##VIDEO ID:wKrqorv8q0A## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e good evening and welcome to the December 9th 2024 special meeting of the city of summit Zoning Board of adjustment my name is Joe Steiner and I chair the zoning board please rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance I pled to the of the United States of America and to the Republic which stands one nation under God indivisible andice for all thank you in accordance with New Jersey statute 10 colon 4-10 notice of this special meeting has been provided to a newspaper of record and has been posted here at City Hall this meeting is a Judicial proceeding any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board May legally consider in reaching a decision and decorum appropriate to a public judicial hearing must be maintained at all times for the benefit of the interested public this meeting is being live streamed to the city's YouTube page and also broadcast on summit's governmental Channel which is Comcast channel 34 and Verizon channel 30 the transcript of the meeting is also being taken utilizing the video and audio so we need all speakers to come to the uh microphone phones in the front of the room and use them please please note that the fire exits are to my right your left and at the back of the room where you entered the city does have a city a listening an assisted listening system to assist the hearing impaired and if anyone needs that hearing assistance please obtain the system here at the de and return it thereafter um Madam Secretary would you please call the role sure chairman Steiner here Vice chairman lyit here Mr Yugo here Mr Nelson here miss Zan is excused Mr Kieran is expected but not yet present Mr Malay is excused Miss to here miss chfo here Mr fkins here Mr Chuli here you have a quarum you may proceed thank you uh Andy ball sitting on my right is the zoning board's attorney he advises board members on matters of law and is the key interface with the applicants attorney Mr ball does not vote on the applications Stephanie suos is a city employee and is the Zony board secretary she works with applicants on preparing their applications planning our agendas and keeping our meeting minutes the suos also does not vote on the applications uh hopefully we will have both of our experts here shortly uh tonight uh we do have it's n is from Burgess Associates our board planner and we are anticipating having Marie rafy caller engineering here um they are seated at or will be seated both of them publicly at the uh table to the right of the board the publics left and again they do not vote on the applications our board consists of seven regular members and up to four alter alternates all members can participate at the in the hearings tonight but a maximum of seven can vote most applications require simple majority to be approved and before we enter executive session to vote on an application you will be advised how many votes are required each case will begin with the applicant's attorney giving an overview of the application process to date and the variances that are required we then hear from any additional expert witnesses that they may have to help explain the application and why the variances are needed board members may ask questions of the applicant they returning and the expert Witnesses once the board members and the board professionals have completed their questioning the public will have an opportunity to ask questions this is not the time to tell us what you think about the application that opportunity comes at the end of the hearing and please be careful how you phrase your questions they should not be preceded uh with a statement about the case but should be direct question to the witness also before you ask your questions please clearly state your name spell your last name and provide your address it's important for a court reporter to be able to keep a clear and accurate public record uh after all the witnesses have been heard members of the audience have their second opportunity to speak and at that time you can express your opinion positive or negative on uh about this application the public hearing is then closed and we enter into executive session where the board members discuss the case and vote you will be able to listen to our executive session but you will not normally be able to participate in that discussion tonight we have two cases both of which have been started and uh we are almost to the end of one and then we will go to the other so we will begin with the Beacon Hill Club and there are a number of people who are recusing themselves um you go and our vice chairman Scott L is and one other right he's not here yet so he's not here yet and our again we are uh flying without one of our uh one of our experts and hopefully she will get here during that and we will mention that so we're ready to turn it over to okay all right thank Beacon Hill Club Hillary Al from Dy Dy and Sheen representing the applicant Beacon Hill Club 250 fullard Avenue block 2203 L one first I'd like to thank the board for their time tonight and for listening to this um application over the last few months tonight I'd like to focus on what is proposed by this application and the relief that's being requested this application proposes to update modernize and improve the functionality of the carriage house which has been described by the applicant and experts as outdated and in need of repair improve and update Pat house which is an existing non-conforming accessory structure and make modifications to the upper and lower parking areas which will result in the addition of on street parking spaces Ava compliance spaces and EV space and improved on-site circulation the club will F the club further proposes the replacement of existing non-conforming sight lighting with compliant lighting that will produce no off-site spillage and be managed by automatic timers improve Ada accessibility throughout the site improved pedestrian circulation and the installation of a substantial Landscaping plan together with providing indoor storage for existing equipment currently stored Outdoors which will significantly improved aesthetic from brandwood drive with regard to the relief requested Beacon Hill Club is requesting a lot coverage variance for 65% that's 2775 Square ft on a site that's over 425,000 escaping make it virtually impossible to perceive the additional coverage proposed from any one spot on the ground the applican is also proposing storm water management that will result in capturing more than the required storm water runoff generated by the additional coverage next the club is Seeking a variance for steep slope disturbance for 2,79 square ft or 2.12% of the steep slope area on site The Proposal is designed to meet the intent and purpose of the steep slope ordinance as testified to during the presentation by the applicant civil engineering expert the testimony confirm that the steep slopes being disturbed have no ecological value the disturbance will not cause excessive erosion or other unstable conditions there will be no degradation of resources and as previously stated the storm water management proposed is in excess of what is required the club is adding off street parking with ADA compliance spaces in EV space Beacon Hill Club is asking for a variance for nine spaces which relate to additional space used for storage maintenance and existing employees and members and for improved accessibility none of which generates increased parking demand or Tri trip generation as testified to by the applicant's traffic engineer the applicant's traffic engineering expert qualified by the board testified that this prop this proposal will improve every single condition relating to off street parking site circulation and accessibility without question under all applicable standards finally Beacon Hill Club seeks minor increases to an existing non-conforming accessory structure by the expansion of the second floor and an additional 8 and 1/2 ft in height and 55 Square ft in ground floor area the peaked roof of Pat's house contributes to the additional height the peak roof is aesthetically pleasing architecturally consistent with the other buildings on site and a preferable and favored design over a flat roof as reflected in Summit design guidelines as was described in the testimony the expansion to path house is not to is not designed to increase Spectators there will be the same number of Spectators that have been in the past what the Second Story expansion and improvements to Pat's house will do is provide a better viewing experience especially when weather conditions in the winter result in the glass around the rink fogging up making it virtually impossible to see what's happening on the ice from ground level currently when this fog and condition occurs Spectators have two options they can use the old spiral staircase which is only wide enough for one person on the stairs at a time and stand on the existing small and narrow platform on the second floor of Pat's house or they can climb the metal bleachers in icy wet slippery conditions and stand on the top row and look down to see over the glass neither of these are desirable options for many reasons including safety Pat's house as proposed will provide a better Vantage Point both on the ground floor with the removal of the obstructions from the existing windows and from the second floor when viewing the rink is not possible from the first floor due to certain weather conditions these minor increases to Pats house will be difficult to perceive from offsite because its location interior to the site the Topography of the site the proposed landscape buffer and the indirect views from brandwood Drive the near nearest neighbors sit much higher than the structure which make the Second Story and additional height difficult to perceive off site and the addition will be shielded by the proposed Landscaping from brandwood drive just to note the neighbors that set up high on Hobart Avenue and Beacon Road have not come to any of the neighborhood meetings to express any concern and have in fact expressed their support of the application to Mr Pascal who's here tonight and can testify to that variance requests should be granted if an applicant can demonstrate the proofs necessary to meet the statutory requirements it is submitted that Beacon Hill Club has met that burden of proof Beacon Hill Club has been a part of this neighborhood and existed at this site for 70 years private club use is a permitted conditional use and the site continues to be appropriate for the use and the improved and the improvements proposed storm water management is designed to manage any increase in runoff generated by the additional coverage The Proposal is designed to allow the applicant to better serve the mission of the club and not intended to increase membership or increase trip generation or parking demand the existing structures and topography of the site create practical difficulty and undue hardship on the applicant certain areas of the club and the lower campus are difficult to access for those members who have mobility issues or for families with young children in order to provide accessibility it is necessary to construct an addition in the front entry of the carriage house to provide enough space for an elevator and access area and to expand the pool patio area for a seamless and direct connection with the rest rooms locker rooms and dining area resulting in increased lock coverage in order order to provide sufficient space for maintenance equipment and storage equipment currently being kept Outdoors which is created on sightly views for neighbors and with the limited space on site due to the topography the only alternative is to construct an addition to the Carriage House the overall design and result of the proposal will continue to bring the club and the amenities that are offered into current custom en with other private clubs in the area and will improve service and functionality to the members The Pedestrian and traffic circulation improvements the addition of off street parking spaces the lighting improvements and accessibility improvements all enhance Public Safety and promote the general welfare The Proposal provides for sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of recreational uses in order to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens The Proposal will provide safety from fire flood panic and other natural man-made disasters by the installation of backup generators and upgrad mechanical equipment this equipment is also more energy efficient quieter and more environmentally friendly than the existing equipment the improvements proposed are aesthetically pleasing and together with the significant landscape screening proposed will provide an aesthetic improvement over existing conditions and create a desirable visual environment while maintaining adequate light air and open space the improvements will also preserve and enhance the existing character of the neighborhood in addition to the above the applicant's planning expert testified to all of the purposes of zoning that this application promotes as well as the goals and objectives of the master plan and reexamination reports which is which in the interest of time I will not reiterate as the testimony speaks for itself the acoustical engineering report confirms that Beacon Hill Club is in compliance with applicable noise regulations for daytime hours as defined in the code and the club has committed to continue compliance with the noise ordinance regulations compliance with sound levels established by state code suggests that the impact to surrounding neighbors is not substantial there are however impacts that will be substantial to the neighbors as a result of this application those impacts will be a substantial benefit and a direct and significant improvement over existing conditions first as I've stated there will be storm water management to capture the additional runoff generated by the additional coverage second there will be an improvement of all aspects of site circulation and offsite and off street parking third the elimination of existing off-site light spillage by the installation of compliant shielded sight lighting operating on automatic timers and most significantly the Aesthetics of the lower campus and the views in Street gate from Brantwood Drive will be drastically improved by the relocation of unsightly equipment to indoor storage areas and the proposed Landscaping which includes upwards of 120 new trees and shrubs that will result in substantial screening and shielding of the improvements on the club's property in addition to that Beacon Hill Club has worked with the surrounding neighbors listened to their feedback and as a result of those meetings and discussions proactively offered conditions of approval to confirm their ongoing commitment to being a good neighbor therefore based on the foregoing and all of the testimony provided I would ask the board to vote in favor of the application and Grant the variances requested subject to the conditions that have been have been agreed upon by the applicant thank you for bringing us as I understand it up to date where we are uh do you have any intention of adding any additional Witnesses at this point because you I know you indicated that he was in present and you have been uh sworn before yes but it's up to you if you plan to call if you just to um tell the board if you've had any conversations with the neighbors on hogart or beac and what yes so Pascal laland l a l nde um we have had conversations with the neighbor the neighbors that are on Hobart Avenue as it connects with Beacon Road and then as you go down there's one house um that family they're on the executive committee at Beacon Hill they're very supportive of the project and then the next house on Beacon road on the side that faces Beacon Hill they have three kids that play hockey at Beacon they're Beacon Hill members they're very supportive they that's why they haven't been here they offered to come we didn't think we needed them um but they're they support the plan those are the only two houses I could see that would have a view towards the um PS house thank you that's it any questions for this further questions for this have you um yes have you talked to the neighbors on was it brandwood I guess we've talked to them many times over the months yes okay I I mean I don't know if that's the neighbors that would hear but they yeah they're on they're on Brantwood okay and they are support I mean I mean I think we heard their testimony at the last meeting that they they support the conditions of approval we did it in with them in consultation with them and I think what was important to them is the idea of enforcement so that while they trust this board and how we've been doing things now they want to know that in five six seven years they have a mechanism to do that I think that was addressed at the last meeting for them any other questions for this witness just just out of curiosity um we're putting you guys are putting up all these trees because of the project um I've know for years there's been a problem with the neighbors on brandwood and maybe you don't know the answer to this but I'm just going to throw it out there anyway why wasn't screening done six years ago or 10 years ago when there was a complaint maybe you can't answer this question and if you can't I get it okay yeah that's fair yeah because I know I know I remember one time there was a a front end loader that Beacon Hill Club painted camouflage colors to appease the neighbors I I think what's important is that is more what's going on now you're finally resolving the problem there is the commitment to work with and we propose the conditions in the conditions of approval is a commitment to replace any damaged or um dying trees that I I just had to ask a question I I should have asked it before but I I apologize but thank you any other questions for this witness uh seeing none and because we did reopen testimony uh I think it would be a appropriate to ask if anybody from the public has anything to ask of this witness and then lastly to give the public an opportunity to make any comments on this case that they wish to if they haven't already done so or even if they have I see uh record should show that no one has indicated a desire to make a public statement at this time so at this point we will uh I'm assuming that your opening statement served as your closing statement yes it is okay so uh at this point we will ask our attorney to provide us with the conditions of appr approval should we go that way and also the number of those requirement certainly so I have a few conditions first our usual comines with those conditions noted in the board Engineers memorandum uh secondly I have a bit of an all-encompassing one that we are going to be incorporating those conditions noted in the applicant uh exhibit A1 the proposed conditions of approval I won't go through every single one in detail but those do address Landscaping skating hours and Ice maintenance hours and procedures as submitted um I have a another condition the applicant um I do want to actually confirm this with Miss alss the D in the plans that were to reflect the proposed installation of wheel stops in the upper campus parking lot was that provided since the October hearing or is that still an item that needs to be finalized I don't remember but it has not been provided that is another condition that those details will be updated and then fourth and finally as indicated in the last meeting that a copy of this resolution shall be recorded with the Union County Clerk to become a matter of public record and therefore the neighbors would be uh aware of of those specific conditions including the hours of operation um if there's any concerns at some point in the future we agree okay um as for number of votes uh five votes are required since a d variant is involved and you do understand that we only have six voting members at this point at this point just to we Sorry Mr Steiner we do want to proceed with deliber ation at this stage okay who would like to start I just want to make note that the neighbors I guess like I said Brent would they were here for all those other hearings um and had com I had questions but that they're just the record that they're not here for any comments I wish that you know I wish it I hope that they're not here because they didn't feel need to be here and it wasn't just schedu and since they it's been and they did provide their comments at the last hearing this this is a second time for the public comments they and they did comment the first time they commented yes yes okay I'll open it up goad um a lot of work went into this plan um I think there's a lot of uh most of it's good as far as I'm concerned lot you know meets a lot of the requirement I mean it meets a lot of the neighbors demands on brandwood uh I think that screening is a big thing um and the reason why I asked that question earlier that I asked I know it's been Barren for a long time so I'm CL I'm glad we finally you guys have finally come to a a good conclusion to that um it does make those neighbors um it does provide a better screening for the Neighbors so I can I can definitely support this application moving forward I think there's a lot of good going into this into this site I'll step INE you know the the requests on the surface particularly as a percentage all are very modest I think the biggest thing here is the amount of thought and effort to improve and create positives for the community was very thoughtful it was a very well presented uh addressing a lot of the concerns in addition to offsetting on the negative variances by increasing the parking versus what is today the storm Water Management Improvement the material Improvement to the Landscaping but also I think the biggest thing as a father of three the material improvements you're making to the existing facilities to better serve both well I have three girls so you're serving that Community very strongly and the ADA compliance it's a material Improvement so for that I would be in support Alison M I got I got another tour this weekend from a member and it's very much in need of improvement so I totally get why while you're here um seems like it probably would have been long overdue so um I support in support of it yeah um I feel now I feel a little obligated I was not here at the last meeting I did have some questions that I um at the time I did not believe were answered um um specifically regarding Pat's house and um the combination of the the the affected neighbors supporting this obligation and then of course our planner was satisfied with with um the applicants planner presentation um has satisfied my concerns and and I I can support this application I'm good uh I look looking at this um looking at this the size of this and the notes I put uh on here uh the Deep slope 2700 Square ft sometimes we think is a big number but it's only 2.12% uh what did we say large number small percentage M um it's a big property the Zamboni issue we spend a a lot of time on to make sure that people's ears aren't affected and it looks as if we've uh got the commitment to do that I will tell you I do have some concerns that nine parking spaces isn't going to solve any problems anywhere uh but there's enough parking uh consideration that hopefully uh uh they'll talk to the right people at the right times and make sure that uh uh parking on in the neighborhood doesn't uh become a real problem uh because if it does people are going to go look at that resolution and come finding you and and they should um and uh the the roof on Pat's house does bother me a little bit but but not enough to say that this shouldn't be uh carried forward uh and uh they are handling drainage that's important to the not just to this to to their property but to the neighborhood properties as well um adding trees adding U adding all the things that they're doing I I I I would certainly entertain a motion to approve this before we get to a motion just because uh a Dev variance is triggered here by the impervious coverage increase I've heard some commentary about the storm water benefits here Landscaping benefits um is it the board's opinion that the site can accommodate the proposed increase in impervious coverage over the existing condition with the landscaping and the storm water management yes the the the applicant has more than satisfied those concerns reming us would add to that the circulation for ADA compliance is a benefit that we should very much consider as well and that's creating that impervious surface so I support that I agree with the train engine thank you so I would look for a motion so moved second maybe we have a roll call sure Mr Nelson I yes yes Miss to yes Miss Cho yes Mr feskin yes Mr Chuli yes chairman Steiner yes the motion carries thank you very much good luck okay the resolution doesn't come for about a month and uh with our schedule right now might be a little longer um we will move to 479 mors Avenue if they would come forward and set up and we would ask our vice chair and Mr you go you join us Scott it's good to be back yes thank you uh the we have any idea what we're going to do without our Mr chairman what if we ask the applicants to just review um the engineer's letter and say how they it's detail but every once in a while she com up abute question that helps okay yes sir we're ready go ahead thank you Mr chairman first for the record Larry K on beh of the appli 79 more see thank you for having us again tonight Mr chairman members um briefly you know and hearing the discussion before in the record as to your engineer's absence if you recall the initial hearing I'll quickly give you a summary of what we concluded with where we left off and what we're going to do tonight we went through all of the civil engineering testimony direct cross examination public there was no public so we went through it uh including the report there has not been any site plan changes that are further deviations or or downward adjusted Deltas if you will from the prior plan in fact we've seen a number of improvements thankful a large part of the board's commentary recommendations from the year we had on November 19th we went home we did some homework our project architect our project engineer took the plans back out and looked at where we could maybe improve enhance or otherwise modify in reaction to some of the board board's thoughts and concerns that we had at the last meeting that said Mr chairman we'll certainly go through the engineers report our project engineer is here with us again even though we've included the testimony we can recall Mr fan as needed um but tonight our plan uh and our witness deck is Rel relatively Limited in lean it's our project architect Mr forb who's sitting next to me now and we have our project planner Paul Ricky to go through the variant relief at that point we think we'll likely be able to conclude this case there's not a lot of moving parts to it there's not a lot of relief to it either and we think some of the enhancements and improvements we made might be um appreciated by the board as we move forward tonight uh with that just a brief summary of where we left off and what we did uh we talked about this project and this property as originally being two lots um the property owner took ownership of the property there's a structure a three family structure sort of pinched to one side of the property there's a very obvious void of Gap if you will on the side of that structure where another lot could be developed again um a structure could be developed and what's being proposed is a compliant structure in many respects density floor air ratio Building height building envelope structure setback parking all of that complies what brings us to the board of adjustment it's always nice to see you folks what brings us here require super majority vote which is you know a little bit different than the planning board is a little Nuance it's the fact that we're not um act excuse me activated the first floor of the structure with the commercial use what we're proposing is residential on all three floors all three levels that is creating the D relief here the use variance relief component to it here as well um so that's what brings us to this Bo there's a couple of very limited bulk variances that are being required um happily none of which are the sticking point1 like usually you see coverage um it's a parking lot percentage of the property in the re and there's a buffer between Park property lines and um varied uses interestingly we're the lower intensity use but without that buffer we require bulk relief so it's pretty limited on the relief not withstanding the fact that we do have D and you'll hear from our planner shortly um this is a property that we think is well suited and well cited for this use that's otherwise permitted in the zone and is like several other along this cors Morris um with that Mr chairman I won't delay the point of my profer I think the board understands his project well you had very good thoughts and comments the last meeting what I'd like to do now is introduce our project architect we'll swear and Mr fors we'll qualify him and then we'll walk through his floor and elevation plans we'll probably mark one exhibit Council um with Mr Forbes testimony and then we'll probably introduce with Mr Forbes just to keep things moving forward the updated site plan exhibit where we're able to sort of prepare these enhancements following that November meeting for the board we'll mark that as well Mr for gets to that and we'll move from there any questions for the attorney I have one question the existing structure is you said it was three family what is the other existing structure is that a two family three family ground floor retail the one existing structure is a three family there is no retail what about the other both sides of the property there is no neighbor now it's proposed the neighboring proper our planner will get into the abund uses thank you it's V there are structures that are all residential some have commercial some do not okay okay what our PL okay other questions for the attorney we proceed with your first witness please swear yep do you swear air the testimony you're about to give in this matters the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes I please state your name spell your last name it's a Rob Forbes f o r bees thank you and uh I believe you've appeared before us relatively recently is three months ago I believe okay any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here no sir licing Jersey still in good standing yep any questions from the board or would you like to accept him once again let's accept him once again and proceed thank you so Rob you heard my profit to the board I know you at the initial public hearing and you work very closely with our project engineer and the applicant for I want to say a year at least now to evolve this design and get where we are now if you would mind Rob take the board through this nice structure you designed um we can go around the skin the floor plan um any Pace you like and then we can start talking about the enhan to the existing structure that would tag along with this project great sure so um our client originally approached me a little more than a year ago it's almost three years ago now we we've spent a lot of time kind of studying this site understanding what we think is the smartest way to develop this site um when I first kind of um met Ian onsite it was kind of the very excited to see potential for this site it feels like needs to be activated it looks a little tired um it's kind of a break in the rhythm of the street scheme and almost wants to we want to construct almost that missing note in that street G right so um as we started to study this we kind of wanted to bring a new building with luxury units onto the onto the site and then also to update the existing facade and make a more harmonious design um to the site as a whole or to the two sites as a whole um so I'm going to walk you through a little bit of the plans that you have should I take that microphone over here you guys hear me no good push the button green that you do it how about now can you tap it it's not on very loud but it's not volum okay so um if I start with cheap boa1 um that's the elevations so what we've done is we've designed this structure um kind of compatible with some of the other buildings in the neighborhood it's a kind of a Dutch Colonial but the existing house on um the other lot looks to be built around the 1920s 1930s is visible on the 20 sandborn Maps so we're kind of pulling from that kind of time period um with some of the roof design and the scale of the building um you can see I'll come back to some give you the materials I want to say we've got kind of new Hardy plank siding there's a front porch that I'll walk through on the the floor plans with you but essentially we have a ground floor unit a second floor unit and a third floor um the only access to the I'm going go explain so if I go toet 2 which you have um basically as these uh people come into the site they park behind the structure as you heard from the site engineer testimony we constructed a rear Lobby um that all of the units can kind of come into and walk up a stair Tower um there's space for an elevator again we're trying to design a luxury building here so there's some luxury amenities there's a little rear entry porch we come in each all of the units are two bedroom units um they all are right around 1,000 square ft inside the units themselves once you get rid of the kind of common spaces or the or the lobby spaces so you kind of come in there's kind of a hall bathroom two bedrooms one of the bedrooms has an on Suite an open space this lower unit also has access to the front porch That's the only unit that accesses from the front and from the back um the other units above only have access from the rear and that again is trying to keep as they kind of move into the site they get into the back of the site they enter their building they don't have to move back to the front of the building this building has noted here is going to be fire suppression I know that was a comment um last uh hearing it was it's always been planned to be fire suppression it does have a 1 hour rated wall as we've set the building just a little bit more than 3 ft off the property line um it's actually 3.25 ft off the property line so that wall is required to be rated we are in a zero lot line Development Area so we are not asking for any setback rages the building can be that close and it's kind of compatible with the other buildings that are um built in kind of up and down that Corridor and in that zone um it's about 24 ft wide also about the same width as the other kind of two to the left and two to the right we're trying to complete that Ser letting them look harmonious and in Rhythm um as I move to the second floor you'll see kind of a little bit of a repeat on the second floor although it does flip the plan kind of flips as you come up and you enter in you hit your common space you have a a hall bathroom that cares access to the one bedroom and another bedroom on Suite um and then as we come up to the third floor the elevator can actually dump into the kind of Penthouse or top floor unit um there is a balcony in the back of these to give them a little outdoor space um once they're in the unit kind of step out that's the general kind of floor plan and then as you look at the facades again you can see the front elevation here is the front entry for the the lower unit um all double hung Windows kind of a two over2 pattern in the rear you can see this is kind of a stair Tower and that elevator kind of tower element the AC compressors are going to be on the roof kind of in this area right here to keep them out of sight these are the balconies for those upper units we can see that side elevation this is the driveway side elevation the left side elevation again you can see how as we come we kind of got this one-story element the front porch almost like this enclosed sun room element As you move down the facade we've kind of pushed the little element out on the second floor just to break the plane as we move down the uh move down the driveway here you can see the stair Tower going up everything is really organized we're really careful as we design this building here is the other side the right side elevation this is the side that's kind of just over 3 ft from the right from the right side property line we've done an analysis of the amount of Windows because there's limitations on how percentage of Windows you can have once you start back to the property line everything is in conformance um and then if you can mark my one exhibit be up to3 now so this is a code rendering of the street Gap and the mark AT3 dat 129 and what we've done is we had the renderer tap um kind of from across the street we wanted to render the existing building with some facade improvements which all kind of walking through we had them render our new building and also render the adjacent um residential build into a right event just to show how it kind of Blends into the streetcap is less it's not as tall as the existing building and kind of it's falling down into that building you can see the driveway in between you can see how we broke the facade As you move down that plane the Gamel roof really helps to drop the building down into this too um the existing building what we're proposing to do really is a cleanup kind of um we're going to paint the upper two floors a new color just reference the existing the building on the far left we're talking far this is the existing structure to remain and then we're going to paint the lower floor a different color we want to almost break up the mass of that building a little bit because it is kind of a big structure our building actually help to hide that big kind of three story structure you see from the as you come come up moris Avenue so we're going to kind of almost create this two- tone lock so the lower floor we're going to paint like a white the brick is like a white we're going to clean up this the second floor porch put a new railing on it it really almost looks like a temporary structure that was that's there right now so we're really going to clean up this faad then use kind of color to blend these two together as you kind of can see there um then you want me to introduce the exhibit that we have done for please4 and and this is what we were discussing earlier which is uh sort of our best effort to incorporate and implement the takeaways from the board tomorrow November here so we're going to mark this as A4 and is 129 so after the last meeting uh I've been kind of working with John um BR the and his office to try to figure out how we could kind of address some of the concerns we're and one of I think the best takeaways from that meeting was your comments related to the pedestrian traffic and the vehicular traffic and how could we separate those two things um because we did have that about 13.75 ft driveway which Still Remains but then we were kind of have these kind of substandard sidewalks on each side of the aisle so what we've done is we have enough room on either side of each building to push the sidewalks to the outside of the structures so someone could come if they were walking right they could come onto the sidewalk walk around to get to their car the existing building has access to all three units from the front so somebody was walking they could walk into the front porch go up to any other their units they would not have to walk up and down the the aisle on the on this side we did the same we pushed it to the outside again the first floor unit can walk right in but the second upper two units right don't have access to from the front they only have access from this rear new Lobby right so if they came in the park they could go right but now also because we have this sidewalk they got to walk around that kind of frees up some air right and cleans up I think a condition along this Center vehicle um area and we've got kind of some about a twot planting bed on each side of the aisle and you can kind of come in the other thing that we added or John added was he added the site triangles to show that we are in conformance with the site triangles as you pull out um he also added a stop sign and he added a Stop Bar kind of on the like a painting stripe on the on the on the ground with in terms of garbage we took the garbage that was here the garbage on the existing structure is below this deck below the deck and it's kind of a good spot for it we can kind of strein it with some lattice a little bit better the garbage that we were proposing behind our new front our new kind of back entry we've moved to the back portion of the line that allows us to free up this um entry here with this sidewalk to the side and we'll have some little enclosure for that um the garbage currently the way that um it works on site is the garbage been come they walk up the aisle and they pull the the cans to the to the front um our client Ian actually said that at certain points the the attendants were pulling them to the front but the town actually they got in trou that they want the garbage to kind of walk up the staff of the driveway and pull the garbage can to the front so they'll still be able to do all that um so we think the garbage should be handled with no problem we've got two cans for each unit um that's really the changes that were done with this exhibit he also added some turnaround studies right so if somebody were to come in and needed to turn around they can turn around there's enough space there's 29 f between even if the lot was full someone could turn around and I think it's we when we designed this building we really were conscious to make sure we were not we were complying to all the coverages all all setbacks lock coverage f everything is in conformance um so we really don't feel like we're overdeveloping the St really really great proposal from of you talk about the ref closure areef we had a discussion with the applicant perspectively looking forward assuming this project were approved and this were built and implemented if and when there were ever an issue in the field where refuse collection to be enhanced the applicant is amenable to a private Bower to supplement the city collection is that right that's correct that was the conversation we had yesterday can ask you a question about that there's not time yet certainly sure so um I know we talked about not taking a garbage to the front but recyclables have to go to the front so is there an area for that when that happens recyclables have to be taken to the curb which kind of contradicts you can't take garbage to the street P now you got to take recyclables because the city picks up in the rear but recyclables do not I did I did not talk to well there's an existing condition now with the existing structure so we would that for the other lot I assume that's correct than could you familiarize us with that well I can't hear what he's saying well he's speaking with me he's talking to me I honestly don't know the answer to this question we'll ask the applicant how it's managed now but but it would be an identical scenario however it happens now because there are there is a three family there on the property now and recycling is handled so it would be the same scenario for the sister loosing but we'll confirm by next is I know it's a minor thing but it's it is a no but it's it's a it's a pragmatic thing so it matter no absolutely I don't want to give wrong I I have a question I feeling you covered this in your testimony but maybe I missed it so where where will the garbage cans be kept in the back um is there structure the existing garbage cans for the existing building are kept below the there's kind of like a rear deck that serves for access to all of the units that they kind of it's almost like a second me of that they have they can kind of step out onto a deck and they can access the deck from the rear access the units from the rear there's space underneath that deck that's almost full height where those those current can are kind of situated and they they were going to remain there it seems to be working fine it's out sight um it could be screened a little bit better um if you would like some line screaming underneath the de in here so it's not so visible to the the new tenons that's where it would be question how wide are the sidewalks going to be going to be 3 depends on the double stroller but standard I'm sorry we can't hear you it's the same wi as the front door okay stroller can get through the door for Design This is you go from your car right into the unit in the rear you don't have to interface that drive if you don't want to but there is that that so you move the sidewalks to the outside of the property line is there going to be testimony about any kind of separation between your property line and the neighbor fencing or anything like that uh or what's the existing condition and the second is are you keeping that drive a of the exact same dimensions as previous no wi increase so uh to answer that originally when we submitted this um it was a 12T wide aisle we've increased the aisle to 13.75 ft after some engineering discussion with the uh with your engineer um we've left it the same since the previous year there was testimony at the last hearing about the existing on the right side John yeah we'll recall our five call out those dimensions for you but there is no relief s but we will call out structure setback whatever you're looking for um but there is no variance s for any accessory or principal structure set back to a property L it's not what my question was going for my question was how are you impacting the neighbor by throwing your sidewalk there versus having it down the drive aisle like think I think it's in not an impact it's co compliant but our engineer will call those dimensions for you thank you and there is a fence there and it's adjacent to their side mirroring that scenario that exists well following up on the theme of impact on that neighbor to the right um oh it's been a while since I've been to the site and I didn't focus on the f ministration on that side of the neighbor but how is this structure affecting the light coming into the neighboring building thank you we' kind of designed I got the photo doing the same thing yeah so again we're going to be about 7 ft apart okay um we could be up as close as the lot line so we away okay to address um some concerns with air and light for our building and air and light for them yeah so we think we're compatible with the neighborhood compatible with the zoning that's set up for this District um so we have it's not thank you question what would you guess or estimate the distances between your neighbor and then their neighbor so we we do have some distances um on this board um we looked at the this we wanted to compare like our drive a right um to what some of the other conditions were so to the left microphone so we we do have some of these diens here uh we wanted to compare the drive AIS we were proposing to some of the other Drive aisles that are on site that the planner is going to kind of walk you through a little bit more but if I go up to the left again we're proposing 18.3 fet between buildings let say right between the masses to the left of us they only have 15.2 feet as the existing condition between vertical buildings so again we're wider than that to the right of that between those two residential buildings that have a very similar um situation to what we're proposing they only have 14.7 ft between buildings so again we are proposing more wi which will provide better light better air I'll let the planner get into that other questions is your attorney done questioning you just I don't we interrupt the no Noe um so one of the things that concerns me is I don't see any any comments from the the Fire Chief Fire official um so I know we have the 1 hour rated wall and the fully So when you say the building is fully sprinkled is that in the unit itself or is that just the common areas no the whole building in the units themselves and there's so is that is the sprinkler system providing a trade-off for a second means of erass so is that your intention for a for a one exit for a single exit structure requ to have a this building is required to be spr correct and you have automatic elevator recall on fire alarm so it goes to the flow below flow yeah the floor below the fire all we are not asking for any deviation from the code here theard couldn't have no yeah we couldn't do anything I'm always concerned when there isn't a second means of be even if it is sprinkler because you know when it happens the day they're working on a sprinkl system yeah there ottering pipes and boom there it goes and and again we have the uh you have ER balcony access and egress windows right there's this this building is designed so how how would you propose a person in a penthouse get out of the eag window when you can't conceivably put a ladder within seven feet and have a proper climbing angle the parking lot's full you can't put fire from Mor AV right they assuming they can reach that side of the building well they have they have Windows on the front the building again assuming they can reach that side of the building yeah okay thanks but it's going to apply to all these I other questions I have a question I have a question about parking I know we this was discussed before so there's um six spots per unit right and one of them per building per building I mean yes um and one of them is um electric vehicle correct are they are they deed spots is every so is this one unit does every unit get in two spots we're going to designate within the lease an allocation per unit who gets what so it's going to be baked into the lease a maximum number of response it's going to Total what's there um and that's say the EV is a product of the state requirement so as we discussed there's no EV spaces they're allowed to be taken over by a guas fire vehicle um so that's the layout it's conforming as far as count goes we meet the requirement and the requirement accounts for not just tency and occupancy it accounts for visitor spaces as well so we're showing six per building and each lease is going to have a maximum limitation on how many vehicles can be occupied I mean the reality is you can't guarantee this so so it's it's got very little value I'm about to say but the size of these units that Mr Forbes has designed the likelihood of two vehicles per unit it's probably not likely Rob I would think um with two better units I wouldn't think so but either way we can account for them while assuming everybody has two vehicles and the EVS usually usually a wash you know usually they're they're not utilized tremendously underutilized but the state requires them they'll be there one day will we may pivot to that model you know and just so I'm clear the only reason you don't need variance is for floor air ratio lot coverage all that kind of stuff is because this is a neighborhood business zone or business Zone this is the business Zone this is the this is the B zone so so and then you're the variant you're requiring is that they don't have a business on the first floor which is really what the business zone is for exactly right okay other questions yeah I have one um you you may have said it but I maybe missed it um is the sidewalk still going to be in the driveway it's it's gone the sidewalk is removed from the driveway and the width of the sidewalk is what 3 3T 3 ft and that's basically the space between the property line of the the building so the the existing building is set back 4.5 ft so 3 ft you know there would be about a foot and a half a room the the new building is set back 3.25 ft so it leaves us enough room to have a fence the sidewalk and then the building and again there's no there's no variance needed for any of that would you justbe the fence sidewalk right fully but it's utilizing the space which is giving space in the center for the uh driveway I just wanted to clarify we've said this one I want to make sure I'm 100% clear you're only asking for a variance for the ground floor not being commercial that's what brings us to the board of adjustment that's the D relief there was ancillary bulk Rel that I mentioned our planner will walk through that our engineer did identify it it's a buffer area setback in the rear it's the percentage of parking area but that's really it okay you nothing relative to our structure where it's placed where any of the accessory Improvement placed nothing related to what we're building effectively that that box is compliant where it's where it's supposed to be located okay so I guess the so the building to the west of I guess it's the West that on you know the the older structure that's a non-conforming use based on the zoning right now too correct because it doesn't have any commercial use correct and and the only net change to that structure is you know a little bit of uh lipstick and bells and whistles on there on the the side this project has there been any thought to sprinkling that building as part of the upgrade that has not been discussed to date now okay and any more questions any questions from our experts thank you thank you very much one of which is missing I just want to let the Board finish first um regarding the building that's being proposed you do have storage space in the basement yes okay and that will only be for the residents yes that is correct um if you look on the first two there's access from the lobby the rear Lobby level down to um the lower level which would have some mechanical space and then a little bit of a storage like a storage space for each individual unit okay um if you could just describe the building height measur will comply yeah so the the building height measurement we have the mean grade listed here on uh the front elevation um max Heights allowed to be 42 ft uh we're 2.76 ft under that for a total of 3924 ft okay you've also revised the roof area or the attic space area so that would comply with the requirements under the F standard yes we have removed any F from the attic level we revised the roof design um to make that work at one point we were walking up from the the penthouse unit into a little law space with access to a roof Garden which um we didn't think was the right way to go after some discussion so that's all been revised there's no F there's no add there's no walk up attic you mentioned some detailing on the existing building some improvements um I believe you mentioned railing improvements yes is that something that'll be a detail that'll be submitted to the board for the record it can it can be as a condition if you would like yes but it's it's does designed to be like an open Iron rail so it's not very visible right not very heavy trying to just reduce the mass of this existing building as much as possible that's on the second floor or that's on the second floor okay and the first floor stays with a there's currently like uh you'll see in the photos with the plan is there's current almost like a solid wall instead of a railing uh that's stay yes the brick wall in the first floor stays but the second floor has like a solid wood framed wall instead of a railing so we're trying to open the porch up visually any other changes to the Upper Floor the third floor no just just just paint okay so those are just the awnings that exist there now that's correct okay um and sorry going back to that lower level will you be painting that brick yes okay so you're trying to tie it in with the rest of the door yep okay um as far as from an architectural perspective what other features have you seen in the neighborhood that brings some of the features that we proposing well I think um we see a lot of the residential buildings have front porches right so we're proposing this one story front porch across the street you'll see some of these gamble roof designs that we're trying to now pull onto our side of the street to help with the Rhythm up and down the um the facade we've got double hung Windows which you'll see on a lot of the units um clapboard or Hardy plank siding that we're proposing um so the materials the asphalt roof um those are some those are some those features together yes reason why I bring that up is that we have design standards our take a look at the design standards yes we have and I think we got a a glowing report from the historic Commission on that which I need to say when we actually did that right yeah time you don't get them all the time so I think we need to address that or at least note it um so yeah their their review kind of they were in favor of this design continues the pattern of development um and complies with the drro right the design standards okay and the uh the changes that just Rec just identifi for the board this evening they don't change the location of the building no they don't change the location of the driveway no okay everything stays the same just adjusted the sidewalk to the opposite side that's correct we basically moved the green space that was on the sides of the building and pulled the green space into the interior okay and that that sidewalk that would circulate around the building on the outside at least for lot number four which is the lot to the east um That Sidewalk would connect to the rear entrance of the building so that visitors can get to the upper floors that's correct it wraps around it w yep it wraps around and comes right into the entrance there was a fence with the gate there has that been taken out now the gate is still there okay so would have to go through that gate in order to get to the entrance that's correct but you don't anticipate that being locked of course no but that the garbage enclosure now has been moved to the back of the property is it staying on lot four or is it shared between lot four right now it's indicated as being shared is that going to be size for both buildings at this point or is that no it's really just for this building so it could be shifted just over onto our lot it's probably smarter to just shift it onto our lot we consider bringing it all back there Rob we thought it might be too heavy with all the containers back there if we did it for both Lots yeah we didn't want to do it for both lots and we've got a good spot for the garbage for this lot and is there going to be a detail provided for that enclosure sure we can see whether or not it's screened and how it's screened um you said you were going to screen or provide some lat screening for the garbage area for the existing building yes and that all changes to the existing building will occur on all facades or just the front facade um the painting will occur on all facades okay thank you just want to clarify thank you okay any questions from the public I'm not sure if we have any public but uh no questions from the public you want to move on to your next witness Please Mr chairman thank you thank you um could we take a five minute break while Witnesses are shifting I'm sorry 5 minute break break I just missed that five minute break you want to take a five minute break now that's what happens when you okay fine we'll take it now I'm yeah I know I'm I'm I'm making sure you're going be glad to see okay back it's approach a nine so yeah yeah uh we'll take a 5 minute break we'll be back at 10 up e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e it's we are talking about 477 479 Mars Avenue and turn it back over to you yes indeed thank you Mr chairman members so um we're now going to our Final witness um in connection with this application our project planner Mr Paul Ricky Paul has been here before he was before us on this board actually about a year ago on a garden apartment complex for a uh clubhouse but nevertheless we'll wer him as needed and we'll make sure his qualifications are in order on you SW in do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matters the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do please state your name spell your last name it's Paul Ricky RCI thank you and as stated you appeared before us about a year ago is that correct uh I I have and uh I continue to be a licensed professional planner I've been licensed since the year 2000 my license is in good standing um I'm a planning consultant to the six communities um I testify regularly in front of boards I've been qualified in over 250 towns throughout the state um doing this for over 25 years any questions from the border would you like to accept them back once again if you hear my education I I have a masters in city and Regional planning from from rocker University which I received in 1997 I gather we will accept your credentials because I don't see anybody jumping up and down right now and we will turn you over to your attorney thank you and I jump up and down they'll be asleep when he's done testifying chair so uh we would prefer that that not happen guarantee uh I I do have a fairly uh lengthly out outline uh I I'll try to be on point and and and not be repetitive um I did prepare an exhibit which I'd like to qualify it consists of of four sheets um the first two sheets are aerial photographs that were prepared in in a geographic information system um the first sheet shows the the subject property outlined in Orange and the tax line Bas and and identifies uh the street names in the area really one of the major distinctions and why I had uh sheet one is that um as you move through the exhibit you're going to see me identifying some block and lot numbers and the like and Sheet one clearly identifies those those block and lot numbers whereas on sheet two because of some of the text some of that information gets lost so when we get to Sheets three and four that show photographs and identify block and lots um I don't identify the the property address but identify the block and lot so that someone can reference it back to that aial uh if you choose to do that you okay with us marking us collectively as A5 yes planning exhibit thank you very much it's a four page exhibit deck prepared by or planning it's got a September 2024 date on there four pages and we'll mark it as A5 okay and then the second area shows that the Zoning for the area and then I labeled all the the land uses in the area as well as the the nearby zoning districts and then sheet three shows U essentially pictures uh of of of the subject property and and to some extent some of the surrounding properties and then sheet number four um shows surrounding properties in the area and some of that was also to show how this is uh we believe to be consistent with the character of the area and and what Mr Forbes did in terms of of copying the the Dutch Colonial architecture you can see um some of those Dutch colonial homes um uh in the area again I'm going to try not to be too long- winded if if but you know sometimes this is um my my outline is somewhat LLY I have to admit I may have to rely on it a little bit more than I traditionally do for that reason again we are in your B Zone um as you heard from the previous witnesses there are no specific requirements for lot area lot width and lot depth however there are requirements for building coverage lot coverage height and floor area ratio so you're really regulating by the amount of coverage and the amount of building area that's allowed uh under your zoning code and we're in compliance uh with all of those requirements they where there are no requirements clearly are in compliance and for the requirements that exist we comply um regarding the existing land uses in the area it's best the reference uh sheet number two again the subject property is outlined in Orange in the somewhat center of the photograph Morris Avenue is running through the the center uh of the image uh starting from the the upper left you know you can see there's a great disparity uh in size and properties and what you're largely going to see is on the larger properties you tend to see commercial land use or um in a a traditional uh commercial retail or cents and then on the smaller properties you're going to notice they're essentially all residential and again you heard from Mr Forbes that the subject property first developed approximately 100 years or so ago around 1920 so this is an area that developed a long time ago um but starting in the the upper left uh on block 507 L 7 you have the Volkswagen dealership there and as we're moving just along Morris Avenue to the right um I label it as mixed use that's there's a driving school on the ground floor then there's a residential use on the ground floor behind the driving school and then there's two residential uses on upper floors and then we have the subject building where we have the three Family Home and here I'm showing the proposed subdivision line partially I'm showing that to show how this the lot as proposed is substantially consistent with what you see in this immediate area and then as we move uh further to the West uh there's a two family home followed by a three- family home all on uh lots that are uh substantially similar in size uh followed by an office and then you can see uh just to the north of us in the r10 district there's the school parking lot associated with the oratory Prep School um and that's where the the buffer um design waiver that we're requesting is for the the portion of our the new lot that uh adjoins that school parking lot and if if anyone's been in that school parking lot there's a the distinction there's a difference in grade that occurs that parking lot is lower and then there's maybe three or so feet of of wall space and then that's followed by a six foot fence so that parking lot and any type of headlight glare there is already being captured uh by the fence and the wall that's in the parking lot follow towards our subject property and again I'll talk about this but while we are seeking the buffer design waiver we do have a 5- foot buffer we just don't have the 25 ft that's required uh under your ordinance and again I'll touch upon this later um here we have a residential property um in a in a business Zone that's required to provide a buffer to a property it's not acting as a residential use in a residential Zone traditionally it's the more intensive use um that is necessitating the need for a buffer and traditionally we don't buffer Residential Properties to Residential Properties because there is that is is not consists of an incompatible land use and then as we move to the the southern side of the street um all the way um to the Western portion um of the exhibit there's a Midas auto repair shop followed by um a liquor store couple of offices and there's an office like call with office residential character because there appearance of a residential building that's the wer building and then we have um comparable size lots to the subject property a three family home excuse me a three family home and then a six family home and then as you move u in the sly Direction in the R5 District those are single family homes and then as the and then again we have the the Infinity uh car dealership uh as we move u in the lower uh portion of the Eastern portion uh of the exhibit and then we have some pictures just to to show these conditions picture one is of the subject property um the existing building that's part of this application is on the left um and for the purpose of the exhibit is to show that that Gap in the streetcape um that was identified by Mr Forbes as part of his testimony uh picture number two just shows the same uh iteration uh from the rear uh you can see there's a good amount of green space and a good amount of separation between the backs of these buildings in the rear lot line uh picture number three shows that existing U parking area um that adjoins the the the lot to our right looking from the street and then following picture number four uh is looking generally in in the Westerly Direction for it towards the existing building existing building in my opinion it's an older site it really um has some deferred maintenance and there's an real opportunity here I believe as part of this application um to to reinvest in that building and its facade and and to improve it um like all older buildings tend to need over over time um and then again picture number four excuse me picture number five in the last page we're just again uh we're showing the rear um of the the the adjacent buildings at 475 and 473 Morris Avenue and then the the fronts of those buildings here you can see the one on the right is a Dutch Colonial you can see some of the elements of the of the open porches discussed by by Mr Forbes as well and then we cross over to the other side of the street at 468 Morris uh where you see another Dutch Colonial and then finally um the six family home located at 462 uh more is avue permitted uses um in the B districts include retail sales except for for drive-through facilities offices restaurants and other eating establishments except drive-throughs are not permitted financial institutions without a drive-thru uh residential uses above the first FL theaters personal service facilities retail service facilities dance schools and Studios health clubs lodges and Social Clubs above the first floor funeral parlors institutional uses instructional schools Automotive Sales private clubs and adult daycare so it's a fairly uh permissive Zone it also permits gasoline service stations or automotive repair and houses of worship again for the variances that we're requesting it's the D1 use variant uh to allow the apartment on the first floor there was discussion uh Mr cie of a need uh for D2 variants because the the existing three family home is non-conforming and when you reduce the lot size of a non-conforming use it's traditionally called out as an expansion of a non-conforming use under the raspberry decision but here there is no lot size requirement so we're I guess conservatively requesting uh that variance and I'll provide justification nonetheless and then we're seeking bulk variances to permit more than 30% of the parking stalls to be 8.5 ft in width by 18 ft in length those are slightly undersized and to propose a zert b along the proposed subdivision line between the proposed Lots because we have that we have that common driveway uh that we're we're sharing that uh prevents the ability to provide that buffer and then um I had it as a design waiver under uh article 14 designed and performance requirements from section 351 14.7 B uh it says a strip of land 20% of the average depth of the property but not to exceed 50 ft shall be planted and maintained as a landscape rear yard buffer if the rear yard absts a residential zone for use so we have bought a residential zone so we are seeking that design waiver I I think the board uh recognizes for a D1 use variance so we have to demonstrate that the use is particularly well suited for the use um that the variances can be granted without a substantial detriment to the public good that's namely the surrounding property owners uh without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of your own plan and also through an enhanced burden to proof to reconcile the emission of the use from the municipal master plan um it's my opinion uh that the subject property is particularly well suited for the use for the following reasons um we are located uh in your B District uh which does allow for a full range of commercial uses and already residential uses on upper floors despite this not being of permitted use i' I've shown that the surrounding neighborhood contains three other three family homes a six family home a two family home and a mixed use building the five star driving school that which also has uh three units including a ground floor residential use uh behind the driving school so it's I believe it's clear that the property surrounds similar development on both sides of the the property in in this neighborhood uh I think it's clear that a gap exists in the street skate today that appears that a building is missing we've already heard testimony that at one time uh an identical lot did exist and this was an area that was pled for development and over time somehow that lock up became Consolidated but the original platting pattern for this area was consisted of a lot that we're looking to uh recreate as part of uh this application uh again U this would can have it result in the creation of a streetcape that is consistent with surrounding buildings uh and here you know while we are seeking the use variants I mean this is a use that that is permitted in the zone uh at some form uh it's just not permitted on the ground floor um as a planner uh I know that New Jersey has a tremendous shortage of housing New Jersey future I'm not sure if anyone knows that but that's a public think tank in that New Jersey that said that in July of 2022 that nationally were're millions of housing units short of meeting demand and that the situation is proportionally worse in New Jersey they also indicated that New Jersey's housing costs are among the highest in the country the state rakes seventh in medium home value and fourth in medium rent and that the state is losing younger households to other states and evidence points to high housing costs as one of the reasons um to create more of the kinds of homes that younger households are looking for in neighborhoods they want to live in New Jersey should consider revising the zoning and parking requirements that demonstrate what kind of housing gets built and where and this is what New Jersey Think Tank has said and I'm also going to discuss your master plan that has also additional information that supports this type of housing as well in appropriate locations um and they go on and I don't want to sound too repetitive but for younger new jerseyans on the lower end of the income ladder high home prices and rents can present a significant barrier to forming their own households and staying in New Jersey when they do move out on their own and telling was New Jersey has the highest incidence among the 50 states of people ages 18 to 34 living with their parents 454 4% nearly half is reported by New Jersey future um and then from a need perspective there is less demand for for many of the permitted uses that that are permitted in the zone and here we have a site that's uh that's that's modest in size it does not lend itself well for commercial land use and particularly while you see all the other properties of this size in the zone um that have almost essentially 100% residential with the exception of the the driving school which occupies a very small square footage of the front portion of the building facing the street um from the left um meanwhile uh the demand for apartments and Workforce housing is strong I believe there's a tremendous need in Summit and in the area for this type of housing uh today housing is is largely focused on new single family housing uh housing around Transit and low and M moderate income housing that that addresses uh town Low and moderate income housing requirements um who's left out in that mix it's the everyday person in terms of Workforce housing which is defined as by at least the Urban Land Institute between 60 uh and 120% of the median family income so as a planner uh as a municipal planner uh I know that this is a type of housing that's in strong demand and need for for New Jersey's Workforce um creating a new three filming home in the area where such use is prevalent I believe is an opportunity to provide a more diverse supply of housing options in the city in an area where it's particularly well suited uh creates opportunities for a gr population who want to stay in town and young individuals uh looking to get started stay in town be close to friends family uh and work I also mentioned that the the location is uh is directly adjacent to New Jersey Transit 70 bus which provides convenient access to newwork Pen Station right at the doorstep here as well uh so there are many residents that could that could benefit uh from this housing um moreover I believe there are other ancillary benefits associated with this application it advances the community design guidelines to the inclusion of of Dutch Colonial architecture which exists in the neighborhood I know the historic preservation commission also supported at least the project from a design perspective um this project is consistent with the residential density found in the area which ranges from 19.9 One units per acre to lot size requirements for the district accordingly the lot size will remain in conformance with the Zone um it's my opinion uh as a planner I think case law supports this that it's the intent for non-conforming uses to become non-conform become conforming over time um it's also my opinion is that when the board can come to a conclusion that that use is not going to it's very it's highly unlikely to convert to a conforming use uh I think the goal is to harmonize that use with the area to the maximum extent possible uh and in here we have a three family home that's existed uh for over a 100 years um I discussed the greater need for residential space than commercial space and we have a structure that's designed as a residential structure so it doesn't easily lend itself to a commercial use because it's a residential building uh and it doesn't have the attributes that a commercial use is looking for with a minimal amount of parking uh competing interest with buffer requirements in the city um that would further take away the ability to provide parking uh at this location as well um here we also talk talking about the harmonization of the property the architect discussed uh the proposed improvements to the existing building uh those improvements appear to be pretty significant to me in terms of of of of dressing up the curve appeal of that building really really an all four building phases um as part of this application uh for these reasons because of those improvements under the the Burbridge decision as well aesthetic improvements um under or advancing the property to be more consistent with the city of summit's design guid guidelines uh promotes a general welfare um and advances the the positive criteria for a D2 variance as well uh regarding the bulk variances to permit more than 30% of the parking stalls to be 8 and 1 half by 8 and 1/2 ft by 18 ft I mean some of this information was already testified by the the site engineer um these are um residential spaces that have that relatively low turnover um we believe that these smaller spaces work for a residential property uh here we're we're balancing competitive needs the needs provide buffering the needs provide parking and that if we can provide parking spaces that work for for low turnover users where cars will fit in and despite that allow us to provide a little bit more space at the rear of the property for buffering we believe that's a a better uh zoning alternative uh in in this context and that the benefits of that outweigh detriments regarding the zero foot buffer along the proposed subdivision line um that variant is required to provide a shared driveway on the subject properties uh the benefit of that shared driveway is that there's one less curb cut on Morris Avenue there's less impervious coverage on the properties um and we believe this to be a zoning a better zoning alternative uh as well um for a property is just 75 ft wide and one that is is consistent in this area for for similar properties again again we believe the benefits outweigh the detriments regarding the the buffer waiver uh the buffer requirements are required when a lot a buts a residential Zone and it's not that we're providing as I said previously no buffer we're providing a 5- foot buffer but not the 25 ft as required uh by your ordinance and here we're required to buffer a residential use to a residential Zone I believe it was the intent of your Zone plan that allows for many uh commercial uses to buffer commercial use to a residential Zone here it's a little bit of the opposite that's occurrent we have a residential use um solely in in a business Zone and then we have which is similar to what's nearby and then a parking lot for the school behind us in the residential Zone um so the goal of the buffering ordinance and I read it and it's entirely uh number one is is to Shield vehicles and light from vehicles from adjoining properties which is already being achieved that I discussed uh on the adjoining property and also discusses under the purposes to buffer more intensive uses to less intensive uses and uh that's not occurring here so it's my opinion as a planner that the need for that 25 foot buer does not exist in the context of of of of this property um and not to say that I mean this is the condition of the adjoining properties I'm not here to say well they don't have it we don't want to do it as well but uh uh I in my examination of those properties they don't provide a buffer and they seem to be operating uh well uh without that buffer that and one of the things also for consideration is that the depth of these lots and how far the structures are from um the the adjoining zone line uh as well your I did review your your 226 master plan um your 2016 master plan in objective 1.02 uh discusses uh the orc and Visa zones it says assess orc and B zones to ensure that they are meeting intending policy objectives and it goes on to say um the business ownes be are also in transitional locations they provide for more intensive commercial use for this reason B zones that border single family residential neighborhoods should be assessed to ensure the appropriate transitions are maintained and I I just discussed that in this context I believe that is occurring uh the key policy objectives are twofold for both zones because before that it talked about the office residential character Zone promote reinvestment and reuse of buildings while maintaining scale that is appropriate for a transition zone I think we showed that the scale of the buildings are consistent with the area as well it goes on to say currently it is unclear whether these zones are meeting either legislative objective some properties remain underutilized I believe that's the case for the subject property even after subdivision we still meet every Zone requirement and and and with the construction of a new home um while some new development proposals do not maintain prevailing scale of the neighborhood and I believe Mr Forbes did an excellent job of showing how we are consistent with the scale of the neighborhood then objective 4.01 promote the development of a variety of housing types your master plan says provideing a more diverse supply of housing at a range of price points can help retain and attract empty nesters interested in downsizing their dwelling firsttime home buyers interested in planning roots in the community low and moderate income residents and people employed in Summit who find it difficult to find appropriate housing in the community so it's clearly an objective of your master plan to provide this type of housing um I think this is an excellent opportunity in a location where we will be providing this housing in an area where it already exists and is surrounded by uh similar housing for these reasons I believe this application supports uh several purposes of missal land use law because the site is particularly well suited and meets purpose a because there's a need for this type of housing it meets purpose G uh because we're making desirable uh visual improvements uh to the existing building and we're providing a new home that's consistent with your design guidelines and endorsed by historic preservation commission we meet purpose I to promote desirable visual environment and purpose m to be the more efficient use of land here where we're requesting some of those buffering variances shared driveways um in the like uh regarding the the negative criteria I don't believe there'll be substantial detriment to the public good that's namely in the surrounding property ons in short um you know we know that the building its size its location its scale the amount of square footage all conform uh to your Zone plan so we we know that its location and its intensity uh is appropriate in that regard apartments are already anticipated in this with on the site on upper floors this project is is less intense uh than many of the permitted uses that I that I've mentioned um the existing surface parking lot um would be removed that's along the frontage and we would make this property uh more in Conformity uh with its surroundings and to eliminate that Gap in the streetscape that does exist um we know that we can there's sufficient Utilities in the area that's not an issue um and again the rehabilitation of the existing AB building will improve its appearance which is a benefit to the neighborhood so collectively the project will have a positive influence on the neighborhood uh regarding your your Zone plan um in addition to those 2000 master plan goals and objectives mentioned by uh your planner what I mentioned again in the 2016 master plan reexamination report said maintain the prevailing character of neighborhoods which is achieved provide a city that is welcoming to residents of all ages races ethnicities abilities and income ages and associated with that increase housing options for young adults empty nesters and seniors promote the development of a variety of housing types uh and it goes on to say explore special conditional use permits or zoning changes that incentivize to developing a wider range of unit mix um and again I mentioned that we meet all the standards your bulk standards for the Zone um and we meet your historic preservation commissions requirements um one of the things I I wanted to mention as well is that regarding apartments on the ground floor I think this is the the Crux uh of of this case and when you define a use it prescribes a configuration of permitted uses within a permitted excuse me it does not provide a prescription or configuration of permitted uses within a building type rather the ordinance establishes conditions and standards for the location of operation of such a use u in this regard the ordinance anticipates residential apartments on the property um it it's my opinion that allowing the ground floor residential is more akin to a conditional use as as it relates to how an Ur permitted use in the property is being delivered uh I believe we've shown that the site can accomodate a ground floor use with no substantial detriment and here I think the key is is that where we're proposing this is not in the heart of your downtown where we would be taking um a commercial ground floor use and replacing it uh with a residential land use and this is an area where what we're proposing is already common place so it would not be a substantial detriment uh to your Zone plan in that regard um and again overall the application results in the Improvement of the visual appearance and site Aesthetics creation of new high quality housing creating the creation of Workforce housing the elimination of that Gap in the streetcape so again I believe that the use variant will provide an appropriate location for this use um regarding the medich criteria I believe that the community need for the proposed use helps further support to medich criteria for use variants to specifically reconcile the emission of the use from the master plan the reduced need for a commercial space supports that there have been changed circumstances since the preparation of the adoption of the last master plan element and that a change circumstance pertaining to the delivery of a needed use to provide housing for the community which is supported in the master plan um there's my direct testimony it was a little longwinded there and um but I believe that it was needed thank you Paul chairman questions from you're up first thank you very much uh good evening and thank you for your testimony um one of the critical things here is the use experience like you had mentioned and the use on the first floor could you address the intent of why the governing body had established to have commercial use in the lower floor why is that typically customary it's certainly customary to have um a downtown style use where you have a downtown Summit where you want to have um a high amount of pedestrian traffic and you have interesting ground floor buildings where people want to shop work and and play and you had touched on your testimony that there's a reduced need for that type of use do you have any statistics or any facts to back that up um well in terms of you know office I didn't provide all details we know generally in in New Jersey I don't have the exact figures but within the last six months I review generally there's about 20% or so uh office space vacancy um I know as a community planner that in in downtown districts and when I do Redevelopment plans um I'm personally requiring um less retail space as as part of new mixed use downtown projects and we're we're even allowing um them not having retail but to to retain a certain look have amenity spaces in those locations because what we're just hearing from the development Community is that we can't fill those buildings um part of part of some of that is a is a give back that that the developers will will give a certain look on the ground floor but there's less of a of a need for for for that type of land use today and I I think it's clear um that the need for housing on the ground floor uh is substantial and and you know nationally I've heard estimates of upwards of 5 million units are needed um and New Jersey future supports that as as well and and here for me as a planner the key distinction here is that we are surrounded in an environment where this condition exists so it's not like we're taking um an area that that functionally served as a small commercial downtown as a mixed use environment and reverting that to something new we're just trying to replicate what's what's already here and I think that's a it's a big distinction if you ask me would this project be appropriate in downtown Summit or areas that were jux supposed between similar mixed use buildings I would have a different opinion could you also talk about the we also under the variances we have to look at the whether or not it's a substantial impact the board has to look at that whether or not a substantial impact to the intent and purpose so that intent for the lower floor being nonresidential excuse me residential but not being commercial when you look at the entire property both Lots five uh four and five and from that standpoint does that represent if someone was to redevelop that entire track for commercial on the lower floor and residential would that represent a substantial impact your opinion um if if it was developed fully as commercial um I would say it has the potential for disruption of this of this neighborhood because you have one two three four five Lots we are the middle two of those five lots that have similar scale and architecture and the like um under your Zone plan you requ ire a 25 ft rear yard buffer to a non-residential use I don't see the ability um for you to Pro to to have some type of onrite development that you can park a commercial use unless it's very very low intensity I'm not sure how it's even possible to park a commercial use that has greater uh demand for parking as well as you know the need to to truly have likely two-way uh access in and out to have a very very wide curb cut in an area that historically does not have that type of development so I believe for this five set of properties would be more disruptive whereas some of these larger properties in the area have a greater opportunity to provide that so overall The Zone has the ability to largely meet its intent we're talking about a small portion that is I don't want to say highly a regular but a regular in terms of of the commercial properties in this area of the city you had talked about the access Drive um I know that the discussions at the last meeting with the engineer talked about the width of that drive at 13.75 ft I know you're a planner I'm asking you from a planning standpoint if you feel that represents an appropriate condition for the uh proposed was it 12 parking spaces total um and the actions the operations of that drive will it cause any uh issue relative to the intensity of the use at that location in consideration what's being proposed I'm trying to see if I you might have to bring me back on point because you asked several questions right there were sort of first first with the the driveway width um I can say uh for example in within the last six months uh I'm the board planner in in Nutley in the planning board approved a project on a driveway of very similar size where it can be only one oneway traffic um at that meeting it was discussed that there would be signage installed indicating that the exiting vehicle had to yield uh to an oncoming vehicle I moved to see my address and um Atlantic Highland c i historically lived in Clark I lived in in Westfield um when I was a young planter in a two family in this exact environment on Central Avenue if anyone knows that area coming up from the parkway um and also um I commonly went to Westfield for Professional Services where I would visit dentists and doctors and the like that were commercial uses operating with greater intensity on a single driveway um when I was living in Westfield for two years uh with two two family homes um I can recall maybe once or twice in two years where I had to back out of that driveway because it was a conflict with the oncoming par coming in because there's such low volume that traditionally occurs with with these type of of land uses I'm not a traffic expert those are my experiences I understand I thought I'd ask you a question from the standpoint of a planner um bear with me a second you had indicated that in the overall uh review of the design waiver that's being requested for the buffer that you had 5T that's being also reduced now as a result of moving the trash containers to the the back area so therefore you wouldn't have 5 ft there does that change your perspective or have what would be your response to that issue um I when I visited the rear parking lot on block 507 Lot 23 I mentioned that that parking lot is suppressed and I parked my car this evening so I had my lights uh facing within maybe 15 feet and then I backed up the car to see how my lights May potentially penetrate into to the residential property and because there was maybe 3 to 4 ft of of a course a block course a wall and then a six foot fence there's a it's a very good separation that exists today from those two properties and if you looked in my pictures the distance from those residential homes to that lot there's already a pretty uh substantial separation so um and again um the other properties were were performing well uh I did not see us creating an incompatible land use with that property um and that property I thought was designed to address impacts towards us based on that submerged grade so I did not see the need for the buffer okay but yet you're also isn't there a fence that's also being proposed um there is a six foot fence on the rear property line right now um is that on your property or in the neighboring property uh that I can't definitively answer I would suspect that it's it's on the neighboring property it's actually shown in the plan I believe on your property so therefore it is something that the applicant will maintain and provide as a buffer to adjacent properties if it's on our property my engineer just advised me it's on the buting neighbor's property if it's on our property we can maintain will it just seems like it is located okay um just getting on to your other points of your testimony just for clarification for the board you had indicated that you had uh looked at the densities in the neighborhood between 19.9 to 30.8 um and you were saying that development that's proposed is consistent do you know what the density is proposed here it's uh 27.8 uh units per acre and it ranged um from the two family to 19.9 one on um block 507 lot three to 34.8516 Lot 37 the average for all these Lots in the area was 25.0 three that I mentioned that the similar size Lots okay um you would provide testimony on the width of the parking spaces at 8.5 feet um if they were to be compliant at 9 ft there would be an additional 3 feet of extra width required in that back parking area as a result of the six spaces at a half half foot SP would that fit in this condition or is it being you're you're you're providing the point that they operate sufficiently and efficiently and as far as their Arrangement because of what reason because they're residential um well generally speaking I mean parking spaces for a residential site Improvement standard are 9 by 18 spaces uh sometimes in shopping centers we'll see slightly larger maybe 10 by 20 um and traditionally that's to do from the the high volume of activity that occurs and the higher potential for cars to be doors to be dinged because doors are opening throughout the day um here I believe the S engineer demonstrate that you know cars will will will generally fit um maybe a very large oversized truck will have some issue but um the tend of but overall um it it's not uncommon for um ordinances in some form to allow at a minimum some form of of compact spaces and compact spaces would be considered even smaller than this and there there's maybe reserve for compact cars but we were trying to balance my understanding I'm not the site designer but we were trying to balance the providing the buffer and and parking and um I really deferred to the product designers but uh was our understanding that that could still operate uh sufficiently for a site like this due to the low amount of uh movement of those vehicles in and out thank you no further questions okay further questions from the board I have a question but I have a compliment I I I've been doing this a number of years and I just want to say that combination planning testimony and question our planning this was fantastic a great covered so many important issues I want to compliment both of you one quick question um can you confirm that there's no parking allowed for commercial um types of projects in the front yard of a a lot is that true you got so your only option if you were to put a commercial use here would be in the back is that correct I I I don't know that I don't know um I can confirm that but I can get back to you okay I don't want to miss I don't want to I don't know can I have a clarification on you've mentioned the lots are they already separated now four and five they're under common ownership so they merge under law effectively over the years um there are some tax CS that show two uh there's been a consolidation under under some other city data so there's a doctrine that says when you have lots that are commingled in use and under common ownership they merg it's called a locker Doctrine over the years under the commonality of ownership these two lots have become one okay so they would have to be subdivided as part of this application which was our discussion at the last Mee there would have to be easements between the two lots if at one point the owner didn't own both of them you would still need that commonality of access with the drive things like that I remember the testimony on the easements how much of a buffer is on planned in the uh the green space on exhibit that was presented by the architect I think it's A4 what is that buffer that's the dimension of that it was 5T has that remain it was okay I'm confirming he's it it was previously 5 ft and then the exhibit shown tonight he's not his head is Contin the show at 5T is there a reason you can't pick up some square footage or uh Dimensions there to offset this 8 and A2 foot um width for the parking that be a question for our engineer I'm glad to recall Mr fany once we get done with Paul rcky cross but and then what Mr chairman if you don't mind it is just for efficiency purposes he was sworn in he's qualified he's still sworn in would you mind if he somebody has to come forward and uh find a microphone question the question is right now you're proposing was testified as a 5- foot um what appears to be a green buffer between the parking lot and the neighboring properties is there any reason you can't pick up the 3T that we're missing for this uh to make 8 and 1 half to 9 ft to get rid of that variance so get a half a foot for each space on OB Side to pick up that three foot dimension give him a microphone before he starts there's one on the table right and just for clarification it's really just on the back because you're picking up width not depth because 18 ft is the requirement right yes that's been there's been testimony to that extent no in the back parking lot all the way back yes well for us to be able to pick up additional buffer there we would have to uh moose part no we're saying why in the parking stalls try to get to 9 ft on parking oh what would that do to the buffer well we would reduce the buffer six 3T we will reduce it to 2 feet and right from a design point of view what would would that still be compatible with creating a barrier protect you from the other yards we're proposing a board on board fence or solid fence corre obviously uh we had a Shrubbery with the reduction it would just be green space and not be able to plant any Shrubbery it would be wide enough the our neighbor lot also have as was testified as well so we can make it uh 9 feet and we have to lose that buffer so I think you need two wit just to answer this question Mr you heard that Dimension out from the engineer now Paul from a planning perspective that was going to be my next question we if we were to limit that buffer and downward adjusted by 3 feet so it's only a twoot buffer as a planner now we have 9 foot parking stalls yeah I I I personally wouldn't be objective way you could implant you could maybe if you wanted to you can imp plant some vines or something to provide a green look to it because I don't think there's an issue with the adjoining lot with headlights the buffer is not really what is I I I must have missed it but what is 50723 uh that is the U 22 School par 22 yeah that's the one that just I bet you yeah um and and and just so you know 22 it's located um also in the it's in the business Zone it's not actually located in the residential zone so we're not required to to to buffer there because it's located I want to know what it is I believe it's the it's part of the car dealership lot I think it's more of the VW parking yeah it looks like it yep it's only B the VW folks yes sir Douglas Motors sure correct okay Jay what about a a mix of 9 foot and 8 and2 foot so you have a planting zone but you get more full siiz space which the code contemplates that divided percentage of the the compact versus the full size as well you know I think the other question here is which we test you know there was testimony and questions about it I think at the first meeting like the last meeting I should say was about snow plowing and removal and if there are shrubs there as it is there might be getting destroyed by snow plows so when you look at it I'm open to either one I just think it's an option to reduce and frankly as a person who sees the cars around town they're only getting bigger yeah right so and if you're looking for the luxury you're you know whether or not you get a Suburban I don't know but I'm not seeing people with sub you know subc compacts renting a luxury unit no if we increased it that wouldn't bump us up over lot coverage requirements would it doesn't okay John would be okay onious coverage if we did yes we're still fine yeah still fine you're permitted as much as 90% And they're at 75 on each lot yeah we'll be talking the 3ot dimension the wi it's it's relatively nominal well if those plants have a minimal chance of survival and proposing some Greening of the fence and then you can eliminate that variance by getting all 9 foot zero spaces I think we have the room and we're glad to do it all right okay great yeah that sounds good other questions I just I've got one and probably makes no sense to ask it but I will anyway in this B Zone how what percentage of the B Zone actually does what we wanted to do by Lots or by area take your pick well by Lots you have one two three four five six seven eight that have residential on the ground floor and because the B Zone extends of this aerial I I can't I can tell you to maybe Butler Parkway there's one two three 4 five six seven there's eight lots that are that are strictly commercial um question is car dealerships are permitted office permitted liquor stor is permitted it's about 5050 in terms of lots uh area the the commercial lots are much larger so um from from from that perspective uh there's a greater degree of Conformity but as you see in the platting pattern you know this is a Rel this is a very unique situation that currently I think does zoning changed like maybe 20 years ago to business zone is that yeah maybe a little long my question is kind of kind of where I'm coming from is why are we asking I mean you're asking to do this but uh why are we at uh violating our zoning um has anybody looked into the building that's there to see whether or not a commercial property could be put on the first floor and then you certainly could design the new building to do that well I think they testified to the practicality I'd like to hear it from them that that's exactly what it was there was testimony as to there's no viability for commercial commercials often very dark well I don't think we're allowed to talk about economics are we no no dark as it you won't rent to space it won't it's not that's not an economic situation that's that's a futility if you can't rent it it's economic that's a dormant property and then you've got a parking issue and then you've got a drrive VI it's an over intensification of use of the property I think that was a decent part of Mr Ricky's direct you would be evicting a tenant that exists there today in the ground floor of the of the building right that's providing a needed type of housing as well and and what we're proposing is we think is the is the best fit for this area it's what the area is um and again I I was asked responding to your planner I mean you're going to really need to use both lots for have any realistic intended any type of real commercial activity you can see the other lots that are commercial in the area how much larger that they are and this the site is just small and just better suited for residential simply put other questions chairman I got a couple go ahead um where the oratory school parking lot is is that underlying zoning still residential yes it's in the r10 district okay um and then I'm a little confused um the architect mentioned that these units were going to be luxury units and then you referred to them as possibly being Workforce units um well I believe I mean I don't know the finishes that the architect is is proposing um but when you look at my knowledge of of summit um and years ago I worked at H gr I've actually I actually did some work in town as a young planner um my understanding of of of of summit and and the state in general when you have um a community has as a a train station and you have homes up the hill that are you know as expensive as as they come um and you know there some areas that have smaller homes than the like and regular homes traditional homes I I understand that but um in what I see and I I review a lot of development applications as a planner is that um most development that you see is for you know larger single family homes they're very expensive it could be a one lot subdivision in town and then around Transit right those those Transit Apartments um I don't know what they're what they're leasing for here in Summit but I would imagine $4,000 and up we're not talking about finances but and then because the state is requiring us to provide most communities are providing the lowed Moder income housing because they're mandated by the state uh I guess some communities may be providing it otherwise so the focus is on providing low and moderate income housing and low and moderate inome housing is um low is 60 to 80% and then 80 to 100% is moderate and then very low is is is beneath that so what I was trying to say is that where there's very little the type of housing being built is what I call this Workforce housing 1,000 squ foot apartment I mean you know it's still going to command a decent rent here in Summit but it's going to be something that's more likely for like a general worker that's able to afford in comparison to a new single family or a single family home a Transit oriented uh apartment next to the train and then they're not going to qualify for the low and moderate income housing so there's a very strong need for this type of Housing and it's it's traditionally not getting built um in my opinion at the capacities that that's needed for everyday people and then I'm not sure quite how to ask this question so I'm just GNA kind of wing it so bear with me for a second uh in your opinion um are you comfortable with the access to the structure without a second means of - and the closeness of the buildings on the east side and the lack of access from the rear side for uh Emergency Services um all I can suggest as a planner I'm not an expert in in fire um I do know that we have building codes that have to be adhered to um and that I'm nowhere near an expert in this but um most buildings that I see aren't fully sprinker buildings so I thought that was a strong asset to this site I agree um other than that traditionally these are uh building codee requirements and if we can't adhere to the building code then we have no application yeah of course yep okay thank you anyone else questions for this witness anyone from the public have a question for this witness seeing none thank you Mr chair members that concludes our prosecution of this application Mr ch I me I'll briefly sum up what we conceded to tonight um where we landed and in our case now I don't want to believe the point you've heard it several times since the start of the application November you heard in our intro tonight about an hour and a half ago a little less maybe um this is a largely conforming proposal what do I mean by that I mean the structure use is allowed multif family residential is permitted here the structure sites on this lot as proposed to be subdivided without any deviations from the applicable code standard they don't all apply in the vzone but those that do are fully conforming of note are height and F those are two other deanes that could be at play here and there or not um there's no density issue our proposed dwelling unit for acreage is right in that sweet spot of the average of the eight properties around us that have multi families it is not only the high end is not low is right in the middle um off by about 1% from that exact medium the propos is a very well-appointed looking structure it is designed in a very smart way by Mr Forbes very good architect Mr Forbes actually designed a house for me out of state he's a fantastic architect this is missing and lacking nothing the site engineering is there it's a significantly improved condition over what you have today under existing and that also ties into the existing structure the aesthetic improvements that the existing structure will have as part of the undertaking of this very large significant overhaul by the applicant who owns a number of properties within the city proudly owns a number of them within the city and is looking to improve this existing one as a companion to this project should it be approved um we've had some I think important conditions um offered by the applicant of note tonight is the parking can be enhanced to a compliant 9 by8 dimension for the parking spaces for all of them parking again is compliant with the code standards um the shortfall was the 8 and 1 half fo dimension for the entirety of them portion allowed to be 8 and a half now all of them will be nine I think it's a very good point several board members made which is that the minute a plow comes in they might destroy those shrubs anyway in that 5 foot buffer area or the like they may not Thrive even if not destroyed by a plow but uh we think that that's a nice Improvement the applican can accommodate the drive is plenty wide for that access it will work um and the walkways that are now proposed on these sides or a nice way in and out of the property should someone want to get Street side from the parking lot walking bringing the refu containers up for the city workers and the recycling containers up by the uh property owner by the way the applicant um currently has a super who lives on the street in another property part of that Super's primary tasks includes bringing the recyclables um Street side on recycle day uh that will be the case for the pro structure as well I know there was a question asked early we didn't get to it it's not a huge question but but it's one I wanted to answer for you folks all that said it's a smart development I think Mr forb said it very well when he said this works here um this is in keeping with the surrounding area and he took inspiration from the other structures in the area both by massing and the appearance and when you saw that rendering that we marked earlier tonight it fits um there's no sore thumb here the sore thumb is today it's the void it's the open vacant lot that is just sitting there idle doing nothing um we think this is smart adaptive reuse of that idle land Mr chairman members this application's been pending for a very long time and went through several iterations of revision not overhauls but enhancements and twe along the way this culminates about a year if not more of the applicant having a matter before this board in one fashion or another from the date of filing from the day we're here so I want the board to know that this was not a back of a napkin Endeavor for the applicant I don't think you assume it was with the testimony you heard of the experts that were retained but this was a significant undertaking by the applicant with a lot of thought and a lot of reactive thought after hearing the board's concerns both at the primary meeting as well as the tech meetings we had earlier with your staff on a few Zoom calls um so I think you're getting a smart product here that's mindful of what the city deserves um that's mindful of the city code and is also balanced against the reality of the develop this lot there are going to be some physical shortcomings and we've discussed them tonight uh with that I want to thank the board for hanging in with us for the entire of this application I know it's getting a little bit late tonight it's a Monday so with that I will stop and I will just uh thank you both uh uh board members and your staff again for all of your time on this application okay uh there are this is the the second opportunity for the public if anyone from the public would like to tell us what they think of this application now is the time to do that seeing no one moving towards a microphone uh we will turn turn to our attorney to give us the conditions and the number of votes required yep so I have looks like five conditions noted here though one I question whether it's still applicable first we have the uh compliance with the conditions noted in the board Engineers memorandum second is that the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan to the city Forester for review and approval third and this is the one I was talking about it was discussed at the last meeting um the potential that no fencing shall be installed along the building or in the front yard is that still um you know since the plans were revised is that still a condition that applies here that's fine we talked about breaking the plane at the front yard of the structure to the street side no fencing there yeah I think that was reest of a board member or two we're certainly still fine with that condition okay uh fourth the cross access easement shall be submitted to the board attorney for review and approval the easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit and the fifth and final condition that I have noted is that the applicant shall revise their plans to provide for 9- foot wide parking spaces rather than the original 8 uh sorry 9 foot wide parking spaces rather than the 8.5 foot spaces and I C one more I don't if it's still applicable Ed but you wanted to see as part of res compliance the detail of the the railing for that second story of the existing structure we're glad to you can submit that as well as a detail for the trash enclosure yeah right correct and and should that last condition address what was going to be done but the Landscaping in the back what the impact of P's going to be uh well we have a landscaping plan being submitted to the city Forester anyway so that will be encompassed I think he's going to need to know that we've agreed to change the we we'll make we'll make a note in the Landscaping condition that'll reflect the now twoot buffer as opposed to the original 3ot chairman Steiner can I ask a question about conditions you can ask anything you want with the with the applicant to our attorney you can with the applic applicant's permission could we add another uh requirement that this we get some sort of approval or uh review by the fire department I know we've done it in the past was it too late now I mean probably did it in technical review but so yes um you know we could have a condition that the plans final revised plans be submitted to the fire department for review and approval um wouldn't condition it prior to the issuance of the resolution or anything but just a general condition that they ultimately get that sign off I guess their October one had comments did I didn't see it yeah I have the October one I kind of go through it find it but the October 2023 set of reports okay the the cover sheet says uh paper report attached with com then I if the building Department's going to review and uh check it against the fire code right I don't should okay Eric oh God uh minimum driveway withd 20 ft that was the one comment made box so do we want anything further with fire department or are we okay with building department review I mean we know that they looked at it we know that they did some they didn't and we know that there was a technical review committee meeting at which point I would assume that there would be comments so I will I will uh remove my okay got it request I didn't see the October so I apologize I just just Mr chairman I looked there it was and just a quick question at one point it was offered about a yield sign I believe it was on the driveway for cars exiting compared to cars entering is that correct didn't we turn it around or something yeah it was something so would stop cars from exiting the parking lot right yielding to the people coming in the driveway I assume was that on the it was on a plan I think it was oriented was that on the A4 plan and you agreed to change it was on the original plan set but it was oriented the wrong way but it'll be incorporated whether or not on that exhibit set or not um that's no problem thank you it helps us to review put it in it can H yep uh any okay and the number of votes uh it it does include D variances including D1 so five votes are required to approve okay well can I clarify that the D1 is for the new building but isn't isn't a D2 for the the D2 is for the existing non-conformity uh expansion as the reducing lot size D1 is for the newly proposed building which does not include commercial on the first floor and both of those are FS right yes yes okay who would like to begin Our deliberations Miss Cho you're up um I feel like this application has gone from like one extreme to another um and a lot of Visions in terms of this building being set back the new building structure being set back back on the street um the design has a major Improvement so I think we've progressed very well go to up to this point and you know even just taking the um adding the sidewalks along the side of the buildings was one of one of my concerns um and I understand why the new structure the uh entrances in the back closer to the you know for the for the second floor and third floor unit that that's closer to the parking although the the initial structure it's the interest in the front so I understand that so um I'm you know very pleased with the the look um and I think a lot of our issues have been addressed the parking situation addressed so I can support this okay Tom you want to go Tom you're up okay um I like going side to side anyway uh I'm in favor of this application as well I think the scale is appropriate for the neighborhood I think you know those of us who've looked there or drive by it multiple times a week we you know probably know the saber very well so the scale is appropri for the neighborhood um I think it's important to fill in that that that Gap that lot that has nothing on it I do appreciate the improvements in The Pedestrian access to the rear of the property those side sidewalks are very useful the side triangle work is also helpful to ensure safety driving out um the D1 use variance I guess that's really the main issue in this application um because it is you know it's a significant variance and is something obviously the the ordinance wants us to have business on the first floor there but as has been noted by by the planner and by those of us who drive by there a lot that particular section of that neighborhood is mostly buildings with residential on the first floor including the second lot on this property um and has also been noted it helps satisfy the need for housing units uh as I think I mentioned earlier the planner made very convincing arguments on the proof for the D1 use variances and and the buffer waivers that they're asking for the applicants asking for um so having said all that I I can support the application okay if we're going to go back and forth yes i' I've been I've been really excited about this one um certainly I think that the D1 variance is is very appropriate here um of the businesses in the neighborhood there is nothing anyone would traditionally walk to except perhaps the liquor store um and as the planner testified um this is not a lot that driving to a business makes any sense there's not adquate commercial parking on the lot the street parking is problematic um if they did have say a restaurant on the first floor all the next door neighbors who live on the first floor of their buildings would not be happy about it um so th this is not like downtown Summit I think residential use is totally appropriate um and boy we need more housing that isn't $3.5 million doar a unit um so so I'm I'm very happy to support this one so at first blush I look at this thing is it really 10 lbs in a 5B bag and as we go through this process it's it's very clear that that's not the case this you know the architect talked about how this is in Harmony and it's almost like step from one NE to another and I see this as it fits it makes sense it's conforming with the what's existing Neighbors on both sides and the fact that we have so the D variant makes absolute sense or solidifying the fact that there's a grandfather juice next door but then the buffer backyard it's a parking lot it's not a residential house so when I look at all of these things going through the facts and the testimonies and Mr Yuko made the comment I think the the back and forth of the planners it was about as clear as you could possibly get with that I have absolutely no problem supporting this yeah I'll second uh Mr peskin's comments um one of the things that um everything fell into place with this application uh with a in the business Zone you're allowed to go right up to the boundaries of the property uh one of my concerns um from from uh history of my own with my with my own personal stuff is that sometimes we have commercial businesses right up to Residential Properties that drives me crazy this none of that happens here I did ask about the parking lot behind the property which is still Zone residential but uh hopefully that never changes but everything have fell into place here so originally 10 lbs of stuff in a 5B bag was my thought but listening to everything here everything fell into place and um I can certainly support this application anyone Paul I can support this I think it does fit you know driving by you see it bring open space and it's consistent with a lot of that on that street and um I can support it you Vice chair well I'm doing everybody I guess we all get a chance so our job is to evaluate the positive and negative criteria and I absolutely agree with Mr Yukio that the planner tonight his thorough testimony uh absolutely highlighted the positive criteria for this site um and I think if you combine that with uh a compelling testimony regarding the absolute impracticality of having any kind of commercial on this site forget about the fact that what are you going to do with a thqu foot store uh the inability to park it uh in any way shape or form uh if you take that and then marry it to which is um really high design completely appropriate to the neighborhood uh and just I think maximizing the opportunity of the site and taking an eyesore and turning it to a net positive for the neighborhood so with that I can support this application I wish this had counted as six units instead of three because if it did we'd have some uh some issues with affordable housing and uh how it would be done but we can't do that for some reason uh I think everybody has expressed all of the reasons we should do it and uh for that reason I would accept a motion to approve this application move okay I'll second may we have a roll call yeah Vice chairman lit yes Mr Yuko yes Mr Nelson yes Miss to yes Miss Miss Cho yes Mr feskin yes chairman Steiner yes the motion carries thank you very much F and we have one set of minutes for memorialization if we do it quickly yes we can do it really quickly hang on let us finish our business here can I have the uh the exhibits please thanks okay and the minutes are for Tuesday November 19th and they are seven pages long they're getting a little shorter uh and uh is there a motion to approve these minutes so moved okay um voice okay is there a second yes is there a Voice vote Yes all those in favor I I all those opposed the motion to approve the minutes as carried uh is there a motion to adjourn yes second second those in favor good night