the the additional floor area that you know, essentially is permitted. You know, a box, as I mentioned in response to Mr. Snik's question, floor area ratio is a way of being more flexible than just saying here are the lines, you
know, here are the numbers. It's a way you can take the same amount because the space is, you know, the same amount as you would have if you built a three-story building right out to the property lines. So, in this case, um I think it's a reasonable compromise to get the benefits of preserving the
building and providing for new, you know, uses that are consistent with the downtown master plan. >> All right. Thank you. >> Um I just had a question that you you made me think of something which I don't know. Um given that you know the pertinance height is above the maximum
height too. Um, has there been any consideration to reducing the size of the fourth floor? Perhaps setting back even further where maybe you have a little bit smaller office space upstairs. You can still have roof on above the third floor but move the pertinances on
top of the third floor there like carve out a place there. If you if you made that building smaller, >> the elevator is the issue. [snorts] >> But I actually on this point while you're doing this, what's the AFF for the finished ceiling height on the fourth floor? What's AF? >> I'm sorry.
>> Uh the the goal is uh 9 ft minimum. So between the HVAC the um uh sprinkler system we have 12 and 1/2 ft floor to floor. So that would give us so that would give us the 9 foot clear ceiling height. >> So I was thinking along those lines. Can you bring that ceiling down? But a 9
foot ceiling candidly is probably about as height as you would want to go. >> Yeah. >> So I was thinking can you bring that floor down to get your height down? But it seems like you guys are already on that line. So to to kind of speak to your question about why the 12 ft and why the the dimension that we held um these two egress stairs need to be
remote uh which means that they have to be one-third the diagonal distance of the building and they're actually spaced as far apart as they possibly can. So then that would have actually put the stair on the terrace. Um and then pushing that back further would made that you have to eress through the
terrace to exit. >> They have to be so far apart. Yes, >> they could be no more than They can be closer, but they can't be more than that's the minimum oneird the diagonal distance of the building. >> They can't be any closer. They can be further apart. >> So the stairs push to the outer limits
of of where that could be. >> I thought you could not be any more than 75 ft from any exit. >> Not in a >> It's 100 ft um on office use. >> Okay. So it's 100 ft. That means you're 75. >> But I need two means of egress. And those those those cannot be more than um
onethird the diagonal or less than oneird of the diagonal distance of the building. >> No less than one. >> But if you shifted the doors down on that I'm going to call it down on that drawing. I guess it's south. this would project out beyond the >> um I guess you know when you could maybe
could you jog any of that out make the patio deeper just to make >> how would you be able to rent office space that has equipment next to it >> yeah well I mean on the outside in the corner >> if I can just jump in I think that you know Michael you can say it better but
you have gone over this probably 5,000 times to try to limit and make it work And >> I also think a joged fourth floor or step to fourth floor wouldn't work with the architectural style of the the colonial and federalist style of the existing building. So if you started
jogging and kind of shaping that fourth floor to minimize your line of sight, then I think it'll have an impact on on how that building will look. >> But we're saying that no one is actually seeing the fourth floor. That's part of the testimony right there. >> Yes. But you would you will see down the
alleyway and if you start well yeah I don't know how much you would see from the side you know a little bit but >> well you see walking forward you would actually start hitting that >> sky plane >> and it's very visible walking up and down the street if you're right in front of it maybe you won't see it but walking up and down the street.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. You don't give a view from the I guess the north side. From the north side, the boxwood building will mostly screen your line of sight >> except for the elevator shaft. >> The elevator shaft only projects about
two feet, you know, 2 ft above the roof elevation. So, you will not see that from the street elevation. If you're looking from above or from a fourth floor, you may see the tip of that, but it's the clear height you need is 16 ft for the elevator. And that's why we need
that slight projection. >> Is it hydraulic? >> Uh, hydraulic. Yeah. What's the finish of the enclosure for the elevator? >> It'll be stainless steel, I think, is the standard that we we put for this, >> but we [snorts] can it'll be a standard finish from the elevator manufacturer.
>> I meant the exterior. >> Oh, the exterior. Oh. Um, it'll be masonry. >> Masonry. >> Yep. >> To match the building. >> It'll be painted. >> Correct. >> So, I I should remember this, but I don't. So, where will the elevator ex where will that be? >> U if I could. It's like behind the the
window kind of back there. Um roughly the northeast corner >> it will Yeah, it'll be So the elevator comes up here in the building and this is the only area of the pertinance right there that that small box.
So it's set back so far from the building. >> So which side is Beachwood on that? Where you >> Beachwood is on this side here on the uh the left hand side. So this is ab budding the boxwood building. >> You might see it from the parking lot
across the street. That's about it. >> From the parking structure. >> Yep. Parking Bank Street. >> Uh you would have to be almost at Springfield Avenue. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> What other questions do we have for this witness? >> Seeing none. Uh questions from the
public for this witness? No. All right. Thank you so much. >> You're welcome. >> Hillary, anything you want to wrap up? >> Um, I do have a summation, but did you want neighbor comments first or do you want me to do my summation? >> Um, we could do neighbor comments after
your summation. >> Okay. Okay. So, I just want to acknowledge the significant effort that's gone into the evolution of this application. Uh, following the prior hearing, the applicant carefully considered the comments and concerns raised by the
board. the Historic Preservation Commission and the members of the public and undertook a comprehensive redesign of the project. The plans before the board tonight represent a substantial departure from the original submission and reflect a meaningful effort to respond to the issues that were
identified during this process. The applicant has made substantial changes to reduce the overall impact of the proposal, including preserving the existing Beachwood Road and side alley facades, increasing [clears throat] setbacks to neighboring properties, reducing building coverage and height,
and refining the architectural design of the proposed addition to complement the historic district. These revisions demonstrate the applicant's commitment to working collaboratively with the board and the HPC and to achieving a design that balances preservation, neighborhood
compatibility, and the reasonable use of the property. We respectfully submit that the revised application before the board tonight represents a thoughtful and appropriate redevelopment of the site and that the testimony presented demonstrates that the requested relief can be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good or impairment of the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. And for those reasons, we respectfully request that the board favorably consider the application before this evening. >> Thank you so much, Hillary. Uh public comments at this time.
>> Sure. Come on up. >> We're going to swear you in. >> If you could please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matters? The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And please state your name. Spell your last name >> is Caroline King. K I N G.
>> Thank you. >> And do you need any other information? >> Address, please, as well. 38 Gloucester. >> Please proceed. Thank you. >> Um I'm here representing the HPC um and also uh the uh uh Summit Historical
Society because we work together on uh looking to really uh afford and educate uh the town and everyone uh about historic preservation. So, I'm here to say that the HBC truly appreciates the
recognition of the historic value of this 19, sorry, 1897 structure um and its contributing character to the Summit Downtown Historic District. We spent a fair amount of time and we're very appreciative of the board for I think
really spending some time with the materials that we submitted and we are truly appreciative of uh the applicant and their team um and the continued dialogue we were able to have with them and the effort which I think was substantial for them to take what would
have been a complete demolition if I understood and we all understood the first proposal. Uh so the other thing we'd like to share is that as an HPC um at least this HPC there are different spectrums of where historic
preservationists sit. Um as a group were very um supportive of adaptive reuse and the fact that you can't necessarily always be frozen. In this case, it's 129 years, I believe, in time of 1897
buildings. And that we believe that adjustments do need to be made for current needs and conditions and that that balance needs to be taken, but that first and foremost respecting the historic value. But certainly in this
case there's enhancement and it takes a lot of funding to restore buildings and this is a big difference in choice from complete demolition. So we really do believe this proposal is a good example of preservation of the historic character of downtown Summit. So we
support this application. >> Fantastic. Thank you Miss Really appreciate your testimony. Thank you. >> Anyone else? All right, with that, Mr. Ball, can you tell us the number of votes required for approval and the conditions?
>> Yes, so we do have a D6 height variance involved. Five votes are required to approve the application. Um, I do have quite a few conditions as well as some which I will uh like some board input to confirm whether we still need them. Um,
I will also note as I discussed with Missa, my notes from the prior hearing and the prior conditions, I don't have them on this computer, but I'm sure the applicants council uh if we get to that point would work with us on finalizing any of the conditions involved in the
prior uh hearing as well. Um, so I do have that the applicants uh first are usual compliance with conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum. Um, second, that the applicant shall replace the two existing shade trees subject to the review and approval of the city
forester. Third, that the applicant shall submit pedestrian access plans and traffic plans to address access during construction subject to to the review and approval of the police department. Uh, fourth, that the hours of the roof use will be limited from 7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. and the lights will be turned off at 10 p.m. Uh, fifth, that there shall be no speakers or electronic sound amplification amplification devices installed on the roof patio area. Sixth, that any rooftop furniture shall
be secured in a manner to avoid being blown away during any storms. 7th. Uh the and this is one that I wanted to check with the board. We did discuss a I believe it was a foundation inspection. Correct me if that terminology is wrong.
>> Yes, I believe that's correct. And that's typically a normal course of action. But if the board wanted to identify that to be sure of this F being in compliance >> and who would that be typically submitted to to review, would that be to board engineers, city engine? >> Building um inspector would be doing that.
>> Okay. along with confirming that with the zoning officer probably. >> So just a heads up on this one like the we should give the jurisdiction to the construction department >> if they mess up our recourse to them is saying sorry take square footage off the roof just to be that clear. I mean it's
it really is that simple. I don't want to overthink it but like that's that's the risk they running is that they'll have to spend money to literally take F to be in compliance. That's the way it's done a lot. >> But the the guide rails are already in place. Correct. We we don't need to add
any or codify this in any other way. >> There's already >> the penalty is so costly that they really shouldn't mess up, >> right? >> Well, I I will say we can't say you must remove it from the roof because they could always come back and apply for additional variance relief at that
point. So >> um but I think one way to ensure through a condition that that doesn't happen is that the foundation inspection shall be prepared and submitted to the I guess zoning officer and construction official >> for verification
>> prior to commencing construction to ensure the F remains at the proposed 299%. >> Uh constructing foundation walls >> prior to constructing the foundation walls. Okay, sounds reasonable. >> It's done as a
>> Yeah. >> All right. Those are the conditions that I have noted. Uh, Miss Ellis, I do believe you mentioned there was one about establishing an escrow for landscaping. >> There there was some discussion at the last hearing about an escrow to ensure
that we replace those shade trees. um obviously were >> covered by the condition that they're replaced subject to the city forers review. Uh so those are the conditions that I have noted. If there's any further from the board, please let me know. >> Just just to make sure that that note on
that SP 2011 is updated to show uh reflect that they actually will be ultimately managing the neighbor storm water via that new pipe. >> I think the note is just not correct. >> Okay. So with that, who would like to begin
our executive session? >> I think Miss had some neighbor comments that she was going to share. >> I think she was talking about those. >> Oh. >> Oh, >> yeah. >> Yeah. Sorry. >> Yep. I think we cover that. Thank you, though. >> Great. >> Who wants to begin? >> I will,
>> Alison. >> Um, well, first I I thank you so much for coming back with a very revised plan. Um, I wish we we started with this plan. Um, but we didn't. So, but we're here now. Um, and it's really
appreciated when the applicant listens to the board, listens to the public, um, and understands like the planner said if that how this new application will fit in with the streetscape
um, that's currently there. It's not going to it's not going to stick out. um appreciate like I said keeping the historic um significance of it and visually I think it's a very nice looking building and I can fully support it and I appreciate all the extra work
that you did and the the extra expense sure it is. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you Alison. Appreciate that. >> Who else? >> Jay. Yep. >> So this was a fun first meeting to review uh on YouTube. Um but I'm really
glad to see the revisions here. The effort that is going to go into restoring and maintaining that facade is something that I can tell you from personal experience. Good luck. It's a lot of fun. Um, but I think it's going to deliver a product that not only fits the town, but really drives the the
master plan and what's supposed to be delivering a downtown use and a function that is going to benefit not only the street safe by maintaining that entire linear frontage with the neighboring property. um but [clears throat] ultimately has very limited if any negative impact on the community. I
think it's the benefits so far outweigh any of the detriments here that I fully support this and I good luck building it. I would really look forward to seeing it finished. >> Um >> Sure. I also can support this application. I am incredibly
appreciative of the redesign and the efforts to um use reuse the existing facade. I I believe this is a good compromise where we are um meeting our objectives for the zone by preserving
the historic character but also creating a modern workspace. And you know, I I look at it as a compromise of I recognize, you know, what would this building look like if you built it out over three floors? You could do that. I don't I don't think
that would be I don't think that would be the best outcome for Summit. And honestly, I believe that the positives outweigh the negatives and specifically where it relates to the height because I think that's the biggest uh consideration here. [clears throat] It it does not appear that there's going
to be any additional shadow impact from the fourth story because we already have a three-story building casting a shadow on a two-story building behind it. Um I think that there's also minimal impact uh due to the fact that the building is not direct. There's the alley which sort
of buffers the building. I mean, if there had been a two-story building attached to it. I think that fourth story would look very different, but I I do think the alley is sort of a, you know, a benefit that this building has and that it helps sort of break it up a
little bit. Um, so I think it helps make the visual impact a little bit less and obviously the setback um allows that the the facade sort of ties into the neighboring boxwood building and gives it a little more of a cohesive look for the block. So um I I do believe the
positives outweigh the negatives and I can support this application. Okay, David. >> So, for me, this is a much closer balancing in terms of how I look at it. And I think about the master plan and it both advances and detracts from the
master plan in the sense of this is clearly an improvement on the original plan and just taking a functionally obsolete building that has a lot of life safety concerns and bringing them up to modern standard is certainly consistent with the goals of
our master plan. However, our master plan also calls for a particular height in in our downtown district and this is above it and I think we established that the first meeting that when you purchase the building maybe the degree of due
diligence that you did in purchasing that building wasn't up to the degree that you probably would have done in retrospect. So, I think about, you know, weighing those things and then I think about I'm actually thinking about the old Sherwin Williams paint store in Chattam, that
building. And I remember going there one day after not having bought paint in a while and discovering there's a new building there. And I looked at the way they approached it and it was it's actually very similar to this building. And I think about
when when you look at that top level, does it really interfere with the streetscape? Not especially. You see it, but it's not obtrusive. So, when I think about that sort of structure right here, I say it's not
going to be quite that obtrusive. Now, the view when walking north of Beachwood, you're going to see it. Mr. Yuko pointed out second you step out of that train station, you're seeing that. And I guess what I'm nervous about is consistent with our master plan as a
municipality, we don't necessarily want to see more of that. So, and that's something the governing body ultimately has to address. But when I think about all of the balancing that we have to do as a board, I probably come out in favor of it, though
begrudgingly so. >> Well said. Thank you, Dave. tone. So, I mean, I've been listening and clearly I think my questions earlier communicated some of the struggle I have with this one. Um, first I want to compliment add to the compliments much improved from
the first application. Mr. Joerger's projects are always wonderful projects. So, that's goes without saying. Um, I am concerned about the fourth story and I know this setback has worked at least one other building I can think of in town and probably other places too in in
masking the visibility. not hiding it, but masking it. Um, so I've been struggling with this all weekend watching the video and walking around the neighborhood today. Um, you know, and I and to Mr. Riel's point, you know,
I think fourtory without the setback I think would be an easy no. For story with the setback is, you know, it's it's a harder decision. Um, you know, I think I'm coming down very reluctantly to vote in favor, but it's very reluctant. Um,
yeah, I think that's where I am right now. >> We we'll put an asterisk next to your vote. All right. >> Don't forget to vote front and back step. >> Okay. >> So, um, if I may, >> uh, I think this is a fantastic project. It looks great. I like my cohorts, I am
struggling with the fourth floor edition. Uh, we do have zoning in place. Um, again, it comes down to a balancing act. You know, can you see it? Can't you see it? Um, just a little history and maybe I'm going to bore you for the next 40 seconds. That whole block burnt down
in the 1800s. So, I think that alley serves both as a fire break in old mentality. They didn't have any other way to prevent fires from spreading. Also utility for garbage trucks and stuff like that. Um, my big concern is um this is a second or third or fourth
building that has a fourth story. Um where do where do we where do we draw the line? Uh historical preservation committee member was here that kind of swayed me a lot >> uh in my in my thought process. Uh again reluctantly. I am uh not in favor of of
four stories but this is done in a I guess the best balancing act of of working for the client and working toward the master plan's uh direction. Uh maybe not the best way, but um I can
reluctantly see the positives to this and uh I can support tit though I'm not a second asterisk. [laughter] >> And you you weren't here for that fight when you got it wasn't >> I got gray hair but I ain't that old. [laughter]
Um, I I would also like to add um to the list of kudos and congratulations to your team for hearing the board. I I think we can safely say this is a great example of the system working the way
it's supposed to, right? Um that that you were willing to hear the zoning board, that you were willing to listen to historic preservation means a lot to me personally. Um I I I would like to emphasize to everyone that if we grant
this variance, it doesn't mean we're rewriting the zoning code, right? This is a very specific set of constraints. I mean, the team did an excellent job of explaining how very difficult this site is to deal with. And I think the last
thing anyone would want to see is a building that sticks out four feet beyond boxwood, right? It just makes no sense. Um, so to avoid that and to get this facade restored, I think uh to to have
the fourth floor is a small price to pay. And my colleague said it very well. The setback makes all the difference in the world. It's going to be an improved tenant experience. It's going to be an improved experience from people down on
the street. And uh I just think it's a fantastic project. Um, Mr. Mullen talked about the life safety issue. Obviously, bringing it up to code uh and becoming ADA compliant is something that's absolutely in keeping with our master plan and something that
we will always support as a board. So, with that, I could say I'm very much in favor. No asterisks at all for me. Um, and with that, can I get a motion to approve? So, move. Can I get a second, please? >> Second.
>> Mr. Mr. Ball, can you call the role for us? >> Certainly. >> Thank you, sir. >> Vice Chair Zan, >> yes. >> Mr. Yuko, >> yes. >> Mr. Mullen, >> yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Mr. Kieran, >> yes. >> Miss Chief, >> yes. >> And Chairman Lickens,
>> yes. >> Great. Thank you so much. >> Congratulations. Good luck. >> Do you have to remove the asterisk since we move to approve? >> He goes from two down to one asterisk. All right, we do also have four
resolutions on for memorialization this evening. So, I'm going to try to struggle through this for everybody here. Uh, first up, we have two Crest Acre Court. Application numbers ZB262328. The eligible voting members are Chairman
Ly, Vice Chairwoman Zan, Mr. Yuko, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Kuran, and Miss Chief. Can I get a motion to approve? who was the second. Thank you. Um and
vice oh, sorry about that. Uh Vice Chair Zhan, >> yes. >> Mr. Yuko, >> yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Mr. Kieran, >> yes. >> And Miss Chief, >> yes. >> Uh sorry, Mr. Chairman Ly. >> Yes.
>> Thank you, Alison, for the assistance. Um, next up we have 21 West End Avenue, application number ZB252316. The eligible voting members are Mr. Lyz, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Kuran, Miss Chief, and Mr. Chantuli. Can I get a
motion to approve? >> So move. >> Second. >> Mr. Mullen, >> yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Mr. Kieran, >> yes. >> Miss Chief, >> yes. >> Mr. Chantuli. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Lens. >> Yes.
>> Um, next up we have 152 Beakman Road, ZB 262332. Eligible voting members are Chairman Lyets, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Kieran, Miss Chief, and Mr. Chantuli. Can I get a motion? >> Move.
>> Second. >> Mr. Men, >> yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Mr. Kieran, >> yes. Miss Chief, >> yes. >> Mr. Chantuli, >> yes. >> And Chairman Lyens, >> yes. >> Thank you. And last up, we have uh 21
Dunder Drive. Application ZB262334. Eligible voting members are Chairman Loyets, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Kuran, Miss Chief, and Mr. Chantuli. Can I get a motion? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Mr. Mullen?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Kieran? >> Yes. Mr. Chief, >> yes. >> Mr. Chantuli, >> yes. >> And Chairman Loy, >> yes. >> Thank you. There are no minutes on for memorialization. >> I have a question about there. I'm
sorry. The applicant that was just here, it said 13 Beachwood, but it was 11:15 Beachwood. Does it make a difference that they're all there? >> Um, no. The the application properties are 11 through 15. >> Okay. Yeah, it's okay.
>> Yep. Sir, >> no worries. Um, unless there's anything further. >> Motion to return. Second. [laughter] >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. >> I will probably not be here on the third.
>> Okay.