So a minimum amount of increased occupied area over what? The non-conforming structure that
already exists there. Let me go back to that for a second.
And then rear yard depth, the required is 20 feet.
The building, again, doesn't comply.
The north side planning commission
uh the north side planning commission designated baron the side opposite bearing street which is
designated the side opposite there.
the north side of the property as the rear yard the proposed addition is one feet five and five
eighths inches off of that property line uh through the in the revised fallings you see
we've increased that ever so slightly to a foot nine and inches and some change over that
we have a height refusal for the addition on the north the shed dormers are below the overall
height of the structure as you can see here as i zoom in
you know the existing ridge of the building is 72 feet 3 inches
the height of the steeple the bell tower base is 69 feet
the original height highest point of our shed roof dormer
was below that so we're tucking into the either side
either side of the ridge of the existing roof
and that roof will be replaced it'll all be standing metal seam and the height of the dormer
originally was 64 8 3 quarters you'll see in revised drawings that we've reduced the shed
dormer the height we've dropped it ever so slightly and pushed it back from the edge
which effectively raised the bottom of it a little bit from 41 feet 2 and 1 8 i think
to 41 and 11 and change, and we dropped the top of the dormer from 64, 8 and 3 quarters,
I think down to 63, 8 and 3 quarters down the foot.
So it's the addition at the rear, which you can see here to the left,
which again is for the second stair access and the ADA access.
I'm sorry, right here.
This is an existing bump out to the rear, which we're actually lower then as well.
So the additional, even though it exceeds the 38-foot height limit, is much, much lower than the existing structure at any side, even the bump out at the rear, at the north side.
You can see here, again, is the ADA ramp that we eventually eliminated through the RCO process.
And the reduction in the shed dormer, the size of it, was something that the community group wanted us to see.
and you'll see in their letter of support, they alluded to the revisions that we made through the process.
A copy of our zoning appeals at tab 9.
Tab 10, again, is the corrected notice of refusal.
You can see the side yard.
I addressed the side yard refusal.
I believe that accessory structures are required to comply with the yard requirements of the zoning district.
And while we're the addition to the rear to the north side for the stair and elevator complies with the side yard setback, the bike structure on the east side does not.
so technically that is a zero foot side yard and i had for the benefit of the board and the community
just to put that out there i had that added again as long along with a little more detail into
what was being proposed the original notice of refusal didn't include the number of residential
units we were proposing which i thought was pretty important um so again originally had 25 and we've
reduced it to 22 at tab 11 you have our revised zoning drawings cloud and
unclouded we had a survey we didn't have the benefit of a survey when we filed
the original application so a lot of the clouds these dimensional lines have to
do with the existing structure and the setback of the dimensions from the
structure to those property lines other than that there was a slight modification as you'll see in
the revised proviso plan form to the configuration of the rear addition the change of the here on the
right to the north the removal of the ramp the the addition uh inclusion of a of a lift to get from
grade and sidewalk up to the raised landing at the rear of the building and then you'll see
in the elevations the shed dormer height um the top of it was dropped again as i said a foot down
to 63 eight and three quarters the bottom of the dormer went up as it was pushed back
you can see here what ended up happening
a minute is that we as we push this the dormers back from the edge of the building
They wanted the dormers to appear a little more subservient to the primary structure,
so we minimized that as much as possible.
We still needed to sit the outside edge of the dormers upon the lower exterior wall,
the existing exterior walls to the east and west of the church,
so we moved it in to the inside edge of that bearing wall.
That's about as far as we can go, but as a result, as it moved in, it moved up.
That's about as far as we can go, but as a result, as it moved in, it moved up the roof.
And so that's why the bottom of the shed roof height is actually higher than it originally was before it was down in this area.
And then again, we dropped the height of full foot.
We dropped the floor-to-ceiling height at that fifth floor that we're creating to, I think it was about eight feet or so, to minimize the visual impact.
here you can see over in this area again the bicycle storage shelter to the right
we do have a six foot fence along setback along the front of the property at bering street one
other thing we did change was originally we had four foot high fences out at the property line
to enclose the trash enclosure and to for the access to the rear to north of the property
we ended up pushing the fence back in line or behind the forward most portion of the structure
at North 38th Street, and so we raised that to six feet, which is a permitted height in the
residential zoning district. You'll see that here, an interesting feature that the architects can get
into, and I'll go to a clean version of the revised drawings, is that what we did is we created,
and you know I've used these in some other projects where we've created these terraced
light wells coming out of lower areas of the building and you'll see those in the renderings
to either side and we were able to effectuate that again because the property does sit back
from the side property lines we were able to keep that not out on the footway on 38th street but
within our property and create some additional light to the lower levels it will serve as an
additional means of egress although because of the second means of egress we're providing to
the north it's i think the architects will state or will confirm that that's not required here's
comparative rendering a color elevation i should say of the bering street facade top and bottom
you can see the dormer see either side of the ridge we've modified the color palette the original
plaster is kind of a pinkish mauve-ish peach color and in order to uh make the addition
the dormers blend in. We propose modifying. We pledge to continue to work with Palatinville
Civic Association, the coordinating RCO to pick a color palette that does further integrate
the addition and the modifications with the existing structure. Here you can see the
North 38th Street side. I'm sorry, this is the east side. I'm sorry, at the bottom.
no I'm wrong this one 38th Street there are some stained glass at the upper windows that will have
to be removed so those windows can be operable and meet with the building code but again as you
can see up here well you can't really see it here you'll see it in the rendering we are going to
maintain the stained glass you see right here this is what the building was originally presented to
the community group, maintaining the peach or mauve-ish color, that's how you say the word,
I have problems pronouncing it, existing plaster with the addition above, maintaining the stained
glass at the upper levels at the Bering Street. The stained glass that exists in the upper side
windows will be preserved to the extent that we can when we remove it to be integrated and utilized
throughout the building, the interior of the building possible, and the exteriors. Here's
another rendering of the from Bering Street east side courtyard that'll now
be hard and landscaped in the bicycle enclosure as well and here's that East
Court that we have that right now you'll see in the photos is terribly overgrown
in really bad state and we're creating some nice usable outdoor space for the
occupants and residents of the building here's an example of these terrace kind of rather than just
having a deep well a pit we're trying to make something that's more functional more gradual
for the benefit of both those passing by and for the residents of the building
and here was the change in the color palette that we presented to the community group following
We met with both their zoning committee where we got some input and then met with the full,
we had a remote virtual community group meeting just the other day.
And this was what we produced based upon the comments we received from the community group.
Again, really just changing the color palette of the plaster and of the shed dormers,
reducing the shed dormers, the height, and setting them back.
and setting them back the landscaping all around and here's just quickly comparison between what
the landscaping all around.
we originally proposed to the left and then the right following our community group meeting
and the zoning committee meeting again trying to make the addition and the existing structure blend
in more together and obviously we received a letter of support from them so they found that
to be acceptable. I do have floor plans, both for the original 25 unit as proposed and the revised
22 unit. Again, we can go through those as needed. The board has any questions. We did prepare
shadow studies, and Mark or Kevin can go through that, but you'd see that if any property is
impacted you know by tucking the shed dormers let me just say by technically tucking the shed dormers
into the sides of the roof the way we have um and with the ridge extending above it and the bell
tower base extending above it it has very minimal effect on the shadowing as uh as proposed to what
presently exists and if anything there's a an impact on our own property to the north but it's
very minimal and again if you have any questions regarding that i can have the architects go
through it uh existing photos you can see here at tab 19 i'm just going to quickly flip through
this is that east courtyard that we're going to be fixing up overgrown fences rusted fences removing
the signs um that are there neighborhood that's around you know this is the rear yard area
presently as it stands to the north not in great shape that fencing will all
come down. Plaster on the west wall will all be patched and fixed coming off in
various spots as you can see in the photos here at page 24, 25, and 26. 20 is
the interior photos and pretty pretty rough on the inside sellers and not in
great shape the interior not in terrific shape its existing stories this is the
upper floor the second floor but you can see in some of the photos the the roof
there's problems in a roof you can see here on page 23 of tab 20 where there
you could if you were you can see through and their problems with the existing roof as it
presently stands we did go and as I mentioned we met with the community both the zoning committee
flipping through here some other photos tab 20 21 I'm sorry tab 21 again is the what my clients put
together showing the proximity to bus stops bike sharing trolley line zip car you know bike sharing
one minute walk trolley bus one minute walk bus stop two minute walk a bus another bus stop two
minute walk zip car an eight minute walk subway ten minute walk so it's clear that you know even
though we're not providing parking which we really couldn't without destroying the church or the
ground floor facades of the church there's no open area that could be really effectively utilized for
that um that it is in close proximity to public transportation and something that the community
group took into consideration in improving our project. Zoning archives I've included for the
subject premise is obviously utilized as a church and that's at tab 22. Our email or the email we
received from a tab 23 from any commission showing Palton Civic, Paltonville Civic Association as a
coordinating RCO, a list of addresses to which we provided notice of our April 1st. I mean this was
the original notice i'm sorry originally supposed to meet april 1st with them that obviously didn't
happen i was supposed to be an in-person meeting there was our certificates of service for that
and then our uh virtual hearing that we had on august 6 and we did mail that again out as um
by certificate mailing to um to the list of addresses that we provided
and then lastly we do have the letter of support
should have the letter support um i don't have it included it may have come in afterwards
but if i can just go to that you have copies of that you have copies of that okay and as you can
see i can open that it should have been that's their letter dated august 17th
and that is as you can see in the third full paragraph that's a support and it was based
upon the submission that we made with the revised materials that we're submitting to the board today
with the revised materials that we're submitting to the board today on August 14th again I did
on august
there is a revised proviso plan form and our revised drawings going with those reducing the
number of units from 25 to 20 reducing the top of the shed dormer by a foot in which then pushes
pushing the bottom up about nine inches, eliminating the ADA ramp in place, using a lift instead,
so getting away from any encroachments onto the footway, increasing the rear yard depth,
even though as little as it was, slight increase to the east side yard.
That's to the building, existing building.
Obviously, we talked about the accessory bicycle storage.
The addition to the north increased in square footage ever so slightly, but there was no effective change in our occupied area, changing the fence on North 38th Street, increasing the width of the light wells by a couple inches, and then revising the dimensions based upon our survey.
And then again, here are the revised drawings.
Excuse me, David, is that increase in the height of the fence going to generate a new refusal?
No, because what we did is, so the provision of the code that deals with that is that if there's a fence between the building and the property line,
it can be no more than four feet in height and can be no more than 50% of the peak.
But what we ended up doing, in the original drawings, it was out here at the property line.
So it was between the building and the property line.
As you can see here, we've actually, and some L&I examiners will say if it's in line with the building, it still needs to be four feet and no more than 50% opaque, which is not what this says.
But we've set it back ever so slightly from this extreme, and I won't say extreme, but the westernmost or the closest portion of the structure, this buttress, to the 38th Street property line.
So since it's set back, it's no longer between the building and that front yard property line,
and it can be the full six-foot height that's permitted as long as it's not in the front yard.
So the answer, that's my long-winded answer to saying, no, it should not generate any new refusals.
We designed it this way to make that happen.
Thank you.
So it would not happen.
And it's three pages of revised drawings.
If I could, if I can have one of my clients, Nagesh or Raju, sworn in to adopt my statements,
and then Kevin or Mark to do the same as the architects.
Frank yes did you wish to swear in sorry yes your name sir please identify yourself
for the record spell your name david is it najaru yeah uh yes okay you can yes you can unmute
yourself oh my god najaru or or yeah it's either raju or nagesh one of you guys
maybe i can move to mark and mark wallace and or kevin korejko
yeah um i accept the testimony okay mark real quickly you have to be sworn first
sorry um mark wallace core design architecture uh 222 west atlantic uh avenue
So, Hedden Heights, New Jersey, 08035.
We're confirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Please proceed, David.
Mark, did you hear the statements I made to the board?
Are they true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Is there anything you'd like to correct?
And would you adopt those statements as your own?