meeting to order. This is the Highland Park Planning Board February 12th, 2026 meeting. This meeting is called to order in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. Notice of this meeting was provided to the Homer Tribune, the Star Ledger, and the Highland Park Planet on January 12,
2026, and was posted on the Burough website at www.h hpbro.com and on the bulletin board at Burrow Hall at 221 South Fifth Avenue Park, New Jersey, and has remained continuously posted as required by law. Fire exits are to the right and left. And please, as always,
remember to speak into the microphones. Okay, if we could have a roll call, please. Oh, >> yeah. I was just going to do it afterwards. Do it. Do the roll call first. >> Miss. >> Yes. Mr. Brusher >> here.
>> Mr. Chin >> here. >> Mhi. >> Mr. H. >> Mr. Ho >> present. >> Mr. Lenerys >> here. >> Mr. Malay. >> Mr. Pearlman. >> May I hear on my own? Yeah. >> Mr. Cardell >> here. >> Mr. Williams >> here.
>> Mr. Thomas >> here. >> Mr. Cosenza >> here. >> Mr. Robinson >> here. >> All right. Very good. So we will do the pledge of allegiance next. I pledge allegiance to the 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. >> Thank you everybody. All right. First up, we are revisiting the YFM LNN810
North Second Avenue LLC resolution P2025-02 uh to address some minor modifications to comply with the court rules. And I'm going to turn over to our attorney, Roger Thomas, for comments. >> I beg your indulgence with my mask. I am
not here to rob anybody. I just have, excuse me, a bout of bronchitis and I don't want to have anybody else get sick. It has been pointed out uh that there's been a revision suggested again by Mr. Williams, which I appreciate. On page two, the la next to last line,
there's a reference where it says that the proposed plans will reduce impervious coverage. That should actually be will not reduce impervious coverage. And with that modification, I would offer this as a final resolution for this particular matter. and then uh
uh we will make the necessary uh uh modification. It'll be on the record and then I'll send a copy to Moren. >> Thank you. This was originally heard at our August 145 meeting and I will open this up to any comments from the board on the final form of the proposed resolution subject
to the amendment that Mr. Thomas just put forth. I just have a question uh which is that um is there any concern about the uh resolution stating what uh Mr. Murphy's
testimony was being different from uh what he actually testified to which may have just been a mis uh misstatement on his part. >> No, there's not really any concern. I'm not sure that uh I don't think it's it's been suggested that that's not what he that he stated that it was going to be
um uh red it was going to be reduced. You're saying he stated that he did was not going to be reduced. Is that what you're saying? Alan, I need to understand that. >> Yeah, Mr. and I
>> on this he brought it he initially sorry the we I believe that uh Mr. Murphy misspoke that he said it will uh >> it will reduce impervious coverage.
>> Yeah. And that is not true because they they're not changing anything on the outside of the building. >> But that was his testimony. >> That's correct. >> And in that case, I would suggest that in fact the resolution is accurate because it's act it's a reflection of the actual testimony. So therefore, I'll withdraw the modification and submit
that the resolution as it is. It doesn't change anything in the resolution. It is it is his statement. The fact that it um uh was a misstatement on the part of Mr. Murphy uh is uh would presumably either be reflected in the some at some point.
Excuse me. But it doesn't change any of the conditions and that's really fundamentally the important thing of what is involved in each resolution. So I would suggest with all due respect, Mr. Williams, I thought you had indicated that it was your recollection that it was a a misstatement in the resolution and that Mr. Murphy had
actually said that uh that there was not going to be a reduction. We can't change what he said. >> The resolution should reflect accurately what he said. If it was wrong, it's wrong. But nonetheless, so therefore, I would withdraw that modification and suggest that the resolution as submitted
is an accurate reflection of what transpired on that original date. >> Thank you though for that comment. >> Excuse me. Okay. Then with that, I will solicit a motion to approve the resolution of memorialization of the
approval of that application. >> Motion to approve. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Seconded. If I >> Yes. >> Take a roll call vote, please. Mr. Brasher. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ho. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lero.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Pearlman. I'm saying I don't believe I was at board meeting when the application was heard and approved. >> Mr. Stone Cardell, >> yes. >> Mr. Williams, >> yes. >> Miss H. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. That takes us to the next
item on our agenda. We have a consistency review ordinance number 26-2124, an ordinance of the Burough, Highland Park, County of Middle Sex, State of New Jersey, amending the downtown redevelopment plan for tracks A through
D. So, our town council would like our review on whether their resolution is not inconsistent with our town's master plan. And with that, I'll turn it over to our planner to explain to us what council has done and whether or not it's
consistent with our not inconsistent with our master plan. >> And and Chris, just for the record, you are the author of this plan. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And it was done under your direction and control. >> Yes. And okay with that why don't you uh give the explanation as you feel appropriate. >> Sure.
>> Uh thank you madam chairperson. Share my screen. >> All right. So I'll be brief. Uh this is a really starts with a um back back to chapter 3 when we look at downtown redevelopment at least the concept of redevelopment in the downtown area. Uh
tonight we're looking at a a ordinance uh to formally adopt uh by council and second reading. Uh a redevelopment plan for various tracks of the outtown area that we known over years as tracks A, B, C, and D. Not a groundbreaking or
earthshattering set of names. Uh but it did at the time in 2001 we did that first plan. Um with regards to the process of how a rebound plan uh is adopted uh is first prepared by um
either council or planning board. And there's really two paths that the the burough could take. Uh one could be that the burough council prepares the the plan. They introduce the uh ordinance for introduction and then the planning board does its consistency
with you and then it's brought back to the governing body for second reading for public hearing and to adopt the redone plan. Uh the second alternative would be the planning board favors the plan in which case they actually do the consistency review as part of their
presentation and then they forward it to council for first reading and then second reading. What the bureau has done over the years and it's consistent with this process. We are going with the former process which is first introduced. We review it the planning board and it's the courts give it back
to council for the recommendations. Uh so there's certain statutory requirements in the local red housing law as to what constitutes a say more or less a legal redone plan. There's eight points in the statute. Uh one is the relationship to local objectives. That's essentially reflection existing
conditions in a master plan. Uh proposed zoning requirements. Uh discussion on the provision of relocation identification and inventory of housing units or property required. Its relationship to the surrounding communities. Um actually that's a misnomer. A number five is incorrect.
That should be Edison, Piscatoaway, and New Brunswick. This is far reduction. That's my fault. Uh and then number seven and eight are recent number eight, the recent addition or statutory amendment uh plan for zero mission or chart infrastructure. So those eight
elements must be in your plan. The planning board's role tonight uh as madam chairperson indicated is to ensure uh that all provisions shall be either substantially consistent with or designed to effectuate the master plan. It's actually slightly different than a
typical land development ordinance. Uh in that case you're supposed to make the finding that it's not inconsistent with the master plan. In this case, under the redevelopment statute, it's actually awarded slightly differently for whatever reason um that all provisions are you needed either substantially consistent or designed effectually
master plan. Uh and then of course in terms of timing, the planning board is to within 45 days referral to provide a report which could be by way of a resolution. Um, so as I indicated at the top, the redevelopment process for the downtown
general has really has its roots back in 2003 in its uh master plan adoption. Uh, several downtown properties including the majority of tract A was designated an area needed redevelopment and a plan was created for uh all those properties
including uh a majority of tract A. 2010 was a master plan re-examination which indicated there having a lack of redevelopment downtown and in 2016 was at around the time where I actually came board with LRK to be the burough's planner recommended a process for uh
declaring the whole community be uh an area need rehabilitation which enables uh the development of redevelopment plans uh in a much more efficient manner. uh because the issue many many of the issues of the original plan from 2005 was that the uh we'll call it
checkerboarded the the properties were checkerboarded so some properties were in out so we had it was very difficult to several properties because one was in the plan one was not uh in the red area so rehabilitation designation actually addresses a lot of that and some of our plans we adopted over the years has been
under only the re rehabilitation designation then in 2019 the master plan reexamined and has a slew of activities ever since the pandemic. Um specifically to related to track A and that is uh we during the pandemic we felt there was a need to
really come out of it with a plan to address the issues in the downtown. So we did some concept planning which was uh embedded into the 21 redevelopment plan and 2021. Shortly thereafter, an RFP was issued and two developers were
redevelopers were identified uh for one for track C with Garden Homes as well as for track A for uh by dead tantless group Paul Ridan Redevelopment LLC. Um you recall just a couple about a year and a half ago the red plan of 2021 was
amended in 2024 after we did an expansion of TRA C and then most recently we did the um classic cleaners condemnation area need study which the bureau adopted a designated area need and actually around the same time a few
months later we did a SNO property um which relates to the track B properties uh and adjacent properties and we had a community meeting and you're here tonight to really consider yet another amended version of the redevelopment plan for downtown tracks AD. So this is
the third edition. So what's the purpose of this plan? It's again it's to further amend that 2021 readon plan was amended already 2024. We're amending it again specifically for track A. Uh but you can see through that really thick document that you have, it still applies to
tracks A and D with minimal changes to tracks B, C, and D. Uh I say minimal because it's not known. So I'll go over what those changes were fairly minor in the grand scheme of things. Uh it's also important for the purpose of this plan to acknowledge that there was a read condemnation read on the designation for
the class cleaners. And uh of course we have an enhanced vision with graphics. the plans that were introduced to the community and as embed into this plan for transparency. Uh and with that there's some minor refinements to the zoning regulations meaning there already are zoning regulations so we're again
just tweaking them based on the concept that was shared and as I indicated before some minor housekeeping for uh consistency with all the tracks in terms of the uh existing conditions uh this is a graphic on the left is a land use plan
uh you can tell that it's varied has a um and it varies between each track so for track D for example is primar primarily retail, but that's in part because the lots associated with it uh in red uh doesn't mean it's all retail. A lot of it's actually a surface parking
lot. Uh track C has a large uh community space which is really essentially the farmers market and it's surrounded by a mix of retail and office spaces as well as some uh residential. Uh track B is just too small residential scale buildings uh converted to office over the years. Track A is unique because it
does have some retail, but it's predominantly automotive establishments which are now vacant as well as vacant land. Uh so despite being in a downtown location, it has a lot of vacant land and vacant buildings. Uh and only only several thousand square feet of um
actual usable retail space. In terms of the zoning, that's the map on the right side. Uh you'll see in a darker blue uh essentially the 2024 downtown redevelopment plan and this amended redevelopment plan for tonight 2026 through January uh is the same area as
the 2024 plans. We're not changing the boundaries unlike the last time because the last time in 2024 we had to consider additional properties to track C. Uh for 2026, same boundaries, track A, B, C, D are not changing. Uh and all we're really doing is updating the zoning
regulations and division. As I indicated before, uh track A has a uh total acres including vacant land, vacant buildings, only a small amount of retail space, including uh the classic cleaners operation as well as the um I think the gun and boat is now an upcycle business
is recently renovated. So it's quite nice. Uh in terms of the original vision, this dates back to 2021, so we're talking five years ago. Um the original vision was uh really the first point is primarily to bring people to
live, work, and shop downtown. And that really applies to all five, sorry, all four tracks of land. And specifically track A. It was contemplated at the time to be a phased approach. Of course, that was considering that it was owned by several different property owners. If
you recall, tracks uh parts of track C and only a small portion of track A had fur owned properties. That's sort of what really brought forward this concept of what let's start to try to redevelop downtown with the properties that we own and do an RFP process and see if there's
any interest. Um, and tracks B was included because there already was a concept and track D was included, recall, because we were really focused on a centralized parking structure over the years that's evolved. That hasn't really moved forward. Um, so track C has
moved forward in a different way by having parking on site. Just like with track A, we're moving forward. Without track D, we don't have parking on site. We got to move forward. And over the time it's been the burrow has purchased several properties and has actually owns almost the entire project area except
for the classic cleaners property. Again the original vision was to infill with one or more taller mixeduse building which is similar to the track C vision and among the goals and objective was to really include activated ground level which could include uh amenity space of
residential as well as non-residential uses with residential above. In terms of the history of track A, basically what have we done since 2021? Because at the time, I believe me, I had only had ownership over the Bergen Auto
dealership. The burrow has now since uh taken ownership of the Uber as the title swap. Uber was relocated to where PK Auto is on Woodbridge Avenue. Um and the burrow uh as part of the gateway redone study done I believe in 2020. um they
took uh ownership of the gun and boat property as well as the vacant properties behind it facing deck denison. So essentially we have ownership as indicated in blue. The burrow has ownership of all the properties in blue except for the class of cleaners property. So the phased approach no longer is applicable because the borrower essentially has ownership
and the plan uh of most of the properties and the plan essentially is not changing. we're going to focus on a more unified single project and with a single unified project but frankly it's a large site. So the same concerns we have at track C was uh we don't want
this to be a hulking building looming over Raven Avenue and create a lot of shade and shadow on to adjacent properties. So it's important again for this site to break down the building to smaller building forms. These are the same talking points we have for track C. take that one large building and break
it down to smaller forms so it looked like different buildings were developed over time just like the rest of Holland Park uh and with that long front inch along avenue really try to enhance the streetscape which includes infrastructure wider setbacks and so on and so forth try to balance the
non-residential space and there's some concerns about is there any retail well there will be um but this recognition that perhaps there could be too much retail was a thought process the same process we had back in 2021 uh throughout uh today and with the concept
plan that was considered we will that would be our opportunity to sort of tweak and manage the bulk regulations design standards to make sure that what is in the plan would allow for the concept to uh come forward. So if you were at the community meeting
um you would have seen some of these slides I believe on also for our website. So these were renderings that the uh additional redeveloper rare Dan redevelopment LLC prepared in meeting. Uh this is after several years of negotiation and trying to figure out what properties of ownership of and try
pushing buildings in and in and out try to get some uh proper streetscape conditions and making sure there's no driveways on Maran Avenue was the one of the key goals of master plan. So this is a concept that was shared publicly. Obviously, it's still a work
in progress, but it was a nice effort to show the brick loft building fronting uh up forward close to the Lenon building and then stepping the building back with the pit story stepping back. So, the attempt here to break down the building into multiple different forms and have
similar architecture treatments, but mainly brick and firemen sighting and uh related elements. This is the other view basically standing in the Synoko station parking lot looking towards patio elen and the building here is again it's a
big building so we're going to keep working to break down the building different forms uh still work in progress but the the good thing is that almost the entire the project actually conformed with the underlying zones as we make minor tweaks to really allow for
that sort of I'll call it the brick loft style building uh which is something that we like to So in terms of the actual amendments to the red plan uh so I'm going to focus first on track a regulations uh the
first part is the land use regulations um the permitted uses are already provide flexibility we made a lot of changes back in 2021 as a result sorry 2024 uh based on community feedback there's u oh should that should that corner of track be a two-story restaurant what
about flat spaces of event space that's what we need we more event space great ideas from the public. So we integrated that into the track C plan and we carry that over to track A as well just for consistency. Um and unlike if you recall the original vision was con as a pure
concept we did not have developed our real building at the time was let's start with residential over retail not knowing what it might be let's set this basic zoning standards and do an RFP. So with this concept, we would just like with track C, we would allow for some residential on the ground floor and
that's why I put limited frontage and the I think in the plan we have a numerical or really percentage limit and that's a maximum of 20%. So actually a small percentage of the building uh will be residential on the ground floor facing the street. The remainder is 80%
plus would be be all retail or could be combination of retail with many space and that's I expect to be a balance of the two. uh in terms of default regulations. So, we're talking about setbacks, height, coverage, and whatnot. Uh we did reduce the uh setback towards the rear at the
top of the image between lot 49 and lot 20 uh from 5 ft to zero. That's this is the property that's essentially a driveway with some garages on the ground level associated with the Highland McGomery apartment complex. Uh in a perfect world it won't be zero foot setback but the step back was reduced to
zero from five to zero to allow for flexibility because if we want to start pushing the book building back a little bit from Ritan we might need a little bit more flexibility in a rear yard setback which we to benefit for better tree pits and landscaping and street furniture on the street. After all we're
talking about four fivetory building on avenue. Uh we did reduce the step back on the lower levels uh of the we'll call the right side of the image. Uh so these are the lots that front and north second. So these are residential properties. Obviously the concern is well we got to make sure the building does not loom over those rear yards. So
we maintain the temp for the upper levels and through it you recall from this concept plan. I don't have a picture of it but it actually steps back further than 10 ft. So we're still working on that issue but we did reduce it on the lower level because uh it's a
more efficient use of space. It's just a 5ft alley. Um we're not going to be a space where people walk down. It actually used to be, you'll see that lot line that continues from the bottom right to upper left. That used to be a alley sort of right away like decades ago. And all other setbacks related to
the building are unchanged. In terms of height, it's still a five-story buildings. The only thing that was tweaked was to allow for the fivetory to pop forward on the fifth level uh just for a portion of the building. That's really to accommodate that sort of brick wall style building. So this reads as one building and the
others read as um different elements. Otherwise we maintain that pitifact that was in the original 2021 and 2024 plan for the remainder of the building. Terms of building coverage and properties coverage they are unchanged still 75 and 90% respectively. Uh but we did clarify
that amenity areas basically over parking levels where they could introduce green infrastructure elements that could reduce the building coverage. Um otherwise the L let's say the C-shaped building around on top of parking structure um that's meant to allow for flexibility but obviously
encourage for encourage reinfrastructure to manage that storm water u but still 75 90% unchanged from 2021 uh in terms of development standards so these are design and site development standards uh not bulk so this is to
require again the building be broken up smaller forms and building elements just like the tracks C. Uh we did uh have an opportunity to enhance kind of clean up some of the building design and streetscape standards um for track A just make sure it's an enjoyable
walkable space. Uh we did limit service area to the bottom on Dennis Avenue. Uh it's Dennis Street. However, recognizing this is not a corner lot condition. There's no way to get to the side. Uh so we did consider a temporary staging area
just for the non-resident uses on the ground level. something that still needs to design but we put in plan to allow flexibility unlike for track C they have access to south uh second so you get access through that street track A does not have that advantage because they're
sort of landlocked between properties uh and then we allow for loading on a street where it is permitted by law uh other amendments so this applies to minor tweaks to all the tracks um so just for transparency just want to try to do some cleanup um we amended
permitted uses for all the other tracks to be consistent with track A and C for that matter. Uh we clarify where service areas could be which is similar what we did for track C and A. So try to use the same language for tracks B and D. Uh the third bullet point is to add single family dwelling as a permitted use on a
lot within track B. Frankly, that was a mistake on my part because I missed it back in 2021. There is a single family property on facing Dennis Street. So this is an opportunity to fix that and allow that use to continue as a permitted use. And then with that we
added standards for um accessory uses and some design standards for single family homes. Basically referring to underlying zoning. Uh we clarified the definition of height. There's really any significant change that's really making it clear the measurements are taken from Ron Avenue since a lot of great change. So this makes it clear for the
developers but there was a lot of confusion before. This cleans it up. and um did a couple redevelopers both for tracking ENA didn't ask questions like hey what what's what's the setback for ACNS that's another mistake I forgot to put in setback standards for accessory
structure so that was added to clean it up and will be in all future plans I promise uh and then of course we added in regulations for fences and walls mainly because the current zoning ordinance has step back regulations for retaining walls which is odd not all communities have that it's really to
deal with really high retaining walls in this case, we're not anticipating that to happen. So, we just want to clean that up and make sure that doesn't trigger a variance condition. Uh, other amendments include improving the street and sidewalk really to require permeable areas, green infrastructure along the street. We
really do want to have improved street pits along and avenue that applies to all four tracks, especially CN since the ones moving forward. So, we're going to hold the hands of the fire, make sure they provide for a really good streetscape. Uh, obviously with DOT um
review and approval, and then some minor tweaks, mainly cleaning up uh clarifying the building materials, us transitioning inside corners, which is an urban design, and really enhancing some of the landscaping and reuse and recycling. Mainly in part because we've done other revel plans. So as we do more read on
planning, I I learned just lessons learned how I write standards and borrow them and bring them back into this one. So in terms of the relationship to the master plan, uh if you recall back in 2019, uh there was a survey that was taken. I
think about 600 people took it and only 9% of the respondents indicated they wanted uh downtown area to remain the same. So the vast majority of people said something needs to happen. Uh among the comments was that uh the downtown area needs mixeduse development with
higher density housing including multif family and affordable units. Uh they acknowledged and we put in the master plan that there's a high number of vacant properties and buildings. Uh there's too many auto oriented businesses and this is an example where we purchased a property and relocated
another to ensure that there's no more auto field parcels in the middle of downtown area. Woodbridge Avenue is fine. Uh and then there was also a lack of consolidated parking near major attractions. Uh so that was a statement back in 2019 when we did the red on plan
back in 2021. That was the main focus of centralized parking on track D. Obviously we're moving forward in a different way. Uh and finally uh this was I thought this is interesting. I like putting in these plans because a member of the community said I love the feel of community but the area between
First and Second Avenue needs major attention. And that's this is the area that we're talking about track A in particular. Uh among the strategies that were developed out of the master plan with community input as well as uh feedback from the master plan subcommittee was
that we should take advantage of customtailored infill redevelopment through by utilizing the redevelopment wand uh expand a variety of active ground floor uses and we're doing that through redevelopment as well as looking at updating our zoning ordinances for the CBD and C zones um which will be
something before you within the next couple months. uh also look at expanding the downtown resident customer base which means putting boots on the ground people with put people living on downtown support local business and establish a public gathering space
doesn't really apply to track A although they'll be in a nice frontage so we create small interstitial spaces uh but the the main we're able to achieve that through track C development as well as the um south plaza and of course uh encouraging any level of upgrade and
investment. Uh in the plan, you'll see I have some uh talking points about its uh relationship to adjacent communities. Obviously, this is the existing plan. We're simply amending it and is in the center of downtown. It will have no impact to the uh adjacent communities.
Uh and it's uh a concept that's supported by the Mills County Comprehensive Plan, Landis Plan, and the state plan, which actually was just updated in December of last year. Um I I think the easiest way to say is that in the grand scheme of things not much has
changed other than a couple additional goals but otherwise in terms of the policy map this area as well as almost actually the entire community is within the metro metropolitan planning area one which is uh an area that supports smart
growth and downtown redevelopment recentering and whatnot. Um, so with that being said, that means what I'm trying to say is that this read on plan is consistent with the master plan of the Burough Holland Park. It and does not conflict with EJ's communities
county comprehensive plan and the New Jersey state plan. Going back to statutory requirements, let's make sure we hit them all. So the relationship to local objectives, you already heard my commentary on the master plan. It's using the tools offered by the state for local
redevelopment to custom tailor infill development, expand groundwater uses, and expand the resident customer base. Uh number two, uh the proposed land zoning regulations are in this plan with minor tweaks from 2024.
Uh provisions of relocation housing units. Uh so we do anticipate the relocation of an affordable housing unit. Uh but that's part of track C and that's being negotiated with the uh recurring homes threebedroom fourway to another site uh
one to one um there number four property to be acquired. Uh if the bur were to pursue condemnation they may do so they actually done so on several properties already uh and they may do so on class cleaners. uh the relationship to the
adjacent communities, county and state are discussed. Inventory of all affordable housing units. Uh we did have that one unit discussed and a plan for affordable housing replacement. Again, that is planned to be relocated. Otherwise, the provision of new affordable housing will will is required
in all four tracks anytime there's a development of 15% satisfied. And finally, the plan for zero emission charter infrastructure that's really related to public accessible uh charter infrastructure. Uh this plan anticipates that track C which will have some public parking uh those will have some uh
charging infrastructure and if on all the other parcels including track A or B and D if where parking is provided on site and if it's anticipated being shared with the public we will work with the redeveloper to make them one or more
of them ED uh with the turn right and that completes presentation. So again, just a minor tweaks I would argue, but the same same plan, same B track boundaries. Uh the focus is on the
track a refined vision and tweaks to the zoning and as well as some cleanup to all the other parcels. >> Thank you very much. All right, I'll open this up to comments and questions from the board. Anybody? Ken, why don't you start?
>> Um how are the proposed changes to track B um affects current affect the current situation um at the Senovo and BB big properties. >> Uh so the
only change with the recognition that tracks B track B does two properties is now designated area redevelopment combination. Uh that does allow the burrow to pursue combination if they were so choose. Uh the reality is I think we're going to pursue a different route for redevelopment in that we might
have a different plan which will involve soco be the two parcel and potentially other properties going towards the east. I have a feeling it's going to be a separate plan. It may be part of this expanded B or we take B out of this plan and do a separate standalone plan which
it probably needs just for the SOA. >> Yeah. Uh in the document it says that uh this cotch is still the engineer engineer. You haven't seen that should be changed.
>> Which page is that? On my page I had um R Eric Robinson. Did I Oh, I see it. It's on the at the bottom. I'll make that change from Bruce to Eric to repeat that. The board is correct but not the B. Okay.
>> He does. >> Out of place. >> Anybody else? Go ahead. Go ahead. >> So, um, in terms of, uh, allowing some ground the ground floor to have, uh, residential and at least some portion
and that was track A. I know track C already sort of sort of the concept already have, but this is for track A is going to change, correct? So, so track A, track B, and then if you add in BB big and no, and then the beginning of
track C, um, and this is the IC and existing retail and likely retail is that's a node seems like a node of retail for me. Uh, the way track C is where the the twotory restaurant is on the north south second corner. So how
are you thinking about the redevelopment on track A such that if there is a split some ground for residential and some ground for retail that I this getting the recommendation is that that the retail be arranged along that frontage
so that you get a node of retail that is concentrated which can generate reinforcing and supporting retail uses opposed to smearing them out you know moving them closer to sort of the office buildings down river, right? So, I don't know if if that's something you've contemplated. I don't I mean, this is a
general redevelopment plan, so I wouldn't be so specific, but um while you're here sort of saying how is that is that how are you how are you represented in the plan or is that being represented somewhere else? Uh so, it's not in the plan in terms of where the
retail is located other than it's permitted on the ground floor. Um what I don't have as part of this presentation is the presentation that was shared by the redeveloper at the med community meeting. I think it was October 2025 and the concept plans showed retail space to
be I'll call it the right side of the building which is in this view on the screen. It will be closer to the lenon building. So the idea is to create a node around that space. Because I think the thought process is keep the retail sort of concentrated. >> Yeah. >> Essentially where the Mary building is
up to south uh second and it'll be a much larger node that's sort of being created between between south second and third essentially where the track building is up to south that seems to be the largest concentration retail space downtown. So this would read as a
secondary node but more concentrated. Okay. Hi Chris on the track D. Uh the parking was the parking structure and the mixeduse building next to it. Um is that one developer first? >> Uh mean one property owner? >> Yeah.
>> Uh I yeah I believe it is one property owner. >> Yeah. And could they could those be redeveloped separately? The parking structure? >> Well they work to make sure to comply with park requirements. Um but if that comes to fruition, we'll negotiate that phasing and so on. And real quick, I
noticed there's a there's a semicolon on page 51. I was wondering, should that be a comma? >> No, no, no. It's not working. >> Are you kidding me? >> Oh, man. >> I don't know. I don't know the serious. >> Well, funny you mentioned that. I do
have a question about >> um the it's it's actually the uh bike and pedestrian plan. >> Okay. Is that uh how concrete is that plan? Is that something that is anticipated to
occur? Is that just a proposal at this at the moment? Uh because I I think I'm more I think my um concern would be the removal of the parking spaces. I guess visav the you know development
of commercial residential spaces where where are people at park? >> Yeah. So I as part of the master plan I remember this was an issue back in 2021 because there was no focus what about circulation. So at the time we did put in a map to acknowledge what the master plan including circulation plan which
includes the bike pet plan. What does it discuss and what can various properties um implement as part of that bike pan? Uh realistically, it really probably be um more subject to streetscape improvements, bike racks and corrals and
whatnot. But as far as elimination of a parking lane for a bike lane, that's going to be a burrow. Okay. >> Um focused and really oriented project similar to the upper rarin with the the road diet that was just implemented. Uh but frankly, Jeff, you might know more than me, but I've been really involved
in looking at how much further this has gone since bike. I can I don't have sworn in as a expert in transportation planning but this is this is a state highway and um like upper American have to undergo an engineering study um at a
minimum uh and then you know most likely going through the capital delivery process which is a multi-year process looking at various uh traffic flows and there'll be public meetings um like there was Robert. >> Okay.
>> My my understanding of the bike ped plan was a 2019 plan and it's an adopted part of the master plan, >> right? >> Was uh showing potential and really desire lines for bike travel. >> And it's not to say that that's that's
where the bike lane is going to go. There is a need for bicycle infrastructure, right? Moving people from upper Ritin to towards the river, right? where that corridor actually ends up being could be
>> yes could be avenue could be could be Dennis on one area could be Magnolia on the other right so >> yeah it's I guess more directly answer your question board member ho is to say that a red project won't necessarily be able to implement a bike >> oh no yeah
>> but we certainly be looking at improving bicycle infrastructure and that includes wider sidewalks and street furniture thanks Anyone else questions for
our planner? Okay, seeing none, I will open it up to the public for comments and questions. Seeing no one physically present with us tonight, I'll ask if anyone at home would like to play along. >> There's no one. >> I'm missing out. All right. Uh, seeing
no participants >> from the public, I'll post the public comment portion on this. And at this point, not having heard any substantive amendments being proposed or recommendations otherwise, I'll solicit a motion to >> I'm sorry. Um, just to make the
adjustment to the acknowledgements page to >> with the adjustments to the acknowledgement with us, but he is with us in >> Yes, I feel I feel it would be substantially considered to correct professionals listed on the acknowledgement page. So subject to that
um ministerial amendment uh I'll solicit a motion to find that this amended plan is substantially consistent or designed to affectuate the master plan >> and that is with regard to not only the plan but also ordinance number 26-2124.
>> Yes. >> As as presented to the board. >> Thank you. Anyone like to make that motion? I'll move >> second. >> We'll take a roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Brusher, >> yes. >> Mr. Chen,
>> yes. >> Mr. Ho, >> yes. >> Mr. Lys, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Pearlman, >> yes. >> Mr. Cornell, >> yes. >> Mr. Williams, >> yes. >> Miss, >> yes. Thank you very much. All right. I'll ask any the members of the board if
there's any other business they'd like to discuss this evening. Anyone else? All right, then I'll open up the meeting to public comment on any items not on the agenda. Seeing no one in the audience, and I presume no one's hopped on in the last minute and a half, I'll close the public comment portion of
tonight's meeting and solicit a motion to adjourn. >> Let's go home. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion made. >> Second. >> Seconded. All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you very much, everybody.