Nobody's name >> tag. >> You get to break them in. >> Oh, I got one here for you. Thank you. >> So, I didn't realize everybody's at me. Well, I'm dealing with too many federal criminal cases. I got to
>> stop. Got 11 people. >> He's here. >> Really? No. We have four lawyers and 11 staff. to have 40,000 miles >> I mean it's going like you can't imagine
that was another >> yes another Patel >> I know you took a spot >> where is uh remember uh >> make meas Buffy pleasant. >> Hey Carl, how are you?
>> No, Buffy was he cared about one thing. >> He was took him out eventually. >> Oh, you said that again. Yes. I know that. >> I know that. >> And whatever happened to Marty? >> Really? >> And then got tossed out the judge in
Mama's County. >> No, a superior court judge. >> Superior court. And then they blew it out for 10 years. >> Why? >> I really didn't know him. I didn't do too much dealing with healthy did. Marty was with before I came in.
>> Don't forget >> in 197879. >> I I couldn't take the prosecutor's office anymore for two years and Buffy said, "Why don't you >> Good evening everyone." >> Um I guess we should begin by saying good evening and happy new year. and
this is the first meeting of the zoning board for 2026. So, welcome to the January 8th, 2026 meeting of the Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment. This meeting is held in accordance with NJSA 10 col4-12,
the Open Public Meetings Act. I would like to call this meeting to order. Uh, Mr. Pangan, are there any Sunshine announcements that you would like to share with us? Yes, Chairman Coyle. Um, as part of the open public meetings act, uh, this
meeting was noticed with the Bergen record and LSP specialito as well as posted with the city clerk. I would like to submit this into evidence as B1. >> Okay. Uh, can you please take roll call? >> Certainly.
Vice Chair Ruo >> here. >> Thank you. >> Commissioner Al uh sorry, Commissioner Sadid >> here. >> Commissioner Allen >> here. >> Commissioner Chupliki >> here. >> Commissioner Burns
>> Commissioner Coello. Commissioner Patel >> and Cher Coyle >> present. Uh, we have eight present today. >> Excuse me. I'm I'm sorry. >> Sorry. We have eight present today. >> Eight present.
>> Yes. >> So, who can >> I don't know who the al alternates are. >> Who are they? >> Oh, sorry. The the alternates today are um Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Koviello, um, Commissioner
Helen. I'm holding. Sorry. >> Okay. >> So, out of the eight, two are alternates right this moment. Okay. So, one of the alternates >> can just sit and pay attention. Will not vote. >> Correct. >> Um, and I'm just going to say I know that Mr. Patel came in after Mr.
Koviello. So, why don't we have Mr. Koviello do the voting tonight to to parti but stay and you know participate. Okay. So, we will then have seven. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. Um, [clears throat] okay. Can we please stand for the flag
salute? >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay, Iris, can we please swear in
staff? Please raise my hand that the testimony and comments you will make this evening on the record will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Any correspondence? >> Yes, sure. Coyle. Um, first we have uh
case Z2025-0082 uh an appeal of an administrative administrative officer's decision for six in place. [snorts] It has been carried to February 5th due to inadequate notice. they will have to renotice for >> okay >> their um incoming hearing and then the
secondly we have Z2025-0094 amendment to zero Z20-043 to eliminate pave permanent elevated outdoor seating along Jersey Avenue uh for 2011 Newark Avenue it's been carried to February the request to be carried to
February 5th with preservation of notice >> okay and I believe tonight that you want to share with us the annual zoning board report rather the only board. >> Yes, Lone please. >> So you have in front of you um cop
physical copies of the Jersey City annual zoning board of adjustment report for 2025. So as part of our findings um we the first in 2025 the zoning board of adjustment heard 45 applications 42 of those applications were approved and
three were denied. Um based solely on the applications that were either approved or denied um the approval the zoning board approval rate is 93%. Um this is relative to last year where it was 95% with 38 applications being heard and 36 of those applications being approved. Um the zoning board saw a
slight increase in the number of applications heard in 2025 from the year before, but 45 cases heard last year were still among the lowest over the past decade. Uh in total, the board approved 198 residential units, 20 of which are designated to be affordable.
There was a decrease, this was a decrease from last year's 241 units that were approved, but the number of affordable units were the same at 20. Um in terms of the types of Dvarianes that were consider uh that were considered and approved by the board um
most of them uh well the plurality is uh the D1 use variance with 12. Um then there's the D2 for an expansion of moral uh non-conforming use which um one was approved. There were no conditional use D variances approved last over the past
year. Um there were five D5 density variances approved last year and um lastly there were eight D6 height variances approved uh for a total of 26D variances. Um you'll see also a bar graph showing
the uh zoning for the for the variances that were approved. You'll see that most of them are in the R1 with a few scattered through the RC3, R4, NC1, U, and uh the H historical zones.
Um we also provided a map of locations for all the D variances that were approved over the past year. Um you'll notice that in um 2025 most of the D variances approved were located along downtown Dur City, the Heights and Mcinley Square neighborhoods. Uh this is relative relative to 2024 approved
Dvarianes were largely concentrated among the Heights and Mcinley Square neighborhoods. Um just kind of going over uh the summation of staff's recommendations. Um staff recommends that uh the staff recommends the continuation of analyzing data to implement future phases of the
Jersey City master plan recommendations and um just refer you to the appendix that follows. But that's all I have for you. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. [clears throat] Okay. You've already discussed adjournments all business. So we will um
take our first case this evening um which will be [clears throat] Z2025-000089 um one-year subdivision extension. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Happy new year. Happy6 to everyone here.
>> Happy new year. This is a oneyear extension originally expired. We're asking for one year. >> Oh, >> is that better? No, [laughter]
John. >> I don't I'm sure nobody wants me to repeat everything, but um [laughter] that's that that's essentially the case here. It's a one-year extension request. >> Okay. Uh do do any of the board members have any questions? Uh does the staff
have any comments or anything to add? >> Uh yes. I would just like to confirm with the applicant that they agreed to the conditions of the original approval. >> Yes. Then staff recommends approval. >> Okay. Um so without any other comments [clears throat] and I'm not there's no
one here from the neighborhood association or etc to make any comments. I'm asking for a motion to vote on let me get this motion to vote on case Z2025-000089. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion
to approve KZ2025- 0089. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. Okay. >> All right. >> Um, Vice Chair Ruo, >> yes. >> Commissioner Shadid, >> yes. >> Commissioner Allen, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Chiplicki, >> yes. >> Commissioner Burns, >> Commissioner Koviello, >> and Chair Coyle, >> yes. Motion carries seven to zero. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay. Our next case is
uh Z2025-000035 30 Clinton Avenue. Um and we have Mr. Wine. >> Yes, you do. Good evening, Madame Chair, members of the board, commissioners. Benjamin Wine of Prime Toull on behalf of the applicant um Lam Capital Investments LLC. At the risk of
offending uh the comedian Larry David who says you cannot wish a happy new year after January 3rd, I will nonetheless wish you a happy new year. >> I thought he said the seventh or the eth. I >> think it's the third. I think it's the third. [laughter] >> It's the third, right? But
>> oh, duly noted. But uh joking aside, uh I'm happy to be here this evening to present to you an application for 30 Clinton Avenue. And for the record, that is block 18603, lot 34. And we are located in the R1 uh district. Um for
those of you familiar with the property, it is located at the corner of Clinton and Crescent and has been a vacant lot for at this point a couple of decades. Um, if you look uh if you look back on Google history or some old tax records, you'll see that it was the Masonic Lodge, which is referenced as well in
Miss Marion's letter, but um for the last number of years, it has been a vacant lot um overgrown and uh and ripe for development quite honestly. Um I'm going to give a little bit of background because I think it would be helpful for the board to understand and to know, but
uh I I had joined the team for development here approximately a year and a half ago. um as did our project architect and planner who you'll hear from this evening. But prior to that, this project really began as I understand about 10 years ago with a totally different team um having been
presented to the community and nobody ever got to a place where the community was comfortable and the developer was comfortable with what was going to be brought forward. So when I got involved, we kind of started fresh. we have a new architect on board and uh and took a look at what it is that might be appropriate for this property, how to
engage with the community, and how to come to some consensus. So, we went through um two meetings initially. The first meeting, what we had proposed was a five-story development with 29 units and 18 parking spaces. Um we had a good meeting with the community, but their biggest their biggest push was to say,
"Look, we don't think that the height at five stories is something that uh that's appropriate for this lot. there's a lot of four-story development in the immediate area. Can you come back to us with something like that? And we said, look, that would automatically result in a reduction in density and probably a reduction in parking, but we'll we'll
see what we can do. And we came back with exactly that. So, we came back at the second meeting with a fourstory development of 22 units and 16 parking spaces. Overwhelmingly, the community was pretty happy with it. Um, there were some, you know, little questions about some landscaping and things that we
could do to improve. Uh there was an overall question about well you know it's it's still a high number of units but we basically said look under the affordable housing overlay we could do this project at three stories have the same 22 units and just not have any parking on the ground floor go to the
planning board for an almost as of right project and the community said absolutely not parking is paramount that's what we want we then filed with the board we were all ready to go before this board in December about a month ago and uh and we had I emailed the community again just to reach out and
say, you know, just a reminder, we're on the meeting and they asked if we could meet one more time to discuss one more issue. Um, and we adjourned that meeting as you may know and uh and we're here tonight. We did have an opportunity to meet with them uh right before New Year's on December 30th and uh and again
it was we clarified a couple of the issues. We were able to increase our parking back up from 12 spaces to 15 spaces without any changes to the actual dimensions of the building. and uh and everybody was predominantly happy and said, you know, good luck on uh January 8th. And so I think that that background
is highly relevant because again, this project began its life a decade ago and it's been a vacant property for for so long and I think we're at the point now where we have a good rapport with the community. We have a project that they're generally supportive of. Um we've worked very closely with Miss
Marion and with her planning staff and I'm now proud to present to you um really your first development project of 2026. So with that, I'll just go over the metrics of the project and the variances being sought very quickly and then turn it over to the actual professionals in
the room. So we are seeking preliminary and final major site plan approval along with a D5 density variance for the number of units where nine are permitted, 22 are proposed and because we're seeking that density, [clears throat] we are proposing two of those to be affordable with an
additional payment in lie um of that 0.2 delta to the affordable housing trust fund. We also have a D6 height variance for having the 42 1/2 ft instead of the 35 ft. And that's for the four stories. And then we have a couple of bulk variants as well um that go with it,
including the front yard along Crescent Avenue. We're at the property line in one pinch point where 2 feet is the average along the block. So in that pinch point, we do require relief. We also have a rear yard setback variance which it's going to be a lot easier to see how this is how this operates rather
than me explaining it to you. But being on a corner with an oddshaped uh corner rear point, rear lot point. Um while we meet the rear lot point ordinance, we don't meet one pinch point um along one of the portions of the rear yard. Again, you'll you'll see it. It'll make a whole
lot more sense. And la lastly, because we have an elevator in the building that goes to our roof deck, we have a 15 ft bulkhead height. Um which is consistent with any other building that has a an elevator that goes to the rooftop. But in the R1, um since elevators are not
typically contemplated, um there is a 10- foot uh roof of pertinance maximum. But again, this is the lowest possible to be able to accommodate that roof. And so that's it. So that's the uh the opening that I wanted to give to the board this evening. And unless you have any questions of me, I'm happy to proceed with my first
>> I just need clarification. You said [clears throat and cough] you're asking for 22 units in a zone that permits nine units only. >> That's correct. Yes, >> that is correct. All right. So, with that, I'll turn it over to our project architect of Art
Patel. [snorts] testimony of the truth and truth. >> Yes, I do. >> Uh, Avar Patel. A A V A R T P A T-L. >> Thank you. Um, just uh just before you get into it,
I don't know if this is on or not. No, no, we're good. Um, if you could please give the board the benefit of your professional and educational background and the status of your license as an architect in the state of New Jersey. >> Sure. >> Um, I have a master's degree from University of Buffalo in architecture
and uh uh I've been testified uh in front of this >> many times even before this one. >> We recognize your >> and my my license is current. >> Yes. >> Even as of the new year. >> Yes. >> Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. >> So, if you'll go ahead and bring up your plans on the screen and we can walk the
board through the presentation. >> You see it? >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah, we do. >> All right. Oh, there it is. >> Yeah, there we go. >> Oh, there you go. Perfect. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. The
uh the project site is the 30 Clinton located at the intersection of uh Clinton and Crescent Avenue. Uh the lot size is about uh 9,300 square ft, 9270 to be exact. Uh it's a oddshaped lot. Um
more like a trapezoidal skewed uh rectangular shape. Um from uh the depth of the lot from the from uh Clinton Avenue it's about 100 uh 101 ft and uh from the Cresant Avenue it's about 89 um
uh.3 ft. Um going to quickly go to the u the site plan. Uh we are proposing a four-story building. Um first floor will consist of a residential lobby uh one unit and then uh the rest is parking and then three
residential levels above uh with the seven units uh per floor totaling 21 on the upper floor and one on the first floor. Um on this uh uh plan you can see the uh the outline of the building which is uh
uh the red line and then um on the back uh um side of the building um that's where you know as Ben explained the the setback uh we're meeting along the Crescent Avenue but uh there's a little encroachment um from the uh Clinton
Avenue and that is because of the we're trying to square off the building at the at the back and that the lot lines are are skewed. Uh so that's why there is a little encroachment on this side but we are providing more space uh along Crescent Avenue. So that kind of makes up for uh for the difference. Uh and uh
if we go to the literal definition with a with a arc uh we are clearing the um the corners of the building. Um so that's the uh the the rear setback uh a small variance we are seeking here. Uh overall uh we try to uh square off the
building on the sides and and we are maintaining um at least 3'2 setback or or more. As you can see this is the um the 3-ft setback on this side for um uh this flat portion and then beyond that we are skewing the building in uh
creating more um uh open space on the on the back. Uh same thing along uh the left side. um most of the the dis I mean the the pitch point is uh is about 4T here and uh rest of the setback is is more than more than 4 ft throughout uh
this side of the building. Now coming to the to the two streets uh we are proposing six uh new street trees and uh new pavement. Uh as you can see from the um some of the existing condition pictures the um the sidewalk is in
pretty bad shape. it's overgrown and you know unleveled. So this would be a big improvement in terms of uh uh upgrades and then um you're as I said six new uh street trees. We did uh do uh a step
back to the building facade in order to create a little um uh [clears throat] greener landscape pockets uh along the the front of the building and then um along the Crescent Avenue side as well. We set back the building a bit so we can have a green patch uh and some
landscaping um along that that facade as well. I'm going to quickly jump to the building plans now. Uh we are proposing a a small or partial seller uh which will consist of mainly the building u
utilities um electrical gas uh sprinkler rooms um uh garbage and recycling room would be here as well and then um 16 uh bicycle uh storage racks in the basement. Uh basement would be serviced by the elevator as well as one staircase
which would meet the building code. Um this is the first floor plan. Um again the building building uh residential lobby is accessed from the uh from the Clinton Avenue side and then the garage
access is uh from Cresant Avenue. Uh we have um 15 parking spots. Um the residential unit is located towards the front corner which is a two-bedroom uh two bath unit and [clears throat] then um the two staircases uh both one
staircase will open through lobby to the outside and then the second will go through the um sideyard. Uh this is the second floor level which is a typical level. Um seven units here. Uh it's a mix of one, two, and uh threebedroom. Uh the two affordable
units would be located here. The three uh one, one of the affordable unit has to be three-bedroom, which is this corner unit here. And then uh the second affordable would be that one bedroom um along the Clinton Avenue side. Um the third floor is a identical uh
footprint layouts. Um the fourth floor is is uh um little different in terms of the the perimeter of the building and that's because the fourth floor is a is a mainly consists of a mansard roof which kind of mimics
some of the surrounding buildings. So that's why um [cough] this is kind of part of the geometry and then the bumpout you see is the the dormers which I'll cover in the uh building elevations. U but again um similar layout like the downstairs uh and seven
units here as well. Uh in general the units will uh will vary anywhere between 680 ft² to about uh uh 1100 square f feet. Um this is the uh the roof deck. Um again small elevator lobby giving
handicap access to the roof deck and then uh two staircases will extend up to the roof. Uh we are stepping or setting the the uh occupied roof uh at least uh um you know 14 feet uh from the property
line uh or the facade along Crescent Avenue and uh uh close to uh 20 ft along uh Clinton Avenue. Um all the rooftop equipment would be located towards the back corner and they
will be screened. Um and uh um the stipple uh area around the the amenity deck would be um all green roof. Um this is the uh front elevation along
uh Clinton Avenue. Um access to the elevator lobby here. Um overall we try to keep the architecture which kind of blends with the surrounding building. There are uh um older uh four-story buildings with a with a red brick and
some of the units have I mean the the buildings have the mansard roof. So we try to uh you know carry some of those uh elements uh throughout this design. Um and predominant facade would be the the red brick. Uh the fourth floor is the
the mansar roof uh which would be you know angle wall with a um with a metal uh type of roofing element and then um these are black uh double hung windows. Um and then uh along the the street
fronts we are proposing um caststone type material at the uh at the base uh to protect the buildings against uh uh the harsh weather and salts and you know general sidewalk treatment. Um similar architecture along the
Crescent Avenue as well. Red brick with uh you know some of the cantalver base. Um this is the access to the garage. Uh and uh um the garage access, you know, there will be p pedestrian warning system installed uh as part of the the
design uh to warn the uh the the cars coming in and out and the pedestrian crossing along the Cresant Avenue. Um this is the right uh left side elevation of the building facing uh from the from the Clinton Avenue. Um we will
carry the brick uh and then the the base element uh uh up to about 20 feet and then uh the rest of the facade would be um sighting and similar treatment on the other side as well. Uh the brick will carry in
about uh you know 15 to 18 ft and then the remaining facade will have um uh just the horizontal sighting. Uh this is the exhibit showing the uh the sight line especially at the uh the bulkhead uh from across the street and
uh um the the um the parapits are will will you know usually the screen the the bulkhead and uh should not be a the access height should not be a uh hindrance to the the sidelines.
Um, I think that pretty much covers everything. >> Okay. And Avar, I just had a couple of follow-up questions for you. So, first of all, obviously the site is vacant now. It's it's it's overgrowth. >> Um, I imagine that we are putting in some storm water management. >> Uh, that is correct. Uh, there is a
storm water uh system proposed underneath the the parking and uh, of course, we are providing the green uh green roof. So, uh, both will help towards managing the the runoff. >> Okay. So that'll be an improved condition. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Additionally, I know it's a little
bit unusual when when you ask for, you know, a couple of minor setbacks, but but also a density variance. It's a little unusual, but I want to confirm for the record as well that the building coverage is compliant. Is that right? >> Uh that is correct. >> Okay. So even though you've got like a couple of pinch points that you
identified, um you've kind of made up for them elsewhere so that our coverage is consistent with the R1 requirements. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then lastly on on the density itself, um I know I I introduced it in my opening, but I just want to confirm
that if we were to design this building as only three stories with no parking and were to take advantage of the affordable housing overlay, which we're effectively doing by putting in two affordable units anyways, um this would this would really be a planning board application at that point, right?
>> That is correct. So, it's not that as an architect, it's not that putting 22 units in here is trying to stuff in a lot of units. We're compliant on the coverage. We have the three stories of residential that again complies with the R1. And then the unit sizes themselves as you went through are fairly generous as well. Is that right?
>> That that is correct. I mean, these are not very uh small or micro units. You know, they are they are very generous. You know, one bedroom uh starting from about 680 square ft and uh uh going up to uh 1130. That's a that's a pretty decent size. You know, it's more geared
towards um uh families than just micro rental units. >> Great. And then the last thing I wanted to ask you is you you spoke about the architecture and I think it's I think it's a beautiful building. I as I mentioned in the beginning as well, this architecture was a very very specific uh culmination of efforts working with the
community and with and with city planning. But I want to confirm that in again in your opinion as an architect the context of the architecture that's being shown and being proposed would fit and would pull from other buildings in the area. Is that right? >> Absolutely. And uh I think we have some
pictures you know I mean they're a little small uh to begin with but you [clears throat] know as you can see um you know the surrounding buildings which are all four stories and uh you know as you can see this is a red brick red brick here and then uh some of the building in distance as you can see the
the roof elements. So uh it is pretty much blending with uh uh with uh the the neighboring structures and overall architecture and uh uh we I mean during the the two three meetings we had the uh with the with the neighborhood you know at the first meeting this issue came up
where um they were very focused on trying to blend the building rather than making it I mean ultra modern. You know we never proposed that kind of scheme but that was a concern from uh from all the the neighbors. We kind of considered that and uh uh even enhance on some of
the uh the elements, you know, adding more dormers and and making it look more like uh something which fits within the neighborhood. >> Okay. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. That's all I have for Mr. Patel at this point. >> Okay. And we'll hold any questions until everyone's finished. >> Perfect. So, next up, I'd
[clears throat] like to call our traffic engineer. >> Yeah, just in case I got to do something. Thanks. >> Yes, I do. >> Connor Hughes. C O N O R. Hughes. H U G
H E S. >> Perfect. Thank you. So Connor, if you can also give the board the benefit of your educational and professional background, um your lensure and its status in the state. >> Certainly. Um so I'm a project manager with dynamic traffic. Uh I have a bachelor of science in civil engineering
from NJIT in 2017. Um so closing in on that 10 year mark. I have a professional engineering license in the state of New Jersey which is still in current good standing as of 2026. Um and I have been executed as an expert witness at many boards throughout the state including um
this zoning board in Jersey City. >> So [snorts] madam chair I would submit Mr. Hughes as an expert in the field of traffic expertise. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So, Connor, why don't you walk the board through um some of the trip generation and site analysis that you prepared and uh and also how you
know how it's your feeling and and your opinion as to whether or not effectively putting a story of parking on this property is uh sending us to this board is is an appropriate uh solution. >> Certainly. Um so we did prepare and submit a traffic impact study that was dated March 6th, 2025. Um which looked
at those aspects including the trip generation as well as the the parking aspects. Um so looking at that that first point which is the trip generation uh again it's only 22 residential units. So in terms of vehicle traffic, we don't anticipate any significant um amount of
vehicles to be coming to or from the the site on a regular basis. Um but we did look at the trip generation data published by Institute of Transportation Engineers um who publish rates based off uh their own research, their own data that they collect based on counts at
similar types of facilities and and buildings um across the country. Um so this is essentially [clears throat] the gold standard really of developing trip generation from our traffic engineering standpoint. Um so based on the number of units and based on the mid-rise
residential use uh it projects during the weekday morning peak hour somewhere between 7 to 9 in the morning um a total of six trips that includes in and out trips from the site. one inbound trip and five outbound trips. During the
weekday uh afternoon peak hour, sometime between say 4 to 6:30 p.m. um it projects four inbound trips and two outbound trips for again a total of six peak hour trips. So again, very minimal vehicular traffic to and from the site, but just to put that into some quick
perspective, New Jersey DOT sets forth a threshold of 100 new peak hour trips that they consider to be significant. And essentially it would be at that point that there would be discernable and noticeable differences in the traffic conditions in the immediate area. Um so we're well below that
threshold. Um IT also has a suggested threshold of 50 new peak hour trips. We're they suggest that a traffic impact study should be conducted including counts and analysis. Um so again with only six peak hour trips we're well below that threshold as well. So again,
this level of trip generation really won't have any perceptible or or significant impacts um on the traffic flow or the intersections and the roadways um surrounding the site. And of course, there's other factors as well being in an urban environment, mass transit, alternate modes of travel that
do help to reduce that that vehicular trip generation, and that relates to the parking demands as well. And I'll get into some more of that. Um, but we do have the Garfield Avenue light rail station about a third of a mile south of the site, which is an attractive feature for potential residents. You have all
the the New Jersey Transit bus routes. There's about 10 of them or so within a 3/4 mile radius of the site. Um, there's one just to the north on the corner of Communal and Cresenav and then also just to the east on Grand and Clinton. So, very accessible mass transit um in
location to the site to help uh reduce that vehicular traffic demand. And then getting into the a little bit of the site layout. Um Mr. Patel kind of went through the that briefly. Um but just some of the metrics on that. Again, one driveway is proposed on Crescent Avenue.
Um essentially acts as a left in and left out just based on the the northbound orientation of Crescent Avenue. Um so one way in, one way out driveway. There's the single drive aisle within the parking garage itself, which is about 25 ft wide. Um that's actually
[clears throat] just a foot that's a foot more than the ordinance requirement of 24 feet. So we're in compliant with that and it's a very typical standard dimension for uh especially for residential um situations. And then the parking stalls themselves uh there's a
mix of 8 1/2 by 18 foot spaces as well as 9 by 18 spaces. Um that also complies with the ordinance requirement of 8 1/2 by 18 along with the 25 ft um drive aisle. And these spaces are going to be utilized by the residents who are going to become familiar and very comfortable
with the patterns and circulation of that garage to access those spaces. Um so we don't anticipate any any circulation issues as as far as that's concerned. And then in terms of the parking supply and the parking demand itself, um so as I mentioned a couple
times, we are providing 15 spaces on the ground floor of the building. Um technically based on the requirements that are being met through the um [clears throat] through the ICO, no parking is required. Um but obviously we know that from our discussions with the
community that the parking is one of the main issues that they wanted to see addressed with with this particular building and that the idea of not providing parking was essentially non-negotiable. So we wanted to make sure that we were providing that not only as a benefit for the local community but also for the residents of
the building. It's obviously more convenient to have um the direct parking garage underneath the units. Um and it does also help to limit any utilization or demand on the local on street parking. Um which is important because from looking at the area, it's evident that a lot of these residences in the
neighborhood don't have their own garages or driveways or um anything on the property to [cough] prevent the street parking. So, a lot of the neighborhood relies on that street parking. um for themselves. So to be
able to provide the parking directly for these residents helps to alleviate that and limit any additional congestion on on the local streets. And we're very confident that the parking supply that we are providing is is adequate to support the demands of the site. Um and that's based on a couple of factors. One
of those being that the R1 zone, which is uh where the site is located, does have a parking requirement of three spaces per bedroom. Uh based on the 32 bedrooms proposed, this equates to 10 spaces. Again, we're providing 15. So, we're in excess of that requirement um
if it were to be applicable. And then there's also although not applicable to the in particular to the R1 zone, there's other areas of the city that um have a requirement of 0.5 spaces per unit which would equate to 11 spaces if that were applicable. Um so just kind of
wanted to put that out there as a frame of reference that even just based on the typical Jersey City requirements that we've seen that the site is actually overparked um based on those those metrics. And then we did look at a couple of other things as well. One of those being the census data for vehicle occupancy per rental unit, particularly
for the census track that the site is located in. Um that equates to about.7 vehicles per unit or 15 spaces. Again, we meet that. And then we did also look at the national IT data that they have for uh parking demands for mid-rise
residential uh which equates to 46 per bedroom and that also equates to 15 spaces which we meet with the proposed site. Um so again with the mass transit availability, those metrics that I just went through about the the local parking demands and requirements, um the
alternate modes of travel that are readily accessible and available to the future tenants of this building. Uh again, we feel very comfortable and confident that the 15 spaces will be uh more than enough to help support the the building itself and also not introduce
any uh complications with the on-site or the on street parking um within the neighborhood. So, unless there's anything you'd like me to add, I'm happy. >> I was just going to ask that obviously the uh bicycle parking requirement for 22 units is 11 spaces. I believe Mr.
Patel testified that there are 16 spaces. So, do you feel as a traffic engineer that, you know, the addition of five additional bicycle parking spaces offering alternate modes of transportation as well will also help um with any potential future tenants? >> Yeah, absolutely. It's an attractive feature for the tenants and obviously
lends itself to to help promote those alternate modes. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. That's all I have for Mr. Hughes. >> Thank you. >> All right, so with that, my next and final witness I intend to call is Carolyn Worstelle, our professional planner. Madam Chair, may I point something out
before we move on? Um, m Mr. One, so I just want to point this out so it can be corrected. On the portal, there's 13 parking spaces. >> Yes. >> On the agenda, it says 12. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. So, what So, actually, what we should do then is we should mark um of arts ground floor plan as an exhibit.
what happened and I I neglected to mention I apologize um after we met with the neighbors uh last week we were already within the 10-day period before this meeting so we couldn't file new plans when we upped the parking from 12 spaces to 15 so the intention was to introduce what we presented to them as
an exhibit at the 15 spaces so I will um and I'm happy to submit that you know to Vinnie or uh or to to Tanya directly but that groundf flooror plan would be the new exhibit at 15 spaces >> thank you for pointing that Apologies.
I I usually end up letting the architect and I go off of theirs, but this time I actually have an exhibit. So, >> but I guess we could get myself some more. >> Oh, yeah. We can do that. >> Yeah. Yes. Do you swear that the testimony you provide this evening will be the truth and nothing?
>> I do. >> Please state your full name. >> Carolyn Worstelle. W E L L. >> Thank you. And Carolyn, uh, unless the the board would like your credentials, if you can just confirm for the record that your license as a planner is in good standing here this evening.
>> Uh, yes, my license is current and still in good standing. >> Caroline has been here many times. We recognize [laughter] her expertise. >> Thank you. Actually, I needed to delay a little bit so her computer could get up. >> You could always say,
>> you don't want that. [laughter] >> Take some. >> All right. So, um to sort of jump in and get started on uh my portion here this evening. Um so, we're here this e this evening for a
couple of variances for this um proposed project. Um, and to start off with, uh, we'll start it sort of with the the big the big one, which is the D5 density variance. Um, so this board obviously has that jurisdiction to grant a D5
density variance. Um and under relevant case law uh the the grub sloth um lothour uh case the standard for granting a a density variance uh with respect to the positive criteria is that the subject property is particularly
well suited to accommodate the impacts of the proposed density. Um, and so when we think about the impacts, what are the impacts of density? A lot of times one of the biggest impacts is obviously the number of people that you you create and how do they fit within the building and how does that building fit on the
property. And then the other thing you look at is oftentimes parking. Parking is a major concern when you're looking at how many units are you creating and how are you going to be able to accommodate that that vehicle parking. So this evening we're proposing a
density of 22 units. uh prop processing 22 units which has a density of 103 units per acre. Uh we are in the R1 zone which uh has a maximum density of 42 units per acre which equates to the nine units that was mentioned earlier. Um
but uh when we look at this site uh it is a really large site. Um it's 9,270 ft. Um, so that's a significantly larger lot than we typically find in an R1 district where 2500 square feet is the norm. Um, and when we have a really
large site, um, it allows us to be able to create a building with, uh, larger foot, uh, floor plates or, uh, floor plates. Um, and that allows us to create efficiencies, right? You don't need,
you know, several staircases for every, you know, floor. we can get away with two staircases. We need the one, you know, the corridor to get through. So, because we have a larger site, we can actually accommodate more units. And these aren't these are not small units here in Jersey City. These are really
decently sized units and we can create a diversity of housing types. We're not creating just one housing type. We're creating a diversity of housing types. Um, so those are all things that we can do when we have these larger building sites.
Um the other thing that we we look at is uh how does the building footprint fit on that property. Um, and as mentioned, while we do need a couple of variances, and we can go through those individually, really the variances that we're
requesting uh for the the setbacks really relate or are more in my mind a hardship because the shape of our lot, not that uh because we we have a lot that isn't square, right? And makes hard to put a square building on a lot that isn't square. And so we've ended up with
these some odd pinch points in our setbacks. Um but when you look at the overall building, we have conforming law coverage, right? So we have adequate space in order to put this footprint of
building on this property. Um and it allows for us again to provide that uh to accommodate that other sort of impact which is the parking. Um you just heard uh from my colleagues, we are going to be able to fit 15 spaces on here uh where 10 spaces would be what is
required under the R1. Um so we're actually be able to provide more parking than the minimum in the R1 district. So I think overall because we have this larger site and because we've the way we've designed this building, we are able to accommodate the impacts of those
additional that density of those additional units. The other thing we look at is how does this look in terms of the context of the neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood. Um so there this is an R1 district but
there are other multif family buildings within this neighborhood. Um directly adjacent the property to the north of us uh 75 Crescent um is a seven unit uh is seven units which is 70 units per acre. So directly adjacent to us uh is a is a
larger multif family building. When you walk around the neighborhood um and you can see I took pictures today um as I went by the site. Um there are other multif family buildings throughout this neighborhood. Um there are some uh that
are I guess uh just half a block away um uh on Crescent um and Crescent and Harmon. Um, so there are several other multif family buildings. So it's not out of context to see a multif family building here. We're also on a corner
where you tend to see and expect larger, more dense buildings. And that's where you oftentimes see some of the other uh apartment buildings in this neighborhood. They're on the corners. And so that's continuing this sort of urban design uh uh that you find in these more historic neighborhoods.
Um, as well as being while this property is located in the R1 district, there are several multif family or or several redevelopment plans that are uh within uh just a block or two of this this area. Uh we're near the Jackson Hill redevelopment plan area, the Jackson
Avenue redevelopment plan area, and the neighborhood commercial one uh NC1 district. Um and those are all uh about a block away from this particular property. Um and in those those um uh
uh districts uh you know with within the redevelopment plans and in the NC1 district there is no maximum density right density is based on what can fit within the bulk of the building. Um and so again you you're going to see denser
developments surrounding this neighborhood because of that. Um, and I really think that this is is an appropriate density here too because again we're working within that. Um, we are going to create those affordable housing units and that was really sort
of the intent of creating the ICO and the AHO the affordable housing overlay zone. Um, so again the the idea is that with increased density you do get the affordable housing. Um the other sort of Dvariance that we're requesting this evening tonight is
that D6 height variance. [clears throat] um very similar to the density variance. Um well, okay. So, uh under the relevant case law for the D6 height variance, uh which is uh a grasso versus spring lake,
um the standard for granting a height variance is that the project promotes a harmonious consistent visual environment while not offending the purpose of the height restriction, which is namely light and air. Um this project is proposing a building height of 42 feet
where a maximum of 35 ft is permitted. Uh it's I think 42 42 and a half ft. Uh and that allows us to have that fourstory building typology. Um and that four-story building typology is really
the three stories of residential with the ground uh ground flooror parking. And that's how you're able to fit parking on these sites is it has to be within the building. And it essentially means that you have to have an entire story of your building dedicated to parking. Um it's really the only way in an urban context you're
really going to see that significant amount of parking. Um as I've noted uh previously, this site is a corner lot. Um on corner lots, we do typically see uh higher or taller buildings. Um and
again that that is an urban design. Um uh it's part of the urban design that you find throughout these urban areas is oftentimes you see the higher density at a corner. Um and it creates a more prominent corner. Um
but I think when you look at this building, you look at the surrounding context. um that proposed four stories, that additional height, uh really does sort of create a consistent visual environment here. Um the building that's directly adjacent to us. So again, if if you're looking at the pictures on the
screen, um on the top, it's I guess figure one or the picture one. >> And Caroline, just for the record, we should probably mark this. >> Yeah, I guess this would be A2 photos. We'll call it A2. >> And it's two it's two sheets. Um and they were all taken today. Uh, so I
guess that would be January what what is today? >> Eth by your office, correct? >> Yes. I I took them this I took them this afternoon. >> Even better. >> Um, so if you see the building right there that's directly uh that's sort of with the golden light uh that the uh the
building that's directly adjacent to us, that's the seven uh is it 57 uh 75 Crescent. Um that's a four-story building. It's three stories over a basement. Uh when you look elsewhere in
this neighborhood, um if you look at the picture directly below that, I believe it's I guess the image four, figure four. And I can zoom in. Um when you look around the neighborhood, um you see these other
taller buildings. So we have this building here on the corner. It's a more of a it is three stories, but it's a taller three stories. If you look farther down, you see this building here, um, has a has the Mansard roof. That is a four-story building. Um, and then this street right here,
uh, which is just a single block away, Madison Avenue, um, that has a large number of brick town homes, which are all four stories over a basement. So those are all fourstory buildings. Um, so again, I I think that there's this context within this neighborhood where
four stories is not out of context. Um, you know, it is very uh con consistent with the types of buildings you see with throughout the neighborhood. Um, and uh it is, you know, we are asking for four stories. Uh, but it is 7
feet, right? 35 ft is what we're permitted and we're asking for uh 42 and a half. So it's seven and a half additional additional 7 and 1/2 ft. Um and that really is like it's an incremental impact on like in air. Um
we have worked really hard to make sure that we're creating um that uh uh setback in the rear. So where we're closest to the residential structures near us, uh we are set back. We we have created that um that uh set back in that
corner. Um, and then, uh, because of where we're located, um, you know, a lot of our, um, our, uh, shadows are really cast either to the right or to the, you know,
they're going to be cast to, uh, uh, the east of us. Uh, and there's a there's a roadway there, so we lessen the impacts on the buildings to to the east of us. Um, and there are new buildings there. Um originally when when we first started looking at this project there buildings
hadn't been constructed. Um there are uh some brand new buildings uh that are are at that corner. Um so I think you know originally it had been uh open space. So I think that we're actually less of an impact to the community u now that that open space is
no longer there. Um let's see where is it? Oops. Not what I wanted to do. right here. So, here in this this picture here, figure nine. So, those are new buildings that were uh recently fairly recently constructed. They are it
looks like they're they're on the market. Um so, that that used to be what looked like a community garden. It is no longer community garden. Has been developed. Um, and then on the other side of us, to the west of us, is a vacant parking lot. Um, so we really uh
believe that we've we've uh created a a building that I think is going to have sort of minimal incremental additional shadow impacts. Um so again I I think that we really have sort of created that harmonious consistent visual environment which is
what we what we are looking for. Um and again I don't think that that additional height is really going to affect light and air because then we are providing conforming setbacks in terms of our sideyard setbacks in terms of our rear yard setback. Um so I think that we're really we're going to be uh won't have a
significant impact uh in terms of light and air. Um we are also requesting a couple of those seabbulk variances. [snorts] Um particularly the front yard
setback and the rear yard setback. I look at these two as really sort of hardship C1 criteria. Um and they really stem from that irregular shape of the lot here. Um
we are a corner because we're a corner lot. We have two front yards. Um and the R1 district requires uh that we match the setbacks of adjacent structures along one of our our front yards. Uh there is nothing uh cons next to us on
Clinton. Uh so that is conforming. uh on Crescent Avenue is where we are receiving the relief. Um the adjacent structures on Crescent. So again, um we have a little bit of unusual situation because our streets don't meet at a
right angle. The streets are um uh they're little diagonal. So for all of the properties on this lot, their sideyards don't meet the front their their side lot lines don't meet the front lot line at a right angle. So most
of the buildings on this block, they have aligned themselves with their sideyards. So when you look at them, their front yards vary. You know, it's wider on one side and narrower on the other. And so you sort of create a little bit of this step back situation going on among the various different
buildings. Um, so that's that's what's happening with the building that's directly adjacent to us to the north. Um, so when we looked at our building, we are sort of squaring oursel up to that
Crescent Avenue. We're trying to create a consistent straight um, uh, frontage along that. Um, so we are requesting a a a variance for the pinch point which is at the corner. Um,
and again, I I think really a lot of this comes down to the fact is um we're working with a very unusual shape of the lot and we're trying to square off for building. And so what we that has created is a situation where we end up with uh zero foot front setback at that
one corner. I don't see this as being a substantial detriment. Again, it's at the corner. It creates that strong corner um that you often want to look for uh for these corner properties. Um and along the vast majority of that frontage, we are being set back about 2
ft 9 in. And that allows us to have landscaping along that frontage. So I think overall that frontage is really going to look very nice and it's going to be um consistent with what you see overall along the street, which is you do have some front yards along the
street. We're going to be providing that that landscaping that front yard along uh Crescent. Uh in terms of the minimum rear yard, you all saw the diagram. We're asking for that small little sliver of the rear
yard. It really just comes down to we're working with an odd shape back there and we want to square off the building. Um again, I think that we're uh generally meeting the intent of the standard. we are creating the cutout in the rear yard. Um it's just because of the shape
that we are going to still need that that relief. Um overall the building meets our coverage standards. So we're not asking for coverage relief. It's really more due to the shape. So again, I look at that as more of a hardship um due to the shape of the lot than than
anything else. All right. Um I think overall the the um okay so the last one is the rooftop a pertinent height. Um again this has to do with the fact that we are creating a
rooftop um access that meets ADA. Um, so we do need a an impertinance uh height of 15 feet for the elevator bulkhead where a maximum of 10 feet is permitted uh for rooftop apartments for buildings under 45 heat 45 ft under the ordinance.
Again, this is necessary to meet ADA. The uh uh elevator bulkhead is set back sufficiently. It won't be visible from the street. So there really I don't see there being any substantial impact associated with that additional height. Um I think overall this project presents a better planning alternative than a
completely compliant project. Uh we are going to have um uh you know we're we're providing compliant side and rear yard setbacks. Um we're com providing compliant
coverage. Uh but because we're asking for that additional height, we're also able to provide compliant parking. Um, and that's not something you would see with a with a fully compliant building. I think overall, uh, this project advances the municipal land use law. Um,
it's consistent with purpose a an appropriate residential use. Um, I really think this project advances the city's goals of incentivizing the creation of new affordable housing um you with utilizing the ICO um with a
design which really accommodates the neighborhood's need for off- streetet parking. Um so that that building mass with that fourth story that's what really allows us for that 15 off street 15 off streetet parking spaces on the ground floor. um if we provided a
conforming height of three stories, we could still provide the same number of units under the AHO uh with no parking variance. Um so I really I think here the benefit of granting the variance is that really outweighs that detriment because
you get the benefit of the parking and it's the same number of affordable units, the same number of overall units. So, I really think that that height asking granting that height gets that benefit of that parking. Um, I think, you know, we're providing an adequate light air and open space consistent with
purpose C. Um, we're meeting all the lot coverage requirements. We're providing conforming sideyard. Uh, our rear yard, as as mentioned, is meets the intent. It's just an awkward shape. Um, we are promoting an appropriate population density consistent with
purpose E. um you know again that that density allows us for that diversity of housing types. It creates the opportunity for those affordable housing units. Um and I think it promotes a desirable visual environment consistent with purpose I um you're constructing a
new building on a what is a vacant overgrown site. You're going to be removing that chain link fence. You're going to be installing brand new sidewalks and the sidewalks are really rough. um you're adding the six new street trees where there aren't any street trees right now. Um and you're going to get that front yard
landscaping, you know. Uh so I really think that that corner is going to be so vastly improved over what's there today. I I think it really will be uh a gamecher for this this corner. I don't see that these variances will result in a substantial detriment to the
general welfare. Um again, multifamily housing uh is consistent with residential character of the neighborhood. The height and bulk is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and provides sufficient setbacks to provide light and air to adjacent properties. The project's massing effectively integrates the
increased density um and setbacks with sensitivity to the surrounding context while allowing for that that benefit of the the on-site parking. I don't see this resulting of substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the zone plan or the zoning ordinance. Um, it advances the Jersey
City's master plan uh goals to provide unique, attractive, and high-quality residential uh uh development uh and residential areas to serve existing and attract new residents with a wide range of housing and lifestyle choices. So, um
I really think that this project uh it is the the better design alternative um and it it meets both the uh the criteria for both the D and the C variances requested. >> Thank you, Carolyn. Just a just a couple of follow-ups as well. Um, and I think
you and especially Mr. Patel are were definitely very humble. Um, I think I I don't I don't think it should be taken for granted that this building was clearly very curated for this particular property, not just based on conversations with the community and city planning, but based on some of those site challenges that you've
discussed. Um, so going through, you talked about the beautifification of the corner, which I think is is quite obvious. I mean, anybody that looked at those pictures, I think, gets a or has been to the site has has a good understanding, but even the the minute details, right, the front yard landscaping to be able to pinch in um
making sure that we meet that rear yard, rear lot point intent in the back, um the ability to provide a really really nice facade on both frontages inclusive of the architectural elements, the roof that you see in the area. Um so I I I
don't think it should be taken for granted that those are all there. So, I just want to confirm, you know, from your perspective, do you feel that given all of those improvements as well as some of the other technical improvements, the storm water management, the street trees, everything that were the green roof, everything that we're adding to the site, that this
project as proposed is truly a better planning alternative than what could be done as of right. Right. Because that's really what the test is. >> Uh yeah, I do. And and again um the project
the the requested bulk variances again really they stem from the shape. Other than that the footprint of the building is conforming right and and we've created that push and pull to essentially meet that uh to to square off a building on what is not a square
property. Um you know I think it's really going to create a really attractive corner. It's the type of corner you want to see. We're not right up against the corner. We're providing that push and pull. We're providing the landscaping. Those are all the things that the ordinance is designed to provide and that's what's being created.
Um, you know, and again, I I think that you you could create a more compliant building, but it's at the expense of the parking, right? Um and I think that in this neighborhood that that was the major concern of the community
residents, you know, we we pulled back, you know, an application that uh uh we had where we had reduced uh some parking based on certain comments from city planning um to create a a a better
footprint. Um but when it the parking became such a concern and even then we were still compliant. we still had 12 parking spaces that still exceeded the 10 that are required under the R1 based on the.3 spaces per bedroom. Um
the cons the community was so concerned um and we were able to pull it back and we were able to re um and and Avar was great. He he was able to to um move things around in the building. So, we weren't creating more bulk, but we were
able to use it more efficiently. And so, we were able to get those extra three spaces and that was really important to the community and that was what was done. Um, but it didn't mean that we needed more bulk. we were able to somehow fit it in. And and so I think
this design team has really tried um to to really accommodate the push and pull that we've been getting from from the city, from this the community to create a I think what is a really really well-designed project. >> Thank you. And just two more. One is very basic. I know on the uh on the
agenda we'd initially asked for variance for having a stilted building. I just wanted to confirm that's no no longer needed given that we were able to enclose the building in the rear. Is that right? >> Right. Um so that was when we sort of rejiggered the parking. Uh we were able to actually enclose it. So we were able
to eliminate that variance. Um so you know I think it again it resulted in a better project when we pulled it back and were able to to move things around in that ground floor um and to to create that the extra spaces but it also enclosed them and it did eliminate the variance.
>> Okay. And then lastly, you mentioned it about the ICO, especially as it pertains to larger lots like this, um, roughly 9,200 square f feet. Is it fair to say that, you know, one of the major purposes of the ICO was not to serve as a penalty to developers for seeking
additional density, but rather in certain situations to actually be used proactively to obtain additional affordable housing that wouldn't otherwise be provided on usually on smaller lots? So I I look at it is the the city's goal
is to create more affordable housing and the IGO and the AHO were created as both uh I would sort of inter them as incentives, right? Um people we we were always here asking for for um for
variances. Um, but with this it's sort of built in, but it also sort of incentivizes developers to say, you know, I I could and in this case for me, this for this particular project, this
developer could have gotten the same number of units through the AHO, right? Uh, which is the affordable housing overlay and that would have been a compliant height compliant, you know, with generally compliant bulk. Um, but we're here because of that height, that
extra story, and that's really what kicked this from AHO to IO. Um, and so I think that it really, it's sort of the incentive to say you could still get the same number of density, you could still get the same number of units, but that the incentive
here is that we're creating a building with that allows for that parking. Um, so I do think that there are some incentives uh built in within the ICO, but it really, yeah, it's it's the city's way of encouraging development uh while still creating more affordable
housing. >> Okay. And then lastly, this board obviously doesn't see first of all the volume that the planning board does, but even more the volume of applications that are just submitted straight for permits because they don't have density variances, right? Density has to come before this board. So, you know, given
that they don't see all the other projects that do not have this, do you feel that again in this particular scenario because that's this is the application before the board that seeking that density variance in order to provide the affordable housing in order to generate the parking in excess
of what's required and really respond to community needs and community comments makes this a a good a good site and a good location for this density. >> Yeah, I do. Um again the the the differences between the AHO is uh and
that's a different mechanism where um and we can't seek height variances on we can't seek height variance under the AHO um but if we under the AHO there it there's language that basically says you you can do whatever density you want
right so we would never have to seek a density variance under the AO uh because we were doing a taller building here and again the taller building is what allowed us to provide the parking that's what kicked this to an ICO that's what kicked us to this board so yeah I mean I
this application and very similar applications oftentimes do proceed before the planning board um with very similar densities and they don't provide the parking um because it's not required and under the ICO the parking is not required um but I think that's the
benefit here for this application >> thank you madam chair I have nothing further for Miss Worst. >> Thank you. Um I don't see anyone from the community here that wants to make any comments. So I will close out the public portion of the meeting. Uh and I'll turn ask my commissioners if they
have any comments or questions uh that you would like to ask of any of the individuals that were here tonight. >> Just just to uh clarify, you said the height difference was 7 or 7 and 1/2 ft. Correct. >> 7 and 1/2 ft. Correct. >> Okay. So for 7 1/2 ft, you got more
parking, more bicycles, affordable units, and nobody from the public to complain. >> That's a great summary. >> Okay, >> I was going to say after, but >> So I have a question. I have a couple of questions. Um when Carolyn was
presenting and they showed the pictures 75 Crescent, there are windows on that side of the building. Um, how close are is this building that you're putting up coming to that and what kind of effect is that going to have on that those
units with all the windows on the side? >> Let Mr. Patel respond to that. Let me just pull up the All right. Um so the adjacent building uh on the Crescent Avenue side uh this is the this
is our property line and uh um that is about 4 1/2 ft setback from the property line and our building along that that side is also uh you know on this side it's 3'2 and as you go towards the back
you know it opens up. So uh roughly it would be um about 8 1/2 9 ft between two buildings and on that side we are keeping minimal windows um where it's uh required per code like the the bedrooms
located on that side requires an egress window. So um let me just go to that elevation. Sorry. Um as you can see uh we have the staircase. So there are no windows over there and then uh just a bare minimum windows where the bedrooms are located
uh especially facing the the other building but the buildings are spaced apart like you know typical uh R1 district you know 3' one two on one side and two so about 5T you know it's almost double over here. >> So what you're saying is that this building or any other building will impact the amount of light that the
[clears throat] building that would normally have gotten. Uh I mean the again the distance is almost double so um the impact would be minimal if any. >> Okay. >> Okay. And I had another question. Um Mr.
you talked about mass transit other than buses. What else is there? I mean you mentioned bikes but mass transit. >> Yep. So happy to address that. So yeah, obviously there's all the bus stops as well, but there's also the Garfield Avenue uh light rail station that's
about a third of a mile to the south. So that's also within walking distance from the building that residents can avail [snorts] themselves of. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. >> My question to the um what time of the day that you may do
study? >> Put your mic. Use your mic, please. what time of the day that you do the did the traffic study on that area? >> Uh we looked at the weekday morning and then the weekday afternoon peak hours. So somewhere between 7:00 to 9 in the
morning and then 4:00 to 6:30 >> from 7:00 to 9 >> 7 to 9:00 a.m. and then [clears throat] 4:00 to 6:30 p.m. >> But just knowing that uh Clinton Avenue is one way going to Medicine and the only way out of that area is going to communibu. >> Mhm. and community born that time 7 and
9:00 it's a mess. >> Yeah. Yeah. So it's there's a lot of areas of the city, right? We know that there's a lot of congested and um that's one of the aspects of this is that there will be minimal traffic added to the to the roadway. So regardless of what those existing conditions are, we wouldn't
anticipate the level of traffic being generated by this site to um you know worsen that to to any measurable amount. Um, as I mentioned, the number of vehicles coming out of the building during that time is less than 10. It's
about five trips or so in any one hour. Um, so you know, one car every 10 to 15 minutes or so. So there's not going to be, you know, a flooding of cars coming out to commun at rush hour or something like that. >> Okay. Have you include the time there's
a funeral in the funeral home across the street or on Sunday where there's two activist churches in the same block? >> Yeah. So >> yeah. So we mainly just looked at the impacts associated with the peak hours with this particular use. So the Sunday
or the Saturday the weekend time periods weren't um specifically looked at. Um but with the residential with it being a residential use the main impact would be during the week. And during the weekends, yes, there's still going to be some activity in and out, but it's usually more dispersed uh throughout the
day. It's not so concentrated during a single one to to two hours. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. There was a lot of emphasis on um [clears throat] affordable housing, affordable housing, affordable units. So, am I understanding it correctly?
There's two units that are affordable. >> Correct. two two on-site units, a onebedroom and a threebedroom. And then there's because the 10% of 22 is 2.2. There's um I think it's $36,000 gets paid to the affordable housing trust fund as well.
>> No, he he answered the question. >> Okay. >> Does anyone else have any questions? Okay. Can we hear from the staff, Miss Marion? So I believe I was connected to the first approval in 2014 when the building
was still there. Um and there's a long history on the site even when the building was there um I think trying to save the building and so on. And um building was eventually demolished I believe 2017 because it was structurally unsound and
was also basically being stripped of all of its materials while it was standing. Um so this board originally approved this application for I believe 25 units um five stories even though it was keeping the building they were increasing the number of floors within
the existing building [snorts] um and uh the parking was u on the in in the lot next door. So the building came down and they would have to come back. They had to come back to the board and they really were not able to come to a consensus with the community just so for
like time reference that started in 2020. So it is 2025. Um I believe there's a a new crew not that that means anything but um a new crew attached to this application um with the revisions that were made with a community um
support. And so, uh, it's different when the density standard for the R1 is 42 units an acre. You have to take into consideration that the 42 units an acre was for mainly threetory
25 by 100 lots. Um, and so when you have larger lots or you have larger buildings, um, just based on efficiency, you're going to be able to fit more units and not feel like you are squeezing the 10 lb in a 5 lb bag. Um,
so the layout here is is pretty efficient. Um, the height, even though it is uh 20% more than would [snorts] be allowed, it is only just the additional story and the prior approvals on this site are for five stories. um less parking. And what I like about this
parking is it doesn't need any stackers. I hate stackers. That's my professional opinion. [laughter] But uh obviously uh this is a long time coming. Um so staff does recommend approval, does think that it meets the positive criteria. Mr. Wine has worked
with myself and the person who was doing this before, which is Eric, which you all know. Um and so I in my staff memo, I listed five conditions. I can read them in the record or we can just acknowledge that you got them and we can put that as a part of the record. >> Yes. And I take no exception to
compliance with them. >> Okay. Um any questions following [clears throat] staff? Okay. Um so then at this time I am asking for a motion um to vote on Z2025-000035 with conditions. >> Madam Chair, I'd like to Excuse me.
Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve KZ2025-000035 as presented to the board this evening. >> Can I get a second? >> Second, Mr. Pendulum. >> Yes, Madam Chair. Um, Vice Chair Ruo,
>> Vice Chair. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Um, Commissioner Shadid. Well, I knowing the area very well and the traffic is going to be a mess, but I I was really convinced when the planner
expert said that um it could be worse if you have three floors and no no parking space and uh that would make it so difficult to for the traffic there in that area. I attended the funeral there
um and I know it was a mess. Uh, but having four floors and 15 is base, it makes sense to me. So, my my my votes yes, >> Commissioner Allen. >> So, I I I was really optimistic back in the day. I thought they was actually
going to keep the old building, but I understand it was, you know, made out of wood. It was being stripped like Tanya said. Uh, this is a nice design, so I'm a Yes. >> Commissioner Chiplicki. >> Yeah. Um, just on the the traffic, I'm
assuming that's why the neighborhood was they were probably concerned about the funeral parlors and everything else and traffic there as well. That's why, you know, them living there and knowing that. So, you adjusting that parking and working for so many years on this
project and seeing that no one's here to complain about it. Um, obviously you did what you had to do and patience paid off. I vote yes. Commissioner Burns, >> we very seldom see a project come through that includes parking these
days. So, you have you you have my approval on this project. >> Commissioner Koviello >> and Chair Coyle. Although I think the building is attractive [clears throat] and I think
the neighborhood needs it, I don't think there was a compelling presentation tonight for me to say yes to all these variances that were requested. It's like we're building by variance. Um, and you know, coming forward just asking for all of these variances when you could have
possibly designed something that you didn't need all these variances. So, I'm voting no. >> All right. Motion carries 6 to1. Thank you everybody. I appreciate the time. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> Okay.
So, we do have some other business to take care of at this time. Uh we have some resolutions that we need to memorialize. >> Yeah, let's do that. All right. We have four uh resolutions to memorialize. All four were for applications of uh
extensions of existing approvals. All four were heard on December 11th. All four were approved, six in favor, none opposed. So the six uh in attendance on December 11th were acting
chairwoman Aoyo and then Commissioner Shadid, D'Angelo, Burns, Zublicki, and Allen. So the first resolution to memorialize for an extension is the applicant was a 79 Roma Realy
LLC. It was case Z2025-000087. The address was 79 Romanian Avenue. All in favor of memorializing that? I >> I. >> And the next one is case number Z 2025-000086. The applicant was Davey Mata 847 LLC.
The address was 847849 Communipore [snorts] Avenue. Again, it's an extension u of the U approvals. All in favor of memorializing that. >> I. >> And the next one, again, December 11th, same six commissioners, same six vote.
The applicant was HW Y1 139 Realy LLC. The case number was Z2025-000083 and the address was 88 state highway 139. All in [snorts] favor of approving that extension.
>> I the last Z2024-000012. The applicant was Hassan Chowry. The address was 1811 JFK Boulevard and again uh that was another extension that we approved. All in favor of appro me memorializing that I
>> I >> I. >> And that ends it. >> Okay. Um before we call for a vote to adjurnn, I'd like to say welcome to Roco Caviello and Patrick Patel. Um we look forward to having you on the board and working with us and welcome. Okay. Um so
at this time I make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Can I get a second? >> Second. All in favor of adjourning. I meeting a jerd.