Um, welcome everyone. Today is Monday, May 19th, 2025, and this is a regular meeting of the city of Asbury Park Planning Board. Chairwoman Kerzac, can you please call this meeting to order? Yes. This meeting is being held in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, chapter 231, public law 1975.
Adequate notice of this meeting have been provided to the Coaster Nesbury Park Press by publication of the annual meeting notice and posted on the municipal bulletin board and municipal website. All notices are on file with the board secretary. Official action may be taken on the following matters before
this board. This meeting is being recorded by APV for your viewing pleasure. Please join me in a salute to the flag of the stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice
for all. I will now take roll call. James Banano here. Um, Councilwoman Clayton is absent this evening. Jim Henry here. Jeremy Hoffman present. Mayor Moore. Mayor Moore is not
here. Um, a second. Okay. Uh, Jen Souder here. Daniel Shaneo here. Bob Zuckerman here. Kathy Mclacklin here. Uh, Vice Chair Gunnan here. And
Chairwoman Carzac here. All right. First item up is a resolution for 637 and 701 Lake Avenue, an amendment. Um, can I get a motion to
uh to approve this uh the resolution? The um eligible members are James Banano, Michael Gunnan, Barbara Kerzac, John Moore, and Jennifer Ser. Motion to approve. Motion to approve. Second. Is
it Mike? Oh, it's Mike. Okay. Mike and James. Okay. Mike and James. Okay. Um, James Banado. Yes. Michael Gunnan. Yes. Jennifer Solder. Yes. And Barbara Kzac. Yes. Uh, the second one is we have a
resolution regarding the uh the main street redevelopment plan. Uh, can I get a motion to approve? And do we need the list of eligible members for this one? Yes, please. And that is
um Barbara Kurszac, John Moore, Jim Henry, Yavon Clayton, Michael Goon, Katherine McLaclin, and Daniel Cheno are eligible to motion or second. Am I not? You are not on here, but you Oh, you
abstained from voting. Oh, yep. There we go. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Can I get a motion to approve? So move. Second. Okay. Um Jim Henry, yes. Michael Goon, yes.
Kathern Mclalen, yes. Dan Shaneo, yes. Barbara Kerzac. Yes. Okay. All right. We have our first our first and only application, the views of North at Northshore. This was carried from April 7th. You want some
housekeeping on that, M? Sure. Okay. Uh Jennifer, Mr. Zukman has observed the video and the transcripts, so he's eligible to vote. I just wasn't aware of it. So, put it on the record now and I'll get a written certification from him. But is that's correct, Bo? That is
correct. Yeah. So, okay. So, you've got nine members. The rest of the members I think you'll have eight members. I was I was marked as not marked him as not here, but he was perfect. Okay. Yeah, I have you on that on this one. Awesome.
So, the only uh uh Mr. Shaneo can't vote, but he can participate in tonight. He's not eligible tonight. So, yeah, I think you've got eight. I'm not sure. Was that eight eight eligible? Looks like it. Yeah. So I have an additional question. Yes. Which is that this is um
from watching the video this is a Havnanian development. Is that correct? Is this No. Uh the applicant is APW uh redeveloper but we are under contract to sell the property to um Kavanian. Okay. Only because I own a unit in a Havnanian
development. I just want to make sure that that's not a a conflict. I mean it isn't to me involved in any dispute or absolutely for them or anything like that? Yeah. Yeah. I I think that's fine. Yeah, it's fine with me if it's okay with you. It's okay with me. I appreciate the disclosure. Yeah. I just wanted to be up there. Yeah, that's
okay. Okay. Great. Thanks. All right. I'm good to go. Thank you everyone. For the record, I am Jennifer Phillips Smith, an attorney with Gibbons here on behalf of the applicant APW Redeveloper. Um I'd like to pick up exactly where we left off
last time. So, if you recall in the last few minutes on April 7th, we went through a list of changes that the board asked the applicant to consider. So, I'm going to give just a quick summary and then I'm going to ask Mr. Curley to go into some detail on those changes. We
did resubmit plans on April 28th to address a number of the changes. Um, we were asked specifically to show an address and do something decorative with what we were calling the trapezoid area in front of each building. You'll see in the packages that were resubmitted that
that is what we did. I will note, oops, I will note that um they say 2011 and 203 Northshore. Those are just purely placeholder text. We're not exactly sure what the address is going to be in the buildings, but whatever the addresses would be represented there. Um, so I'm sure you saw in those plan sets that the
decorative entrance was was redone to put in the address, to put in the TX slats behind it, to create a planting beds for perennials and grasses that would go in front uh to really dress up the front, which is what the board had asked the applicant to do. And that's
the same for both buildings. You asked us to provide a metal detail or a detail for the metal garage doors that was also in the very last page of the the package that was submitted. You asked us for renderings. You go one up actually um one one slide up. You asked us for
renderings that show the taller plantings on the side. Those were submitted so that you have u multiple sheets that show the side of the building and what the taller planters with the um expanded openings and louvers would look like. Um, you asked us to add sign for the
architect. We indicated that if you would approve, if you end up approving this project, we would do that as a condition of approval. Add a plaque somewhere for the architect. You asked us about gutters and u Mr. Curley is going to give some specific testimony today about gutters and how those will
tie in to the um storm water system. Uh, you asked us about colors, which we are going to hand out to you. I hope the color samples. Yes. We'll hand those up front. Yeah, we're going to mark it. You That's
a color selection board. So, it's uh we had already submitted the flat sheet that showed it, but that's a 3D sheet that shows the color sheet already marked. No, but we can we'll mark that one as A8. I think we're up to eight. I believe we ended the last meeting at A7. All right, we'll make it A8. All right.
So A8 will be the color uh sample board and as I said we already provided testimony as to the colors but there was a desire to see them. So that those are the samples. Uh you asked us to add fencing
and we Mr. Curley will describe where that fencing was in fact added along the property line um to shield lights coming out of a garage. You asked us to move the ADA spaces so that the spaces and the associated um loading area would
line up to nicely fit with a crosswalk and the sidewalks on the side. Mr. Curley will testify as to that. And you asked us to make some lighting changes um which Mr. Curley has done and he'll provide some additional testimony. So we are going to ask Mr. Curley to just quickly go through some of the more technical aspects of those changes to
respond to the questions that the board had at the end of the meeting and after Mr. Curley will then proceed to Mr. Barry because we did not get a chance to do our planning testimony last time. So, we'll conclude with Mr. Barry. So, with that, I would like to ask Mr. Curley to testify. So, I swear affirm testimony about giving this matter to the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. Please state your name for the record and spell it. Robert Curley. Thank you. C U R L E Y. Thank you. And I'll swear in my staff as well. Please raise your right hand. You saw me swear affirm the testimony about the given this matter be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I do. Please state your names for the record and your affiliation with the board. Donna Miller, board planner. Samakia, board. Thank you. All right. Mr. Curley was previously accepted as an expert in the field of civil engineering at the last hearing. I presume that that continues.
Um, we think the easiest way to go about this is we received two revised letters from your professional staff. uh one was a letter from CCH that was updated as of May 12th, 2025 and the other was an updated letter
from um Avakian dated May 13th, 2025. So we went through and I think the easiest way to tackle this is for us to address some of the comments that came up in that letter and explain how they were dealt with and how we may be able to do some things even further approve further improve upon that. So, I'm going to
start with the CCH letter and specifically section 1.2 and kind of just run through those points because those were the points that dealt with the the updated changes. So, Mr. Curley, the very first one in 1.2A asked to clarify the roof drainage system. So, if
you could talk a little bit about the the gutters and about the downspouts that are on the plans and ones that maybe should be added to the plans in addition, that would be helpful. Okay. So, um, right now we're looking at just the front view of of the building and
the concern, uh, was voiced on how would we handle the roof runoff that would occur off of these um, protrusions on the on the portions of the building. So the corners of the buildings and the tall center pieces are going to be taken
with gutters and then those gutters will discharge onto the roof and then from the roof they go through scuppers and then there's down spouts attached to those. And then on the smaller two roofs uh we have gutters but we have a new a
different application that was not um not depicted on the plans previously. And I think this let's see that one. So we'd like to mark this one as A9. And this is in response to the
comments that we received. Mr. Curley, what is A9? So this is a there's three this is a three-page exhibit and uh the first two pages deal with the roof screening. So, and then the last page
identifies the location and the treatment of how we were uh getting gutters down the face of the building. So, we'll call this the roof screening and drainage exhibit. Correct. Okay. Now, I have um I made some other 17s. I
have 10. I didn't know if you want to pass those out and get those to me. Sure. Okay. So, Mr. Mr. Curley, if you could scroll to the page that deals with the gutters and the roof drainage and just explain uh how those gutters will tie
in. So, uh this exhibit depicts the excuse me, the top left portion of this exhibit depicts the roof leader configuration that would be um constructed. and it brings brings all of the rain water onto the onto the
proposed and then from there it's pitched to scuppers that discharge and I can I can show that show that location they were on the plants previously again so the new the new
portion that um was not as clear was how we would treat the uh roof runoff from these two portions of the site. So, what we're doing is running a gutter across the top and
then bringing a gutter down the face of the building and then it would uh tie into a lateral system that'll ultimately run around the building and tie into the uh storm water detention basin. So, it
won't discharge into the planter area. Um, but it'll be a solid pipe that'll get all the way around to the storm water management system. Yeah, Bob. So, it's not actually tying into it's just going to the splash box on the top left. That's the That's the
That's the corner, the two corners and and these. Yes, that's inside the room. Okay. That's the two center pieces that are on either side of the entrance door and the two corners. And the plans that were previously submitted showed where those ones that are tied into the roof
discharge on the side of the building down the drains. Correct. Right. So, so just to and the gutter the coloration of the gutter will match the siding as as it comes down. But the siding keeps changing. So, what
color is it going to be? And it'll change. change with the siding. That's correct. Okay. So, I'm not clear as to where is the gutter going cuz you have it in blue. Here's the gutter. Yes. But where is that? And that would be that would be
highlighted in blue and with the detail coming out coming out here. So, that's a little shed roof. So, it's like two of them. All right. So, where's the rest of them? Well, let me go ahead. So this this depicts it that the gutter would pitch from the left to the right and
then there would be a down spout and then that is this detail showing that the down spout would be on the left hand side in this particular instance coming straight down and then into the planter area and then from the planter area would be a solid pipe into the storm
water management system and that would be mimicked mirrored on the opposite side. All right. And then for the other four towers also like is there do you have any type of like leaf guard or anything that s Oh there's actually excuse me for
so nothing pre-treated but it's not there's no trees right it's a big that's correct no right yes so the the other application which would be the both both sides and then the center portion has a has gutters that
wrap around because it's a it's um pitched in four directions. So it has a gutter that wraps around the entire perimeter, but it is all pitched to the back that would go into into the building and discharge onto the roof. And then from the roof would sheet flow
to the scuppers. And those those come down the side of the building. Correct. And I can believe it's just I think if you scroll down a few
I think it's on there. There we go. So, one view down. I'm sorry. I had this key. There you go. So, and I apologize for taking so long to get to this because they are hidden so well with the
coloration of the building. Um this is the gutter or excuse me the down spout that would come from the scupper down the building line. Likewise at this point and again this is it's showing the gutter not changing color
but it will change color with the uh material facing the building. Okay. And that all ends up going into the storm water management system that will tie directly Yes. It'll be hard pipes. All of it goes right to heart pipe to the storm water system
and I again I apologize for struggling. Uh and I hate to make you struggle further but that's fine. Um so my concern is on the front elevation where those uh pergola roofs and the shed roofs um the where the downspout is
going to come down. Um, I'm on uh what sheet is this? 13. Uh 12. Sheet 12 of 28. Um I think that's going to show uh what I'm Yeah. If you zoom in tight on
those balconies. Okay. And at the roof level where those were those. So the gutter is going to be on the underneath those um Wow. totally the brackets. Correct. Did
not want to help at all. Okay. So that so that little shed roof is going to have a gutter on one and then a down spout on one side. Correct. But these balconies um on the indented portion of the building
extend across the face of where that Mhm. that that So how is the gutter immediately or how is the down spout coming down? I'm sorry. It'll be immediately adjacent to that to the side of the deck. So it's going to be between the window and that that's correct.
Okay. And then it's going to come down. Okay. across the base down to the foundation level. Okay. And into the planter. Okay. Okay. So then when we talked about this last time I said a question the the the four
big ones that are all the way around. We talked about draining them onto the roof. But I think last time we had talked about do those ones that just pour out, there's nothing underneath them except for plants. Do we need a gutter there? It's going to have this extra downspout down as you said, it's
going to kind of have to down the front of this building around balcony. It's going to be a straight It'll be a straight discharge. It won't we won't have vents. I guess my question would be for you in your opinion, do these need gutters? Those these you know it is a big fall. It's not a real lot of it's
not a real lot of drainage, but there would be the potential for wash out um if it were to rain hard. Um then you end up with the drip line in where the vegetation's being. That's what we're trying to avoid. So the next item in the CCH report was
1.2B. Um and that was a comment about revising the main entrance. So, as I mentioned, we have submitted plans that show the revised entrance way with the address in it. Maybe if you could show the rendering, that's where it's clear. Shows the plantings. Um, it shows
the plantings. It shows the the TX material behind it that was shown on the sheet that was submitted and the address. The address numbers, there's a sheet that shows you that they're they're metal numbering with a soft LED backlight behind them. So, uh, Mr. Curly, there was a note that that indicated that the site plans had not
yet been updated to incorporate um all the features that are shown in the rendering, but as a condition of approval, you can update the site plans to match what's on the rendering. Correct. Absolutely. Okay. All right. Um next we go to Yeah.
I'm sorry. Was the planter always there and it just didn't actually have planting in it in the previous or has the planter in front of the entrance been added? Uh my understanding and Mr. Curley can correct me if I'm wrong is that the the face of the stairwell was sort
of indented a little bit in order to make room for approximately 18 in of planting. Is that correct? That's correct. So that that gets my second question. Is that indentation mean does that mean the uh the stairwell itself is is narrower than it was previously? Where did those 18 in come from?
That's a good question. There used to be stairs. The stairs used to go all the way. It was just a step Yeah, it was there. So, there were um as you can see on either side of the entrance,
there are three steps. So, we had to have that um distance and we we use that distance to make up where the planter is. So, those three steps went all the way across before. Yes, that's correct. Oh, so that Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I just had a question.
I and I liked the um the addition. I mean I think that's an improvement for sure. Agreed. Um I'm just talking about the plant list which I know is like a separate list written and attached. Um and I do overall like the plant list is great for this project but I was
wondering if maybe some of the other species could be brought in here instead of I don't know is that like a set um a plant list set is my question. I think that um the intent is to plant this area of perennials and grasses and I think the applicant would be open to
discussing any of the plants from the plant list or similar plants for this area. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh next on the list was section 1.2C. If you could go to the site plan. There was a request to better align the
ADA spaces and create a crosswalk through the middle of the property. Mr. Curly, I know that you revised the site plans to make that happen. Correct. That's correct. So, within the resubmitted package, if you could scroll up to
I didn't know it's at the beginning. There we go. So, we're working within the resubmitted package. I think this is sheet three you're showing right now. Correct. Sheet four. Sheet four since I can scroll back. That's fine. So, we can see here that you've revised the layout to
have the crosswalk um to the best of your ability line up with the loading areas and the sidewalk. Correct. Well, the the crosswalk is aligned with the sidewalk access that would uh potentially go to the uh garage entrance
on the sides. So, we we relocated the handicap stalls from the corners and then brought them more centrally located so that the handicap ramps could accommodate access right the side side of the garage.
Okay. Now, there was also a comment that these from these spaces, the intent is not for people to use those spaces and then go around to the front of the building to access the building. Correct. That's correct. They would they would again park park in a parking field, walk up the sidewalk and then
into the garage. It' be a key fob door. Great. Can I ask you a question? The crosswalk, thank you for adding that. Is there any reason it doesn't actually angle and directly connect the two? like it leads into a half of a parking space
or if the crosswalk was just a little bit angled. Um, that's a I can get that corrected. It's a drafting just if it's just a drafting thing. Forget all right. Next on the list was we were asked to show Sorry. I'm sorry. So, so
the garage uh so there's the for lack of a better term a pedestrian entrance to the garage door on the side and that's going to be key.
Are there is it also a um and and again if somebody else needs to answer the question um and I don't know how many doors this applies to. So if you have a visitor uh and they come up to the building, how do
they like is there an intercom or an app system or something? How do you contact the resident? I'm sorry. A visitor would be coming in the front door, right? So how do they get access? There are there's elevators at the front doors. No, no, no. Like is the door
locked? like anybody walk in off the street and go upstairs into the building and knock on anybody's door or is there I I don't want to answer incorrectly only because I don't know I don't know what type of bell system that they intend to have.
So that's fine. Someone else can can answer the question. Uh, but it would just went to the point of if you have a guest that needs the accessible space, if they go to that side door, are they going to be able to have the same means of access to contact the person they're
visiting as they would at the front door? I think the the idea is not to have visitors in this parking lot at all. These are all assigned stalls. They're all assigned. Yes. Okay. Mhm. Interesting. Um, okay. Next on the list was the
taller plantings. So, if you can go back to those renderings, you asked us to update the renderings to show the taller plantings. Just scroll down to approximately page 38. Um, to update the renderings to show the taller planters on the side. That
plantings on the side that that has been done. We had indicated last time that there'd be taller plantings um as well as the openings have changed which is reflected in this the CCH report and the the louvers have been added. If you go up one more so
this shows the taller plantings across uh web street access and okay but that's not the landscape plan. The landscape plan hasn't been updated to show the taller plantings. That's correct. Mr. Curley, if the board were
to approve, would the landscaping and site plans be updated to show the to correctly reflect the taller plantings? Yes, they would. You mind are they being are the one are they being planted at at that growth or are they can be planted and they will
take them however much time to then grow to that height. These two they would be planted at at a 6 foot height. Right. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Next on the list was the fence that we were asked to extend. If you could go back to your
site plan. This is uh comment 1.2F. I skipped over D by the way because it indicated we had made the revision. Um 1.2F. The fence has been extended as requested. So just point out where that fence was extended. So previously the fence uh terminated
approximately where my cursor is and I'll zoom approximately where my cursor is. Uh we extended the fence to um the the far side of the Kingsley Arms. So it's the north corner of the Kingsley Arms is
where our fence was stopped. Okay. Right. So that the purpose of that if I recall was to ensure that any cars coming out of the garage would not interfere with the windows of the king. That's correct. Okay. Right. Uh 1.2G we
were asked to pass out a color sample which we've done. Uh one 1.2F uh refers to the lighting design and then specifically refers to comments actually in section 6.1. So with that, Mr. Curly, can you talk about some of the revisions you've made to the lighting? And I understand you have an
even further updated lighting plan. Is that correct? That's correct. So, we'll mark this as A10. And this is the updated lighting plan. these. So, if I can summarize the comments that were made by both boards professionals
that the um there was concern first off of of lighting and the access way, the sidewalk that we have on uh the north side of the south building and the south side of the north building. Um what we were able to do is we we added um we had
some bo excuse me two ball lights uh one on each side and there's a total of three ball lights now previously two. So we have those located in these areas
and again And again, we added three power sites. Um, again, there's three on each side buildings. Um, the other concern had to do with the existing street lighting and the the fact that the the
model that we previously showed had lighting values that were within the building and didn't accurately reflect the light illuminating from the light and then getting blocked by the building. So what what we ended up doing
was I remodeled and utilized a different lighting model um that just shows the foot candle values and I want the just so that the board understands um the modeling that we that we utilize.
So, um there's there's two areas where we were having some difficulty trying to get the cut off uh with the model that we have and utilized the light lighting files that
come with the these two fixtures. The P fixture does not accurately reflect a cut off shield to be added to the light. And um as you can see, the light values
do spread out onto the adjacent property. Um this area is a patio area and there's air conditioning units out here. Um what what I will guarantee that we
can we will do a custom cut off shield for both of these fixtures and we'll limit the lighting values so that there's no light shed on the adjacent property. The other item that is not modeled in here is there's an existing
6ft fence along this property line. Again, I did not model this in the um computer run that ran the light values here, but that will also help shield it. But whether there's a fence
there or not, I I will I will make a custom shield for these two fixtures and new light values we go on to the adjacent property. So in short, we can comply with items 6.1A, B and C of the CCH report as well as the lighting uh
comments in the Ivakian report. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And that we will agree to revise the modeling accordingly and to reflect the cutoff shields that you just indicated. Correct. That's correct. Is there I can't make it
out. the change uh to the Kingsley arms. Is that also coming down? It's too small for me. Even with the magnifying glass, I have it at 0 2 in this area. And this is a shed area.
Um 2.1. This 6 is from the light. That's a street light. And then that fence is only 4 ft high. That's correct. As that's as we have it proposed now, right? Okay. Okay. Can we just review um one more
time like so what what you just provided here and we already have a lighting plan in our packet that we received. What is the difference between the two because they are different. That's correct. We added um we added the additional Ballard lights in between the
in between the buildings and we remodeled I I used a different model because it the model that we used just had and you can see there's full circles and and you see the circles actually going through the building. So it wasn't accurately
um analyzing the foot candle values that would have been blocked by the buildings. Okay. The other question is more of a technical if I'm not saying that there another just I guess a a process
question is that it looks like the this was created on 41325 which is the same date this one that you just provided was created on 41325 which is the same date that the rest of the packet was created. So, why
wasn't that lighting plan included in our pack? Because it wasn't updated second. This last one was was definitely up. Yeah, I I understand it's different, but they did not. It's not, but the dates are the same. So, I don't
understand. So, I I do apologize. There was supposed to be a revision on with today's date on this. Um we can mark for the record that 810 should be dated as of today's today. Yes. And I apologize for that. Now in addition
to the modification to the modeling that I did on the lighting, I also added the there was a request uh by the boards of professionals to show what type of fence was going to be installed. Right. And that fence is now depicted on this plan.
I I'm just it's it's I see that there are more and more projects that are just not keeping up with the revision dates and it's very confusing to us. So, if I may, I did not sign this. Um this did come out rather late and I I apologize
otherwise my signature would have had today's date on it. I'm just this is something that I I guess that I'm showing more to you, Jen, to kind of say make sure we have our dates. We got it's happening and it's not only these applications. It's not
it's happening across the board. Oh, understood. And it confuses us as we're looking at these and saying, well, why what's different? Why is it different? Right. Okay. Thank you. We will um and what I will be doing after this hearing is I will give the board secretary the
electronic copies. And on this one, if you don't mind, I will put a big note in the corner that says dated as of That would be great. And I would assume that you would do the same with this that we received cuz this does not look familiar to me. That is new. Correct. So, this is new also. And it says 428. So, we'll put
date in the corner of everything that we are showing you today that was not in the April package. We'll say dated as of April, I'm sorry, May 19th, 2025. Thank you. You may have already said this. The um the Ballard lights, those that's down
lighting. That's correct. They're lights. So, it'll illuminate the sidewalk, but won't bother anybody in the building. Great. Thank you. All right. Is this a detail? Yes, the It's the same detail that we had on the plan previously. We had ball lights
previously. We just didn't add the locations. the location. Well, I we added additional plates. Okay. So, I'd like to move then to the CCH letter section 2.1. There were some comments about my question about lighting. I'm sorry. Um I had seen something in one of Donna's previous reports about the
exterior lighting fixtures all need to be less than 2700 Kelvin. Was that updated? Yes. Yes. And it definitely will be updated on any final plans. Okay. Thank you. All right. Um section 2.1 of the CCH letter. There were three comments about
addressing um TRC and subsequent developer recommendations. Um there's a question about retaining walls. Can you clarify what the retaining wall finish will be?
Um it's it's a it's a py Pyrex material. Par sorry py material. uh it's applied to uh it's going to be a masonary block wall and will be applied to the finish and will match the finish of the building. Okay.
Then there was a question about um alternatives for side street frontages. Uh what has been done with the resubmission to improve the facades on the side of the building. So in addition to the plantings uh that we that we provided and raised the plantings, we
added louvers uh to to the uh garage area. Um and again we have the the planted island, we have the taller plants and
then we have the louvers for uh for parking garage itself. And then the last one is a subsequent developer agreement um requires a construction mitigation plan to address dust reduction. Now you had already put soil erosion and sediment control notes on
the plants. Is that correct? That's correct. And I believe you conferred with the board's engineer today about maybe one additional note to add to that. I made it to the cover sheet and also to the soil erosion sheet um that if any soil is going to be stockpiled more than two days um it'll be covered
with the tarp or removed. Okay. Just before we continue on that that one that we just spoke about the 2.1 where we're saying the alternatives for the side street frontages. Um what it states here was that it was unchanged from the prior version. So
does that mean that I know that you just explained but where is it? Where is it going to be as opposed to Mr. Carly's word? Sure. So on the where should we put it? Is it somewhere? Yes. So on the submitted plans,
so you just have to scroll to the renderings. This is about the the plantings and the changes. 2.1. It's in this package, but just further down to get to the architecturals. Um so this shows the the view that I I believe is going to be most prominent um
to look at. Um again we have we have added additional landscaping. We made it taller. Mhm. Uh we provided the louvers uh for the for the garage area and um excuse me.
No, that that that pretty much blocks or or allows for a softer view of this side of the building. And then that's also the case on the side of the other building, right? Scroll up a few pages that shows that angle.
Are the lubes decorative or they actually ventilate open? They they are uh they are open. They're they're for ventilation. There you go. And again, we we have the
toilet plants along here. So, I think the second part of that 2.1 about the um the retaining walls um on the revised architectural plans, there's a note for the trapezoid stair
thing. They actually specified the finish as sand float. Um, but on the other sheets that call out the color and materials on the building facades, it doesn't say what the finish is. So, it should also say sand float um for the
finish. Okay, that can be updated. Yeah. All right. So, those were all the comments uh from the Oh, no, sorry, two more. Uh 3.4 roof screening. And this takes us to one of the exhibits that we just had up. Uh there was a comment in
3.4 of the CCH report for a request to add some screening to the rooftop mechanicals where they're adjacent to the neighboring buildings. There were two areas circled specifically in a diagram provided in
3.4. And so Mr. Curley, you previously introduced exhibit A9, which was roof screening and drainage. I think the first page of that shows a a screening mechanism. Is that correct? That's correct. Can you just describe what we're looking at here? Um, it's a lubric
it's a lubricant system. Uh, gets mounted directly to the roof. Um, is elevated approximately 18 in and then overall height is about um about 7T and that will help provide some visual screening for the rooftop mechanicals
and those screens would be placed in the locations closest to the the adjacent buildings. Correct. That's correct. Okay. Um, finally in this question the the ladder in the corner here, is that just a step over so you can get into the
mechanical space? That's correct. Okay. And so the the it's not raised on the other side of of this or is is the bottom raised? The bottom is raised for the actually the cross-section. I'll zoom in this.
The cross-sectional view shows better uh the cross-sectional view shows the crossmember that holds the the lubricant system. So it is elevated off the ground just a bit. Okay. Um which is it's about five 5 ft tall but it's the
total height is 87 and 12 in. Perfect. I have a question too. The on the rendering it shows three sides with the louvers. Is the fourth side the building itself? I believe the fourth side actually faces out towards the rest of the interior of the roof and away
from the other adjacent buildings. Correct. And this shows the the plan view graphic shows the location on where the screening will be. So in some locations they're just one-sided, right? In some
locations, they're two-sided. That's correct. I'm gonna jump us back to 2.1 for one second. Just about retaining walls. Donna, was there something about we needed to include limestone caps? Well, did you already talk about it? No, we I'm sorry. I'm I'm
going so well organized. I'm sorry. We haven't gotten to 4.3. Sorry, but we can skip ahead to that. I'm sorry. I'm somewhere. I just didn't want to lose. It's an easy answer. Mr. Curley, will the applicant agree to limestone caps? Yes. There you go.
Um, okay. So, we've talked about the roof screening. All right. But wait, wait, wait. I'm trying to see the roof screen. Um, 60 on. Okay. And then that's flush. I think we had testimony last time about
this, but are the HVAC units themselves elevated on a little vibratory cushion or something or are they on a maintenance pit? Yeah. So the
screening be higher than the bottom of the unit. We're not going to want the screen panels to be higher than the bottom of the unit. Meaning you don't you don't want to see you don't want to see the bottom of the unit.
Well, there's also a wall around the roof line. Correct. Right. There's a parapit around the entire perimeter. No, I see what you mean. Well, you have to be like, you know, if you're looking from the height of a five or six foot person, you can't see under, right? But
but you're also from the building from it at the same elevation. Oh, yeah. Okay. Or above or slightly below. I don't know. Mhm. I think it's also part of the sound effect. Yeah. That those right you should not be able
to see the the units beneath. So there's testimony previously about the parapet walls too that will are also screening. This just provides some additional backup screening, but I'm sure we could work through the exact uh dimensions. It's only cuz over here you
can see that it's a foot or two, right? You'd have to you'd have to be standing on the roof, right, to see that, right? This would be it'd be the parapet wall and then these would be set back and then it would have the the additional screening. We hope no one's climbing around on the
roof. Okay. Uh last one for the CCH letter and then we'll move to the Ivakian letter. Utilities. Uh there was a question we had previously testified uh about where the utility meters would be located. This is in 7.2. Uh, and there was a
question about whether we're sure that those are the right locations and whether they would fit there. Uh, particularly with setbacks to windows. And so, Mr. Crowley, if you want to mark this one as A1. We'll call this the north building. We'll call the meters location
exhibit. Location exhibit. And can you just describe what this is? I'll pass that around. Yes. This is an elevation view that shows the um electric and gas meters that would be
applied to the outside portion of the of the building. Um I'm going to just zoom on this just a little bit. There was also a concern on whether or not they were um up out of the flood hazard elevation. Flood hazard elevation for
this property is elevation is at elevation 10. the lowest uh the lowest ground elevation immediately adjacent to both both of the meters is around elevation 13 maybe a little bit higher 13.2 too. So, I know it's I know
it's in the shadow of the building, but you can see the electric meters and the gas meters showing here on the north building. Here's the garage door entrance, and it's the south of the garage door.
So, they'll fit on the wall where we indicated they would go, and they're outside of the flood hazard area. Correct. That's correct. Or above the flood, I'm sorry. as well. And then on the south building, um we have gas meters and electric meters on uh on
actually on a corner. So uh this shows the the uh again the garage door and then the electric meters and then around the corner on this view this the garage door
entrance would be on the right hand side of the exhibit. You can see the uh gas meters under their display. So, New Jersey Natural Gas isn't going to consider the garage openings as windows. No.
Okay. So, that was it for the CCH letter. We do a handful of things to address. I have I have a couple more that Sure. we should hit while we're there. Um 4.4 four where on streetscape it says neither the site plan nor the landscape plan show the street trees is
that going to be changed so the street trees will be done in accordance with the infrastructure component report all right so that's that's part of the master master developer they'll do the street trees then look
um also So, how about on 6.1 under C? I'm assuming that that that's probably mentioned for all of AB and C. I'm guessing the lighting. Yes. The bolded part under there. Yes. All of we will agree that the lighting plan has been
revised and will be further revised in connection with Mr. Revised for this. Okay. Um I guess that we'll do deal with refues and later I guess because it says that that uh we don't know if there's sufficient refues here. 7.1 I thought
that uh frankly that we had testimony on that from the architect. Okay. So it hasn't happened yet. No no I think I think at the last meeting there was testimony about the trash rooms and how it would go you know from each floor down to the rooms that are shown on the floor plans. So we've determined that they're sufficient. that that is what
our architect determined or testified to. All righty. Um what else? All right. Um while we're one other thing about the I know that we spoken about that in the very beginning about the garage and you said it was metal. Is
there over here? It appeared as though it was they were like windows. I uh is it glass? Isn't currently go to that page? It's the very last page. There you go. Oh, scroll up.
There we go. So, I believe it is a uh wire mesh. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. To allow for sort of light and air. So, it has like a frame to make it look like panels, window panels. As long as that doesn't there's no view into it from the streets. So the
public can't's are not they're not going to see the lights then. Okay. The garage doors uh exit onto the interior and um this is one of the areas where we added that extra fencing so that right Mr. Curley testified would be blocking lights and also the the the the
stairwells. I think that we had spoken about that also about the stairwells that to make sure that their things are shielded so they are not visible to the street uh directly visible. Mhm. So that we're not having the lights that anybody's that's walking across the
street. I had that we had a condition that emergency stairs would be on a motion inside the building. Is that already in or do I need to make that? No, we're going to add that condition. We're going to add that because we're we're keeping track of the conditions as we go. So yeah,
I said a question. Do I lost track with the uh last version? I apologize, but the the planting the taller plantings that were added I think on the website. What are those? They look like I don't know if they're drawing. Are we having a landscape
architect or no? He was here at the last meeting. We didn't intend to to bring him back. Um but I know that he previously testified he had previously testified as to what they were going to be and that that has not changed. It didn't change. Oh, I thought I thought there was one that said it was going to be taller or Oh, we just didn't
see them last time. On the record, the um So, I can look back at the one from last to see cuz it's different on one side than the other. I mean, it looks like Arbory or something. Yeah, because then that has to be updated because we just spoke about changes in landscaping today. So,
is that are we going to get a new landscape plan? So, the the renderings have been updated, right? And we indicated that if the board were to approve this that as a condition of approval, all of the plans would beans will be brought into sync. Okay. Correct. And the landscaping plan would absolutely be updated to to reflect the
the specificity on the side there. Okay. When we're talking about landscaping, I have one that it's a weird one. So, I know there's on the the south the trapezoids. You guys redid them and I think they look really nice now. um on the north building that that trapezoid,
the entrance of the building is really obscured by these two trees. And I know this the city council wanted these two trees between what we were calling the trapezoid and the sidewalk. Um and I guess my question for you guys is is did the city specify exactly where those
trees had to be or could they? On the south building there's trees but they're outside the little stairwells. on the north building. They're inside the stairwells and so you block the entrance to the building on the north side. If those trees could move out on the north
building, you wouldn't block the ent like obscure the the view of the entrance. So, I will tell you those two trees are in the right of way and the location was specifically approved as part of the subsequent developer agreement. So, I would hesitate to offer
up moving them. the city approved their has already approved their location as and they are within the right of way and that was approved. The only reason I bring it up is because you made the entrances look so nice and it kind of cover it up. So, but I also love that there's extra trees. So, yeah, those two
in particular, we don't have as much. We can't just say we're going to move them because that was part of the approved agreement. I have a quick question to go back to the utility um utility meters. Is there any way to shield them? And I know you
need access to them. The utility companies need access to them. I just asked that because where where I live at the cove, I mean, it's a very attractive development, which one of the reasons I purchased there, but on each building, each of the three buildings, there are
these exposed meters and they're not attractive. So, I just wanted to see if there's any way that they could be shielded. One of the u considerations for the placement of the meters where they were physically located was so that
they wouldn't be necessarily seen at the street level. So if the pedestrian was walking past, they wouldn't see it. Obviously, the homeowners that live in the live in the development, they're going to be seeing them on a daily basis. as far as trying to cover them up. Um, but I maybe there's a little bit
of leeway with the electric meters, but with the gas meters, they they do not want them covered at all. Okay. I just thought I would ask, but on this project in particular, uh, Mr. Curley, he chose locations specifically interior to the site. We've learned over
time public doesn't. Okay. So, we'll just move to the Ivakian report. Uh, there were only a handful of items I wanted to touch upon here. We'll start with number six on page five under
grading. So, Mr. Curley, there was just one comment and you know, we we always like to say that we can comply with everything, but when we can't, we can't and we just want to put it on the record so there's no confusion later. Uh number six, there was a a recommendation and and normally a good one, that the
retaining walls be set back 1 foot off the right ofway to make sure there was no encroachment. Uh in this case, under the subsequent developer agreement in the council process, we were asked to move the buildings all the way up to make as much space as possible between the existing buildings and new
buildings. So we those have have been purposely pushed there. So u Mr. Curly, is it your testimony that we um cannot test cannot um comply with number six? That's correct. Okay. And then the only other item cuz uh some of the comments, a lot of them
overlap. Like for example, all the exterior lighting comments from 16 to 23. Mr. Curley, we can comply with any of those comments to the extent they have not already been addressed. That's correct. Okay. So, the last one on item nine on page six, then I'll
jump in there. So Barbara, you actually mentioned it and this was thoughtful. I kept it in here. I didn't review it. So in the waterfront waterfront redevelopment area, that space is for vacant lots. So that's my apologies for not taking it out. That shouldn't be in there for 9 ft. So you're supposed to
have 9 by8 for vacant lots. I did I did check after we spoke. I just didn't didn't. So okay, I think that was it. I think we've either addressed everything previously. Let me a favor for y'all. Uh they did
add filter boxes. Bob, you want to explain that to the board? And then for green infrastructure, I will add we did receive a comment from the D last week that they have completed engineering review. So we uh with no further comments. So we do expect to get
the D compliance letter in in the near term, although we don't quite have it yet. And while Bob's looking at they didn't have to provide uh but as a good neighbor. So we appreciate that. So, we were able to add uh the two
filter uh green infrastructure storm water management systems um located immediately adjacent to the storm water management system just to the on the just to the south of the
north building. Likewise on uh on the adjacent driveway on the way out. So again, that that picks up um all of the drainage for this parking lot, runs it through um a it's a tree well with um
biomedia in it and then discharges into the storm water management system and then so that cleans the water before it gets into the storm water management system. Okay. So those are all the questions that I had for Mr. Curly uh as a way to
bring everyone up to speed on the changes that were proposed and any additional changes. Um I know obviously we'll open it to the public just as a preview. We just have one more witness after this and that's Mr. Barry, our planner. All right. Um would I who who would we talk to the uh about the on-grade parking?
Mr. Curley. Yeah, the parking. Yes, Mr. Curley. Okay. the uh on number nine ongrade parking uh on the in the Ivakian report there's I see that there's uh a sign there's the parallel parking stalls
are 7 ft wide not that wide not too wide so actually is there anything we can do about that I believe because that seems a little what's the width of the drive
aisle adjacent to those spaces do we No, I will say under the even though it doesn't apply because we're in the waterfront redevelopment, the zoning code in Asbury Park does allow for parallel spaces to be 7 by 22. So, I think the size that's proposed for the
parallel spaces is the size that it's permitted by the zoning code, even though the zoning code does not apply in this instance. The drive aisle is 18 ft in width and it's a one-way circulation. That's also the drive aisle we're going to have. So, not on both sides. That's
where it's immediately adjacent to. So, it's narrow stalls. In the area where we have 90° parking, the uh drive by is 24 ft. 24 ft width, excuse me. All right. Since it's going one way. Okay. Okay. So you're probably a third
side which should be 16 or 15 which is still wide enough. Okay. Is this it for the witness? That's it for the witness unless anything else from the planning board members? Any other questions from the planning board members of this witness? Any questions from our
professionals? Are they satisfied with the answers to their reports by this witness? Um, we'll open it up to the public. If the public has any questions of this witness there, please come up now. This would be the time for anything that was testified to
today. Okay, let's go next. All right, our last and final witness or next and final witness is uh Mr. Barry, who is our professional planner. Good evening, John. Raise your right hand when you're
ready. You saw me swear affirm that the testimony that you're about to give this matter of truth the whole time the truth. I do. Is your licensed practice plan in the state of New Jersey? Current? It is. Yes. Full force in fact. Yes. Mr. Barry has appeared before us on
many occasions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And we are offering Mr. Barry obviously as an expert in the field of professional planning. Uh so Mr. Barry, you've been here for the testimony this evening and for the
testimony on April 7th. Is that correct? That is correct. Yes. All right. So, if you could provide us with just a little bit of a background about the location uh for the site and the project and then I will ask you to address the design exceptions that have been requested.
Sure. Um we're all very familiar with the project at this point, I think, so I won't spend too much time on this, but this is a photo exhibit with an aerial image and uh eight photographs that I took uh back in April of last year showing the conditions of the site at
that time. Um, you know, some of the the material has come and gone, but generally speaking, it's what it looks like today. Just to pause for a moment. We did submit this previously. Jack, do you want me to mark it as A12? Well, we could do that or what was it previously
referenced as? Uh, we had submitted it with the application. Let's make it A12. Okay. Sure. And so we'll call this the photo exhibit. Sure. I'm sorry, Mr. Barry. Please continue. So, just working around um counterclockwise from the
northwest corner of the site with the numbered uh viewpoints here, we have a a view of the west side of the Kingsley Arms building, view of the north side of the Myiramar, u a view of the front of the Myiramar from Web Street, a view of
the south side of the Myiramar, and then a few shots from within the site of the east side and of myar and south side of Kingsley Arms. And then a shot of the the corner of Kingsley Arms. So you can see the context of the surrounding buildings
which um in our oddly shaped development site running through the middle of the property. Uh some additional photographs give some context of other surrounding buildings. Um just some of the the architectural style of the buildings in the neighborhood both uh variety of
ages. you know, over the last uh 80 or 90 years really had a few different projects that uh make up the neighbors. The um other exhibit that I prepared, well, Mark, this one is A13.
A13. Okay. And this is a massing model um meant to show the full buildout of the site as what's permitted under the waterfront redevelopment plan. So the plan permits eight stories on the 8th Avenue in Kingsley Street side of the
block and six stories on the Deal Lake and Web Street quadrant of the block. And so the existing buildings are roughly modeled in here for context to show what full buildout of the block would look like. The next view shows uh
a rough view of what the proposed buildings look like modeled at their 53 and 1/2 ft height relative to their neighbors. and then boxed in with a shadow here shows that full buildout. Again, the relative
reduction in what the full massing could be with what's proposed versus what's permitted. And then just to spin it around, we have the same view from the Deal Lake Drive and Web Street side, the contextual view with the with the neighboring buildings and the the
shadowed massing. Okay. So, um, we've heard a lot about all the different details of the project. There's a lot of what I would characterize as groups of different relief that we're seeking here. The waterfront redevelopment plan, as the board is well aware, has some very
specific standards. Um, starting with things related to the architecture of the buildings, we have four items related to balconies. There's a requirement that do needs be masonry or wood. I'm sorry, wood or metal. And we have masonry balconies with metal
railings. So, it's a more durable material. Doesn't really detract in any way from the aesthetics of the building. And in fact, the masonry finish is is consistent with the remainder of the building's design. There's also a requirement that the balconies not exceed 3 ft in depth. Uh we had a
conversation about the relative merits of different styles of balconies when during the architecture testimony. In this case, the depth is granted by the um inset of the building. So they're they are more than 3 ft of usable space, but they're not projecting from the
building face more than 3 ft. So it's providing a usable exterior space, which is certainly an amenity that would be expected in in modern development such as this. The next category on under balconies are that we have multiple balconies. The uh plan calls for a
single wrapped balcony when they are provided. in this case that would certainly interfere with the architecture and the the push and pull that we get on the facade with the with the bays if there were a single balcony. So the the breakup of the balconies um both in form and function lends
themselves to the building the um and then finally with balconies there are a requirement that they not be visible if there are multiple balconies. So they permitted only on rear and side elevations. In this case, we have them wrapping around the building as there
are units on on all sides with different facade exposures. So, um for their function, the balconies are are necessary on all sides of the building and again, they fit in with the architecture that we're proposing. Next, we have two items related to doors. The
um doors under the plan are required to be painted wood or composite wood, including garage doors. So you saw the design with the uh metal frame and the mesh for the proposed garage door. And then we have metal and glass doors elsewhere uh on the buildings, the the
typical exterior doors that you would see in residential developments. And there's also a prohibition on sliding doors with the balcony design. And while the apartments are a decent size, there's still space is at a premium. So having a sliding door gives you more flexible, usable
space and has no visual difference from the street for passers by. The next four items are related to windows. Um we have windows that are fixed. Uh really only small number of the windows that are that are fixed not operable.
Majority of the windows on the facade. Bring up the So the the larger windows that you see are operable casement windows and then the smaller accent windows are the fixed ones. So um an intentional design choice
here and if these were operable they really wouldn't be practical. Um the windows are flush to the surface of the building. There's they're not supposed to be. You heard testimony from the architect about some of the practicalities with modern energy code, modern building materials. There are
advantages to having those windows be flush and so um that's the the style that's being proposed. Certainly doesn't detract from the aesthetic. And then we don't have window sills which are which are required. Uh a similar similar reasoning behind the material options
that we have available and are are choosing to use with this project. um that concludes windows. So, next we have some conditions related to the building base and placement. And we've had a lot of conversation about how
the base of the building is being treated, how the building is related to the fac uh the street frontages. The um plan talks about having articulation and a meaningful relationship to the
corner of the block and emphasizing entrances. Certainly with the front, we have an entrance that's being emphasized. We've had a a positive redesign of the trapezoidal area at the base of the stairs to both add architectural interest and landscaping
to soften it. So that was certainly in response to to good commentary from the board and I think has enhanced that frontage significantly throughout the design process. We had technical review meetings. We've had a number of iterative designs of this this building.
The original or one of the earlier designs had a cutout here at the corner to try to bring more of a focus into the corner in response to those standards. Um, we had some back and forth and some good um, critique of that design and it was determined that it would be better
off to carry the the walls and the planting designs around the corner rather than have that cut out. So, we're we're doing the best we can with the limitations of the site and the realities of providing parking and the flood hazard area design regulations to
accommodate both an architectural wall that matches the building, the landscaping that helps to soften the masonry, helps screen the garage somewhat. So, we're incorporating all of these um elements as we've gotten the feedback and I think the design has
evolved well. Similarly, there's a a conversation about the disconnect between the street frontage and there's a a reference to um streets that that require pedestrian continuity having um you know design and
programming of a base that relates to pedestrian space. In this case, we're in a more of a residential part of the city. Um certainly we want to create a comfortable pedestrian environment, but it's um less of an emphasis and this the
term uh pedestrian continuity is not something I can find to find in the plan. I know there are streets that require and recommend retail frontages. This is not one of those. This is a a residential quarter of the city more or less. and the enhancements to the
streetscape will shield the garage, shield the base of the building as they're intended to do. And the other master developer improvements in the rightway will enhance the pedestrian experience. So on the balance, I think we've done what we we are uh able
there. And then let's see last we have uh two related to the roofs. We have um a requirement that all rooftop impertinances um be sorry obscured by parapit obscured
by parapets. I can't read can't read my writing here notes. Um we we do have the the parapit wall around the perimeter as we discussed with the with the screening. there is a stair tower and elevator overrun back there somewhere which you can't see from this rendered
view um nor from the the head-on view. So the um screening that we've enhanced with the rooftop mechanical equipment so that we can help screen some of the views from above uh is to the benefit of the project and additional modifications to the the
stair tower wouldn't really bring us any anywhere closer to achieving any kind of visual character from the street because they wouldn't be visible. So um we need need that relief, but I think we've balanced it well with what's been proposed with the additional screening.
We have one related to signage. The um proposed illumination method is a backlit LED light. So, it's an exterior illumination. I mean, it's considered an interior illumination because it's back lit. Um it's not a glowing letter. It's not a light box or anything like that.
It's a soft halo kind of light. Um I don't think it detracts from the project at all. I think the uh the design mixed in with the the material shifts in the inset here along with the landscaping actually probably create a better aesthetic than if you had an exter
external light that would end up getting blocked by landscaping as it grows and evolves. So I think it's a relief's needed but I think it is a better alternative for this design. And I think there was just one um w uh waiver related to parking having to do with the
planting islands in the surface parking area. Yeah. So the um the the plan when there are parking lots of 20 or more spaces require that there be planted islands. Now we basically have this touchrough driveway that has a few
parking areas. These are a collective parking area of 16 spaces. We have a few parallel spaces, total of 22 through the middle of the site. So, technically it it may apply. There's very limited space available. There are these two striped
islands, but they're needed to um maintain the the grading and drainage patterns, I believe, and also give some flexibility and maneuvering through the lot. So, it would be impractical to add any additional landscaping through what's essentially an active drive area.
That is it. That is it. So, uh the standard for granting these these waivers um if you could just explain that briefly and in your professional opinion. Sure. Have we met those the standard? Yeah. So, um these are design exceptions for the redevelopment plan.
Uh we're looking at practical considerations. We're looking at if the site can continue to uh can appropriately function as designed. Uh we've had a lot of these items have been discussed by the other design professionals. They've been modified.
We've been kind of constantly tweaking throughout leading up to the hearing and and throughout the hearings. And I think we've come out with a a good set of of compromises and ultimately um you know certainly the the relief is relatively minor in the scheme of the overall
project. I think the design, the architecture, and the the engineering that you've heard about will bring a good product to the site, to a city, and um there'll be no substantial detriment. We've gone to great lengths to ensure that the lighting, drainage, the various aspects of the project are being managed
so that the the neighboring buildings can um accommodate the new development as best they can. Thank you, Mr. Barry. I have no further questions for Mr. Barry. I I I just wanted to mention that I don't know if we can uh uh bring this into as as an
exhibit that was put together that of what is essentially what you just read off. Yeah. Uh Jack, can we do that as an exhibit? Sure. You want to submit that please? We it was with the submission package on April 28th, but we can separately mark it justify from it. Let's make that A13. A13. And so that
would be the the multi-page list of relief that was part of the April 28th submission. A13 is the mass model. Oh, I'm sorry. A A4. And I'd also like to mention that I appreciate that you did this because it's a lot easier for us to read through
it, understand what you're saying, and it's all visible right here. It makes it a lot easier. Thank you. A good note to remember. It was a very I appreciate that very much. Excellent. Thank you. Do we have any other any other questions of this
witness by the planning board members? Question of Donna. Go ahead. Don, you you seen this report obviously and uh you heard the testimony. Uh are you satisfied with the uh responses that uh
are have been made in accordance with the design exceptions? Yeah. Um you take any exception? I do not you know um there's tension between what
um is in the SDA about the design of the project um and they have um mitigated some of the concerns some of the you know not quite fully conforming aspects of those those um
design guidelines. Um and so yeah I'm I'm satisfied with the testimony. Any thoughts as what could be done better to sort of modify the uh approval of design exceptions? Make
any suggestions? I would not. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I just have a quick I do not I know this has already been um discussed previously, but I just there comment number 12 which talks about on this on the exhibit that we're
talking about right now about that corner how it says there previously was a seating area and then CCH asked that be removed that I think I don't I don't know if that was testimony from the last meeting or earlier in design TRC TR TRC
is it possible to just talk about that a little bit I I realized that the ship was sailed, but I'm trying to understand that back and what happened in that conversation. That was Michael's recommendation and I disagreed with it and ultimately the governing body, you know,
chose this design. So his argument was that or he had a um does anyone remember what his issue was with I was there. I could summarize it generally. Um, not to speak for him wholly, but um, the there was a a cutout area at the corner that
we the design had proposed with some small seating area um, for kind of at both corners of the the project. And I think the the concern was that it wouldn't be a terribly functional area and might just become kind of a you know
kind of a dumping ground of of sorts. And that extending the landscaping around would create more of a usable space along the two entrance sides of the building. Both kind of aesthetically pleasing because it would create symmetry along that side of the building and then also be able to extend a little
bit of the kind of front entryway elements along those sides. So, it was really trying to prioritize the entrance facing sides of the building and keeping the corner squared off rather than trying to pinch in and cram the entrance
stuff with the corner open. I think that was that was the trade-off and I think that um as Donna said, that was that was Michael's request of us at the time. So, yeah, there there were also these concerns about public versus private space in front of the buildings and
like, you know, because I had pointed out up the street, you know, even directly adjacent there's front yards in front of the buildings and they're just lawns uh at the Miramar and at Kingsley Arms and even as you go up the lake drive. So there's, you know,
are you trying to, you know, carry that neighborhood character up the street and down the street or are we doing something different here? And so, um, you know, is that plaza more of a public seating area? Is it restricted private? Do the
walls give you that enclosure and separation as opposed to the more, you know, casual just a front yard? I see. I appreciate that because I obviously wasn't there for I mean I didn't I understand the backstory um because that was my first thing when I saw the
project is why there wasn't a cutout on those corners but then I saw that and then of course the on deal drive the um you know the right of way curves so it's you know not on the property it's in the right of way right that we get that sort
of yeah no man's land there I appreciate that and um I had one other that was it's gone It's gone. Brilliant though. This is one of the reasons I'm so glad that city allows us
to do the the curve extensions now because now every corner where they exist, it almost is like a little the word oasis of greenery and open space. So even though there's not the cut into the corner, there's still something public at that corner. You
know what I mean? Yeah. No, I I think I mean I was responding in part to what you said about the it being a residential more you know there was no need for ret. It's very residential but still that streetcape is really important obviously for it's heavily used and the pedestrian experience is
really important not just for the people that live there of course but it's just like a main thorough fair to the beach. Um so like that character is really I think it's important and I think you all worked hard to make it work. It's a tough site. Yeah, you know, and sorry,
the um thinking about it like on some of the other outside of the waterfront areas when we've had these, you know, redevelopment type projects across the street down the block and we've taken into consideration how pedestrian volumes increase as
you're reaching some destination and the waterfront being the destination. In this case, we probably would have recommended a wider sidewalk right at the west end of this block than at the east, you know. Mhm. instead of more west um to accommodate that and that
might have also played into what happens with the width of the rideway here. But the um infrastructure um control plane controls that so thank you I appreciate it.
Any other uh questions uh of the witness by the our professionals? Are you satisfied with what's what was discussed? Any questions from the public about the testimony?
Okay. Any other witnesses? Mr. Barrett was our last witness. And since tonight was largely a summary of the project to begin with, I won't belabor it by putting together a closing statement, but we do thank you for your time and consideration on this project. Okay.
All right. Um, public comment. Yes. I get a motion to open for public comment. So move. Second. Anyone from the public that would like to make any comments? To close. Second. All in favor?
I close. Okay. Um, you want me to to start or you want to do it or what? I can tell you what I have. Tell you tell me what you have and I'll we'll see how that goes. There's a whole list of usual WR conditions which
would go in this resolution as well as others. Uh, just I'm going to just touch on some points and that are going to be further developed with discussions between board members and Donna and myself and Sam and myself. Okay.
uh revisions to the plan to include the the planters referenced in the CCH current report of page one 1.2B whatever that says that was a specific item. The uh plan selection as per Jenn Solder's
comment and Jennifer Smith's response uh is open to discussion as to the selection process. I don't know how you want to handle that. Uh but I haven't that I guess I could put in something that says the applicant we'll discuss
that with planner. It could be yeah through Donna if that works. I don't I don't know how it works either but if it's okay with Donna it's really pretty minor adjustments discussion. Okay. So I can make that Mcdana that um standard preconstruction
meetings with James to develop the whole process, the construction process. Uh and so far as that dust mitigation issue, uh which didn't seem to be a problem, soil stockpiling issue, I'll check with Sam on that to get his comment on how I should what I should
say about that. um revi revisions to the landscape plans to show the taller plantings in the foundation planters that was discussed this evening. Uh custom cut off shields on the patio area lights. I believe
there were two as per Rob's testimony. Um that will in the patio parking area by patio parking you're talking about the drive aisle next to the Miramar. next to
Miramar. Okay. Uh there were two of them uh that would ex certainly be customly custom designed to exclude any light spillage on the contiguous property.
Uh there was something about updating the plans to sand color sand finish or something or other towards the end the finish of the foundation and the stuck out. Uh, I'll get it with you. Okay, I got one. We got it. Okay.
Limestone caps on the retaining walls. Is that correct? On the plans. Yeah, limestone cap. Uh, lighting plan revisions. I'll check with Donna again and Sam uh as represented by Bob on the record. Uh, add light sensor act motion
activated light sensors in the stairwells. Yes, that's one that has to be done. Uh essentially whatever plans have to be revised to be consistent with the representations made this evening and the new exhibits put in will be submitted and we'll we'll develop that
language for that and report compliance with any outstanding conditions set forth in the reports with the exception of the uh May 13th Evok report page five grading number six comment cannot comply with that recommendation that's based on the council requirements where the
building is is to be located. That's essentially what I have. Right. There's uh an area about the updating of the the colors of the gutters that we've been told what they are. I just want to make sure that they I I when someone is doing the inspections, they'll never know. So,
it's like where can we have some place that tells us the colors of the gutters? Um we need all the dates to be modified updated on all the presentations to be current I mean to be
what they should be let's say that current um there was one place and I don't know if that's what you mentioned uh about a parex material material was that the one that that Jack just mentioned it's on yes did That's that's
there. Okay. I don't know how how we would state that the we need the landscape plan updated. It's pretty much that's what we need. Well, that's partis catchall where I'm going to talk to Donna and Sam about the plans to be revised to be consistent with the representation. Right. That includes
that the the gutter gutter colors uh whatever whatever else I'll rather than go another 10 15 that sorry the down spouts. Yeah, that's the gutters. Yes, the down spouts. Um that Yes. There was there's quite a bit that has to be done with the
uh the site and the architectural plans to sync them up. Yeah. Um so that has to be there is a lot of that that has to be taken care of. um pretty much to take care of what um in the CCH report of 1.2 A through H. It's pretty much that.
Yeah, a lot of them are lot of that where a lot of them are in there. Yeah, I have I have already accomplished that. We got that that that we also mentioned that the wheel I I don't know if we have that down already. We mentioned wheel stops in the garage in the actual garage area. We
mentioned that last time I thought. Yes, cuz that's something that MVON always is that in the plans already? Yes. All right. So, you don't it's already it's internal. Yeah. It's on the internal plans. Okay. Okay. All right. Um we'd also mentioned about uh we had
discussion in the last meeting about the condensers being away from outdoor space as much as we can within reason that as always the the HVAC systems to make sure that they were as far away from public use public spaces as possible. Is that
depicted on the current plan? We didn't get a new plan. So I don't know if that was decided or not. The condensers are shown on the roof plan then. Yes. Oh, they're the new the new plant. Yes. Oh, which is why they gave us the exhibit tonight for the
screening. I saw the screening because we picked up on Oh, you have condensers close to this. Oh, that'll help. Okay, that'll definitely help. Okay, okay, better. All right, that's those are the one those are the items I had.
But there is a something just keeps gnawing at me what what you're saying and it's like I don't know how how we can do this and it has nothing to do with what we're talking about right now as far as the resolution or anything. Those two
trees those two trees are in the wrong spot and it's not something that you've done. It's not something like it's like who can we talk to? Do we talk to like the council because they're they're not planted. They're not there. And if we plant them where they want us to plant
them, they're not in the right spot. Is that something? Who do we Can we just talk to the council about that? Which is the council? You're going to talk to council and they're going to have to talk to the master developer. Okay. Okay. God, I don't like that. I mean, I feel like that's something we
can make not as a condition as a request. No, it is not a condition. It's not even necessarily part of this development, right? Because it's not It's not on your hand. They can't do anything about it. It has to be this board has to talk to the city council, right? After this meeting, we can go
talk to Jed and David. We we Yeah, we can. No. No, it's not. No, I understand. We understand that. I get it. But it's just it's just not right. And it's just it's not there. Can we make a condition? If these trees move, you don't have to come back to the
planning board or something like that. I don't want you to come back. You got to move, right? Something might happen during construction. Don't worry about it. Okay. I didn't hear that. Beautiful either. Yeah. It's a beautiful entrance and then you have two trees in the
middle of it. Okay. The only other condition I had was an architectural plaque. Wasn't that already addressed? As a condition, we'll add it. It hasn't been added yet, but we would agree to add it. Yeah, it's already they've agreed to add. Okay. Anything else from
the um county board members that that we may have missed? I just have a comment. I I really like I really like this development. I think aesthetically it's provides something new and interesting to the waterfront. And I know you guys did a lot of playing around with the massing of this building. It's not as big as it could
be. Um you moved it around to really be considerate of of the buildings around it. I I just want to say I personally um think this building adds a lot to my life. I'd like to make a comment as well. Go ahead. Um, I live block and a half from the site. I walk by at least once a day,
multiple times a day. So, I've been very uh focused on this application. I really appreciate the uh changes you guys made uh from the last meeting and the entrance. I think that's uh significantly meaningful for those of you who live in the area have to see it every day. I think it looks uh like a
very attractive uh project. I'm very excited about it. Very appreciate the thought you make to it. I thank I for all the comments of my colleagues about mapping and all that and appreciate um the changes that you made and kind of being responsive to this board and the comments that we shared with you.
I just have one small minor but I definitely appreciate the addition of the filter that those are in there. I think all that we can do to get you know the water like any any uh green infrastructure that helps with the cleaning and the red this is not reduction but it's just such an issue
especially in that part of the whole city right I mean we understand you didn't have to and we appreciate that you did um all right can I get a motion to to approve ba with the conditions we mentioned so moved
I'll Second. James Banano, yes. Jim Henry, yes. Jeremy Hoffman, yes. Jen Solder, yes. Daniel Shaneo is not eligible to vote on this one. Accused. He's abstaining. Abstaining. Uh, Bob Zuckermanman. Yes.
Kathy Mccclaclin, yes. Vice Chair Gon, yes. Chairwoman Kerzac, yes. very excited about approved. Thank you very much. We appreciate everyone's time. Motion to adjourn. Are
we are we meeting um before we All right. We can't we can't adjourn. Go ahead. Second meeting. You want to discuss cancelling through the second? If if it's too late for all Yes. reports to be in and responses, then we can. Yes. In case you guys needed to carry,
but you're now approved. So we would be canceling the June 2nd meeting. Woohoo. Okay. Okay. So when's our next meeting? So then that would actually question that will put us to June 16th is the next meeting. And is there
anybody here who has not responded to the special meeting request for June 30th? Anyone? Oh yes. Jim did not. All right. At this point, at this point, Jim's a no, but that may change. Okay. Okay.
All right. Thank you. Okay. All right. Motion to send you something. Yeah. Thank you. Great.