is October 7, 2025. I'd like to ask if everyone can stand for the pledge of the allegiance. >> 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. >> Cam Sunshine announcement. >> Yes, chair. Good evening everyone. Today is Tuesday, October 7th, in the year 2025. This is a Jersey City Planning Board meeting with a scheduled 5:30 p.m.
start time and in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. Notice of this meeting has been given to the editor of the Bergen Record, LSPito, and posted with the city clerk on October 3rd of this year. This meeting was also posted on the Jersey City Division of City Planning web page, and all distribution
materials made available to the board were published and made available to the public. >> Thank you. Before we go on to the roll call, I would like to welcome our newest uh board member, Anthony Lewis. >> Welcome.
>> Congratulations. >> Who has been sworn in already? >> Thank you. Roll call, please. Kim. >> Okay. Acting Vice Chair Stamato >> here. >> Commissioner Wick >> here. Commissioner Lewis,
>> Commissioner Lipsky >> here, >> Commissioner Patel >> here, >> and acting chair Gangadan >> here. >> All right, we have six commissioners present. We have a quorum. >> Can you swear in staff, please? >> I see Joe, Matt, Matt, Ben, Jen, Cam,
any testimony going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> Cam, any correspondence? >> Yes, chair. Um we have under new business item 14 uh requesting to carry with preservation
of notice to November 25th of this year. That would be um uh the only meeting in November, a regularly scheduled meeting. So that is item 14, case P2025-000086. It's a site plan amendment. Address is
176 Westside Avenue. again requesting to carry with preservation of notice to November 25th of this year. Um item 17 on the agenda, case P2024-0226. This is a preliminary and final major
site plan addresses uh 385 JFK Boulevard. They've requested a carrier with preservation of notice to November 25th of this year. Um, moving on. Page 10 of the agenda, item 20, P20-1
168. It's a preliminary and final major site plan. Address is 417 to 427 Hoboken Avenue and they've requested carry with preservation of notice to November 25th.
Um item 22 case P2025-000073 is this is a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances address is 569 Palisad Avenue. Uh they've requested a carry with preservation of notice to November 25th of this year. And I
believe we have one applicant's attorney who wishes to make um an announcement on the record about their request to carry. Um, >> okay. All right. No, I'll do it. >> Email is enough. >> Okay, it's enough. Okay. Last item. Uh,
second to last item on the agenda. Item 23, case P2025-000080 for preliminary and final major site plan amendment. Address is 177 Grand Street. They've requested a carry with preservation of notice to November 25th
um of this year. And that concludes correspondence with staff. We do have the sunshine announcement marked into evidence as exhibit B1. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Kim.
>> At this time, I would like to move on to all business number seven on the agenda. I'd like to call in KP2025-0171 which is a one-year extension. Address is 50 Day Street. Mr. McCann.
>> Uh good evening, Madame Chairperson. Uh good evening commissioners. My name is Jim McCann from the law firm of Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant. Um this project is at 50 Day Street. It is um it has a fi preliminary and final
site plan approval for the interior renovation of the final tower at the American Can Company complex. Um the original approval was granted in September of 2022. We did previously get one extension. Uh
my client now has um building permits, I've been told, submitted to the building department. Um, however, our our extension expired September 6th, so we're asking for a second extension, hopefully the last one, um, because hopefully the project will get built
sometime the next we'll start construction sometime in the next couple of months. So, we're asking for another one-year extension that would get us through September 6th of 2026. >> That's my presentation. >> That's your presentation, council.
Any questions from the board? >> No. >> No. >> The planner general. >> Yeah. I'll just ask the applicants to comply to the conditions in the original approval. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Applicant agrees.
>> Seth recommend approval. >> Okay. Is there anyone from the public? >> Like to close the meeting. >> Can I get a second? Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Public is closed. At this time, I would like to ask for a motion.
>> I can make a motion in reference to case number P2025-0171. Like to entertain a motion. >> Second motion. >> Roll call. >> Okay. >> Acting Vice Chair Stamato >> here. Yes. >> Commissioner Lewis.
>> Yes. >> Commissioner Lipsky. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Patel. >> Yes. Commissioner Week >> I. >> Acting Chair Gingaden I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Thank you. >> Thank you everybody. Good night. >> Good night. >> Got your first uh case under your
>> I'd like to call in case B205-0188. It's 394 Summit Avenue. >> Good evening commissioners. Tom Lean from the law firm of Connell Foley. Uh the application is a request for a one-year extension of approvals that were uh provided by this board uh which
are actually set to expire on October 24th of this year. Uh my client has actually put in permits for it. Um and he's this is really just a belt and suspenders thing. Just to um give the board a little background, it was a
five-story 17-unit building within the Journal Square zone for a uh redevelopment plan area. Um like I said, he's he's hoping to commence construction. He's just worried that before he finalizes his permitting process, the approvals will effectively expire. So, first time we're asking for
a one-year and we would just ask that you uh approve that this evening. >> That's your presentation. >> That's it. >> Thank you. Is there anyone from the board has any questions? >> No, ma'am. >> No. >> Okay. Is there anyone from the public?
>> Come on. >> I know the routine. >> Yes. >> Danielle D A N I E L L E Damo D's and David. A D's and David A M O 72 Hopkins
Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey, Ward C. >> Thank you. You have three minutes. >> Okay. Good evening, commissioners. I'm speaking regarding 394 Summit Avenue. I understand this is a request for a one-year extension of a previously approved five-story mixeduse building
with 17 residential units and a groundf flooror commercial retail space. I'd like to ask for clarification on the retail component. What type of commercial use is currently envisioned for that ground floor? Has a tenant been identified or is there a plan to ensure
the space supports neighborhood needs rather than remaining vacant or being converted to non- retail use? Summit Avenue has seen a lot of turnover and underutilized storefronts. So, it's important that new mixeduse projects contribute to an active walkable
corridor that benefits nearby residents. I appreciate more information on how this retail space will be activated and whether there are any conditions tied to the extension that support that goal. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um I I think whenever this question
comes up, the answer is it's too early to tell. Uh my client needs to still demolish the building, go through the permitting process, build the project, and once it's started to become a reality, that's when he starts seeking retail tenants. Um, so I mean this is not a big space. It's a corner space.
Um, so we're not talking about a space that could have like a grocery store or something in it. Um, but it it at this point I I really couldn't answer with any certainty what kind of use would go in there. But what I can say is that the board approved it with that retail space in there. If we were to change that,
that would be an amendment that would have to come back to this board and you would have to approve that change. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public? I'd like to close the portion for the public. >> Second Bob like this close to you wanted to
send something. >> No, Madam Chair, the only thing that I would add is I agree with Mr. Lean. In the event that that retail space was to be or commercial retail space were to be converted to something else or sought to be converted, it would come back to this
board uh to be heard. So uh with that, I think Mr. Lean's explained the purpose of the extension. I think he's waiting for permits and uh to use his phrase, it is belt and suspenders at this point, but I'll defer to planning staff. >> Thank you.
>> The planner in general. >> Yeah, I'll just ask the applicant to comply to the conditions in order approval. >> That's acceptable. >> I'll ask that recommend approval. >> Thank you. I'd like to entertain a motion. >> Like to second. Yeah. make the motion.
>> I'd like to make a motion in reference to case number P uh 205-0188 for a one-year extension. I'd like to make a motion in reference to that. >> Second the motion. >> Acting Vice Chair Stamato. >> Yes.
>> Commissioner Luis >> I. >> Commissioner Lipsky >> I. >> Commissioner Patel >> I. >> Commissioner Week >> I. Acting chair Genadan >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Thank you. >> I would like to call in case B2024-0236.
It's a preliminary major site plan with deviations. The address is 660 G Street. >> Um Tom again for the record, Tom Lane from Connell Foley. Um we began this application last time, but the only thing that we did was check for the
notices. Uh so I would just uh have Mr. Lampe confirm that uh jurisdiction is still proper before this board and then I will ask my uh uh my experts to set up. >> Thank you Mr. Lean. That is correct. We had opened the application. We had verified the proof of publication, proof
of mailing with respect to the application. We had marked it as A1 for purposes of the record. Uh so this is the continuation of that hearing and I believe there were some limited introductory comments by Mr. Lean. But let's get the witness sworn and we'll be
>> uh >> up to A2. >> Actually, Mr. Lumpy, I I didn't even begin my uh my my presentation, so I' I'd like to just begin by giving the uh the board a flavor of what the application is this evening. Um as stated, the this is uh 660 uh Gro
Street. Uh this is uh as you are entering into uh Hoboken, uh there is an existing uh Verizon warehouse. Uh it is bounded by 16th Street and Grove. Uh and to the rear of it, it's actually bounded by the light rail tracks. Uh so it's uh
it's a somewhat odd almost triangular piece of property. Uh it is within the Jersey Avenue light rail redevelopment plan uh area. Uh it is in the high-rise district. Um the application before you tonight is a multi-phase two tower
project. Um it is for uh a total of 1,000 uh residential units. We are seeking only preliminary site plan approval this evening for both phases. Um in addition uh we're going to ask for the protections the additional protections that are provided within the
uh MLUL for uh applicants seeking preliminary site plan uh over a certain amount of units. Uh basically we're allowed to ask for the board to consider extending the protections for the approval beyond the normal three years that are in the MLUL. Um and we would be asking for 10 years on that. uh to give
you a little bit more uh of an idea of the project you're going to see this evening. Phase one is a 17story tower containing 542 units and 346 parking spaces. Uh phase two is 484 units. Uh the parking for both is in phase one.
There is a commercial component to the ground floor as well. Uh we are utilizing the affordable housing bonus uh within the redevelopment plan. That's a requirement of 15% affordable units. So that's 150 affordable units within this building um approximately. Um
obviously this is preliminary only so some of the the actual numbers might change but what we're asking for tonight is uh uh that unit count. Um we are asking for some minor uh deviations this evening. Uh they mostly relate to the height of the building. The uh
redevelopment plan does allow up to 14 stories and 160 total feet. We are asking for 17 stories and slightly under 170. Those are both C variances this board can hear. Uh those have been granted on similar projects within uh
this redevelopment plan area including at 619 Grove and 248 Erie. You will see a presentation and hear testimony regarding those variances along those lines. Um and again, this is this is preliminary only. So, what you're going to see tonight is not going to be the
full presentation you would see if we were uh moving forward this this project tomorrow, but uh the checklist is the checklist here. And we've worked extensively with city planning to provide them as much detail and information as we can about what's going to be uh built on this site. Um I have
three witnesses. Um one is uh Mr. Ian Burton who is our civil engineer and he's going to introduce you to the existing conditions on the site as well as the utility connections and uh issues. So, uh, I will have him come up now. >> Mr. Lean, can you just clarify for the
record, you're looking for 10 years for the preliminary approval, >> protections for the preliminary approval. That's correct. Yes. >> I made it. tonight. >> I do.
>> Last name Burton B T O N for some Ian I and address is 68 Orchard Summit, New Jersey. >> Mr. Burton, have you testified before this board before? >> I have not. >> Okay. So, can you just briefly give them the uh the benefit of your credentials? >> I have a bachelor's of science degree from uh civil engineering from College
of New Jersey in 2012. I've been professional uh engineering with my license since 2017. My license is active and in good standing. I present it in front of other boards in the state of New Jersey. >> Thank you. You're you're qualified. >> Thank you, Mr. Burton. Um,
is there a method to getting this to show up on the screen? Um, so to to repeat the site location, we're uh um this site is known as uh block 6102 lot 1. It's at 660 Grove Street. It consists of 1.88 acres of
land. Uh it's within the Jersey A light rail redevelopment plan utilizing the affordable housing bonus, bonus B, in the high-rise district. Uh we're bound by uh 18th Street to the south, uh Grove Street to the west, Maron Boulevard to the east, and the >> We have to mark this, Mr. Lean.
>> Do we have to mark any of this? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I have. >> I apologize. Has this not been provided? >> This has not been Okay, then this needs to be marked. >> Is it a slideshow? >> There's uh three slides. Yes. >> A2. Three slides. Can you give me a title and the date? Uh
>> 660 Grove Street Aerial, August 26, 2025. A2. Thank you. >> Um, sorry. So, um, we covered the the streets. Uh, you know, we're located near the, uh, limits of the Jersey City and Hoboken. Um, we're just north of the
Lacawana Center and near the new uh, Newport Plaza, the the Acme. Um, currently the site has a roughly 22,000 square foot industrial building which is predominantly surrounded by pavement parking with um a steep slope
to the the railroad to the north. And as we stated before, we're proposing a 17story 1,000 unit apartment building with uh just over a,000 square feet of retail within the two phases. Um going to the next slide. Uh this depicts the ground floor of the
first phase which is predominately on the west side of the site along Grove Street uh which consists of apartment buildings uh retail along Grove Street uh 100% of the of the parking and then the remaining area is a fenced in meadow for where phase two will will be uh
constructed. And then going to the next slide uh shows the full buildout the full tower of phase one and phase two. phase two consisting of the remaining retail space, the remaining apartments and the a dog run in the rear. Um, and as we
stated, we're relief requesting relief for uh building height. We're proposing 17 stories where 169.9 ft is proposed where 14 stories and 160 is permitted. We also have building uh overhangs along Grove Street and 18th Street where a 15t
front yard setback is required. Uh we're requesting relief from street t street street tree separation where uh we're exceeding the 30 feet required with a 68t separation uh between our driveway entrance right there along 18th street and the number of street trees where we
have uh 15 proposed and 23 is required. Um getting to site details we have vehicular access off of 18th street with two curb cuts uh one way in one way out. Um, and that's into the garage area, which also includes any resident drop off or loading, which will be in a
designated uh area in the garage. The residential lobby doors on either side of those two driveways with uh retail doors along uh 18th Street near Marin Boulevard and Grove Street. And there's also a one-way commercial access drive that um in the north corner near Grove
Street which goes towards uh exits out of Marin Boulevard uh which is for retail loading and any other residential pickup drop off near the dog run. Um the parking we're proposing 346 spots which meets the requirement uh for residential
which is 2 to.5 per unit and one per 1,000 square foot of retail. That includes the 2% ADA and 15% EV requirement. We have 508 uh bike storage within the building and eight additional spots along the sidewalk near the retail
spaces. And we also include a bike path along 18th Street uh running from Marin to Grove Street uh in coordination with the city transportation department. That'll be a raised uh bike path at sidewalk level. Currently, the site sits at elevation between five and nine with
a slope to the railroad up to 20. We're in FEMA flood zone AE, elevation 9. The retail will be at ground level between five and six elevation with the residential areas raised at elevation 12. And we have a rear retaining wall along um the railroad which has a peak
height of 12 feet and will be designed to meet the FEMA or I'm sorry, the NJ flood hazard rules. Uh the site has been designed to meet the uh NJ stormwater rules for storm storm water quantity reductions since it's considered a major development. This is since we are
reducing the impervious um vehicular surface. We do not meet the the requirements for water quality. We don't we don't we're not applicable to meet water quality or recharge. Um the site uses a series of porous pavement areas to meet green infrastructure um which is
all holds the storm water and discharges it into the storm water system in the rear uh access and discharges it out to Grove Street. We also have uh two uh 8 inch combined domestic and fire water services, one off of Grove and one off
of 18th. one sewer service connection off the Grove, coordinate with local utilities providers for gas and electric. Um for street and landscaping, we're replacing the curb and sidewalk along all three frontages. Um we are and as stated before, we're proposing seven
trees uh street trees along 18th Street at 30t apart with one standalone that's 68 feet apart and seven trees along Grove Street at 30 feet apart. We also have a 10- foot wide landscape buffer along the rear and along the railroad, which provides just over 5,000 square
feet of landscaped area. In addition to the 11,000 square feet of porest pavement, uh we we have 21,000 cubic feet of stormwater detention which meets the city's green area ratio requirement. We have a number of uh street lighting
uh along Grove 18 and Marin with some facade lighting and ceiling lighting in the rear access which meets the city's lighting requirements. And that concludes my presentation. >> I have no questions for the witness.
>> Any questions from the board? >> No. >> No. Thank you. >> Thank you. [Music] Uh, next up I have Michael Higgins who is our architect.
[Music] >> Yes. >> Michael Higgins. Hi GG IS. >> Mr. Higgins, is your license current? >> It is. >> And in good standing? >> Yes. I believe you've been in front of this board numerous time as well. >> Yes, >> you're qualified.
>> Thank you very much. >> You may proceed. >> Okay. All right. So, um, we're here to present 660 Grove Street. I have a 17page presentation document that I'd like to have marked
>> A3. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Does it have a title and a date? uh October 7th, 2025 and 660 Grove, Jersey A light rail redevelopment plan, Jersey City, New Jersey.
>> 17 sheets. >> Yes. >> Very good. A3. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh the first slide shows uh the sister project to this project, 619 Marin Boulevard, which was approved in the
last year here. Um it's the same development group and ownership group and the construction has just started on 619. The buildings will be similar in size and height and uh some of the deviations that were requested during that and approved during that presentation are also going
to be requested at this point. The project statistics include 10,000 residential units, 15% or 150 will be affordable units. Uh the building will be divided into two phases. Phase one will have 458 units and 69 of those will
be affordable. Phase two will have 542 units and 81 of those will be affordable. The project has 350 parking spaces, garage spaces, and 500 B bike parking spaces. Uh the total retail area is
11,947 square ft. uh divided by phases, it'll be 8,437 ft of retail in phase 1 and 3,510 ft of retail in phase 2. The building height is 17 stories and 169 foot11 from
the design flood elevation. The mixture of the units will include 528 studios which is 53% 241-bedroom units which is 24% 171 two-bedroom units which is 17% and
61 three-bedroom units which comprises 6% for the total of a thousand uh units. Uh this is an aerial of the site with the highlighted of the site area. It's sort of a a D-shaped uh space that has frontage both on 18th Street to the
south, Grove Street to the west, Maron to the east, and then the light rail and New Jersey Transit uh tracks to the uh to the north. This is an aerial looking west uh to uh the Jersey A redevelopment area in the
background. um the Erie Lakawana uh areas to the left of this site uh or to the south and then 619 would be just off the page to preview the other project. This is a ground floor plan showing both phases of the building uh with north a
page up Grove Street to the left 18th Street to the bottom of the page and Maron to the right side of the page. The um the building garage is shown in white. The retail is shown in the beige orange type of color and the building
lobbies are shown in light blue. The building has uh access at the corner is one of the lobbies for phase one. Uh it's at the corner of Grove Street and 18th Street. It has all the vertical circulation, stairs, elevators, uh
mechanical spaces to be a standalone building. The garage is entered off of 18th Street and it has a queuing area so that the garage entrance is set back from 18th Street and it also allows for a turnaround for some drop offs and
Ubers to occur in this covered area like a portico. Uh the second phase is to the right. So you'll see the second lobby in light blue centered on 18th Street with a retail that is on uh the corner of Marin
and 18th Street. The utilities are located along the the back of the building in dark gray uh along the light rail embankment uh area. So that we've tried to have a service area along the uh rail line
which is where we think is a nice appropriate thing. Each building will have its own loading dock for uh moveins and move outs and other type of deliveries. Um and again 350 car multi-level garage.
This next slide shows phase one construction only. So the phase one building will include all the parking and again the lobby is on the corner of Grove and 18th Street. We'll have a small retail space along Grove Street. And then the uh the area that's the rest
of 18th and the phase two property that fronts on Marin and 18th will be a landscape green meadow area that'll be fenced in and controlled and maintained by the building. Showing the complete phases phase one and two. When you get to the second
floor, you have residential liner units shown in this yellow type of color uh which a mixture of studios ones, two and threebedroom units. The white at the center is the uh parking structure which is multi-level uh self park and it is
lined by the residential units with a single loaded corer. There is one small terrace area on the east side of the building and a small amenity space in the phase 2 building where the um where the residential units don't enclose the the shape.
>> Okay. >> The third to fifth floor is also uh the same kind of configuration with the parking levels um some utility rooms and then also single loaded card or residential units of studios ones twos
and threebedroom units. When you get to the sixth floor, you have the on top of the parking garage stops and on top the roof of the parking garage is a landscape pool deck and it then it becomes a double loaded corer building that sort of has a J type
of shape to it. Um you'll have landscaped roof deck above the parking garage. The purple spaces or the light violet colored spaces are amenity spaces uh for the building residents. that will include things like club rooms, um,
exercise and fitness, wellness, and the type of spaces, demonstration kitchens, and other spaces to be programmed at a later date. [Music] Going up through the tower, the 7th through uh 7th through 16th floors are
double loaded corer uh again uh taking advantage of the courtyard oriented towards the east to take advantage of some of the views of the Hudson River and New York City beyond. At the 17th floor, the building steps back along the street frontages 10 ft in
accordance with the redevelopment plan requirements. And then there's a rooftop amenity space that meets all the zoning requirements and a landscaped roof for the surfaces that are not going to be occupied uh by the tenants.
This is a roof plan showing the diagram of some of the bulkheads on the building that include elevator and stair type of uh pen houses. This is a section of the building showing the floor to floor heights. Uh the enclosure the the yellow color
represents the residential units. The white color in the center is the garage and you can see how it's lined by residential on all sides. The light blue colors are the lobbies at the ground floor and the orange is the retail. At the top of the building, you'll see that purple shaded amenity space.
This is a view of the building looking at the corner of 18th and Grove Street that shows the uh phase one uh and phase 2 together. The two lobbies, the one lobby is on the corner and the one lobby is in the middle of 18th Street. The building is a mixture of masonry and
brick and stone at the base of the building and then the upper part is primarily glass and a metal panel type of building. We have some shaping of the building uh both for architectural interest and on the portion that faces the train station to deal with and
address some of the um sound issues so that the sound bounces off the building in a way that's not reverberating around the neighborhood. sort of the idea is it's a acoustic treatment of the building that allow the sound of the rail line not to uh to echo around much.
I also have one last slide which is a maybe there's two last slides. This is a blowup to allow to show you what the street elevation will feel like at that corner. Uh one of the things we're asking for one of the deviations is for this uh building to be able to can lever
over the sidewalk. The sidewalk depth requirement was 15 feet, but to the dimension to the property line. It was it was five feet less than that. So, the building will project over that, but it'll be the width of the required width of the sidewalk will be provided. And it
will provide a nice it's very tall. It'll be about 20 18 feet 20 feet above the sidewalk, but it'll provide a light nice covered area that you can walk along when you're walking along the sidewalk with both the retail and the the uh lobby space there.
And that's the last slide. I think that concludes my presentation. Unless there's parts of it that I need to >> I have no questions for Mr. Higgins. >> Any questions from the board? >> No, I don't see any questions at all.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh, one thing before my last witness, uh, Mr. Higgins did mention that the building was designed to deal with some of the acoustical issues from the train. We did uh uh submit an acoustical report to uh to planning regarding those issues to make sure that it's not affecting the
neighborhood around us. Uh and with that uh I have one last witness, Mr. Ron Larson, who is our planner, who will walk you through the requested deviations tonight. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Sure. Uh, Robert, uh, last name Larson,
L A R S E N. >> Mr. Larson, have you testified in front of this board before? >> I have. >> Is your license current? >> It is. >> And in good standing? >> Yes. >> You're qualified. >> Okay. So, um, my job is to address the, uh, the deviations. As we mentioned, um,
there are, I believe, five. Um, first we'll speak to the the point of height. Um, so we are asking for a deviation where 14 stories are permitted. We're asking for 17. Um we're also asking for a uh deviation from height in terms of
feet which is um 169.9 where 160 is permitted as has already been mentioned. Uh this is still within the realm of a C variance for both. Um the applicant's also seeking um two uh deviations in regard to street trees. um one for the
the number of street trees which is uh 15 where 23 are otherwise permitted and uh spacing which is a maximum of 68 where 30 is otherwise permitted. Uh the last deviation is as was really just mentioned by the architect at the end of his testimony is there are overhangs uh
that encroach into the 50 15 foot required um setback front yard setback. Um, in terms of planning testimony, I would offer that um, in support of all of these v variances, uh, one, obviously this board can consider this under a C1
criteria. This is an irregularly shaped site. Uh, we are up against a rail and, um, as has been described, it is, uh, in the shape of a D and curved. But beyond that, I'd like to offer, uh, just for the record, um, the C2 criteria in support of these deviations. Um as has
been noted um this this the building height has been permitted uh in other places but I do think this continues to be an appropriate use of this space in this scale. Right. I think the architect has done a great job of um through creative layout and design. um being
able to get uh a building that's only a few feet taller would be imperceivable, but get it in 17 stories allowing for more variety in the housing uh the affordable housing as well as um a mix of units. Uh I also think he's done it with some very creative and beautiful architecture that's going to enhance the
area. Uh in terms of the street tree number and spacing, I think they're directly related to the layout. There's access from 18th Street where we have a gap. I think it's a good functioning gap, one in, one way in, one way out, but it does cause us to have a greater gap and a few less street trees. Um, but
I do think the benefit of having the entrance there um is is noted. Um, and then in terms of the overhang, I think the intention of the setback is met. Uh, at ground floor level, we have a fully functioning 15t wide um sidewalk. Uh, as
was just mentioned, again, the overhang is above. It's not uh encumbering any of the action at street level. Um I also think we're in a place where uh it actually provides good cover as the architect mentioned and would not have um a negative effect on the surrounding. Um in terms of furthering the purposes
of the municipal land use law, I would offer that uh this these deviations and this project um is several are furthered by this. Uh, one would be the propo promotion of the the general welfare through um creative design techniques and also um the board action uh in
support of of this application. Uh purpose E which speaks to appropriate densities and also the benefit of the neighborhood. Uh this is a true redevelopment. I'm I'm very excited to see this uh this building come to to fruition in this area and also purpose I um we saw some beautiful renderings. uh
purpose size speaks to uh a desirable desirable visual environment uh which I do think this uh this building achieves. Um also we have some creative design that's being put in uh even to assist with sound. Um another that I think uh I
I don't often use which is purpose C which is to promote light air and open space. Um we've used this irregularly shaped lot in a way that I think we have two phases, we have two towers, we have a lot of exposure that's been able to be achieved. Um so when we think of the furthering and the positive criteria, we
have to look at the uh the negative effects on the zone plan or the the master plan. Um I do not think by permitting these deviations that the zone plan or the um master plan are uh impacted uh with any substantial detriment. In fact, I see none. So um as
a planner, I would say that the balance of this uh it's certainly outweighs the benefits outweigh any detriment that would be perceived by permitting these deviations. That's it. Any questions? >> No, I don't see any questions.
>> Thank you. >> Just one note I would mention uh yes, we're not providing all the trees that are required under the forestry standards, but we will make the payment in lie uh that it's permitted to uh serve in when you're not providing all the trees. Um that is the bulk of our
testimony. I do have our traffic expert here. if there are any questions. Other than that, we think this is a great project that's largely meeting the requirements of the redevelopment plan, providing a substantial amount of affordable housing on site. Um, and we thank the board for their time. >> I just, um, have a question in regards
to or some clarity regarding the 10-year protection. >> So, that's the ask. Uh, so Mr. I'm sure is well aware that this board's never given 10 years and this board's never given 10 years on a preliminary. >> Sure.
>> Uh it's within the board's discretion under the MLUL on a preliminary essentially. The ask is give us 10 years for us to come back to you pretty much
with this building and get final approval to then go and construct this building. Uh the protections are that what's being presented in terms of scale variance
relief site plan uh review relief that remains intact. uh for a period of of 10 years. So that's the ask completely within the board's discretion. I am sure Mr. Lean
may want to comment uh as to how he gets to that request. I would note there are some factors in the MLU uh regarding economic conditions and and things of that nature. size of project which
obviously uh the MLUL talks about if it's a 100 residential units or if it is uh I believe 150,000 uh square feet of nonresidential. So
here you have I think it was 11,000 and change in in non-commercial. So that's not really what we're talking about. It's the hundreds of units that are being proposed. So, uh I'm happy to give the board any additional information.
>> Yeah. >> The usage of the bonus also requires an RDA. I would just um I'm just curious is there a timeline pursuant to that RDA? >> And is the 10year >> the the tenure is is really is
>> it's not we we are designated. We haven't fully completed the U development agreement subject to the approval of the board this evening. If if they were if the board was to grant us the 10 years, that would be something under consideration, but I have a feeling that there would be more stringent timelines within that. This is
really just about protections of the approvals and the underlying zoning that we're requesting. Um I've certainly never negotiated a redevelopment agreement where 10 years is contemplated to complete a project. Um but >> appreciate the cander, Mr. Um, but you
know, it's it's it's not an arbitrary number. I mean, it it does come from the fact that preliminary site plans are granted three years of protection with the option to come back for two additional years of extensions. When we do go to final, we're allowed two years of protection on of our final approval
with the option of three years of extensions under the MLU as well. All discretionary of course by the board. So, we didn't just come up with that number out of thin air. Um, we we we asked for it. just trying to be realistic. Um not hoping that this
project is going to 10 take 10 years or thinking it's going to take 10 years, but knowing that things change, time changes, the city is growing. Um financing can be difficult for a project that includes substantial amounts of affordable housing. Um so the intent is to move as quickly as possible on it,
but we do put forth to the board that there are factors that are sometimes out of a developer's hands. Do you want me to retort madam chair because I'm happy to retort uh >> 10 years is a decade >> and uh happened in 10 years
>> you know the the city is rapidly changing and 10 years is you know out there for preliminary. I think I'm safe to assume that this board likes to
see whatever they approve constructed uh while they're still on the board and uh >> Yep. >> you know, 10 years for preliminary and then >> it's way too long >> final from there.
I can't see the RDA being on that type of a schedule. Uh so >> why not something like can I make a suggestion? >> Well so the only other thing I would add for everyone to consider is you know I
think I think three years is is tight but I think 10 years is very generous. >> Agreed. Three years. Yeah I agreed. Three years is >> three years is what they get. Mhm. >> So, anything that we would approve, they
have three years. They can get >> two uh extensions of that for preliminary. >> I hope that we're not waiting 10 years to see the preliminary or the final site plan because the next thing in my mind
is I am sure Mr. Higgins will not be designing the same building in 10 years, but maybe he will be. Uh >> it's the ask and it's completely up to the board's discretion and we we are
comfortable if the board is so kind to grant approval here this evening whatever they see fit to grant. >> So if I may I think um based upon past experience as well and Santa with your um input I think the three years with
the two years extension is um something that I think we can consider safely. So that's what the >> any >> that would be the time frame that I agree I agree with that >> is granted whenever we approve anything right so then
>> free and there would be extensions so if you're comfortable with a five-year time period uh you could give a fiveyear approval they could get extensions there from but if you're comfortable with the statutory
three years and having them come back for the extensions. That's completely within the board's discretion. Uh we do have to open it to public. I don't know if we need to hear from traffic. It seems to me that this is the issue the
board is concerned about. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I can we just move forward with with what is typical for our the three. >> So, we can address that at the time if
we get to a motion on the matter. We don't have to >> make that decision >> before we decide if we're comfortable moving forward with the application in totality. >> Okay. >> So, I think we need to open it up to public. We need to
>> Do we want to hear from traffic? >> Mr. Ward, if anybody wants to hear from traffic. Okay. >> All right. Seemed that no one would like to hear from traffic. At this time, I would like to open for public comments on 660 Grove Street. >> I do want to note that the traffic
engineer never gets to testify in this. >> Ma'am, >> Paige. [Music] Yes. >> Paige Kek kek 157 Sussex Street.
>> A little closer. >> Good evening. You have three minutes. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I came here to talk about a different issue that was carried. So I thought I would just mention this. I don't know how variances work, but the variance um on trees I
think is of concern. And I'd like to stop it. I'd like to stop it as early as I can. I mean, we need street trees. We They clean the air. They're good for um people's the way people feel about a city. They increase property values.
They're I don't understand why they would want fewer trees. And I think we need more of a explanation of why the minimum number or why fewer trees are being requested with respect to the architect. I'm sure it's a beautiful
building. >> Let's let's continue with your full comments. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So that's it. I think we uh I think we I I hope the board going forward will reconsider any variances from the recommendations for street trees because
we need them desperately in the city. That's it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else from the public? >> Hello. >> Sure. Danielle Die L E Damo D's and
David A. D's name David Ao, >> you have three minutes. >> Okay. Well, good evening, chair and members of the board. Project of the scale can absolutely bring new life to an area, but only if they're designed in balance with our city's environmental goals and infrastructure realities.
First, on sustainability and forestry, Jersey City has committed to achieving a 30% tree canopy by 2040. Yet too often, large developments remove mature street trees and replace them with token saplings that won't provide meaningful
shade, flood mitigation, or air quality benefits for decades. I urge the board to ensure that any site plan approval includes a robust urban forestry plan, not just replacement trees, but native species selected for heat tolerance and
storm water absorption with clear maintenance requirements and canopy growth growth goals. Green roofs, bio swells, and pvious services should also be part of this discussion if the goal is to create a livable climate resilient neighborhood. Second, on transportation
and mobility, I want to acknowledge something positive. I'm happy to see that this project includes plans for a bike path. That's a step in the right direction, creating safer, more sustainable alternatives to driving and helping connect the area to a broader active transportation network. But while
the back bike path is a great start, it shouldn't be overshadowed by the proposed 350 car garage. More parking spaces will inevitably lead to more car trips, congestion, and emissions, directly at odds with the city's vision
zero, climate action, and bike master plane commitments. I urge the developer and the board to build a bike path to build on the bike path by prioritizing transit partnerships, micromobility options, and car share programs instead
of traditional parking. This is an ideal location for truly transit orientated development with proximity to both the Hudsonburg and light rail and path. Finally, we must think long term. This project sits within the Jersey Avenue light rail redevelopment plan and it has
a potential to be a model for what sustainable urban infill can look like. Dense, walkable, and green. But that only happens if sustainability is treated as a design principle, not an afterthought. I urge the board to require stronger environmental and
transportation impact analysis before approval and to work with the applicant to make sure our city's environmental, forestry, and mobility goals are reflected in the final site plan. Thank you for your time and for your service to our city. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public? Seeing there is no can you >> seeing that there's nobody else from the public I would like to make a motion to close the public >> to close the pro uh to close the public
>> second >> thank you public is closed madam chair do we want to hear from Mr. ward or >> do we want to hear from council to answer anything? >> Yeah, I think we should hear from council first before >> um I wanted to address the uh the
comment about the uh the on-site trees. Yes, we're not providing all the trees on site that are required by um the forestry standards. However, when you don't do that, you are required to make a payment in lie where for every single tree you're missing, you provide a payment to the forestry uh for the
division of forestry who plants a tree in the city offsite. So, we're not meeting that standard, but to call it a variance, I I don't really think it's a variance. It's it's something that we are complying with as an alternative. Um, I can have my architect address some
of the concerns about um some of the site sustainability issues, but I think you saw on his presentation that there was a green roof. You heard from our engineer that we are dealing with on-site detention. So, I think some of those concerns have already been addressed in our plans. Obviously, again, this is a preliminary
application. We will be continuing to work with the city. When we come back with our final design, we will obviously flesh some of those things out a little bit more. >> Thank you. >> And for the record, there is a memo from
the forestry on the portal addressing the street. >> Madam Chair, just to add to that for those members of the public that that did raise the issue, uh we do have a division of forestry. We have a forester uh who is in charge of the division obviously he prepares these memos for
the board uh after reviewing the applications and the plans and if the forestry feels that additional street trees can be planted on site that are going to survive and thrive at the location obviously the forestry would make that recommendation and we would
tell an applicant you don't get to pay and have a tree planted somewhere else in the city it happens on site but obviously one of the things that the forester is very conscientious of is the size of the tree pit and the roots and making sure that the tree is healthy and grows and can add to the canopy. And
then the only other thing I would say to those members of the public is simply uh the forestry as well as the board takes that very seriously and we don't want trees not to survive. We want them to survive and thrive within the city. So it's not something that we are quick to
dismiss. It is something that we do look to get on site. But in addition to the regulations and the standards, other things have an effect within the building in terms of where PSEG is going to make them locate the vault room and
and things of that nature that conflict with where a street tree could possibly go on a site of this size. So, uh, for what that's worth, we thank you for your comments and it is something that this board and the forestry especially take
uh very very seriously. >> Matt. >> Matt. >> Yeah. Uh, thank you for that, uh, council. Um, I would also add because they have multiple uh, intersections that there's also sometimes conflicts with uh, adding additional trees because
of sight triangle concerns. Um but certainly PSENG um transformer rooms and other uh underground vaults and things do prevent uh application applicants from meeting our standards. This project does um
include and meet some of the the special setback and buffer requirements of the project. So I would reiterate as well that they have a 10-ft um buffer along the the uh train tracks. one um that that's meant uh to be an acoustic
buffer, but two it's also adding a level of imperous uhness to the site. Um up above um the uh the architect spoke to um some of the acoustic design requirements that's required of the site along the train tracks. That's unique to
some of these these lots in this redevelopment plan that are up against the train tracks specifically. and they also are meeting the setback requirements that are required of them also along that that that frontage. Um this project is utilizing a uh the bonus
B of the afford the affordable housing bonus of the redevelopment plan. Um so they met that they talked multiple times that they're going to be providing that this being a preliminary approval. Um obviously that sort of agreement won't go into place until much later on until
they're uh finally in the ground. But we do have conditions regarding that as well as um some standard conditions in the staff memo uh that was provided to the applicant and the commissioners dated September 10th, 2024. We would just ask that the applicant um put on
the record that they will they agree to those conditions and we'll meet those conditions. Um >> uh I have uh reviewed staff's memo. We agree to the conditions therein. >> Perfect. Um this this project being a two-phase project, I think it's laid out in a
logical manner. Uh they're handling all of their parking in their phase one. Um they are uh they're landscaping the the remainder of that property should they be built in phases down the line. um in
in the interim uh making a sightly condition for however long that second phase takes to get to get built or start construction. Um the architecture um although it has some uh setbacks related to it um I would agree with the
planning testimony put on the record regarding uh the request for those variances um with regards to heightened stories, heightened feet, uh front yard setback. Uh that one's somewhat uh unusual. It says that encroachments are per not
permitted to dominate the primary facade. And you can see how they were doing that continuous overhang over the the street front edges. Um and that uh other than the trees, those are those are the other three variances that they're they're asking for. There was no
variances as to the street species. Um they are they are complying with the ordinance in that regard. Um staff recommends approval. >> Thank you. Um before we make the motion to approve, um I just want to get the board on the
same page so that we all in in agreement in regards to the um request for the 10-year versus what we normally on the board would provide or would grant um the three years. >> Three years. >> Three years. I think we're in agreement
on three years and they can come back and >> Yeah. Okay. >> and ask for an extension or what have you. >> Okay. Okay. >> So then I'll entertain a motion. >> So just one thing on that. So there's no downside to a three-year. I mean you come back, you know, uh it's like going
in for a physical every periodic, right? So you come in, you throw the car back up on the uh rack, do the 114 point check, and hope you get out of there with another approval. He he's shaking. >> Good analysis.
>> That's good. >> Statutoily the approval would be for three years. So it's three years under the statute they are able to seek additional extensions. Again this board uh from my recollection
preliminarily we haven't granted additional time on finals. Uh, I believe we've definitely granted more than than the three-year protection, but on preliminary, we've been pretty steadfast and wanting
to see the final comeback and the project move. >> What's that? >> Yep. Yep. >> Okay. I would like to make a motion to approve case P2 024-
0236. Um, this would be for a three-year preliminary and as uh as I just stated, I would like to present that to the board to vote. >> I'm looking for a second. Excuse me. >> I will second that motion.
>> Okay. On a motion made uh with and seconded with conditions of in addition the granting of a statutory preliminary approval 3 years. Acting Vice Chair Stamato. >> Yes. Commissioner Wick,
>> I. >> Commissioner Lewis, >> yes. >> Commissioner Lipsky, >> I. >> Commissioner Pel, >> I. >> Acting Chair Gangadan, >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> See in three years. [Laughter] >> We'll move on to new business. I'd like to call KP2025-0197, which is land development ordinance and
zoning map amendments for ward AB C. >> They leave. >> Yeah, I appreciate that. Um, good evening, Madam Chairwoman, members of the planning board. Um, staff has for you today a proposed Hackinack River Greenway
overlay which consists of um a zoning map amendment creating locating the overlay on the zoning map as well as an amendment to our land development ordinance defining the scope and parameters and requirements related to the overlay. Um, I guess first and
foremost um to explain What the Hackin Sack River Greenway is is it's a planned multi-use trail in linear park. Um it would provide public access along the entire Hackinack River waterfront throughout Hudson County um
or so-called other forgotten other waterfront on the west side of the city. Um that um is you know an underutilized resource that could be doing a lot of good for folks. Um, it's part of our broader plan for
greenways both in the city and beyond in the state, including the Hudson Essex Greenway, which would connect to Newark and Montlair. Um, visions for multi-use trails in the Bergen Arches, the Morris Canal Greenway along the path of the old Morris Canal through Jersey City and
onward to towns to the west of us and the like. Um, the greenway itself is a multi- agency project. Hudson, the Hudson County Division of Planning has been leading the efforts. They have a um conceptual plan in place. They've been
building funding and building segments where there's publicly own landable on the front of Front. But this overlay would address the problem of how do we get segments of greenway built on privately owned land so we can actually have a continuous waterfront greenway.
Um this overlay will apply to all the developable public and private land along our Hackinack River waterfront um under which the Jersey City zoning code does have jurisdiction. So,
um, for some context, the Meadowlands Conservation District, which includes much of the Croxton area, um, basically everything sort of west of Tonaly Avenue up by the western slope in the Heights, is under the jurisdiction of the New Jersey Sports and Exposition
Authority for zoning, not the city. So, it wouldn't apply there. But for everything pretty much from the path tracks on south within the city along the waterfront, this overlay would apply. Um, and the idea is that when
any new development along the Hackinack River waterfront would have to comply with the terms of the overlay, um, the overlay itself would ensure that developments are required to develop, maintain, and manage the greenway segment along their shoreline. Um there would be a 30 footwide conservation
easement required. Um that would have to be recorded via deed restriction and the developer would also have to sign a developers agreement with the city which would ensure u make clear that the land owner is responsible for the operation,
maintenance and management in perpetuity of that segment of the greenway. Um there are design standards in the overlay. Um ensuring that we have an 18 foot wide ADA compliant pathway that has
enough room to have both birectional um bike traffic as well as pedestrian traffic and segregated. So you don't have cyclists and pedestrians fighting over the same uh small little bit of space like you do in the Hudson River waterfront for example, which only requires a 12-oot walkway under state
law. Um there's standards around resilient eco-friendly landscaping. Um the preferred solution is a living edge pathway. So instead of just having like concrete and a fence, the idea is you have landscaping working as that
buffer to keep users of the walkway safe from falling in the water. So you have a more naturalistic approach and you have a more harmonious relationship between the city on one side, the waterfront the other and the greenway acting as a natural bridge between them. Um
there are public amenity requirements including seating, trash cans, and bike racks approximately every 100 feet. And the planning board must review and approve all greenway installations as a site plan. So even if a project otherwise wouldn't meet site plan threshold, for example, on along a
segment of the river, it would still come to this board for reviewing the purposes of reviewing the actual greenway installation. Um there are also requirements related to ensuring there are easements created and infrastructure created for public access. Um much of our riverfront really
is far from our current street grid and our current neighborhoods and we want to make sure that there's adequate access paths. Um that would also be covered and um would be covered as part of any easement dedication as part of any developers agreement etc.
Um so as far as reviewing this proposed amendment for consistency with our master plan um the greenway has a very prominent place within our master plan vision within the open space element of our master plan. Um waterfront access is a key aspect of helping our residents cope
with the urban heat island effect. Um, I'm sure as anyone knows, uh, when you're right up against the water, it's a lot cooler than it is when you're in the middle of the concrete jungle that is much of Jersey City. Um,
and the greenway is a is a conduit for connectivity. This is envisioned for both recreational and transportation use. The idea is it's park, it's green space, it's waterfront access for people to enjoy recreationally, passively, but it's also a transportation artery for
folks on their feet, on two wheels, three wheels, four wheels, whatever. Um, and um helps strengthen connections both within Jersey City along the west side of Jersey City as well as to neighboring communities. Um,
there's segments of this greenway that have been built in Bayon. There's segments of this greenway that have been built on public land in Jersey City, most notably um in Lincoln Park West. Um sort of it's sort of intertwined with the Skyway um golf course.
Um the county's been pretty diligent with the sections under public stewardship and this is about um working with our development community to realize the sections under private ownership. Um the
land use element identifies the need to enhance access to the waterfront. The large big box retail over there really isn't really functions as a barrier between people in the waterfront. And we want um as that the waterfront redevelops um we want to make sure that waterfront is
a key um resource. We've seen um you know down in the Society Hill redevelopment in Drawers Point, they got a segment of of pathway built that was via a redevelopment plan via Bayfront. We're supposed to be getting a pathway, but this would cover areas like the
Hudson Mall and um other and this ensures, you know, instead of having to wait for redevelopment proposals and a redevelopment plan, we make sure sort of no one beats us to the punch. We make sure no matter what, even if someone's just coming in with a a new big box
store, we get that segment of greenway. Um, that being said, um, I'm open to the board for questions. >> Good job. >> Yeah, I I think it's much needed and being for
um forward thinking, I think it's great. It's a great idea. >> Thank you. Any questions from the board? >> No. >> I mean, you did really good. >> Thank you, Mr. Liss. >> At this time, I would like to open for the public. Is there anyone from the
public? >> Madam Chair, saying that there's nobody from the public. >> So, I can I Yeah, I'm doing good over here. >> I heard you, Pat. So, >> you heard me good. >> All right. Um, >> and we have your recommendation. >> Um, yes. Um, staff recommends a finding
of consistent with the master plan and recommendation to city council to adopt this overlay. >> Okay. I'd like to entertain a motion to send this to city council for adoption. >> Second. >> I'd like a motion. >> Oh, excuse me. I would like to make a motion in
reference to what was just discussed by >> P 02 >> planning board um to move forward >> uh with uh I believe it's P2 025-0197 that's the master pan to be cons uh consistency as far as uh what was
presented to us >> and I second that motion >> acting vice chair stamato >> yes >> commissioner Comm Wick. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Lewis. >> I, >> Commissioner Lipsky. >> Yeah, for those members of the public who may have been a little disappointed
in the last item on the agenda, maybe this gives you some solace. I vote I. >> Commissioner Patel, >> I. >> And acting chairwoman Gangaden, >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Thank you.
We'll take a 10 minutes break. So, we'll be back. >> At this time, I would like to call in case P2024-0199, which is number 10 on the agenda. It's a minor site plan with C variance 10
exchange police. >> Good evening. >> Good evening, commissioners. My name is Linda Hurley. I'm with the firm of Riker Danzig and we represent the applicant this evening. Um before I start, uh Mr. Lampy, I have
my >> I will take those. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. Receive the affidate publication proof of mailing with respect to the application. And this matter had been carried from a prior meeting uh
back in July. Does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You may proceed, council.
>> Thank you. Um so this property is at uh 10 Exchange Place. It's located within the Exchange Place redevelopment area um and fully developed with a 30story building with groundf flooror commercial commercial tenants. This application
seeks minor site plan approval um of a comprehensive sign program for the building that we hope will provide consistency among signs and remain flexible to address the needs of both our current tenants as well as future tenants as as they come and go. Um the
property is subject to the exchange place redevelopment plan. Um that plan having expired pursuant to its terms um in or about 2017. Um the plan permitted signs that were customary to and commonly associated
with the permitted use all subject to planning board approval. As part of the application, you'll see that we've requested certain variances in connection with the with the signs that are proposed. Um and that was um because the plan is expired and on the advice of
city planning, we compared our proposed sign program to the requirements of the nearby Exchange Place North redevelopment plan um and use that as an analysis of similar signs in the area for the basis of um the comparison that
that we've made. um our architect who's here this evening will go through the signs in in detail, but just by way of an overview, what we propose is a um a flush mounted building facade signs and a blade type sign for each of the retail
commercial tenants on the ground floor. um the total number of signs and the actual overall square footage would vary based upon the size of the tenant space and the number of tenants that we have at any one time. Um but we are proposing
that the facade signs would be capped at no larger than 10% of the facade wall area. Um again larger or smaller depending upon how large of a space that a tenant may may occupy. We also propose a single monument sign
to identify um the building as well as certain um of the office tenants in the building that's located um within the plaza area at a location that um was discussed and previously approved with the improvement authority before they
did the improvements to the to the plaza outside of the building. and we propose two um what we call mast head signs at the top at the top of the building. So I have two witnesses this evening, our architect um and our planner. And we also have a representative of building
management here um for the board. If they have any questions um of ownership at at any point in time. So there's no other questions of me or any questions of the board. I'd call my first witness. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. So Jeff Jeff Ellerbrock [Music] >> we have a computer here. >> Sorry. >> Good evening. Jeff Eller with MDAS Architects. Tonight the whole truth. >> Yes.
>> Elro. It's E L L E R B R O C K. >> Mr. El did we qualify you before? >> I have not been I have not been here before. >> Okay. Can you give us a brief um history of your qualification? >> Yes, I um been with MDS architects 21 years. Uh licensed architect in New York
and New Jersey. Um a bachelor of science and master and architecture degrees. >> And is your license current? >> Yes. >> Thank you. You're qualified. Is there anything I need to do to get that up? Here we go. Very good. Thank you,
>> sir. If this was a slide made to be presented, we do need to mark it as A2. If this was in the submitt to the board, we do not need to mark it. >> I believe it's there. What? I believe combination. >> It's similar, but it's updated from what was submitted to the board.
>> So, let's mark it as A2. >> A2. >> Okay. >> And just tell me how many slides. >> Yeah, 20 slides in including the cover sheet here. >> Okay. >> Um, as Linda outlined, there are three sign types that we're here to present um 410 exchange. I do want to note this is
part of a larger uh upgrade to the building that our office has been working on with ownership. uh started in the lobby uh with upgraded finishes, lighting uh and features there which did uh create a more inviting lobby just as you come off the path uh the path entry
there. So uh this is a continuation of that program that we had started uh years back as you know 10 exchange on the banks of the Hudson. Um we have the as I the path train uh entry points both as part of the building then also the the isolated um bulkhead at the at the
um river edge as well. Um, so the front door, the primary, uh, entry to ten exchange is right as you come off the path. Uh, the building is accessed from all sides, parking lots within the building, also uh, adjacent parking lots. So, the side entry and the plaza
to the north and the riverfront walkway make the, uh, the building actually accessed from all sides, um, including the retail. And as a blow up here, we'll get into the sign component. So, um, again, the primary front door, uh, to the east, um, secondary door here.
Today, Gregory, uh, Gregory's Coffee occupies this corner retail. Um, they have a signage, a program already established there. UPS moving in here, there's an a single retail space here. And to the north on Christopher Columbus Drive, a larger retail space, which is
uh, unoccupied today. This could become one larger retail or or broken down into individual retail spaces and part of the signage program will deal with each of those. Uh the red elements that we see on the building face, these are the proposed blade signs that would project
out two feet from the building. Um, again, depending on whether or not one tenant is here or multiple tenants here are here. [Music] here. >> I think it just found it.
stand. >> Thank you for your patience. >> Um I was talking the the red components here. These are the projecting blade signs uh that would flank either the ends for a single uh retailer or um if this was broken into individual re uh
retail uh storefronts, each each pier would have a blade sign. Um Gregory's has a blade sign today. We'll show we'll show you this um in a photo. Um and the single monument sign um is proposed out here between the two entries to the building. And this would provide
additional identification for the building address and then also potential for tenants that are occupying the building. Um I mentioned, you know, the program that we've been working on for a number of years. The the image on the left was the entry to tent exchange uh 2017 2018
and as part of the the lobby renovation. Um the finishes inside are brighter. lights are have been refurbished. Um, and there's a feature wall as you come in. So, that's the entry has become much more inviting and it's this uh uh this new organization that we've been trying to keep out bring out to the signage to
make it a a clear base to the building. Um, we'll go to the north elevation uh Christopher Columbus Drive. The upper image is showing um if that retail space would become a single tenant. Um, if that's the case, the retail signs would be working on the two ends. So, we would
have the face sign that's mounted flush to the storefront and then at the corner a a projecting blade sign. If the storefront were was to be divided into individual spaces, that same detail would be taken across each each space. Um, and then any variation in between,
if this was broken into two, u the signage would would be at the two ends of each retail space. And then on the north side, this is where we do have the path entry. um that's very tight to the arcade. There are three retail or potential for three
retail spaces here. Uh one being uh UPS again the same details. It's either uh blade signs on the two ends single retail or a single tenant sign at the middle or individual signs for each storefront. Um I mentioned Gregory's. They're there today. They're at this
this is the corner uh the southwest corner sorry southeast corner uh that they occupy. Now, this is one of the this is the second building entry from the plaza. And then from the east, this image is really showing the projection of the blade sign. So, if you're coming out, this is really the view coming out of
from the path uh path station um retail sign on the face and then the projecting blade sign that would be on both the arcade side and then also the uh the north the north elevation. So, Gregory's uh there today. um the
signage ban that has been in place and then their their particular logo um was placed and these were f loosely following some of the regulations that were in place. We're using this as a model for any new potential tenant sign so we can keep it consistent around the building. Um hard to see at this angle,
but this is a project a projecting a circular sign that they've they have for their their logo that makes the space identified from uh both east and west. What's a stick here? Went too fast. Um the view on the left or this is the same
arcade on the south side. It's very tight. This is where the path train uh flanks the edge of the building. Um signage on the face of the storefront is very difficult to see um headon given the proximity to the path the path entry. This is where we would the reason
we're proposing the blade sign. So the act that that logo this the tenant sign can be seen both as you know from east and west as you're approaching this arcade. The same detail would be brought over to the north side and the view out. This is just this is between the two entries. Um the
southeast corner of the building. Um this is where the waterfront um improvements were made. This was this finished here. The the greenery that was added to the edge of 10 exchange. We see Gregory's Coffee there in the distance in the primary entry to the building on the right. I will note um this work was
done in coordination with the potential for the monument sign out here. These two inground lights were actually placed to provide the light for that potential sign um outside the building at this location and a view of the the storefront today as it exists on on the north. Um it's
vacant today so um the the glass is covered with advertising. the white band here, uh, this opaque glass is actually the floor level. Um, and then what we're proposing and much of what Gregory's had had started. So, removing that white opaque glass and replacing that with a
painted metal panel which would provide the backing for the for the retail the tennis uh signage. Um, this band um 20 24 ft wide about 2 and 1/2 ft tall. This would provide any of the face signage.
So this zone um shown at 20 ft and just under 24 is roughly 9% of the total storefront area. Uh this is shown just as retail obviously generic uh given until a tenant moves in but any sign is going to fit within this white dash
line. Again that's below the 10% of the total facade. Um shown also on the side here would be the projecting blade signs which we'll see in more detail here. um a 2 by two square that projects off off the face of the building. Um and that sign would
either be um the tenant name small like this or potentially a tenant logo depending on on the the tenant and their um and their their logo. Both this sign and the preceding face sign are internally illuminated. Um the sides are
dark but the face would would actually produce uh light. That sign would be tied into the tenants hours. So once once the store is closed, this light could could be turned off. And the monument sign, um, we saw the
the image there where this is located. Um, it's a combination of a painted metal structure and then a stainless steel logo, uh, the ten exchange logo, then the potential for tenant names. Uh, just below that, um, you see in the image here, this is that inground light that is installed today. And that
location is just off the edge of the just beyond the arcade uh next to that greenery out of the way of the circulation on the waterfront prominade. Um close enough that's it's still um still signifying the building location.
And here's a here's a view of that. The third sign um that we had mentioned is the mass sign or the the sign at the top of the building that the mechanical bulkhead. Uh there's two scenarios here. Um it's a single tenant that could be on one or two sides or two different tenants on both uh on one on the north
and one on the south. We've designated a zone of 16 ft by 100 ft is the maximum size for that. We're showing a generic name anchor for now just to fill in that zone. Uh but this would be adjusted giving the actual tenant name or their logo but in in no case would it extend
larger than the size shown here. Uh here's just a view from AC uh from the east and then highlighting 10 exchange there in red and then a view of both uh daytime and evening of what how that sign would would work on the on the
facade. And the goal here is to really provide recognition of the building a potential for just more people to move in here rather you know given the tenant you the name of the tenant up in the building at the top here and I think that is that is it. So the tenant name
will be on the top. >> Yeah, it's a tenant. Um it depends um that that tenant hasn't been identified, but that would be at the at the top >> on one side or both. Um and it could potentially be two tenants, one on the north and one on the south.
>> Would be a significant tenant in the building. It would be >> correct >> reserved for someone um 100,000 square feet or or so that would occupy space. Um, that's so >> if every floor has a different tenant,
that's how it's going to be label. >> No, no, no. One sign, it would be one it would be one tenant potentially having that same name. If if a if a large tenant took half half the building, >> they would potentially be entitled to have their name on both sides and they
would be the only one potentially if it or it could be two. It would it would not be each we're not proposing each floor have a name such as this. >> No, it would be >> the anchor tenant whoever that is if it's you know
>> Metife insurance and then >> you know the building would become >> yeah it's naming rights on the building. >> Uh do you have a question? >> I do have two questions. the monument
sign. Where is that in relation to where the actual plaza that has just been redone? How far is the property line to the plaza? Does the plaza have any signage
in their new improvements? >> The plaza does not. This is within the building property line, >> right? But I guess the landscaping to the bottom of that page, is that part of the
plaza or is that part of >> This is This is part This is part of the waterfront here. >> Your property line is right through here. As part of the plaza improvements, there was an agreement with the property owner and the improvement authority where certain plaza improvements were were
installed on what is our property to make it appear cohesive, right? And that's why at the time we anticipated proposing a monument sign and that's why the lights are there. So we coordinated with them so that it didn't interfere with any of their plaza improvements and
it was installed in advance so that to the extent you know should it be approved by this board we wouldn't have to rip up the work that they had already that they had already done. So that that's why that's >> well and that answers my question. The exchange place did the improvements to
the plaza. They were here on a section 31 before they obviously did that. So I just wanted to confirm that there is no conflict. >> Correct. >> And that the exchange place alliance I guess is aware of >> it was actually part of the agreement
that it contemplated the monument sign would be placed there. >> Second question is is Gregory's blade sign a circle? >> It is. Yeah. >> But now we're going to go to squares on the other blade signs. >> That's the purple. Yeah.
What was the design thought behind it? >> Gregory's has a circle in their logo and I think that's part of it. That that's actually a sign they use at a lot of their stores. We found the square to be a bit more accommodating. So, a few a couple different tenants. Um, and the
the square profile versus the circle look better on the building. So, it was an aesthetic thing from our end. That is a a slight deviation from the Gregory's that's there. and council. If a tenant wanted a circle because it goes with their logo, uh I'm
thinking of a Lululemon or somebody like that that has the circle, they would have to come back obviously to to get a circle from a square. >> Correct. >> But we do propose to leave Gregory's. They're they're existing. We don't want,
you know, not intending to. Yeah. >> I I have another question. Um the sign like the across the storefronts the black. Yeah. So you're saying the
retail has to fit inside those parameters. >> It fits within the the white dash line here. Again, retail >> it could be longer than retail. In no case would it be higher than two feet, >> but it could span wider than what the retail sign is showing now. And just
like the Gregory's coffee, would they be able obviously fit their branding um like their their logo, right? >> Right. So the s Yeah. So if it's a really long name, they would have to reduce the size of the font so that it
would actually fit between the two ends. >> Okay. >> Gregory's is actually a good is it's probably twice as long as the the retail sign that's shown here now. Um, so it does fill up more of the storefront or more of that band. And to clarify, that
white dash line is is just under 10% of the total facade area there. >> Is there is there a world where like a certain retailer's logo is compromised by that space and it looks
like I guess my question is like a >> dysfunctioned logo, >> right? I get what you're saying. You know, I think it's a case then is the logo does that become something that's part of the the projecting blade and then the text is fit fits within here.
We've had >> cases um other buildings where you know we we've had to work you know we've had a parameters and they had to accommodate to that. So >> okay >> um I can't I'm trying to think of an actual retailer that would have that issue but um we there's no we're not
interested in putting a larger sign here. Again, that's why the blade sign produces that opportunity for that. Okay. >> That oneoff logo. >> Gotcha. >> Can we go back to the monument side >> for the record? Yeah, I just wanted us to take a look at
that again. >> And you do you have that in front of the building or >> Yeah. building. I want to see what it looks like. >> So, the two lights that are installed today that that that's that's what that would be in between on each side of the of the monument sign.
I mean, I don't want to be nitpicky, but it doesn't do anything for me. You got beautiful building. You can't, you know, it's doing a lot. And then the side is just I don't know. >> What do you think, Madam Chair? >> How do you feel about that?
>> You like it? >> I mean, we don't get into aesthetics like that. I think it's intentionally and classically understated. I I like that, right? It serves its purpose without detracting or
calling attention to itself. uh which I think aesthetically from my point of view the other signs do I you know but that I think all of that is very subjective and I think is beyond
what what maybe we should be focused on in terms of um you know the the proposal but I'm just curious So, council, my only
concern is this building is the 10 exchange place building. I think that's how how we all view it. I mean, I don't want to speak for everybody, but >> no, you're absolutely right. >> You know, to me, it's an iconic building in and of itself.
And, you know, I like Yankee Stadium. I don't like Metife Stadium. Not the venue, right? >> I will I like it when it's green. I don't like it when it's blue. But I, you know, >> I know, I know. Um, it's not the intent
to rename the building. While the the big mast head sign would be, you know, for the anchor tenant, it again, we're we're proposing the monument sign because we do want the 10 exchange place name to be there. This is this is 10
exchange place. We're not renaming the building with a tenant >> until we do. >> Right. Until we do. >> That's I don't know. >> Yeah.
I'm not clear about that either. For me, it looks like it's building. >> Kim, any suggestion? >> There are other buildings in the city that have similar practices with signage. Um,
I'm blanking at the moment. Um, but we did a I I I was a review planner on um a Newport application where we did um I believe it was JP Morgan actually and they did their like I don't know what it
is a pentagram with JP Morgan like giant logo on top and the and the board approved it. Uh like we we do it and it was for the anchor tenant. So if the board
doesn't like it, uh they could ask that it's removed. But I will say that we have approved it. We have done these before and planning staff doesn't feel that there's any detriment to the zone plan or the public's general welfare
well-being um when we do signage like this. So it's up to the board. And I just note that we do also because we proposed the two signs, it could likely be two different >> names
>> names, two different very large tenants, >> which would also detract from renaming it to one or the other. >> That's why that concludes your presentation. >> Yes. >> Any other questions from the board? >> No. No.
>> Okay. At this time, I would like to open for public. >> I'm sorry. You finished. >> You have another witness. >> Yes. >> Oh, yes. Sorry. >> Okay. >> I don't need to plug in. Can I just >> Thank you. >> Hi. Good evening. Um, Madam Chairman,
yes. I do. >> Sure. My name is Kate Keller. My last name is K L E R. >> Miss Keller, did we qualify you before? >> Um, it's been about a year, I believe, but I have been before this board before. I'm a principal with the firm of Phillips Price, uh, Gregel Laney Keller
based in Hoboken. >> And is your license current and in good standing? >> Mhm. Okay, you're qualified. >> Great. Thank you very much. Um, so yeah, so I'm going to be brief tonight because this is kind of a unique application in that there is not really a technical variance required because there is really not a redevelopment plan
currently valid here as um, Miss Hurley explained. Um, but tonight I think that what you've seen is a presentation that uh, proposes three different types of signage that are really in alignment with the needs of this particular building. This is a high-rise building. It's an iconic waterfront building in
Jersey City. Um, and you know, there's with all of the challenges in the office space market these days, I think that the idea of the signs up top, the mast signs, um, is really meant to promote this building and give it a not promote the building, but just really to give it an advantage with leasing and tenants
and acquiring new tenants. Um, at the same time, you know, it is also has uh multiple frontages, but the frontages are not all on public streets. Some of them are on the public plaza and that is part of the reason for we're asking for the blade signs to make sure that uh people can identify those storefronts.
And then finally the monument sign is for a similar reason because you know with the building of this scale when you're standing there at the plaza you might not know exactly which that you're in front of 10 exchange place because you can't see all the way up. So, I think this is really a um a plan that is
in in um accordance with the idea of the redevelopment plans and all of the new uh development and upgrades around the exchange place area. So, you know, I see no uh negative uh detriments associated with this uh to the zone plan and zoning ordinance or to the public good. I think it benefits wayfinding. I think it
benefits the aesthetic upgrades of the area. I think it promotes the purposes of zoning particularly purpose A um general welfare in that it um supports the leasing and the use of this building um purpose G which is aesthetic purposes
um and then also provides for directional of of pedestrian traffic around the area. So that is really my testimony. Um I think that it really represents a better planning and zoning alternative than what's there today. So I'm happy to answer any questions.
>> No, >> thank you. >> I don't have any further witnesses. >> I see there's no one from the public here to close it. >> I'll second that. Thank you. Okay.
Um, so planning staff would firstly ask that the applicant's attorney agree to the condition stated in the planning staff memo dated April 2nd of this year. >> Yeah, I've reviewed that. I just have one question or just one clarification with respect to number one. >> Um, and the the affidavit is it with
respect to the the final building constructed or ultimately the signs that are to be installed? >> Ultimately the signs there to be installed. >> We have no issue. >> Okay. and we'll we'll correct that for the resolution to reflect uh yeah that's standard language we put in there.
Sorry. Um >> so planning staff agrees with the testimony provided by the applicant's professional planner. Um staff agrees. We believe there's no detriment to the zone plan zoning ordinance um or the
city's master plan. Um, in regard to the anchor tenant signage, uh, staff agrees, um, that the, uh, >> what happened? >> Commercial office space is becoming a
more difficult, um, rental, uh, occupancy for buildings across the city. And this does help to make those spaces more attractive to um rentals. So um
ultimately planning staff recommends approval. >> Thank you. At this time I would like to entertain a motion. >> I would like to make a motion to approve case P2024- Yeah, I'm in good shape. P240-
um 0199 >> and I will second that motion. >> Acting Vice Chair Stamato, >> yes. >> Commissioner Wick, >> I. >> Commissioner Lewis, >> I. >> Commissioner Patel, >> I. >> And acting chair Gangadan.
>> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor with conditions. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. At this time, I'd like to call in KP2025-000048, preliminary and final major site plan with variances 590 Grand Street.
>> Uh, thank you. If we could also call the the case after that as well. Um, we're we're going to present those together. Okay, that's case number P2023-0107 preliminary major site plan and preliminary and major site plan with
variances address is 590 Grand Street. >> Great. Thank you. U Stephen Joseph Cassano quickly trai for the applicant. I do have notices here but if uh council will indulge me I think it to understand procedurally what we're doing here I'm just going to do a brief introduction and then we'll enter the notices for
each um application. So, um, the the proposed project here is three phases with a subdivision. Phase one is going to be a six-story building with 60 units. Phase two is going to be six stories with 60 units. Phase three will
be six stories with 115 units. It's all mixeduse commercial on the ground floor. Um, we're requesting quite a few things tonight. So, preliminary major subdivision approval, just preliminary, uh, not final. That's one of the applications. We will come back to get
the final approval at the end of phase one and that's for the widening of Grand Street. There will be a portion of Grand Street dedicated to the city that requires a major subdivision. We're requesting preliminary major site plan approval for all three phases
and then the only final approval we're seeking tonight is for phase one. So, and we have a a couple of variances in design waivers for a stilted building, a loading space depth, and a landscape buffer. Um, so with with that, we do
have two notice packages this evening. One is for the preliminary major subdivision and the other one is for the prelim preliminary site plan approval, the final on phase one and the variance relief. Um, so if we could enter that
into uh evidence, please. >> We didn't get to. No, we haven't gotten there yet. 14 to carry over >> 1417 and 23. Okay.
Good. Madam Chair, receive the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to 590 Grand Street. We are going to mark the notice package for preliminary major subdivision as A1.
And we are going to mark the notice package for the preliminary major site plan for in phases one, two, and three with C
variances as A two. And that's also going to be for the final major site plan of a phase one. Thank you, council. So, the other thing that you need to know about this project
is it was part of a a recent redevelopment plan amendment. Um, so this is the mixeduse F zone. in order to take advantage of this zone which encourages the consolidation of um zones formally in the industrial zone of of Morris Canal and creating mixeduse
development there. Um there's a few things that the developer has to do which which we are doing. One is the expanding of the public right ofway meaning grand street will be expanded. You'll see what that that looks like. Um we have to provide 10% affordable housing which is part of phase one will
be six units. Um the overall project will be 24 affordable units and uh we have to make certain other improvements in the right of way which includes a uh cycle track. So extension of a bike lane on the other side of Grand Street from
our property. So we're going to start with civil this evening because I think it makes more sense to to see the project in its phases first. Let's bring up Trevor. We'll get him sworn in and we'll walk through that. Any testimony tonight is going to be the
truth. The whole truth. >> I do. >> Spell your name. >> My name is Trevor Curtis. T R E V O R C U R T I S. >> Mr. Curtis, did you um testify in front
of this board before? Uh about five years ago I did, but most recently in front of the zoning board in Jersey City. >> Okay. Would you give us a brief um background of your qualification? >> Sure. I have a bachelor's in science and civil engineering from Ruckers
University. I graduated in 2013. Uh I've been a licensed professional civil engineer in the state of New Jersey since 2018. Uh I've appeared before uh numerous boards in Hudson County, Bergen County, all throughout New Jersey. Uh
and my license is currently in good standing. >> Thank you. You're qualified. >> All right, Trevor, let's set up your uh laptop so we can present the plans. [Music] Just make sure that talking to the microphone.
Right. Good. All right. So, uh Trevor, I think you did prepare um just a colorized version of the site plan which we could enter as as A3. You want to pull that up first just so we could see the the big picture and and then we'll go through it face by face.
Um so if you could just just describe it, give a date of it and we could enter it. This is essentially a colorized version of the overall phase three site plan uh that was prepared in the civil set submitted to the board. Uh the only
difference is this is colorized. Uh all the information appear appearing on the plan remains the same. So the date is revision number four July 22nd 2025. >> A3
>> A3 A3 council. Yes. >> Thank you, council. >> All right, Trevor, take it away. >> Okay, so we we marked the exhibit, but I think, you know, before I get into all of the proposed improvements, I'll quickly go back to the civil set that
was provided to the board uh as part of this application. This is sheet C 1.0, which identifies the existing conditions on the site. The site is about 1 and a half acres uh and consists of mainly uh light industrial uses uh located at the intersection of
Fairmont, Grand Street and Johnston Avenue. Uh the existing site uh has somewhat dilapidated um concrete sidewalk and curbing areas located around the perimeter of the property. Um there's a a rather large asphalt parking
lot in the central portion of the site uh with three existing buildings. One at the intersection of Fairmont Avenue uh and Grand Street uh and then two on Johnston Avenue. Under existing conditions, there are a a large number
of curb cuts, uh about eight, um with about two or three existing curb cuts located at the intersection of Fairmont Avenue and Grand Street. Um, under proposed conditions, uh, we would remove
all of the curb cuts and replace them with one singular curb cut on Johnston Avenue, as I'll show you in the proposed colorized site plan, which I'll jump back to. So, this plan identifies
the full site improvements for all three phases. Uh, and I thought it was important to show what the site will look like uh, after phase one, two, and three are completed, just to identify what each of the buildings are and which phase they're in.
Phase one will be the proposed building located on Fairmont Avenue, a sixstory, 60 unit structure that is identified as building one phase one. Phase two is the building located on Johnston Avenue,
which is also a six-story and 60-unit structure. Phase three would be located along Grand Street, and that is a 115 unit six-story structure. Um the improvements for phase one would include
parking uh as well as the majority of the streetscape improvements. The only exception being the portion of the rightway on Johnson Avenue in front of building 2. So the majority of the improvements for the streetscape will be constructed as part of the construction
of the first building on Fairmont Avenue. In addition to that, as part of the requirements uh from the board, the road widening of Grand Street will be completed under phase one. Uh so I just wanted to show the board what the
proposed development will look like and then we can go into each of the phases separately to identify um each zoning requirement as well as improvements. I'll quickly jump back to the
civil plan set and jump to the phasing plan which roughly identifies the areas of improvements uh most importantly for our preliminary and final site plan approval phase one which identifies the building along Fairmont
Avenue as well as highlighted in red all the improvements that'll be included in phase one. I have glitch here. Okay. Sheet C2.2 identifies the improvements that would be included in phase 1. This shows that the proposed building is
located on Fairmont Avenue under phase one and includes um partially covered parking within the central portion of the site as well as all of the streetscape improvements along Fairmont Avenue, Grand Street, and Johnston Avenue. As part of this, the majority of
the curb cuts, with the exception of two on Avenue, uh will be removed and replaced with one new driveway to access the site. while the remaining uses on Johnston Avenue on the western portion of the project page left uh will remain
during phase one. There's a portion of the site in the central portion that identifies a construction area. So I think one of the questions that was brought up is what this would look like uh after the improvements are constructed and the
grand street road widening is performed. So that Grand Street road widening is about 14 feet wide and that is to accommodate a new bike lane on the eastern portion of Grand Street. After the road widening is completed and the
streetscape improvements are completed, uh there will be a void of land left over within the middle of the site which would be adequately fenced and buffered with uh evergreen trees uh until subsequent phases of the development are completed.
Under this phase, we identified two var three variances. One is the stilted building, which the architect will go over during his testimony. The second is the loading space dimensions, which are located where my cursor is on the plan
within the parking lot. And the third is the buffer to um lots located I believe they're 8 through 11 located on this portion of the site. And the requirements for the buffer is 5 ft whereas the existing conditions is less
than 5T. So we noted these variances. >> Trevor, if you don't mind just zooming in um yes to to that area just so we get a better look. So, the requirements for the loading zone are 10 by 45, I believe, and we're
proposing 12x 22.75. >> Um, >> Trevor, I'm sorry, but while uh while we're here, we we did get a a traffic review letter which did have a comment about the uh the loading zone. Um the the traffic review letter was based on a
prior version of of the plans. if um you want to just explain how we're we're addressing that. There were some concerns about the maneuverability of a of a truck into that that loading zone and potentially blocking a parking space. >> Yeah. So, I took a look at the traffic comments and um
these comments were issued on an older civil plan set. During the time after that letter was issued, we had significant coordination with PSENG. PSNG is requiring transformers. So parking along where the loading dock is
was adjusted to accommodate that transformer. There was leftover area um which I gave to the loading zone to facilitate turning movements of a vehicle. Um, and then if if a vehicle or
loading if a vehicle was loading in that area and blocked the other space, uh, I would I would recommend, you know, that management assign that space to an employee parking only space or somebody who's managing the building itself, uh,
to facilitate any blocking of, you know, vehicles trying to maneuver out of that space. >> Thank you, Trevor. And you you did say you said loading doc. I just want to clarify it's not >> loading zone. Sorry. >> Thank you. >> Loading zone. >> All right. Thank you, Trevor. Continue. >> And >> council, do we have a sheet regarding
the subdivision? >> We do. >> Uh, would you like to start there? >> Go there. >> Sure. >> And just show it. >> Yep. Absolutely. >> I don't want people to get confused with what appears on that sheet. >> Yeah. So, it's it's very simple and and uh um just the requirements of the plan
were 14 feet of width, minimum 3500 square feet. I believe this is proposing 3,700 square feet and change. It is just preliminary. So, um that number could shift a little bit as long as it it meets the requirements of uh of the
redevelopment plan. And then we will be back here for the for the final subdivision and subsequent perfection. We also have to dedicate that to the city. >> What sheet are you showing us? >> This is the this is the preliminary subdivision plaque prepared by the
surveyor. So the green area identifies the land that will be dedicated or given to the city uh as part of the road widening. >> So that's currently the applicant's property and it is being
subdivided off and dedicated to the city for purposes of widening Grand Street. >> Correct. >> And that does not carry around on Fairmont or on Johnston. a small piece of the um the arc to complete the property line occurs on Fairmont Avenue.
Um but essentially it is a 14 foot offset from the existing park uh property line to to accommodate a new bike line on the other side might a bike lane on the other side of the street. >> So phase one was the 60 unit building on
Fairmount Avenue. >> Yes. And after phase one is constructed or while phase one is constructed, the improvements along the street are going to be installed.
>> Yes, correct. >> And then phase three will be constructed after those improvements already exist and Grand Street has been widened. Is that >> correct? The phase three improvements are
designed to uh post roadway dedication. >> Are we consolidating all of the lots at the time of approval, council? >> Uh uh correct. Um yes, we are consolidating all the lots at the time of the approval.
>> And the roadway dedication is part of the requirement under the code. Under the redevelopment plan. Yes. >> Under the redevelopment plan. >> Mhm. >> Anybody have any questions about the subdivision? >> Okay.
>> Okay. Thank you, council. Um, so Trevor, if we go back to to phase one. Um, Okay. So, just just to to finish up on phase one, um so we are constructing nearly all of the streetscape
improvements uh along Fairmont Avenue, Grand Street, and a large portion of Johnson Avenue. That includes street trees, uh which I count 18 new street trees, as well as new lights. um the city's standard posttop decorative
posttop fixture um as well as various plantings uh on site and I'll get into total numbers once we get back to the to the final phase but I just want to identify that improvements are being made to the streetscape as part of this
phase because this is for uh final approval. Um, so I just think before we move on to phase two, if there's any questions about phase one, since this is the final approval as well, the next two phases are just preliminary. Um, we could address that now. Bless you.
>> Any questions from the board? >> No. >> No. >> No. >> Okay. >> So far, no. >> Great. Sheet 2.3 identifies the second phase of the development which essentially leaves uh grand the grand street area where building three is uh as a temporary uh
stabilized construction area and the phase 2 building along Johnston Avenue is constructed, the expansion of the surface parking uh and the completion of the streetscape on Johnston Avenue. Now, I'd like to note that the light blue
hatch that you see on the plan is a pvious pavement system. Uh, as part of our green area ratio as well as DAP approval, uh, we've designed the site to achieve peak rates of runoff reductions
for the two, 10, and 100year storm events for each individual phase. So pvious pavements being constructed as part of phase one with all the downstream connections to the storm sewers in the street. On the subsequent phase two we will
connect the pvious pavement systems and again on phase three additional pvious pavement will be constructed and all of these in each phase will achieve the D requirements for a major development on storm water management as well as the city's requirements uh for peak rates of
production. um which a significant improvement under existing conditions which currently has no known storm water management um facilities. I'll jump to back to
phase three which is the colorized version. So again you'll see the the full site build out here. Uh we are significantly overparked in accordance with the ordinance. Uh we're proposing 70 parking spaces whereas 16 are required. Uh bike parking is provided in
compliance with the city's requirements and will be discussed during the architectural testimony where bike parking uh is is provided. Uh again, you'll see a I didn't include the hatch on this plan, but the dark blue outline shows the full extent of the pvious
pavement within the parking areas. Uh as well as all the landscaping uh throughout the site that's being proposed. In total, there are let's see, 51 new shade trees or evergreen trees
provided and 22 of them are street trees. We have 86 shrubs with a total of 137 new plantings on site or within the rightway. The see the previous pavement area is about
10,000 square ft which accommodates about 12,000 or 13,000 cubic feet of runoff. Uh again a significant improvement in particular for Jersey City where you have combined sewers. uh reducing rain runoff that significantly
not only improves our property but every property within the area. Uh a floodprone area which this site is uh in in zone AE for the FEMA flood mapping. Um these areas are particular prone to
nuisance flooding. So the storm water runoff mitigates is a huge mitigating factor for nuisance flooding where combined sewers uh or overt taxed by rainfall events. Uh see additionally we've incorporated a
it's a light red hatch. It's like a crosshatch around the entire property which indicates um mill and overlay for the entire intersection of Johnston Avenue, Grand Street and Fairmont Avenue post construction uh after um phase one.
I believe I indicated these areas are milled and overlaid but also including new striping within the rights of ways. So, I think it's important to note that not only are we widening the street, we're milling overlaying um and providing new striping as well. >> And Trevor, we we did get some comments
from traffic about the details regarding the striping. You have no issue with with that, right? >> I have I have no issues with working with the city's transportation department on any details of striping um for the proposed development. >> Thank you. And and Trevor, if you don't
mind just saying a couple words on the cycle track. So, I was I've been to the site a number of times and I was actually out there today just to make sure nothing has changed. The cycle track in my opinion is a huge benefit. Uh there are people
right now riding their bikes to connect to the existing green circuit or cycle track which is just north of the property um on Grand Street. So people are riding their bikes in the public right away essentially right adjacent to
an existing lane. So the the cycle track which provides a uh north and south direction of travel 6 foot wide width for each one uh as well as a buffer between the travel lanes and the cycle track is a huge benefit in my opinion.
Uh so that roadway dedication uh completed at the end of phase one is is a benefit. All right. Thank you, Trevor. >> So, I just have quick question here. >> So, the parking spots, you have 72 parking spaces. Is this for the retail
or the commercial spaces? >> It's for both. So, the the require we're we're significantly over on the requirements. So, uh I don't know if they're designating spaces, but the requirement is let me zoom in.
And to follow up with that, is the parking spaces compromising the um loading space depth? >> So I, you know, I briefly touched on that before. I don't know if it's really as big of an
issue as it sounds. um that space because we're so overparked that space could be designated as employee parking only where management can facilitate whether a car is parked there or not. And it if a if a truck came in to load >> and somebody was trying to leave. So I
think that's the most important uh aspect in my opinion. Uh a a car can be parked there and the truck load but if the car tried to leave it couldn't leave. So, I think that the management aspect of designating that space as employee parking only um would would
mitigate any negative impact to the vehicle circulation of that truck. >> Yeah. And the applicant has agreed to do that. So, if Trevor, you could just tell us what the required and proposed is for the completed project. >> Um and because that that may or or may not change when we come back for final,
if you could show us just the final >> of what council >> the parking council. I apologize. Um, so I have it identified here. Building one's required
four spaces total for commercial and residential. Building two is required two spaces and building three is required 10 spaces. So we're proposing 70 which is
significantly more and I think it's you know the zoning requirement excludes uh it exempts the first certain amount of square footage for the ground floor retail for all the phases. Um but it was our goal to provide as much parking as
possible. Obviously parking in Jersey City is at premium. Um so that was essentially our goal and use utilizing that pvious pavement that green infrastructure you know really helps us achieve uh a better you know sustainability of a site even though
we're providing asphalt and just to move further on that we are eliminating a lot of asphalt under existing conditions and the majority of these spaces uh will be covered by roof runoff which is clean runoff. So we are you know providing a
surplus of parking for the ordinance as well as reducing you know pollutants into the the system providing that green infrastructure and reducing peak rates of runoff all with adding these parking spaces >> and and Trevor just the proposed parking spaces for for phase one for the final
we're seeking tonight. >> Me transition back to the plan set. you had said four was required and just uh what we're proposing and then maybe just for the commissioner's benefit zoom in again on the the loading zone uh conflict. So building one's required
four spaces. We have 16 proposed for phase one. And if I zoom in to the loading zone, I have an oversized width of the loading zone, but the length obviously required is much more than 22.75.
Um so we are overparked significantly. >> Just with the maybe with the cursor just identify the parking space where the conflict is that we're going to just dedicate as employees only. So this sorry this >> to the loading zone. >> That's right. >> This sorry it's jumping around on me.
It's the closest space to the loading zone which was identified in the traffic letter. The diagonally hatched area is that loading zone. Um >> yes >> to follow up on on my question as well. Is there any parking space allocating
for the affordable housing? >> Um not it not at this time. Um I don't think the the breakdown of the parking um has been has been determined yet. It's uh we did
submit an affordable housing checklist to affordable housing. They signed off on it. We let them know how many um how many parking spaces we have. Um and it's I I believe it's going to be first come first serve for the for the parking.
>> Okay. Any questions from the board? >> Madam Chair, I don't see any questions. >> No. >> That concludes your presentation. >> Thank you. So, um, we're going to bring Ted Hammer up now, our architect. Uh, we, this was designed with consistency
among all the buildings, but again, uh, two and three are just preliminary. So, we will be back on on those. Um, phase one is is the final. So, Ted is going to go into some level of detail on on one and then uh more quickly go through
phases two and three unless there's any specific questions. >> Thank you. is the camera >> into the microphone. >> All right, Ted. Uh, raise your hand.
>> Tonight's going to be the truth. The whole truth. >> I do. >> Theodore Hammer. T H E O D O R E H A M E R. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Hammer. Did we qualify you in the past?
>> Yes, I've >> You >> testified often. >> Okay. Is your license current and in good standing? >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. You'll qualify. >> Thank you. >> All right. How you doing, Ted? >> Never better.
>> Okay. Uh, so so there there was a um a rendering error with some of the elevations on the architectural plans when we submitted them. The conversion from the CAD to the PDF just messed some things up. So, we're going to enter this
uh as an exhibit A4. Um, Ted, if you can just describe it and say how many pages it is, it's substantively the same as what was submitted. It just corrects those rendering errors. >> That's right. Um,
you've seen this, you know where the site is. Um, >> just um just identify the um like how many pages it is and the date of the plans if you don't mind. >> I definitely don't mind.
Uh and just for clarification, the the rendering error was on um the elevations of the plans. >> So it's dated uh October September 1st 23
>> and how many total pages? >> Total pages are no idea. Just scroll way down. There's 40 pages. Mr. Hammer, does it have a revision date? I believe it does.
We're not going through all 40 pages, but it is 40 pages. >> I think it might be in the top right of your title title bar there, Mr. Hammer. >> 40 pages is all three phases. Um, so we're gonna we're going to spend time on the on phase one and then >> because again because it's just
preliminary things could change and we will be back um for the final on two and three. >> Understood. >> Yeah, there you go. >> February 4th, 2025. >> Thank you. Council >> A4.
>> A4. Thank you. >> All right, Ted. >> Thanks. >> All right, so you've heard about the site plans. Let's talk about uh the buildings. Um here the vital statistics are that uh as
you've heard, we have 60 units in phase one, 60 in phase two, and 115 units in phase three. Uh phase one has 15 studios for about 25%.
Uh 31 onebedrooms for about 51% 12 twobedrooms and two threebedrooms which are only about 4%. Uh the sizes of the units are um
quite good. The studios are about 471 square ft. Onebedrooms range from about 666 to 724. Two bedrooms are about 954 and the threebedroom is uh
1,61. Uh so they're they're good size and we'll we'll take a look at the plans in a few minutes. Uh as noted the affordables are 24 for the entire complex and six in the first phase.
Um the buildings are masonry brick. They have three colored brick. A lighter color on the top, a middle tone in the middle, and on the
ends they have a darker brick in a um pattern that uh is sort of a saw to that gives a a texture to the building, not just a flat feeling. Um, this is a view from Grand Street, sort
of turning the corner and seeing phase one on the right, phase three on the left. These are two other perspectives showing the one on the right is the corner of Grand and Johnston looking down Johnston.
And the rendering on the left is Johnston showing phase two on the right and phase three on the on the left rather and phase three on the right. You can see that uh at the corners of the
building there's some cornises that uh give some variety to the to the buildings and uh give some interest to what are uh phase one and two rather small buildings but phase three is a a
goodiz building running the length of Grand Street and that needs some breaking up to give it some human scale. Let's see. Now on the floor plans. [Music]
Here's the ground floor plan of the three building complex. Phase one is the upper building of course and you'll note that the entries
um and retail face uh Fairmont of course the parking for this phase and for all phases some of it is underneath the building covered. So it's uh um well
protected and easy access. Access is also from the middle portion of the site. So you can get to the buildings from the street as well as your parking area.
>> And Ted, that's uh that's one of the variances we're seeking this evening, correct? For the for the stilted building. >> Right. So you can see that. >> Do you want me to >> do you want me to do this for you and
you talk to the microphone or you got it? No, >> I'm a pro at this. You can see that the uh the front portion half the building faces the street. The other half facing the rear holds the parking area and those parking
area of course is open and are up on uh columns that you can see. So it qualifies as a stilt building. Um however u you don't see it straight on,
you see it obliquely. So although the building is up on stilts, you can see that you see it rather obliquely and through some uh landscaping.
>> Yeah. >> Here you can see a ramp that takes you from street level, which is about, let's call it eight, all the way up to 12.6 which is the finished elevation of the
floor and 12 foot which is the finished elevation of the parking in the center of the site. >> Yeah. And Ted, just for for clarity clarity, the whole building is not stilted. It's just the rear of the building where the parking is. Correct. >> Correct. the the the front of the
facades touch the street level facing all three uh streets Fairmont Grand. We have two retail spaces in phase one, each about,00 square feet. Again,
accessible from the street as well as the rear in a more uh operational aspect. Um we have uh our trash is put comes down
in the chute. There's a compactor and it's taken out directly to the street. Um we have two bicycle storage areas over here as well as here. And those are accessed from the rear and then can go
out to the street from the rear. Uh our entrance to the residential portion is again from the street as well as from the parking area. U so we have good access uh from both
directions. Mr. Hammer, what kind of mechanicals are we proposing in the building? These are going to be PTAC units integrated into the U facade of the building. Let me show you an elevation.
>> Do we have any balconies? >> There are balconies in the rear of the building, 4 foot wide uh that most uh units uh have. Let me uh again show
you the elevation. These are the street elevations. This is the rear elevation. You can see the balconies. Uh, and we could also get a good view of the the how the building is still >> balcony.
>> Pardon? >> Zoom in >> on the balcony. is asking >> the space below the balcony. What's the space below the balcony? >> The railing. Bottom rail. >> Ted, I think uh uh prior to this
presentation, we did discuss about uh the space on the bottom of the balcony so things can't get kicked off. You recall that >> on the railing, >> the railing, the bottom piece of the
railing, >> right? >> There's a space. >> Yeah. four inches. >> All right. Could you make that three? >> Pardon? >> Could you make that three? >> Yes. >> We have We have a board member who's not here tonight. We tell you to make three. >> Yeah. >> You have a deal. >> Okay.
>> What about the spacing in between? Is there like are those like bars in between? >> Yeah, they're spindles. >> Would that matter? >> No. >> The railings, they're aluminum railings.
They have spacing of the ballisters of 4 in so that >> um a child can't >> Okay. >> be in danger. >> Great. >> And we're going to lower the bottom rail from four to three in.
>> Great. >> And the stilted part of the building is obviously shown in the rear elevation B1. And that's obviously from the parking area. >> Yes. The balconies face the the parking. >> Are we proposing rooftop amenities, Mr.
Hammer? >> There at the present time, there are no rooftop amenities. Okay. >> On the first floor, there's a lounge and a fitness facility. >> Right. Anybody have any other questions for Mr. Hamy? >> No.
>> All right. And the other two buildings are comparable, but again, we'll be back here for the for the final site plan on >> Yeah. The other two buildings use the same materials. Um, but there is a variety in in each building to give it some distinction.
>> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you, Ted. Um, so we do have Sam here this evening for some very brief uh planning testimony. We're going to be very brief because everyone keeps reminding me there is a Yankee game right now.
Yes, I do. >> Samuel Bellamy. Last name B E L L A M Y. >> Mr. Bellamy, is your license still current? >> Yes. Current and in good standing. >> You're qualified. >> Great. Thank you. >> Do you know the score of the Yankee game, Mr. Bellamy? >> No, I'm a fan. So, >> got the score.
>> Come on. >> That's it. >> All right. So, getting right into the variance relief. Um, so we are asking for the stilted buildings. that does apply to each building as far as the phases. Um that's a variance from the Jersey City land development ordinance. Um we're also asking for the minimum
loading space depth dimensions that applies to a loading space in phase one as well as a loading space in phase three. And then we also have a bulk deviation for the uh parking location minimum landscape buffer. So, in regards to the stilted buildings,
um, as testified to by our architect, it is in the rear of the building. The front of the buildings all have active uses. So, you have the residential lobbies, the retail spaces, and really the visibility of this actual stilted building aspect is very minimal. Um, it's it's from the oblique angle from
the corner as well as up the driveway. So, um, it's really not visible at all from the streetscape. um as well as this is a corner lot with three frontages. The interior of the lot faces um industrial buildings and the industrial zone of the redevelopment plan. Um so
with that I don't think there's any substantial detriment um to adjacent properties. Um the redevelopment plan also um permits surface landscape parking as well as parking beneath buildings. So I think the stilted building aspect is contemplated um
within the redevelopment plan um provided that it's screened with active uses which we are doing here. Um for the loading depth uh loading zone um space depths we're proposing one at 22.75t
deep. That loading space is 12 feet wide. Um so it is wider than the requirement of 9 feet but it's short of the 40 foot deep uh dimension. The other space is 10 feet wide by 22 feet. Um so again that's um consistent with the
width but um short of the 40ft depth um dimension. Um finally we have the uh minimum landscape buffer requirement. There's a 5-ft landscape buffer around parking areas. Um we're predominantly consistent
with that with the exception of the rear property line that's adjacent to an industrial building. Um that lot is completely developed with a one-story industrial building. Again, that's in an industrial zone of the redevelopment plan. So it's not adjacent to any other
residential um rear yard areas. And with that, I don't see any substantial detriment on that adjacent property. Um again, I think that the property um the project itself is proposing substantial landscaping. both throughout the streetscape as well as within the
parking area itself. Um and the benefits here would outweigh the detriments. Um just to to go over some overall benefits of the project, we are replacing the um existing non-conforming light industrial uses, the car wash at
the corner of Grand Street and making substantial streetscape improvements. Um as Mr. Joseph mentioned, this was part of re a redevelopment plan amendment. This project is directly in line with what that what the mixeduse um fzone calls for. It's a permitted density.
It's a permitted height and meets all the setback requirements. Um with that, I think the project does advance the purposes of the municipal land use law. I think it's an appropriate use and development of the property consistent with purpose A. Again, it's a permitted use uh mixeduse building along this
mixeduse corridor on Grand Street. Um, it's also permitted density and promotes a um appropriate population density consistent with purpose E. I think the overall uh improvements here do promote a desirable visual environment consistent with purpose I. Um, I don't
see any substantial detriment to the general welfare here. Again, I think this is a perfect um example of a redevelopment project, a substantial redevelopment project that will improve this mixeduse corridor. Um the project was designed to provide adequate light,
air, and open space and uh minimize any impacts on adjacent properties. Um I likewise don't see a substantial impairment to the zone planner zoning ordinance. Again, I think this project is square in the line with the purpose of the MUF zone. Um it's providing for the widening of Grand Street. Um it's
adding the cycle track along Grand Street and it's providing for affordable housing. Um, likewise, I think this project is also consistent with the purposes of the municipal master plan. Um, that would conclude my direct testimony, I think, but I would be happy
to answer any questions the board might have. >> No, >> no. >> Thank you. Um, that does conclude our direct testimony. Apologize for uh taking so long, maybe just overcompensating for last, uh, last hearing's uh, appearance, but it is an
important project. um very prominent corner in Jersey City and uh we're trying to do this uh trying to do this the right way. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> At this time I would like to open for the public. Is there anyone from the public?
>> Madam Chair, I see no one from the public to close that portion. >> Thank you, Matt. >> Second. Um so uh I'll just remind the the board that there's a preliminary major subdivision here and then a site
plan application which consists of a phase one preliminary and final major site plan with variances and a preliminary major site plan uh for the phase two and three also with variances. So when it comes time to for the board
to consider a motion that we uh consider making two motions subdivision first site plan second uh the staff prepared um two memos uh one for each of uh of these components of this this project. The subdivision
application or memo was uh dated uh June 23rd, 2025 and the site plan memo was dated uh July 21st, 2025. Uh in both of those memos, staff does
recommend conditions. We just ask that the applicant comply put on the record that they are will comply with those conditions. Uh yes, the applicant accepts those conditions along with the balcony condition if it wasn't already addressed in our latest resubmission
and that the conditions to reduce the uh the height of the balcony from 4 in to three. >> Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Joseph. Um this application consists of
uh three buildings with affordable housing meeting the other recommend requirements of of this zone to widen the road on Grand Street and extend the cycle track one block further all the
way to Johnston Avenue which is uh will facilitate a connection in the um where there's currently a gap in our protected biteling network. Um, so that was a major goal in advancing this amendment
when it first came before the board and and city council and they're fulfilling that with the the completion of this uh first phase. Uh, the applicant uh worked with staff on uh comments
regarding the site plan, the phasing as well as the architecture uh of the building. um they've put on the proofs for regarding their uh their variances. Staff uh recognizes those and and agrees
uh with their their findings. Staff recommends approval. >> Okay. Thank you. So at this time I would like to enter entertain a motion for case for item 11 on the agenda. is to 025
>> which is the subdivision the preliminary subdivision. >> I think it's misidentified on the uh >> agenda. Sorry about that. >> I would like to I would like to make a motion a sec. Yes, I would like to make
a motion to approve case number P2025-000048 >> preliminary subdivision. >> Preliminary subdivision >> and >> presented to the board >> and I will second that motion. >> Well, thank you. >> You're welcome. >> On a motion to approve a preliminary
major subdivision uh with conditions uh acting vice chair stamata. >> Yes. Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Lewis >> I. >> Commissioner Patel >> I. >> And acting chair Gangan. >> I.
>> Motion carries. All in favor. >> At this time I'd like to entertain a motion um on case item on the agenda 12 case B23-07. I would like to make a motion also in reference to a second motion in
reference to case number P2023-0107. >> And I will second the motion to approve. >> Okay. On a motion to approve with conditions, uh, acting vice chair stamato. >> Yes.
Uh, Commissioner Wick, >> I, >> Commissioner Lewis, >> I, >> Commissioner Patel, >> I, >> and Acting Sher Gangaden, >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? Thank you all. Have a good evening.
I'm going to read the resos tonight. >> You're going to do a short hand. >> Are we going to call the meeting back to order? At this time I would like to call on >> on the agenda number 13 KP2024-0247
which is a preliminary and major site plan 76 cottage street applicant Apple tree sweets. >> Good evening everybody. Rebecca Mariello of Connell Foley. Um hello. This is a
notice case. The applicant uh duly sent and published notice for the board's August 12th meeting at which point it was adjourned to the September 9th uh at which time it was adjourned again with preservation of notice to tonight. Council, if I may tender the notice as A1.
>> Thank you. Madam Chair, I am and received the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application at 76 Cottage Street here in the city. I've had the opportunity to review it. It was noticed for the prior meeting as indicated by council and we will mark it as A1 for purpose of the record.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, so the crux of this application is it's a change of use application. Um the building there's an existing building at this property 76 cottage. It's an existing ninestory mixeduse building with groundf flooror
retail and 40 42 residential units on the floors above. Um it is in the journal square redevelopment plan. The applicant purchased this property a couple years ago um and is seeking to change the 42 residential units to 42
hotel units. Uh this use is permitted in the journal square redevelopment plan and we are not requesting any variance relief tonight. Um there are very mod minor modifications to the building. Um just some changes to the ground floor to
accommodate like a reception desk uh to check in guests at the hotel. Um, and also just to note, we're in receipt of the planning staff report dated August 27th, 2025. And the applicant
agrees to all of the conditions stated therein. We just have one witness here tonight, Mr. Jeffrey Lewis. Um, if you want to, I guess, swear in. I guess this is your first one tonight. >> Truth. >> Yes, I do. Can you please explain your
name? >> Jeffrey Lewis. J E F R E Y L E W I S. >> Mr. Lewis, is your license current? >> Yes, it is. >> Thank you. You may proceed. >> Thanks. >> Okay, so again, this is a pretty simple application. This is an existing 42-unit
residential building. Uh the mix of the building are um six studio apartments, uh 31bedroom apartments, and uh six two-bedroom apartments. Those are mostly on the upper floors. Um and we are proposing to convert con convert those
apartments into hotel suites. Um first with the exterior of the building on the left here. This is actually a photograph of the existing building. Um it is how it is and there are going to be no changes proposed to that building. Um there are a few minor changes to the
ground floor plan. I do want to show them. This is the ground floor plan here on the right. The two changes that we can talk about here. Um, previously this is where the mail was and it was just in the hallway. We're actually just closing that off to be a mail room because as a hotel use it doesn't really make sense
to have as much access to the mail area. And then this is where we spoke about we have uh the residential lobby which will remain a lobby but now will be a hotel lobby. So we're adding some finishes and a reception area. Um, and those are the only changes that
we're asking here. Um, I do have the upper floor plans if you would like to see them, but all the apartments are staying exactly as they were um, approved all those years ago. >> And really, that's all I have to um, present tonight.
>> So, when you say all those years ago, that's a to my knowledge, it's a fairly recently built building, right? So the uh predecessor and title received their site plan approval in um I think it was June of 2018 to build this building. Um
I don't know when they got their CEO but you know if you just assume you get your approval 2018 maybe two years to build >> and I I submit any other questions to the board for this witness. >> Any questions?
No, I don't think so. >> Madam Chair, we do have to open it to the public. >> At this time, I I would like to open to the public. Is there anyone from the public? >> Seeing no one from the public wishing to speak, I move to close. >> Second,
>> Matt. >> Not much to add here. Um, hotels and allowed use in zone 3 commercial center of the Journal Square 2060 redevelopment plan. Um it should be noted that so this the original residential use here was
approved before the mandatory affordable housing um provision was added to the plan. And so by this change of use, they're vacating the continuity of that use. So should this building convert back to residential, it would need to provide
10% affordable housing. Um but with that being said, um staff just asks that the applicant agree to abide by the conditions in the memo dated August 27, 2025. >> Yep. Of course. >> And with that, staff recommends approval of conditions.
>> Thank you. At this time, I would like to entertain a motion. I would like to make a motion to approve uh case number P204-0247 as presented. >> And I will approve that motion or second
that motion. >> Um acting vice chair stamato >> I. >> Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Lewis >> I. >> Commissioner Lipsky >> I. >> Commissioner Patel >> I. and acting chair gangadan. >> I >> motion carries. All in favor?
>> Thank you everyone. Have a good night. >> You too. >> Thank you. >> At this time, I'd like to call in KP 2025-000083, minor site plan for 240 Terrence Avenue. >> Sorry, >> I thought there was one in between us.
Oh, they carried. Good evening, madam chair and members of the board. My name is Danielle Kimbeck. I'm an attorney at the law firm of Primeville and Melli here on behalf of the applicant 2402 242 Terrace LLC. The application before you tonight is for
minor site plan approval. Uh the property is located at 240 and 242 Terrace Avenue, known as block 1202, lot 15 on the city's tax map, and it's located in the R1 zone. The property is currently uh an oversized lot of
approximately 4974 square feet and it contains a two family dwelling. Uh the neighborhood is largely surrounded by residential use. Uh before appearing here tonight after we submitted the application, we did reach out to the Western Slope Neighborhood
Association um and to see if they had any comments and we did not receive any response. The application before you tonight proposes to demolish the existing structure uh and improve the property with a new um five unit dwelling as well as an accessory dwelling unit in the
rear. Uh there are several improvements being made to the property as part of the application which you'll hear more about. Currently, there are two curb cuts uh on the frontage. We are removing one of them, so there will only be one curb cut. We're not required to provide any off- streetet parking, but we're uh
proposing four off- streetet parking spaces in a structured garage. Uh currently, the front lot coverage is non-conforming and we are going to bring that into conformance. Uh, additionally, the two sideyard setbacks are both in a
non-conforming um condition currently and we are bringing them into conformance. Uh, we have one witness to present tonight, our architect, Jeffrey Lewis. So, uh, he was sworn with the last application. >> Council, do you have the original notices? I know they were on >> Oh, yes. I I forgot to run through the
notice. So, I don't have the original affidavit, but uh notice was published in the record in the Herald on August 28th and mailed to all the property owners within 200 ft on August 29th. So, I submit the board has
um jurisdiction to hear the application. Madam chair, I receive the affidavit service proof of publication with respect to the application. The matter had been set for a previous hearing and was carried through tonight with the preservation of this notice.
Going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record. >> Mr. Lewis, thank you. >> You're still under oath, right, Mr. Lewis? >> Yes, I am. >> Thank you. >> And he's still qualified as an expert. >> Still an architect. >> You didn't lose your license in the last
two minutes? >> No, ma'am. Okay. So, um, as was mentioned, this is an oversized lot located in the R1 zone. Uh, we're 100 ft deep and just under 50 ft wide. Um what's currently or what was previously there was a sidebyside two-story two
family home that's been demolished and we're proposing a new uh three-story 5-unit building with a rear accessory dwelling unit. Uh inside the main building we have four three-bedroom apartments and one two-bedroom apartment and the accessory dwelling unit has a four-bedroom apartment. Um as was
mentioned the existing property has two uh curb cuts. There's one on the left that has a front yard driveway that leads to a garage. There's one on the right that just leads to front yard parking. Uh it's also worth noting that our front yard setback for what was the existing building was less than 16 ft.
So not only do we have front yard parking that we shouldn't have, but it's actually smaller than a compact parking space. So those park the cars that park there are sticking out into the public right away. So, these are conditions that are going to be improved by this application as we are removing those
curb cuts and replacing them with one 10-ft curb cut, which leads to a fourcar parking garage. Um, we're proposing new concrete curbs, new concrete sidewalks, as well as one new street tree as part of this application. Um, coming on to our property, our new front yard setback
is 6'6 in, and that's to match the building to our left. Um we're using this space um mostly for landscape area and also for permeable pavers where we have our building entries. Um we have three-foot setbacks on each side
of the building. The left side uh is per permeable pavers and that's going to be used as a main walkway back uh to the accessory dwelling unit. Um it is worth noting here that there's a grade difference where we're sloping up from front to back. So, by the time we get to where that accessory dwelling unit is,
we're actually at the second floor of the main building. And you'll see that clear on the plans and definitely on the side elevations. Um, we have some additional landscaping in the rear yard both between the buildings and on the side. Um, and the last thing I wanted to note is we are
proposing right now a 6ft wood fence uh along the right side property line. Uh however, uh we did meet with our potential neighbor to the right and they have some concerns about um this is their sideyard here is the only way for
them to get to their backyard and they had some concerns that maybe our fence might impede on that. The fence is on our property line and we have every right to do it, but we'd prefer to work with our neighbor and make sure they still have access to our prop their property um their backyard. So, we were
hoping that we can make a condition of this application that we would work with the neighbor, work with planning to um find something that will work for everyone on that uh side fence. So, that's one little thing we would like to change here. With that, I want to just jump into the
floor plans here. We're looking at the ground floor plan, and I want to start with the ground floor apartment here at the bottom. This is a um ADA accessible two-bedroom uh one-b. Uh, it does have a washerd dryer in the unit as well. Um, this is accessed
directly from the front of the building. And I do have to say there is one other minor mistake here. As you can see, there are a couple of shrubs right in front of this doorway. That's obviously not going to work. Uh, so we need to remove those and extend our permeable
pavers down about five feet. Uh, we do have enough wiggle room with our lot coverage and our front landscaping coverage that that's not going to create any variances. So, we can do that. um and still remain an as of right application. That's the last change, I promise.
Okay. Um in the center of the building, we have our our main building entry and that leads to a stair up to the second floor as well as a door out to the garage. Uh the garage is uh accessed by an 11 foot wide garage door. provides us
with access to the four um fourc car parking area as well as a trash and recycling area, bicycle storage for four bicycles, gas meters, electric meters, and our sprinkler room. As this is a fully sprinklered building,
this is the second floor of the main building and we have two apartments here, one at the top, one at the bottom that are roughly mirroring each other. Each of them are three bedroomedroom, two and a half bath apartments with the living, dining kitchen in the front. Three bedrooms, two and a half baths, as
well as a laundry room in the back. Um, and you can see we're showing the lower level of the ADU here. Also, you can see in our main bedrooms here, we actually have sliding doors out to the back um, lawn area. So, they'll have access to this as a private as a yard for
themselves. Uh, the ADU, this is the lower level of the ADU. It consists of the living, dining, and kitchen area, one bedroom, one and a half baths, as well as a stair up to the second floor of the ADU unit. Here, I want to stick with the ADU to go
to the upper level of that where we have three additional uh bedrooms, two bathrooms, as well as the laundry. And then moving back to the main building, this is the top floor of the main building, our third floor. These uh floor plans are very similar to what's below. Again, still three bedrooms, two
and a half baths. The only difference here is that these two apartments each have private roof decks. So, we added these internal stairs at the front of the building which go up to those private roof decks. And so, here we are showing that plan. Uh each of those apartments number four
and five have a 647 foot roof deck. Uh also between the green areas in the front and the back of the building, we have uh 736 total square ft of green roof area. Um we also have the main building stair coming up to the roof just to provide
access to our air conditioning units for maintenance purposes. Uh the last thing I want to note here is that the ADU has two skylights on the roof, but we aren't using the roof for anything. There's no roof deck on this roof. It's just a regular flat roof. Uh, but we do have a stair that I'm not a stair, excuse me, a
ladder that we're providing just for again access for any sort of maintenance that would be needed for this roof. Here we're showing the front and rear elevation. Again, you could see three stories at the front and only two stories for the rear elevation to the building. Uh, looking at the front, the
main finish is a smooth beige brick. We have these two cantalvered bays in the front. Uh they're finished with a regal white uh metal panels. Uh we're using cedar brown metal siding as these accents between our windows and a slate gray uh aluminum wrap corners at the top
of the building. Uh we have black aluminum frame windows and doors. And our two entry doors and the garage door at the base of the building are using half transparency glass. Looking to the rear elevation, our main finish is now a light gray vinyl siding. We have those same black aluminum frame
windows and doors. Uh, as I mentioned, we have doors in the bedrooms that open out to the backyard at the ground level. On the upper level, those will be Juliet balconies that are dark gray aluminum balconies. Okay, so here again at the side, you can
definitely see how we have steps going up and how the ADU is actually at the second level of the uh main apartment. I think it's pretty clear here. Um, as far as the finishes here, we have a beige smooth stuckco finish at the ground floor of the main building and at the
base of the ADU. And then above that, we have uh the light gray vinyl siding to match what we've proposed previously. We're also showing the front of the ADU here on the top. This is what's facing our building. And because it's so close to our building, uh, it's only 5t away.
We wanted um, we didn't put any windows on this elevation. The windows are facing out to the side. So the the front building, they'll have their privacy. Uh and we finished uh these this wall with uh the same beige uh brick that we're using in the front of the building. And you could also see that ladder that I
mentioned previously. Then lastly here, this is the back of the ADU. Again, same vinyl siding finish and as well as the left side where we have again the base smooth stuckle finish at the base final siding above.
The only difference is you can see that little we have a set in area um for a covered entry to the ADU. Um I think that covers my drawings. I can answer any questions that you can have about them. >> Mr. Lewis, what's the deal with the
fence on the right side? >> So we're we're building we're proposing a sixoot fence on our property line. >> Right. >> Um our neighbors >> topography, >> right? it would step up with with the stairs, >> but it looks like our neighbor to the right has a little less than three feet
once they get to the back and they just don't want to get choked off there. And if we can work with them, we will. >> And if they want it removed, we can remove the fence and that's of no >> I think they want some sort of a fence because and they're they are going to speak for themselves. Um, but I think
they want some sort of fence to provide some sort of privacy for their yard. >> So, we're looking for a a work something that will work out for both of us here. Okay. Any questions from the board? >> No. >> No.
>> Council, that concludes your presentation. >> Yes, it does. >> At this time, I would like to open for the public. >> The truth, the whole truth, and the truth. >> Yes. Can you spell your name and your home address, please? >> Stephanie. E S T E P H A N I E. Last
name Far F A R H I. Uh currently residing at 700 Street, apartment 9 and Haboka, New Jersey. >> You have three minutes. >> Sorry. >> You have three minutes. >> Thank you. Um first time attending this meeting, so apologies in advance if I missed anything on this presentation. Uh
my name is Stephanie Par. Like I said before, my husband Eric and I are currently under contract to purchase property 238 Terrace at Jersey City. The property uh the project presented um by the members here for 230 240 242 Terrace Avenue in Jersey City is adjacent to the
property that we're buying. Um as part of the purchase process, we did ask our current owner to share any documentation that they had about this project. The only thing that was shared with us was a letter from the demolition company which said that they would take any full responsibility for any damages caused
for the demolition. Um we did reach out to them last week. Uh the gentleman was not helpful. Hence we did some more research and we're here tonight to hear and learn more about this project. Um we had the following concerns and questions prior to the meeting prior to meeting with the members tonight. Uh we wanted
to know what partitions or guarantees were being taken were in place to protect the property for 238. Um we wanted to know what was the plan to report the the access to the property which currently due to the demolition is broken. Um and lastly we're not well
versed on architectural plans but from what we did observe and they confirm the fence seems to be right in the middle of the pathway and it will be narrowing our access to the patio. Um, thanks to the member of the board earlier today, they suggested that we had a side
conversation with them. We did talk to the architecture, the lawyer, and the developer who's here tonight. Um, they did agree to work with us um to find a solution. We don't have the solution. We are not versed on what potentially will be the best solution. Um, but they're
very nice enough to say that, you know, we just mainly wanted to know who to talk to. Uh, we had no contact of who was in charge of the project. Um so you know we are not objecting to the project to continue. Um we were mainly concerned about bringing this to light tonight
finding the proper uh parties to talk to and find a solution and we have accomplished that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone anyone else from the public from the public wishing to speak? I
moved to close. Second >> public is closed. >> Yeah. Um as do you want me to respond to the public comment? >> Yeah. Um we spoke with Miss Farhe um as did my client the applicant who is going to be you know undertaking the project
assuming it gets approved tonight. As we discussed we are improving the nonconformities on our property. However, it appears there's a non-conforming sideyard setback on part of their property. Um, and we want to be a good neighbor and not impede their access. So, as a condition of approval,
we'll work with them to have a solution um to not inhibit that. >> Thank you, >> Lenny. Benjamin, >> Joseph, sorry. >> Hi. No problem. Uh, yes. So in reviewing the uh viewing reviewing the by
application for uh the minor site plan we found that yeah we agreed with the applicant's analysis that it does um make the uh the proposed structure is much more conforming with the development standards as it relates to R1. Um the density is uh the density is
also um uh complies with R1 standards and uh we are pleased to hear that the the applicants team is amendable and we're working with the southern side neighbor in terms in regards to the um the
fencing situation. Um, as it stands out, we just want to confirm with the applicants team that they uh were able to review the uh conditions of approval in the site memo dated August 25th, 2025 and and they agree with it. Uh, with the
addition of uh working with the southern side neighbor in um the design and of the southern side fence. >> Yes, we've reviewed your letter, we could comply with all the conditions and as an additional condition, we'll uh work with the planning department and the neighbor. Wonderful. Um, then, uh,
planning recommends approval. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'd like to entertain a motion. >> I would like to make a motion in reference to, uh, item number, what is it? Two, let's see, P205,
excuse me. Uh, 20, yeah, P205-0083. and um as presented to the board with all conditions. >> Second. >> Okay. Um acting vice chair. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Wick
>> I. >> Commissioner Lewis >> I. >> Commissioner Libsky >> I. >> Commissioner Patel >> I. >> Acting chair Gangadan. >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks everyone.
I would like to call in case 2025-000043 preliminary and final major site plan for 712-714 Bergen Avenue. Mr. Lean, how long you going to take on this one? >> I'm hoping I'll be 15 minutes, 20 minutes at most.
>> You think so, Santa? >> So, the last application then, Mr. That's That's up to the board. >> It is our last application for tonight. >> Oh, what about >> what about our guy over here? >> Ours is a very
>> Mr. Lean says it's going to take him 20 minutes and we know that that means 30. So, let's get going here. Mr. Lean, >> well, the only thing is is earlier tonight we got him from 10 years to three. So, maybe we get him from 15 down to like seven. >> See if he helps Mr. Harrington.
Nudge him, Chuck. Nudge him. >> Good evening, commissioners. Tom from Connell Foley. This is a notice application. I will provide a copy of the original to council. >> Thank you, >> Chairman. received the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with
respect to the application at 712 Bergen Avenue here in the city. Uh this was originally set for a previous meeting. It was carried through through tonight with preservation of that notice. It does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record. >> Thank you,
>> Mr. Lena. >> Thank you. Uh just uh to give a little background on the project here, uh this uh our client bought three uh pieces of property that were known as 712 through 718 Bergen Avenue. Uh they were three individual buildings. Two were five stories, one was three stories. Uh they
submitted plans to uh both historic and the building department to renovate those buildings and turn them into one four-story building with 27 units in it. That was approved. uh when they went in uh to with their final drawings, however, there was connections between the buildings that were not permitted
because the lots had not been consolidated. They went through a process of consolidating the the the building uh which took almost a year uh dealing with the assessor and the building department. Um and while they were going through this process, they were actually informed that they're in the NC zone and that there was changes
to the uh neighborhood commercial zone that would allow them to go up to five stories. um through a miscommunication. They didn't understand that that process would involve coming to this board for for approval. So, they did commence construction for a fifth story. They were immediately given a stop work
order. They reached out to our firm and we filed the present application which is in front of you. Uh essentially, this is a conforming building under the uh the NC. It's a five-story building containing 36 units with ground flooror commercial. We're not asking for any variance relief and uh these again are
existing buildings that we're just expanding on. Uh so I hope this is a very brief presentation from our architect to just show you uh what we're we're doing. One thing I would uh mention to the board is we've worked uh extensively uh with historic. Uh there are portions of the building on the side facade on far Fairmount Avenue with some
brick work that's considered historic. We're going to uh we're going to retain that and uh historic basically signed off on that. >> Correct me if I'm wrong if I mis um heard you. Construction started and the didn't do the consolidation of lots. No,
the the the lots were consolidated >> prior to construction. >> Correct. Yes. Then they started the construction were immediately given a stop work order because they didn't understand it required a site plan approval from this board. Again, a miscommunication with with zoning and uh and the building department. They they
reached out to us immediately and we filed the application to get them this in front of you. And we've been working with historic and planning ever since. >> Okay. Uh, I have one witness this evening. Our architect, uh, Pietro, I'm sorry, your last name. >> Rosado.
>> Pietro Rosado. >> Yes. Yes. >> Sure. Petro Rosado. P I E T R O R O S A T O. >> Mr. Rosado, did we qualify you in the past? >> Uh, no. No.
>> Can you just give us a brief background of your >> Sure. I um I received my uh bachelor degree from uh architecture uh from NGIT uh back in 2008. Uh and I've been licensed architect since 2016 in New Jersey. I'm uh licensed in New Jersey,
New York, and Connecticut. And my uh license and is active and good standing. >> You're qualified. Thank you. >> Okay. So, um I'm just going to give you a brief uh summary of the project. Uh the project proposes a new uh fifth
floor level uh which is approximately 7,678 ft uh for nine apartment units. Uh the first floor level will remain as uh four retail tenant spaces uh and will maintain a uh two out of the three
stairways uh two of the three stairways that are existing to access the floor levels above. Uh the second through uh the fourth floor level propose uh nine apartment units. Uh so uh apartment
units uh per per floor level uh with a total of 36 proposed apartment units. Uh the unit mix proposes a 16 16 onebedroom units, 16 twobedroom units and four studio units. >> Uh the apartment units will be
handicapped accessible. >> Uh currently >> the applicant has a building permit to construct 24 apartment units. uh eight units per floor without the fifth floor addition. Uh each uh and what we're going to show you is a comparison of
what was approved uh compared to what is proposed as you can see in the uh in the uh in the slideshow. Um, at the basement level, uh, at the basement level, we're proposing a
laundry room, uh, for tenant use only, uh, and utility and storage rooms on the east the eastern part of the building. Uh, as you can see, uh, from the from the plan, um, the center basement uh, will only be utilized by the retail
tenant space number two. Uh and both basements do not connect on the western right side of the building which is sort of the third building on the western side. Uh there is no basement and every the building is on slab on grade.
the on sheet PB 104 104. Uh so the first floor level proposes four retail tenant spaces and they range from 890 square ft to 3,52 square ft. Uh on this floor, we're also
proposing a bicycle room uh along the back of the building which is shown here. Um and uh on the southern side to accommodate up to 19 bikes in addition to uh the exterior bicycle
parking where 23 spaces are required and 23 are proposed for both the retail tenants and the apartment tenants. Um, two of the three entrances to the upper floors will remain where the stairs will be modified
uh to meet today's building code requirements. Uh there are currently two elevators and one will be removed on the southern uh right side of the building and uh the other elevator on the eastern side of the building will be modified to
access all level uh and the this will be ambulatory size as required by code. Um uh each retail space will also have a rear exit uh for egress purposes. Um
the second, third, and fourth floor are identical uh in design where four units are onebedroom, four units are twobedroom and one unit is a studio. Uh the one-bedroom units uh range from 525 ft
to 875 square ft. Uh the twobedroom units range between 16 697 to 900 square f feet. Uh and the studio is 454 ft. Uh every apartment unit proposing proposes
an open floor plan uh concept with living, dining and kitchen uh and an ADA accessible bathroom. Uh the building comprises of three separate buildings uh that have been merged and consequently the floor level uh floor
elevations vary and we're proposing the connection to uh with interior ramps to to comply with ADA standards and stairs to connect the building at the corridors uh as needed. The fifth floor level is identical to the lower levels except
there's no variation in the floor uh elevations and will be uh will all be at the same floor level. Um on PB 109 sheet PB 109 we are uh there's we're
proposing a new flat roof. Uh this is not a green roof. Uh this is going to have a slight pitch for drainage towards the back of the property. um and will be collected through scuppers. Uh we're also proposing 36
condensing units on the roof uh for each uh apartment unit and we're proposing uh mini splits for for each one of the apartments. Uh a roof access hatch will be installed at one of the stairwells to to provide access for servicing the
units and roof repairs uh when needed and the tenants will not have access to the roof. um PB 110 and PB 1111 show the floor area of each uh of units as previously described.
The then we go to sheet PB 200 showing the elevations. Uh the front facade facing Bergen Avenue proposes to keep the existing brick uh cornises and lintils for the eastern and uh and the center building uh the first floor level
of the eastern part of the building. we're proposing to replace with uh the the stuckco with stone tile. Uh the western side of the facade proposes the same stone tile uh at the first and uh at the first floor level and then the
and second floor level uh with a brick veneer that will complement the existing brick with a pre-cast stone cornice that separates the brick from the 15 the fifth floor. The fifth floor will have a stucco facade uh with a smooth texture uh and all the
windows of the apartments will be aluminum clad with a black frame retrofitted to fit with uh within the existing opening. Uh the left side uh facade facing Fairmont Avenue proposing proposes stone tile at the base on the first floor
level. Uh and um it will will restore the brick as specified by Mr. uh on the upper floors. Obviously, there will need repairs and repointing and the rear facade proposes taco for
the entire facade. As you can see from the elevation, do you mind? That's it. >> Try to be as fast as possible. >> I have no questions for my witness. >> Council, are there any variances in connection with the application?
>> There are no variances. So on the agenda where it says in height feet, that's incorrect. >> That's incorrect. No, we the original application uh the original measurement for the building did show a height variance. That was corrected on our
plans. We are now in conformance. Uh and I believe we did I do have a a notice in my file to planning notifying them that the height has shrunk down. So really the only reason you're before the board is because we're consolidating the three buildings and by attaching
them. >> We've got site plan just by the number of units and the and the square footage. Yeah. >> Understood. >> Madam chair, I've got no further questions. >> Okay. >> Is this the old Horizon Healthcare building? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay.
>> In the historic this the front was the this part was the historic just in the front there. uh the the portion that historic concerned themselves with with yes they didn't they were interested in that form but really it's on the fairmount side and I don't know if we have a rendering of that if not can you
go back to the fair amount it's it's the brick work that's shown uh on the corner I don't know if you want to you're fine >> it's the brick work that's that's shown on the corner of the of the building um that I think we're zooming in on now. Um
and the and the form of the brick and just keeping and repointing the brick work that that is there that's going to remain uh they're removing it and then they're going to put it back in the same form as it is right now. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Is there any comments from the board? >> No. >> No.
>> Okay. Mina, that concludes your presentation. >> I do have a civil engineer here. Uh I don't believe you want to hear from him at this point, but uh that that's it. That's that's all I have. >> Okay. Thank you, >> public. >> At this time, I'd like to open for
public comment. >> Seeing no one from the public wishing to speak, I move to close. >> Thank you. >> Second, Gam. >> Um, planning staff would ask that you agree to the memo's conditions dated in
the memo provided on September 4th of this year. >> They are accepted. >> Okay. um planning staff finds the application meets the objectives and goals of the redevelopment plan. They have, as they stated, worked closely with historic on the brick work and the
facade. Um it's just a techn technicality of the application here and planning staff recommends approval. >> Thank you. At this time, I would like to entertain a motion. >> I would like to make a motion to approve case as presented. Case number is
P2025-000043. >> Second. >> Okay. On a motion to approve. Vice Chair Stamato. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Wick. >> I. >> Commissioner Lewis. >> I. >> Commissioner Lipsky. >> I think this is a great addition. It
moves some of the development that was happening down by Belmont and Kensington and moves it and joins it up with the Journal Square. I think it's great and I vote I >> Commissioner Patel >> I >> and acting chair Gangardan. >> Yeah, I think beautifully designed great
addition to the neighborhood. I >> motion carries. All in favor with conditions. >> Thank you, Mr. Harrington. >> Yes. >> Go ahead, >> Chuck. I got to call your case. >> What's that? >> I got to call your case.
>> I'm an eager beaver. Case speech is 025-000096 site plan amendments and extension 195 Hudson Street. >> What do you have? Five minutes, Chuck. Chuck, >> we can do it in four. >> Yeah, four. Whatever you need. Uh uh
Charles Harrington of Connell Foley. On behalf of the applicant, I do have notices uh for the application. I'll give those to council. >> Thank you, Mr. Harington. Madam Chairman, receive the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application at 195 to 215
Hudson Street. Had the opportunity to review it. It does appear to be in order. This matter was originally scheduled for a prior meeting was carried through to tonight with preservation of that notice A1 for purpose of the record. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. So, uh and thank you
for indulging us at this late hour. Uh this application before you is further amendments to what we refer to as the Herby 2 and three towers. Uh if you're familiar with the Herby one downtown with the kind of the Jenga look. Um uh
so uh we've been we got initial approval in August of 2022. We were back before the board uh in December of 2022 and April of 2024 for further amendments. Um so this is a uh another set of amendments where we're very close to
breaking ground and and getting our permits. So what we have uh tonight is there's three components to to the uh the application before you. We are asking for an extension of the approval kind of a boots and uh suspenders uh u
request because we although we have had past uh amendments to to the uh application it was approved in August of 2022 which would take you to August of 2024 um because of the variances in the initial application. We are asking for
two additional years to take us to August of 2026, but we we're all ready to to get in the ground within the next few months. We're also asking for we're presenting a phasing plan um because we we are the the idea is to build one tower at a time and we'll go through
that during the presentation. And then there are some minor changes you'll you'll see uh to to the uh project. Uh, and part of those changes is an increase in the in the residential units from 1,510 units to 1537 units. That's the
primary reason that that got us here because of the increase in in units. Otherwise, it could have been possibly administrative amendment. So, um, yeah, with with that said, everything else is conforming. There's no variances being requested, no deviations. That all uh stays compliant. So, I have one witness
uh tonight is our architect uh Mr. Scott Herrick. Uh we do have our engineer and landscaping experts here in the event the board has uh any any questions and I'm going to turn it off to turn it over to Mr. Heric. You know the truth the whole truth?
>> I do. >> Scott Herrick. S O T H E R R I C K. >> Mr. Herrick, you're a licensed current and in good standing. >> Yes, it is. >> Thank you. You may proceed. >> All right. Thank you. >> Mr. Erica, if we could just mark the the
slide deck that you're going to use for your presentation as A2 and if you could describe if A2 is okay and and uh describe that for the record. >> Okay. What what I've done is created an a bridge set. This is drawings that have been submitted to the planning board. I
have not made any changes um not even to color. It's the exact drawings, but I've only included the drawings that I thought were necessary to talk about the specific changes rather than the full set. And this is a 17 sheet set, Mr. Harrington. >> Yes, >> it is. But we'll be brief as we go
through them. >> Real brief. >> We've already talked about that. >> Very brief. >> Aren't we just talking about 27 units? >> Well, we we want to just show you the phasing. I'll let Mr. Heric walk you through. He knows it's going to be brief.
>> Since Since you seem to be familiar with the project, I'm going to skip the first page. We're going to go to the second page and I'll just briefly describe the um so what you see on the uh plan here is you see on the lower right is tower two, upper left is tower three. Um the infill is the is the podium. The one of
the major changes that's happened in the overall building and that has led to the addition of units is that that amenity rooftop um feature in the middle has gone from sorry I'm sorry has gone from I have to stop talking
with my hands. um has gone from the ninth floor down to sixth floor. So, we've lost three floors of that podium. Um that's reduced parking. Um it's reduced um the overall amenities in the space. There's no longer a commercial
spa or health club uh element in that podium. Um and then what's happened is the free towers um on floors 7, 8, and 9, we've been able to add units. So total of 27 units as Chuck said,
here's a section. You can see that that podium element has been reduced. Mhm. >> The interim uh configuration that Chuck mentioned is
with tower two only and the podium and then taking the space that would be occupied by tower three and creating a finished park and on the back side of that podium creating a finished elevation um with ephus panels. So would
it would in the interim however long that is I think the I don't know if we've said a time period but >> we're estimating uh up to 18 months >> but during that time it would be a completely finished park with dog run walkways benches um and so forth. So
that is the um the crux of that interim solution is that it would be a fully finished um element for the for the city. >> I have a question. >> Yes. the ephus that you just mentioned is going where? >> Let me show you an elevation. It's or if
you can see my cursor here, it's along this side right here, which is where the tower uh if you go back to this plan is where the tower fits in. See that? So, if the tower is
not built in phase one, we have this and this surf oops this surface here. And that's a that' be a temporary facade. >> Harrington, I think you know what the general concern of the board with Ephus is. >> Well, the EPA, yeah, we would we would
agree that any ephace would be cut inside, >> right? And and the idea here is to have a temporary facade until that phase 2 tower is built out. >> All right. Okay. Go ahead. Thank you. >> All right. So, just briefly, um there's
been some minor changes. the uh coordination with PSENG sidewalk vaults have created the facade being pushed back three foot eight inches off of Green Street. Um so there's been minor there's minor
variations in overall floor areas. Um you know we're all we're all well within all of the um as of right requirements >> including with the removal of that amenity space and the addition of the units. >> Yes, that's all it's all compliant with the redevelopment plan. All
right. So what happens is on this second level, this area down here that was health club is now just residential amenity. It's a reduced area. Parking gets reduced. Um bike uh count gets increased so that with the increased units, we have increased
number of bike um spots to meet the requirement. Over on the upper right here, we added a dog run. So, some minor adjustments and then with the free tower arrangement, we've added uh filled in some additional
units that weren't possible before. So, you'd asked about the uh elevations on the lower here is just this the street. This one is
That's Green Street. And then if we go to this side, so this is this is the elevation with the Ephas panels. So see, we're just creating kind of a clean elevation there as a temporary um facade to face the the park area.
>> And then here's here's landscape uh plans. This is the this is the full buildout landscape plan. And then here is the the temporary. So you can see that we're you know we're creating seating areas, we're creating
pathways, everything's ADA compliant. Um still providing a dog run to the side. So um making it a fully functioning space uh during that interim period. uh the the
rooftop amenity doesn't change at all. It just lowers from the ninth floor down to the sixth floor. So that actually gets under the as of right 85 foot height limitation. Before we had asked for a waiver, now we're under that height. Um
civil wise, there's just some very minor adjustments to sidewalks and whatnot to accommodate these same changes. I'm happy to provide more specific information or answer questions. >> Any questions?
>> No, I don't have any. >> I don't. >> Does that conclude your presentation? >> Yeah, that concludes our presentation then. >> Okay. >> 958. >> 958. >> Is there anyone from the public? >> It's a two-minute warning. >> Seeing no one
>> public. Thank you. Public disc is closed. Um, Joseph, >> hi. Thank you. Um, yes. So, in staff's review of the project, we found that it complies with the development standards and new standards of the redevelopment
plan area. Um and uh I just want to ask the applicant whether they agree to staff's recommended conditions of uh all conditions of approval with regards to the previous approvals of P22-094 and P22-191 which shall remain in effect.
>> Yes, we do. >> Then uh staff recommends approval. >> Okay. >> I'd like to entertain a motion. I'd like to make a motion in reference to project number >> P 2025-
0096 um >> presented presented to the board with all conditions >> second >> second >> uh acting vice chair stamato >> yes >> commissioner Wick >> hi
>> commissioner Lewis >> I >> commissioner Lipsky >> hi >> commissioner Senator Patel >> I. >> Acting vice sher gangan >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Chuck, one question is this says Herby 2, but there isn't there an Herby in
Journal Square and one downtown already? >> Yes, there's Herby one and is it downtown and Journal Square? Herby is up at Journal Square. >> So, this will be Herby 3. >> Well, two well downtown two and three. >> Okay. It's too late for Matt.
>> Good night and good luck, Mr. Lean. Is this yours? 25 LEC. >> Yes, it is. >> 25 L back. I know that. >> Oh, okay. Uh, for the record, Tom Lean from Connell Foley. Uh, this is a minor >> call. Let me just call the case.
>> Oh, sure. I'd like to call KP2025-10 0 010 0 minor subdivision with C variances 25 LC Avenue. >> Uh this is a minor subdivision with variances. As such it is a notice case. I have posted this affidavit to the
portal but I will give it to council for review. Madam chair, I receive the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application at 25 Lach Avenue here in the city. Had the opportunity to review it. It does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it
as A1 for purpose of the record. >> Thank you, council. Uh this is a request to subdivide an oversized lot uh at 25 Lach Avenue, which is in the uh R1 zone. Uh it is a 61 it's excuse me it's a 6250
foot square foot lot. Uh the proposal is to divide it into two equally sized lots of uh 3,125 square ft a piece. The property currently contains a a single family home. The idea is to keep the single family home on one of the lots. The
other lot will be vacant and will be eventually developed with a conforming one and two family home. There's only one uh curb cut accessing the property right now. Uh that's going to remain. We're not requesting uh two curb cuts. The existing curb cut will actually service the new proposed building as
opposed to the existing building. We do have two variances. They are both related to sideyards uh conditions for the existing building. Uh basically they're there to just make sure that this the building as it uh is constructed can remain on this property
that will be even larger than is uh required. This will be 2500 is required here where 3150. We're trying to make two weekly conforming lots. Um I think this survey and the subdivision plat speak for themselves. So I don't have a surveyor here but I do have Sam to just
quickly quickly run through the uh request for the relief. So there is variances requested because according to the agenda there is no variance requested here. >> There are variances and I did notice for them >> why it's not here. >> I think that is human error on my part.
I apologize for that. There are variances. >> Okay. >> And I do recognize I'm still under oath. Um, so as Tom said, we have two variances for sideyard setback. We're proposing 1.1 ft. That's to the existing building to the proposed um dividing
line between the two lots. So that's a that's a minimum for one where two feet required. And then for the combined, we have 4.1 ft where five uh 5.1 fts required. So both are related to the sideyard setback. Both related to the
existing structure. Um, as Tom said, we're proposing two conforming lots. So, the benefits here, I think, would outweigh the detriments. The subdivision is consistent with the R1 district, um, and is consistent with the lot pattern and development pattern of the block. So, I don't see any substantial
detriments here. I don't see any substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. As Tom mentioned, we're keeping the existing curb cut that is permitted in the R1 district. Um, and then overall I think we are consistent with the purposes of the municipal land use law um with this proposed uh
subdivision and minor variance relief that we're seeking. Um, that's that's all I have. >> Okay. >> Any questions from the board? >> No. >> Is there anyone from the public? >> Madam Chair, meaning that I see no one from the public, I recommend we close
the public motion. >> Second. Second. Ben >> staff agrees with the testimony provided by the applic by the applicant. The application furthers the principles of the land use element of the Jersey City master plan, including ensuring uh the
city's available housing is balanced and meets the needs of all current and future city residents as well as the purpose of the R1 neighborhood housing purpose uh of encouraging compatible infill. Staff recommends approval provided that the applicant agrees to the conditions in the staff memo dated
October 6th. >> I I reviewed the memo and we agree to the conditions there. >> Okay. Thank you, madam. >> I'd like to entertain a motion. >> I would like to make a motion in reference to case number P2025-01 0. Um,
>> as presented with the two variances. >> Roll call. >> Second. >> All right. Uh, Commissioner Stamato. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Wick, >> I. >> Commissioner Lewis, >> hi. >> Commissioner Lipsky, >> I. >> Commissioner Patel, >> hi.
>> Acting Chair Congaden, >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Thank you. >> Good night. >> Good night. Um motion to memorize >> resolutions. >> I got to read them into the record.
>> Madam Chairman, receipt of eight resolutions this evening. First resolution, resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City, applicant 24 Bright Street LLC for preliminary and final major site plan approval. 24 Bright Street, block 14106,
lot 37, Jersey City, New Jersey. Case number P2024-0117. >> Sorry, you can't talk. >> Resolution to the planning board of the city of Jersey City for approval and recommendation of amendments to chapter 34 uh 345
zoning. Resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City for approval and recommendation of amendments to the zoning map and land development ordinance regarding the creation of the Hackinack River Greenway overlay. Resolution number four is a resolution of the city of Jersey City Planning
Board in the matter of 610 Commune Lux LLC application number P2024-0242 uh decided August 26th memorialized this evening October 7th application for preliminary and final major site plan
approval and C variance. Fifth resolution is a resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City, Yellowstone Development LLC for preliminary and final major site plan approval with deviations 54 Jones Street, Jersey City, New Jersey, block
10704, lot 38.01, 01 case number P 2025-000019 a resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City applicant GLC Jersey City LLC for preliminary and
final major site plan approval with C variances for the property at 125 Theodore Conrad Drive, Jersey City, New Jersey, block 24305, lots 1.01 01 23456
and 7 case number P 2024-0132 resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City applicant GLC Jersey City LLC for preliminary and final major subdivision approval property is 125
Theodore Conrad Drive, Jersey City, New Jersey. Block 24305 >> lots 1.01 23 four five six and seven case P 2024-0172
final resolution is a resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City authorizing the issuance of requests for qualification prof professional services to the board. Second. >> Roll call. >> I got a roll.
>> You need a motion and a second. >> I made a second. >> Nobody made a motion. >> I make a motion >> to memorialize the resolutions to memorialize. >> Madame chair. >> Seconds. >> Acting vice chair. Commissioner Stamato. >> I. >> Commissioner Wick.
>> Commissioner Lewis. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Lipsky. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Patel. Hi. Acting Chair >> Gungadan. >> Acting Chair >> Gangaden. >> Motion carries. All in favor to memorialize resolutions. Um and Chuck would like to make an announcement about
his carry. >> I the last item 87 Van Horn. I I left without asking that it be uh carried to uh November 25th. So on the record, >> yes, November 25th.
>> What's that? to reopen again. >> What? Did you close the meeting? >> Yes. >> No. >> All right. >> November 25th. >> November 25th. >> Okay. >> Carried with preservation of notice. 87
Van Horn. >> Thanks. >> Way you back here, Chuck. We're going to get you into the Jersey City Half Marathon >> and and actually Um item 24 P2025-0200. We're going to carry that to October
28th. So >> make a motion to >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. Yeah. >> So that's going to October 28th.
Okay.