October 10, 2012

The Public Advocate was not present to question the testimony of Mr. Adelsohn. The Public had no questions for Mr. Adelsohn. Stephen W. Schwartz, AIA, was sworn in and accepted by the Board to be an expert in architecture. Mr. Schwartz testified the building at 641-649 had classic strip-mall architecture; the front was finished with a brick fagade but the back of the building was unfinished. Referring to Exhibit A-5, (Existing Floor Plan), he described the building as the well-known site of Walter Bauman Jeweler, and at its western point the location of a former yoga studio. Mr. Schwartz advised the Board that the building sat on a slope, the highest area being closer to Pleasant Valley Way. Mr. Schwartz described Exhibit A-7, (Proposed Floor Plan), which indicated the Walter Bauman store would move to the western point and a new Regal Bank would be located at the former location of Sweet Basil Restaurant; thus creating anchor businesses. The remaining current tenants included a Barber Shop and Yoshi-Sono Restaurant; the other vacant spaces would be finished for potential tenants. The proposed plan included upgrades for handicapped accessibility. Referring to Exhibit A-4, (Colorized Proposed Elevations), Mr. Schwartz detailed the proposed changes to the exterior facade including ornamental towers that would have a translucent feature and interior illumination; the western tower would have a clock-face; the towers would have a stone fagade feature. All windows facing Eagle Rock Avenue would have new aluminum framing and energy efficient glass. A new brick fagade would cover the front and back of the building to create a uniform look. A new double-door with glass windows would be added to the rear elevation creating a real sense of entry. Adjacent to the rear of the building would be a new sidewalk, and there would be new awnings installed to the rear store entrances, The Board and Mr. Schwartz discussed the exterior basement stairs to the far west of the building, Mr. Schwartz said the exterior stairway would be upgraded; the existing enclosure would be removed. and a new railing would be installed. The Board inquired as to whether the roof color could be a light color to reduce the heat island effect; Mr. Schwartz said he would consider a lighter color for the roof. There was discussion regarding signage details; Mr. Schwartz said the signage would

be a light color to reduce the heat island effect; Mr. Schwartz said he would consider a lighter color for the roof. There was discussion regarding signage details; Mr. Schwartz said the signage would be approximately five (5) ft. in height, eight (8) ft. in width and would be probably be LED illuminated. The Public Advocate was not present to question the testimony of Mr. Schwartz. The Public had no questions for Mr. Schwartz. Peter G. Steck, P.P., was sworn in and accepted by the Board to be an expert witness in planning. Mr. Steck advised the Board he had prepared a memorandum dated September 29, 2012; he gave the Board a recapitulation of the memo. Mr. Steck described the existing conditions; the property consisted of two lots that operated as one development. Mr. Steck told the Board the Applicant was proposing to redesign the parking area by shifting a row of parking to accommodate a new sidewalk adjacent to the rear of the building and adding new green-space. The redesign of the parking lot would be more inviting to pedestrians. The proposed architectural improvements to the storefronts and accent towers would create a good-looking, operating building. Mr. Steck said the towers would not add to the square footage of the structure, they were ornamental only. The proposed tower on the westerly side would have a clock-face; the proposed parapet would be approximately 15 feet, resulting in a building height of thirty-three (33) feet; the easterly tower will rise approximately thirteen (13) feet, resulting in building height of approximately 25 feet at that location. Mr. Steck said the proposed towers would not increase the total building height to over thirty-five feet; additionally the towers were purely ornamental; a height variance was not necessary. Mr. Steck spoke about the requested variance for impervious coverage (“C1”); he said although the impervious coverage was being reduced, it was not being reduced enough to comply with the maximum requirement of 75%, With regard to the parking variance, Mr, Steck said the reduction of one space was minor; he reiterated there would be an increase in green-space. NAPLANNING.BRDWWPMINUTES2012\10-10-2012 Minntes.doc 6