7 2 25 WO PB Draft Minutes

10 constant threat, why was that not considered? Mr. Peist said the fire escapes purely serve as a means of emergency exits. The existing exits for the building, which were the staircases, are already on the side of the building. They want to maintain a clean front. ● Stan Shapiro at 12 Edge Hill Road asked how the square footage for the second and third floor went from 3,000 and several hundred to just under 3,000. Mr. Peist said it was the exterior face for the calculation. He was using that because that is a building coverage. The inside face of the wall is the building definition requirement. There are thick walls, so they match the thicknesses and meet the dimensions. ● Mr. Shapiro asked, is it the plan that the additional floor or the changes in the exterior walls will have the same thickness as the existing exterior walls? What is that thickness? Mr. Peist said he doesn’t have the exact calculation. The number is a hold dimension on a construction plan. ● Sophie Lubin at Edge Hill Court asked if some of the decisions can be talked about in terms of material choices and architectural details, and where, if at all, it is considered surrounding areas. Mr. Peist said the existing building is a mid-century institutional. It's a brutalist-influenced commercial style that was common in the suburbs in the 1960s to the 1980s. It is a contemporary commercial architecture. It is defined by clean lines, minimal ornamentation, mixed materials, large windows, and a flat roof. They're using natural materials, and giving a clean contemporary look to the building. ● Ms. Lubin asked what does it mean by natural materials. Mr. Peist said there's going to be stone veneer. There's going to be wood paneling on there. They're using different things to make it have a natural feel to it. ● Ms. Lubin asked if the wood paneling is actually wood, or is it metal that's meant to look like wood. Mr. Peist said it's a composite. ● Ms. Lubin asked to reference any of the surrounding buildings, the Edison Lofts, and any kind of historical elements when making these choices. Mr. Peist said they were using what existing building that they had. ● Ms. Lubin asked who was responsible for providing a shadow study. Mr. Zeberl said a shadow study is beyond the scope of a site plan application. ● Lenny Carr at 83 Mountain Avenue asked why the shadow study was not being required. Mr. Peist said

ding a shadow study. Mr. Zeberl said a shadow study is beyond the scope of a site plan application. ● Lenny Carr at 83 Mountain Avenue asked why the shadow study was not being required. Mr. Peist said he doesn't think it's necessary for this property. PRESENTATION ● The engineer, Donna Bullock, is still under oath and testified to the following: ● There have been some plan changes that were requested by the board and engineers review letters that they have addressed for the building. ● They added the fire escapes for the parking lot upgrades. ● They added a trash enclosure at the north end of the parking lot and space. ● They've added 2 EV spaces, added bumper blocks, and added a new fence on the north side. ● They are replacing a retaining wall on the south side. ● They assigned 7 spaces labeled “RP” (Residential Parking) along the south side of the lot. ● The bill code door at the end of the parking is to be removed and they are proposing 1 ground sign. ● For the parking, the final count is that they have 20 standard parking spaces with 1 handicap space, 2 EV spaces with 2 credits counts as 4. In total they have 25 spaces, where 25 is required. So therefore, there will be no need for a bulk variance requirement for the parking. ● For lighting, they will adjust the lighting levels to maintain the 0.3 foot candles at the property lines.