##VIDEO ID:rRKWr1p7emM## if we could please come to order and join me in a salute to the flag hi flag United States of America stands godible Justice all cam could we have a sunshine announcement please yes chairman good evening everyone today is Tuesday January 28th in the year 2025 and 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 Jersey journal the Bergen Record and the Jersey City Reporter and posted with the city clerk on Friday January 24th 2025 this meeting was also posted on the Jersey City division of City Planning webpage and all distribution materials made available to the board were published and made available to the public okay thank you could we have a roll call please yes chairman um commissioner gadan here councilwomen uh Prince ER commissioner Torres commissioner lipsky here commissioner Dr Sai and chairman Langston here all right we have six Commissioners present we have a quorum all right thank you could we swear in the staff please Mike I see Cameron Matt Maggie sopia Eric you guys any truth the whole truth and nothing truth yes all right thank you do we have any correspondents cam um chairman no nothing other than what's under the adjourned section of the agenda however um there may be some applicants that wish to put on the record um requests to carry so we could do that next if you'd like or sure is there anybody that wants to carry tonight good evening Council yes good evening Mr chairman Commissioners uh for the record Charles Harrington of conell Foley yeah I have three matters um that I'm requesting to carry a um number 16 uh is 3 326 Johnson Avenue um our architect had a conflict that that came up so um we're asking that be carried with um preservation of notice I talked to Cameron about this one and if possible if there's any room on this special meeting on February 4th um it's a it's a you know shorter application um I'd ask that be considered we can do the fourth Camp yeah plan planning staff believes that can happen Okay uh so we'll carry case p2023 d55 uh it's a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances for 326 Johnston a going to carry that to a date certain of February 4th with preservation of notice okay and the other two matters I have are at the end of the agenda item number 21 case number p2024 0127 that is um at one Journal Square Plaza uh that there is a larger application as is number 22 and we didn't think we would reach it in time uh so we are uh requesting that that be carried uh possibly to February 11th uh if there's room uh on that agenda cam yes okay okay both of them we can fit on there try yes okay thank you so uh we're going to carry case p2024 d 0127 uh is a preliminary and final major site plan with variances for one Journal Square also known as 2965 Kennedy Boulevard to a date certain February 11th with notice with preservation of notice I should say and also case p2024 d0210 is a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances at 2966 Kennedy Boulevard and 69 Cottage Street that will also be carried to February feary 11th with preservation of notice thank you Council okay thank you anybody else good evening everyone good evening um uh so Michael Higgins castano quickley cheramy for for the applicant for uh 772 uh to 788 Westside Avenue which I think is item 20 uh on the agenda we're requesting to carry to the uh 2nd uh February meeting I believe uh my understanding is that councilwoman prinari uh as a member of the community there has has uh recused herself from this hearing so there's no longer a quorum to to hear it okay so that's February 25th correct yes and cam we're good with February 25th yes okay so we're gonna there's no record of me recusing from this particular hearing the community asked for this to be carried they could have another public meeting with with your client oh okay I I apologize uh councilwoman I I I certainly didn't mean to from this meeting but there was that is not the reason for this to be carried to be clear on record it was carried because it was a request of community organizations for your client to come back to them and present so they can have a full understanding of where this comes back uh appreciate the clarification my apologies and Council you all have time to get that meeting together before then uh yes it's already scheduled okay excellent okay so let's carry case p 23-24 a preliminary and final major site plan with variances and minor subdivision for 772 to 788 Westside Avenue carried to a date certain February 25th with preservation of notice thank you thank you Council okay so let's get into Old business uh item a under old business we'll call case p2024 d0 2011 is a withdrawal of a previous approval for 203 Baldwin Avenue good evening Council good evening chairman Commissioners you General conell appearing for the applicant yes the applicant is withdrawing this application he's decided to renovate the existing building okay any questions anyone comments is there anybody here from the public that wants to comment anyone from public chair see no one from public I would like to close the public public portion okay motion is made and seconded public is closed Matt anything you want to add um not much um there's nothing out of the ordinary here staff recommends approval okay so I'll entertain a motion CH i' like to make a motion to approve case b224 D21 which is the withdrawal of application second second okay we have a motion and a second for approval uh commissioner gangadin I commissioner lipsky I commissioner Desai hi commissioner councilman Prince hi commissioner Torres hi and chairman Langston hi motion carries all in favor okay thank you thank you Council all right let's call Item B is case p2024 d241 is an administrative Amendment for 332 winon Street um good evening everyone Michael Higgins of castano quickly chamy for the applicant again uh first some housekeeping I have the original uh notices over here and uh Affidavit of proof of service turn see affid David publication proof of mailing with respect to the application at 332 whon Street here in Jersey City it's block 19005 lot 30 had the opportunity to review it it does appear to be in order we're going to mark is A1 for purposes of the record thank you Council thank you um so this is for 332 Wht Street this is a site plan Amendment um there was a previous approval of this project um which uh involved a historic component which is important here uh during construction the applicant ran into uh some issues particularly when they were going uh to do some work on the foundation it resulted in them losing uh about a foot and a half of usable uh height in this situation which um obviously impacted the elevations and it impacted the aesthetic of the facade the architect will go into that um in in a little bit more detail uh beyond that there was some um historic uh fabric on the building that was that was also uh unfortunately lost uh this is due to my understanding of water damage and a storm that that occurred earlier in the year uh but the applicants made a good faith effort to uh restore what they can maintain what they can and match the historic facade uh to the best of their ability so uh without further Ado I'll I'll pass this over to uh Jeff Lewis as our architect okay thank you thanks yes I do Jeffrey Lewis J F re y l e w i Mr Lewis good evening your license is current tonight yes sir it is okay thank you you're qualified thank you okay so I want to start just uh walking through the changes uh the first change here was actually um required by pscg uh we previously were proposing uh to have our uh gas and electric meters on the side of the building in a little closet here uh accessed from the alleyway we don't see anything oh you can see it up they have it up there there it is okay we're good go ahead sorry okay so this area here which was accessed off the side Alleyway was where we had our gas and electric meters uh PS psng uh did not find this acceptable they wanted the meters to be on the front of the building um because we have mostly Windows here the only place that we did have that was available was underneath the staircase uh so we did move the the gas and electric meters to underneath the staircase uh this also required us to change the stair uh it was proposed to be a wood stair um and PSG requires uh non-combustible material so this had to be a concrete stair with blue stone Treads um we also had to change the walkways a little bit you can see we had the one larger walkway to go to this back area uh we did however we wanted to keep the uh landscape area the same so we did that and we reduced the width of the existing walkway or the proposed walkway and then added a second smaller walkway to provide access to the uh gas and electric meters that's the main change on this floor um there's really no major changes to the upper floors except for the windows change slightly which we're going to go over when we get to the elevation that's the same on the on the third floor on the fourth floor besides the windows changing we did make another slightly minor change to the layout of the uh powder room but it's very minor and it's completely inside the building and then here we get to the elevations which is where you see uh the more major changes uh the left is what was approved and the right is uh what we actually have built so um we talked about um the height of the floor what we were proposing to do originally was Dig Down about a foot and a half on the basement level or the not the basement level the ground floor level so that we can have a full height uh space at that lower level um however we had two mitigating factors there one was that we have blue stone which is actually fairly High and the second is that our base flood elevation is actually just below grade here uh so we weren't basically we couldn't lower the um lower the ground floor so in order to get enough height on that level rather than lower the ground floor we raised every floor up a little bit uh each floor went up about 19 to 20 in um so what this did is it raised all of the window lines up and brings the top window lines close to uh the transom windows at the top we did keep the facial line exactly where it was and the roof is exactly where it was uh because of the building height changes the roof is about 1 foot higher however this foot is the roof is fairly far back from the front elevation um what else do I want to deal with here um additionally uh as was mentioned uh the existing we we were proposing to keep the existing window trim and reuse it uh the Builder found that the trim was unsalvageable and instead uh did new trim that would match that existing profile as best they could uh the windows themselves we did um have trouble getting the brand that we originally specified so we changed the brand um not to anything super cheap I think my from pet to Anderson um and those windows are actually just slightly wider a tiny bit wider than what was previously approved uh looking at the rear elevation again the windows all moved up in height uh and we also did slightly change the uh doors and windows at the back here where instead of having four together there's the double door and then a side panel a little separated on each side very small change uh additionally we made this window up here just slightly larger this is our left side elevation there are a few minor changes here um the main one you can see that we added another leader just to make uh our storm water work a little better we changed the uh side door from a half glass door to a full glass door um as I mentioned this height because of the roof um because of the raised floors this is about a foot higher than it was previously but as you can see it is slanted back pretty far it's not really going to affect how the building feels from the street um lastly there is a slight difference in where we used uh the gray five siding as opposed to the white siding you can see this was all white siding and now it's mostly gray with just a little bit of white just a minor change what was that change for I don't know the answer to that one okay appreciate your honesty uh and it is the same situation here just in a very small section um and that's actually that's the summary of all the changes that we had to make and I can answer as many questions as I possibly can okay so my main question is was Maggie consulted on anything during the process yeah perhaps that would be better for me to answer uh Maggie was consulted um Maggie was consulted at a few points through this process and we've been uh the applicant's been cooperating with her recently um to attempt to get uh the sign off on as many of these changes as possible um yes uh she she the short answer is she was uh there's a few issues here um that frankly at this point are you know not possible to address um particularly the historic fabric which isn't there anymore but um I think this is uh I do think this is a situation where the applicant discovered um some issues with Heiden and brought it forward to uh to Historic and then brought an amendment before the board to try and correct this and um is is willing uh to to address any um concerns as best that they can yeah okay Maggie do you wan to we can wait for staff comments if you want to say you want to wait until later sure go ahead out of all the items you showed us that uh okay out if all the items you're showing us that have been changed or stuff or that how many of them are done already before we're talking about it now are they all done of um the building is constructed uh you know in in it's um it's it's too it's under construction currently a number of the changes are done all the stuff that you're showing me right now on the screen and the architect said we change the window we changed the door we changed the roof we changed the height all of that has already been completed not brought back to this board to get approved correct okay thank you anybody else any questions all right thank you Mr Lewis thank you okay uh I I do not have any further Witnesses the applicant uh the applicants themselves are present if the board has questions directly for for them um but I have no further witnesses to present I would just say this is a situation where they are uh demonstrating willingness to to uh to work with the board and with historic and um do whatever they need to do in order to basically effectuate um you know some sort of council what's left to be complete uh I don't know that I can answer um I I think handrails need to be installed but I think for the most part the the building's constructed um the windows are are installed and uh the cornice has been reconstructed to to replicate the historic design as as best as possible and is is there current work going on or is there a stop work order in place uh I do not believe there's a stop work order but to my knowledge they have stopped construction pending um pending some sort of decision toight okay well but it sounds like they've completed all work and there's nothing left to do and then coming here uh essentially essentially yes yeah okay okay um I think we'll reserve the right to call anybody else until after we hear staff comment yes absolutely okay so at this time let's open it up for public comment is anybody here from the public that wants to comment please come on up it okay stim be the truth truth truth yes my name is Sonia D Coleman s o n y a d is in David davan c o l e m a n good evening I live at 3:34 whiten Street good evening we have three minutes for you and I go back and forth whiten Whitten is Whit is it whitting whiton whitting okay this is my mother this who owns the house okay excellent thank you you have three minutes we have a problem with the windows on the side there was never windows on the side and these windows look dead down into our bedroom this is a shared Alleyway they took their fence and bought it all the way over and made it be their whole backyard that's not the way that's supposed to go they have it's a lot of stuff ma you can speak cuz you know more cuz you um swe we do have to do you have anything else for us no because it's her house let her most he G swe you in yes my name is Elma Coleman I live 334 White Street Jersey City good evening Miss Coleman we have 3 minutes for you I had I just asked them you know the owners could I have a a gate from the the shared Alleyway to go into my backyard they told me that I would have to wait until they sell the house and then ask the other the other owners and I said to them they would look at me like I'm crazy because they would want to know why didn't I solve the problem with the previous owners you know I just wanted a gate to from from the alleyway to go into my own backyard okay and is that the only access into your backyard yes okay so but you have access otherwise I would from inside I would have to go yeah in the house to the backyard okay but I needed a little gate so that I could cuz they can enter their backyard from the alleyway but I can't okay all right council do we want to address anything about a shared alley one go ahead keep going I need restart your time on the on the contract they said that they any any damages they did to my yard of my house they would repair so the gutters on my house they're bent because their men put boards and things up against it and like the little bricks this on the side of the fence they're gone and the fence is damaged they didn't fix any of that okay okay let's get to the bottom of this then thank you ma'am we appreciate it okay Council talk to me um Alleyway is there a shared Alleyway that you're aware of that your client's aware of to my knowledge no uh to my knowledge no um if you'd allow me just a minute I could consult with my with my client sure go ahead there so oh ask a question now or can I sh Wait Until let's wait until he comes back we car I want to no I don't but I want to have I have any damage fixed to that woman's house before we hear this thing again can we legally do that yeah thank you for uh allowing me a minute um so this to my knowledge there's no shared um no legal Arrangement allowing a shared Alleyway it's not on a survey or any sort of easement uh but it was apparent apparently a handshake deal uh with a previous property owner uh and the the applicant's uh current concern is that um allowing this would affect a potential owner of this property that would move in there and it would be their home um but uh that's that's do we have title on the property council do we have a survey it's um it's part of a Redevelopment agreement so it's uh yeah what do you mean it's a part of a Redevelopment agreement doesn't answer the question that I had you're not answering the question Council you say it's uh and the same as on under construction it's uh maybe done it's a is it a yes or no but even to that point a Redevelopment plan or Redevelopment agreement is going to have a survey because there are surveys with tax maps yes there correct there there is a survey okay okay is it submitted with the plans is this is something that the board can see uh I believe it could be on the data portal um it's not no I didn't see one so council do you have a copy of the survey or no I do not okay okay here's what we'll do one second ma'am Council as you know we can't just take shouting from the audience uh okay Council we're going to talk about the second thing before we talk about the first thing um are you aware of any damage to the neighboring property I'm not is your let me ask the question Shar if I may is it possible that there may be damage to the neighboring property uh possible I would say it's possible possible so without admitting any liability Council I think it best that perhaps you and your client discuss with the neighbor who seems to be alleging that there was damage whether or not there is and if it's something that can be resolved yeah that I think we need a survey M your client owns the property Council um yes and I suspect they did a title search before they closed title to the property I would assume so so I think we need to get to the bottom of the issue being raised as to whether or not there is some kind of shared access and I think that that's something else once you get your hands around you can then discuss intelligently with with the neighbor uh it's possible that it isn't but we can't obviously see any of that right I I think that's certainly an appropriate conversation that we should have so um I agree thank you Council sure okay um want to go I I don't know if you guys are still in the public portion though is there anybody else here from public that wants to comment on this I'm sorry my mic was off is there anybody else here from public that wants to comment on this application sh say no one from public I like public portion second okay the motion is made and second and public is closed so just before Maggie gives any comments chairman for purposes the record the record is going to remain open obviously based on the fact that we're seeking additional information and we'll not be moving the item this evening uh but with that obviously we are very curious to hear what Maggie has to say sure all right so um just by way of history of the application because this was a bit ago I will just um kind of very quickly walk the board through where we started how we got here um this property was applied for a demolition in 2021 staff reviewed it um certified that it did have historic integrity and recommended denial of the demo the applicant then chose to restore the building um while adding a significant addition onto the rear um staff reviewed the plans that were submitted at the time to this board um we issued a memo in 2023 um with some conditions that we recommended that the board adopt as part of their resolution um the we I I will note for the record we did have more extensive conditions on this project than we typically do um we had conditions that read such as um for the windows lentils and Sills they need to be the notes on the plans that they submitted at the time needed to change so that they could reflect that they were to be that they were to remain and be restored we also provided notes that if these items did need to be replaced that they needed to match the historic element in terms of Dimensions profile plane details materials finish um in addition to a variety of notes like that all pertaining to the front forade there was also a condition that the applicant accepted um that we are that HPC staff was to review and approve all shop drawings for the plans including lentil Sills front door prior to purchase manufacturer installation and then there was also the uh standard condition that if any of the compon preservation components were to change they were to contact staff um Mr Higgins is correct that the applicant and I have or the applicants professionals and I have absolutely been discussing this application but we haven't discussed any of the components that were changed because those were not brought to my attention um we discussed things like the condition of the brick at the base of the building we discussed things like the stoop um we discussed things like shop drawing for the front door um it was in reviewing all of these other changes that Cam and I discovered the extent of changes to the front facade um the window fenestration and so the pattern of the windows on the building the location of the windows on the building has completely changed the sizes have completely changed all of the historic fabric that was on the front facade that was to remain on the front facade and be restored has been removed and replaced with something else um prior to its removal it was not documented in a way that could support um recre uh reconstruction of those elements um the and so the know window trim the door trim the cornice brackets all of those these are all of the items that were not um documented in a way that would support reconstruction if HPC staff had been contacted about these right if the obviously we've all been through enough historic stuff that things need to be replaced we understand that we are experts in guiding applicants on how to document these things so that they can get them restored um we were not consulted so we could not provide that guidance so the elements that were put back on the building do not match what was there historically and we don't have a way to match what was there historically um because we don't know what it looks like we have pictures but they're not scaled pictures right there's no scale in the photo we can't get the exact dimensions or anything like that um that being said the applicant is so the plans that were presented to the board tonight are proposed changes something that's on the building now is a little bit different the proposed changes that they are presenting tonight is closer to what was there historically than what is currently installed now it's not exact um but it's it is closer right the applicant attempted to make it look closer um there is no way to put it back especially because the window fenestration and window sizes and the doors all of that has changed um it is up to from the historic perspective it is up to the board to determine the extent of these changes and if you can approve them however um I do want to note for the record as part of hpc's original recommendation of this project we did certify that it did meet positive criteria in terms of historic preservation we can no longer certify that it meets positive criteria in terms of historic preservation chairman if I may I just have a couple of followup questions uh I'm looking at your staff memo and there is a site photo January 2nd 2025 cam staff memo cam staff memo sorry that is a photograph taken January 2nd 2025 yes sir and that is what the structure looks like if we were to go out there today you believe I can't say that for certain but January 2nd that was the site and the renderings that were proposed tonight are different than what that photograph depicts yes one of you yes so the renderings that they're seeking approval of is different than what they've already constructed [Music] and okay I mean chairman I'm just looking at the photograph and the approved design and I'd say not even close no I agree um I mean mag you help us out here H how do we get how do we get to a place where this is acceptable obviously there were conditions of approval that aren't met so chairman I guess let me just say this before Maggie responds I think that the board has significant concerns of what's being presented and asked versus what was approved what was constructed and where we are today MH uh there are issues obviously that Council has to dig into that he said he was going to look into so in light of that I think it best that maybe now is the time to interface with planning staff as to where we went so arai in terms of what was approved what was done and ultimately what is at the site as we sit here yes Council we're certainly uh willing to continue to cooperate with planning staff and and with historic as well uh just just to clear the record I I don't know what the um proposed differences from the January 2nd photo to our proposed plan are um I I I I'm I'm unclear on that my Mr Lewis is that something that you could answer you prepared the latest rendering were you the original architect of record on the project um I don't believe I presented this in 2021 I don't believe you did uh the only thing that I would say is different uh on our drawings is we're showing the proposed railing uh which isn't shown and maybe some of the proposed walkways and things like that aren't finished yet you believe the details the lentils the window sills the lentils are there the window sills are all there all the windows are in all the the siding is on the building but you believe that everything that you're drawing reflects our drawings reflect what's built in the field the exception is again we added the railing and we added a few of the details that we going to we needed to get approved okay but with that said we we are happy to continue to cooperate and find some sort of resolution uh I I think we have been trying to do that and we sort of reached the point where we were unsure what else could could be done um but if uh if there's any suggestions from historic or planning we happy to do that and if the board thinks it's appropriate to come back and have another conversation concerning the conversation with the neighbor we can do that as well so if I could jump it Michael is correct right Cam and I have been um interfacing with the applicant for uh two or three months at this point getting the plans to like I said like the applicant has put forth an effort to present something to you the board that is as close as they can get to what was there historically because it was already constructed yeah yes but if they were to take something down and reconstruct it it could get closer to Historic based on the applicant testimony based so no they took off the historic material that they were supposed to keep we we cannot replace that we do not have a we do not have the mechanism to replace it and it took that out without consulting with correct um this is a from from historic stat from my perspective right as the preservationist not the planner there were conditions of approval that the applicant didn't follow we have that have resulted in changes to the building from the preservation perspective not planning perspective not anything else from the preservation perspective we certified that the project met one aspect of positive criteria which was part of your approval we cannot certify that it meets that aspect anymore right so in my professional view I you it's up to the board really that if it meets the rest of it and you think that they're making a good faith effort but from pres from a preservation perspective there is no historic preservation left on this building so I understand the element is no longer historic once you've destroyed the element correct right the building's not individually landmarked okay so the elements were the pro the historic part of the building right but it could be constructed to recreate historic which is what the applicant is proposing to do um quick question so Council you said that um when they removed the stuff that was historic some of it you say some of it was still saved what was saved I the siding or any what what was um you made that statement yeah I um I I may have misspoke uh to my knowledge the cornice is replaced the the cells are replaced um and the door has been replaced uh I don't know what on the front facade was but it was clear there was stuff saved there was stuff that you noticed that you already removed it but that you shouldn't have removed it and you saved stuff what is what was saved I I I don't think that's what I said I apologize commissioner um okay if I did then I I misspoke okay um then I got I'm gonna have one more question okay um the PE the tenants that the people that own the house next door that came up to SP speak said that they had a conversation with the owners now the owners are here can you ask the owners did they say that they were going to put a fence back up or wait for somebody else to put it up later was that com that conversation ever taken so I think the testimony from the neighbor was that she asked and was told that you know they weren't willing to do it at this point I think that's a conversation for the parties to have outside of this board okay presence it's thank you yeah I I I was not part of any such conversations okay the the part I'm trying to get at is the the the all right maybe I don't know if I could how to I be if coun if I'm out a line let be no so I would say this commissioner with respect to any issue of is there an easement is there access to the backyard can it be done the simple answer is this if it's the applicant's property they can always Grant an easement to somebody else to access it whether they want to or not is a different story but they could do that does it hurt the potential use of their property and sale of their property and future of their property again that's none of this board's concern Andor business I just invite them to look into the issue and further the issue since it was raised by a neighbor that believes they have a right to use it we've had easements before this board and it's turned out somebody thinks they have something they don't actually have we've had situations where there is an easement that's got to be respected so that's just for everybody's edification from a a legal standpoint my concern is the destruction of historic elements that once destroyed You've Lost That historic element and that's that's one of the issues and then there are other issues that are obviously uh going to require further investigation on council's part and cam another thing that was raised uh by the neighbor the windows on the side were they there originally in the original application um I'm actually opening on the data portal the 2022 case I'm going to look at that right now okay but um I'll have to double check that no I believe that they were I don't we didn't change any of the windows on the side of the building okay so Jeff on that side of the building from the photo of the um building that had the condemnation I guess before you started doing anything um it looks as if it Abed the property next to it 332 to 334 and was there's a on the second and third floor there's an existing overhang that's over that alley right and the walkway was on that side yes and then the right so there was a overhang there and that I mean it's difficult to see in the picture that was submitted uh in the uh portal um so I mean I mean I don't know how Windows you know look into from 332 32 if it was a budding and I mean does the overhang come down or is is it the same height the overhang actually only goes back about halfway and stops then the building is set in the whole alley width which is about 4T and those are where that's where the windows are okay and what about the height about 4T off the property line right and the width of the alley does that was that kept intact or was it it yes same height and width yes we kept with that same line okay thank you I I do have the original survey it was on the old plans from 2022 I could bring it up if you want otherwise we could wait no verble is fine the windows are in the survey not the plans oh yeah the survey I have the survey does the survey show demarcation of uh the properties yes and the overhang is within the applicant's property okay can we check on those windows you got origin approv yeah they're the same exactly the same okay same location cam yeah everything and who's the architect the record on that it's still Hampton Hill um that would be men men yeah it was still the same architect of record I just I don't think I testified at that hearing okay Miss Coleman please come on come on up let's get you on the mic so you're you're on the YouTubes tomorrow everybody can see this the original House the I have this but there weren't any windows on the side of that house at all so you're talking about the original house that stood there yes before okay yes what we have to go by is what the approved plans were right but they're looking into the bedroom see that's where I have a problem at yeah cuz nobody should be the windows are bit higher than than our windows and so when a person moves in here take a look right down into the bedroom sure understood no understood that's the problem it doesn't matter the they could I mean they could get mov and then it would be this window here again it's something we can Windows building I don't want satisfied I'm not yeah like to say that I'm satisfied is a I I I would agree that's not that's not the intention of my testimony this evening my the intention of my testimony is to say that the conditions were not followed and one of I'm assuming one of the elements of positive criteria that the application had to meet no longer meets that and the board should render their decision based off of that information and any other testimony evening obviously okay so I'll just you know open it up for everybody so we want the survey to see to solve the alleyway problem I would like the damage on Miss Coleman's property checked if there could be some kind of agreement before this comes back to us I'd like to hear some good news on the next hearing um anything else we want I think Council you're going to have to bring Mr Bellamy back uh I think you're going to have to provide testimony in relation to the relief that you're now requesting can I get a clarification uh on the um flood zone of the property what was the cause again that you had to raise it up 18 19 Ines before um sure we were actually with the original proposal uh right now the the original building had a first floor height that was about 7t it wasn't high enough to use uh so we were proposing could dig down but we didn't realize that our flood the flood elevation has moved up in the past you know 5 years and the flood elevation the base flood elevation is right below grade so when when you propose to dig down after that a new flood elevation came in or the new flood elevation was be after s very close in time but I so it takes a long time for them to and I want a clarification on that already done I would like to I like to be clear when was the new flood zone established and when they thought because if they knew that that was the flood zone why would you why would why are we talking about this 19 in thing going up or down they knew what the flood zone was so for the next meeting I would like a clarification on that okay it is it is two things it is the flood zone and the level of the bread Rock which is the reason they didn't go down lower originally I guess understand but but commissioner make no mistake stake they just decided to keep going that was right right what I was just going to say well that bags my question Council I mean so for on the record I mean so when a um application comes before us that is substantially completed and yet doesn't uh comport with what the expectation is what uh or possible outcomes possible outcomes are you don't get the relief you're requesting and theu has to come down okay so there's the the way we've always looked at these things you know believe me this isn't obviously the first one of these that we've seen the historic element adds a Different Twist to it um but it it's an administrative Amendment so what we've always tried to do as a board you know your your personal feeling are well I don't want to see them rip this down and start over well that can't enter into it our our job here is to review the changes and whether we think those changes are warranted or not because we have plenty of applicants that come in with administrative Amendment for changes before it's built so we don't treat them any differently than someone that's already built so you know it's it's a double-sided thing we don't we also don't use this as a punitive action because they built it already it's it's not this board's job to you know to punish a an applicant but you know since they built it well they're rolling the dice on whether we're going to allow it or not so we can't look at whether this has been built or not but again the twist with the historic element well that's destroyed now so that has to enter into our thought process too so Council I think you are aware of what we're looking for here um I disagree with that okay so we're going to move to carry I think is the general consensus here um Council when do you think you can have this the first hearing date would be the 11th okay let's go to the next one yeah I will not be here on the 11th cam how's the 25th look we could do the 25th we can do the 25th okay we can have everything wrapped up for the 25th okay so I'm going to entertain a motion to move case p2024 d241 uh to carry it with testimony taken to a date certain of February 25th can I have a motion chair i' like to make a motion to carry case b224 d241 with testimony taken to a date certain February 25th second okay we have a motion in a second could we have a roll call for the carry Camp commissioner gangen I Council one Prince hi commissioner Torres hi commissioner lipsky hi commissioner Dr Sai hi and chairman Langston hi motion carries all in favor okay thank you Council thank you Mr Lo all right let's call Item C case p2024 d024 is a one-year extension for 743 Grand Street uh yes good evening everyone this one's also me uh Michael Higgins uh on behalf of the applicant here um this is a project Mr Higgins just one second ma'am you may want to wait to exchange contact information with Mr Higgins thank you good catch yes so uh this was originally um this was a approval was originally obtained on July 12th 2022 uh that was memorialized October October 11th 2022 and expired October 11th 2024 um the applicants looking to obtain a one-year extension which would bring the approvals until October 11 2025 uh the reason for that is uh really to effectuate a transfer to a new uh property owner who uh would would have the uh intent and ability to complete the development um so with that I think that that concludes everything I have to say about this application any questions anyone no is there anybody here from the public that wants to comment on this application anyone from public see no one from public I wish to move close the public portion second okay we have a motion in two seconds um Eric do you have anything you want to add nothing much uh staff just requests that the applicant agree to the conditions of the original approval Council yes okay staff recommends approval all right thank you CH I'd like to make a motion to approve case p2024 d214 is presented second okay motion is made and seconded for approval commissioner Torres oh I commissioner lsky I commissioner Dr Desai hi commissioner gangan I councilwoman Prince r i and chairman Langston I motion carries all in favor okay thank you thank you Council all right let's move on to new business uh number nine the review and discussion of as certified artist Jin KY Choy and Lee Cunningham formal action may be taken um chairman uh yes I will be briefly covering the criteria that these artists have met and both of them have met criteria 1 two 3 4 and five for being certified artists and planning staff recommends the board approve them as certified artists so that they are eligible for the artist housing okay thank you any questions anyone no all right is there anybody here from the public that wants to comment anyone from public chair see no one from public I wish to close the public portion second all right motion is made and seconded public is closed we have Cam's recommendations so I'll entertain a motion at this point I like to make a motion to with the recommendation of staff to approve the certified artist Jim key chow and Leia Cunningham second okay motion is made and seconded for approval commissioner gungan hi councilwoman priner hi commissioner Tores hi commissioner lipsky hi commissioner Dr zi hi and chairman Lon hi motion carries all in favor okay thank you everybody uh let's call Item 10 it's case p2024 d0230 is a digital plan Amendment uh put forth by the planning department um this is a long time in the making and yeah um you know paper is King but digital is easier and um yeah we we are happy to announce that we are digitizing our signature plan process and um that's really the extent of the whole process here um but for the record I'll still have to sign subdivisions for the county that is correct yeah so yeah I'll still get to see you guys yeah yeah and myars we still don't know what they do with them okay anybody any questions all right is there anybody here from the public that wants to comment anyone from public Cher see no one from the public I wish to close the public portion second okay motion is made and seconded um I'll give the recommendation okay super this takes a lot of work off my plate so uh yeah I recommend adoption CH like to make a motion to um adopt the amendment to the city of Jersey City Land Development ordinance to allow the acceptance of digital plans second okay motion is made and seconded for approval all right uh on the recommendation to approve the the digi digitization of the city planning um signature process commissioner gangen I councilwoman priner I commissioner Torres under the protest I vote I commissioner lipsky I commissioner Dr Desai hi and chairman Lang yes please motion carries all in favor thank you all right let's move on to item 11 is case p2024 d02 37 this is the review and discussion of Corrections to the chapter 345 zoning review fees formal action may be taken so I'm covering this one for Tanya um we are recommending that you vote on this to be um considered before city council there was a typo on the fees and we are simply correcting um some typos and that's all okay any questions anyone no okay is there anybody here from public that wants to comment anyone from public seeing no one from the public wishing to speak I move to close the public portion second okay motion is made and seconded public is closed cam we have your recommendation a motion then CH i' like to make a motion to approve case b224 d237 review and discussion of Corrections to the chapter 345 zoning review board fees second okay motion is made and seconded for approval commissioner gangan hi councilwoman priner hi commissioner Torres hi commissioner lipsky hi commissioner Dr Desai hi and chairman linkston hi motion carries all in favor okay thank you uh let's call Item 12 is case p2024 d119 it's a AR and final major site plan Amendment and conditional use for 285 Newark Avenue okay yes uh for the record Charles Harington of Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant I do have the notices here that I'd like to get the council thank you Council for chairman receive the Affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application 285 Newark Avenue block 11004 lot six it does appear to be in order we're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record okay thank you Council okay thank you so the application before you tonight is for an amendment to a uh prior approval um it is um largely a result of a new owner um for the property uh and the news zoning um the original approval was under the NC neighborhood commercial the new uh the the newer zoning which exists now is the nc1 which changed the NC zoning um somewhat um the most important thing for the purpose of this application is the the initial NC zoning uh did not permit residential on the ground floor uh the nc1 does permit residential on the ground floors a conditional of use conditional use where you cannot exceed 40% of the ground floor uh so that's what's we're doing here uh the the initial approval you'll see during the presentation had a large commercial footprint uh this is at the corner of of third in in norc Avenue I believe it's Third Street and if you're familiar it's it's kind of really at the corner there um so it's a corner but it's it's in between two properties and the the commercial you is still going to front uh you know along the street but it's uh we think it's appropriate to have the residential uh unit um in the back there uh so ultimately we are increasing the number of units from 20 to 21 and then there are some other General uh aesthetic uh changes um that were made to the project again as a result of new ownership so with that I have uh Mr Lewis here as well tonight to take you through here Mr Le Mr leis you have been sworn in and qualified tonight if you could just uh State for the record that you understand that you're still under oath yes sir I am still under oath okay thank you go ahead great okay so 285 New York AV was originally approved with no variances we still do not have any variances uh looking at these drawings we have the approved uh previously approved on the left and what we're proposing on the right uh so looking at the ground floor what was previously approved uh was some residential common area on each side of the building but then the main space of the ground floor over 5,000 ft was a retail space um that also that retail space also had access to the rear decks in the back uh so we are changing that we are reducing the size of the retail space um it's now a total of 2,31 square ft it's double height space with a mezzanine uh 1,532 ft of it is on the ground floor and then there's a 769 ft mezanine space for the retail space um in the residential common areas we kept most of uh the existing amenities the only difference is we increased the bike storage from 12 to 20 and then lastly as was mentioned we did add an apartment in the rear of the building uh this is a three-bedroom three and a half bath apartment that is 1,8 21 Square ft uh most of that apartment is here on the ground floor however there is a mezzanine that I'll show on the next uh page this apartment also now has access to the private deck in the back which we did reduce the size of uh to add a small planting area with a new tree um lastly also in the front I should mention we did add a little um pocket Garden right next to our front entry that you'll see a little bit better uh in our renderings this is the mezine level uh previously this was all for mechanical space and the retail area uh now we have a section in the front that's for the retail area uh this xed out area is an open space down to below so it's a double height space in the retail space uh we have mechanical space on each side of the retail area and then in the back we have the second level of the ground floor apartment which has a catwalk connecting uh two on Suite bedrooms as well as a laundry room uh looking to the upper floors uh we did not change the unit count here uh there was previously five units per floor there are still five units per per floor two of them are one bedrooms three of them are two bedrooms uh the only difference now is that the two one-bedroom apartments have two bathrooms instead of having one uh looking at the front of the building we had can levers that were uh kind of moving around there was some on the left here and on the right here uh we took the same square footage of can lever and just moved it all the way over to the right side so it's one can lever as opposed to having multiple can levers uh and then uh lastly and I'm going to show you when we go to the you'll see better how that changes things and then lastly we did have two balconies on the rear that we have removed so there'll be no balconies on the rear Apartments uh looking to the roof deck we did have a roof deck previously we are uh still going to propose a roof deck uh both stairs and the elevator serve this roof deck ours now what we're proposing is slightly larger than was previously approved uh it's a total of 2,877 square ft of patio area however there are also several uh Planters and raised Planters and planting areas mixed in into that patio area and then in the front of the building we have 700 square feet of green roof trays okay so here we're looking again at the top is what was previously approved at the bottom is what we're proposing um what I want to show here is just kind of to talk about the canc levers you could see how the this is canc levered it's every other floor is kind of canc Levering out at the ends uh and what we were doing actually is they were using we were using the roof of those can levers as a balcony for the apartment above so we had balconies at the front of the building overlooking the the street I know that's not popular here uh that is something that will be removed uh as part of this new plan um and then also I think you can see that with this large glazing area in the center of the building that retail space is really being emphasized in the new design and we're going to come back to the elevations in the front but I just want to walk through the side ones uh this is pretty simple we're on the property line uh where we're above the building next to us we're going to use Fiber SM panels that are going to be light beion color to match the panels that we're using in the front of the building and it's the same here on the other side and on the rear where we're using those same uh Light Beige Fiers span panels and of course the main difference from the rear elevation is we removed all those balconies as well okay so now here we're looking at all the renderings of our new building so I can go over some of our finishes um so we have basically a two-story base that's mostly the retail space and then four stories of residential above that uh each end of the base where the retail where the residential entries are are being finished with a a vertical aluminum Batten system so these are vertical aluminum slots that are going to be um painted somewhere in the brown color palette uh anything uh where we have doors or whatever and it's a different finish is going to be metal panels that will be that same uh brown color to match the aluminum uh slots but as you can see most of uh the ground floor space is glazing um we have black aluminum frames for all the storefront windows the entry doors as well as the windows above in the residential area um looking at those residential windows uh we do have uh black aluminum panels as an accent in between uh those windows and we also have um ACC sense of surrounding the windows that are wrapped in Black aluminum panels as well excuse me black aluminum uh yeah panels uh what else do we have uh so upstair the the top four floors the main finish is metal panels that are going to be Light Beige in color and we have two different uh finish types here uh in between the windows here and here and a couple other places you can see we have those perforated panels uh those are partly for decoration but also partly so we can hide uh any exhaust fence behind them so you won't see any of them uh and and then the other uh panels that are located in between floors are basically just flat uh metal panels that again will be that same uh light beian color and then I think you can see down here at the bottom I did mention that little pocket garden and this is kind of what it looks like here and um that's actually that's the summary of our changes I'm happy to answer any questions about them that you might have or do you have any no uh Mr Le is that the signage that's being proposed no that's not the exact signage that's just the the the um the basic size and type of signage okay um so there is no David proposal not that I know of thank you thank Boutique anyway um yeah I have no other questions anybody no that completes our presentation all right thank you so if there's nothing else uh let's open it up for public comment is anybody here from the public that wants to comment on this application seeing no one from the public wishing to speak I move to close second okay motion is made and seconded public is closed um cam is this yours um juru couldn't be here tonight but I will just know note that juru prepared a staff report on October 15th of 2024 um in it she has comments and recommendations and um ultimately planning staff sees that the project still meets the objectives and goals of the Redevelopment plan and the condition of the additional use uh additional unit is permitted and planning staff recommends approval and the conditions in that memo would be acceptable as conditions of appr approval thank you okay thank you Council so I'll entertain a motion CH like to make a motion to approve case p2024 d119 has presented to the board second okay motion is made and seconded for approval commissioner Gaden I councilwoman priner I commissioner Tores well just a quick uh comment to the developer you know it's true I I'm not a big fan of balconies in front of the buildings and um but I don't mind the balconies in front of the building it's just as that we use some type of safety precaution so um if they could look into it as they develop it it' be very appreciated you know that there do some type of a safety precaution that doesn't slide out um but uh with that I will vote I for the project commissioner lipsky hi commissioner Dr Desai hi and chairman langon so aesthetically I do think it's a better project now um I like the can levers before but I I think I think definitely aesthetically it's a better project um I I hate to lose those balconies or that that back deck from the retail space um I I think that you know that has the potential to be enjoyed by more people than just the unit owner anyway um it's it's allowed and uh you know overall I do think it's a better project than it was before so uh my vote is I motion carries all in favor okay thank you you thank you you want to take a break again please everybody and let's call Item 13 is case p2023 d112 is a minor site plan for 259 Baldwin Avenue good evening Council good evening chairman um Eugene Carell for for the applicant um this is a notice case and I have chairman I received the affidavit and O proof of publication with respect to 259 ball one Avenue here in the city it's block 9606 lot five had the opportunity to review it does appear to be in order going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record thank you coun thank you Council so this is a property on um bald Avenue between Magnolia I mean I'm sorry on Bald Avenue between yeah magn pavon High Street magnol magnol pavon oh it's magnolian Pavonia that's right I was goingon to say Baldwin but that would be wrong um I have two witnesses tonight my architect Jack engl and my planner is Carolyn warell and I ask Jack to take the board through the plans anytim tonight the truth the whole truth nothing but truth I do name yes uh John Caz i n g l e Mr Eng good evening good evening Mr engl good evening uh it's been a while your license is still current yes it is okay thank you you're qualified always a pleasure though stop back anytime okay all right jack so just take us through the plans and uh for the board and the audience certainly um so the property we're talking about here is an existing 27.0 ft by 888.259.3826 next to it to the north is a parking lot which is next to two tenement style uh 1800s apartment buildings that come off the corner of Pavonia um next to us to the South is a twostory uh residential building which I I I believe um was at one point a Convent um and what's being proposed here is to demolish the existing home um and to build a four-story multif family dwelling on the lot the property is in uh the general Square 2060 Redevelopment plan in the zone 4 a community multif family lowrise um and what we're propos so what you see right now is just some pictures of uh on the left sort of an aerial of that whole side of of Baldwin um on the right upper hand corner you can see a pict picture of the two family home that's there now and the adjacent former Convent and the lower picture shows all of the buildings that now exist on uh on Baldwin on that side uh the existing building to our left is our closest adjacent neighbor it has a front setback of uh 11.33 ft and this scheme for this property uh maintains that as the front setback because that's the closest prevailing setback um what we're proposing here and I'm going to just zoom in on the site plan for a second um if I can get it to stay on the same sheet and I'm having trouble doing that okay um it's a very it's a it's a fairly small lot the build the new building is proposed again to have that front setback uh have a zero side yard setback where it abuts the parking lot it has a 3.41 setback between our building and the na and the neighbor building which also has an alley so that windows can exist in both on on both buildings and an 8ot rear yard that is the one variance we're requesting this is an undersized lot in length um and that rear setback um is less than what's required um but its relationship with the adjacent property is is slightly different too as opposed to an interior lot on the long side of the block where we would be backing up to someone else's rear yard most of the buildings on this block have as their neighbor to the rear the side of the the very large building um uh that was St Joseph's originally that's on uh on Pavonia so that building has sidey guard setbacks so it it um so it's it's not as much of an encroachment on that building as it would be if it were uh uh blocking light and air to a rear yard um let me go to the building plans here please click further okay let's go back a sheet so what's proposed here is a four-story building um that that really has three levels of units and a fourth floor that is the upper level of duplex units so there are um five Studios proposed and in this drawing they're the sort of bluish Gray areas on the on the plan there's a studio in the in the first floor as you come in on the on the right uh there's a one-bedroom at the back on the first floor and those are um 406 Square ft the studio and 591 squ ft for that one bedroom you go up the stair to the second floor and there's a front and back one-bedroom uh unit each of those are 633 square fet and then when you get to the third floor you're on the first level of four uh small duplex Studios that are uh two of them are 443 ft two are 458 square feet they have sort of a a they each have a stair and a sleeping Loft at that fourth floor level um and then those units also have a stair up to an individual private uh an individual private Terrace for those units and The Terraces are set into the center of the building because the building as you'll see in the elevations has sort of a front and rear pitched metal roof um again sort of the to sort of deemphasize the overall height of the building this is showing the front elevation on the right and the side elevation the Southside elevation on the left uh the exterior of the building is a mix of gray brick on the front and rear um gray metal uh panels in both a dark and a light gray um in these window uh vertical sections with black window Framing and uh sort of a brick red accent panel in the storefront framing of of the windows um on the again on the front and the rear and then the sides are a mix of uh fiber cement siding in two colors um and a uh in in in a pattern that uh sort of uh picks up on the window spacing in the front um and gives a little bit of a of a of a pattern and composition on the on the sides U Mr engl if we could yeah uh let me just jump in we do need to mark this uh presentation the plans that we have aren't colorized you have't you have a non-colored version of this oh this was my digitally signed and sealed they look nice PDF so I thought this is what you had in your package Sor uh so if we could let's mark that A2 and uh please get a copy over to planning tomorrow so we just approved the digital version vers tonight so we we're getting there we moved right into it that has to go through city council still and and lastly the the the rear is almost a mirror of the front uh this is not a colored version of that but that's the the same elevation and then on the North side where we're on the Zero lot line um it's it's again a pattern of of gray and light gray and dark gray uh fiber cement panels but there are no windows so uh with that I would uh see if there are any questions comments I have none anybody else any questions okay thank you okay then my my next witness will be carollyn Rella just to uh defend the uh rear set rear yard setback sure good evening good evening anytim truth the whole truth truth I do Carolyn worell w r s t l l miss worstell good evening your license is current tonight yes it is okay thank you you're qualified good evening everyone um so Jack just uh sort of went through the the plans themselves and as he mentioned we're here for a single variance for this application and that is for the rear yard setback um this is uh an undersized lot it's only 88 ft deep uh so it's you know 12 feet shorter than your typical lot uh in the uh Redevelopment plan um and uh we're also working with a situation where we do have a fairly significant front yard setback which we are meeting which is that 11 foot front yard step back um and that that's going to be providing you know extensive Landscaping at the front of the building uh so um that is where a lot of the open space for this property is really going to be located is in that front yard area um the request here is for uh rear yard set pack of eight feet where a minimum of 30 feet is required um so again the the the standard um creates this this uh situation where we need 30 feet uh overall combined we are still providing uh about 19 ft or a little under 20 feet of setbacks between both our front and our rear um so we are still providing a very significant um open space we're not seeking a coverage variance um we are are providing um uh approximately um see where do I have it we are providing about 90% coverage which is actually a reduction from what is there currently uh currently we do have uh about 97% coverage on this site uh because there is parking in the rear with a rear yard garage um so we are going to be removing that garage we are going to actually be pulling uh uh the garage which is actually I think extends a little bit over the the lot line away from the adjacent property so I think overall this project really improves the situation of this lot compared to its existing condition uh we are going to be reducing the coverage we are pulling um what is an existing non-conforming garage away from the adjacent property we're providing more setback from the adjacent property than there is currently today um and uh we're providing you know I think a really nice uh front yard uh oops Landscaping here on this this uh property um so I think overall um you know the benefits here outweigh the detriments um including that elimination the non-conforming garage um that we are uh providing increased front yard landscaping um you know we're not the the 8ot setback um is sort of is consistent um and even greater than what you would typically see for a side yard setback um as Jack explained this sit situation is in which we are our rear yard is adjacent to the side yard of the adjacent building um so we are going to be uh providing more setback than you would typically find for a side yard setback um so I think overall you know the benefits here outweigh um the detriments and I don't believe that that um uh you know this this project will advance those uh purposes of the municipal land use law you know uh we're providing an appropriate use and development of this property consistent with purpose a uh through the appr uh a provision of an appropriate multif family development on the subject property um you know it's consist in purpose e uh establishment establishment of an appropriate appropriate population densities um and uh is consistent with purpose I promoting a desirable visual environment I think both in the front and the back as I said you know we're going to be seeing uh extensive new Landscaping in the front and at the rear I do believe you'll still have a better improvement over what is there today which is a garage um so there will be now some rear yard and some setback where there wasn't some today um so I think overall I think it's a an improvement both at the front and the rear for this subject property um I don't believe that this granting the deviation will result in a substantial detriment to the general welfare um it is permitted use consistent with a surrounding residential neighborhood um there is going to be the adequate separation between the proposed building and the adjacent buildings allowing for light a air um and open space uh it's eliminating those non-conforming conditions um and reducing the coverage uh on the property uh as well as providing for that new Landscaping both the front the rear and the sidewalks uh curbs and a street tree also proposed at the front um I don't believe that the deviations will result in a substantial impairment to the intent or purpose of the Zone plan or the zoning ordinance um it does advance several uh aspects or or uh goals of the Redevelopment plan um um reducing autom automobile dependency by encouraging high density development in close proximity to mass transit uh with low automobile parking ratios and uh I think this project meets those standards as we are removing uh on-site parking and creating uh new residential development within the uh Journal Square Redevelopment area uh it's promoting the principles of smart growth and Transit Village Development um and it is uh creating and maximizing rooftop open space for recreation and green roof so I think overall uh this this project advances uh several um objectives of that Redevelopment plan um and then uh the requested deviation can be granted and that it both meets both the positive and the negative criteria and I'm happy to answer any questions okay thank you Mr worell um I have no questions anybody else no okay all right thank you presentation okay is there anybody here from public that wants to comment anyone here from public JY no one from public I wish to close the public portion second okay motion is made and seconded public is closed Matt do you have anything you want to add um sure um Mr oconnell do you mind moving the presentation to the image of the site plan or Mr engl try to get it a little bit bigger for you there and of course it always goes to the next page the struggle is real sorry about that um anyway well I think from here it should be okay okay um yeah um so uh staff substantiates Miss rell's testimony is accurate um with one exception um so as this isn't a lot under 100 ft in length um the required rear setback is not a straight 30 ft but 30% of the um Lots length that was a relatively recent change um to the Redevelopment plan so the confusion is understandable in this case that would calculate out to 26.4 Ft so actually that actually shrinks the size of the variance being requested um in your favor um um just to look at the site plan really quickly um so the Journal Square zone four of the Journal Square 2060 re development plan requires buildings um to generally match the front yard setback of their neighbors um because the development is supposed to be contextual it's supposed to fit in it's supposed to compliment um as this is quite an undersized lot if you see and there's a fairly deep um front yard set back to the adjacent building to the um to the West um combin if you had a conforming reard set back here the um allowed building envelope frankly does not create a realistic opportunity for the construction of a building um um realistically either a front yard setback or rear yard setback would be required to be feasible to build on this site um and especially build sort of the lowrise multif family use that the plan encourages in this location um so in discussion with the applicant um staff deemed it important to prioritize that complimenting of the neighbor and prioritizing the quality of the public facing side of the realm and so we advised them to pursue a rear yard setback variance and conform with the front yard requirements um that being said the staff report outlays um five conditions for approval um is the applicant willing to abide by those conditions yes we've read the report we'll abide by those recommendations great uh staff recommends approval conditions okay thank you Matt chair i' like to make a motion to approve case p2023 d112 is presented to the board second okay motion is made and seconded for approval commissioner gangadin I commissioner lipsky hi commissioner Desai I commissioner chairwoman uh commissioner councilwoman Prince AR I commissioner Torres hi and chairman Langston yeah I think uh the deviation is reasonable uh Mr worell made a good case and uh my vote is I excellent motion carries all in favor okay thank you thank you thank you very much thanks for adding a special meeting to ensure that we get heard appreciate it no worries uh all right let's move on to item 14 is case p2023 d43 is a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances for three uh 73 4th Street uh Michael Higgins of castano quigly chamy uh on behalf of the applicant um I have the original TR re see the Affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application at 373 to 375 4th Street here in the city it does appear to be in order we're going to mark it as A1 for purposes thank you Council thank you so this is 373 and 375 uh 4th Street uh those are lots 6 and seven in Block 11002 uh this is the rc3 Zone it's uh 4th Street uh right off of New York Avenue in downtown um the uh the interesting thing um going on here is that one of these buildings is uh historic there's a memorandum from historic that has features that need to be preserved uh so the applicant here has coordinated with the community they've coordinated with the division of planning and they've coordinated with the historic department and come to a design that we think meets uh everybody's um suggestions and makes everyone happy um so to uh to to build this we do need a few variances here uh namely we have variances for um Building height uh where um uh 40 uh excuse me 40t are required uh 46.5 ft are required 47.2 feet are proposed uh rear yard setback where 30 feet are required um and 15 fet are proposed uh building coverage uh 70% is permitted 77.5% is proposed uh lot coverage uh 80% is permitted 85% is proposed uh V uh uh uh small variance for landscaping uh 15% is proposed 20% is required uh we have a variance for the uh rooftop pertinence coverage uh which is to provide room for for uh an elevator on the roof for Ada access and then we have a variance for parking which uh we believe is appropriate over here uh because of its location in towntown and also because it's close to a nearby school down the street and it wouldn't be an appropriate location for um parking and I think Beyond parking most of these other variances the board will see from the testimony um they all relate to and touch upon the fact that there's a historic building that needs to be preserved um so with that I I have three Witnesses have uh an engineer who will testify briefly I have architect and I have a planner um so I would like to call up Brian leaps kind as our uh engineer to testify if we get much moreth I do Brian leusin l i EB e s k i n d Mr leusin good evening um your license is current tonight it is okay thank you you're qualified thank you uh good evening chairman Commissioners um as noted by Mr Higgins uh we have uh seven uh variances are being requested as part of this application um all of which pertain to the historical element um of the property uh which I'll go through briefly um with respect to the de s side layout um and then the architect will um touch upon the you're having difficulty I that's why I let the Architects you know plug it in okay uh I will pull up the uh c301 SC plan oh you had it then you unplugged it sorry okay uh this is uh c301 the site plan um those included in the the Civil set um the uh the property is two side by side 25 by 100 Lots um we are looking at um Fourth Street um North is at six o'clock in in this um on the south side of the street adjacent to PR Bakery um to the left on on this plan um the existing building um represents um nearly the same footprint um as shown uh here uh with minor adjustments um as as a result of discussions with with the city um creating a 15t rear setback um to the upper left which did not which is not exist today um as as well as um preserving a uh open space of 25 by 30 to um to the right of that um the 30 foot uh portion um is compliant with the uh the ordinance uh the uh 15t portion is is where we are are seeking relief uh the site uh improvements along Fourth Street uh include reconstructing the uh concrete sidewalk um eliminating the uh curb cut and loading dock that exists there today um uh in you know thereby um improving the uh pedestrian uh walkway um also um allows the opportunity to um add plant material um both in the form of a uh a tree a tree pit along the curb as well as uh the landscape area um I'll I'll zoom in for um so can see um this planted area uh up against the building uh there two points of uh Ingress to the building um one for each of the uh existing uh Lots there today which uh the architect can can walk through uh the the design design challenges of of interior Renovations that um we are proposing to you preserve some of the historical elements of the building while we also bringing it up to code um in complying with with storm water regulations to elevate the building above flood Hazard um the um the other side improvements um uh you include the the rear patio that's being proposed um I will note the um variants being requested for uh for lock coverage and then in turn for minimum planted area um does not include the the permeable Paving um and as noted in the the South memo the plant material that's being provided uh within the the public right of way um which is not um credited you in the percentage for for lot coverage but also we believe you know adds a um a benefit um both in terms of uh the coverage for for planted areas and um and storm water benefit um and then in that regards um the architect can walk through in a little more detail um the building will include a green roof component um we've satisfied the um the G um minimums um the flood overlay um o overall you know I think you know getting collaboration with um with the city you know I think end up with a a nice product of um you working with the existing building um and and making improvements um so you know although you know we have you a number of variances um you want want to stress that you know each of those are improvements um you know upon what exists today um and the last one uh which Mr hiin touched on briefly is is the parking um You by zoning uh the project would require about six parking spaces uh none exists today um uh how ever you know is uh known in the the traffic memo um as part of the application the net of between existing um and proposed is equates to two units um by eliminating the curb cut along four Street we are um able to uh put back one on Street space um so the the end result is um youly a one um space change which we feel is is the Minimus and you able being able to um you keep the uh the nature of the existing building without um the complications of introducing a a driveway with a garage um we feel are are appropriate in uh in the setting um there are no further questions that concludes my testimony okay thank you I have no questions anybody else thank you Brian thank you my second witness is Chris botch the architect I do name is Christopher botch b s good evening sir we've qualified you in the past as well your license is current tonight sure it is okay thank you you're qualified okay um this is the combination of the combination of two lots um to create a single structure there are two existing buildings on this site currently um the one that's 373 is the one that has historical significance whereas it's not a actual historic building but it has been deemed to have historic uh significance so we're working with historic to go through and maintain parts and refurbish as much of that building as we can um the building adjacent to it on a 375 um will be demolished in its in its total in its uh completeness um going from I will kick to the couple floor plans here um this first set of floor plan shows the uh demolition plans along with the existing the 373 is on the left the 375 is on the right um in discussions with the city uh and we've decided the to pull back 15 foot of the existing building on the 373 to provide some setback on that piece of property and remove the existing uh 15t of that building for the first story that is currently existing uh on this the second floor demolition plan again is adjacencies to the proposed versus the existing which shows kicking back the second foot 15 foot the second floor of the existing building does meet that 15t uh setback uh actually it's about two foot short but that's um what kind of dictated that line uh kicking to the next um the next is uh the side by sides of again the the proposed versus the existing all the way to the left is the existing and then the proposed seller plan the seller plan will have two means of egress for the stairs up and down it will also have an elevator to be able to uh bring down to remove refu waste and also provide access to all floors um we do have spaces down in the floor for storage for each tenant space uh we also have all of our utilities down in the basement and we will also have a right bike rack storage down in the basement uh based on the zoning I believe we required 4.5 bicycle racks we're providing for 18 uh for the next floor up for the main floor we have the which actually I'll blow it up a little bit uh which consists of two units uh we have it the stair to the left is strictly an egress there so it has a lower impact on the existing building that has historic significance and less deviation for the elevation of that building and to the right hand side we have the main entrance will which will come into the lobby which will service the entire building and the second and the primary means of eress there is one unit in the front which is approximately just over 1,000 Square fet it's a one bed two-bedroom unit and then we have another unit in the back at the rear which is another two-bedroom unit which is about 1,500 square feet that unit does have the outside patio space which will have a set of stairs that go down to provide them their outdoor space and then there is an all open landscape space across the entire back of the property which is the entire 50 foot as well as 15 foot deep from there we'll go up to the next floor next floor up what has two two one-bedroom apartments in the front of of the building and one two-bedroom apartment in the rear this this also has the uh expanded living space which takes up that 15ot encroachment into the exist part of the existing building and then one floor up from there it goes up and we go back to having two two bedroom units one in the front one in in the rear uh both are a little over 1,000 square ft the benefit to the rear unit is that we do have a second floor deck which goes out on top of the floor below um based on conversations with the community we've do have an exhibit which we can provide to you that we've made some modifications to that we do have Evergreen plantings along the back the request was to put something on the sides um so I do have an exhibit which I'll show you shortly of putting a fence on either side to further block that and it's uh similar in the detail that we're going to use on the roof to keep consistency going up to the fourth floor fourth floor is very similar to the floor below except that it does not have that living space out to the back so this has just two units both two bedrooms and this comes back and this is where we start to conform for the remainder of the building at the 30-ft setback from there we go up to the the roof the roof has individual seven individual patio spaces which will be walled off to prevent large Gatherings of people they're all individual per uh set for the tency and we have multiple areas of green roof we're going to be looking at using a cassette system which is an extensive system goes anywhere from 2T 4T area um it has all its internal drainage which will all be worked out um and then in the center also as well we do have a larger planting area just to make it a little bit nicer in the front and gain we're also picking up a lot of green space that we we're losing on on the lower levels um the mechanical spaces we have two as of right now we're not totally worked into how much space we're going to require yet until we get into the engineering point portion of it so part of what we're asking for is due to a little bit of relief until we get that worked out we're going to try to make that as di Minimus as possible these are some larger floor plans but I will kick to the elevations so here is uh just a side by side uh and some photos of the existing building the one to the left is the 373 which is the one which has his iCal significance uh the building is currently has some asphalt shingles kind of nailed to the front of it which will be removing and the original is hand queued uh clabbered siding um it has been painted um you can see actually from the window up top from some selective demolition there of pulling some trim off we found that the original color was a green color so we do propose in going back with that color um and keeping consistent and then the building to the right will be removed and I'll skip to the next one here which has actually skip ahead a little bit just to the color elevation so the the the building with historical significance is the one on the left hand side um we will be modify be uh restoring that building as along with the corners um the roof that's currently on it was not original um so we'd be pulling that off and there was a uh a sign a sign band for the the uh industrial use that was there previous um we will be modifying the old uh loading dock which is there but we'll be creating it as a more of a inaccessible patio space to mimic that look but wouldn't be accessible from the apartment and then you see to the left is the is the change of where the exist roughly where one of the overhead doors is where we'll be putting that other ESS going into the building the building to the right is where we'll be knocking down the old building and working with historic they wanted something that didn't necessarily match 373 but would complement so from there we did a more brick look in on that side with preat lentils and we will also be doing a wood cornice up there which will be similar in height and um depth to what is next door is is adjacent however it'll be a simpler look to it so won't compete with that look from there on the upper pieces will be a ctitious more contemporary type of style um to really have that mix of the old versus the new we'll kick back to this here this is a elevation of the showing the rear so we are going to continue the collab look siding around the remainder of the building to the rear um and then we show up top where we have the U the Evergreen plantings for that upper area which will provide screening for that tenant and I'll just kick to this here these are the side elevations and this is a larger elevation of what that stitious material looks like and then on the sides that we are adjacent we obviously we have part of the building that we with our neighbor on one side um that side from the pieces that are not hidden by that building will have um an epis and stucco type [Music] system Chris I'm sorry to interrupt this this one was entered into this is part of the previous set correct yes I haven't gotten to the exhibit yet yes I'm sorry and then the other side as well uh this side currently has uh is a vacant lot so we don't have an building adjacent to this so we'll be following the collaborator along the side as well as putting the ctitious finish up top uh so from there I will we hop over to the exhibit which this is a little different clip this will show you here this is the be that patio in the back and on either side we'll have the fencing and then I'll just shoot over to this partial so Council let's mark this as A2 and let's submit it after the hearing yes yep and you if you can see there there's a kind of shadow of a person in standing on that patio space and we'll be bringing up that fence on the side to be able to block that space and that fence will basically be look something like this which is not completely opaque but it has opposing boards on either side so it doesn't look like just a blank uh PVC style or uh Shake style fence and it'll be 6 feet high yes sir and that pretty much concludes our presentation happy to answer any questions all right thank you um if you could just go back to uh the ephus on the building that's the entire side correct well we have a building on that side that directly adjacent okay so we're going to have to kind of work around that and we are a zero lot line on that side sure so I'm trying to with I know Evis isn't the greatest material in the world but some of what I'm trying to gain is some Energy Efficiency by being able to use that insulation on there and they protect it no it's it's got its benefits for insulation of course um one thing we always do with ephus um first of all Eric is ephus allowed here to my understanding I believe I believe it's allowed to be utilized on on side facades if there is an existing structure there I believe so okay um but of course I can do research and get back to you about that um but I the adjacent structure I believe it's a two-story two story building so a lot of the C will still be visible um just just want to not that okay and we're we're willing to to work with if we you know there wants to be an alternative isn't it not available in the Redevelopment plan of that area we know it's available that's that's my question that's the question so this is not in a Redevelopment plan though um this this property no no no it's not it's currently is owned as rc3 both Lots okay so the west side is facing Fourth Street uh the would that be the West side or is that the West Side to me if that's the one that's adjacent to PR that I think that's the yeah over the restaurant that would be the north side right I believe so as long as you don't mess with pra I'm cool yeah it it's also trying to limit working over another you know property didn't we have that bought up with other properties in that neighborhood the 375s boarded up no the the use of ephis in that in that neighborhood thingss about to me that was not uh prohibited than that part of the plan I um I'm not sure we had it and on York Avenue yeah I'm not I mean it's it's not in the Redevelopment Zone okay so it's you know it's not expressly written good in there um yeah we really need to know if it's allowed or not this computer's slow yes within the Land Development ordinance all of 345 ephis is only mentioned um is only mentioned within the residential housing District um which is something yeah we commonly commonly run into um epas is a lot of times primarily mentioned within the Redevelopment plan areas but it's for the most part just highly not recommended within you know on properties within the the regulations of 345 basically um it's just not recommended um but there's really there's really not enough for us to tell them to not do it it's just highly not recommended I'm certainly willing to explore another option again the only the real reason was working over another jent property sure ease of application and I mean you'd still have to work over that property right just it's just usually a quicker faster process and so one one condition we always put on any facade that has ephus is that all the cutting of the foam is interior MH we've had problems with foam you know leaving job sites and entering you know ending up in people's backyards and the street all over the place um I mean what's an alternate you know are we talking smooth stock out yes we could use the stocko again the only reason that I was thinking the insulation was to to help a little bit with the R value of Energy Efficiency I would say simply because the adjacent property is um is just a two-story building we could do like a smooth stule on that on that facade okay yeah I think I'd prefer that Soo that's not a problem at all um that was my only question anybody else Council I did have a question about that what's been described as a loading dock is that an existing element and of the historic significance it's hard to tell the few photos that we have show that it could be um the photo actually that we have from the tax roll is very washed out down in the bottom um some of the discussions with historic was to do some exploratory work in demolishing that to see if we it can be determined if there was what was there prior do you have a photo of that Eddie how long's that door been there which door the the roll up garage door there garage door has been there since Eddy's are historic K Commission on the yeah there's actually I think there's two rollup doors on't there one's still a rollup door the other one is has some like artwork questionable can we see the photo yeah just I'm not misten there I was pretty young when I used to didn't she used to jump off this loading historic value to so you keep saying 373 but 375 has historic commissioner slept there so um my grandfather passed away I was five years old so um it has a historic value that I won't tell that to the historics okay don't tell Maggie yeah so chairman I guess my question was if I understood correctly there wasn't going to be any access to the the loading dock correct it was merely just to have something there to kind of mimic that kind of look that was there previous and we put a handrail up on top of it obviously just to PR prevent people from climbing up on it so I happen to know some individuals that live in the city that climb out their Windows to access outdoor spaces and uh the well due to the BFE the floor is significantly higher than where that loading dock would be that answers my question so if they did that you'd probably be sending an ambulance to to to pick them up so that elevation is that yes due to the BF uh in fact if you look at this elevation here our first floor elevation is about 5 foot in that dotted line there and then to where that is you're probably from floor level it's probably about two and a half three feet and then if you actually go from window sill level you're probably about four four and a half it's about right it's about the same as mine um more on the subject do we have a historic preservation report on I didn't see anything has it been presented I know there's a a demolition memo that's pretty much the only thing that was uh provided for this for this application okay is this current design been presented to Maggie yes okay yep we've worked with her through several Renditions and my understanding is that it has historical significance however it's not actual historical okay so that's why in working with them we've tried to maintain as much as we can and they the pieces that there are really concerned about okay which was the 373 okay anybody else anything I have a question go ahead and I'm pretty sure this is it's going to be done safely but divition year you have uh two um A6 the East Elevation mhm the tree that's on the The Edge behind the guy that's standing on top of the um deck there oh yes that yeah in the that is just that is just a that is not going to be actually a tree put there is it well it's going to be a it's not a tree it's going to be a shrub a shrub yes which will prevent the the sight lines which is the how far deep it goes sorry how far deep down it goes it's going to go well we have about a 42 in planner over there so have enough so it go down yes it will not be a shallow plant won't be tipping no tipping has it no okay thank you no we're required to have a 42 in uh barrier at that patio yes so that will be that deep to be able to make up I just found that one very close to this picture that you put it's a little deceiving when you look at it in the drawing but yes saved all right uh anybody else anything okay thank you sir thank you very much okay uh my Final witness is planner Caroline worstell and Miss worstell uh if you could just State for the record you understand you are still under the oath tonight you've been sworn in and qualified already I do okay thank you great um so thank you very much um as you've heard we're here for a couple of variances a lot of it relates to the sort of unique condition of this site in that we are seeking to uh keep one of two buildings that exist on this site um and so that has uh led to some um issues or or relate to some of the existing non-conforming conditions that exist on this property um so I'm going to start off actually with the maximum Building height um so we're seeking a building height of 42.7 fet uh above design flood elevation where 42 ft above design flood elevation is permitted uh this additional height is the difference between the designed flood elevation which is elevation 12 and the first uh finished floor which is elevation uh 12.7 um and this just sort of happens to relate to the fact that there's just some Oddities with how you're going to make some of these spaces work when the fact that you're trying to keep what was an existing ground floor um so we are asking for Relief um it's about 8 and a half inches um so overall the overall height of the building you're not really going to see a significant impact relating to uh visually this this building isn't going to look uh different than you would for a conforming building um and we don't anticipate there to be significant you know additional Shadow impacts for that additional 8 and2 in um with regard to the minimum rear yard setback um so here our rear yard setback of 30 ft is is required um and we're 100t deep so that's 30 feet um as uh was described and as you saw we are keeping the existing building um on uh I always get these two mixed up uh 373 uh so we're keeping existing on three building 373 but we're selectively demolishing that first and second floor so at the first floor where we have 100% lock coverage goes back 100% we're pulling it back 15 ft on that second floor there is going to be some minor demolishment of that Upper Floor and they're going to pull that back to that 15 foot so the first and second floors that's where we're requesting the relief that's going to be a 15t step back on our upper floors on third and fourth floor as well as in the new building the new portion of the building which is going to be on 375 um all of that is going to have a conforming 30 foot rear yard setback so uh here the the request we have is for those two existing floors we're actually creating a better condition we are improving an existing non-conforming condition and we're pulling it back to that 15 ft um and we believe that that you know provides some that provides adequate light and air to be maintained to the adjacent properties to the rear and to the sides of us uh with regard to our lot coverages um we are proposing a building coverage of 77.5% um there's some creative math we're sort of trading some of our coverages from one lot to another but essentially what happens is the existing lot is at 77.5% building coverage and we're maintaining that so 375 is going to be little bit deeper than I think the existing building is but we're pulling back on 373 overall we're maintaining a loot coverage of 77.5% uh with regard to that building or to the the so that's building coverage with regard to loot coverage we're proposing 85% um and again that that relates to the fact that on the 375 portion of the lot we're providing that full setback but we are creating um a a small patio which would allow access from that ground for lot out into the rear yard and then the rest of the area is going to be landscaped um and that patio is going to be a perious patio it still counts as impervious coverage under the ordinance but it still will provide some you know um storm water benefits because there will still be amount of water that can be um uh we'll be able to get through that and and to uh percolate into the ground um in addition we're proposing um green roof uh which will mitigate some of that additional building and lot coverage proposed so there will be extensive green roof up on the upper floors as well as some Landscaping on that uh roof of the the get the second floor um so there will be new Landscaping that is added to this lot compared to to what there is today um related to that coverage is our minimum landscaped area uh there's requirement of a th000 square F feet or 20% of the lot area uh must be landscaped and we're proposing 15% or 750 square feet um and again this this is going to be that the only uh Landscaping that counts is on is at the ground level um so we are providing that entire 15t setback on both lots that will be landscaped and that's our 15% um it we are still again proposing additional Landscaping on the roofs we're proposing you know green roof and Landscaping on both sort of the the lower roof and the upper roof uh but they don't count towards this standard um we are also again providing some landscaped areas at the front we're providing a new Street tree as well as the um landscaped areas around the sort of uh recreated loading dock um uh but again those don't count towards our coverage or our Landscaping requirements uh because they're not within our property um we're also providing uh we also need relief for our minimum off street parking we're proposing zero spaces where under the strict reading the ordinance six spaces are required um the ordinance says that if you have a 50-ft lot you're required to provide parking what we're doing here is we're taking two 25 by 20 you know 25 foot wide lots and we're combining them um so we end up with a 50 foot wide lot but in reality when you look at how this building or this how this development is happening we really only have 25 ft in which we can really create that parking because we have to keep and maintain that existing structure on half of our lot uh so it really becomes functionally inefficient and very difficult to provide parking on this lot because we only have that 25 ft wide area to work with um and so just functionally it doesn't work you're not creating enough space to provide for the required parking um and it's why in the ordinance it's not parking isn't required on a 25- foot lot because it doesn't work um so you know here we're we're going to not we're not providing any parking there's no parking there today um and you know and this property really is really in close proximity to downtown Transit options um you know we're very close to a Transit bus stop at the intersection with Newark um and we're about a 12 minute walk or just slightly over a half mile walk to the Grove Street pass station so we're really in a very transit-rich area of the downtown here um and then our final uh uh requested variance is for the maximum rooftop a pertinence coverage uh we're proposing uh proposing coverage of 26.9% where 20% is the maximum permitted apologies um and really that additional coverage uh creates uh and allows for more space for mechanical areas on the roof as well as the elevator bulkhead and the two means of egress that are necessary to provide access to that rooftop area um so you know I I think that that the benefits here of allowing access to that top area and allowing for more mechanical space so that you can um have those spaces on the roof and not be looking at PTAC units or some other option which would reduce the amount of mechanical spaces on the roof but at the expense of having you know that integrated into the facade so I I think that this really is is a a better uh design option uh and better planning option uh to allow that additional coverage um I think overall the benefits of this project substanti outweigh the detriment of the requested variances um you know we're really trying to maintain and restore that his historic elements of that 373 for Street facade um while bringing that building into greater conformance uh with you know both the rear yard setback requirements in um introducing green roof um as well as the fact that we are going to be creating 're we're having to meet um the new flood Hazard um um issues uh that are subject to to this property so that that has created some of the some of the um you're going to be pulling all of the development out of the flood plane so I think that's a benefit um this project will advance and promote of the purposes the municipal land use law um it's consistent with purpose a um it's a a guiding appropriate use and development um through uh selective demolition of the existing structure to create these new residential um units um it is consistent with purpose C uh it's going to provide adequate light air and open space um through the the creation of new rear yard setbacks where there weren't today um as well as those new elements of the building which meet all of those setback requirements um the proposed project uh is promoting a more desirable visual environment uh consistent with purpose ey um Again by maintaining and restoring that historic elements of the 373 for Street facade um as well as you know improvements to the front uh to the uh streetscape uh with a new Landscaping um as well as just uh improvements to um adding more Landscaping in the rear as well as the Landscaping on the roof areas in terms of the the negative criteria um I don't see that uh granting these variances would result in a sub detriment to the public go or general welfare propos uses in character in terms of use and bulk with existing uses um and buildings within the surrounding area uh and it would provide for newly renovated and uh nice sized uh units for future residents creating a more diversity of housing within the the community um and would uh is likewise would not result in a substantial impairment to the intent or purpose of the Zone plan and zoning ordinance um if Pro uh is consistent and promotes the purposes of the rc3 district uh to protect the historically lowrise nature of the neighborhood um and I promotes the m c City's master plan goals of ensuring that the city's housing is balanced and meets the needs of current and future city residents uh so I think overall the requested bulk variances can be granted and that both positive and negative criteria have been met and if anyone has any questions I'm happy to go through things okay thank you um no I have no questions at this point anybody else yes um so there's the request for the parking u nine units but I just pulled up the architectural PLS I didn't see anything for bike storage there is bike storage in the basement I believe basement and it's 18 spaces which actually exceeds what we're required to provide all right yeah because next door is a very populated Bakery and then down the block is I joked about but then down the block is also a public school and that's a very narrow curvis uh road so I mean it's I think is going to challenge but there's bike spaces and people understand what they're getting into then so be it thanks anybody else okay thank you Council there's one thing that we do have to address yes you're combining these Lots MH do you have two separate Deeds Council two separate Deeds for property for the own um I I assume that the property owner does and that we would be doing a consolidation deed to make it a single lot uh well but that should have been filed with the application if the intent is to consolidate two separate Deeds that's why I'm asking the question whether or not they are two separate uh I understand they're two separate tax laws right right um I I can say it's been my experience in the past that consolidation Deeds have been have been drafted and and recorded post approval uh we we can happily do that as a condition um I just think it's got to be requested obviously and the board's got to act on in order for that to happen so that's why I'm asking as in uh relief to consolidate the Lots yeah it's got to be clear what if we're consolidating Lots or if they've already merged through a de oh okay yes I yes I understand I understand they are separate Lots we are we are going to consolidate them and record a consolidation indeed after uh if the board deems uh it appropriate to Grant an approval it's currently Lots uh six and seven my understanding is they're separately deed okay so that answers the question Council U so chairman if that's what's being proposed they're going to consolidate two separate Lots okay do we need to condition that that they're Consolidated before permits are pulled well they would have to be if I would think so right they're going to construct one structure on the two lots this is one structure as I'm one one structure correct two structures existing and one structure is going to be built well there's one sewer connection which is what I read on the the MUA letter yeah that they're considering it one one lot so as far as they're concerned it's already Consolidated that's where the issue is for me I don't have any document to tell me whether this is already been Consolidated or if it's being proposed to be consolidated as I understand the proposal it is to construct one structure on what is two tax Lots tax lots and uh deed lots are two distinct things uh I can say that per the zone map and per the tax map and per the tax assessor they're considered separate uh if um water and sewer considers them council do you have the Deeds I do not okay council is requesting to consolidate two separate Lots into one lot and that's the request to the board is that the request Council that's the request yes okay can we do that without any documentation at all either is two separate lots that have to be combined or it's already combined but can we legally act with them being two separate Lots right now and the intent I understand the intent is to come combine right can we legally act with that intent alone or do we need something documented Council seems to be convinced that there are two separate Lots with two separate Deeds so his representation is that that's what they are and they're being combined um I I I understand the board wouldn't usually do a condition uh that leaves multiple options open I.E in the event that these are carried as a single lot by by deed that we would um in the event that they are a single lot then we have the one option and then in the event that they're carried by separate Deeds then it would be Consolidated my understanding and everything that I've seen has shown them as two separate Lots until hearing about sewer connection I've had I've had no reason to think otherwise uh now we have a survey that shows two separate tax lots and in the also in the affid affidavit bit of ownership it shows them being two separate lots and the seller diagram finally came up on my computer it says shared building space where is that on the uh from the portal when I pulled out the architectural drawings it says shared building space whether that's legal or not but that's what's being stated but I I I think the board can act on the requested relief of site plan approval and the variances without without making a factual determination on that issue um what's your basis for saying that Council if I'm overruled I'm overruled I'll retract that statement I'm asking the basis of the statement um I think everything that we're seeing is showing them as separate um I don't know that's a legal question um my clients also confirm that they are two separate Lots deeded separately deed separately we don't have the Deeds present tonight but everything except for sewer connection seems to indicate that and um so you're seeking a consolidation and to build one structure on one lot yes okay how long does a consolidation take uh to record the consolidation deed you would run someone up to the register and you could take it's simultaneous with the approval you got to come back in February anyway right chairman in answer to the question the question was very simple is it deeded as one lot or was it deeded in two separate Deeds if it was deeded in two separate Deeds you have to consolidate in order to build one structure on the new property so but now that we've gotten the answer that it is two separate Deeds they have to consolidate it in order for the board to act on the applic presented can we act or is it only to pull building permits does it have to be Consolidated before the application or before building permits it's got to be before permits but it's going to be Consolidated when they get the resolution and they actually file the deed of consolidation when they choose to file that they're going to have to act quickly on that because otherwise they'll be back here like with a subdivision when the County Clerk kicks it back says we're not going to record it or something like that okay so we can proceed right now is your we can proceed assessment okay I just wanted to know if Council wants to put in the resolution that it's being Consolidated he's going to file a consolidation deed because if he doesn't do that and it turns out that they are two separate deeded lots and he tries to pull permits that probably is going to be problematic I I'm I'm comfortable with putting a condition to consolidate the Lots in the resolution oh I don't know that I don't know it's a condition it's a requirement right you have to consolidate the Lots in order to construct one building on the Lots if they haven't been Consolidated yet right okay so let's move on right that's what you're telling me yes okay let's do it um all right Council that's uh that's your present that concludes our presentation yeah uh I'd say actually this is uh my community I live around the corner from this so um I think that I can say uh the abant here I think has done a pretty good job balancing the uh degree of hardship caused by uh a historic uh element to the property with uh the purposes of the rc3 zone and I think there's been a lot of work done to meet meet the Secretary of the Interior standards and I think it's a good project okay thank you Council uh at this time let's open it up for public comment is anybody here from the public that wants to comment on this application seeing nobody from the public should I move to close second okay motion is made and seconded public is closed Eric anything you want to add yeah I just want to touch on the variances a little bit sure um so staff does not believe that the there's a significant hardship um that's pretty much hindering the development uh of any kind uh here even with respect to the uh the 373 Fourth Street um with that being said um staff also believes that the granting of the variant is don't um or wouldn't cause a detriment to the public um the 15 foot rear yard setback the 15 foot rear yard setback um still allows for adequate light and airor um especially if you take a look at the opposite property of this lot here the subject lot um it's a property that is a four-story building um with approximately 30 foot setback um the the height variance is rather di Minimus um the Landscaping as uh the professional planner um stated um the permeable pavers in the rear yard will still help serve the purpose of mitigating uh storm water and so forth um so a lot of the variances although staff has determined that there's not a significant hardship um to also determine that these won't cause a detriment to the public um but with that being said um staff will leave it at the discretion of the board members to decide um in the instance this application is approved um staff just requests that the applicant agree to the conditions within the staff memo and the condition that um we just stated regarding the deeds and the condition on the on the stucko the smooth correct the the smooth stucko on the Westside elevation okay thank you what do you got that's not a condition for the that's yeah I don't think we condition it no no it would just be within the resolution condition of approval so do we condition that it's that's stated in the resolution you do that yes I I'm sorry I didn't so the condition would be that it's stated in the resolution that the intent is to consolidate the Lots that's the relief being requested yesid that that's fine okay and the other conditions in the staff report are fine too excellent okay thank you I'll entertain a motion CH I like to make a motion to approve case p2023 d43 is presented to the board together with the additional conditions that is added to the staff memo second okay motion is made and secced for approval commissioner Torres yeah just uh the few people that are out in the audience that realized that this whole board is from Jersey City right we live here we we members of the jorgy city and is I love it when I see a project come in a neighborhood that I grew up in in a building that you could close your eyes and see the inside of it you know and see the changes the neighborhood takes for better you know um this project is it's good it's a good project the building looks the same way it did in 1960s so uh the new thing that they're going to do is great I disagree with knocking it down and I disagree with it not being historic but that's another question but I do vote highly on this project I think you guys did a good good job thank you commissioner lipsky yeah so I uh I think it's a hardship to try to uh bring two buildings together keep historical integrity and then the deal with the Dynamics of your neighborhood so um and I think M Morell laid out the case and uh I stand correct in looking at their bike so I vote I commissioner Dr Desai I commissioner gangan hi councilwoman Prince r hi and chairman Langston so I agree with so I agree with uh Miss worstell's testimony um I I don't think there's any significant detriment to the the neighborhood or the zoning in the neighborhood so um I I think it's a good project it's obviously a difficult project like commissioner lipsky said to combine two units like that um I've done that professionally and it's it's rough so um you know it's it's going to be a tough go but uh yeah my vote is I motion carries all in favor okay thank you uh we're gonna take a we're take a five minute break [Laughter] everybody the time go and we'll call Item 15 is case p2023 d024 is a minor site plan with C variances Maybe not maybe is it working oh it is working I apologize uh good evening members of the board Veronica schme on uh behalf of the applicant from the law firm Connell Foley um for a minor site plan at 285 Forest Street um as an initial matter we did notice for this case which I have the original um if I may approach please and thank you J re see the affidavit publication proof of mailing for 285 Forest Street here in the city had the opportunity to review it appears to be in order we are going to mark it as A1 for purposes thank you Council all righty so I believe we have a pretty short and sweet um presentation for you this evening um this one has been in the works for a little bit we worked uh pretty close with planning to get from what we originally submitted to what you guys are going to see this evening um I would note as well we met with um councilman Gilmore's office to alleviate some of the concerns that he had as well um for this project which is a threeory building with five residential units and three bike uh parking spaces um and with that I will hand it over to my first witness Jeff Lewis and Mr Lewis just for the record if you could uh state that you realize that your under oats still and are still qualified I am still under oath and my qualif qualifications are still uh good good okay thank you good that's good to know all right so 285 forestry uh this is an unusual as you can see um for the first 94 ft of this lot it's only 10 ft wide it's basically a driveway right now and then it widens out to 50 ft and that 50ft section is 75 ft deep on the right side 90 ft deep on the left uh so what we have behind us is the light rail so the Jersey City Light Rail is running right behind us that's why we have that angled back property line um and as you can see currently there is a driveway going down the entire property and a small masonry garage uh both of which will be demolished as part of this app so here is what we're we are proposing um it's the new building will be built entirely in the back section of the lot uh it's a three-story 5unit Residential Building uh all three of the I mean excuse me all five of the apartments are three bedroom apartments uh two of them have two baths and three of them have two and a half baths uh looking to the front of the property uh we are proposing new curves and sidewalks we are actually proposing a new Street tree it's not shown here it is shown on another sheet though but it is being proposed um that driveway that I mentioned is going to be demolished and turned into a 4ot wide concrete walkway with a lawn area along each side uh the building again is in the rear section uh we have setbacks of 10 ft from the properties in front of us 3 feet on each side and then 16 ft in the rear that concrete walkway that leads to the building extends uh along both sides of the building and around to the back and that leads to a 5ot deep uh PA patio area which is uh these are private rear yards uh for our first floor tenants there's also a trash room and meter rooms on the right hand side of the building and there's a 4T Uh Wood board onboard fence uh around the entire property and here you can just see that we are proposing a street tree in front here we're looking at the proposed first and second floor plans uh so here on the left is the first floor the main entry is in the center of the building uh there's a main Central Lobby which gives you access to the sprinkler room as this is a fully sprinklered building uh as well as our bicycle parking for three uh bikes which is uh tucked underneath the main staircase uh which leads to the second floor uh there are two apartments on this floor uh the first one on the left is apartment number one this is a three-bedroom two bath apartment uh with access to the backyard as I mentioned previously um this apartment the entire apartment is on this ground floor the second apartment on this floor is a duplex apartment so on the ground floor apartment number two has one bedroom and one bath on the ground floor and then when you look up to the second floor this back area is a part of that apartment and there's two more bedrooms and another bathroom here to make it three bedrooms um I should note that the ground floor apartments are Ada adaptable um all the apartments in the building have stackable washer dryers as well as forced air for heat and air conditioning uh going back to the floor plan there's that one section of the second floor for the ground floor apartment other than that there are three uh apartments on this floor that will also be duplexes between the second floor and the third floor so here on the second floor each of these three Apartments is going to have a living dining kitchen half bath and its laundry services as well as a staircase going up to the Third floor and then looking at the third floor plan each of those three Apartments has the stair coming up and three bedrooms and two baths located on the third floor uh also these apartments have a stair that continues up to the roof as each of these apartments will have their own private roof deck so the two ground floor Apartments have their own backyard the three upstairs Apartments have their own roof deck everyone gets their own private outdoor space uh looking at the roof deck the two front Apartments have 200t roof deck and the rear apartment has a larger 360t roof deck uh the decks are set back 10 ft from the both side elevations as well as the front elevation a small part of this uh area is used for our HVAC equipment however most of the area is used for green roof trays this is our front elevation uh the main finish is a dark gray brick it's what you see as this mostly black color around the edges um we're also using fiber cement panels in a few different uh finishes the main finish that you see is a light gray color which actually has a concrete finish it's not a smooth finish it's more of a rougher concrete uh finish we also have a wood Cedar finish located here in between the windows and then also in these window Bays we have a smooth gray finish so this will be smooth as opposed to the concrete finish um all of our we have black aluminum framed windows and doors we also have these projected surrounds around the windows and those surrounds are going to be going to be wrapped in Black aluminum to match the windows um and then there's also it's hard to see here but there's a 3 foot um can uh excuse me a three foot [Music] um canopy which is covering the main entry and that's going to be wrapped in those same fiber gray Fiers panels which is why it's kind of hard to see on this elevation this is the rear elevation uh simple dark ray stucco base uh dark ray vinyl siding above and black aluminum frame windows and doors and then here we're looking at both of our side elevations uh you can see we do have a twoot brick return on both sides from the front then everything from there back will be the same as the rear elevation so stucco at the base uh dark gray vinyl siding above um and additionally you can see on the uh East Elevation we do have these three areas where we have a trash area and then our meters uh we have these sliding doors that are going to be in front of those and those are going to be made out of solid wood and they're going to be painted that same uh gray color to match the vinyl siding that concludes my part of the presentation I could answer any questions now or we can go through carolin's and do it after whichever you prefer um just one question actually um the the two properties in the front they I saw from one of the pictures there's one structure there are there structures on both sides there's buildings you can see right here there's buildings on the property line on both sides okay so the only way to get construction material in and out is through that 10 foot wide pathway yes okay when do you plan on building this um I don't know if we have a second take a swing by to see how this works out imagine trying this summer it's we can update you that on if you'd like okay um yeah that's the only question I have anybody else so on the satellite map I have on the satellite map I have it shows that there's already a handicap spot in front you mentioned Ada is there an anticipation that there would be another uh person who would be a driver and oh no I mean we're required the the ground floor units are required to be Ada adaptable is there anything in the Ada code as far as how long the walkway to the property is no there's there's they talk about slopes you're allowed to have for walkways but there's not a no okay I don't think there's anything about that okay interesting all right anybody else any questions all right thank you Mr Lois thank you okay and we'll turn to our next witness to provide the justification for our two variances Carolyn will worell excuse me and Miss uh worstell if you could just State for the record that you understand that you're uh currently under oath tonight and are qualified yes I am acknowledge I'm still under oath and my license is still in good standing okay thank you um so we are here this evening for two buaran es um one for the front yard setback and one for the minimum rear yard setback um both of these are related to sort of the unusual situation and unusual condition of this lot this is a flag lot um and uh so for that uh front yard setback we'll start at the front um this property is in the R1 district and the way the R1 district is written for front yard setbacks it's neither a minim nor a maximum it is a set standard you have to match the buildings adjacent to you we can't really do this we have a 10- foot wide you know Pole to the to the building so we we cannot match the front yard setbacks of the adjacent buildings to us that's just not a buildable condition for this lot um so we are requesting relief so that our front facade of the building can be uh set back approximately 104t from the front of the the a lot um this does provide for a 10-ft setback at the end of the pole which does provide that sort of separation between the front facade of our building and the rear lot lines of the adjacent Lots next to us um and so that does provide for that you know um uh light and air and open space and the the distance between uh the two the buildings the proposed building and and the adjacent properties um we also have a minimum rear yard setback back variants where a minimum setback of uh 44.25 ft is required again this relates to some of the unusual conditions of our lot um we have a lot depth of 177 ft again because we've got a very long skinny pole uh but the buildable portions of our lot is really only a little over it's between you know 75 and I guess 75 and 90 uh so we we we don't have really 144 ft of lot depth we really only have around you know the 80 85 ft or average depth is 83 ft um to work with um and so we're providing that you know um 10t at the front and they're providing approximately 15 feet 16 feet at the rear um and so overall that that results in between the front and the rear yard set back of approximately 26 feet um we believe that this uh rear yard setback is appropriate and can and um proportional to um the uh buildable portion of our lot um that proposed setback is approximately 20% of the depth of the buildable proportion of our lot so we're we're fairly close there in terms of U meeting that sort of standard um and we don't believe that there really will be an impact to light and air uh directly adjacent to the rear of us is the light rail station is the light rail line so we're not really impacting um an adjacent property um we're going to be adjacent to the light rail so uh we believe that that uh 16 ft is appropriate given the the location here um I think overall this project advances and promotes the various purposes the municipal land use law uh it's consistent purpose a it's providing an appropriate residential use um on a residential lot and in fact we will be eliminating a non-conforming use which is a garage um that's not a conf that is not a uh permitted uh principal use in the R1 District um and so we'll be replacing that with a a PR with a permitted use which is residential um it's consistent with purpose C uh uh providing um adequate light and air through appropriate building setbacks um again we're conforming in terms of sidey guard setbacks and then we are providing you know the 10 feet at the the front of the building and the 16 at the rear which which we believe uh would provide adequate uh setback to the adjacent uh properties uh consistent with purpose e an establishment of appropriate population densities um and consistent with purpose I uh the desirable visual environment um so again we're we're removing what is a non-conforming a garage removing a a driveway and a curb cut at the the uh the the sidewalk and we'll be replacing that with new sidewalks a street tree um and uh creating an overall a better visual environment there at the street uh with the elimination of that uh vehicle access uh I believe that granting the requested variances will not result in a substantial detriment to the general welfare um as I said you know we're improving the streetcape here um and it's consistent with the character of the residential car uh development on um Forest um you know and provides for more residential opportunities uh within the neighborhood and this location is really convenient to multiple forms of transportation um you know it's right around the corner from the MLK Drive uh Light Rail station uh it's funny as we've been preparing for this multiple times every time I take the light rail past it to come to these hearings I'm like there it is it's right there um so it's uh it's very convenient to the the light rail um and it's ALS Al available to the uh New York uh New Jersey Transit on Ocean Avenue and on MLK uh so there's multiple uh modes of transportation that are in close proximity to this site and uh granting the requested variances will likewise not result in substantial impairment to the intent purpose of Zone plan or zoning ordinance uh this project complies with use coverage Building height um you know those standards of the R1 um and it really fulfills that purpose of the R1 District to accommodate existing housing encourage compatible infill uh preserve the streetcape and utilize and preserve on street parking uh so I believe that this is consistent with all of the the intents and purposes of that R1 District um as well as the city's master plan to uh continue to enhance residential neighborhoods and ensure that the city's available housing is balanced and meets the needs of current and future city residents uh so I think all uh overall the positive and negative criteria can be have been met and that the variances can be granted okay thank you m any questions anyone all right thank you Mr worell and that concludes our presentation okay thank you uh is anybody hear from the public that wants to comment anyone from public chair see see there is no one from public I'd like to close the public portion second okay motion has made and secutive public is closed Eric do you have anything you want to add staff agrees with the test testimony provided by Miss forell um the the lot is in a regular shaped lot um which significant hardship is is demonstrated here um staff recommends approval just request that the applicant agree to the conditions outlined in the staff mem yes we agree okay excellent thank you all uh entertain a motion CH like to make a motion to approve case speed to 0 23-24 is presented to the board second all right motion made and seconded for approval commissioner Torres I think these conditions for the fam has been existing for many many years and um we see no depit to the community so I vote I for this project commissioner lipsky think it's I think it's a good project I vote I commissioner Dr Desai i v i commissioner gangan hi councilwoman Prince r hi and chairman Langston yeah I agree with Mr worstell's testimony um the the variances certainly are called for and uh I think it's a great project I vote I motion carries all in favor all right thank you so much thank you thank you everyone let's move on to item 17 case p2024 d70 uh for 415 Palisade Avenue it's a preliminary and final major site plan Amendment think that you Mr lean but Mr Garber would have woke you up on his way [Laughter] up right Phil the Buster I apologize I had an old agenda and Mr Harrington was ahead of me on it so okay uh good evening Commissioners Tom lean of Connell Foley here on behalf of the applicant uh this is a notice case uh it was P um published on the portal but I have an original for councel going to the Bergen Record now [Music] chairman reive affidavit a publication proof of mailing with respect to the application at 4:15 Palisade AV here in the city had the opportunity to review it it does appear to be in order going to mark it is A1 for purposes of the record thank you thank you Council uh by way of background uh the project has two buildings located on Palisade Avenue it is within the rc2 commercial Zone uh the board approved a uh the development of a 9unit uh four-story building on the site uh back in 2019 um as part of that approval uh we worked with historic because there was historic fabric found on on the facade of the building unfortunately when we began work on the approval uh the facade began to crumble and uh we did receive a um uh an imminent Hazard uh declaration from um building department where we were forced to take the uh the facade down um we worked with historic on the best way to uh amarate this um and essentially that's the design you have before you today uh you do have a memorandum for Maggie uh dated November 8th uh stating that uh we have met all the requirements for rehabilitation with this new plan uh so essentially what you have before you is almost the exact same building four stories nine units the building gets a little bit taller um because we wanted to um now that we had these change of the facade we did create uh some bigger floor uh spaces um on each floor one foot a piece so it added four uh feet to the building previously approved we are still within the permitted height uh the only variance here would be one that was previously granted uh which is for the rear yard of the building obviously since we're going up an additional four feet that exacerbates it in the back so uh I'm going to uh have Mr Garber just run through the changes to the approval and show the new facade and uh what we worked with Maggie to uh to design for this structure and just the changes right I'm sorry just the changes right that's that's correct yes we'll be we'll be quick and Mr Garber I see we've got a slideshow presentation we're going to mark it as A2 you just tell us the number of slides uh number of slides is uh 34 I will go through very fast though a lot of it is just uh archival testimon the truth I do uh Richard Garber g a r b r Mr Garber evening your license is current tonight yes it is okay thank you you're qualified great thank you so um 415417 Palisade Avenue is is um a project that we've had for a while as uh Mr lean said it was originally approved by this board in 2019 um we uh produced construction drawings and went through the Construction office for permitting work started in Earnest uh within covid and uh we did find that the um fac which we had fully intended to maintain while creating new construction behind it was beginning to crumble uh we had a number of Engineers including Arco engineering and oea go out look at the site write letters uh both of their letters um found that the the facade should be taken down we worked with Miss O'Neal um around that same time I think uh Mr severini from the Construction office or one of his uh subcode uh peers uh issu issued the Declaration that Mr lean just spoke about and um before we knew it the building was was down um so um you see the site plan here it's a Consolidated 50 by 100 lot um one of the facad was actually deemed historic but we decided to maintain um both of them uh you just see the zoning map here survey I'll just go through that quickly so these were the facades as they stood and what the um uh the his report noted was that particularly the building on the left which was actually the one in kind of the worst shape had historic elements in it that were worth uh maintaining uh which was fine for us you know we we had no problem doing it and so the original proposal that was before this board was um rehabbing both of these facades building new construction behind it uh creating nine units three-story building went through the the meetings with um the the neighborhood associations and everything up up in the Heights um and uh we're here today to basically um propose a reconstruction of what you see here and I have before and after plans that you'll see the only distinction and this was um discussed with Miss Marion as well as Miss O'Neal um in the planning office um uh historic buildings basically are um typically the Florida the florid to floor height in buildings like this this old kind of stock uh is quite quite low um so the the Florida ceiling height was uh about 8 feet maybe a little bit less than 8 feet uh the basement was even lower than that it was barely 7 ft barely met code uh so um we are taking the opportunity to reimagine the building with a more common floor to ceiling height floor to ceiling height will be somewhere around 96 um and what that means as Mr lean said is that the um the buildings have grown a total of four feet so what you see here had a um a sidewalk to top of roof uh measurement of 41 ft we are ultimately proposing 44t so some photos um there was originally a deviation for uh the rear yard setback it was approved at 10 ft at all levels we are maintaining that there are no other deviations so total lot area 5,000 square ft Total Building area hasn't Chang 16945 four stories and 45 ft also hasn't changed and then you see the residential mix that we're proposing nine units uh since the beginning two uh three bedrooms two uh excuse me six two bedrooms and one live work unit which is required of the plan on Palisades uh Avenue um I will show you some modest changes in the plans that we're taking the opportunity to do since the facades came down uh site plan before and after um one of the things that we had to do is if you notice on the upper right of the second image um after going through the permit process um uh the building subcode official felt strongly that we should have a direct passage from the rear yard uh I don't believe it's totally required by code but it was something that he felt um we should explore so we just went with it um so you see that we have a dedicated passage now so that changes the not the footprint but it changes the way that we're allocating the residential units particularly at the front so that passage uh uh uh combined with this idea that um because the facades came down we actually flipped the lobby so the lobby was originally on the south side of the site we moved it to the North Side uh because the facades came down and we needed the um that passage that you see there uh so just going through I'm going to just skip ahead to the before and after so you see here the basement floor plan no real change um the sprinkler room uh moved a little bit and you can see it highlighted there the ground floor plan I mentioned the the um most significant change is that because of the dedicated passage that you see on the top of the plan on the right we flipped the lobby so the lobby is now basically up against that passage that gives us a little bit more room for the live work unit which is now on the lower or South side of the site and then um just uh some some modest changes in the in the floor plans but nothing nothing worth talking about I mean the unit mix and and so on stayed the same um the elevations oh the the roof deck uh there is still a roof deck still green roof all that sort of good stuff um the elevations you can see here in our colored drawing so uh you can see the building as originally imagined on the left as approved and you can see that those facades and those windows are more compressed I I would say um and so what we've done is we've just taken the opportunity to reconstruct so we will still uh reconstruct the um the ornamental cornice we will reconstruct the um arches above the windows particularly on the left building for 177 Palisade um but we are um proportionately kind of stretching it up to be a more contemporary proportion and that includes the windows also so there will be more light and air um so that's the big change and you can see 41 feet on the left 45 feet on the right and then the lobby has you know moved to the other side as I said as well um uh we put in the historic photos that we we have no contention that the building was actually contributing uh although it wasn't in a historic Zone it just um uh was not possible to keep it as I said um rear elevation uh the windows have enlarged a little bit uh materials stay the same side elevations we ended up adding a couple of Windows just because of the height change uh so we're adding three more windows as you can see there three more windows as you can see there on the southwest side uh and then just some en llarge details um showing the the differences that you see in your set um so I think what I'll do is I'll leave yeah this is a good image to to end on just the axonometric view where you can actually see the building mass is more or less the same it's just been raised and um while we did make uh every uh we did have every intention I should say we I'm not the builder of the building uh of maintaining these facades it just proved too difficult and so now we're proposing a reconstruction that's a little stretched that's it all right thank you Mr Garber any questions anyone okay thank you and I would just say just because there's some differentiation in what's in the um the agenda and in the um uh the planning report we are calling this four stories three stories with a mezzanine and that's the way it'll be written in the resolution still complies with the permitted height in the zone um and with that I would say I am in receipt of the planners report dated November 7th uh 2024 and the historic report uh dated November 8th 2024 and we can agree to all conditions there in okay thank you Council uh one thing that I have to discuss so it's chain link in front right now I don't know what you call the the wrapping the the Branded logo wrapping if you could reach out to the applicant that WAP has been down for some time knock my poor dog over as I walk out that if it gets windy so uh yeah if we can take care of that let's be good neighbors absolutely I will reach out to them as soon as I leave the meeting appreciate it all right um is there anybody here from the public that wants to comment anyone from public J see there's no one from the public I would like to close the public portion second all right motion is made and seconded public is closed C all right so oh no this is no it's me this is you is that theck there dog that you're referring to the what the pocket book dog yeah yeah the little one yeah it's the little loves to see want his Instagram give me his Instagram of course he has an Instagram special so they're um uh the the applicant has worked extensively with staff to find the best solution here for this problem um the solution that has been found um meets the and purpose of the Zone plan um the variance although exacerbated with the 4 feet increase in height still is somewhat mitigated by the step back that we have on the building um as it goes up and um there are I believe I had the old plans open I believe there are more Street trees now so that's great and with that planning staff recommends approval with the conditions that planning staff put in its report all right thank you Cam chair I'd like to make a motion to approve case b224 d70 is presented to the board for approval second okay motion is made and second for approval on a motion to approve commissioner gangen I councilwoman priner I commissioner Torres I commissioner lipsky I commissioner Dr I and chairman Langston I all in favor motion approved thank you all right thank you everybody um Mr Harrington I'll get to you maybe in a second Mr Higgins five minutes do you think for your last one or do you need more than that I think we can keep it under five minutes Mr Harrington I swear we're going to get to you it's going to happen I'm not feeling well you got to hear the music behind it though my yeah yeah it's oh no we don't confirm don't conform to gender Norms in my apartment he's trying to sh okay uh Michael Higgins castano Quigley chamy for the applicant uh this is a site plan Amendment which is a notice application I have the proof of service here thank you coun 610 commun TR receive the Affidavit of publication proof of mailing for 610 communa Paul here in the city it does appear to be in order Mark is A1 for purposes of the record did I call it and just for the record uh I'll call case p2024 d0110 administrative Amendment for 610 communal Avenue okay great uh this is 610 commun AV it's block uh 1793 Lot 23 and it's an administrative amendment to correct a few discrepancies on the plans and uh change the unit count removed I believe two uh residential units um with that I'll just let the architect uh take it away the attorney just gets in the way here so I do from griel uh g h o b r i a l good evening sir we've qualified you in the past correct um I thought we have I so your license Cent tonight yes okay thank you you're qualified thank you Mr chairman for purposes of the record let's mark the slideshow as A2 and Sir if you can just tell us how many slides it is this is 19 thank you all right so this is uh this this is a u a minor amendment to U an already approved application um this is 610 communo it's a through lot between communa and Harrison um this is an a aerial view of the lot currently the lot is vacant um I'll just jump right into it the uh one of the uh the main points U or the main changes that we are proposing tonight is the uh unit count it's reduced from 10 units to eight units the main purpose was to provide a uh a more adequate area per unit so as you notice um you know we had a a zero studio um and now we're providing one Studio that's 344 Square ft one bedroom um the three of them was 350 uh 53 squ ft only now this uh this has been eliminated uh two bedrooms six of them uh 662 and now they're 846 Square ft and then the three-bedroom Remains the Same uh it's actually a little bit larger just 100 foot larger um and in you know regarding the floor plans changes it's minor changes on the inside uh better layout um and uh well planed basement because before the seller uh all the utilities were set in the back now they're more towards the front where the point of entry is so it's just better plan um as you see here on the uh the first floor there's a retail space this Remains the Same and then at the back uh is uh is um uh uh a residential unit uh going upstairs to the second floor uh instead of having three units on this floor now we have only two um as you see here the uh left hand side image uh is the new uh and the right hand side image is the uh previous approved uh third floor is the same layout and then fourth floor uh is the three unit studio in the middle and two two bedrooms on either end of the building um we also enhan the look of the building on the left hand side is the uh proposed design on the right hand side is the previously approved design uh we just wanted to match uh the the developing fabric of commun paw we had um there's a a project under construction right now 558 commun pod it's it's our project and it's it's a modern style and then down the block there's also a few new construction that's happening so we wanted to make sure that it fits well um so we're using composite wood panels um and fiber cement panels on um the front and the back as you see here this is the front this is the back uh we keep we're keeping pretty much the openings and the facade areas the building Heights everything the same uh nothing really changing there um and then the sides uh we're proposing a uh stuckle finish it's to the property line um that concludes my presentation okay if there's any questions thank you sir I have no questions anybody else no all right thank you Council that concludes our presentation okay is there anybody here from the public that wants to comment anyone from public sh see no one from the public i' would like to close the public portion okay motion is made and seconded uh public isclosed cam planning staff asks that all of the original conditions from the original approval remain in effect and apply to this application as well definitely that's fine okay planning staff recommends approval thank you chair I'd like to make a motion to approve case p2024 d0110 as presented to the board second okay motion is made and seconded for approval commissioner Gaden I councilwoman Prince AR hi commissioner Torres hi commissioner lipsky Council I'm glad you're able to end your night on a short and successful application I vote I commissioner Dr Desai and chairman Lon I motion carries all in favor okay thank you thank you Council let's move on to item 18 is case p2024 d006 uh as a preliminary major site plan approval with variances for 38 Cottage Street yes um it is just a preliminary site plan uh application okay uh for the record Charles Harrington of Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant this is a notice case so I would like to provide uh notices to councel chairman I receive the Affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application uh it's notated in the notice is 32-40 Cottage Street 73-77 Newark Avenue here in the city if had the opportunity to review it it does appear to be in order we're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record thank you Council okay thank you um so the application before you is another phase of the Homestead Place extension um my client has been designated as the redeveloper of the site by the jcra uh this would be phase seven which is the proposed last phase of of the um extension projects three are complete to date number four right across the street is under construction and has been topped off so they're they're moving um moving along very well um this uh particular property uh is a through lot in that it fronts on norc Avenue and to Cottage Street uh it is directly adjacent to the 701 norc Avenue project which that's the project that has the extension that goes under the building or through the building so this is directly to the west of it uh it also has a carve out to expand uh the Homestead Place walkway uh you'll see during the presentation it's it's a triangular kind of carve out so it'll make the opening a little bit larger as you cross the street um from from the south across uh Cottage Street um the project is for a 27 story building which is consistent with other buildings along the homestead extension uh the the lot is you know rather substantial lot it's over 22 ,000 uh Square ft um so it would be 648 uh residential units are proposed then we have some commercial fronting along Homestead and in the office bonus floors uh as this board is aware the the hotel use is a permitted use in the in the office um office bonus floor so this project is proposing 40 hotel rooms or Keys uh along those two floors which we think is is probably a a pretty efficient use of in the Journal Square area um we also have substantial uh uh bike um uh parking within the building as we believe we have 332 for the residential portion and another 20 for the hotel and and Retail uh units uh we are asking for one deviation as part of uh this application and that deviation is the direct result of uh discussions with the Jersey City traffic department with regard to the Lo loading zone we initially had this proposed with a loading zone off of Cottage Street uh and they asked us to remove it um the reason being Cottage Street is a narrower Street uh and the turning radius would have created uh some issues so they've asked us um to work with them to coordinate uh for a loading zone on norc Avenue uh that would be used in conjunction with the 701 norc Avenue project uh or uh one on Cottage Street or both so that's that's something that is provided within their review letter uh it's also referenced in Mr dva's uh planning report uh to to the board um so that's that's some that's the reason we're asking for relief from the the loading zone um requirements uh so with that said I have I have three Witnesses here tonight but I'm I'm going to leave our civil engineer Mr leusin uh off to the side and and I'll defer to the board if they have any civil engineering questions but I'm going to start with Mr uh fedus and and then uh Charles height can address the variant I do Paul frus F is in Frank R EI i t is in Thomas a s Mr frus good evening your license is current tonight yes okay thanks you're qualified thank you uh so uh Chuck summarized the building pretty well again uh just to reiterate uh we've got about 43,81941 former vaults uh as Mr Harrington had mentioned the building has is a through lot between Cottage Street and nework Avenue it also fronts the Homestead Place um with cottage having approximately 105 ft of Frontage and and on the Newark side uh being about approximately 70 feet 5 Ines um the majority of the site is situated in the zone 4 uh zoning area um I'll just go briefly over the plants to kind of give you a sense of the layout of the building um again as that I had pre previously mentioned um building is a through lot with Cottage Street on the right of this drawing Newark on the left and Homestead Place at the top um the cutout that Mr Harrington had mentioned is basically along the Homestead Place extension uh creating more comfortable uh throughway from home place extension to the 701 which is basically the Terminus of this Homestead Poli extension um you'll notice that the residential entry is on Homestead Place uh with retail at the corner and uh Transformer Vault and utilities on The Cottage Street side uh there's additional retail space on the Newark side uh and then utilities and uh bike storage and all that kind of opening up on a a rear kind of passageway that's uh along the lot line uh we have a minimum of 5T there uh and it increases as it moves along towards Cottage Street second floor plan is basically um a number of Hotel functions hotel rooms Hotel lounges and a Terrace that overlooks Homestead Place it overhangs the setback on the first floor uh to provide some cover from the elements uh uh you know basically so the terus is part of the function of the hotel use third floor is additional Hotel functions hotel lobby Hotel uh guest rooms and then floors 4 through 27 are are the residential portion of the building and it's comprised of Studios Alco Studios one bedrooms and three bedroom apartments the uh rooftop is an amenity space we've asked for 15 ft of height on the rooftop amenities which I think is something that we're going to be greenlighted on it's that's something that's in discussion right now um I'm sorry say that again the 15 feet change in height uh yeah that was part of the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan before this board and the city council so we go we go now by the general development ordinance um just to clarify um I it it's my opinion that you do need to ask for that variance I believe because you're using the time of application Ro to be exempt from mandatory inclusionary housing okay yeah so for consistency sake yes yeah I um do do you intend on asking for that variance yes then we we will ask for that but it's it's uh it's consistent with the new ordinance it's a good pickup um just for the record I'm sorry just for the record you're not pro providing affordable housing in this or you are there is no affordable hous no affordable housing so how can we take advantage of can't take advantage of the so it's definitely a variance um yes so the amendment that added the affordable housing requirement also removed the rooftop apperance height limit at the same time this application we received before that Amendment took effect um and therefore is adjudicated under the zoning at that time of application which would require a variance for for the rooftop of perance height wait one more time sorry all right so the there used to be a 10-ft rooftop apperance height limit there also used to be no affordable housing requirement an amendment changed both of those but this application predates that Amendment okay so they're simult they're simultaneously exempt from the affordable housing requirement but do need to ask for the rooftop pertinence variant okay so um correct you're asking for what's the current Zoning for that the new zoning there with the affordable housing requirement not providing the affordable housing and asking for the variants for the this is the same building you'd be able to build as of right with affordable housing in it correct well if you came if if it was beyond the time of the application rule this was deemed complete before the ordinance changed and just want to note we we actually noticed for that that rooftop uh relief as well so that that is that is I I basically misspoke saying we don't need that um because Mr D Silva is correct that the time of the application the prior zoning was in place so they had that limit of 10 feet uh of the ceiling so this application we're asking for the relief to go beyond that 10 ft uh as a deviation um uh and it's now the point is it's consistent with the change that was was approved by this board and the city council but that has nothing to do with the the affordable housing like uh it's ordinance changes zoning ordinance changes after you filed your application to your benefit then you don't need the variant need for that because obviously you don't have to get a variance for something that was been changed is now permitted so if the Hep variance you had to get under the old but under the new ordinance wouldn't be required then you don't technically need the variance because it's and if it'ser h and the height variance component to it then I would submit that based on the change that's going to satisfy and I I concur thanks for the clarification sanso so no variants required is what I'm hearing you were seeking a rooftop of variance original needed it correct ordinance has changed and it's no requ that's correct so I believe you don't need that relief anymore because the ordinance has changed to your benefit time of application speaks to the city changing ordinance to your right that's the S if there's a simultaneous change to their detriment at the same time as a change to their benefit that's what I was trying yeah guess this hybrid where part of the ordinance is to your part of the ordinance is to your you can't get a variance if you don't need a variance so you can only get a variance if it's not when you have this hybrid situation you're governed by ordinance in place at the time you file your application any change that's beneficial to you technically you don't ire a variance for that because it's now permitted that being said I think that speaks to the purpose of planning and positive and negative why you would get that value because the governing body has already determined that it should be permitted but my question is along with that change in in you know not needing the variance for the the apperance height Right comes with a a mandatory affordable housing aspect that's also in the new zoning but can't change so if you change part of it to my benefit and part of it to my dety split the out I get the benefit I don't take the this is why people don't like the law so so so so they get to Cherry pick it's not Cherry which it's cherry picking but this this this really think about it right the government body has made that change yes because the governing body feels you shouldn't have to get a variance for the roof of permanent height and I agree I agree with that is it providing you have the affordable units but that's in the same order the affordable units I mean this this is a variance that that was requested on just about every application in the Journal Square Redevelopment area and that's that's why it was Chang believe me no one knows that better than us I know I know and that's that I remember you specifically said it's about time we change this because this every applicant comes before us and asks for that because the 10 feet doesn't doesn't really work um so that's but that is not you know we're we're asking for that relief just like any other development that was before this board um and it's not you know I I agree with with Mr lampy's uh analysis and interpretation but that being said you have sufficient justification based on this project and all the other prior projects for for this relief you know and you know they they it was filed well you know well before the change in the ordinance and that's why we sought the relief then and you wouldn't I mean it's kind of a worst case scenario it's like well then you you'd end up with Council there's no question you're under the original ordinance yes yes so now if it's been changed to your benefit the only question is do you actually need a variance from the rooftop of pertinence height and based on the case law I think once the ordinance is changed to your benefit you can't Grant relief from something that I don't need relief from okay I don't know it makes perfect sense in my mind but you know the Alternatives you have a a 10- foot rooftop of perance and that no it's never going to fly I I get it believe me well but the real question is do you need a variance and what do you need a variance from yeah I mean 10 to 14 ft right and it's it's but you're permitted to go to 14 feet now correct and is it directly coupled with the affordable housing requirement the same ordinance but is it directly tied to it just because it's in the same ordinance change doesn't mean it's directly tied to it yeah and you know the the io is not tied to a a a deviation like this agre the io is is is tied to to a a particular deviation you're asking for that results in 5,000 sare ft or more of residential area you're not asking for that here this is just for more more Headroom basically it's not you know if we're asking for setbacks that that increase the the footprint by by substantial amount then you know we might be having a different discussion but this is just to increase the uh the Headroom really at at you know to make it a better space sure okay yeah I mean we've run into issues where we're getting like 7 foot six for these these rooftop amenity spaces after all the duct work and electrical work and you know there's ton of stuff that ends up finishing up there yeah so it just doesn't work okay but for purposes of record Council it's not a bonus situation no no it's not that's that's what I'm saying this is not we're not asking we're not getting any add square footage we're not getting any additional floors I get it it's just that's why I believe you can have that that split okay so we're going with no variants needed then my opinion is there is no variance needed Council has noticed for it Council has sought it in the event that it is required and I am sure when Mr hyp provides his testimony one of the things he's probably going to say is the governing body changed this that's part of my positive criteria as to why it should be granted so we can do a belt and suspender should the board fear that is necessary okay all right let's move on guys um I'll just briefly describe the uh the facade of the building it's comprised of a number of different materials uh starting off with a base uh of a granite water table uh aluminum panels uh aluminum skin panels for uh good bulk of the building uh glass unitized curtain wall for the residential portion and the hotel portion of the building and then uh stucco water management system along uh places where there are no there's no exposure no windows uh what have you um zoom in here just give you a sense of the this is the entrance to the Cottage Street so this is on the Homestead Place elevation uh you basically got two stories of glass aluminum uh facade uh some signage indicating uh entry to the hotel the residential portion as well as the retail uh This Is The Cottage Street elevation showing the Transformer Vault doors um and again uh signage uh at the corner cor for the retail uh retail establishment as well as an exit Corridor door and and in in the highlighted blue area is basically the uh the skew of the facade as it moves toward moves toward 701 nework um you'll also notice on this elevation there's a 48 in tempered glass guard rail which is the Terrace that is above um that Services the hotel guests uh this is the north partial elevation uh on Newark Avenue highlighting the retail signage and another entrance into Cottage Street from new Yark Avenue some solar studies which are required um and basically details for the gates uh on the rear yard a blowup of the uh signage for uh Cottage Street to give you General sense of the size of the lettering a brief description or a an example of the type of materiality we're looking to propose for the building itself uh glass is clear on the ground floor with a slight mirror uh above uh the Water Management stucco is a dark gray finish as is the uh as is the amons and the uh detail the aluminum panels of the building and and that's pretty much the extent of the uh building under question okay thank you Mr frus I have no questions anyone else all right thank you sir okay then I'll proceed with Mr height and again I I have Mr luisin here if any civil questions come up okay thank you Council any testimony give tonight truth truth I do yes Charles height last name spelled h y DT Mr height good evening your license is current it is good evening thank you you're qualified all right um I will jump into uh the testimony we are seeking to deviations from the Redevelopment plan um the latter being if in the alternative uh if it's necessary um with respect to the loading zone I just would want to point out that our original application did have an off Street loading zone within the building um most of development in Jersey City requires independent loading um in this area there's been other instances on either Cottage or peronia where there's shared loading essentially creating a little bit of more efficiency with a loading space on street as opposed to Dedicated off Street loading um through coordination with the city uh division of Transportation Planning and traffic engineering um we are aware of the adjacent development having a on Street loading space that we are going to be benefiting from um it creates a lot of efficiency with the street Network it reduces a curb cut on Cottage Street um which obviously has benefits uh with respect to that so previously the design required relief uh where it did have an off Street loading uh it had uh dimensional relief required it had setback from for the garage doors and it essentially was a front in and a reverse movement out so that whole turning um template was was was originally coordinated it did work but what's being proposed tonight are zero off Street loading spaces where one is required and we're benefiting from the on Street loading so in terms of of the benefit we have uh no curb cut um a higher efficiency of use on the ground floor uh as well as on the street for the loading space um with respect to the negative criteria for this one deviation um there's no impairment or no detriment to the Public Safety in fact I think removing that turning template for a loading vehicle on Cottage Street it's an undersized street right away it's a substantial Improvement we've done that on other Homestead projects um Homestead bonus projects uh with respect to the Redevelopment plan I did want to just reference um one phrase so uh in design standards uh for loading um item M off Street loading and loading area shall be coordinated with the public Street system serving the project area in order to avoid conflicts with through traffic or obstruction of pedestrian walks and thoroughfares we're doing that so um that's the direct intent um albeit we aren't providing the count um I think we are trying to reduce pedestrian conflicts with with loading structures so um the coordination with the on Street improvements um will be had with any sort of construction documents and Improvement plans um with the city so um that's the loading space uh required uh minimum loading space count deviation um with respect to the second deviation for the floor ceiling height of rooftop um enclosures uh I uh hold the jide Ram case near and dear to my heart it uh was born out of South Toms River it was in a a disc discussion in a deep dive into uses uh related to waas waas are special because they're not a convenience store they're not a service station they're a WWA they have everything and uh a lot of towns didn't permit this combined use so the argument was it's not a PR permitted principal use it was going for a use variance and other bulk variances um the town eventually amended the zoning to just permit the use oddly enough there still were site plan variances that were needed but through the court case JRM case um it was made clear that you can benefit from a change in use a change in zoning that benefits the applicant and you still might need to seek other variances but you still don't you don't need to get that use variance if they Chang that um so I don't be surprised if I said this isn't the last time I'm discussing this zoning changes bring up certain sort of theoretical issues um we've had another application that's being submitted that has a similar scenario um so we might very well have to clarify this again obviously every application has different circumstances um but I would uh agree that the jir ram case allows you to take advantage of a zoning change in your benefit um specifically for that uh aspect so um given that the or ordinance was changed um recommend recommended by this board and then changed at the governing body um I don't believe there would be a variance required uh boot belt and suspenders would tell us to say if in the alternative uh a deviation is required this board's heard me testify on this very application I don't know how many times but the rule of thumb is uh at the 27th story at that elevation uh we provide approximately a 30 foot setback from both Cottage and newwork so from a design standpoint we're not encroaching on any visual impact um at that height uh we also are cladding that in a very similar material to the overall building so from an aesthetic standpoint um it's not a a sore thumb sticking out it's not exposed CMU block um so it works with the overall design uh it does allow for a much more uh userfriendly enjoyable space for that amenity level which is being proposed for um which it also has elevator access so that's part of the the design intent with with that space so um those I see it as the positive criteria with respect to the negative criteria for this variance um or this deviation uh I don't believe there's any sub substantial detriment to the public we welfare uh at that elevation um we're actually providing the elevator access which is part of the uh added height um I see it as a benefit uh there's no impact to any sort of massing at that level because again we're kind of within the limits of the underlying floor plate um and those setbacks and then with respect to the impairment of the Zone plan it was changed so um we don't I don't believe there's any impairment in fact we're very much consistent with the design goals of of the Redevelopment plan all that being said um I think we're we're certainly advancing the objectives of the Homestead Place um extension uh bonus area um we're incorporating uh a few different facets or aspects to this overall development which I think are aimed at kind of the end one of the nend piece along Newark Avenue for this for this extension um be happy to answer any questions the board might have or I know if I I don't have any questions for you okay all right nor do I thank you nor do I anybody else no I have a question for you just to be clear on something here so you feel that the off Street loading is better to have on Street loading now you say that you have a delivery Street loading it's um all Street loading they have to come in reverse back out of the building a little more dangerous um when they do the T when they set up the timing for that when the you said that they're going to be scheduling it what are we scheduling when people are moving in are we scheduling food deliveries are we scheduling Amazon are we scheduling all the other trucks that come in at the same time so I it's it's a public uh right of way Enforcement issue um I I don't know if there's any coordinated scheduling but there are limitations on how long Vehicles can stay if the loading space is occupied there's no double parking that's permitted that's an enforcable action any loading truck would have to Circle and come back to that so as somebody's moving in how would they do it they would have to keep circling around Back start it's anticipated that that there there's the loading zone area on norc Avenue will be larger uh to accommodate the 701 norc Avenue building and this building and then there may be another one on Cottage Street and as I said earlier this this is a direction that came directly from the Jersey City Traffic Engineers we we had a meeting I believe Matt I don't recall if you were on that or not but they they they were concerned about Cottage Street um with the turning radius and and park cars that you weren't going to be able to make that turn um so that this is a solution or or a recommendation directly coming from from the engineering department right now Carter Street doesn't have Park cars right it does I believe one side only on one side one side only and so a delivery C the higher the build the higher I have to move the longer it's going to take me to move right that's obvious right um and with on York Avenue two buildings you have traffic all the time C the street you hard to get down there's traffic all the time and they determined that is uh safer I understand that on the radius turn but the backup that is going to of course you know we can't say it's just one car's going to be out and the other one's going to come in in a timely fashion what happens when three of them come in at the same time well what happens too is the the management um oversees the movein it's not it's not a random thing where you can come in say move in on Saturday and and 20 people are going to show up at 10 o' you get a time slot yes yes I understand that yes I understand that so you get a moving coming in I have the other building moving coming in and I also have deliveries coming in at the same time and we feel I guess traffic felt that was good yeah we like I said we had a designed off Street loading zone within and traffic came back to it says we don't want that you kidding nope and commissioner traffic could be you know petitioning the governing body to create more of these loading zones throughout the city on city streets and the governing body may decide to take an action like that I'm not saying anything is propos but that's within their jurisdiction and that's one of their the thing is once you take out the offloading Zone and the building gets built you're never gonna put it back in that's for sure it's it's it's never gonna happen because you would the construction in the course of trying to make a offload Zone after a building that is already created definitely it's crazy right not never going to happen never going to happen I I do have a question you know newak Avenue is so small just two ways you know with two parkings and you have a hot 40 hotel rooms over here and no parking no there's yeah there's no parking there's no parking required the idea or thought of that is how can how can you have hotel and so many rooms and everything without parking I know this is a zone of 2 but still you know we need parking for the hotel rooms we've already dis the governing B's already decided that that's it's not necessary required that's voted on yeah and there are there are other other discussions now to try to provide for commercial parking at other sites Within the Journal Square area it's not before this board tonight uh but that I mean Matt can tell you that they're they're looking at different sites to try to address that for you know a use like that in an urban area you you either you're getting there with an you know an Uber or walking from path or you're parking off site uh that's but it's not required the parking so Ju Just for for myself to be clear you you did answer my question it was I guess traffic that made this decision and they seems that they want to make this decision in other places too yeah loading okay loading is a very controllable thing especially for residential movement no loading is not very controllable residential moving can be restricted to off hours and they can be shared in alternating days for both buildings I work construction we we we have a hot time loading it's not it's construction yeah okay all right AR that thank you all right all right anybody else okay thank you Mr he thank you Council that's all I have then okay does anybody he from the public that wants to comment on this application no public no anybody I still have to call it I still have to call it motion to close the public session okay we have a motion in a second public is closed Matt do you have anything you want to add um nothing much really um Mr Height's testimony really covered um all the intricacies of this case um you know staff is satisfied that the positive and negative criteria for the loading zone Varian is met um there are several um recommended conditions in staff's memo um some of which relate to cooperation with um the division of traffic as well as the governing body in this case city council um to you know Assist assist technically and cooperate in the creation and implementation of loading zones as needed to accommodate these buildings um and um if staff recommends approval with conditions in those conditions would be acceptable CH like to make a motion to approve case p2024 D6 as presented to the board for approval second okay motion is made and seconded for approval commissioner gangen I commissioner lipsky yeah so I empathize with uh or for Mr Harrington in the sense that he U interprets the or and applies it and abides by it uh I appreciate Mr Height's U history of Wawa and I think this is a good project and I live in that area and I vote I commissioner Dr Desai I commissioner councilwoman Prince AR hi commissioner Torres yeah this project came came to this board so many times already and it's so and I know the idea of getting from cter Street to the train station and mass transit in Jonah square is going to be a big make life a lot easier over there um sorry that they had to take that part out of it but I know but it's still a good project um and you're complying by the ordinance that was made so with that I vote I and chairman Langston I motion Carries On in favor okay thank you good everybody thank you so let's move on to memorialization of resolutions please CH there's 12 resolutions resolution of the planning board for the city of Jersey City 107 Morgan Street Development LLC for preliminary and final major site plan approval with variance deviation 107 margan Street Jersey City New Jersey block 11612 lot one case number is P20 24- 0076 resolution for the city of Jersey City planning board case number is P22 d061 applicant 8890 bright s SP LLC address is 88 Bright Street oh yeah Jersey City New Jersey block 13902 Lot 25 decided on Tuesday November 12th 2024 memoral eyes on January 7 2025 applicant for preliminary and major site plan with C variance resolution for the planning board for the city of Jersey City for preliminary and M and final major site plan approval and approval for C variance submitted by flow Church Inc 168 Montello Avenue block 16803 lot 74 that case number is p2024 d55 res resolution for the city of Jersey City planning board case number is P22 d061 applicant is 88-90 bright SB LLC address is 88 Bright Street Jersey City New Jersey block 13902 Lot 25 decided on Tuesday November 12th 2024 memorialized on January 7 2025 applicant for preliminary and major site plan with variant resolution for the board Jersey City planning board for the city of Jersey City case number is p23 d109 preliminary and final major site plan applicant is Blas housing Group address 314-316 MLK Drive Jersey City New Jersey block 22604 Lot 24 resolution of the planning board for the city of Jersey City case number is p2024 4- 0181 for one-year extension of Prior approval of minor site plan with C varians applicant is an kin Johnny and Angel Johnny address is 310 4th Street Jersey City New Jersey block 11207 lot 15 resolution of the planning board for the city of Jersey City for amended amended preliminary and final major site plan submitted by John and Maryanne l C 187 Culver Avenue block 22102 lot 8.01 case number is p2024 D 0152 resolution for the planning board for the city of Jersey City approving an extension of minor side plan approval applicant is 290 Nork Avenue LLC for extension of minor site plan with AC variance address is 270 - 272 nework Avenue block 1101 0 Lot 4 case number is p2024 D 0196 resolution for the planning board for the city of Jersey City applicant is Yellowstone Development LLC for two one-year extensions of final major site plan with C variances 54 Jones Street and 61-63 Sip Avenue block 1070 0 4 lot 38.1 also not also block 10704 Lots 38 and 39 Jersey City New Jersey case p2024 that 0164 resolution of planning board for the city of Jersey City applicant is Warrior weeds LLC for conditional use variance 415 Mammoth Street Jersey City New Jersey block 9902 lot 18 case number p2024 d42 resolution of a planning board for the city of Jersey City approving conditional use applicant is vt420 LLC for conditional use approval 840 Community Avenue Jersey City 18204 lot 16 case number is B20 23- 0072 resolution of the planning board for the city of Jersey City approving preliminary and major site plan with viation and conditions applicant is 20 carbon Poli Corp for preliminary and final major site plan with deviations property 20 carbon police block 22103 Lot 12 case number is b224 d36 have a second second commissioner gangan hi councilwoman Prince Ary hi commissioner Torres hi commissioner lipsky hi commissioner Dr s and chairman Lon motion carries all in favor to memorialize resolutions thank you executive session anybody no motion to a Jaren all right thank you guys