WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=Bjy3xehy2TU

Part: 1

1
00:00:08.400 --> 00:00:25.279
Welcome everyone. Today is Monday, April 6, 2026, and this is a regular meeting of the city of Asbury Park Planning Board. Chairwoman Kurszac, can you please call this meeting to order? Yes, I'd like to call the meeting to order. Uh, this meeting is being held in compliance with the Open Public Meetings

2
00:00:25.279 --> 00:00:40.399
Act, chapter 231, Chapter Public Law 1975. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided in to the coaster asbury Park Press by publication of the annual meeting notice and posted on the municipal jubilant board and municipal

3
00:00:40.399 --> 00:00:56.480
website. All notices are on file with the board secretary. Official action may be taken on the following matters before the board. This meeting is being recorded by APV. Uh can you please join me for salute the flag?

4
00:00:56.480 --> 00:01:16.000
>> Pledge allegiance. flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> I will now take roll call. James Banano >> here. >> Councilwoman Clayton

5
00:01:16.000 --> 00:01:32.799
>> here. >> Jim Henry >> here. >> Mayor Moore is absent this evening. Jen Solder is absent this evening. Daniel Shaneo >> here. Bob Zuckermanman is recused from the application for 320 Asbury Avenue.

6
00:01:32.799 --> 00:01:50.640
So that Okay. Kathy McLaclin here. Vice Chair Mike Gunnan is absent today and chairwoman Barbara Kzac here. Um I just wanted to to clarify that the application we are hearing is 320 Asbury Avenue. This is not the application that

7
00:01:50.640 --> 00:02:07.200
was that we saw there was some misprintings that were on social media that this was going to be the lot that is on next to Paradise. This is not that. So, if anybody is here for that, that the next time that you're going to be hearing that is going to be probably

8
00:02:07.200 --> 00:02:22.080
at the council at the council, not here yet. We haven't gotten to that point yet. So, we are going to be hearing a continuation for 320 Asbury Avenue. The first part of this was held on March 16th uh and we did not finish that

9
00:02:22.080 --> 00:02:41.440
night. So here we are tonight to uh continue. Good evening everyone. For the record, my name is Jennifer Phillips Smith. I'm an attorney with FPT Given and I'm here tonight on behalf behalf of the applicant APW Redeveloper LLC. As the

10
00:02:41.440 --> 00:02:57.120
chairwoman summarized, we were here originally on March 16th. We were able to get through two of our witnesses that evening, our civil engineering and our first architect. Uh we have for you this evening our second architect to talk about the second phase, the second actually the third building. Uh and our

11
00:02:57.120 --> 00:03:14.319
planner. But before we get to them, at the end of the hearing last time, there were questions about the operation of the parking on the multif family building in the first phase. So, we wanted to bring a witness to answer the questions that you had regarding how that parking would operate before we

12
00:03:14.319 --> 00:03:30.640
dive into the architecture in the second building. >> Okay. Just so that that we can also clarify for the public cuz some of you may or may not have been here before. What happens now is that for every witness that is brought up at the end of that testimony, uh, the public is

13
00:03:30.640 --> 00:03:47.840
allowed to ask questions about what that witness stated and only to what that witness stated. So, it has to remain within those boundaries. So, as everyone as everyone comes through, you're you I we will be asking the public to ask

14
00:03:47.840 --> 00:04:04.480
questions if you would like to. Um then at the very end of this uh the presentation of if we are done tonight uh there is at the very end there is the capability of the public to to ask questions as to make comments and these are comments. So comments you have three

15
00:04:04.480 --> 00:04:21.120
minutes to comment on this project and then after that then the um then the board will make their decision. >> Thank you. >> Sure. So with that, we will bring up our first witness to answer the questions about the operation of the parking the

16
00:04:21.120 --> 00:04:43.360
multif family and that is Jim Mullen. So before Mr. Mullen starts, I just for the record, we'll I just want to mark this exhibit that's on the screen as A9. >> A9. So F9 is uh a sheet that we resubmitted on March 27th

17
00:04:43.360 --> 00:05:00.160
um that incorporated a few of the small changes that the board had asked for and we're going to be using this as our primary exhibit this evening. So >> Jen, what what sheet is that? >> Oh, there we go. Thank you. So that's sheet uh eight of 18

18
00:05:00.160 --> 00:05:19.440
>> and it is last dated. >> Uh that is the landscaping plan and it is lastdated. Michael, if you can zoom in on that >> to the left. >> Okay, that was 32626. >> Thank you.

19
00:05:19.440 --> 00:05:34.240
>> And you raise your right hand. You swear affirm that the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And for the record, if you could state and spell your name, please. >> James P. Mullen. M U L L E N. >> Okay. All >> right. So, Mr. Mullen. But wait, before

20
00:05:34.240 --> 00:05:53.199
we do that, we have to swear to our experts as well. Thank you. You swear that the definition about provide will be the truth and truth and nothing but the truth this year. Thank >> so Mr. All in just by way of background this project the current subsequent

21
00:05:53.199 --> 00:06:07.919
developers APW redeveloper and in the subsequent redevelop subsequent developer agreement it is indicated that it may be transferred this lot one uh to an entity that is affiliated with py correct

22
00:06:07.919 --> 00:06:24.960
>> can you explain your pre that lot >> that lot one the first lot here is under contract to be sold to pi development group That's relevix. I'm going to ask Mr. >> M. PY homes. >> Yes, that's correct. >> That's what that guy who bringing in the

23
00:06:24.960 --> 00:06:41.840
PY that started trying to get Leticia James Mortgage for >> Excuse me. This is not Please. This is not relevant. >> Go ahead. >> Mr. Mullen, if you could uh explain your affiliation with PY Homes. >> Sure. Uh so I am a director of land uh

24
00:06:41.840 --> 00:06:59.120
planning and entitlements. I've been with the company for 26 years uh with the pulley group northeast quarter division and we have a territory all of New Jersey, the uh eastern part of Pennsylvania, northern part of Delaware

25
00:06:59.120 --> 00:07:15.440
and southern New York and I'm involved in getting all the development approvals. I'm also an attorney licensed to state in New Jersey. Uh but that's my job is to get the all the approvals and and work through um create uh creating homeowners associations. Uh it's my

26
00:07:15.440 --> 00:07:30.800
assistant and I do that for all of our projects in the division. >> And so the multif family building that was testified to at the last hearing, that is a type of building that you've worked on before. Correct. >> Correct. >> And that building has 50 units. Correct.

27
00:07:30.800 --> 00:07:47.599
>> That's correct. Now the question arose previously how the parking spaces both within the building and outside of the building would be allocated as the units within the building are sold because this is a for sale project. Correct. >> So for sale. Yes. >> So as you're selling the units, how

28
00:07:47.599 --> 00:08:03.280
would the parking spaces be allocated to the units? >> So every uh unit will be allocated their own at least one of their own parking spaces. Uh some of the parking spaces in uh the garage are tandem. they will be assigned to one unit owner and they'll

29
00:08:03.280 --> 00:08:17.599
be purchased and become part of the deed for that unit so that that parking space will then go on with that unit even if it's resold in the future. Um there are enough parking spaces in the unit for uh

30
00:08:17.599 --> 00:08:33.680
in the garage for 38 of the units and so they'll all get assigned again first come first serve as they are purchased as they purchase two units and then outside the remaining uh 12 units will get those spaces and if you could uh uh

31
00:08:33.680 --> 00:08:50.240
yes those 12 spaces right where the cursor is and those two below there. So those 12 will be designated for homeowners and those will be assigned to units on a first come first- serve basis. So everyone will have at least this their own designated space.

32
00:08:50.240 --> 00:09:06.160
>> But so are you saying that those are going to be deed? Those 12 are going to be deeded as well. >> Yes. They'll become part of the that that unit owners they will own that spot. >> So when they deed it, do they get separate lot numbers then? No, it'll be part of that deed, the same deed, so that the tax assessor does not have to

33
00:09:06.160 --> 00:09:23.279
create a separate deed for that. >> So, it's going to just be part of like an, you know, sensory use to that that unit. >> Okay. >> And then that leaves 14 spaces along the property line there. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> And how will those 14 spaces be managed? >> Those 14 spaces will be uh managed by

34
00:09:23.279 --> 00:09:40.399
the management company. So even before the first unit is sold, a management company will be chosen by PY put in place and ready to manage that whole space. They'll be um available for use by homeowners and by their uh guests by

35
00:09:40.399 --> 00:09:56.720
a pass or a tag on their uh rearview mirror. So that that all those spaces were managed, maintained by the homeowners association but available for use by members of the association and their and their guests. >> And just to clarify one change,

36
00:09:56.720 --> 00:10:12.000
previously we had shown all 14 of those spaces as EV spaces, but have decided now to make five of the spaces EV. Correct. That's correct. >> And then all of the spaces inside the building would be make ready for >> every space inside would be make ready for uh EV use. Yes.

37
00:10:12.000 --> 00:10:26.959
>> Okay. So, if a homeowner were purchasing a unit and they wanted, let's say, one of the spaces inside the garage, they could also arrange to have a a charging station installed. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> So, I hope that explains to the board

38
00:10:26.959 --> 00:10:43.279
the questions that you had concerning how the the parking would be operated. >> Jennifer, where are the EV spaces? >> So, there if you could zoom in, Michael. There you go. Jim, if you want to point those out. >> Y they're all they're all together. Okay. >> Correct. Those are the exterior spaces

39
00:10:43.279 --> 00:10:59.839
and everything in the interior would also be make ready. >> Right. >> What about those 12 spaces? >> 12 spaces would have an opportunity. I guess if they wanted to have EV, we could uh create an EV. It would be up to the homeowner though. >> Okay. Are they will they be EV ready?

40
00:10:59.839 --> 00:11:22.480
>> Those would interceed. >> Okay. >> All right. There any other questions by the uh by the planning board members about the the how parking is going to be managed? >> Which uh this is just for the one build one building. Which one? Which number?

41
00:11:22.480 --> 00:11:37.279
Yeah, >> I think we're calling this one building one. >> Building one. >> Yeah. >> So every unit will have at least one >> space assigned. >> Yes. Assigned to them. That that's their own space. >> And the tandem spaces will be shared.

42
00:11:37.279 --> 00:11:53.959
Don't that one unit owner will have two spaces. >> So it's hand basis with those sales. >> First come, first serve. So as the home buyers come into the sales office, if they want to choose and purchase those two spaces with their unit, they could purchase them.

43
00:11:54.880 --> 00:12:15.040
>> So would someone with a onebedroom be able to to purchase a tandem space? >> Most likely, yes. Are those spaces, the uh interior spaces and especially the tandem spaces, are they going to be a part of the sale

44
00:12:15.040 --> 00:12:30.240
price or is that going to be an extra? >> It would be an extra. >> So, can you purchase a a unit and not get a space if you wanted to? >> I think you you could because it is for sale, but almost everyone buys a space. That's our experience. I will say that

45
00:12:30.240 --> 00:12:46.480
the subsequent developer agreement does not allow the unit owners to get on street parking permits. >> So I remember you saying that in the last meeting. So I was just going to say if you if a unit does not chooses not to get a parking a parking space let's say they don't own a car, >> right? >> If they ever sold that new resident

46
00:12:46.480 --> 00:13:02.079
would never be able to get a parking space anywhere, >> right? Ever. >> So I would be cautious. No, that wouldn't be because it would No, because those 12 spaces that are reserved outside wouldn't be used up then because or there would be an extra space available that be maintained by either

47
00:13:02.079 --> 00:13:19.320
PY until we sold out or then them homeowner association would have that space available to sell to the next homeowner. >> Well, could they could somebody who's bought spaces, could they sell those spaces to somebody else? >> They cannot. They go with that unit.

48
00:13:19.440 --> 00:13:35.519
They're going to be able to buy their spaces. Yes. And that'll be a signed snippet. They can't separately assign, you know, sell that space, it's it's it's going to be go it's going to go with the unit. It stays with the unit. >> My only concern would be that if a unit does not buy a space and you end up

49
00:13:35.519 --> 00:13:50.160
selling those extra spaces on top of it cuz >> there'll always be that one. >> We don't we just don't know that for sure. I would I would say you probably shouldn't sell a unit without at least one space. >> I agree. In practice, that is the way it works. Everybody buys a space.

50
00:13:50.160 --> 00:14:07.920
>> So you would commit to that legally as a condition of the resolution that every every unit will have at least one space? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> That satisfactory? >> Yes. >> And so are we saying that those side spaces, I think you mentioned there were like 14 of them. Are those not available

51
00:14:07.920 --> 00:14:24.079
or are they available to the town homes as well? >> He's saying they are and they aren't cuz he said first that they were be guest passes and day passes and now he's saying they could sell them later. >> Right. No, no, no. We wouldn't sell those. We're not going to sell those 14. They're not going to be sold. >> What are you doing?

52
00:14:24.079 --> 00:14:39.279
>> They're going to be managed by the man the u management company and the association will own them as a common element and they'll be used for overflow parking for guests or if you know another homeowner wants to get a pass to use that space >> for your HOA because I heard there were

53
00:14:39.279 --> 00:14:54.720
three different HOAs. >> This HOA is a py HOA. >> Right. So when you say available to the HOA permit only to your HOA only our >> so building one and two or just building one. >> It should be only building one. Building

54
00:14:54.720 --> 00:15:10.320
two has four spaces in each of their units. The twocar garages and two parking spaces uh in the driveway, >> but their guests would not be able to get a ticket. They will not get a ticket, >> right? They will take. >> So is that going to be the same

55
00:15:10.320 --> 00:15:25.600
homeowners association building one and building two? >> The same homeowners association. Yes, but those still would not be they would not be permitted. They would not be sold to you. >> Is it could be or is it going to be >> one or two? Uh homeowners associate it could be

56
00:15:25.600 --> 00:15:41.120
>> I think we previously said we thought that >> there could be there's probably going to be two separate associations. >> Will there be three because of building three? >> Yes. >> So let's >> let's be clear as to what this is going to be. >> Building three will not have access to those parking spaces. >> All right. Will building two?

57
00:15:41.120 --> 00:15:57.199
>> We say no. >> All right. No. So, building one is the only one that has access to those 14 spots and the 12 spots. The 12 spots are permanent. >> Yes, >> they're owned by >> whoever you owns the unit. Everything underneath is owned by whatever's unit.

58
00:15:57.199 --> 00:16:14.079
The 14 are >> owned by >> owned by the association. They will figure it out, >> right? >> Good luck to them. >> We've done this before. We >> Okay. All right. Maybe not here, but you've done it before. >> Obviously, there's a severe parking

59
00:16:14.079 --> 00:16:29.519
concern. >> Yes. >> Not to force people out, >> which our home buyers will know when they come to Asbury Park if they know Asbury Park. >> But if you're you're committing that it will there will be at least one space for >> Oh, yes. Absolutely.

60
00:16:29.519 --> 00:16:45.199
>> Residential unit. >> Correct. What happens in the event that there's a resale of the unit uh where there is no uh assigned parking space? >> Well, no. We said we're going to assign a spot to everyone. >> Yes. But somebody comes in and says, "I don't want a spot." And then they resell

61
00:16:45.199 --> 00:17:01.360
the unit. What happens? >> But you said this is going to be mandatory. >> Yes. It's part of their deed. They can't separate them. >> We were asking for them to >> to that it will be with the unit. Every unit has to have at least one that goes with the deed. >> Okay. So there's no no possibility of

62
00:17:01.360 --> 00:17:20.000
somebody coming in and said I don't want a parking spot. >> Yeah, they don't have to use it, but they will get a parking spot with their >> they have to buy. They have to buy. >> Okay. Does anybody else have any questions from the board or our professionals

63
00:17:20.000 --> 00:17:36.320
about what was just testified about? >> No. Okay. Um, if anybody from the public would like to ask any questions about this topic, please go to the microphone and um, our attorney will it has to be

64
00:17:36.320 --> 00:17:53.520
remember it has to be exactly about the topic that was discussed. Okay. Um, my name is Lori Meyers. I'm at 301 Cookman unit 5. Um, it's not it's I noticed that there are now more parking spaces along that out um, line.

65
00:17:53.520 --> 00:18:09.120
No, same number >> is the same number of Okay. Um I also noticed that in connection with the plan that you've now done um you've put in a um shielding to shield the the lights um coming in. >> We haven't we I'm sorry we have not had

66
00:18:09.120 --> 00:18:25.520
that discussion. Okay. Then I won't you can ask for other thing anything that you said. >> This this witness is not the engineer. So the engineer presumably will be providing that. >> Right. >> Hi my name is uh Paris Dre. I'm not from the area. I do often work in the area. Um, I'd like to ask for a little bit of

67
00:18:25.520 --> 00:18:41.280
clarification as well. So, you're saying that there's 38 spots available inside. There are 12 spots available outside that are all guaranteed spots. Correct? >> There's more space inside, but 38 spot under the building. >> Okay. And then these 14 spaces that

68
00:18:41.280 --> 00:18:57.039
we're talking about, we keep talking about them for guests, but these are multifamily residents, correct? >> Yes. So, if we can assume that it's going to be the standard American family, we can assume that there's going to be two vehicles per household. Yes. U we're I'm going to stop this line of questioning. There was a lot of

69
00:18:57.039 --> 00:19:12.559
questions about this at the last meeting, I believe. Understand this. This plan is coming in compliant with parking. >> I promise I'm going somewhere. The number, let me finish. The number of parking spaces that are required for this this application comply with what

70
00:19:12.559 --> 00:19:28.080
is required by the local ordinance. So questions about how many more parking spaces are going to be needed. It conforms. So we don't want to get into a long in-depth conversation about that. This board has no jurisdiction to tell the municipality what the parking

71
00:19:28.080 --> 00:19:44.400
requirements are. The municipality sets that. They've set it and this application complies with it. So >> Okay. And then my final question that I just wanted some confirmation on. You did say that we weren't doing any permits or anything for street parking. Correct. >> That's correct. >> All right. I just wanted to say it all

72
00:19:44.400 --> 00:20:01.200
out loud. Thank you. >> And just to reiterate that is a condition of the developers agreement with the city as well. >> Hi, my name is Joe Mey. I do want to ask a parking question. I'm disabled and I only see one handicap space there. Now, say somebody gets injured now, they're

73
00:20:01.200 --> 00:20:17.120
handicapped. They have, you know, two slot space. They got to juggle their cars with, you know, their spouse. They can't open, you know, they can't have a ramp for their wheelchair anymore because you got these spaces like sardines with things in there. Can somebody switch to another spot? You

74
00:20:17.120 --> 00:20:32.960
know, you can't sell it. You can't buy one. So, what happens when you know an accident happens? You are not giving these people a choice. You're not putting one at least one aside for that issue. Not that you not you've displayed in any way.

75
00:20:32.960 --> 00:20:50.480
>> Great question. Yeah, it I'm not sure what the question is, but the there was testimony from and and I apologize. I say this every time. In order for the mic to pick me up, my back goes to everyone. So, I apologize in advance. It's kind of I have to choose between being picked up by audio and being polite. Um, so the the there was

76
00:20:50.480 --> 00:21:05.520
testimony last time by the engineer about compliance with ADA that was shown more on the civil plans, but there is uh an ADA space in the ones that are not being allocated. Um, that is shown on the plan there as well, but we did have testimony by the engineer previously

77
00:21:05.520 --> 00:21:23.919
that the number of ADA spaces does comply. >> Anybody else? Any other public questions? the outside. Um, >> excuse me. You have to go up to the mo to the mic, but you have to ask a question. >> Again, this is not for comments. If you want to make comments, there'll be a

78
00:21:23.919 --> 00:21:40.200
time for that. >> I understand. The outside disabled space is for EV cars. Can a just a regular disabled person park there or do they have to have an EV car to park there since you are double labeling?

79
00:21:41.200 --> 00:21:58.640
So there so there are ADA spaces on the inside as well. Just to be clear, there was testimony with other plans at the prior hearing that had the plans labeled with the ADA spaces. >> Any other questions from the public for

80
00:21:58.640 --> 00:22:17.600
this witness? Okay. Next. >> Thank you. Okay. All right. So, next we will take just two seconds to switch out the laptop. We have Frank Minerveni who's our architect

81
00:22:17.600 --> 00:22:35.520
for what is known as or what is shown as building three. Just need one second to hook up here. >> While you're doing that, you want me to swear a minute? >> Sure. >> Frank, uh, do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and

82
00:22:35.520 --> 00:22:51.440
nothing but the truth? >> I do. And if you can state your full name for the record and uh spell your last. Frankini. M I N E R V I N I. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> He's not showing up as being on the

83
00:22:51.440 --> 00:23:18.080
screen. >> Okay. All right. Mr. M interveni we will start off by me asking you to summarize your lensure education background and experience knowing that we are going to be offering you as an expert in the field of architecture.

84
00:23:18.080 --> 00:23:34.159
>> So I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey licensed in good standing. Um I've got a bachelor of architecture degree from the New Jersey Institute of Technology. I am principal of MVMK architecture um since 2000. I have been accepted as

85
00:23:34.159 --> 00:23:50.799
an expert witness in architecture by more than 30 municipalities throughout the state, including this planning board. >> Yes. Um, and is this uh is this something that we have to uh this is a new piece of evidence? >> No, >> this is the same one that we had last time. >> I'll explain. This is

86
00:23:50.799 --> 00:24:07.200
>> this was um sheet six of the original civil engineering set. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Can I ask you a question? Have you have you uh designed any other projects on the waterfront here? >> I have that have yet to be built.

87
00:24:07.200 --> 00:24:21.760
>> Which one? >> Actually, I take that back. The project directly to the south homes, the town homes are from design. >> U the >> No, the uh >> the cove. >> The code. >> Yeah. >> And what else that you said has not been approved?

88
00:24:21.760 --> 00:24:38.720
>> Block 4004. Block 3904. >> Is that 110 first meeting? >> Yes. >> Yes. which was in front of city council last week and we're making changes to it. >> All right. So I do offer Mr. Veru as an expert in the field of architecture.

89
00:24:38.720 --> 00:24:54.960
>> All right. So >> we'll move on to this one. So I don't believe this second part has been marked yet. When we get there we'll mark that one but we'll start here with the prior sheet. >> Well everything I'm going to use has been submitted to the board. I haven't changed anything. Okay. Could you clarify what sheet is located?

90
00:24:54.960 --> 00:25:12.159
>> So, this would have been from the engineering set from the last meeting. Yes. Sheet number six and it's the site and layout plan. And I'm only using this to reorient everyone. I know it's been a bit of time, couple weeks since the last meeting, but as you've heard many times

91
00:25:12.159 --> 00:25:28.080
today, there are three buildings on the site. So, buildings one and two have already been described. My firm is responsible for this parcel which is a triangular lot. So this

92
00:25:28.080 --> 00:25:44.159
particular parcel is uh different from many we see it's an irregular shape and many of the design decisions came from this reaction to this site. So again to orient us this is Asbury Avenue over

93
00:25:44.159 --> 00:26:05.360
here. This is Cookman down here. And you've already we've already discussed building one, building two. We are I'm discussing today building number three. Okay. So now going to the architectural set that you've got in front of you. No changes been made since the submission.

94
00:26:05.360 --> 00:26:25.600
>> And this was from January 13th, correct? >> Would you like to wait and see? Okay, this is the one. >> So, starting with this sheet, this is a threedimensional rendering and I'm going to come back to this when I talk about the architecture more in detail. My plan

95
00:26:25.600 --> 00:26:42.240
is to go through the drawings, talk about relevant parts of it, and then with the architecture specifically, which I know is often something that's everyone's very interested in. I'll come back to this rendering as well as others. But again, this site is is different because it is a triangle and

96
00:26:42.240 --> 00:26:58.559
we this part of the triangle is pointed meets at the is the intersection of both Asbury Avenue and Cookman Avenue. So, it's a completely different um site in terms of the conditions relative to the two buildings that you've heard from

97
00:26:58.559 --> 00:27:17.279
heard about already. So this sheet, our A1 has all of our floor plans. And just as a general overview, this proposal for building number three is a an 8 unit building. Floor number one has 5,000 square ft of

98
00:27:17.279 --> 00:27:33.600
retail space as well as the lobby, a garage of 16 parking spaces, and the ancillary spaces required for the residential use. above. Floor number two and floor number three have a total of eight residential units. So I've got

99
00:27:33.600 --> 00:27:48.240
this total of all the floors are eight per floor. >> It's eight in total. Four per floor, but I didn't I didn't phrase it that way because it's they're duplexed. So it's not as simple as four per floor, but in general there are two floors with eight units.

100
00:27:48.240 --> 00:28:06.000
So I'm going to now move on to sheet um A2. This is our first floor plan. What is different about this building relative to many we've seen is our retail space had to be raised 3 ft

101
00:28:06.000 --> 00:28:21.600
off of grade. So again for orientation this is Asbury here. This is Cookman here. You'll see all along Cookman as well as at the point here and a section here along Asbury there is what we're

102
00:28:21.600 --> 00:28:38.640
calling a retail prominade. So the access to this 5,000 ft² retail space is solely from this raised prominade and this is a a function of the D requirements. So rather than having

103
00:28:38.640 --> 00:28:55.520
stairs outside of each of these potential spaces, we have one access so one main access which is here at the point. So, it's kind of a uh a monumental stair that can that you can access from that intersection of Cookman

104
00:28:55.520 --> 00:29:12.559
and and Asbury. And you could then go this way potentially into spaces here or more likely you'll come down this section along Cookman and enter either here, here, or here. Two questions. >> Sure. >> In that retail space, you have the you

105
00:29:12.559 --> 00:29:28.480
say, you have the notation open area on the building 15,277 ft. What does that mean? open area under the building. Does that mean under the under the grade for that retail space? >> Yeah, that's it was it's a civil engineer. >> No, no, it's an open space for water

106
00:29:28.480 --> 00:29:43.120
storage. >> Okay. Crawl space. >> It's it's a crawl space in essence, but it's not used by the building occupants, nor is it used for any mechanical reasoning. >> Okay. Crawl space for essence. >> And the the retail space, is this like a

107
00:29:43.120 --> 00:30:01.520
um envisioning subdivision? We designed it so it can be divided. So if I again here's that the prominard the raised prominade I talked about which is 5 ft in width and then it's at 8 ft in width where the doors are. So we've designed a door here, double door here, an optional

108
00:30:01.520 --> 00:30:16.559
double door here as well as that main retail entry here. And the the sole purpose of these doors is just in the case that this space gets divided in two or potentially three. >> Is that handicap accessible? >> Yes. now. And I'm going to I'm going to

109
00:30:16.559 --> 00:30:32.600
show you exactly how as I go through this. So, I mentioned and we're talking just the retail space. Now, this is the main entry which is a monumental stair. We've also Sorry. Can >> you zoom in? >> Oh, sure.

110
00:30:32.960 --> 00:30:47.120
>> Sorry. It's not a trick. >> No, it's a good idea. Is that better? One more perhaps. >> One more. Go. >> Okay. All right. And I should have known that. Thank you. So this is the main retail entry. That

111
00:30:47.120 --> 00:31:04.000
3-foot elevation difference is taken up by this stair here. All this section is the prominade I call it here. So that's raised 3 ft above grade on Cookman. So the main regional entries are along Cookman. We do have an

112
00:31:04.000 --> 00:31:20.559
access along Asbury, but our 88 access is from a ramp here >> here, which is Asbury along Asbury Avenue. This is the sidewalk as it

113
00:31:20.559 --> 00:31:37.120
exists. So, there's one ADA access there that gets you to all of this retail raised retail space. There's also a secondary stair entry along Cookman to get to that prominade here. So, we've got ADA compliance and we also have two

114
00:31:37.120 --> 00:31:52.880
ways excluding the ramps, two stair sets to get up to that prominade >> and that the the length of the ramp and slope is sufficient for >> yes wheelchair access. >> We designed it to be in compliance with all ADA requirements.

115
00:31:52.880 --> 00:32:10.480
So, and just I can do a little better job describing it. This is the retail space which again is at that intersection of Asbury and Cookman. It's about 5,000 square ft and I described already where the entrances are. The other parts of the first floor plan. So

116
00:32:10.480 --> 00:32:27.360
here is the main residential entry also from either a ramp here or a stair here. Again, we have to make up that height difference from the sidewalk due to D regulations within

117
00:32:27.360 --> 00:32:43.919
this this residential portion which is lobby the ancillary spaces. I'll describe what we have going on. So, this is the main residential lobby. We got a package room, storage. Um, >> I'm sorry. The residential lobby is

118
00:32:43.919 --> 00:33:00.000
>> How is that handicap accessible? to the to the ramp on Asbury going. >> There's a ramp on Cookman. So, if you can see my cursor, this blue line. >> Yeah. >> Right here. That ramp takes you to this raised entry platform.

119
00:33:00.000 --> 00:33:17.840
>> Gotcha. Thank you. You >> could also enter um if you're not AD without ADA compliance here at the stair. So, there are several ways to enter. We have all the ancillary lobby spaces. So, we've got a trash room, which I have a compactor, our sprinkler room. Um,

120
00:33:17.840 --> 00:33:32.799
this section is our secondary means of egress for the apartments above, which I'll describe when I get to those sheets. Refues. I think it's important while I have this drawing to talk about it. So, the refuse for whoever takes the

121
00:33:32.799 --> 00:33:49.919
commercial space or space is is through this connection directly into the trash room. So depending on if this is one space or two, there would always be a hallway, a common hallway connecting any of the retail spaces to this trash room. That

122
00:33:49.919 --> 00:34:04.240
trash room, as you'll see when I get up to the residential floors, has a a compactor and a storage room in each of the floors that goes directly into the space. Trash will be pulled out, wheeled out in small containers this

123
00:34:04.240 --> 00:34:20.639
direction. This was described last uh meeting by the civil engineer but just to reiterate her comments. So this rectangle which is the western portion of building number one which is

124
00:34:20.639 --> 00:34:36.960
we're responsible for the design and BMK that is the parking. We've got 16 parking spaces two EV spaces. The remaining 14 will be make rating. So, anybody who who has a space here will have the opportunity for an EV

125
00:34:36.960 --> 00:34:53.760
parking space. Um, bicycle parking. We're showing bikes here and here conveniently accessed from the garage. We're proposing as part of this um two per apartment. So, there are 16, but there's room for more in reality. But

126
00:34:53.760 --> 00:35:10.400
that's what I'd like the drawings with with the with the board to consider. >> There's room for more parking. >> Bicycle park. >> Bicycle park. >> Yeah. We're we're at our limit with good design as it as the parking garage is shown now. So, we have the proper backup

127
00:35:10.400 --> 00:35:26.079
spaces. All the all the widths and lengths of the parking spaces are good. Um we propose our um ADA space here which has convenient access to the lobby right there. And what else should I talk about?

128
00:35:26.079 --> 00:35:41.599
>> So, is there there's just one ADA space? >> Correct. That is the requirement for this building. For this building, >> can you can you tell us about the when you when it says openings, you have all these these places that are uh on Asbury

129
00:35:41.599 --> 00:35:56.480
and um as you're exiting the entering and exiting the garage, what are those openings? >> Um here, so I'm showing on this sheet our flood venting. Our >> Oh, those are the flood vents. Yeah, I'll describe that a little bit more as

130
00:35:56.480 --> 00:36:12.000
I go further into the drawing set, >> but this was also as part of the civil engineering plan. So, I just put it on this set to again reiterate. >> Okay. Will you be speaking about how tall um those walls are? I mean, I'm I'm not quite sure how the garage is vented.

131
00:36:12.000 --> 00:36:26.720
>> I have elevation. >> So, you're going to show me show us that. Okay. Okay. >> Will you will you be able to address how the parking is assigned? Is it going to be the same as what was described for the other building? >> Um,

132
00:36:26.720 --> 00:36:44.960
in in this case, we've got two per unit. So, I I I don't really know the answer. I could get it for you tonight. Our our client is here, but it's not the same situation as the other buildings again because we've got an overage in this case. We got two We have eight apartments and 16 parking spaces.

133
00:36:44.960 --> 00:37:02.000
>> Before we leave this drawing, would you clarify one thing? I thought you said initially that uh there was a stair from Cookman Avenue. There was a stairway to the uh prominade. >> Yes. >> And then you said that there's a ramp.

134
00:37:02.000 --> 00:37:17.520
>> There's both. >> Okay. >> So the ramp is not on Cookman. The ramp is on Asbury. Cookman has a stair. >> Well, you said there's a ramp on you said that there was a ramp on Cookman. >> There is that ramp is if you want like to look at the drawing, I could draw on

135
00:37:17.520 --> 00:37:33.520
this on the screen. might be helpful. So this this point in on the street which is Cookman, you could go this way up the stairs taking you to the retail prominade. >> Yeah. >> You can go this direction which is the ramp that takes up that height ele uh

136
00:37:33.520 --> 00:37:50.079
the elevation difference for the residential portion of the building. >> In other words, you're saying that if you're going east up the pro walking up the prominade, you use the stairs. If you're going to the uh um >> residential >> to residential,

137
00:37:50.079 --> 00:38:09.839
>> right? >> But that ramp does not go to the uh retail. Is that your >> correct? The retail ramp is along >> Okay. >> Um Asbury. >> Okay. So if you so if you if this gets subdivided

138
00:38:09.839 --> 00:38:26.000
and where you have like for instance on Cookman uh going west to east the first doorway glass doors if that if that if that is one store the handicapped person will have to go from Asbury all around

139
00:38:26.000 --> 00:38:43.000
that ramp all the way around to get there. >> That's correct. Can teach you just do a ramp instead of because it looks like on Cookman you have two sets of stairs. Yes. >> Two sets of stairs. >> I don't go to the same place.

140
00:38:43.200 --> 00:38:59.119
>> Oh I don't know if there's a wall there or not. So we're not the one that's further west that just says down. >> Yeah. >> That's the lobby entrance to the That's the entrance to >> Well, is it doesn't connect to the retail prominade? >> No, but it connects to the small prominade.

141
00:38:59.119 --> 00:39:18.720
If there if there was no if there was no going east, if there was no steps there just to reveal that those doors were there. >> The the challenge and and and thank you uh uh Donna. The challenge is we've got

142
00:39:18.720 --> 00:39:34.800
a fixed length to work with, right? So we've got this section >> as well as a height >> as well as a height. So those two things are fixed. how long how long we have to prepare for a ramp and the height the elevation we have to change we have to accommodate

143
00:39:34.800 --> 00:39:52.480
we can't put a secondary ramp on this side cookman side if we want the opportunity to divide the spaces the the retail space cuz that would mean we couldn't have this door or this door so by doing it this way we've got

144
00:39:52.480 --> 00:40:07.040
compliance and I think reasonable access off aspberry. It's It's not a It's not a um secondary street on on this design. And we have a main entry here as well as down here. So, I think this design meets

145
00:40:07.040 --> 00:40:24.000
the AD uh compliance requirements as well as the spirit of the law, >> but the only access to the residential is from Cookman, the handicap. Correct. >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So we we separated those

146
00:40:24.000 --> 00:40:40.320
>> from inside the garage >> as well. >> Well, yes, of course. If you enter the garage via a car, that's that's another access. But if you're walking along the street, the only access is along Cookman. So the main entry, it'll make more sense when I get to the renderings, but the the main entry for the

147
00:40:40.320 --> 00:40:56.000
residential portion is along Cookman, >> but there are stairs uh from Asbury side to the uh residential. Correct. These are only egress stairs and and I know it's it's because I

148
00:40:56.000 --> 00:41:11.440
haven't gotten to the residential portions yet. There is a secondary stair that comes from two floors above and exits. This is that stair and it exits right out to Asbury. The other stair comes out

149
00:41:11.440 --> 00:41:27.839
through the main entry. So one the main stair that you'd be using is along Cookman. The secondary emergency exit only. You can't enter there. Emergency exit only is uh exits along Asbury. >> All right. So they can't enter along Asbury. That's correct. They have to go.

150
00:41:27.839 --> 00:41:44.480
>> That's correct. >> But you do show a set of stairs on the Asbury side. >> Yes. As I mentioned the secondary means of egress, but they have to be separate. >> It's not entrance. It's only >> it's only Yeah. So those stairs are only to make up that grade difference from the building height which is your 3T

151
00:41:44.480 --> 00:42:00.000
your your residential floor in this case the lobby that height to the to the grade is 3 ft. So >> that stair is right here outside and again it's only for egress not you cannot enter there. >> Okay.

152
00:42:00.000 --> 00:42:15.920
>> Okay. Let me look at my notes make sure I got everything. There is something else along uh that's important regarding this plan at this point which is the exact intersection um we we've of Asbury and Cookman still on our property. We've

153
00:42:15.920 --> 00:42:31.520
located an area for public art. Um it could be a sculpture and perhaps Jen can can give more of the details. We're not designing that. It is a location and the renderings again will help tell that story better because it's a very prominent location. doesn't look it here, but you'll see it in the renderings.

154
00:42:31.520 --> 00:42:47.599
>> And we the applicant agreed in the subsequent developer agreement with the city council that the actual artwork would be presented to the public arts commission as which could be a condition of approval of this um for the application be approved. But anything that you see on the renderings tonight

155
00:42:47.599 --> 00:43:04.640
would be just representative of where the space for the sculpture would be, not necessarily what it would look like. And one more thing just to kind of uh backtrack to the civil engineering commentary. So our retail space is here. Loading for that retail space is right

156
00:43:04.640 --> 00:43:20.000
here. There's an existing loading space already. >> That is a bus stop >> and it it's going to be used for loading and bus stop as as you described. >> You can't use a bus stop for a loading zone. >> And your transit would never allow that. >> Um so

157
00:43:20.000 --> 00:43:36.160
>> yeah, we have drawings dimensioned. It's a rather large space, but I could ask um our civil engineer to address that comment. >> We think it's larger than it needs to be. But to your point, and I understand it, there's also that same condition that was described last meeting. I actually fire hydrant

158
00:43:36.160 --> 00:43:52.880
>> and we dimensioned on the plans that the fire hydrant space only takes up a portion of it and there's room for loading on either side, but we will have I can have our civil engineer speak to that. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, that's the first floor plan. I think I've hit all the important points.

159
00:43:52.880 --> 00:44:08.839
>> Can I just ask one question before you go on? >> The the level of the parking, lobby, and retail all they're all the same level. >> Correct. >> The the height changes made for the um garage here. >> Okay.

160
00:44:09.200 --> 00:44:25.040
>> Are any part of your plans, have there been any studies how this building will affect sight lines? >> There haven't been. We are at three stories where eight are permitted. So I'm not concerned about sightelines and typically we don't have to provide a

161
00:44:25.040 --> 00:44:40.480
sighteline nor I think it's necessary sighteline diagram when you're complying with the height requirements that that has already been considered by city council when they're writing the ordinance. >> I didn't ask if you were required. I just asked if you had done >> I think we would have if it were not three stories.

162
00:44:40.480 --> 00:44:59.280
But I understand your point. Okay. So that's A2. I'm going to move to A3 and I'll zoom in. These are the two residential floors. So, this the main drawing we're looking at here

163
00:44:59.280 --> 00:45:14.480
is the second floor plan. So, those balconies belong to those units. Correct. There are no common balconies or decks on this design. And then you'll see when I get to the roof too, there's there's

164
00:45:14.480 --> 00:45:31.040
no proposed um common roof deck. So thanks will be quieter, but that's >> sort of like if I'm looking at uh like I guess is that the same the second and third floor is that like is that a four bedroom, five bedroom? >> There there are some large units here and I'll go through the size of all the

165
00:45:31.040 --> 00:45:46.560
units here. >> So So I understand the parking requirement is it doesn't matter the bedrooms per unit. It's one and a half per unit. That's it. >> Correct. >> So, you can have 10 bedrooms, but she'll get one and a half.

166
00:45:46.560 --> 00:46:02.319
>> That's what the ordinance allows. That's how we propose, of course, but that's what the ordinance allows. >> So, the second floor plan is slightly different from the first because it is especially along the western facade, it's set back in certain areas. So, at

167
00:46:02.319 --> 00:46:18.960
the ground floor, we go near the property line where the shared building with the PY project we we previously talked about. So we are we have a 5-ft setback between our building and the property line and there's a similar setback between that and the multif

168
00:46:18.960 --> 00:46:34.560
family building um as described previously. But what we've done in our design to uh acknowledge that that close distance most of the majority of our windows are set back even further. So the windows for

169
00:46:34.560 --> 00:46:51.839
this apartment are both along Asbury and set back more than 12 ft from the building below which is the garage. So this these windows are set back the this these windows for this

170
00:46:51.839 --> 00:47:08.160
apartment we're calling apartment unit number five that's set back from Cookman. only one window is on our um property line that it's not shared with PY but it's it's uh adjacent to the PY property. So that's this right here. So

171
00:47:08.160 --> 00:47:23.680
we've acknowledged and designed toward the conditions of the adjacent building by >> Yeah. How how wide again is that that that alley that's between the two buildings? >> It's it's 10 ft. Five and five. >> So it'll be five on each lot. Right.

172
00:47:23.680 --> 00:47:42.160
Correct. Subdivision. >> Correct. And you can see this this line is the property line and this shading is the multif family building as previously discussed. Is that

173
00:47:42.160 --> 00:48:00.400
is that 5 foot setback is that considered your rear yard? >> I don't think we have. Yeah, we it's again this is very strange um irregular condition. We've got two street frontages that meet at a point. The only street The only facade we have that's

174
00:48:00.400 --> 00:48:15.040
not along the street is this one. >> It could be the flat iron building. >> Yeah, for sure. Yeah. One of the best. Okay. >> Um Okay. So, I talked about generally and I'll get to the Yuma breakdown in a

175
00:48:15.040 --> 00:48:31.680
second. Um so, there are 1 2 3 four balconies here. None of them project past the facade of the building. They are set back the the balcony I just noticed on the it it's so the balcony on the second floor

176
00:48:31.680 --> 00:48:46.880
it overextends even the retail space right first page if I look at if I look at your first page >> yeah so it overhangs that you can see it right here there's a dotted line beneath

177
00:48:46.880 --> 00:49:05.760
>> um so that's that's the largest of the balconies we go to >> what's the depth of that balcony That is about from here to here it's 47 ft. >> And and the projection of the retail

178
00:49:05.760 --> 00:49:23.280
space under that is how much approximate? >> That's this line. >> Yeah. >> Here it's about half. >> So it's about half. >> Correct. >> So I think you probably probably alluded to this. So when we talk about a balcony

179
00:49:23.280 --> 00:49:38.720
that's for use by the residents, >> the particular unit it's attached to. There are no common balconies as part of this. So this larger balcony on the second floor only is to be used by this unit.

180
00:49:38.720 --> 00:49:57.040
Then this balcony which is recessed is to be used by this unit. This this balcony for this unit. And the same applies to here. >> If we didn't have those balconies at the

181
00:49:57.040 --> 00:50:13.520
point of the triangle, >> we we would preserve more of a open perspective view of the waterfront way. >> I don't agree. I know. Can we go back? >> Well, I you were walking down Asbury Avenue. I think it's best to have this

182
00:50:13.520 --> 00:50:30.000
discussion which I understand with the um >> elevations or even the sorry >> I'm going to go to the ground floor plan again just to reiterate some of the things building there would be open space >> of course >> can you be able to see there'd be

183
00:50:30.000 --> 00:50:44.880
nothing blocking your view >> but that's a view cover >> remember something though and I I look look at if you can look at the drawing you don't mind I'm looking at this would be our A1 I believe no A2 2 A2, pardon me.

184
00:50:44.880 --> 00:51:03.200
So, the retail space ends here, but the balcony covers this retail entry. It's not a balcony that is covering grade level um movement or or pedestrians hang um hanging out for lack

185
00:51:03.200 --> 00:51:20.960
of a better term. It is covering the retail entry. So part of the purpose of it is to soon you come up these stairs, you're now covered by that terrace above and out of the elements. Well, you're out of the elements, but again, like you say, it's covering the retail structure

186
00:51:20.960 --> 00:51:37.280
portion of the retail structure which is blocking your view. >> Yes. I mean, if the structure wasn't there or if balcony wasn't there, you'd be able to look past it. >> It's above the raised platform. It's not above grade level. I'm not sure if

187
00:51:37.280 --> 00:51:53.440
that's the question. >> Maybe I can answer the question better with the rendering. >> Yeah. So, we do our plan is to go through the floor plans and then go to the renderings which show the views of what it will look like around sides of the building. >> Yeah, if I can. Let me go through I'm almost done anyway with the floor plans

188
00:51:53.440 --> 00:52:10.720
and then I'll describe the very valid points you're you're bringing up. Um Oh, so back we're back to sheet A2. There was something I should bring up that I neglected to. >> You don't think so? >> Come back.

189
00:52:10.720 --> 00:52:30.480
>> How about it? >> Okay, understood. So, I talked about the two plans. What is different between the two is that this particular apartment does not have this terrace because there is no longer the roof of the garage beneath us.

190
00:52:30.480 --> 00:52:46.640
Otherwise, it's the same floor plan. Yeah. So, A3 and it's the same for both floor plans. This is your common area. One means of egress here. One means of eress here. This is the elevator. And this is the trash room which I talked about. So, both of the cores have a

191
00:52:46.640 --> 00:53:03.359
trash room with a trash shoot that goes directly into the space at the ground floor lobby area that I discussed with a compactor. So that balcony on the second floor at your point that you said >> this one. >> No, I'm sorry. On the west on the on the

192
00:53:03.359 --> 00:53:20.880
second floor. >> Okay, understood here. >> Yes. So that looks >> it looks right over the 5ft setback or the 10ft setback >> as well as north. >> Right. But are there wind on the py

193
00:53:20.880 --> 00:53:36.720
building? Well, there windows. >> There are some windows there. >> Yes. Okay. So, they'd be looking into the people's windows, >> but we're set back 5 ft from the property building and then an additional 12 ft. So, the windows for for this apartment are an additional 12 ft. So,

194
00:53:36.720 --> 00:53:53.040
it's 17 ft plus the five from both. So, it's 22 of a difference between I understand that if somebody's standing up against the wall of their building, but they go on the balcony and if they're standing at the fence of the balcony looking west. What I'm just trying to say is there's an window. I'm discussing the windows.

195
00:53:53.040 --> 00:54:08.559
>> There were windows in the Pulpy building facing them. >> Correct. >> Okay. That's understood. >> Okay. So, A4 is our roof plan to access two stair access, the fire department to the roof.

196
00:54:08.559 --> 00:54:25.680
And then really what's left to discuss on this level is the AC condensers. We've located them in the center of the building above the common uh hallway. And they are shielded from the um north partially by this elevator

197
00:54:25.680 --> 00:54:40.880
bulkhead and the stair bulkhead and then partially shielded to the west by this stair bulkhead. And then where it's facing south, we've got screening. Again, as I mentioned, there's no common

198
00:54:40.880 --> 00:55:00.599
roof deck proposed here. All right. So regard the architecture which I think I'll go back to this drawing and specifically I'll zoom in and talk about the questions that you have back to the cover page. Yeah,

199
00:55:04.319 --> 00:55:20.240
this is the extension that you were um asking about that it goes further than the floor plan below. So you recall this is the main entry to the retail space roughly parallel with these stairs that

200
00:55:20.240 --> 00:55:37.440
I described which are accessed by that at the intersection of Asbury and Cookman. Then the floor above the third floor that balcony no longer projects has that same projection. It's it's much smaller. So this protection that you're asking

201
00:55:37.440 --> 00:55:55.280
about its sole function is to um shield people who are entering the retail space from the weather. >> The what the balcony the people that own that unit can't stand right above that. >> I'm sure it can. >> Okay. So serves two purposes. But but my

202
00:55:55.280 --> 00:56:11.520
point being is not only just the balcony, but it's also the extension of the retail space. My point being my my point being my point being if there weren't building structures there more of a view perspective would or view corridor would be preserved

203
00:56:11.520 --> 00:56:26.240
>> from from where are you asking >> from Asbury Avenue from like when I walk down Asbury Avenue now >> I think we did a very good job of setting the building back from this intersection the ordinance allows us to go much further to your point we set it

204
00:56:26.240 --> 00:56:42.720
back at the first level He always said an eight story building too, right? >> And we're not >> I I understand you could build maybe an eight story building further back in the lot and use use more of a lot as open space, >> which which is why I'm not as concerned

205
00:56:42.720 --> 00:56:59.359
about the view Carter as perhaps you are. >> Well, maybe it's cuz I live here. >> Could be eight stories. I I I don't want certainly want to argue. I understand your point, but I think we cannot lose sight of the fact that this building is much, much smaller than is permitted.

206
00:56:59.359 --> 00:57:19.359
We've designed it with that in mind. It could be eight stories. It's three stories. Okay. The architecture, which is often something that is uh the public has a say in of course and they have comments. We think this site

207
00:57:19.359 --> 00:57:35.839
because of its triangular condition is perfectly suited for a more contemporary design. Having said that, we also have used neutral colors, um, softer colors. So, the majority of the framework of the building is is I have

208
00:57:35.839 --> 00:57:51.440
materials which I'll pass out a bit too. And we have a material board which are the lighter color whites. It's called an arctic white, but the reality is it's more of an almond. And all the browns you see here are a synthetic wood material again to give it more character.

209
00:57:51.440 --> 00:58:08.559
The grade level along along the retail space has very tall glass. Um there's a lot of glass there again because of it's retail space behind it. Just for reference, this is that 3-foot raised platform that I was talking

210
00:58:08.559 --> 00:58:25.920
about. And this is the area where you'll be entering. Um, switch plans here. All the all the architectural design decisions we made were based on the site. This building could not be

211
00:58:25.920 --> 00:58:43.760
designed for a different site. It is designed specifically for the site and we are trying to acknowledge as much as possible the strange condition of the point which is Asbury and Cookman um intersection. So, with that, I'll go back to the

212
00:58:43.760 --> 00:59:05.280
plans that I skipped, but I'll zoom into each one separately. This is the Asbury Avenue elevation. If we look on the left here, which is the eastern side, this is the side profile of that entry stair. The main >> What sheet?

213
00:59:05.280 --> 00:59:26.799
>> I'm sorry. This is sheet >> A5. A5. Yeah, I zoomed in and I lost it, but it's A5. >> This section is the retail. And as questions are asked and discussed, this is one of the balconies

214
00:59:26.799 --> 00:59:43.040
on the second floor and this is the balcony on the third floor. On the second floor, it is a balcony used by the particular apartment as well as the overhang which has no structure other than a canal lever that will protect people entering the retail space from

215
00:59:43.040 --> 01:00:03.200
the elements. This section is the garage. So, what we've done, we and I'll zoom in. It'll help better describe it. We've got a solid opaque panel that goes up about 7 ft here with the thinking

216
01:00:03.200 --> 01:00:19.920
that any cars behind it, their headlights are on. It's not going to the light will not spool over into Asbury Avenue. We've got venting above here and I've got it shown on the drawings. I have to get you I didn't bring it. I have to get you a material sample, but it's a metal mesh venting similar to the

217
01:00:19.920 --> 01:00:36.079
to the one that was shown for building number two. Uh sorry the multif family building on the py site. This is a recess balcony. It serves its function is as a balcony of course but also helps with the architecture. It breaks up what could be perceived as a

218
01:00:36.079 --> 01:00:55.760
very long building otherwise. So that is the Asbury Avenue elevation. This is the Cookman Avenue elevation. And you'll notice that this section is grayed out. And that's simply so that the drawing is easier to

219
01:00:55.760 --> 01:01:14.799
understand. That section is not parallel. Actually, I'll go to the diagram. I've got a diagram on the same sheet which shows the reasoning for that um lack of color. So the part that's not colored is this section which I do have an ovation of

220
01:01:14.799 --> 01:01:28.960
but just for clarity we tried to focus in on this section which is the entry lobby and the retail spaces as well as the garage entry. So that's this section here. You can see that the garage elevation is

221
01:01:28.960 --> 01:01:46.640
the same as the floor uh the same as the sidewalk. Same condition as you go further in. This is the main residential entry. As I described when we were looking at the floor plans and although it's grayed out, this is

222
01:01:46.640 --> 01:02:03.440
the other side. And I have another view of it. This is the main retail entry at the intersection of both Cookman and um Asbury, pardon me. So this drawing is the secondary portion

223
01:02:03.440 --> 01:02:20.240
of the elevation on Cookman. So this is what you would see running parallel to Cookman where all the retail is at ground level as well as partially shown is the residential spaces above. And again the balconies that we we've

224
01:02:20.240 --> 01:02:35.520
been discussing here and here to help clarify where the entries are. This is a stair entry to the raised platform which which is how you access the retail. And this is the main over

225
01:02:35.520 --> 01:02:53.480
here is the main stair to the lobby. And you can't barely you can see the railing behind the ramp is behind here which is your your ADA access to the residential portion to the building. Okay.

226
01:02:54.559 --> 01:03:10.880
What what is the uh garage door made of? >> Pardon me? It's it's uh metal to match the windows. >> And is it clear or is it frosted? Is it just >> There's openings with opaque uh panels. >> Okay. >> For the same reason we if someone's

227
01:03:10.880 --> 01:03:26.720
maneuvering inside and the doors closed, we don't want the light to spill. >> Okay. What's the width of the garage? >> The garage is I believe it's 12 ft. Let me get back to that. It's not 24. 24 is 16 ft. Pardon me. 24

228
01:03:26.720 --> 01:03:43.760
is the the aisle width, which is the requirement in the garage. You have between the back of one space and the back of the other is 24 ft. The garage door itself is 16 ft. And that's the standard for a two-way garage. Let me zoom into this drawing because it

229
01:03:43.760 --> 01:04:01.200
it helps describe better what I was discussing along the Asbury Avenue facade worth garages. So this shows what what it would look like behind the wall along Asbury Avenue. So there's

230
01:04:01.200 --> 01:04:15.440
your where a car would be. That's the approximate size of a car. This is the opaque panel. So no light from the headlights will shine off the building. And this is ventilation panel above

231
01:04:15.440 --> 01:04:38.559
here and here >> below. That's the difference from the um garage floor level to the street. >> Exactly. Right. This is the approximately 3 ft above sidewalk and this level is the sidewalk. So, it's 10 ft from the sidewalk for

232
01:04:38.559 --> 01:04:57.520
those. >> Correct. Minimally 10 ft. It we have it uh 7 ft 6. So, it's a bit more. It's it's 10 ft 6. This is the facade that faces the multif family building on the western portion

233
01:04:57.520 --> 01:05:14.319
of the site. Same design um language has been carried around. You can see again that 7'6 high opaque panel in the garage. This is vented. So there's no points

234
01:05:14.319 --> 01:05:30.799
that headlights will spill over with the exception of someone's someone driving out of the garage. I think now might be the time to have discussion about the what we're proposing for the flood venting. Well, before you before you get into that,

235
01:05:30.799 --> 01:05:49.359
>> uh, what can you do with this the facade of this building to make it more compatible with what you have to the east and a little bit to the north? This is a transition from uh the downtown

236
01:05:49.359 --> 01:06:05.200
Cookman Carter, Asbury Avenue corridor, but you have to the north you have the uh uh residential uh building uh just two blocks away. Uh to the uh east you

237
01:06:05.200 --> 01:06:22.160
have the Empress, which is a uh building that's 75 to 90 years old. You have the power uh you have the uh carousel uh you have the power plant. Uh

238
01:06:22.160 --> 01:06:40.079
what can you do to your building here to make it a transition from the downtown area to those buildings that are there uh presumably they're going to stay. What what what can you do? And we have looked at that since especially since uh

239
01:06:40.079 --> 01:06:56.559
our city council meeting last week and heard a lot of feedback from uh the public on on color specifically on buildings. I I I'll answer it in two different ways. I think this site is completely different from those others because of the triangle. It really does lend it. I'm going to answer your

240
01:06:56.559 --> 01:07:12.400
question. I will get to you. That's that's how we wound up with this coloring. Having said that, we've got the opportunity to keep this if we if I zoom in, keep the main idea of this design, which is the the light colored

241
01:07:12.400 --> 01:07:27.920
grid, but perhaps instead of having wood, which I think makes sense, but understand your point, perhaps we can use some colors that pick up on those adjacent buildings instead of maybe not all the wood, but maybe in place of some

242
01:07:27.920 --> 01:07:44.480
of the wood. So again to your point, we can add some color to this facade without making it look like um it doesn't belong. >> Maybe it's good time you have a material. >> Yes. >> Selection. >> Yes. So I I'll give you samples of we were thinking, but I I understand your

243
01:07:44.480 --> 01:07:59.359
point in which I imagine others have the same point. We can introduce colors that would make more sense. >> Would it only be colors? Would is it possible that you could >> change some of the material? Maybe. Why don't we talk about the material? Let's >> Well, before we go, let's talk about

244
01:07:59.359 --> 01:08:16.640
design. So, you keep talking about the difficulty of the site. The site is unique. >> And if I say difficulty, >> I you know, I'm I'm waiting I'm waiting to be inspired by one of these developments on the waterfront. And to be honest with you, uh, you know, thank

245
01:08:16.640 --> 01:08:31.440
God I live in a 1904 house because if you had a few drinks and walked down Kingsley, you might walk into the wrong house if you all look the same. >> Maybe you changed the color. Uh,

246
01:08:31.440 --> 01:08:49.080
at the 110st Avenue, I know you took a, you know, you heard the public and they said, "Look at the pictures that are up there on that wall." I mean, we deserve better. I I I don't really mean this as an insult, but

247
01:08:49.679 --> 01:09:04.480
please, >> please. >> This looks like medical offices. >> I mean, I think I'd go to the doctor here or I'm going to NYU on First Avenue. I mean, you got a triangle site

248
01:09:04.480 --> 01:09:20.880
here. You have a signature site. You could have built really a signature building. will be inspired. >> Well, we have a difference of opinion on what signature means. I think this building is perfectly suited for the site. I do understand that the colors are something that is is is debatable.

249
01:09:20.880 --> 01:09:36.640
Understood. >> Well, there's a couple just saying color. >> Yeah. Let me back up a second here just for clarity. So, this No, I'm going to answer your question. Well, I didn't ask a question. I'm still I'm still I'm

250
01:09:36.640 --> 01:09:52.480
still speaking. the designs or you know and even going through the PY building. I know you're not the architect for that. That looks like everything on every other block that they've built. I mean, >> do you think this looks like every my building? I'm sorry.

251
01:09:52.480 --> 01:10:09.520
>> No, I think No, I don't think it looks like the building. I think it looks, you know, everybody says modernist, modernist, modernist, you know, >> contemporary. I used the word contemporary. Whatever. Whatever. I I think it looks And I'm in real estate in New York. I've been for 40 years. I heard. Okay. This looks like I don't

252
01:10:09.520 --> 01:10:24.080
know if it's fault. This looks like Couldn't disagree with you more, but you get to point me in a direction. I absolutely dis I think and our team thinks this building is perfectly suited for the site. Again, happy to make some changes to soften up the colors, but

253
01:10:24.080 --> 01:10:42.159
otherwise I this is a direct response to the site and that's what architecture should be. architecture is not to try and push an orthogonal building here that's got a particular style that you may like better than not. This site is suited for that. I am also completely

254
01:10:42.159 --> 01:10:57.679
open-minded to other things. So, we'll look at colors. Do you think this building Do you think the design of this building is in keeping Forget about that it matches or loses or whatever. Do you think this design is in keeping with the spirit of the historic waterfront in

255
01:10:57.679 --> 01:11:13.679
Asbury Park? This is not within an historic district. There is no historic Well, that's my point. So, we should the way as an architect, I mean, I'm trying to be respectful and I hope you do the same. I am respectfully. This site is not the same as many of the sites we

256
01:11:13.679 --> 01:11:29.679
talked about, the one that I took the meeting on your point out last week. It's not the same. This is a very particular site. There are other triangular sites, but there aren't many where you'd meet at where Asbury Avenue and Cookman, two major thorough effect fairs meet.

257
01:11:29.679 --> 01:11:44.880
How I don't know how we could successfully have a traditional, as you're pointing out, building on a site like this. >> I didn't say traditional building. >> Well, I mean, flat iron building, you know, the flat iron building wasn't a traditional building either, right? And

258
01:11:44.880 --> 01:12:00.480
>> and I would bet many people came to that when that building was designed and did not like it. many people these days and now you can't get in. Yes. Yes. We're saying more than we are in the future. Let me just say >> the flying building is one of the most

259
01:12:00.480 --> 01:12:16.080
photographed structures in the world. >> Absolutely. >> This will not be >> and just by way of history here. So, there was an application made for this site in 2022 that had a building that

260
01:12:16.080 --> 01:12:32.239
was taller, that had more units, and I think the architecture was probably even was more prominent. And the city council ultimately did not allow that to proceed and wanted a building that had been scaled down, that had less density, and

261
01:12:32.239 --> 01:12:47.520
that's ultimately now is what's being brought here. So, this application we applied to the TRC after scaling the building down on September 13th of 2024. We appeared in front of the TRC on

262
01:12:47.520 --> 01:13:03.760
November 15th of 2024. We made further changes to the building. We appeared in front of the council on March 26th of 2025. We made further changes to the building. So, what you're seeing here is actually four years worth of the TRC and

263
01:13:03.760 --> 01:13:21.120
the council asking for changes to the building to get us to the building that you see today. This was not something that just happened overnight and this is not something that didn't happen without public input. There have been multiple multiple meetings in front of the TRC and the council to get us here today.

264
01:13:21.120 --> 01:13:34.480
And I see that Frank has more pictures and it's probably a good idea for us to run through some of the other angles of the building. >> Yeah. If I if I could interrupt you again, you're missing the point. The point is, and I I totally agree with you

265
01:13:34.480 --> 01:13:51.280
that this is a unique site and it is the the unique uh because of its location and forget about the fact that it's triangular. it. You're you're making the transition from

266
01:13:51.280 --> 01:14:08.719
what has been built to the west and now you're coming to a site and to the east and maybe it's it's a block away, but to the east there are bunch of historic buildings that are going to stay. Okay. To the north there's the the tower uh

267
01:14:08.719 --> 01:14:25.679
and that's going to stay. But what can you do to make that transition from what is to the west so that it's not quite so um contemporary

268
01:14:25.679 --> 01:14:42.159
and transition into the buildings to the east? That's that's my point. That's my question. Can I just >> Can you clarify for me what you mean by what's what's to the west? >> What's to the west? What do you mean? What's things that are to the west? Is

269
01:14:42.159 --> 01:14:59.600
there a specific building you're talking about? >> Well, Asbury Cove is to the west and that's >> No, you you've got you've got building one, you've got building two, you've got um >> Oh, on their site. >> Uh you you've got the the other end of that site. Okay. You've got uh the

270
01:14:59.600 --> 01:15:16.480
buildings down on Cookman >> down Wesley Grove. Okay. You're you're you're making the transition from the downtown area and to those new buildings that have been built here. And the waterfront redevelopment plan is very specific about how it's

271
01:15:16.480 --> 01:15:31.440
supposed to blend. You don't have to mimic what is uh on the waterfront, but you have to blend it in. You've got you've got the u the buildings that I mentioned. You've got the uh uh First

272
01:15:31.440 --> 01:15:47.199
Avenue pavilion and and your comments I I take very seriously that what you're changing the color possibly changing part of the wood. Uh how about

273
01:15:47.199 --> 01:16:04.080
the the uh storefront windows do not conform to what the uh waterfront redevelopment uh plan calls for. So maybe they need to be looked at again. You may have to have a a knee wall and uh instead of a glass panel all the way

274
01:16:04.080 --> 01:16:20.560
to the to the for uh to the uh sidewalk to your prominade. But I've got a lot of faith in in in what you have done here. All I'm asking is what more can you do to make this

275
01:16:20.560 --> 01:16:37.679
transition? This building is the unique. This is this is it. What can you do to make it transition to what is to the east? >> Yeah. I mean, some of the things you want relief from are like, you know, surface mounted windows when the plan calls for recessed windows. So, we have

276
01:16:37.679 --> 01:16:54.080
sills which are like in historic buildings that give more articulation. I mean, so we're getting everything just flat flat flat with balconies. But the the redevelopment plan did not consider modern today's methods of construction of a building this size of this style or

277
01:16:54.080 --> 01:17:10.000
not style in terms of architecture of its construction method. We're not choosing to not set the windows back. Windows cannot be set back based on the the standard construction you would use on a building of this type. Oh yeah. I don't know why. I mean you you're trying to tell me what was it the Central Park

278
01:17:10.000 --> 01:17:27.120
15 Central Park West. That was my understanding right that they built that. Hold on. There's window sills there, right? >> Of course. >> Okay. They built they built it out of stone and they built it like they built it on the new construction. >> I wasn't clear. I I And I hear what

279
01:17:27.120 --> 01:17:42.000
you're saying. I didn't do a good job of explaining what I was trying to what I was thinking. Construction methods of a building like this are from floors two to three will be wood. Two to three will be wood. So the standard wood stud on a building of this type all the

280
01:17:42.000 --> 01:17:58.400
residential buildings that are built and not just in Asbury Park and in our area we do projects in Manhattan. I doesn't happen much in Manhattan cuz that's not it's a different situation in terms of context and your location's property lines but building like this will be constructed majority out of wood and

281
01:17:58.400 --> 01:18:15.360
your wood wall is 6 in in in dimension. There's no room to set a window back on a six inch stud. Well, you could produce those and then you're not being true. You you did mention that or maybe I'm sorry. Uh it was the other commissioner

282
01:18:15.360 --> 01:18:30.719
mentioned that you know we want to be true to what it is, but that's not being true. That is the exact opposite of what an architect's job should be. We we should be as best as we can make you happy with what the ordinance says regarding the the colors and stuff, but

283
01:18:30.719 --> 01:18:45.360
also we should be responding specifically to this site to to to to do the things that you're suggesting. >> Well, you're responding really to the developer wants and profit motivation. And that's ultimately where it comes into that.

284
01:18:45.360 --> 01:19:00.719
>> That's not part of my design process at all. I am giving a program of what to do and we try our best to make that program work given the site and all the other constraints we've got. >> So if you can continue then with the

285
01:19:00.719 --> 01:19:16.159
exhibits to show the different perspectives. >> So these are other views. Um this one you've seen already at least something similar. Um this one is a view along Asbury specifically. These are the uh the opaque panels that will conceal the

286
01:19:16.159 --> 01:19:31.760
cars behind and the headlights behind. This is Cookman where uh looking from Cookman. This is the stair up to the retail prominade with the ramp being behind this this retaining wall. We hid

287
01:19:31.760 --> 01:19:48.239
the ramp. Not that there's anything wrong with seeing a ramp, but was allowed us to have a continuation of that plint, the base of the building. to to your point before uh commissioner about having the windows not come to the ground. This is a completely different

288
01:19:48.239 --> 01:20:03.199
circumstance now than something you would see further on Cookman. This building has to be raised 36 in. So my job is to try and make that retail space as successful as possible. So the thinking is more glass allows more

289
01:20:03.199 --> 01:20:18.800
connection to the street pedestrians along the sidewalk both on Asbury and Cooking. That's the only reason. Certainly windows could be made smaller. But this in this case, given these D constraints, seems to me to give that retail space the most chance of success

290
01:20:18.800 --> 01:20:35.679
is to have the glass as big as possible. Yeah. Okay. I would agree with you if that building were in a different location. But as I've pointed out before, I believe, and this is my my belief, that this building

291
01:20:35.679 --> 01:20:51.360
is the transition from what is built on the west to what is existing on the boardwalk and in that general area. And I I believe this building and I I other than the fact of its location, I

292
01:20:51.360 --> 01:21:07.920
think pretty good design. I like it. But I would also like to see a transition from what is to the west to what is in the east of this. >> And just so I understand, when you say

293
01:21:07.920 --> 01:21:22.719
the west again, you're talking about the other two properties that we're proposing on this site. >> Not only that, but ones to the west of that. >> The Cove, >> that would be the Cove. Yeah. The the town homes and and on Cookman Wesley Grove.

294
01:21:22.719 --> 01:21:40.960
>> Yeah. Yeah, you know, I mean, you that's already built, okay? And your design, not your design, but the design of buildings one and two, that's already been presented. But we have a situation here where the waterfront redevelopment

295
01:21:40.960 --> 01:21:58.800
plan calls for a blending of the new to the old. And for the most part, the architecture of the new is not what was anticipated when that master that waterfront

296
01:21:58.800 --> 01:22:16.159
redevelopment plan was formulated. And okay, what is is but what this is this particular site in my opinion is where the transition if it's going to be made has to be made.

297
01:22:16.159 --> 01:22:32.880
And what I'm what I'm trying to do is to see how you can bring this particular site as a transition period uh building. And I'm I'm not arguing with you. I'm just asking what you can do. And you said,

298
01:22:32.880 --> 01:22:48.639
well, you can maybe change the color, maybe a little bit of uh less wood and another another type of material. And you said, wait till you present material. And certainly, but >> I do understand your point. And I want you to know as as a design team, we

299
01:22:48.639 --> 01:23:04.000
didn't design the bulky buildings. We worked together though. We did work together. >> I'm not I'm not I'm not complaining about the design, the prior design. What I'm saying is this particular building that you have designed is the transition

300
01:23:04.000 --> 01:23:20.560
because of what has taken place before and what is. Now, there are a couple of other lots that are going to be built out during the rest of the waterfront redevelopment, but they're small as compared to what has already been done.

301
01:23:20.560 --> 01:23:36.560
And what I'm saying is what what can you do as an architect and I'm asking and you and you've you've given me a a pretty good answer. I mean, I this is not a uh trick question. I just like to see what you can what you can do with it

302
01:23:36.560 --> 01:23:51.040
>> and and I'll certainly look that understanding your question and your point and it's it's absolutely valid. I just keep coming back to the same point. Not suggesting that we won't try and do that but this site is different from the the adjacent to our site. The mass scene

303
01:23:51.040 --> 01:24:06.639
is different. The massing is uncommon. The length of this building is uncommon. I still think this architecture well maybe some people don't like it today. Perhaps in the future they will like it. Well, we can differ on opinion. Um, but

304
01:24:06.639 --> 01:24:22.560
there are things we can change to help get closer to what you're suggesting. I think that >> that's that's what I'm asking. What can you do? I mean, >> let's finish with what we have today. >> Um, yeah. So, materials. I mean, I'm not sure if it's

305
01:24:22.560 --> 01:24:38.639
it's pointless now to hand out the materials, so maybe I shouldn't. >> No. >> No. >> No. >> Let's see what you've got. Okay. The materials are the same as you you see on the boards

306
01:24:38.639 --> 01:24:54.080
and I'll have to pass them around. But the building is two color bricks and that's each of the peers in the near >> each of the peers at I call it grade but at the at the base of the plane are

307
01:24:54.080 --> 01:25:18.239
broken up into two different color grip. um slight planer change just so they don't look as big as they probably uh need to be. So these are the two brick and again they match. Well you see I can hand here >> the framework of the building as you

308
01:25:18.239 --> 01:25:33.679
look on the elevations uh it's we call it it's called arctic white. This is that color and this is the wood which is majority facade. is is a composite wood again because we have to think about where the

309
01:25:33.679 --> 01:25:53.120
building is constructed and this will um do a very good job of lasting given this the size >> Frank is the brick all brick or is it all thin brick or >> it's all full size >> silver you again which one is

310
01:25:53.120 --> 01:26:17.120
>> this going >> yeah I will if oh this this here I'll pull it up here might be easier Mhm. >> So, I'll zoom in, but at the basin building, which is in retail spaces only, the two brick colors

311
01:26:17.120 --> 01:26:36.520
are here. >> And those are the two you've got. >> Again, >> it's the it's going to the computer. It's not down there. What is that? >> You have to connect my computer. It's always >> I should stop touching

312
01:26:37.040 --> 01:26:53.520
two break. >> Okay. >> Very very soft. >> Okay. >> There. >> Right. So that's >> that one is the bottom >> light and dark. >> Okay. >> It's a lighter and darker. Exactly. >> It's harder to tell on the actual sample.

313
01:26:53.520 --> 01:27:12.320
>> Yeah. because the the change is it's it's it's muted. We didn't want it to be such a an obvious change. It looks more in the rendering, but the colors you see are what we're proposing here. >> We saw that. All right. >> And I'm sorry. Where's the white?

314
01:27:12.320 --> 01:27:28.000
>> All the brown you see in between windows. So that would be >> all these areas. >> All these areas. That's that's all the wood which is only of forest 2 and three. And that's where I suggested introducing some we'll call it coastal

315
01:27:28.000 --> 01:27:44.560
colors might be something we can look at that may alleviate some of the uh uh dislike for the facade lack of better term. >> Again reiterate I think this building is great but >> Okay. >> And this is the white. >> What do I know? >> Yeah, that's the white. >> Okay. >> And and yes, and that white is the is

316
01:27:44.560 --> 01:28:03.840
the remaining uh frame section. Um let me see what I am missing here. So I talked about the materials which you've got. Um in terms of green and sustainable elements the building will have LED

317
01:28:03.840 --> 01:28:19.600
lighting. You will use low VOC paints. All the windows will be energy star rated. All the appliances will be energy star rated. All the HBAC systems will be high performance type. These are all split systems. So, there are no window

318
01:28:19.600 --> 01:28:35.199
mounts, window mounted units. There's a air handler within each of the apartments with condensed units up on the roof as I as I pointed out when I was showing the roof plan. Um, we talked about during the civil there's also storm water detention. So,

319
01:28:35.199 --> 01:28:52.239
that and all the the water heater be tankless type. So, there's a lot of green elements to the building as well. >> I'm done with the with my architecture portion with the questions. Now, oh yes, sorry. >> Now is the time.

320
01:28:52.239 --> 01:29:06.960
>> So, is somebody else going to talk about the the storm water or was that >> the moment? >> That was I know we did it for the other two buildings. >> Were they for this one also? Was having them all together is the >> But I'm going to to piggyback on that.

321
01:29:06.960 --> 01:29:24.320
This describe something that uh some questions come up on the planners report. So we this building is is different because it's up on this 3ft high plint because of the break regulations. We have to allow water

322
01:29:24.320 --> 01:29:39.199
storm water to come in and out of the building. >> Mhm. >> Typically that's done with vents or some breakaway systems. What we proposed on this and I'm going to pull up the detail right here. No, next one. Sorry. >> No, that was it. Did

323
01:29:39.199 --> 01:29:55.199
>> I pass it? A2. >> There we go. Sorry. I'm going to zoom in now so everyone can see it more clearly. >> What we proposed here is instead of for example the vase that you normally see, we we designed what we

324
01:29:55.199 --> 01:30:09.920
think is a much more elegant solution. So looking at this specifically and there locations are shown on the plants. We in effect designed a an open brick like a weave pattern. So all of these

325
01:30:09.920 --> 01:30:26.239
white sections are voids that allow water from beneath the building where where it will recess and then and come back out to the street. Water can pass through that. There's a question um in the planners report whether this meets the D requirements. Um I will tell you

326
01:30:26.239 --> 01:30:41.679
that we submitted this for block 4004. Has it been flagged? I think if the D allows this, this is a very elegant solution to a very common problem. Having said that, if the D doesn't, then we will do the standard

327
01:30:41.679 --> 01:30:59.360
with D requirements along this this plan. We think and it's and it's actually quite a bit of extra effort in terms of design and construction. We think this is much more elegant solution, but if it can be used, then we'll do the standard. >> What do our professionals feel about that?

328
01:30:59.360 --> 01:31:17.199
So, what I've pointed out is that it's not D's regs, it's a FEMA rag. >> Um, so if you want to get flood insurance for their building, you need to comply with the requirement that the minimum size of the openings needs to be 3 in in diameter. So, the holes they're

329
01:31:17.199 --> 01:31:31.040
produc they're proposing are less than 3 in in diameter. that notwithstanding. Um, and I and I appreciate the visual effect, you know, the what you're going

330
01:31:31.040 --> 01:31:50.880
for. Um, my concern is that its location makes it an attractive nuisance. Um, and it's going to be very hard for building maintenance. So um is there is

331
01:31:50.880 --> 01:32:08.000
there a location where you can get under the building >> this? Yes, of course. This and I think what's different how we're thinking of these two things differently is the actual building is behind us. >> Right. So the building at the facade is that 5 foot difference behind us that is

332
01:32:08.000 --> 01:32:24.480
completely open. >> Yeah, I know. >> So as and as I as I talked to our our civil engineers, they think that's a a a large distinction. Having said that, I I don't agree that certainly the board can tell me if I'm wrong that this will be a nuisance. We're looking at openings that

333
01:32:24.480 --> 01:32:40.080
are this big. >> I I think that my personal concern is what you'd mentioned about people being able to get flood insurance. If it makes if anything makes it more difficult, if things are not open as as wide as they

334
01:32:40.080 --> 01:32:55.440
need to be, three inches, whatever the requirement is, I don't want anyone having it's hard enough to get that already. I just don't want to to design anything where you build something where it makes it more difficult for people to

335
01:32:55.440 --> 01:33:10.000
get that coverage. and and I don't know I don't know what the right answer is, but I'm just saying that >> if if this board is okay with the general concept of this thinking out of the box in terms of of flood regulations

336
01:33:10.000 --> 01:33:27.600
and the D or FEMA tells us that this uh the sizes are too small. If you're okay with the concept, we can adjust these sizes. Very easy to be adjusted. >> So So what is it? This is like in the the elevated wall like ground floor. issues. They'll have sections that will

337
01:33:27.600 --> 01:33:43.280
have this is like a brick wall with some bricks missing. >> Yes. >> In effect. >> In effect. >> And Okay. >> As opposed to what we just >> And the force just doesn't knock the other bricks out. So, >> no, that's correct. I mean, it has to be structurally designed to your point, but yes. >> So, I I know you're saying it's like 2

338
01:33:43.280 --> 01:33:59.920
in horizontal and I guess it's the height of the brick thing. So, it's two by whatever the height of the brick. >> Two and a half, three inches. Yeah. Donna, what's your concern about it being an attractive nuisance? >> So, this is the space. So, you can see um in part of this diagram,

339
01:33:59.920 --> 01:34:16.639
>> he has the image of the person. He's standing on the top of the retail prominade, >> the ramp, right? To get into the retail area. Um just to the left, >> um you see like the little Can you just

340
01:34:16.639 --> 01:34:32.880
>> Did you have circulate make a little circle around the where the Yeah, right there. >> That's it. >> So, that is right next to the sidewalk. >> So, they use the people that throw garbage in there.

341
01:34:32.880 --> 01:34:50.239
>> You know, they're they're going to >> So, if you didn't build this, what would you >> or there's birds? >> You would have something solid that could be a flood. So, no, >> you know, something without holes. So you

342
01:34:50.239 --> 01:35:05.679
>> I mean there's also flood louvers, >> you know, that they have on the the townhouse type building might not be again as effective here. Um I I mean I I really do like the idea. I just don't think where it is. Right next to the

343
01:35:05.679 --> 01:35:21.120
sidewalk, you know, next to the bus stop, next to nine million people walking from, you know, >> the boardwalk, >> the CBD to the boardwalk and back, >> straws, everything, >> anything. >> What what and I after reading the the

344
01:35:21.120 --> 01:35:36.719
planners reported, I of course I looked at this in more detail. Part of the issue of the the the possible concern of people throwing garbage in there is easily stopped by a a simple mesh behind it that will allow the same amount of water. >> Does that does that not does that not

345
01:35:36.719 --> 01:35:51.679
stop the water? Does that cause >> a very fine mesh wouldn't we are this >> there's there's a regulation for that. So we'll just say that there's a regulation for that. They would have to comply with that. Yes. But >> my my point is if this board liked this concept I could likely make it work. If

346
01:35:51.679 --> 01:36:07.040
not we go very easily. You'll see in the top right I could do that. This was an an attempt to make something look better than it normally does. >> Mhm. Yeah. >> Well, while I agree that it probably would look nicer, I'm just very

347
01:36:07.040 --> 01:36:24.000
concerned as we all are about storm water. And if anything is going to slow it down, I'm against it. Meaning that if if if the water goes in faster on those flood vents goes into the is it any faster than in your new

348
01:36:24.000 --> 01:36:39.840
design? >> It will be the exact same. There's a requirement for how much water comes in or out. It'll be the exact same. What we have to do on this is have more of it rather than what you'll see here. >> Mhm. >> But I thought that was mitigated because it it blends in better.

349
01:36:39.840 --> 01:36:56.480
>> Right. >> Engineer. >> Yeah. And also it's to be clear submitted to the D. So it is under review by the D. They have to agree that what we've designed meets their standards. Um because this is in an area

350
01:36:56.480 --> 01:37:13.040
I mean the the whole reason that >> flood hazard permit so they have to go in and get it >> as part of well it's part of our capper compliance. And so it's not as if this board is making a decision about whether these flood vents are adequate. It's ultimately the D's jurisdiction to decide if the if the flood openings are

351
01:37:13.040 --> 01:37:27.679
of adequate >> and nor as an architect can I force this time of D's through. >> If they don't like it and they say it's not going to work even with whatever adjustments I think can make then it it's if they haven't seen something before there's got to be a first time that they see it

352
01:37:27.679 --> 01:37:44.320
>> and we think this is a good location for that because of this raise problem. Now, we've got another location in town for the exact same reason. You have to raise the the retail area and we propose this as well. Um, again, if you don't want it, it's gone. This Have you ever used

353
01:37:44.320 --> 01:37:58.560
them before? >> No, this is the first. >> Mhm. >> And then the the Genesis came about because I despise how it looks otherwise. >> Even a really nice facade, those those vents um >> affect the facade.

354
01:37:58.560 --> 01:38:14.000
>> Yeah. They, you know, really take away. I I totally agree with you. Um but we live where we live and you know the realities of life and so again my concern is if the openings are larger that just you know makes it a greater

355
01:38:14.000 --> 01:38:30.480
opportunity. Um but and and there maybe there's a mesh that will work that's you know satisfies the breakaway requirement um you know that doesn't also get damaged by everybody trying to jam their Coke

356
01:38:30.480 --> 01:38:47.760
cans or whatever through. So um that's that's all I'm saying. You have to expect a it may not look like this. It may end up looking like the flood vents if D says you can't get your permit without it. >> Mhm. Otherwise, there's the potential for with this,

357
01:38:47.760 --> 01:39:03.280
we're going to have well, we're not they're going to have um you know, potential for more maintenance and cleanup and monitoring and issues. >> Mhm. >> That's all

358
01:39:03.280 --> 01:39:20.000
to pay attention, too. >> What do you think of though about animals getting in? >> You have two hole. So Javon, how if they get approved from D, I don't see a problem as long as not the same if it meets all of the actual openings. What you see is from a stormware perspective,

359
01:39:20.000 --> 01:39:35.600
there's going to be no difference cuz you have a square footage of your openings, whether it's small openings or those flood vents, you know, and I'm not I'm not aesthetics guy. I'm not a voter, but I do think that the brick looks nicer than seeing a litter of flood vents, smart vents out there. But from a

360
01:39:35.600 --> 01:39:55.040
stormwater perspective, if D says it's acceptable, >> it's not a storm water perspective. >> Yeah, it is a storm. It's coastal. It's coastal flooding. So, it would be if they get their approval, I'm like, >> so that would be my opinion, thank you. >> Thank you. >> I I think I hit all the relevant points

361
01:39:55.040 --> 01:40:12.000
for building number three. I certainly heard the comments. >> Mhm. I think that that there is I don't I don't know how we would do it. Maybe Jenny could give some input on how we can do it. Is that I know that there we had a concern about the balcony on floor

362
01:40:12.000 --> 01:40:30.480
two facing the windows on building one. No, building is that building one? Yeah, building one. >> I can't tell from these. I can't tell from these. While I understand where the

363
01:40:30.480 --> 01:40:45.440
where the windows are on building three, I don't remember where the buildings are where the windows are on building one so that the balconies do not hit windows.

364
01:40:45.440 --> 01:41:02.960
>> I do have loaded on my laptop the architectural plans from the previous submission. If you'd like me to pull that up and find a mic >> just on just on those. There we go. There was that one balcony that was something questioned. That one balcony. >> Yes, there's bedrooms right across from

365
01:41:02.960 --> 01:41:16.719
it. >> Is there bedrooms right across from it? >> Uh yeah, there looks like bedrooms. It's a TBR. No, no, sorry. That's a living room and one bedroom. >> It's just a question where's the window compared to that balcony. Look >> like there's

366
01:41:16.719 --> 01:41:38.400
1 2 3 4 5 six windows on that side. That's the east side. Yes. >> This is the facade that's facing the >> right. But but let's Where would we say is the balcony? >> I'll go back to um our plan, but the

367
01:41:38.400 --> 01:41:56.000
balcony is is on the Asbury side, which would be here >> which would be roughly there. >> Right. So are we saying >> sorry my mic goes right it's here. >> So the balcony is looking into

368
01:41:56.000 --> 01:42:12.159
>> that window. >> Uh it depends on how big the balcony >> balcony is pretty big >> on on that. >> Well let me explain the thought process there. We had this roof section >> because the garage takes up more footprint than a residential above. Mhm.

369
01:42:12.159 --> 01:42:29.679
>> So, we have this roof section that's attached to an apartment. Why not use it as a terrace? Understanding the point you're making, but I think if that's a concern, we could very easily, if I go back to our plans, if the concern is privacy, which is I certainly

370
01:42:29.679 --> 01:42:46.560
believe is what you're saying. I'm going to zoom in on the our plan. So, this is the balcony, which is again only on the second floor, but we could put a a 3- foot wide planter with with TR with

371
01:42:46.560 --> 01:43:02.639
um our provide you something that will our landscape architect will tell us will survive in that area so that there is privacy between the two and in the worst case condition people at at the multif family building that that uh Balti is

372
01:43:02.639 --> 01:43:19.119
doing that Michael just pointed out this they will see green they won't see windows >> which I don't think is a bad thing >> I can easily do that on this floor only. >> I'm concerned about that. >> I'm concerned about that to get give them both sides some privacy.

373
01:43:19.119 --> 01:43:35.199
>> And if that's just around that corner >> cuz I don't think it's the full I don't think it's the full uh length of it. >> It's it's not correct. >> It's just a certain amount of however many feet that is that we want. >> Yeah. that that section there you've got

374
01:43:35.199 --> 01:43:52.639
dimension I believe it's 35 ft >> from here to here. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that's about right. Yeah. >> Yeah. And so on the multif family building that's >> across the alley. Um 34 35 ft back from the face of the building

375
01:43:52.639 --> 01:44:08.480
>> into the site. >> Yeah. >> Um so that is takes you to um where there are no windows. >> Right. That's what I'm saying is it's Go ahead. >> There's the triple window. >> Yeah. >> That's right on the >> right the corner. The other

376
01:44:08.480 --> 01:44:24.159
>> Can we go to Can you jump to the other uh >> Yeah. Where the triple windows are. >> Yeah. Those triple window. >> Yep. Those is in line with the balcony. >> But that's that's not 34 ft. >> No, that's about 10 ft or so. >> About 10 ft or so,

377
01:44:24.159 --> 01:44:39.440
>> right? That's where I think that the privacy should. But that's all the windows in that unit's living room and kitchen, >> right? But otherwise, they'd be looking directly into someone's balcony, which is not fair. Just like someone in a

378
01:44:39.440 --> 01:44:56.880
balcony looking right into somebody's living room. That's what they're doing. But that's what I'm ask. That's what I'm saying. What can we do? >> What can we do? I suggest if if we're okay with the concept of of a ter balcony being there because it makes sense to me, >> we can have that entire length

379
01:44:56.880 --> 01:45:13.840
>> be a privacy screen with with planting and then the only open area would be towards Asbury. >> Mhm. >> And I think that solves all the problems. It allows for a balcony, allows for privacy on both sides and even on the multi-side they'll be looking at green rather than windows. >> And I'm going to I'm going to step in

380
01:45:13.840 --> 01:45:28.880
about the landscaping or the idea of using a a plant. It's going to be in a 5ft wide space with no light on the north side of the building. So, you're not going to get a lot of success out of something in a planter. So, >> we need to know what screen what is what

381
01:45:28.880 --> 01:45:45.199
what are the other options? Is it a screen that the person that lives in that building can just take down? I'm just saying what what do we want that to look like? >> You know, what would make sense? Does someone prefer to see a screen or does

382
01:45:45.199 --> 01:46:00.400
someone prefer just to see Oh, potentially someone's living room. >> No. Are you talking about you're talking about putting the like a planter on the inside of the inside? >> Correct. My thought would be if you're

383
01:46:00.400 --> 01:46:15.679
on the balcony we're talking about, you would have approximately 30 36 in high and this wide planting bed filled with soil that then has plants on it and it'll be designed by a landscape architect. If a landscape architect

384
01:46:15.679 --> 01:46:31.440
tells us there's no way something's going to live there, then obviously I wouldn't propose it. I'm not a landscape architect. We can if if this board prefers very easily come up with a nice decorative screen that is about six feet high that will in effect do the same thing. >> I just don't know how you cuz you

385
01:46:31.440 --> 01:46:47.360
basically would be one owner's balcony to compel to >> part of the condo docks or whatever >> the approval. >> Yeah. >> So maybe this green to your point might make more sense then it's then it's part of the structure. I'm just thinking, you

386
01:46:47.360 --> 01:47:03.119
know, I own this unit. >> Maybe I don't like what's there. And it really would be up to the owner. >> Well, you could put you could put into the condo. >> Yeah. >> Master D the DC uh drawing set could have all these things in it.

387
01:47:03.119 --> 01:47:19.040
>> But I understand your point. >> So, what what are you suggesting that there's a screen, >> Cath Kathy? Um I either it's going to be in the condo docks that this owner has to maintain

388
01:47:19.040 --> 01:47:35.119
>> the green element is going to be maintained by the >> but it's not a common element the balcony >> outside. >> Okay. >> And it'll be architecturally. >> But Jamie, you're talking about your >> this building is

389
01:47:35.119 --> 01:47:53.199
>> Yeah. We're talking about >> Yeah. This this is going to have to be something a little more permanent um that has to be maintained. >> Happily, we can design a screen that hopefully you'll like. >> I think something has to happen there.

390
01:47:53.199 --> 01:48:10.880
>> Something has to happen there. >> I'm trying. >> One other question before we get too far away. Are all these windows fixed? Are they uh are they >> No, the vast majority are are operable. Now you you'll see not I can go to the elevation but we've got large windows on

391
01:48:10.880 --> 01:48:26.960
the residential portions in those cases portion of it operable. Um there is a minimum requirement of how much operable when the operable window how big it has to be in within an apartment. We are going to meet and and exceed that. >> Can you show that? >> Sure.

392
01:48:26.960 --> 01:48:48.400
>> So show so you know like is it a hopper section or something? >> Let me uh go back to the the elevations might be the best. Uh, let me zoom out and find a better one. Actually, I think the 3D will help. Here we go. This one's

393
01:48:48.400 --> 01:49:11.639
good. >> So, in every case, these are operable. >> And we will in some cases have these be a case foot window. So, you'll have either an awning or a hopper, the lower ones. And in some cases, depending on the room behind it, these could be operable as a casement swing out.

394
01:49:12.719 --> 01:49:29.440
>> Right. We're asking that that the majority be operable as much as many as possible. >> Understood. >> Be operable. >> Understood. >> Okay. >> All right. Anything else from this witness? Uh, anything else from our

395
01:49:29.440 --> 01:49:46.159
planning board members for this witness? Any questions? Before we open to the public, can I suggest we take just a few minute break? >> Sure. >> We can take a five minute SERIOUS AFTER all that. >> That's right. WE'VE BEEN WAITING THIS

396
01:49:46.159 --> 01:50:05.400
WHOLE TIME. >> IT'S 5 MINUTES. What What What's the question? What's >> You'll be able to ask your question at 9:00. >> Okay. 5 minutes, please. So being demolished across the street.

397
01:50:18.000 --> 01:50:35.040
>> Okay, I will take roll call. Um, James Bonano >> here. >> Ivon Clayton >> here. >> Jim Henry >> here. >> Daniel Shaneo >> here. Kathy McGlaughlin >> here. >> Chairwoman Corzac here. Okay. Um, so

398
01:50:35.040 --> 01:50:51.760
we're okay to move. Were we okay to move on? >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. If anybody would like to anybody has questions for this witness, please line up. >> Hi, Paris Dre. >> And your um Jeff, you want to provide name and

399
01:50:51.760 --> 01:51:07.679
you're just going to provide your name and your address, please? Uh, I'm not comfortable providing my address if that's okay with you. >> You must provide your address. >> Okay, cool. My address is 25 Lexington Boulevard in Barnagan, New Jersey. >> And what is your relationship to Asbury Park? >> I work in the area.

400
01:51:07.679 --> 01:51:22.400
>> Okay. So, I know that you had mentioned that on the uh as or I'm sorry, on the Cookman Avenue that the ADA compliance ramp would not be able to be put there because the doors would have to be moved. Correct. And I understand that's

401
01:51:22.400 --> 01:51:39.199
a very valid reason. However, with the uh east side uh entrance of the building, the the point if you will, I believe the ADA compliance for a ramp is 1 ft raised uh and 12t length.

402
01:51:39.199 --> 01:51:56.480
Is there the dimension there to put an ADA accessible ramp in the front of the building? Because all of the shopping is on Cookman Avenue. People aren't moving around to Asbury Avenue to then enter a shopping center. They're not going to know that that's there. I understand your question. Um I think

403
01:51:56.480 --> 01:52:12.239
and our team thinks that the the main monumental stair is is something an architectural feature that should not be um so if if you agree with that as we did as a starting point you've got the two the two lengths of the facade one

404
01:52:12.239 --> 01:52:30.080
along Asbury cooking to put your ransom we know we needed the same condition for the lobby entry which is along cooking. So that left us because the dimension remained unknown as so the short answer is I don't think there's a way to do

405
01:52:30.080 --> 01:52:47.760
that but I'll reiterate that what we're doing is completely complying with >> you're compliant but it's not considerate. Um and then I have questions about the material being used is the material being used for the wood also going to be be the material used for the balconies

406
01:52:47.760 --> 01:53:05.119
>> in terms of I guess the decking for the balcony itself. uh that composite wood material. >> I'm talking to this. Um I we don't know yet what the deck is going to be. That hasn't been decided. It won't be the same as you see on facade because they're they're designed for different

407
01:53:05.119 --> 01:53:20.400
functions. >> I'm well I'm just wondering what you see from underneath when you're standing under what's hanging over the >> That will likely be a metal that matches the windows all. So you you'll see that mostly at the base of the building. So there there's a framework around each of

408
01:53:20.400 --> 01:53:37.520
these large windows. As I mentioned before, I think it's very important to have some communication between the retail space and the sidewalk. And we're raised three feet off the ground. So that's already a difficulty. The the I think the probably the easiest way in terms of making it look right is

409
01:53:37.520 --> 01:53:53.520
having a simple material that continuity. Having said that, we can look at other materials too. It's not something I think will make or break any portion of the building. I I don't want to fully rehash all the materials, but my background is in design, and design is always going to be something that's

410
01:53:53.520 --> 01:54:09.520
subjective. >> There should be questions at this point, correct? >> This is >> Thank you. Um, are we going to try to follow more design trends versus what we think is popular and ultraodern? Asbury Park, you've slipped up a couple

411
01:54:09.520 --> 01:54:25.199
times. You called the lot weird. Asbury Park is weird. >> Never called it weird. >> You did. You corrected yourself twice. Asbury Park is weird. And I think a lot of us are asking that you try to keep some of the weird in Asbury Park. >> So once again, >> thank you. >> Thank you.

412
01:54:25.199 --> 01:54:41.440
>> Who's next? >> Mike Arllo, South Main Street, Ocean Grove. We heard at the city council meeting last week from the owner of the Empress uh and representatives from the Vive in the room that there was that there was

413
01:54:41.440 --> 01:54:59.840
some conflict about noise when the Vibe was built in the shadow of a nightclub. Is there a sound study that's been done for the same reason for this building? >> This is an architectural question. >> I don't understand that what that would have to do with architecture, but go

414
01:54:59.840 --> 01:55:16.239
ahead. >> Is there a sound study for the for the building that's contributed to the to the materials that are going to be used to deflect sound coming from >> from the nightclub next door? >> What What does >> is there a different person to ask about sound studies? Maybe I'm not asking the right person. And I I can answer in

415
01:55:16.239 --> 01:55:33.360
general I I think my hesitation was I didn't understand the reason for it when we got compliant filming when a compliant building means that all those things those considerations have only been made by folks who wrote the red. >> Yeah. So the redevelopment plan calls

416
01:55:33.360 --> 01:55:48.960
for an entertainment district surrounding the casino. So this building is being built in the shadow of an entertainment district. How does the design consider noise in close proximity to it? >> Are you asking specifically for the

417
01:55:48.960 --> 01:56:04.639
Empress? >> I'm asking for the Empress. Well, yeah, because like I said, we just heard about the conflict with the neighbors across the street from this building. >> But also, the redevelopment plan declares that the casino area is an entertainment district. So, for the future theoretical development of

418
01:56:04.639 --> 01:56:20.000
whatever is going to happen there, >> I think the short answer is no, we have not done that. So, do the residents that will be moving in here have any any obligation to or um any requirement to be noticed that they're going to be living in the shadow of a nightclub in an entertainment district?

419
01:56:20.000 --> 01:56:37.119
>> I don't know. >> Okay. Um I'd love to protect the trees that are at the corner of the building. Um does the plan that you're presenting I know that the earlier testimony is that they're going to be removed. Does your plan include any accommodation for salvaging and and repurposing those

420
01:56:37.119 --> 01:56:53.040
trees somewhere nearby? >> So here describe what was the the overall plan in terms of trees. Lots of new planting on both Asbury and Cooking. We don't have a tree which I think is what you refer to at the point is that the tree this

421
01:56:53.040 --> 01:57:09.840
>> it's not a tree. It's a it's a it's a collection of mature trees. Yeah. >> That will be >> they're removed and will they be repurposed is the question. I that's not an answer that I could give you. I don't know what that is. >> Okay. Um the term wasn't actually weird. It

422
01:57:09.840 --> 01:57:25.840
was strange. You called it a strange a strange condition. >> Um uh and you said you were responding to this site and the site strange condition by presenting these materials in this design. How do you

423
01:57:25.840 --> 01:57:43.360
reconcile that with the waterfront redevelopment plans declaring the Asbury A entrance to be small scale and Victorian which I interpret specifically to be this lot the waterfront redevelopment clan specifies I think

424
01:57:43.360 --> 01:57:59.599
what's required of this lot using words like Victorian and small scale I can see it's smaller than maybe what was presented before how is it Victorian it's not Victorian And I believe it's our planner to discuss how we respond to each of the um questions you got in

425
01:57:59.599 --> 01:58:15.280
terms of materials and those regulations that are part of the revelopment. Is one of the waiverss you're requesting from the Victorian term? >> I I don't think that that's a specific waiver. Again, I'll leave that to the planner. >> Uhhuh.

426
01:58:15.280 --> 01:58:31.840
>> But as a my comments from before about the weird site, I wish I didn't use that word. It's not weird. is it is atypical site in terms of its configuration. So I shouldn't use weird or strange. I did not mean to. Um I will reiterate that I

427
01:58:31.840 --> 01:58:47.760
think every two room building on a site such as this is almost ridiculous concept. >> Mhm. >> It's the concept that was agreed to with the community when the water for redevelopment plan was built though. >> No. And so we will have a planner testify as one of our remaining witnesses who will go through the

428
01:58:47.760 --> 01:59:05.040
redevelopment plan and the waiverss requested and how it compares how what we are proposing compares to the requirements of the plan. >> Are the people that design and architect the building under any obligation to speak to that though to the design inspiration that that read Victorian and

429
01:59:05.040 --> 01:59:20.800
produced this? >> You're you asked a question as to how this conforms to the redevelopment plan or does not conform. >> I'm asking the designer how they found inspiration from those terms and produced this. I think it's I think it's a question for people representing the designs, not the plan. I didn't answer

430
01:59:20.800 --> 01:59:37.119
that. I answer that by reiterating how we started this process. Given it specific site conditions, the mass of the building, the the triangle where the building is very thin, we are allowed to ask for deviations from any of these ordinances on

431
01:59:37.119 --> 01:59:52.800
particular sites where we think those ordinances don't make sense. Deviations in this case, >> this is one of them. Our plan will describe why we think our plan um deserves these deviations, >> right? Um and and we'll we'll talk to

432
01:59:52.800 --> 02:00:09.119
the planner about the specifics of what the redesign plan allows and doesn't allow for those waivers. Um can you show us the waivers that you're asking for? >> That would be a planner. >> Um when we did this for the other two buildings, the architect was able to pull up the waivers and show us. That's

433
02:00:09.119 --> 02:00:25.119
what we did two weeks ago. >> That's within the planner's perview. That's what >> that wasn't the planner that did it on March 16. >> The person sitting right next to you did it. I'm sorry. >> This application >> Uhhuh. >> we have multiple witnesses. We have a planner at the end who's going to go

434
02:00:25.119 --> 02:00:40.960
through each one of the waivers because we have two architects who have each given testimonies to two buildings. So to present in an orderly manner, we have a planner that will be going through the waivers and how they apply to each of the components of the site. >> That testimony has not been presented yet. That testimony will come. >> Does the architect have no obligation to

435
02:00:40.960 --> 02:00:56.080
defend the waivers that the architect is requesting? No, >> that is the everyone has their own purpose here in our presentation and the planning testimony that is yet to come. >> I'll say again when I asked this question on March 16th to the person who

436
02:00:56.080 --> 02:01:10.560
was presenting the two buildings at the time, that person was allowed by you to respond to my question and read the waivers. >> Just there will be testimony on the waivers specific to this building and that testimony will come.

437
02:01:10.560 --> 02:01:26.960
>> Okay. Can we see the version of the plans that does not deviate from the redevelopment plan? >> The plan we have is the only plan I can show you. We don't come to a meeting like this with multiple plans.

438
02:01:26.960 --> 02:01:46.400
>> Does a plan exist that adheres to the waterfront redevelopment plan? >> I don't know. >> Who who knows that? >> It's a ridiculous question though. Is it? >> It is. >> I'm going to argue with you and I'll stop now. But the point question isn't

439
02:01:46.400 --> 02:02:03.040
really relevant for me. I >> I mean a designer looks at the project and I think the first thing if I was a designer I would do is go look at the rules of engagement and then I would design something in those rules >> and there will be a comment period at

440
02:02:03.040 --> 02:02:19.360
the end and if that's the comment you would like to make at the end there will be a period to do that. But are there any question? So it's your testimony that there is no design that conforms to the waterfront redevelopment plan. >> I said I don't know if there's certainly not one that we thought I explained

441
02:02:19.360 --> 02:02:34.960
several times how the process happened from our perspective as the designers. You don't just look at what you're referring to with some of these architectural regulations. You look at that. You look at the site. You look at the program. It when you put it that

442
02:02:34.960 --> 02:02:51.520
way, it simplifies the process. So with pointex it's it it doesn't allow for anything out of the design box that regulation puts you in. >> Mhm. Which I think was the intent of the

443
02:02:51.520 --> 02:03:14.320
work that >> this session is for questions. Are there any other questions? You said that window sills can't be built in this building because it's made of wood. No. Can you just clarify why window sills can't be built?

444
02:03:14.320 --> 02:03:29.920
>> That question came up because of the requirement within the rebell that windows be set in from window >> right >> from sorry from the from the wall. But the wall in this case and all buildings that are of this size and similar is

445
02:03:29.920 --> 02:03:47.440
only 6 in. So there's no opportunity to set the window. Sills are another idea. Sills would just be an applique on a building like this. It's not doing anything structural. It's not whether it's the sill or the mint. It's not going to be structural. I don't want to

446
02:03:47.440 --> 02:04:04.239
defend the regulations as they are. You keep asking questions about the the minutia here. I'm trying to make the point that that's all important. It's not the only important thing. >> Mhm. But it's it's it's the stuff that's in the law. It's the stuff that is the

447
02:04:04.239 --> 02:04:19.920
redevelopment plan. So, it is important because it defines what the community expects of the buildings that are being built here. >> Is there another question? >> Um, I just want to clarify one more time. This building can't have window sills because the walls are 6 in of wood.

448
02:04:19.920 --> 02:04:35.679
>> I already responded and maybe I didn't wasn't clear. I my response about the 6 in board has nothing to do with the sills or that was purely on one of the commissioners comments about how to be set back within the wall

449
02:04:35.679 --> 02:04:51.199
had nothing to do with wood. Um I don't think window sills are ahead to make sense in this building in terms of architecture. It would be just an applique. It would be opposite of what most folks want here. >> The worst thing we can do giving my architectural opinion. I'm kind of maybe

450
02:04:51.199 --> 02:05:13.199
I should stop. Yeah, I'll stop. I'll just answer yes or no for them. Apologies. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. My name is Tom Pacico. I live at 600 Hex Street at the Cove. So, my question to the architect is has any

451
02:05:13.199 --> 02:05:29.199
you mentioned that there's no roof access. Was that something that was considered or not considered or was not in your program to have a green space on the roof? I was at a meeting here. I can't quite

452
02:05:29.199 --> 02:05:44.159
>> That's okay. If that's the question, we can we can answer the question. >> Okay. >> That was not >> Okay. Has anyone suggested from the township committee that we consider rooftop gardens

453
02:05:44.159 --> 02:06:01.440
>> on these projects when there I think the township committee mentioned that we didn't like the fact that there was not enough green space around the building um back I I guess it was about a year ago before you came to the planning board. I missed last month's uh meeting,

454
02:06:01.440 --> 02:06:19.679
so I apologize for building number one, but there's a lot of rooftop and has the ability to support green vegetation, green space, and I think that's something that the board might be missing out on having a program that

455
02:06:19.679 --> 02:06:38.560
requires taking our rooftops and putting green spaces, gardens, or access for the public, not the public, but for the tenants. That's fine. That was not part of the program. Okay. Thank you.

456
02:06:38.560 --> 02:06:55.360
>> Hi there. I'm Chris Turk. My address is 1100 and a half First Avenue. Uh I My question is I'm a retail owner myself. Uh I know there was a retail space there. Uh there's going to be people working in the stores. Is there any plan for parking for these people? Will they have to get permits or what is the

457
02:06:55.360 --> 02:07:12.560
purpose of it? because I know that it's personally hard for me to find people to work and park. Is there a plan for those people? >> Well, so the parking complies uh the waterfront redevelopment plan does not require parking for retail as you know.

458
02:07:12.560 --> 02:07:37.840
>> So, so for this particular site, no. >> Uh my name is Jenny 301 Sunset. Um, for the retail, uh, I managed to >> What's your last name? Boardwalk. >> What's your last name? >> Coacher. >> Coaching. >> Um, you said that there you don't have a

459
02:07:37.840 --> 02:07:54.400
set. Is it one, two, three spots? How many retails? >> We don't know yet. And we've designed it so there is an option depending on who you're going to use. There may be no one that wants 5,000 ft or maybe uh 225,000. We don't know. So my job is to design it

460
02:07:54.400 --> 02:08:22.960
so that we have reasonable access to this space if it is carved up. >> Hi my name is Nathan Lancia of 508 Fth Avenue. Um my question I guess is in terms of like energy consumption. Um so my background

461
02:08:22.960 --> 02:08:39.599
is engineering. Um so listening to you like talk through a lot of like the front facing um you know exterior appliques and all of that. Has there been consideration for like since this would be a retail space like the constant air flow that would be going in and out of the building since it is mostly going to be glass that would be

462
02:08:39.599 --> 02:08:54.719
facing as that would be like kind of heating up a lot more. >> At at this point we haven't done that engineering. It will certainly be done obviously if we get approved by this planning board. Having said that, my firm designed many commercial spaces and

463
02:08:54.719 --> 02:09:11.280
the configuration we've got can work for ERVs for air changes and heating pool. >> Okay. And that like I guess you know obviously since heat rises like I'm just wondering how that would affect that kind of upper upper buildings you know as the floors start to high like rise that kind of upper tier of apartment

464
02:09:11.280 --> 02:09:28.079
buildings like they would obviously see the most heat throughout the day. So like with their windows, I guess be required to be more open as that heat would kind of get trapped even if the bottom levels remained a lot cooler. I guess that would just be something to consider as well. >> Yeah. And it's a curry point something we'd have to deal with in the next step.

465
02:09:28.079 --> 02:09:49.679
>> Okay. I just I wasn't sure if that had already been done. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'll be back. >> Hello, I'm Joe Meanie. Um 13rd apartment 311 Asbury. I know you're doing ADA letter of the law minimum whatever and

466
02:09:49.679 --> 02:10:06.239
fire egress. You were very cognizant of two exits for the for the walking people for this ramp, this one ramp to get you upstairs to the to the three-foot level. Are you going to shove people down the stairs when there's a fire and they can't get to the ramp? You've only got

467
02:10:06.239 --> 02:10:24.159
one set of egress for someone who's disabled. That's it. >> Is there a question? >> What are you going to do? >> I think what we propose and you heard me

468
02:10:24.159 --> 02:10:44.480
say disrespect compliance. Um I I think smarter people than me come up with these regulations in terms of life and safety and that's what we need. Hi, Bob Zuckermanman, member of the board recused 600 Heck Street in the

469
02:10:44.480 --> 02:11:00.880
Cove. Um, my question is just is for my is is for the edification of my colleagues there on the board, which is you've heard a lot of um you've heard a lot of discussion tonight and and um I thought some really interesting questions uh from some of my board

470
02:11:00.880 --> 02:11:17.199
members. Are are you based on what you heard tonight, are you looking to make some significant redesign of this the exterior or are you looking to just maybe tweak it or have you not decided yet? Is it too early to

471
02:11:17.199 --> 02:11:41.760
ask this question? >> We have not decided. We certainly will respond to the comments from the board and the public as best we can. >> Okay. >> We haven't decided yet. >> Okay. Great. Thanks. Hello. Uh, David Lindley, 301 Cooper.

472
02:11:41.760 --> 02:11:58.079
Um, my question is about the retail space. Is that designed to house a food establishment? Meaning, is there vented um, hoods, you know, runs for people to put in the kitchen? >> We haven't designed it specifically for a restaurant use, although that is

473
02:11:58.079 --> 02:12:14.239
permitted in the space. If a restaurant was to come in early enough process that we could then provide a ventilation shaft, absolutely. >> Right. So all of the all the things that go along with a restaurant with removing the waste and um the smells that come

474
02:12:14.239 --> 02:12:34.560
from restaurants and things like that would be vented up through the roof. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> Oh, I'm sorry. One and done. Sorry. One and done. >> All right. Anybody else? >> Okay. >> Can I follow?

475
02:12:34.560 --> 02:12:50.480
>> Sure. Go ahead. >> If so, if you had to do that, vent it up, that would then change the upper floors of the sub, right? >> It would be a a 18in shaft that would be within the one of the residential space typically be in a closet, >> but it would so either, you know, not getting into the condo, it would be

476
02:12:50.480 --> 02:13:05.119
limited element, common element or something. It would change that person's space and it would change your floor planes. We certainly have a very minor effect on all the floor plans. All the floor plans. There are two floor plans going up. >> Would you have to come back for that? >> No.

477
02:13:05.119 --> 02:13:49.199
>> No. It's internal. >> All right. Your next uh >> Thanks everyone. >> Next uh winner. >> Unless you Hey, and just so that everyone's clear, we we we close at 10:00.

478
02:13:49.199 --> 02:14:04.719
>> Just so everybody knows. >> Understood. Doors open at 7:00, doors close at 10:00. >> You You will be able to say your comments if we have to extend if if the application is not finished. >> You will you will always be able to say

479
02:14:04.719 --> 02:14:20.880
your comments. Yes. >> At the end of the full presentation, which may not be today. We don't know yet. >> Okay. >> All right. So, we promised a planning witness. We have Kate Keller here today. Miss

480
02:14:20.880 --> 02:14:36.320
Keller, if you could be sworn in. >> Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> And again, for the record, if you could state your name and spell your last, please. >> Sure. My name is Kate. Last name is Keller. K E L L E R.

481
02:14:36.320 --> 02:14:52.480
>> Now, we will be offering Miss Keller as an expert in the field of professional planning. So, to do that, if you could please summarize for the board your background, experience, and lensure. >> Sure. Uh, good evening, chair, members of the board. Um, my name is, as I said, is Kate Keller. I'm a principal with the planning firm of Phillips Price Grigo

482
02:14:52.480 --> 02:15:09.040
Laney Keller based in Hoboken, New Jersey. Um I'm a l professional planner in the state of New Jersey and I am also a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. Um I hold an undergraduate and master's degree in urban planning from the University of Pennsylvania and I have been a licensed

483
02:15:09.040 --> 02:15:24.239
planner in New Jersey since 2014. I've been accepted for about 100 boards across the state including this one a very long time ago. So we thought we would offer and every everything is correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Do we have a submission for this

484
02:15:24.239 --> 02:15:39.760
>> as the planning witness? No. So the planning witness will summarize I'll be asking a moment to summarize the relief that is requested based on the plan submitted. Um but with that I do offer Miss Keller as an expert in the field of professional planning. >> Absolutely. >> All right. So Keller I know you've

485
02:15:39.760 --> 02:15:55.520
reviewed the plans. you've been here for the testimony and uh we've had a request for you to go through the context of the site and the relief that has been requested. >> Sure. Thank you, Jen. Um so yes, so as this board is aware, you know, just for the edification of the members of the

486
02:15:55.520 --> 02:16:11.440
public, I did not produce a written report or any type of plan myself. My job here tonight and my job through this process as retained by the applicant is to really synthesize what has been proposed by the applicant and tonight, you know, going to kind of go through the compliance with the redevelopment

487
02:16:11.440 --> 02:16:29.199
plan and also uh provide some justifications for the technical waiverss that we are requesting which are largely for the design elements of the redevelopment plan. So to start with um the consistency and the compliance with the redevelopment plan, we are here for a mixeduse corner

488
02:16:29.199 --> 02:16:46.160
with other multif family and townhouse residential development on this block. This block is now known as 3801. Um over time the overall development of this block has has been changed through amendments to the redevelopment plan in 2019. But essentially what is being

489
02:16:46.160 --> 02:17:04.800
provided here is um 67 dwelling units with retail on Asbury Avenue and Cook and frontages at that corner. As you've heard, essentially the total development of this block is significantly less than was originally envisioned which provided for 280 units um plus that would include

490
02:17:04.800 --> 02:17:21.840
Asbury Cove site which is 48 units plus potentially a three-level parking garage in buildings that measured up to eight stories in height. So over time through both amendments to the plan and both reiterations through feedback from the city this plan has changed so that the development is what is proposed to you

491
02:17:21.840 --> 02:17:38.719
tonight. Um again regarding the building height as you've heard uh we are proposing um buildings that are fivetory multif family and threetory mixed use and those are both located within portions of the property that permit up to eight stories. Also the townhouse building which is four stories including

492
02:17:38.719 --> 02:17:53.760
the the parking is located within the area of the property that also permits up to eight stories. So essentially the redevelopment plan going back into 2002 and continuing through revisions in 2020 2020 2019 um really contemplated a much

493
02:17:53.760 --> 02:18:10.000
larger taller building for this site which you know again through feedback through this iterative community process with the feedback from the TRC the council etc has led to us to what we have here tonight which is substantially smaller than that. So as you have heard

494
02:18:10.000 --> 02:18:26.479
we are requesting a number of waiverss from the redevelopment plan. Um there are architectural design requirements that are laid out in the plan and all of the architectural design requirements which um range from very very detailed in nature to kind of more general

495
02:18:26.479 --> 02:18:42.639
suggestions are um intended to effectuate the purpose of the redevelopment plan. And some of the purposes, you know, that that are being set forward here include, let me just get this the document here. Um, you know, the overall purpose of the

496
02:18:42.639 --> 02:18:58.479
redevelopment objective of the plan is to effectuate certain planning principles. It's encouraging new residential development. It's keeping the street grid, the Bradley plan. Um it's again one of them which I think we're doing here well which you've heard

497
02:18:58.479 --> 02:19:15.760
about is to create a pedestrian friendly street prevent park parking and traffic problems etc. So there are certain there's different levels of design standards in the plan and this ranges from things that are called and this is also said in the plan three degrees of

498
02:19:15.760 --> 02:19:32.160
importance. These go from shall and those are the things that we really do are requesting waiverss from tonight. Those are those are things that the that the design standard section um says should be happening. There are also um the term should and nay. So, you know, and I think that there's also other

499
02:19:32.160 --> 02:19:48.000
sections of the plans, including some that have were quoted here tonight, that are not necessarily requirements for this site or even um requirements for any site in town. Rather, they're all just um sort of the guidelines that were put in place in 2002 as part of the

500
02:19:48.000 --> 02:20:05.359
vision at that time. So many things have changed since then as you've heard over tonight and through the past hearing. Um but really what it comes down to tonight is that we have a plan that fully conforms with the zoning aspects of the site including the parking, the height, the use, etc. And so what we are here

501
02:20:05.359 --> 02:20:21.760
for tonight is to request those certain waivers. Um, and so I think that the waiverss that we are requesting here tonight and some of these were um these are all addressed in the Clark Haiten hints report um from believe that was February whenever this was supposed to be first heard. So some of them I

502
02:20:21.760 --> 02:20:38.479
believe are not relevant. So I will leave Donna to um or testimony has been provided stating that they are no longer required. So I'll leave Donna to his comments once we're finished um once I finish going through them. But some of the requirements that we have, you know, some of the waiverss that we're requesting, I think they can really be

503
02:20:38.479 --> 02:20:53.840
sort of categorized in a few broad brush strokes. Um, some has to do with the uh commercial frontage, the street level activity of the site. And that that has to that's really both the retail frontage, that's the pedestrian experience as you walk around the site.

504
02:20:53.840 --> 02:21:08.800
And those I think a lot of those come down to the um the layout of the property as you heard. And just to reiterate for this board and for the public's knowledge, the standard for waiverss from the redevelopment plan is outlined in the municipal land use law

505
02:21:08.800 --> 02:21:23.920
as well as the redevelopment plan. And these are really exceptions that can be granted if they are deemed by the board to be reasonable and within the general purpose and intent of the provisions for the plan. And that in that really is the fee literal enforcement of the provision

506
02:21:23.920 --> 02:21:39.760
is impractical or if the requirement would enact undue hardship because of particular conditions pertaining to the land in question. And I think both of these are relevant here. um both in terms of this specific property in terms of the functionality of the plan at 26

507
02:21:39.760 --> 02:21:55.840
years 20 24 not that old 24 years later and some of the other rationals that you've heard already from our architects that I will go into um in terms of the pedestrian frontage and and the um the overall design. So, one of the one of

508
02:21:55.840 --> 02:22:12.319
the things that's mentioned is that the shop fronts are supposed to have commercial fenestration to a certain point and that the base frontages are supposed to fall into certain categories. Um, here we do have a mixeduse site at the corner, a site that has always been envisioned to be retail

509
02:22:12.319 --> 02:22:28.800
commercial by the waterfront plan, but it is at this really tight corner of the property. So ideally you want you know more fenestration and and as part of a storefront to allow more sun sunlight but this is a really narrow space and I this it really just with the design of

510
02:22:28.800 --> 02:22:44.960
the site and how everything is intricate everything is designed in one corner but we believe that this penetration is actually much more appropriate here because otherwise we almost too much light in cases. So that's really um you know I think we also wanted to clarify the number there. We're looking at we

511
02:22:44.960 --> 02:23:00.800
could believe believe we have 46% versus 44%. There was two different numbers stated but essentially because of this small corner space anything more I think would be not not necessarily as appropriate here. Um other things regarding the frontage is that we do

512
02:23:00.800 --> 02:23:16.960
have the base frontage of the building. We're looking at following categories. And really what this is saying is that you're not supposed to have an unbuffered parking structure and that the um pedestrian frontage is supposed to be a primary contributor to the pedestrian experience. So part of this

513
02:23:16.960 --> 02:23:34.640
comes down to and I go back to the um to the the the proofs for the waiverss which is that things would be impractical given this property because one of the comments from um your planners is that there are um there's an elevation at the street level and that is really due to the flood elevation as

514
02:23:34.640 --> 02:23:50.479
you've heard uh throughout these proceedings. That's something that was not in place at the time of the waterfront redevelopment plan and it's something that um has you know it's almost like a design challenge that I think we've done a good job of overcoming here all around the site. Um there's also parking garages that are

515
02:23:50.479 --> 02:24:05.680
located there as you've seen. Uh we believe that those do comply with the standards set in the plan due to the exact the location of the grills and the screening there. So, we think that um when you're making your way around the site, especially given the corner nature and the way that it feeds into the other

516
02:24:05.680 --> 02:24:20.240
streets, that we meet the general intention of the pedestrian experience there. Um there's also just in terms of more technical aspects there are various um design waiverss that are required in terms of windows and again these are

517
02:24:20.240 --> 02:24:36.080
very specific very tailored narrowly tailored um standards um to the extent where you know I will even say that you know in my reading of this there's even places and this is not uncommon in redevelopment plans or zoning ordinances but there's places even where the plan

518
02:24:36.080 --> 02:24:53.040
might even contradict itself at times but we are looking for waiverss um related to um the windows really being flush with the interior wall should not be flush um should be flush with the interior wall not the outer surface as

519
02:24:53.040 --> 02:25:09.359
you heard this is a you know this really aligns better with the aesthetics as well as the modern construction uh features and I think you know we've heard you know there was a lot of comments tonight about how does this site provide a transition and how does it combine with um the other sites that

520
02:25:09.359 --> 02:25:26.160
are in the vicinity. And I think the answer here is that given you know the development with from on to the with the cove and to the on on Kman is that those transitions have already been established and there are not and even as states so in the redevelopment plan

521
02:25:26.160 --> 02:25:42.560
itself that there and this is back from 2002 that there are not necessarily the historic buildings right in this vicinity that should where you should be compared to um just make up this language here as well. Um

522
02:25:42.560 --> 02:26:00.640
but it it speaks of the fact that there is you know basically that there are not directly contributing buildings. And I think at this point the idea is not that you want to create a historic pastiche where there is none on this block but rather to put something that meets the

523
02:26:00.640 --> 02:26:17.439
site and also meets its it its neighbors. And I think that that that concept of of transitions is very important in planning. as one of the board members tonight brought up. And when I bring I relate this back to the windows because of the fact that these are all part of the style of

524
02:26:17.439 --> 02:26:33.280
architecture that has that is in this area. And I think that all of that in general really combines to um keep this as a site that especially the fact that they don't all look the same on the property. Excuse me. By the same I mean the three different buildings, but it

525
02:26:33.280 --> 02:26:47.600
really in terms of both height and in terms of the architecture going from west to east, you do have a um I think I think what you could be called a meaningful transition and architecture that relates to the surrounding properties. >> If I may interrupt you because I was

526
02:26:47.600 --> 02:27:06.240
hoping you could talk uh can hence uh in 2.6 six% since you bring it bring it up and this is relevant to the the design ways you're saying the report brings up in 2.6 mistakes about how plan actually you know like

527
02:27:06.240 --> 02:27:21.200
you don't want mainland you don't want the main street lights to replicate but you were supposed to these buildings were supposed to replicate certain architectural styles which they have not and you know you

528
02:27:21.200 --> 02:27:36.720
talk about transition the cove I mean in the Clark K hints report right there it says yeah sure it maybe it it complements or you know makes a transition from the cove But the cove itself required substantial

529
02:27:36.720 --> 02:27:54.000
design waiverss. I mean, and you know, and to your remark about, you know, there's not that many buildings, historic buildings. Yeah. Right. We demolished them all. We let them crumble. But, uh, that's my comment. >> No. And and I think that that that the concept that that this is expressed in

530
02:27:54.000 --> 02:28:09.920
that letter. And I and I know what you're saying because what basically what it says is that these developments that are in this vicinity here are the modern coastal aesthetic which I think is a little different really than what's being proposed here especially the building at the corner. Um, and I think

531
02:28:09.920 --> 02:28:24.640
that that is, you know, it really does have kind of a unique feature. And unfortunately, I don't have visual uh I don't have any visual aids for this, but you know, one of the examples that's given as styles of architecture, you know, we hear about a lot about the um

532
02:28:24.640 --> 02:28:41.439
the Mediterranean Revival and the um that you know, the white the typical sort of white buildings in Asbury Park. But something that's art also mentioned is kind of the modern style which is kind of a more not quite art deco but it really does have a lot of features that

533
02:28:41.439 --> 02:28:57.760
are more of like a low-rise. It's less um you know really architect. It's less kind of grand I would say than the um than the uh type of um Mediterranean revival. It's I keep looking up here because we always mention the buildings that are right behind you. Um, but I

534
02:28:57.760 --> 02:29:13.040
think that, you know, there really are, especially with the corner feature, there's more than one way to do this. And in terms of, you know, I, again, I think it's I think that, you know, just pasting things onto these buildings to just kind of recreate a u a feature

535
02:29:13.040 --> 02:29:28.560
where it's not necessarily part of the surrounding area and it's not necessarily part of the existing fabric of the site, which, you know, like you said, that is the case. And that was also the case at the time where when this plan was written. So I think it is

536
02:29:28.560 --> 02:29:45.840
it's kind of a um you know when you look at what is what is the contextual architecture today there's no one answer for that but it does have to do with you know this modern coastal appearance and really drawing into what has been by

537
02:29:45.840 --> 02:30:01.120
both built and what has been approved by the by these boards and approved by the council. So that's why you know we I raised that point. Well, yeah, that goes my point is that there's been monolithic there's been uh, you know, cookie cutter developments all along the waterfront in

538
02:30:01.120 --> 02:30:17.280
Aspbury partners cond. So, yeah, it matches what's been developed. Yes. >> And I think that all and all of those projects like this one have all been gone through the same process with the TRC with the council review and approved by the planning board. Um

539
02:30:17.280 --> 02:30:35.280
so just in terms of just briefly going through the rest of these um design waiverss I believe I addressed windows. Um finally you know we'll talk about kind of the balconies and the facade design. Um, one is that um that

540
02:30:35.280 --> 02:30:51.040
there are multiple balconies proposed on here as whereas the plan says that if there are going to be m multiple balconies, they should be kind of in rear side elevations. This again is a unique site. It has a lot of frontages. It has um you know kind of rearfacing

541
02:30:51.040 --> 02:31:06.880
areas and I think that having the balconies, private balconies on the front facing is appropriate given this building. It kind of improves the uniformity throughout the site. um not compared to um you know the not not looking at the context of other

542
02:31:06.880 --> 02:31:22.720
buildings but just looking at this site in general but it really provides a better view rather than a parking area than it would be if they were in the rear. Um other requirements um almost done here is that the um there's there's certain requirements for frontages about you know how the base of a building

543
02:31:22.720 --> 02:31:37.520
should be differentiated from the middle. That is something that is not provided here to a certain extent and that's because those requirements are really intended for those six to eight story buildings. Um even you know the

544
02:31:37.520 --> 02:31:53.040
the the redevelopment plan when it speaks about that mentions urban building form of which this is a type of urban building form but these were also as said intended to be six or eight story buildings. um when a building is three stories in height, you know, you you don't need that kind of visual

545
02:31:53.040 --> 02:32:10.000
definition the same way that you do when it might be a larger building because the base is really kind of intrinsic here. So, um finally, you know, two more. The roof, there is a flat roof here which um is says it should be

546
02:32:10.000 --> 02:32:24.560
designed as a terrace attached to a partial ten house to improve its visual appearance. Again, that's really a kind of a subjective, I think, terminology of visual appearance and that it's really impractical here given the shape of the building and the size of the lot. Um,

547
02:32:24.560 --> 02:32:41.600
then finally, back to facade colors, um, that the requirement for the design standard is that they should be selected from certain quadrant of the color wheel. And you know, this is again over time, I think this is something that was always well-intentioned, but it has become, you know, a little over it's

548
02:32:41.600 --> 02:32:56.479
it's become challenging over time. and the trim here. You know, we we are seeking more warm um design and more warmer colors here. I think that the message has been heard loud and clear from this Bora TRC council that the uh

549
02:32:56.479 --> 02:33:13.359
kind of cool gray appearance is um you know is is not going to is not really favored anymore. Um and so that the changes have been made in order to really kind of warm up the appearance here. So again, you know, I think that especially given the wood grain at the corner, uh this is not incompatible with

550
02:33:13.359 --> 02:33:29.359
the project or with the context and that um it all in all it's it's a it's an example of that sort of modern coastal architecture that I think is appropriate this site. Um so I you know I think I've hit on the major there's one I noted the

551
02:33:29.359 --> 02:33:44.720
garage door. >> Oh, thank you. Oh my gosh. I know. Usually when there's a number I try to get to that one. So okay. Yes. This is there is a requirement that garage doors spacing a frontage must be a maximum of 9 ft wide. Um this is an an example of

552
02:33:44.720 --> 02:34:01.760
kind of something that is you know that that's a width that might make sense for a single family or for you know a one-way garage. But here you have a 24 foot wide garage door facing Cookman. And that really here is for safe two-way access. The actual garage I believe is is smaller. The curb cut is the curb

553
02:34:01.760 --> 02:34:17.760
cut. I believe the testimony is that the >> 16 for the door, 24 for the curve, >> right? So that's basically the 16 ft garage door is really as much as small as you can get while it's still being safe for two-way access. And what that does, which I think is important here, is that it eliminates the need for another yet another curve cut on the

554
02:34:17.760 --> 02:34:34.720
site. So that's why we're requesting a waiver to the impracticality of that. And then there there was a waiver that was noted requiring plaques for the architects to be affixed to the buildings and we will agree to a fix those plaques and eliminate that waiver.

555
02:34:34.720 --> 02:34:52.560
>> Okay. Um the only the only other one that I just want to mention is that there was a comment that rooftop equipment may be visible from the Philips CD tower. Um to the extent a waiver is required from that. you know, I think that we would ask for that because again, this is a it's a 12-story

556
02:34:52.560 --> 02:35:08.080
building. Um, it would be really pretty much impractical to, you know, screen everything from that adjacent building. So, the applicant here has provided setbacks from the roof edge and equipment screens were appropriate. So, that I, you know, happy to answer any questions if Donna has comments on her letter, but otherwise from the board, I

557
02:35:08.080 --> 02:35:25.120
welcome any questions. Just to summarize then you laid out the standard at the beginning for the waiver requests based on the testimony that you have given and what you have heard uh from the other professionals. Do you believe that the waiverss meet those standards? >> I do. I believe you know this this is a

558
02:35:25.120 --> 02:35:40.800
this is a plan that is consistent with the standards of the redevelopment plan. Um it meets all the uses and all the zoning requirements. And then in terms of the waiverss, I think that you know for between the two the two prongs, one is that the literal enforcement is

559
02:35:40.800 --> 02:35:56.479
impracticable. Um or that the requirements will enact undue hardship due to the peculiar conditions, things like the flood plane, things like the uh the shape of the site. Um I think that that all of what we've requested are reasonable and do not detract from the general purpose and intent of what has

560
02:35:56.479 --> 02:36:12.399
been what has been proposed here, what has been required by the plan. >> Thank you. I do not have any further questions from Miss Keller. >> Could you be a little more specific about what waiverss you're asking for? You did a great job of describing the building and and the plan, but I didn't feel like I understood which specific

561
02:36:12.399 --> 02:36:28.560
waiverss you were addressing. >> So, maybe we can go through uh just kind of list them all. I know you grouped some of them together. >> Sure. Um trying to think of the best way to do this. Um maybe it would be to if if you have the Clark hints report in front of you. >> We do. Yes. >> Okay.

562
02:36:28.560 --> 02:36:53.120
>> Okay. So we are on page um nine. Okay. So B conflicts with architectural guidelines of the WRP. >> The first one has to do with windows having operable casements. Um most as

563
02:36:53.120 --> 02:37:09.520
you heard that we will be most that has been addressed. We are requesting a waiver for windows to be flush mounted. Number two is the um requirement for garage doors with place facing a front edge to be a maximum of 9 ft.

564
02:37:09.520 --> 02:37:25.760
Three, balconies shall be visibly supported by brackets and shall not exceed 3 ft in depth. Um we are proposing inset balconies. Um my read I I'm not sure if this waiver is not needed. My read of that is that it's meant to apply for cantal levered balconies. Um but if this is determined

565
02:37:25.760 --> 02:37:40.720
to be required, um you know, I would just say again that I think the same testimony as I gave for the fact that there are balconies. Um it's a it's an it's an unintrusive way of allowing um you know, public allowing open air along the frontage without extending into the

566
02:37:40.720 --> 02:37:57.040
rightway and thereby preserving the um the setback. >> So the waiver is not just for the brackets, it's for the depth as well. >> No, I No, I think we No, because we're because we're they're in set. They're not. You know what I mean? But they're also limited in depth.

567
02:37:57.040 --> 02:38:13.439
>> They're limited in depth. So I mean the one on the front >> first of the >> the second I mean I that that's really big. That's got to be more than 3 ft. Those two balconies. >> I I think the the question is it is your understanding that the intent of the redevelopment plan was to prevent

568
02:38:13.439 --> 02:38:28.880
overhanging balconies by 3 ft. We have no balconies that overhang. They are inset by more than 3 ft. >> Yes. the McDonald clarified that is it is it the old >> the intent of the waterfront redevelopment plan design guidelines >> they're asking they're asking for a

569
02:38:28.880 --> 02:38:45.600
waiver so is it is it is it the pre >> I think Miss Keller has addressed it adequately that if it's an insaid balcony >> there's a reason why it could be deeper and not supported by brackets

570
02:38:45.600 --> 02:39:02.000
and the fact that the building is set back and configured in a way so that the balconies do not overhang the rightway or other public space. That would again be a reason to allow for a deeper balcony. >> Yes. >> So they don't need a wa for the sheet.

571
02:39:02.000 --> 02:39:17.359
>> No, I think they do, but she's given reasons. >> Okay. >> Yes. So I a I apologize for the confusion there. Yeah, I don't have that exact number in front of me, but yes, we do require a waiver for that and it and it for for the affformentioned reasons, which is that it really the intent is is to regulate the extension of balconies.

572
02:39:17.359 --> 02:39:34.560
Um, number four, this has to do with the commercial fenistration percentage. Um, we we can confirm this. Um, but it's I believe it's either 44 or 46% where 70% is required. Um, and again, this is this is a kind of a unique site again because

573
02:39:34.560 --> 02:39:51.200
of that corner feature because of the fact that has to be elevated for the flood plane. Um and I think that the that appropriate commercial fenistration at 44% or 46% is is is meets the intention here because you also want to maintain you know some kind of visibility as well.

574
02:39:51.200 --> 02:40:07.200
Um number five balconies best use a single continuous element. I have addressed this one and the balcony should be confined to rear and side. So yes I addressed that. Um windows except storefronts shall be operable or hung or

575
02:40:07.200 --> 02:40:22.479
casement and majority of windows shall be rectangular with the height to width ratio. Um we have proposed operable windows. So that part I don't think a waiver is no longer required. >> Just to be clear though there is testimony that right the majority but

576
02:40:22.479 --> 02:40:38.720
there are some with the window units that are fixed. >> Yes. As part of the overall structure. Yes. Um, so yes. Um, and then the the height to width ratio. I'm not Did we get a testimony on the height to width ratio?

577
02:40:38.720 --> 02:40:54.640
But generally that's really it's meant to it's something that I would call a very specific regulation. Um, and the overall the height to width is really more of a factor of looking at how the building is designed and how it looks. And so I

578
02:40:54.640 --> 02:41:10.720
think in this case where um that that ratio may not always be met exactly um but these are this is typical for a multif family building and I think it's appropriate to have them here as such. >> So it's a waiver or >> it is a waiver. >> It is. So we understood your your

579
02:41:10.720 --> 02:41:26.319
description and your explanation. I just wanted to know cuz I wasn't sure from your description which ones of these you were actually uh asking for cuz I know the very first thing you said was that um Donna's some of Donna's ones were addressed. So I don't feel you have to uh defend every single one of these. I

580
02:41:26.319 --> 02:41:42.720
just want to know which ones you are asking waiverss for. >> Sure. So some of the ones where are ones where there has been um there's a comment saying you know will you provide this or provide that and those are kind of what I'm kind of going through and I'm going to try to be I'll try to be a little briefer. Um but the idea is that

581
02:41:42.720 --> 02:41:59.040
there um you know some testimony has been provided over the course of these proceedings that answers some of the questions. >> Sure. Yes. >> Okay. Um so number seven flush mounted windows we are requesting that waiver.

582
02:41:59.040 --> 02:42:14.640
Number 13 window sills are not provided. We are requesting that waiver as heard. Um number nine the this is this is one where um you know this is kind of this is this is has to do with the frontage of the building and its pedestrian

583
02:42:14.640 --> 02:42:31.040
character. out of out of uh diligence, you know, I I put on testimony for this, but I believe that we have a pedest we have created a pedestrian experience here, especially given the um you know, the the nuances of the flood control that's required here. But this is

584
02:42:31.040 --> 02:42:46.080
something where um you know, your planner has provided a comment on it, but there it's it's almost like sort of a subjective I think view here. And so that's how I wanted to address that. So, it's our view on this one that a waivers >> a waiver is not required >> because we have provided town homes that

585
02:42:46.080 --> 02:43:02.319
exit out onto the street. Correct. >> Yes, we provided um you know kind of a signature entrance at the corner as well as another entrance on Asbury Avenue and have provided um the type of building materials that are seen as appropriate at pedestrian level by the plan. Um

586
02:43:02.319 --> 02:43:16.640
number 10, this is technically the the middle of a building shall be differentiated from the base by the transition line. We are requesting a waiver for that. My testimony there dealt with the fact that while it is technically required, I don't think it's necessarily appropriate for this scale of building.

587
02:43:16.640 --> 02:43:34.080
Um, number 11 is the building frontages. Again, um, start talking about the different types of base frontages for positive pedestrian contribution. This is again one that, um, where it's noted that at the time the material of the panels, how the hardness spots would be

588
02:43:34.080 --> 02:43:48.960
screened, had not been provided. our testimony or my my opinion is that this has we no longer require a waiver for this because the um the way that the building has been designed and the testimony that's been provided over the course of these hearings now complies with this.

589
02:43:48.960 --> 02:44:04.880
Um number 12 um the roof is flat designing it as a terrace attached to a partial penthouse shall best way to achieve visual adequacy. Um, we have not proposed that and I if a waiver is required, I don't

590
02:44:04.880 --> 02:44:22.960
see it should in here or shall in here, but if a waiver is deemed to be required, I think that it's um it's a it's it's a design decision that's not necessarily appropriate here, especially for the corner building cuz the the other buildings do have rooftop decks and terraces. So

591
02:44:22.960 --> 02:44:39.600
um number 10, adequate parapads shall mask any negative impact from street level as well as horizontally from adjacent buildings. Um I know it's saying horizontally, but there were comments about the higher buildings to the side. But um the the the testimony has been provided about the parapet

592
02:44:39.600 --> 02:44:55.359
walls. Testimony has been provided about the setback from the building walls that will screen as much as possible from the adjacent uh cove development. And um again I think that this this as said stated here some of the mixed juice

593
02:44:55.359 --> 02:45:10.960
building equipment will be visible by residents from Philips View Tower and the vibe which I think is is kind of inevitable especially because we are you know proposing a building that's smaller than what than those buildings. Um and >> so it's a waiver requested only to the

594
02:45:10.960 --> 02:45:26.720
extent that it is >> interpreted to mean that you're supposed to screen for a building that's many >> many stories high stories higher. Yes. Um, and then number 14, facade colors. We are requesting that waiver as I stated. Testimony still applies. And number 15,

595
02:45:26.720 --> 02:45:46.080
agree with the signage with the bill architect meter of construction. We agree to comply with that. We're no longer requesting. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anything else for this witness by our professionals or >> Yeah, I have some questions. Let's go

596
02:45:46.080 --> 02:46:04.000
back to uh page 10, item item 10. You you indicated in your testimony that this only applies to six and eight story buildings. Uh where in the waterfront redevelopment

597
02:46:04.000 --> 02:46:20.479
plan did you get that idea? >> Um I did not I said that that was it's it's more it's more important for those type of buildings. The waterfront redevelopment plan indicates that that should be the case for buildings over I'm trying to find the reference right now over over three stories.

598
02:46:20.479 --> 02:46:38.319
>> You you testified prior now when is your testimony that it's only applied over three stories. You said that the waterfront redevelopment plan uh contemplates these u elements on six and eight story

599
02:46:38.319 --> 02:46:54.880
buildings. Which which is it? My testimony is that we are requesting a waiver from this. However, that my testimony is that for the part of the granting, the rationale for the granting of the waiver is that for buildings of this type, which include, you know, four and fivetory mixeduse building, excuse

600
02:46:54.880 --> 02:47:13.120
me, four fourtory town houses, the um fivetory um residential building and then the mixeduse building is that we have enough designs uh we have enough design uh templates within there. whereas that you know for town houses we have alternating materials we have ways

601
02:47:13.120 --> 02:47:29.920
to distinguish them from one another. So to go start with the town houses I think that it's almost overkill for type of a townhouse development to also have that base middle and top. So we are requesting the waiver and then my testimony was also that for a three-story building like the mixeduse building um that it really is again it's

602
02:47:29.920 --> 02:47:46.240
it's not it's not so it's not so necessary to have that base middle and top because of the scale of the building. >> You said that came out of the waterfront redevelopment plan. Not not quite. I what I said in the water redevelopment plan is that it does the quotes were that um it it calls it says that's for

603
02:47:46.240 --> 02:48:00.880
urban building types and that it I can't find it right now but I know it's in there is that it's it's three stories or more is what it's really intended to apply to. >> Your testimony is for the entire site or just for the issues building. >> My it's it's for I'm trying to clarify

604
02:48:00.880 --> 02:48:17.200
where when it applies to each um many of these do apply to the whole site. No, but I'm asking you. Are you the planner for the entire site or just Oh, okay. >> Yes. Yes, of course. Yes. >> Yeah. Just remember the applications for um the entire site with the subdivision.

605
02:48:17.200 --> 02:48:33.200
>> So, >> so yeah, I think also when you look at the like the waiverss that we are requesting, these are, you know, they are not all applicable to the same building. They're not all applicable to every building. And so, you know, we're trying to keep it clear where where that which is which. Um but you know I

606
02:48:33.200 --> 02:48:48.000
understand that it is a kind of a complex especially when you go through the list like this. So >> and how does this building number three uh make that transition between what is

607
02:48:48.000 --> 02:49:05.520
to the west and what is existing uh on the boardwalk and boardwalk area to the east. How how does that building number three make that transition? >> Sure. So, I mean, ju just from my um you know, from a planning perspective, I'm not an architect. I'm not an

608
02:49:05.520 --> 02:49:21.600
architectural designer, but when I look at that building, it again, it it it's lower in height compared to the building next to it. It's lower in height from many of the other buildings to the west and even to the north. And it really it has that kind of tiered structure that we saw um from Mr. Minervini's testimony

609
02:49:21.600 --> 02:49:35.760
where you do have kind of like the tiered balconies. And to me, honestly, without, you know, going without without getting technical with it, to that, I think that really evokes kind of the look of the um a lot of the pavilions along the waterfront with those sort of

610
02:49:35.760 --> 02:49:51.840
exterior upper floor balconies. Um it it keeps it at a height that I think is, you know, kind of slopes down towards the water as was discussed. Um and uh you know, that that's really the the change where it keeps that viewshed. So,

611
02:49:51.840 --> 02:50:07.680
you think that this building relates to the uh architecture of the buildings up on the waterfront and the boardwalk? >> I think that's specifically the design of the um the corner feature with the with this the sloped um p patios. I

612
02:50:07.680 --> 02:50:24.640
think it does in terms of just in terms of a transition. It doesn't look like that exactly. It's not copying it. It's not intended to be like that, >> but I see a relationship. What elements in this building, building number three that we're talking about are picked up

613
02:50:24.640 --> 02:50:40.319
from the uh existing buildings on the boardwalk and on the waterfront in that vicinity. I >> I I just stated I don't have the visuals in front of me, but we I was referring to the corner. >> Yeah. You're talking about a slope building and talking about three stories

614
02:50:40.319 --> 02:50:56.640
rather than five to the west. I'm talking about the um the sort of rooftop patios which which I think is is similar to what you see at the pavilions >> and that's that's the element you think is transition. >> I think it's one of them.

615
02:50:56.640 --> 02:51:12.000
>> Okay. What are the other ones? >> Um I think that this is a site where you have basically this corner where everything really comes down to that corner. Um, it's not there's no there's no such thing as a perfect transition and we're not really required to do that

616
02:51:12.000 --> 02:51:27.600
here. Um, I think that this is a lot more relation has a lot more relationship to the to the boardwalk than an eight-story building would. Um, and I think that >> we're not proposing an eight-story building though, are you? >> We're not. But the but the plan allows us to. >> But you're not proposing one. >> No, we're not.

617
02:51:27.600 --> 02:51:42.960
>> Okay. >> So, that's really irrelevant. >> I don't think so. >> Okay. >> So, that's that's Yeah, it Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Any other questions from any of the planning board members?

618
02:51:42.960 --> 02:52:00.000
>> I I if you don't mind, I'm sure you covered this. The um >> this is also page 10. >> Under no circumstances shall the windows be installed flush. >> Yes, we have we I I I did address that and our architect did too. Um but

619
02:52:00.000 --> 02:52:15.680
essentially that just comes down to the type of construction that is being proposed here that has been proposed. um most of the new development um where it's really it's it's it's it it has to do with just the way that the buildings are constructed and also that and also

620
02:52:15.680 --> 02:52:31.120
the fact that it's more appropriate, you know, in this style where it's I don't think it looks out of place to have the flush windows. >> Even though it says under no circumstances, it doesn't seem to leave a lot of legal. All of these requirements here, and I'll

621
02:52:31.120 --> 02:52:48.080
defer to Donna's um interpretation of them, but all of these are subject to the same um um you know, standards of for waiverss as >> as we stated. >> Even in our zoning ordinance, we say things are prohibited. That doesn't >> keep you from asking, right? >> If you have a reason,

622
02:52:48.080 --> 02:53:05.080
>> I just wanted to hear. >> Any other questions from the planning board members of this witness? Okay, let's open it up to the public. Any Does any Does the public have any questions of this planning board witness?

623
02:53:07.520 --> 02:53:26.640
>> What is the What's the standard? >> Name address. >> No, this question. >> No, just name it and address. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Mike Garvello, South Main Street, Ocean Grove. What's this? >> Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Unless I misheard last time. Did you say Ocean Grove as opposed to Wesley Grove?

624
02:53:26.640 --> 02:53:42.080
>> Ocean Grove. >> So in the in Neptune, >> correct? >> Do you live within 200 feet of the site? >> Of what site? >> Of the site for which this application is. >> And do you own property in Aspbury Park? >> No. >> Do you work in Asbury Park? >> Sometimes.

625
02:53:42.080 --> 02:53:58.080
>> I mean, do you own a business here? Do you own property? >> No, I don't own a business here. >> Okay. Um, so I just want the record to reflect that questions are being asked by someone who does not actually have standing under the municipal land use law as someone who does not own property in town and does not live in town and in

626
02:53:58.080 --> 02:54:12.800
fact lives in a different municipality and not within 200 ft of the site. >> I hope that my questions will be relevant regardless. >> It's just important for the board to understand who is standing in this. Uh, >> well hopefully the questions will speak

627
02:54:12.800 --> 02:54:29.520
for themselves. What is the standard by which waiverss can be granted? >> Um, I said that several times, but happy to repeat it. >> Yeah. >> Um, this is straight out of the municipal land use law.

628
02:54:29.520 --> 02:54:45.600
>> Yeah. >> As as reiterated in the redevelopment plan. >> Mhm. You said reasonable. >> Let her answer. Let her answer, please. >> Yeah. Planning board may grant exceptions from um what's really called design requirements for subdivision site

629
02:54:45.600 --> 02:55:01.920
plan approval if exceptions would be reasonable and within the general purpose and intent of the provisions for the site plan or subdivision. If this is where we have to put on our burden is that the literal enforcement of one or more provisions is impracticable

630
02:55:01.920 --> 02:55:18.399
or that the requirement will exact undue hardship because of a peculiar conditions pertaining to the landing question. I would say the majority of the waiverss we are requesting would fall under the first which is that the literal enforcement would be impracticable. >> Impracticable.

631
02:55:18.399 --> 02:55:33.920
>> Yes. >> Yeah. What does the municipal land use law say about better planning results? >> Um better planning. Do you mean a better planning alternative? >> Mhm. When waiverss are granted they need to also provide better planning results.

632
02:55:33.920 --> 02:55:51.279
>> Is that a sorry is that question? >> Mhm. >> Yeah. Uh, is that standard is the standard of of better planning results applied in the criteria you're considering? >> Um, I I honestly I know I know there is a it's usually a better planning alternative is the phrase that I think

633
02:55:51.279 --> 02:56:07.920
you're referencing and I'm honestly not sure if that's reiterated in the redevelopment. I don't have that in front of me or not. >> Okay. Um, you you talked about the waterfront redevelopment plan including general suggestions and you

634
02:56:07.920 --> 02:56:23.200
called it well-intentioned. Um, uh, it's a plan that was built with 9 days of community input into the very design standards that you're asking for exceptions from. Um, you said yourself

635
02:56:23.200 --> 02:56:40.600
that there's three degrees of importance and the ones you're asking for waiverss from are the most important ones, the shells, because those are the only ones that you need waiverss from. >> Uh-huh. So, how does a how is a color impracticable?

636
02:56:41.760 --> 02:56:58.000
>> A color is impractical because it's all part of the overall building design. Impractical doesn't mean that you can't do it. it means that it's for a variety of reasons to use what you you know the comment that you use is that you know would it necessarily be a better planning alternative or or would it um

637
02:56:58.000 --> 02:57:13.840
and I think that you know what we what what the ideas the colors that have been proposed and that's proposed in a variety of all the many of these applications where it's been requested before is that you know that this is we're responding to the demands of the market. we're just responding to, you

638
02:57:13.840 --> 02:57:30.640
know, the existing context around it. And also, you know, to be honest, there's the availability of high quality materials that can withstand, you know, certain conditions. And not everything's available in every color. So, it's really usually a combination of all three of those. And that's where the impracticability

639
02:57:30.640 --> 02:57:50.000
comes in. So you're asking for a waiver for the colors because the other because of the context because it's unpre impracticable because the the the architectural context of the buildings around it have all already

640
02:57:50.000 --> 02:58:06.800
been approved and are gray. I that was one prong of what I stated and I would also just say that a lot of it comes down to the other there's there's multiple be there's multiple considerations there's dozens of considerations that go into building design and some of that does include you know what the market is looking for

641
02:58:06.800 --> 02:58:23.920
>> so the you're telling us that that the standards of the community are not market friendly and are therefore impracticable >> I have not I I'm not talking about the specific standards I'm talking about generally how colors and how design is chosen >> but there's one standard and it's the one that's being requested a waiver for.

642
02:58:23.920 --> 02:58:43.040
So that's the one I'm talking about. How is giving us the color that's in the plan impracticable? >> I think I answered that question. >> I believe she did too. Please move on. Um, you said there's no historic pastiche,

643
02:58:43.040 --> 02:59:00.800
but the building's across the street from the Empress and the casino and the carousel and the power plant. >> You misunderstood my my comment there. Pastiche is an architectural term that's usually meant to um that that that means

644
02:59:00.800 --> 02:59:16.399
when you kind of where if you were to design a building and you take in a variety of historical styles and you slip put them all in one building just in order to get a historic look that is not based on on on actual context. That's what I was talking about. That's

645
02:59:16.399 --> 02:59:32.160
what pastiche means. I was not talking about the fact that it was not referring to um you may maybe historic fabric is more what you're talking about. That's not what I was doing. I'm I'm I'm I think I'm reiterating or the intent behind points that were made by other members of the board where uh I look

646
02:59:32.160 --> 02:59:45.760
around the community here and I see more than questions. >> This is for questions only. You have to stick to the questions. We're already after 10:00. There may be other people that want to ask questions. So, stick to questions, please.

647
02:59:45.760 --> 03:00:02.800
>> Okay. uh historic context exists for the building whether it's pastiche it's certainly proximity there are historic structures that this building is going to be facing and

648
03:00:02.800 --> 03:00:25.279
representing how does that produce >> the intent of the redevelopment plan is not to replicate historic structures it's to provide a redevelopment in accordance with the plan that reflects the city using contemporary architectural styles.

649
03:00:25.279 --> 03:00:40.080
>> Um, in the prior meeting, a representative from the city confirmed that contemporary is not an approved design standard. Are you saying that uh it's I'm confused? >> There there are different phrases.

650
03:00:40.080 --> 03:00:57.120
Um, I am reading directly from where do I have this? Essentially supporting here's here's one of the purpose of the design guidelines is to support the regional architectural vernacular of the Jersey Shore in a contemporary way.

651
03:00:57.120 --> 03:01:14.160
So that is that's sort of that that that's really it's not intended to be a carbon like an ahistorical carbon copy. It's intended to it's tended to provide for new development in a contemporary manner. That doesn't mean, you know, I I

652
03:01:14.160 --> 03:01:30.160
don't think that contemporary with a capital C architecture is a style and that's not what we're proposing, but it's I'm using the word contemporary as an adjective. >> Mhm. Uh do the fact that prior a project had

653
03:01:30.160 --> 03:01:45.760
approvals on these waiverss obligate the board to approve the waiverss for this project in your opinion? >> No. There every every application stands alone. However, um you know if a board has determined that something very similar waiver was impracticable um you

654
03:01:45.760 --> 03:02:02.319
know I think that we it's we feel that we putting on the testimony and we're putting on the proofs to say that the same thing may apply here. Obviously, every site is different and there is not that um there's no precedent set by board's decisions. >> And is there a is there a version of

655
03:02:02.319 --> 03:02:19.359
this plan that adheres to the waterfront redevelopment plan on which you can make the basis of impracticability by a measurable comparison of one plan to the other? >> I don't really understand what that means. >> Is there a plan that conforms to the waterfront redevelopment plan? >> Yeah. Are you asking if a plan has been

656
03:02:19.359 --> 03:02:35.600
submitted that conforms? The answer is yes. >> So without the point of reference of a conforming document, how are you able to objectively measure the impracticability of that being delivered? >> Because to speak of the impracticability

657
03:02:35.600 --> 03:02:52.319
as a point, it is incredibly impracticable and ownorous and to expect that any applicant to do that. Um and that is why the pin board and the city and the republic are all structured the way they are. Um these are not you know black and white things where this plan

658
03:02:52.319 --> 03:03:09.120
is good, this plan is bad. The board um under the guise of the municipal land use law under you know the supervision of the redevelopment plan evaluates every site plan on its merits and there's no requirement that you have to show up with a perfectly um conforming

659
03:03:09.120 --> 03:03:24.880
plan to all the architectural requirements which as I said would I think given the depth scope and simple number of the architectural requirements I'm not >> it's not possible to design a building that conforms to the requirements I don't know for sure. I haven't

660
03:03:24.880 --> 03:03:44.080
attempted. >> It's not It's It's We have not done that for this site. >> I don't have anything else. Thank you. >> Any questions from the public? >> Okay. >> Typically at this point, we would be at the point in time where we might

661
03:03:44.080 --> 03:04:00.000
conclude and open to the public. But I think given the hour >> um >> Mhm. Sorry. I think we're going to need another night and and in between now and then we may decide to um we I said and

662
03:04:00.000 --> 03:04:16.319
we'll decide whether we will come back and just simply proceed to public comment or whether we will decide to submit plans that are revised. >> So we'll have that discussion in the inter room. >> Mhm. >> What's the uh what are our options? Sorry. Um if

663
03:04:16.319 --> 03:04:31.840
revisions need to be made, we would be looking at possibly If you could get revisions to us by May 8th, Donna, do you have a schedule for any budget?

664
03:04:31.840 --> 03:04:48.240
>> I say June 15th. >> I think we have to do a report. They're only going to make >> We're just going to make changes. >> Minor changes where we wouldn't do a report. >> Yeah, I don't I don't think that that we're looking at reports. >> Okay. Uh Jeffrey, are you available on June 1st?

665
03:04:48.240 --> 03:05:07.520
>> Yes. Jennifer June 1st. >> There's also June 15. >> I'm available on June 1st. June 1st. >> Then June June 1st.

666
03:05:07.520 --> 03:05:26.880
>> That would be at 7 p.m. >> That would be 7. >> So we would request that this hearing be carried to June 1st at 7 p.m. with no further public notice. >> Yes. Um, so second. >> Well, thank you for doing my job.

667
03:05:26.880 --> 03:05:43.359
>> Sorry. I was really just stating it succinctly for the record. >> Yes. We'd like to make a make a motion to uh bring this to bring this back on June 1st 7:00 uh with no further notice and that will that may include some other

668
03:05:43.359 --> 03:05:59.680
presentations and after that more questions and then comments. So move second guess. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um motion to adjurnn. Motion to second. Okay. Okay. All in favor? Hi.

669
03:05:59.680 --> 03:06:03.560
>> Hi. >> Hi.