Welcome to the August 7th zoning meeting of adjustment of the city of Jersey City. Eric, may we have um the sunshine announcement? Yes. In accordance with the open public meeting act, notice has been provided to the Bergen Record, LSPito, as well as
posted with the city clerk. I'd like to request to mark this is B1 for the record. Sorry, this one. Okay. May everyone please join me with the uh flag uh salute to the flag
algiance 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. Eric, may we have roll?
Yes. Commissioner Zlicki here. Commissioner Burns here. Commissioner D'Angelo here. Commissioner Shadid here.
Commissioner Baron here. Acting Vice Chair Allen here. Oh, you're vice chair. I'm sorry. Commissioner Allen. I forgot I'm the vice chair. Got it. Acting chair rule here. Okay. Okay, we have seven commissioners.
We have quorum. May we swear in staff? Yes. Just note that just stepped out. Okay. Okay. Please be advised that advised no
new cases will be started after 10 p.m. We will try to finish the case being heard. However, if an applicant cannot be heard due to the lateness of the hour, then the case will be carried over to the next regular schedule meeting
with preservation of notice. Okay. Eric, do we have any not any u notices, correspondence or adjournments? Yeah, I'll just like to reiterate what we already have listed under adjournments. Um, so item A, case Z2024-0038,
311 Ocean Avenue is being carried to September 11th. Um, item B, case Z2025-0056 85 Sherman Place. This item is being carried to September 11th with preservation of notice.
Thank you. And with that said, we're going to start with new business. The first case is case Z 2025 0029 and that is 114 Bronswick Street. Mr.
Wine Good evening madame acting chair commissioners for the record of prime on behalf of the applicant. How we doing? Much better. Much better. Now I can hear myself. Okay.
I'm here before you this evening um first for an application for a D1 use variance in order to occupy the uh the vacant retail space at 114 Brunswick Street which for the record is block
11005 lot 36 as a category 2 restaurant. So this is a fairly straightforward application and that we're not proposing any changes to the actual site itself. This is an existing building which you'll hear about from our professionals and uh and it's a vacant storefront which has a unique little feature of a
little mezzanine level that's been there. Um I I always am terrified to use the word historic, but the building that's there um is is rather old and and rather intact in place. So rather than proposing a new development, uh my client is seeking to fit out the
existing space with a restaurant. I want to be clear that the use variance application is for one somewhat technical item but it's obviously what puts us before the board this evening. So this zone the RC3 permits category 2
restaurant hyphen cafes but does not permit category 2 restaurants. The fundamental difference if you read your definition section is that the latter includes a kitchen whereas a cafe does not include a kitchen. So, the D1 use variance that we're here for this
evening is because we have a kitchen associated with our proposed restaurant which will be called ODA Bar 2, ODA Bar 2. Um, you'll hear from our operations expert who's actually the owner of the company and uh she's she's uh she's got quite the history and quite the
background, but the specific type of restaurant, it'll be a Georgian wine bar and restaurant. Um, and again I heard a cheer and uh and we had a wonderful opportunity to meet with the VNA association, with Mr. Hoffman, his association on a couple of occasions.
Um, I don't want to put words in their mouth, but they were thrilled about this and and very excited to see it come to a storefront on Brunswick Street. So, with that, um, I do intend to call three witnesses this evening, and they'll be brief, but, uh, but it is important. The first one will be our project architect,
Daniel Weaver, who's going to walk through how the fit out will practically work. Then we're going to have hear from the owner and operator, Anastasia, who will be able to speak to exactly the hours of operation and what what type of service this will be. And finally, we'll finish with Charles with our planner,
who will walk you through the planning justifications for that use variance. So, madame acting chair, unless you have any questions of me, I'm happy to proceed with my first witness. Go right ahead. So, that'll be Dan. I'll step aside. Light plug in.
Yes. Do you swear that I do. Daniel D. Weaver, WA V is in Victor Eer. Thank you. Thank you. So Dan, I'll just walk you through while I know what Eric Stewart
plugged in. While we do that, I'm just going to get you qualified. So, if you can please give the board the benefit of your educational and professional background and the status of your license. Sure. Um I uh I'm an architect licensed in the state of New York and New Jersey. Uh I received my degree in 1995 from the
University of Cincinnati. Um it is in my license are both in good standing. Um, and I was uh previously the not that it bears any um any uh relevance relevance perhaps, but I was the I was
on the zoning board uh for the city of Hoboken for I think over eight years and I was also on the uh the planning board for Hoboken for five. And for the record, uh Mr. Weaver used to give me a very hard time when I appeared before Hoboken. So feel free to return the favor. Feel free. Um, with that, uh, madame
acting chair, I would, uh, submit Mr. Weaver as an expert in the field of architecture. Okay. Thank you. So, Dan, um, if you can pull up the plans. See, we're trying. Still working on it. Check my settings.
Whoops. There we go. Okay. So Dan, if you can walk the board um briefly but uh and succinctly but obviously uh with detail through uh through the proposed floor plan and the fit out that we're proposing as well as uh any change to the frontage or
elevation. Sure. I will I will try to go as fast as I can. So if you have any questions um let me know if you want me to slow down. I have um been asked to slow down before by the court reporter. Uh there's no questions on the front on the
first page. It's it really just says what our um what our variances are that we're going after. We our lot is not um is it does not comply. Uh it's not conforming, but then again it also um it's pre-existing condition. The
this is the existing plan. You can see I'll go left to right. The seller plan we have it's it's really just a seller with uh the hatched area on the lefth hand side is where we have some existing mechanicals down there. And you can see the stairs at the bottom. That's the the sidewalk doors which currently exist.
That's the only entrance um into the cellar. Uh at the ground floor, you'll see uh the street trees, the curb, the existing sidewalk door. And you will then as we try to get into the building, you'll see the the the existing security
grate which was added at some point u which covers the entire ground floor facade. It's not very welcoming. Inside the great there's this sort of um uh this vestibial almost area which is still outside but behind the gate um and then you get into the store. Uh this was
previously a pharmacy and then I believe a record store among other things there where you see the dashed X that's an open to above area. So really that's a twotory area. As you get to the back that's a lower one-story area where we have the mezzanine above. Um you'll see
behind that uh there's a a small stair which leads you up to that mezzanine. that stair is non-compliant for code both in width and in rise and run for the stairs themselves. If we go to the right hand uh plan, you'll see that there is actually a mezzanine which has
two portions to it. There's the portion on the on the left which is where the stair lands and you'll have the portion on the right as we go through. This is the existing condition today. I'm just going to This was not in your original package. Um I will provide these to the court. We can
mark them in the evidence. Yeah. So, just for the record, let's just uh call this A1 um which would be an existing photo of the existing uh facade. Correct. Yes. This is existing photo. This was taken on March 6, 2025. Um there's a little key on the lefth hand side which shows the direction that we're um that
we're looking. We're going to move inside in a moment, but what you can see on the outside is the the bay windows uh which are which then look into that two-story space and the and then in black the uh the storefront behind the the really unfriendly security grading
going inside. If we look on the mezzanine down, this is like a plan view almost. Um you can toward the entry you can see as a pharmacy this was a really beautiful spot with the and there's a lot of potential here for the for the to be a community resource a gem really. Um
these are the built-in mahogany um uh display shelves which was the actually the one thing when they met with the land owner the the the landlord they said you can do whatever you want but don't don't touch these. I put these in with my father and and honestly as an architect uh going into the next one
interior condition too, we don't really want to touch these. We think we just need to clean them up. We need to clean the wood floor, redo the wood floor and um and uh and the owners just really want to bring this back to its its sort of former glory. It's very cozy
and we think it has a it could be a great a great um amenity for the community. The plan now that we're proposing the seller, we're going to add some mechanical units downstairs. Um um garbage storage, right, where we can
keep downstairs and we can bring out to the sidewalk uh when it's time um for for pickup. You can see in the back we have now put in a new stair which which goes up and over and lands at the mezzanine on the upper right hand
side. Limited seating upstairs. Um downstairs we have a little bit of a um a raised bar when you come in the door. The gate has been removed, right? So now it's more friendly. It's inviting. Um we have lighting underneath that black
cornice um which rides over the top of the entryway. So there'll be a pool of light there to invite you in. Um it really we have two ADA ba we have an ADA bathroom and a regular bathroom. Um we're doing our best to make this as accessible as possible and updating it.
Um, we have a very small limited kitchen in the upper right hand side behind the the ADA bathroom. Um, the kitchen is all electric. We have a so there won't be any grilling there per se. There's not going to be you're not going to have flame broile, you know, smoke development. We're going to um we will
have an exhaust hood and the exhaust hood will vent um through the second floor uh to the roof and it will ex actually uh will actually exhaust uh 30 in which is a code minimum above any roof within 10 ft uh left and right of our property.
If you look at the center of the roof of the proposed roof plan left and right um those those buildings actually have higher roofs than we do um and there's no windows in those walls. So, um,
finally, lastly, just to document, um, you know, the we're going to be replacing any of the windows in the back which need to be replaced or fixed. We're going to be removing the gate. Um, we have, uh, we have zoning compliant lighting signage, so an indirect signage on, um, lighting signage on the signage
will be on the on the corners. Um, we are allowed 25 uh square feet of of signage. um we don't think we're going to need that much. Uh and some of that 25 square feet may be applied to some signage on the door itself,
although you only allowed um 25% of the door of the glass of the door for your signage. So in this in this scenario, we could have three square feet maximum on this glass door um on on the new glass door and then we could have some signage 21 square feet maximum on the on the
black uh cornice. And Dan, just to confirm while you're on that, so obviously you understand that any signage once it is curated and and prepared, if it does not meet the uh the city's signage requirement, it would have to return to the board for Oh, of course. Okay. Of course. Yes. We're not asking for a signage variance at all. We're just
saying whatever we do would would comply. Yes, it would. Yes. As of right. So to speak. That's my testimony. Okay. The only follow-up question I have is just to confirm that you highlighted some of the building improvements, but uh so you're going to look to restore some of the interior components you
discussed in terms of building code compliance. Um just want to confirm. So the stairs you're proposing will now be code compliant. The stairs are code compliant. Uh and the bathroom is uh is accessible and the door right now the door is is is not quite 36 in uh which is what we need for
egress and it swings into the property. Um, so the benefit of us having this recessed entryway in fact is that when the door swings out, what you need to do for egress, it will not swing over the property line as is a problem. Sometimes we actually have the space for the door to swing out. Um, but it will be 36
inches wide. One of the problems with the door, we would have liked to have kicked the door frankly, but uh I don't know if I have the photo of it. Um, no I don't. It's actually been Yeah, the door has sort of been filled in with it's lost its glass. It's been filled in with a piece of plywood. It's It's not
thermally broken. It's It's not um It's not great. So, we're hope to improve that and really make this a gem for the community. Thanks, Dan. I have no further questions for this witness. Your next witness. Sure. So, with that, I will call up
Anastasia Alaj. Do you testimony? Yes. Uh, it's Anastasia. It's actually Savad, my legal name. Elijah's my husband's last name. T S I V. T S I V A D Z E.
Witnesses. Thank you. So, Anastasia, unlike uh what you just saw Mr. Weaver go through. Um, while you're definitely an expert in what it is you're going to present tonight, you're not formally an expert witness. So, uh, if you can just confirm for the board what what it is that what your involvement is with this restaurant
so that we can qualify you. Um, so I'm one of the owners with my husband. Uh, we have um this restaurant concept already upstate New York um that has been there for 2 years. We just celebrated our 2-year anniversary. Um
it's a really loved place. Uh it's open on weekends there only because it's more of like a weekender village. Um and near a ski resort. Um we kind of piloted the concept there because it was safer and
kind of more manageable and it's doing really well. We have um almost 150 reviews on Google with five stars um that praise the food, the service, and the unique um types of wines that we're offering. Uh the wines are from the
ancient world regions. So, it's not something that you would encounter in um very easily. It's but it's from our culture. So, it's something that we grew up with and kind of knew about before it became trendy. Um, and the food is
Balkan country food, which is represents my husband's heritage, um, who is from Kosovo and grew up with that cuisine. Thank you. And just to confirm, you and your husband will be overseeing the operations of this facility. Is that right? Yes, me and my husband will be
overseeing the operation of the Okay. restaurant. And you live locally for what it's worth as well, right? Yes, we um live just a few blocks, less than a 10-minute walk from the place, which is how we came across it. Um when we started thinking about bringing this concept to Jersey
City, we were walking by and we stopped through the window and said, "Oh my god, look how interesting this bases inside." And we had like our um real estate agent reach out uh to the landlord and he was really kind to give
us the time um to go through the zoning um without like on the lease so that we could go through this process and hopefully get your approval. Thank you. So let's just turn to some of the operations a little bit just so that the board can understand what it is that they're voting on this evening. Um, so
in terms of the proposed days and hours of operation, what are you looking at? Uh, we're going to be open about 5 days a week. Um, from t um or maybe six from Tuesday to Sunday. Um, we will be
opening in the evenings. So, the staff will arrive at 4:00, we'll open at 5, and we'll probably be closed by 11:00. Uh depending on how the community responds, it's possible that on Friday and Saturday it will open later. Okay. And to the extent that it becomes
very popular, just for drinks after 11, it would it wouldn't be like the kitchen wouldn't be open late. Sure. And to the extent it becomes really popular, um might you at some point consider adding a lunch hour? Uh possibly on Saturdays. Um the place
is quite like dark and more suitable for the evening operation, but of course if if our um clients welcomed a lunch hour, we would happily add that as well. Okay. And in terms of the number of staff, how many people are you expecting
to work at the restaurant? It would be probably four people during the week um and up to seven people uh on weekends. Okay. in terms of deliveries. So, we'll start by going in. So, how many
deliveries do you expect coming to your property every week, let's say? Um, so there are two types of deliveries um that we get, which is the food deliveries uh from pretty well-known companies that deliver to all the other
restaurants um in the area. I don't know which days they are in Jersey City, but it's usually two to three days um that they deliver and it's usually the first half of the day. Okay. And then there's wine deliveries that are usually a couple of times a week as
well. We don't need it twice a week, so we probably get that once a week. Okay. And how about deliveries out? So, are you planning to have any type of, for example, catering service or would it be more Uber Eats, Door Dash, things like that? We don't have immediate plans for
takeout because our kitchen is quite small and we want to make sure that we're managing high quality inside of the restaurant first. But of course, if we became popular, there are some items on the menu that are really suitable for takeout, like um our Borack pies, which
are some people say is bulcan pizza. I don't like that it's not bulcan pizza, but um they're these really large pies that are easy to share and very family friendly. So, I could see those becoming possibly something we could offer an Uber Eats one day. Okay. But you wouldn't have a like a
delivery truck as part of your business that would live in front of Okay. No, perfect. And um and then I think that's uh that's really it. Um oh, lastly, just regarding garbage pickup, um I assume that would be the way that every other business operates with their trash pickup.
Yes. Um so my understanding is most restaurants in Jersey get a private um service to collect their garbage. So we're definitely can do that. Okay. Wonderful. I have nothing further for um for Anastasia at this point. Okay. Thank you.
All right. So my last witness slight change of pace. Instead of Charles, we're going to have Carolyn Worstelle. Good evening. I do. Carolyn Worstelle, witness. Thank you. Carolyn, if you could please give the board the benefit of your
educational prof and professional background and the status of your license as a planner in the state of New Jersey. As long as her license is sure current, we we we know her. Yeah. Yes, it is still in good standing this evening. Okay, we know you. Perfect.
Hi everyone. Good evening. So, Caroline, just real quick, you heard the testimony regarding the proposed use of the space um as well as obviously the D1 component that we're here seeking this evening for having a kitchen in this uh restaurant facility. So, if you can please walk the board through um
your justifications for the relief. Sure. Um so we're going to start off with sort of talking about that the use that is permitted here in this district and how it relates to what is being proposed. So um the city has about six different restaurant definitions
and in this um area the cafe restaurant category 2 um is the definition of what is is what is permitted. Um, and these are smallcale restaurants with limited seating engaged in the selling of light meals and drinks. That's the first
sentence. And in that respect, this proposed project is 100% that it's a small-scale restaurant, light meals and drinks, focuses on the wine bar aspect with light meals as you've just all heard. The second part is a cafe is designed to operate for substantial
carryout service, delivery service, self-service, counter service which may but is not required to include on premise consumption. Um that is very then the last part is that no commercial kitchen or ventilation systems are per permitted.
Um so that last aspect is really where we're seeking the need for this variance. Um there is uh the city does have a def separate definition for restaurant category 2 um which is very similar. It says a restaurant or mobile food vendor whose primary function is a
preparation and service by employees of food to customers as part of an operation designed to include substantial carry out service, delivery service, self-service and which may but is not required to include on-remise consumption except that no drive-in, drive-through or service vehicles is permitted. So, as you can tell, they're
they're very similar in the fact that the idea is that you grate food and it can be eaten on premise. It can be go out for delivery or or all these sorts of things. Um, but this restaurant category 2 does not have that limitation for the hood or the the kitchen or the
ventilation systems. So, we're here because we believe that um we're we need that uh variance because we have the kitchen and ventilation system. Um, additionally, it should also be noted that um,
there are other conditions that essentially say that cafe restaurant uses are permitted only on a ground floor. Um, as you heard the testimony this evening, this is a space that has a small mezzanine and so technically under the city's ordinance that is a second story
and so we do also need that D1 use relief because we're going to be taking this use up to the second story which is that mezzanine. Um when we look at D1 use variances, we look at the positive criteria under the Medi standard, which is the property is
particularly well suited to accommodate that proposed use. Um this project is very limited in scope. You know, as was you heard the space there, they're doing some minor improvements essentially to make it code compliant. You know, new
stairs, ADA bathrooms, that's something that any use, no matter what it was, would have to do. Um, and so really the the extent of the the improvements here that are really uh impacting this is the fact that we're putting in the kitchen. We have some minor upgrades with that,
but overall you have a space that is particularly suited. It it has, you know, uh, it's in a great location. Um, it has a really interesting interior that is going to be part of the character of what is being designed and
proposed to function here. Um and uh that mezzanine character, the configuration does make this a very difficult site to do something else with. You would have to do some substantial changes to this existing
space in order to make it compliant, right? You would have to recreate essentially an entire second floor that would either then have to be now residential or you know you it just you can't as it is today. This space would require some
sort of devariance relief if it was to even be used as like a retail space whatever because you have that configuration of the mezzanine which is only accessible from that ground floor. So, we really think that this is an appropriate use for this space given the
existing configuration. Um, we think that the cafe use here with the kitchen is also appropriate. Um, it's really consistent in character with um other sort of restaurant uses that are in this the surrounding area. Um, there's No
Forks Given which is actually directly across the street at 115 Brunswick. Um, El Rancho Rancherro Takaria and Second Street Bakery are both about 300 feet uh from the subject property. Um, and they all offer menus utilizing full kitchen
equipment. So, this type of use, this smallcale um restaurant cafe use is really consistent with the development and of this neighborhood. Um, and overall, I mean, this neighborhood, this is the neighborhood where people want to see
these types of uses. This is a scale of restaurant that is designed to be attractive to the local residents, right? And that's why you want to live in this part of Jersey City. You want to be able to walk down the street to your little restaurant and have a little bite to eat and get a little drink of wine and go on a date night with your spouse
if you have the chance, you know. Um, so, so it's really this is the type of use that you really want to see here and this is a perfect space for it. Um there's also just sort of some general aesthetic improvements overall to this project that really is the benefit. You
know, you're getting uh the replacement of all the broken glass, removal of that security fence at the front of the property, new paint, you know. So overall, this is taking a site that right now is, you know, not used, it doesn't look great, and really sort of activating it and creating an inviting
um space and use on the street. Uh in terms of negative criteria, I don't see any result uh substantial detriment the general welfare or to the intent of the zone plan. Um you know, the project specifically includes those safety improvements, the building code upgrades, code compliant stairs to the
existing non-compliant access to the second floor mezzanine and the ADA compliant bathroom at the ground floor. Um it's not going to offend the zone plan. uh you know these cafe smallcale restaurant uses um are contemplated you
know as a permitted use the cafe part um and you know overall the scale of the business is really consistent with this overall neighborhood um you know it's consistent with the master plan in that it uh strengthens neighborhood oriented
commercial areas um and it's consistent with RC3 district uh which is sort of intended uh to promote that ground floor commercial oriented use while maintaining the scale of the surrounding neighborhoods. So I think this project really is consistent with that. Um it
advances the purpose of the municipal land use law. Um you know it's an appropriate use. They'll promote the public health, safety, and morals consistent with purpose A uh by renovating that existing structure to be code compliant and in integrate uh introducing an active use to a currently
vacant commercial space and promoting a a vis a desirable visual environment consistent with purpose I uh by renovating and improving the existent uh existing facade. Um, so I think overall this project really can meet those both the positive and that criteria and that
this is a really a great and appropriate use for this site. Sounds great. Caroline, I just have one question for you. You mentioned uh date night with your spouse. Who has time for that? Every once in a while. Sounds nice. Um, with that uh madam uh
madame acting chair, I have no further questions and that would conclude my presentation. I would respectfully request the right to sum up or respond to any questions or comments. Okay. Um, are there any members of the public that would like to speak on behalf of what's being presented?
Do the commissioners have do the commissioners have any questions, comments? Go ahead. So, my question is, I guess to Mr. Weaver, so every You can sit down. So everything that's in there far as the
cabinets is staying and just getting refinished, the ceiling and everything. Yes, sir. Uh, one of the cabinets even is just going to be Yes, sir. Uh, in fact, one of the cabinets which is in um it's occupying the same zone that the stair will need
to take, that's actually going to be moved out and turned so we can still reuse that that that beautiful, you know, piece of mill work. Oh, yes. That's all beautiful. It just needs to be it really it just needs to be cleaned. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I mean it's it's fantastic.
Yeah. Yeah. Um my question would be is it handicapped accessible? So uh good question. There is one step at the front um to come in. Mhm. It's not coming on. But yes, there's
there's one if you if you have your your set in front of you, there's one step which is right at the perimeter where the current security grading is. Um we without tearing out that slab and rebuilding that. In fact, if we do Oh,
there we go. Fantastic. Um the uh uh if we do rebuild that slap, we would still have an uh like a 7in step out there um
which would not be able to meet code. So if we did put a a federal legislation and the building code for accessibility, we would not be able to meet the ramp um without drastically impacting the building. um
the the the toilet room um the facility in the back and the access to it will meet ADA and if if the board so chooses you know as a condition we could um a lot of establishments have um um service bells outside so if you need if you do
need assistance um they can then it'll alert someone inside who can then bring a transition element out which can get you up into um into the the the restaurant. Okay. Right. Any more questions? Okay.
What uh what's your estimated occupancy of the uh the whole Good question. Um because we only have one exit. It's really not driven by floor area. It's it's it's driven by the amount um of people that we can push
through that door, which with one exit by the state of New Jersey um is is 49 people. So, we're maximum of 49. Right now, we're showing 44 seats, which would allow um five more, if I do math correctly today, uh five uh service
people, but then there's also the entire area upstairs um if it's too busy that can be shut off or it can be compartmentalized. So, they can actually have a pretty good handle on the population, but and no one wants to get shut down by the fire marshal. I you know, so it's maximum 49 people,
including the staff. Any more questions? No. Eric? Yeah. Staff agrees with the testimony provided by the applicants professionals. Um, Brunswick Street is one of the four corridors that permits
commercial uses in the RC3 district excluding legal storefronts. Um it's uh as as they demonstrated, they're not expanding, you know, the existing commercial space. They're essentially just doing a interior renovation.
Um for those reasons, staff sees sees this as appropriate and recommends approval provided provided that the applicant agree to the conditions in the August 4th, 2025 staff memo. Yes. And we take no exception to those conditions. Okay.
Staff recommends approval. Okay, good. So, may I have a motion to approve? Second. I'll make a motion to approve. Um, my glasses on. The I'll make a motion to
approve the project case number Z2025- uh 0029 uh 114 Brunswick Street. May I have a second? Second. Okay. Commissioner Zlicki, I vote I. Commissioner Burns,
I. Commissioner D'Angelo, I. Commissioner Shaded, hi. Commissioner Baron, I. Acting Vice Chair Allen, this is a great use of space. I kind of see your vision.
I mean, it's your vision, but I understand what what you're trying to bring the oldness with the newness. So, I'm a Yes. acting chair rule. Um, I lived there for like 30 years in that area, so I'm very familiar with it and I love it. I think it's going to
look like a speak easy or something. It looks really great. So, I'm hoping to go in one day and have a glass of wine and have something to eat. So, yes. Motion carry. Seven in favor, none opposed. Thank you everybody. Okay. Good luck. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay. Okay. So, our next case Z2025 0020 and it's 128 Glennwood Avenue and Mr. Wine is representing the property.
Good evening madam acting chair um commissioners Benjamin Wine of Primeville and Misselli on behalf of the applicant. Uh for the record, um the application before you this evening is a continuation of an application that uh this portion of the application began
two months ago. Unfortunately, due to quorum issues, could not be completed last month, but we're able to uh to be here this evening with the goal of completing the application. This is also um a revised version of an application if you recall that uh that has been pending and seen before the board over
the course of the last over two years. Um the initial application was for a single building that was four stories tall for a four family residential building that was ultimately denied by this board and is currently in litigation throughout the course of that
uh period of time. The comments that we received really at that meeting and I and I think they were valid comments from this board and we took them to heart were that the design of the building, the massing of the building, especially the height, was something that while it complied with the R3 zoning standards, which is what the
remainder of the block that's not university zoned is, um, nevertheless, it it felt like that four stories and perhaps the design of the facade as well was not exactly in keeping with uh with what the neighborhood practically has. So during the course of this time, we
had an opportunity. I I can't tell you how many times I've been in touch with city planning. Um and the application we presented two months ago was basically a culmination of that effort to convert this to a three-story building. And every building up and down here other than what's zoned R3 is predominantly
three and four stories. So we're going with the threetory. And the reason that we did that is because we had compared our prior application to R3, which we felt was appropriate given what's on the rest of the block. the board felt otherwise and that's of course your prerogative. So what we've done now is we've compared it to an R1. Not only are
we compliant with the R1 standards, we're undercompliant. So we don't come anywhere near what the coverage would be in the R1 both building and lot and ult and in fact we're lower heightwise than what the R1 permits as well. And the reason that we chose R1 is because other
than a couple of very new actually really one nuanced historic district for certain oversized lots um much larger than what we have this that is your most restrictive residential zoning in the city of Jersey City. You could argue the RH2 but again we predominantly comply
with the RH2. We're a little bit deeper but we're actually narrower than what the RH2 would permit. So, we went with R1 not just because this was an opportunity to say, "All right, well, if that didn't work, what else can we throw at the board, it was really a calculated effort to take your comments to heart,
which included that a four-story building was something that was not what you wanted to see at this site and and as well the design features as well. So, we were we were here two months ago presenting our vision and uh some of the comments we received from the board. Um, I I don't want to put anyone on the
spot, but I know Commissioner Baron was very particularly um particular about it was the design of the building did not still feel like it met what the rest of the block was. So, we took the opportunity over the last two months to redesign the facade holistically. Um,
we're going to present that this evening because I think and I hope that you'll like what you ultimately see and realize that while yes, it's currently a vacant lot that is a community garden that is zoned for a university district. I'd like to think we've made the case that putting a university
use on a property that is no longer owned by the university, no longer cared for by the university, no longer interested by the university is not the appropriate use of this property. And residential is residential is something that previously existed here as you heard from our our experts. Residential
is what we're proposing and we're now proposing it with a principal building that is three stories matching the threetory look of the remainder of the block. So what I'd like to do this evening because um we obviously went through the bulk of our testimony two months ago. I'd like to recall my
architect for the limited component of being able to speak to the revised facade that we we worked on over the last two months. And then I'd like to call our professional planner, Charles Height, back up just to confirm that this revised design aligns with his previous planning testimony and can be
supported this evening. If I understand correctly, at the conclusion, of course, any questions of those witnesses is is appropriate and fine, after which point we would proceed to staff comment and ultimately closing arguments. So unless I misstated anything, I'll defer to Mr. Leaglia. Um, but uh unless I misstated
anything or unless you have questions of me, I'd like to recall Mr. Patel to speak to the changed facade. Okay. Sure. Thank you. Yes. Just a second. testimony. Yes, I do.
Uh, Avar Patel. A A V A R T P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P A A T E L. Thank you. Thank you. Um, so Avar, do you want to just confirm for the record that your your license uh remains in good standing since the last hearing? Uh, yep. It's been renewed for two years
and we're good till 2027, I guess. Okay. We'll circle back on that in 2027. Um, so madame acting chair, unless you have any concern with Mr. Patel, I'd like to have him continue and speak again in a limited capacity to um the revisions that he made between two months ago and today.
Okay, go right ahead. Um, I'm going to start with a with a front elevation and go to the floor plan to just talk about the the changes we did uh towards the the front facade. Um, yeah. No, it's it's a little tight with
the space. Um so we uh you know took all the comments received during the last meeting and uh went back to the the drawing board especially on the front facade uh trying to blend it with the with the other houses which are uh Queen
Anne style houses uh you know on the on the street and uh uh we basically you know took a lot of those elements and and tried to uh you know design the facade uh around it. Um, as you can see on the front, you know, uh, we had the stairs going up. We added a a porch and
then, um, continued, uh, along the the entire facade. So, um, and then, um, you know, uh, some of the column details just to kind of accentuate the the the front porch. Uh and then added the uh the cone roof uh uh over the um the
entry element which kind of creates that that that tower or the corner tower which is uh um you know predominant for for queen style architecture and then uh the bay window with a with a triangle roof with uh some of the the traditional
detailing up top. Um, uh, mainly the the floor plan kind of remain as is except the the the front porch, but I just wanted to start with the with the facade architecture and then walk you through the the floor plan. Uh, especially the way the the
porch is laid out. Now I'm going to go back to the um as you can see um uh the open stairs coming to a covered porch and uh uh the garbage area is basically underneath that and and the the porch kind of uh
spans the the entire width of the house. Um and that's where the entry to unit number one is. Um and uh on the sorry that was the first level. The second level uh again the same concept. The stair stairs will come
up to a a covered porch. Uh there's a door leading to the uh staircase going to the third level and then uh uh this porch will have uh opening for the unit number two. The the front door would be located here. Uh the door would be more
on a traditional style with a with a glass light uh and um glass door with a with a side lights. That's what we are proposing here. Um and then on the third floor um again we created the uh the corner uh
tower element which is also like a hexagonal bay and then uh a wider bay here with a with a triangular roof on top. Um other than that the uh the the number of bedroom count and and overall layout uh remain pretty much uh the way we had it
before. Um can can we see the roof deck? Oh yeah, sure. Sorry. Um so currently the uh the two upper units will have access to the roof deck. Um and let me just quickly take you to
the the floor below. Uh so unit two, you know, there's a staircase leading to the upper level. Um and then uh that would ultimately go to the roof deck. Uh and then same thing for for this unit. This staircase will continue. So that's why on at the roof level we have uh two
bulkheads. Um we are creating a green roof towards the back and then the front uh uh it's more like a um mansard roof which which is a typical for this type of architecture. Um it's not occupied
space. It's just the uh the roof space but uh we wanted to create the backdrop for um the u the corner tower and uh uh the box bay. Um again the the other elevations the side
and then the the rear elevation pretty much remained same. Um side elevation there were minor changes with the um with a with the front porch and then um uh the the box uh the hexagonal base. Um
same thing on the other side. Um and uh last time we did present uh uh like a streetscape comparison. Uh we did prepare another uh rendering which is uh
more I guess doesn't the street doesn't look like you know the floora it doesn't look like it but all the the buildings we went back to the site we took the pictures and then the materials are are closely resembles what's uh what's there uh today for so of our for the record I I this should
be marked as a whatever we're up to 475 um as this I believe this is an exhibit that was not previously submitted is that correct that is correct Okay. And oft um this portrays in a colorized I'm not going to call it 3D. I guess somewhere
between 2D and 3D version of what the experience might look like from the right of way. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. Avar, were there any other changes since two months ago that you wanted to go over? Uh no. I think that pretty much sums up everything. Okay. So would it be fair to say that
the facade was the main design change that uh was based on comments received from the board? Is that correct? That is correct. And then the floor plans, as you mentioned, changed obviously in shape based on accommodating that new facade. Is that right? That is correct. Okay. And then it's your opinion as an architect that this new facade um
adequately portrays the Queen Anne style that has been so heavily spoken about throughout these proceedings. Is that right? Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. I have nothing further for Mr. Patel at this time. Thank you. Okay. Does Miss Hygienus want to cross-examine?
I had a couple of questions. Go right ahead. Good evening, Mr. Patel. Good evening. Um, so did the board make other did they give you other feedback aside from the design?
Um I mean most of the feedback were was around the the facade and and the way we had it uh you know the previous design wasn't really um going well with a queen and style architecture. So uh most of our focus was on the facade.
Okay. So do you recall any of the other comments that that chairwoman Coyle especially made to a couple of months ago? Um if you can Yeah, I mean I'm just going to read back to you from the transcript um which was
this is page 125 of the transcript. She said uh Chairwoman Coyle said okay. So I have some questions. First I have to say I don't think you've convinced me that this is a hardship that the building has to be this size and have
the additional building behind it. I don't see the hardship in building something that fits in the neighborhood and is not that many stories, that many bedrooms, etc. That's the first. And then she she did talk about the style, which you responded to, so I'm going to
skip over that. And she said um about the companion project at 124. I would never want to see another building that size going right in between those other buildings there. So, I mean, I don't think it's consistent within the
neighborhood nor in the height with everything else that's there. So, those are my questions, my comments. Um, so, so would wouldn't you agree that the chairwoman's comments went far beyond just addressing the facade and design
changes? No. Um, uh, yes. Okay. And you haven't tried to address those comments? If I may, we responded to those comments. They're not really architectural comments. Those were responded to as planning comments. So,
we can certainly question inclus. So, did did did your response as an architect address these comments that Chairwoman Coyle made about the size, the number of bedrooms, the accessory
dwelling unit, the consistency with the neighborhood. Uh it addresses the the facade and the architecture related comments but uh uh not on the the floor plan. Okay. So, and the this the size and the scale are basically the same as what had
been presented two months ago pretty much. Okay, that's that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Your next Sure. My next witness will be Charles Height, our professional planner. I'll hi. Yes.
Do you test this evening. I do. Yes. Charles Height. Last name is spelled H E Y D T. Sure. And Charles, your license is still in good standing. Still in good standing as a professional
planner in the state of New Jersey. Okay. Wonderful. So, Charles, we'll get to that question in a second, but obviously you've seen the revised design. Can you speak a little bit about the planning justifications and the general context with the neighborhood especially given the uh the upgraded facade?
Yeah. Um so just to remind the board that the subject property is in the U University District in the city um adjacent to this neighborhood immediately adjacent is uh both the R3 and the R1. Um, as you heard there,
there was uh concepts for uh R3 uh consistent design on this property. Um, and what I think is is uh is very consistent with the R1 is what's being proposed with this application. Um, so
that has not changed the consistency with applying the R1 standards to this subject property that is uh in the university district. So, uh, as a reminder to the board, hopefully this is beneficial. Um, we are requesting a use
variance in the university district, uh, multifamily, uh, homes are are not permitted. Uh, and just to further clarify what is permitted, uh, college and colleges and universities, parks and playgrounds, dormitories, fraternity and sorority
houses or meeting halls. So, it's quite exclusive list. It's four permitted uses. Um, and quite frankly, uh, part of the testimony that I offered two months ago still remains. Uh, the subject property is about 3,581
square ft. It's not really conducive to, uh, a college or university itself. Um, as for a dormatory or fraternity house, um, one could be proposed on a small scale. Uh, and I would argue that a use of that nature would probably take a
very similar form that you have today um on this subject property. It's just a threetory smaller scale um type of of housing could actually be four stories I believe. Is that right? Correct. Um, so I think because we have
an application um for strictly residential housing, uh, and we're before the zoning board, uh, we are we are highly sensitive and highly contextual to trying to make what would be the best application to this board. Um, and with the revisions and some of
the comments on the aesthetics, uh, I do find that it has, uh, absorbed some of the consistency with the historic architecture of this neighborhood, of this streetscape, uh, as we saw from the rendering, uh, and and just internal discussions about some of the elements
that are being incorporated to the facade. Uh I do think that it it only furthers my earlier testimony that it's consistent uh and from a particular suitability that this residential uh use
in its appearance is now furthering um that appropriate suitability for the subject property. Um I did want to also reiterate um that we further special reasons. Um purpose C is
to provide for appropriate light, air and open space. The whole approach is to find the right sort of zoning parameters to help guide the development on this property because the university district is absent of zoning provisions for this
use. So we use the R1. It's the most simplest in its form. Um I do think we provide the appropriate uh setbacks and uh separations um to regulate uh with the R1 standards. Um we're an
appropriate population. Uh this is middle middle housing as we call it in the uh planning profession. Uh so I do think we're furthering purpose E providing an appropriate population density. Um and lastly and and really
even affirmatively with this reiteration or revision u purpose I to promote a desirable visual environment. Um I think we're we're achieving that with these revisions. So I wanted to reaffirm that uh as a planning purpose. Um
I covered last time the bulk variances needed um the minimum buffer um to an adjacent setback. Um again this is really a university district requirement if we are applying it to uh the proposed
um so we have a proposed setback of 2.9 ft um where 10 ft's required um that's again for a university use um but uh I do think the proposed setback is appropriate um where where it's occurring um
and again on on this lot being that it's uh um a smaller lot uh than their standard uh lot that would accommodate a university. If you applied 10 ft on both sides, you would render the property um
only with uh with a building width of 15t. Five feet. Uh sorry, five feet. Thank you. Um 25 foot wideus 10 - 10 leaves the 5t. So that that's unpractical. Um and I do think from a
setback standpoint that that's a hardship. So um what we are proposing is akin to the R1 standards with the uh with the approximately 3 ft of of setbacks on both sides. Um and then secondly the bulk requirement of maximum
height of an accessory structure. This is in reference to the ADU. Uh the ADU as designed is consistent with ADUs permitted in the R1 district. This requirement is specific to accessory structures in the university district. So again, um the maximum height
permitted is 15 feet. What we are proposing is 18 ft. Uh but I do believe the um the 3-foot difference is still consistent uh with both stat both standards. But we do need a bulk variance for for that. Um hopefully that
was a summary reminder. Um I do think that the bulk variances are subsumed with the use variance. again they're not really intended to regulate this sort of proposed residential smallcale infill housing. Um switching gears for the negative
criteria. Uh again just as a a reminder to the board um we did work extensively on this uh design. Uh I think the revisions in terms of the aesthetic improve uh aesthetic uh revisions do
actually advance the general welfare. They create consistency more consistency with the neighborhood uh and in my opinion don't have a substantial impairment in terms of the aesthetics. Um we are proposing a structure where
there is a vacant property today a garden a community garden. I realize that change and it's going from a very passive use to what in my opinion is is residential housing which is one of the
most passive uses albeit with a structure on the property. U but it's it's a very viable property in Jersey City. It's again 3,500 square feet. Um and it can accommodate the proposed housing. So um that's with respect to
substantial um impact to the general welfare. With respect to the impairment um the university district is one of those relic districts. Uh clearly the demand for dormatory housing has uh been removed or downsized with respect to St.
Peter's need for off-campus uh housing um sorority housing, fraternity housing, student housing. It's all residential in nature. Those are permitted. We have unaffiliated housing which is not permitted. So I'm not trying to mince
words, but it's very similar and akin to some of the permitted you one the the permitted use for dormitories housing. Um, for that reason, I don't think it's an impairment of the zone plan or zoning ordinance. It's actually trying to reinforce that
low uh low density housing is appropriate for uh this property and and consistent with the neighborhood. Um, and with respect to the bulk standards, I think they are subsumed in this case. Um, and we are in lock step with the R1 standards uh for what's being proposed.
So, that's my summary testimony. Again, I I was a little bit more uh detailed first go around. Thank you. Yeah. And I just I just have one followup. Uh those other uses you mentioned, those other housing uses bless you. Regarding the uh the dormatory housing, fraternity housing,
student housing, um being that that could be a four-story build, even if it was only a three-story building, would it be your opinion as a professional planner that those uses would be more intensive and nuisance in effect uh than a much more typical residential housing unit? I'm sure there's a movie about
this scenario. Uh I can't dictate if they are more occupants. They could that sort of permitted use could be designed to accommodate more occupants certainly. Um it's just the nature of dormitories, sharing resources, having more bedrooms.
It could be. Um so yeah, thank you. Um I have nothing further for this witness. Okay. Anyone else? Do you have So I I have nobody else. I would respectfully like the right to uh to sum up at the end. Um but I'm sure Miss Aanis has some questions for Charles. Okay.
Just just a couple of questions. Hi again. Hi. So um is an accessory dwelling unit a permitted accessory use in the U zone? Um
uh so I don't I would have to check the list of permitted accessory uses. Um the accessory dwelling unit is subsumed and associated with the permit principal
use. The accessory structure uh is contemplated because there there are setback requirements for accessory structures. Right? So the use is what we're requesting the D1 use variance. Okay. And do you know whether an
accessory dwelling unit is a permitted accessory use in the R3 zone? Uh the I know it's it's permitted in the R1 zone. Um we can probably have staff confirm if it's in the R3. Okay. And what's the difference between
an accessory structure and an accessory dwelling unit? Uh good question. So, uh, an accessory dwelling unit is specifically the use of a detached accessory structure as another unit, uh, uh, for housing. And
an accessory structure is more of that general category that an ADU would fall under. Um, and it would be a detached garage, a shed, um, there's probably a few others, uh, but something like like that. And, and accessory uses are all
associated with the principal use. Um, okay. And do you recall um what the master plan recommendation was about accessory dwelling units? So, I don't know if we covered that in our
direct um statement. So, I don't want to misquote the master plan. I'm just reading my notes now. No, I I don't want to misspeak on that. I don't have that in front of me now. Okay. Do Do you I'm just going to ask you if this sounds familiar. Did the
Didn't the master plan recommend converting existing accessory structures into accessory dwelling units? U if if if that was the case, um that
certainly is the policy that the master plan sets, but the R1 allows for new construction. So, but we're not in the R1, are we? Uh, no, we are requesting a use variance. I think that's that's clear. And and the ADU is associated with that use variance request.
Okay. Thank you. Does the board have any questions? Board, does the board have any questions? No questions. No. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. So staff, I guess, is what we're up to.
Yeah, Iris where uh sorry to interrupt. Um my clients did have a reaction to the new iteration of the plans. Um did is it okay if I put them on briefly?
Okay. I thought you said we weren't going to have any Oh. to ask them question. Oh, I was going to have them. But they're not members of the public. I mean, they're Yeah. I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you guys were saying. Oh. Um I wanted
objector. So, he wants to testify. Testify or question the witness? I don't know what he want. No, no, no. Not I qu I questioned the witnesses already. It's just um we put them on before as fact witnesses and now they're a new new set of plans. So, they just wanted to add to what they said
before the same way. Yep. Okay. Hi. Hello. Good evening everyone. Okay. I do. Nathan McCormack. It's N A T H A N.
McCormack is M A C O R M A C K. Thank you. Okay. Hi, Nathan. Um, so I just wanted to ask you, did you look at the revised set of plans for 128 Glenwood? I did. and what are your concerns? Um, thank you and thank you all for your
time this evening. Um, I live right next door to the proposed property. Um, I'm sure some of you may be remembering me from a few times before actually. Um, just to make a few notes, um, the revised plans for 128 Glenwood show an attempt to incorporate references to the
Queen Anne Victorian style. Um that being the dominant style of our row of historic houses known as the Mayhew Terrace built in 1895. Um our row of historic houses is on the historic preservation element of Jersey City's
master plan. Um however also uh the the the new the new uh proposition also includes more modern touches which in my in my opinion outnumber the Victorian touches. The newly added details include a metal
roof. Needless to say, there was nothing Victorian about a metal roof, especially a metal gable, a metal railing on both the stoop as well as the second floor balcony. The stoop does not match the neighboring properties. None of the original Mayhew
Terrace homes has a stoop. If anything, the property that this does match is the same owner's newly constructed property at 124 Glenwood, whose staircase is drastically out of character of the neighboring properties.
The new design contains three front doors, one for each of the units, so as to alleviate, I'm assuming, any shared space. Needless to say, none of the Mayhe Terrace properties contain more than a single front door.
In my opinion, the attempt to make this property Victorian has only given it an identity crisis. It's neither Victorian nor modern. It's merely an attempt to build a bayon box with Victorian details containing the same intensity and
density as the previous design. However, if this owner were to decrease the size and scale of this home to match that of the abuing homes on both sides, I wouldn't be commenting on the choice of a facade. I recognize that people
have different tastes and were this an as of right project, my opinion would be irrelevant. However, our single biggest complaint about this project has been its density and intensity. From day one, we have objected to a building that
contains almost 5,000 square feet of living space compared to our home's 1900 square feet. They could easily reduce the project by,300 square ft and still make a profit. But the prime objective is not to respect the integrity of the
historic Romes, excuse me, the historic row of houses. It's to maximize profit regardless of the opinions of those who live there. And if we are willing to make concessions in order to accommodate a new structure next door to us, such as
losing sunlight, smaller permeable surface area in an area already prone to flooding, and worse parking conditions, shouldn't the owner be willing to make a concession as well? The purpose, one of the purposes of the univer university
zone is to preserve the the neighborhood stability and residential quality of life. In my opinion, this does neither. Okay. Thank you, Mr. McCro. Thank you. Did you have no question? Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Um and so no, no more public. No, we're that's the spouse is going to get up and say the same thing. No, we we've heard it before. Did you have anything different? We want to conclude this. Okay. Okay. That's fine. So, now we're up to staff. Correct. Is
it Are we Are we not opening public comment for the new That's such a pressure to be honest with you. Somebody wants to comment on the facade. Here we go. Yeah, it's we had public comments before
on on on this issue on this case. I guess that's why we heard everybody's comment. So, I just I'm asking right now, do we have Do you want to We going to limit it to the facade? Yes. Okay, let's limit it to the facade. But just one person.
No. No. Okay. Whoever wants to comment on the facade. Thank you. Okay. Sure. I was told I have give my name. Sorry. You're told what? Sorry. I have to give my name and all that first, right? Yes.
Marian Ro. R O G E R M A R I O N. We want to see I'd like to see the architectural plants up again. Sorry, I missed your name.
That's okay. I'll start over again. My name is Marian Roier and I am sorry that I wasn't at the prior hearing. I had a conflict of schedule and I'm very grateful, Mr. La Paglia and Miss Arojo and everybody else for letting me come up and have a few
moments. Your address? My address is 50 Glenwood Avenue, apartment 810 if you need to know. Okay. Okay. And I I'm sorry. I do have them written down. And they're based on what I just heard tonight about the facade.
Just a facade. Yes, ma'am. To change the characteristic of a building with its facade, one alters elements that are historically significant or contribute to the area's sense of place. I'm sorry, may I please? Uh, we have you
have three minutes. Yes, I know. Okay, just we we just have I know I have three minutes. Yes. Yeah, we have to tell we have to tell the public as well. Let me know. Go ahead. One architecturally recognized element of this building is the scale and the
mass and the size. But tonight we heard proposals for cosmetic enhancements to the facade to make it appear Queen Anne style. There are times when the Mansard roof is not even attributed to Queen Anne.
I think the primary characteristic of the facade recommendation was its obvious absence of any effort to follow our esteemed Jersey City Historic Preservation Commission's previous reactions on June 5th to the hearing
because there were a lot more of issues that were involved than the facade. And since you said I only had 3 minutes, I will not go on to anything else. But I will just say that I'm a big believer in
words. Characteristic is something that's typical of a particular purse or place or thing. And it's a special quality or appearance that makes an individual or a group or in this case his houses different from others.
And if this facade facade, let's call it what it is, was really going to make it fit into the neighborhood. You wouldn't know that this house was just built. And
you know, I'm 65. We have lots of sayings that we've all heard of. I think I have some peers up here. You can put lipstick on a pig. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead. Can we have the um architect put the drawings up?
Well, I like to hear what she said. Yeah, because I want to see that facade. I want to see you want to bring up and I also want to know which one it is. I mean, it's the white one. They just changed it the white one, but why do they have to have that
excessive dwelling unit? Yeah. Yeah. We need to see that again. Yes. Yes, please. Thank you. Can you expand that as much as you can? Thank you. Okay, good. Sorry.
It's that one. Okay, good. All right. Yes. Just take your full name. Danielle D A N I E L L E Damo D's and David A. D's and David. A M O. And your address?
72 Hopkins Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey 07306. Okay. Good evening. My name is Danielle Dammo and I completely understand that my comments must solely focus on the recent front facade revision submitted
after the June 5th hearing. I want to first start by saying that this isn't just about architecture or zoning compliance for me. I attended St. Peters College, now St. Peters University. I remember this block as more than just buildings. I remember it as a healing,
green community space that was both educational and transformative. It shaped who I am. That legacy matters. is part of why I became a public school teacher and now why I serve as a volunteer commissioner on Jersey City's environmental commission. I've invested
in what this in what gets built here because I've lived what this space can mean when it's treated with care. That's why it's so frustrating to see that the developer hasn't responded to community concerns with meaningful changes. What we got instead was a was a cosmetic
tweak. A front porch tacked on in a lastditch attempt to claim contextual sensitivity, but this addition doesn't reduce the overall bulk or scale. If anything, it amplifies it by projecting the mass even further down the street.
The revised facade increases shadowing on neighboring properties and exaggerates the building's visual dominance on the block. That is not compatibility. That is camouflage. Adding a porch doesn't undo the fact that the structure still fails to align
with the rhythm, scale, and historic character of its surroundings. A superficial front facade change certainly doesn't reverse the core problem. This proposal still overwhelms a block, still cast excessive shadows, and still prioritizes maximum square
footage over contextual integrity. And let's not forget that the same developer already misrepresented the scale of the building at 124 Glenwood a few doors down. A mistake that this board rightfully called out. The community
exposed that misrepresent risk representation and we're asking you not to let it happen again under the guise of a minor change. A porch slapped on after the fact isn't an effort at good faith design. is a performative gesture
intended to satisfy minimum standards, not a sincere attempt to address the board's and community's concerns. You've heard the second to go. Sorry, 30 seconds. Sorry. You've heard the community. You voiced your own skepticism. Please don't
let superficial aliterations distract from the larger truth. The structure still does not belong. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Good evening everyone. Good evening. I do.
Uh Christopher Pettis, PEZ. Uh 69 Union Street. Good evening everyone. Good evening. Um I'm speaking today on behalf of the Jersey City Landmarks Conservancy. Um we do not support this plan. um the recent
adjustments to the facade um do not uh so I'm I'm trying to redact some of my statements because I don't want to duplicate uh some of the things other people said today. When we look at a facade, there are several facades on a site. Um, and we've been focusing on the
front facade and if we were looking at a flat piece of paper that had looks a certain way, but if we were in real life, uh, looking at sites and we're walking down the street and we're looking at buildings at angles, uh, what you see is that you have a box that is
being proposed. And that's very different than the adjoining historic houses that are on uh this the historic master plan where you have side gables, you have front gables, the roofs have slopes which lend to the character of and the historic nature of the set of
homes. The proposed project is a box with front facade that gives some dynamic to it, but when you look at it from angles, you're going to see a wall. And that's one of the real issues with this proposed project. Yeah.
Um is that it's really only the front facade that we're looking at and we really need to be thinking about the side facade and all the publicly viewable elevations of the site. Uh I'd just like to quickly quote um a staff memo regarding uh the historic nature of
the section of the Glenwood a Glenwood Avenue dated August 19th, 2022. It was written by Pat uh Patrick Hashenberger of HUD of Hunter Research and Sarah Quinnland who was then the historic preservation specialist for Jersey
City's division of uh city planning. The block of Glenwood Avenue between Westside Avenue and John F. Kennedy Boulevard has a largely intact historic streetscape with few modern intrusions. staff recommends that any new construction be compatible with the scale
form setbacks, height, and historic character of the neighborhood. So, if you look at this proposed project, it's not doing it in terms of form, scale, you have a real issue because we're not looking at the
sides of the building at all. We're just focusing on the front. And I believe that's the real issue that that's not being talked about and what the other uh speakers didn't speak about. So we do not approve this project because of those adjustments have not been made. This project just does not fit with the
the scale and the roof forms of the adjoining homes. It's creating basically a wedge that breaks up the cadence between them. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Do you testimony? The whole truth. God,
I do. State your full name, please. Steven S Pen Thompson T H O M S O N. No P. 125 Kensington Avenue in Jersey City. Thank you.
Good evening everyone. Good evening. And I'm going to be quite brief. Um I th first thought I would give you just a little bit of my background. Um so I can put this in context. First of all, I'm a registered professional engineer. I also attended the school of
architecture and the school of the environment at Yale. Uh I was the first director of water and land resources for the state of Connecticut and the first executive director of land use for the state of North Carolina. So lots of different perspectives from which I look at my
current neighborhood. My wife who is a registered architect and I have lived in the former mayor of Jersey City's home in on Kensington Avenue uh backing up to Lincoln Park for 39 years. It was built in 1910.
So, I'm well aware of historical neighborhoods and of out ofcale and totally inappropriate infill development. This proposed proposal completely ignores both the historical and
architectural characteristics of the adjacent homes and therefore should not be approved in its current form. Thank you. You're welcome. Good evening. Do you swear that the testimony you'll provide this evening will be the truth
and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. George E. Riley Jr. R I L E Y also known as MG 122 Glenwood Avenue, Jersey City 07306.
Gave him the permission. I was going to sing wrong. Okay. May I have access to the screens? Talk about the facade. Yes. I don't have No, I I just need to Oh, it's on. It's on. No, no, no. I mean, I have something. I
My printer didn't work, so I couldn't Excuse me. I couldn't physically hand you pictures. No problem. Thank you. That's why I didn't want to I didn't want them to speak because we already Is it picking up? Okay, we've seen the uh facade which
truly is a facade of their drawing of what 122 I mean 128. We look at this. This is a side view of 124 and the vacant spot at 128. And you can see that it massively towers over 126.
And this is another picture. The third house in is 122 where we are presently. And this is 122 where we are now and 124.
And this facade, just like the new one, is really nothing more. I have to commend Mr. Wine and his company for, you know, bringing the same pig to the dance, just putting on different lipstick because everything is the same.
And we're just looking at something that they've dressed up, but it is not doing anything for the character of the neighborhood. And the picture that they originally put up, I have it here. This one, let me blow it up.
That is their in the center is that is their 124. And right next to it, I don't know where that is, but that certainly is not 122. So, I'm not sure what, you know, why they didn't just take a regular picture and then use that as
opposed to somebody's madeup dream of what our street looks like. There's no grass like that, you know, doesn't show the steps up to anything. This is just another farce and I'm complete. And thank you very much for your time. You're welcome.
I do. Robert Fu. Fu, 414 Fairmount Avenue, Jersey City. Thank you. Um, so I'm going to be very very brief
because most of what I was planning to say has been uh very well said by others before. Um, particularly the need to view the uh application in three dimensions rather than simply in uh as a
2D drawing. Um it appears to be the design appears to be um created primarily for a true 2D presentation. And as has been pointed out we have to look at 124 Glenwood to see what um
um how the actual massing you know the um of the project looks. Um um I wonder if we could call up the side elevation. Is that possible? I think we're looking at the facade. I I
understand. I understand. That is one of Okay. But it has to do with the facade element. Mhm. Which I want to see from the side. If you're looking at the side, you're not looking at the you are seeing what you are seeing the side of the facade. That that's important. It's important to my point.
Yeah. Um anyway, I guess I'm particularly disturbed by the um the per the fake parameal roof and the fake gable. Um uh I I certainly the you know the fake fake front the fake gable is very much a
Jersey City tradition. I have one on my house but if we take a look at the side elevation um this example is particularly um half-hearted and fake looking. It's very the thing is perhaps 2 ft deep and as you come up the street
you will immediately see that this this is a front that's simply pasted onto a box. Um so um um yeah I mean as I said you know most of what I um had planned to say has
already been said before. I don't Yeah, we are not we're certainly not quite there yet with this project. Yeah. Thanks. Yes, it will. My name is Dermit P. Ronan and I reside at 159 Glenwood Avenue. Please your last name. R O N.
Thank you. Um yes, thank you for your time. Um, I live on the block and enjoy being on the block and a part of the neighborhood association that really get get involved in bettering the block and I do like the fact that we have development in our community and I respect responsible
development. Um, in respect to this particular facade, I think like 124, that facade is so far forward compared to the existing properties on the block that there the the facade adding to to
it to the facade, adding stoops and adding porches, etc. is really just creating further noise um further noise on the block that doesn't add any value or add any grace or charm that exists in the historic
homes on the block. So the it's not a fix. It's it's making things worse. It's al it's also adding shadow and shade to the neighboring properties. It's already taking up full the the the development is taking up the full full
lot. Casting shade, gardens, no windows, sea light. Adding this further bumpouts and noise um on the front of the building is not doing it any favors and it's not doing the neighbors any favors and it's not it's not doing the environment any favors. So, um, I just
don't see the value in it and I I think they need to go back and and do a better better job with more realistic vision with respect to the existing homes and neighboring community homes in the historic districts. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you.
Yes. Sergio. S E R G I O Stiflman. S as in Sam. T as in Tom. I F E L M A N.
419 Fairmont Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey. Uh first, thank you for the opportunity to address this board. Uh I would like to say that I agree uh entirely with what has been said so far by the witness
and by uh the members of the public uh in particularly to the extent uh that it uh points out rightly that this project is out of scale that this developer has failed
continuously to engage with the members of the community in a in goodwill. Realistically, these are the people who live there. So, their needs and interests which are very reasonable again should be a priority.
And also uh the fact that I see in this project a tremendous detriment to uh land use and zoning. On this last item, uh
the way I see this as a taxpayer, I'm not a a zoning lawyer. If somebody intentionally and knowingly buy a property zoned A and wants and knows this, wants to build
something different as if it were zone B. I can't believe that whatever provision allows for this type of major concession in what has been a very carefully studied and and elaborated
master plan zonal law whatever it is. I cannot believe personally and I will never believe that whatever provisions for this are not only for very very very exceptional situations.
One minute. What we see here is a business convenience. I cannot believe that whatever statues, ordinance allow this have this spirit of allowing a business
convenience in somebody in other words this developer is uh um uh I'm sorry is is how do you say 30 seconds
uh he's changing on on city. The city is not changing on him. So, I mean, uh I think it's just a matter of quite frankly justice, common sense, uh perhaps even legally. I mean, I I might have made a good argument here and
respect for the community. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, this is the last one. I think there's one more after me. I think Charlene as well. Hi. We've already we've been here and we've heard a lot of the comments before. So, if
it's Are you going to speak on the facade? Yes, I am. I wasn't here at the last meeting, so I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Kayla, K A Y L A Burl, B U R E L L. Um, I've actually
Oh, 197 Duncan Avenue. I do. Um, so I've worked actually personally with Mr. Patel. Um, I know he's a great architect. Um, his designs are really good. Um, I think that what we're seeing
here with the facade change is an opportunity to maximize profit at the sake of the neighborhood. I've know I know um these neighbors personally. I've worked with them in my capacity um at Lincoln Park North Neighborhood
Association as the vice president as well as the chair of development um looking at plans and you know one thing that the facade doesn't correct is the medie standard which I know that you're
all aware of in your capacity as uh zoning board members. Um, so a project like this must meet a very high bar. That developer must show that the site is particularly suited for this type of use and that it won't
undermine the intent of the zone plan. And in this case, it's clear the proposal doesn't meet that standard. It's a university zone. Um, and the proposed building does not serve a university related use. Market rate luxury housing is not inherently beneficial and its scale would undermine
the purpose of that zone. Uh it's vital that you as the uh zoning board listen to the voices of the people that live here. They're going to bear the long-term impacts of those decisions. When the community speaks, you're not just hearing complaints. I know that it's been a long night and
you're you've heard many of these things before, but you're gaining insight into how zoning decisions shape the neighborhood uh for better or for worse. So, just please uh I ask of you again to listen to my neighbors and take their words to heart. Thank you.
Thank you. I do. Charlene Burke, B U R K E, 56 Duncan Avenue. Thank you. and thank you commissioners for the opportunity to speak again. Um,
I would like to begin by applauding the Mcinley Square Community Board and residents of Glenwood Avenue and their neighbors for continuing to show up at every meeting and advocate for contextually contextually appropriate development
that integrates seamlessly into their unique enclave of homes. homes that some have remained in for more than 50 years and newer residents who envision perhaps this as their forever home. Any
development considered for 128 should echo the bulk dimensions and design of the structures on either side and retain a rear yard for light air and sustainability reasons matching those in this small row of five lots. I support
all the comments made here tonight by others who have asked for the same in more detail. I ask the commissioners tonight to reject the proposed project on the basis of incompatible bulk density and design with the existing residential homes and
also charge the developer to meet with the community members and the neighbors before returning to present here in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.
And with that, does the commissioners have any questions? Do the commissioners have any questions, comments? I I have one question for the Mr. Goodman. Um last meeting, I think something about you going to sit with
the community and come to a an agreement with them somehow close close project, right? Did you? So, Commissioner Shaded, I'm going to be very thoughtful about how I say this, I think, how I respond to that. In the
last two months, we revised the plans um since uh ahead of actually what would have been the last meeting and shared them with uh we sent them around. They were posted on the website and we gave the opportunity for any further communication. Would like to see them. Um I spoke to I I I'll take that back. I
shared it with um council for the objectors and suggested that you know she should have a copy of it and I'm open to any discussion. Again, I'd like to be very careful and I'm not trying to dodge your question at all. Um I have been open for the last 3 years to
conversations. I have met several times with the members of the community. We have gone through this is our eighth iteration of this application and this project over the course of the years and most of the time we are met with not being responded to with requests to
meetings. Um so to answer your question I have not been able to meet with the community um on this latest iteration of the plans. There's been opportunity um and I I'll just leave it at that. I mean the the I think the question coming out of last meeting is would you would you
to the extent there are going to be changes would you have would you be open to sharing them meeting with them um if they'd be open to doing that and the answer is unequivocally yes unfortunately it needs to be reciprocal anyone else
thank you um no let me hear with Carl well she might actually Tanya might refer to it maybe I'll just wait till after you say cuz it might be in your report that I let what say whatever you have to say Carl. All right. Well, I was going to ask the
one thing that seems to stand out that doesn't really fit facade-wise is the metal roof and the other part. I mean, it really should resemble the houses next to it. It does stand out like stands out. It's the only one with metal roof and stoop. So, are you guys willing
to change that and address that to make it look more Absolutely. Without a doubt. I would definitely make that a condition no matter what. But now you talk cuz I have some other questions. I I have another I have a question. Um I my concern is that um that
accessory dwelling unit in the back uh is that I and I and I understand what this what the group is trying to say that yes, the facade has changed, but the length of this this unit is is going all the way back. And I see that you just put in the back another dwelling
unit. Why why is that? I mean, I think that was the concern of a lot of these people here that that would be eliminated if nothing else. What is is it still there? Is that I mean, that's a concern for them. What was that addressed? Yeah. I mean, I think it's it's we've
I'm happy to explain why it's there, right? The the And I I don't want to belabor the point, but I'm I I think it's a good question. When we began this process, as I said at the beginning, in our opinion, the closest context for we we all recognize, as I said at the beginning, this is university zoned.
Anything that's done here requires a variance. There is no question. Even if we were going to go with a dormatory building, as Mr. Height said, you cannot build it 5 ft wide, you would require some type of relief, whether from this board or the planning board. So, we felt that
compar university uses are zoned R3. Um, and actually since there are a couple of used properties on that block that this board has granted approval to convert them to residential. Um, I don't quote I think it's 136 and maybe 140. So, that's
always been the recognition that this is appropriate for residential use. We tried that with the R3. The feedback that we got is that that's not the correct zoning context. So, we went back to the board to our board, our drawing board, and said, "What might be appropriate, R1?" Well, R1 allows an
ADU. And yeah, it's there's no question this is a different arrangement of the four units that were previously proposed. We're not hiding that. We're not sus suggesting that there's not still four units in a different orientation, but the reason that we we have that is that in any zone in the
city of Jersey City, the four any residential zone, the four units in some arrangement would be appropriate. So, you heard some comments regarding, well, can't this just be a one or two family house? Why can't we just meet what's right next to it? This is not a historic zone. Much as many of the people who have spoken would
like for it to be a historic zone, the city is not designated as such. And accordingly a number of those other houses can be assuming they get demo approval knocked down or expanded rearwards even without demo approval to convert those into the same four units that are being proposed. So to answer
the question, we went with an alternative arrangement in the hope that this is less massing, right? We're a story less. It's it's certainly I think you saw from the rendering, it's more contextual from the from the street frontage, but to forgo adding a fourth unit is
planning for today and maybe even for tomorrow and next year. It's not planning for the life of this building which will be 100 years from now when all the other buildings are going to have four units if not more. So to answer your question, we heard a question about the ADU. Um, again, I I I
welcome feedback. There's no question about that. But to answer it directly, the reason it's being proposed is because four units would be appropriate in any residential zone. And I'm I'm curious to you, madame acting chair, you know, what your perspective is on that. You as a board,
I I'm concerned about that unit. Um because So what you're trying to do is instead of doing the four units, then you're just going to put the that one extra unit in the back, right? How is that go is that going to obstruct the view of the of the res of the other I'm I'm assuming it will because it's
just going all the way back. So that's going to obstruct all kinds of views. So it's I I I would that's why I wanted initially wanted to see it on on u the the architectural plan. I wanted to see it so that I can I can refer to it. But the gentleman changed it because he used
his phone. Or else I would have referred to it. I would have liked to see the back to see how that looks. That's possible. Would that be possible for me to see it again? Sure. Thank you. And while he brings that up, um, again, Charles spoke about an accessory structure being permitted. So, while
yes, an ADU is a specific type of accessory structure, that size and shape were it a detached garage or at a shed could be in that location. So from an obstruction perspective, even in even in a university zone, you could have a four-story dormatory building and then a
I don't know a shed housing equipment in the back in the same orientation. So that ADU is going to house how many people? One. It's a single family. It's it's one two stories. Yeah. Correct. Yes. With living bedrooms above kitchen living. Correct.
I see. Can I see the back of that? Just just the back if I may. And again, that's three feet taller than the 15 feet that a accessory structure would be in a university zone back there. So it we're really talking about it's not going to obstruct any more than a
permitted accessory structure would, but for 3 ft in height, I suppose. Okay. Would you like to see the elevation, please? So the uh this elevation is facing the the rear of the primary structure. I see.
Um that's the rear elevation and then the section. Okay. How far back is the ADU from the back of the house itself? What's the space in
between? It's about uh uh 12 ft 132, sorry. Okay. Is is I'm just going to be blunt, too, if you don't mind, please. Is that ADU really necessary for the project to go forward?
It's part of the proposal, and out of respect to you, I'd have to ask my client before answering. Yeah. But yeah, and if you'd like me to do that, I'm glad to to do that. So that's not going to leave any any space for any yard, any yard or anything. I think I missed the It's how many feet?
13 ft. It's just 13 ft from there. I see. Yes. Okay. That's cuz the way it looks, it's really not a yard cuz it's jammed in between two structures. It's like a space. So the ADU ordinance again where it is permitted in the R1
actually allows for 5T and it's Yeah. So okay. All right. I have no So So Tanya, if we recommend that they get rid of the ADU, do they have to come back to us? Okay. Okay.
Okay. So any more questions? That's it. Any more questions, comments? Tanya, okay. Yeah, that's right. Oh,
do you even truth the truth? I do. Thank you. Hang on a second. We lost our AV guy. Anybody see Eric? Bathroom break. Give me one second. I can figure out
No, everything is good because it's up here. Yep. No, no, no. I don't know why I forgot. I Yeah, that I did right. Yeah. Okay. Uh it's been a while. Uh so I just want to refresh everybody's memory and
get us all in the same headsp space. The picture in front of you. Uh can you guys have the same picture? Let me put it on your screens. I don't I don't have the picture. Oh, okay. Now we do. Good. Yeah.
Okay. So, the yellow dotted um line indicates the property. There's also a little little red um arrow that'll show you where we are on Glenwood Avenue. Uh and if you can take a look, we're going to go down a little
bit more. And you can see this is this is the same orientation, but this is the zoning map. The purple is the U zone and the yellow is the R3 zone. Um, and for um, benefit sake, I know that we haven't
really talked about the R3, but the R3 is a very interesting zone in the sense that it permits a variety of things, and it takes into consideration that so much of the city has some one and two family, three family, and apartments all thrown
in between. So the R3 is a zone that tries to do way more than it can or should, right? So R3 permits town houses, fourstory town houses, three units, and then it permits all the way up to eighttory apartment buildings. The
yellow dot in the purple area is the applicant site. So everything to the west of there is west, right? Yeah, west is university. And so you can kind of see that this property over here and
this is the all university zoning. So how do we get here? That's what I really kind of want to talk about a little bit now. So the first uh time Jersey City ever does zoning is 1931. Um and it's very basic in its zoning. Uh
we really just kind of have two residential zones. One that really talks about just two families and one that expands to talk about apartment buildings, etc. a little bit more density. So, this area would have been zoned residential B, which would have
permitted apartment houses, um, rooming houses, club houses. A lot of the buildings that you're seeing on the build on the block were either a built before 1931, so built before there was any zoning, or b built within this time frame. A lot of Jersey City was built
out before 1960. So, what you're looking at is either the result of the 19 the early zoning or prior to Then we did another resoning in the 70s which was pretty traditional all across the country um with a kind of
reinvention for urban renewal malls and things like that. So we're we're looking at cities in a completely different way. However, for this block we continued to zone it R2 which is very similar to the B from the 1963. Right? So it still just
means that you're allowed to have two units, row houses, town houses, garden apartments, etc. 2000 comes and we do a new master plan. There's a difference between zoning and the master plan. The master plan is that big picture idea that the MLUL says that we have to do
every 10 years to create a vision and a path forward. And then we write the zoning based on the master plan. We also review variances based on the master plan. And if variances are against the master plan, part of the testimony has to be reconciliation with the master
plan. In 2000, St. Peters and JCU majority of the universities had met with planning and asked to have support in expanding their campus. So the answer in the 20 in the 2000 master plan you'll see language that says that that talks
about how we are going to uh support our local colleges and build up our campuses and that's how we get to 220 too fast. That's how we get to the university zoning.
Okay. So in 2000 we go from having conversations about residential blocks whether those be lowercale apartment buildings um or one and two family houses to only permitting university
uses. Now the correlation between the university use and the buildings the university owned were the same. Right? So a lot of what you're seeing in purple were owned by St. Peters. So, the city
worked with St. Peters in order to make sure that their property that was that they owned was zoned for university. Of course, now we're 25 years later. Um, and St. Peters has sold a bunch of their property. Um,
this is where we are now as a result of St. Peters having sold property, having demoed some of that property, and so on. So now looking at the 2020 master plan, which is one we just recently did, we took a look at these districts. So this
isn't the only district in our zone that was just kind of one one lens, right? So we had the university zone and I'm sure you guys are familiar with the medical zone, right? And we have a government zone and it doesn't allow for any other
uses, residential, anything like that. So part of the master plan was to say we need to reook at the university zone because in the 20 years that has passed, St. Peters hasn't continued to build their campus. They've gone in reverse
and they've started to sell their property. Um, but instead of having this one very narrow university zone zoning, we should at least consider an overlay, but allow for residential uses because the reality is the homes built before
zoning or built within before 1963 were residential. They weren't sari. They weren't dorms. Um, and so the attempt in the 22 2020 master plan was to kind of reconcile what was on the ground with the zoning. Um, and so there was
language and that we we since 2020, we've really kind of been enacting the master plan in phases. This has not been one of the areas we've been able to get to yet, but we've tried to kind of make sure that the community and everybody's
on board and with this involvement, we haven't really moved forward with the university or the medical zone. So, I just kind of wanted to give you some background as to like how are we looking at an area or a zone that's university zoning, but when you look on the block,
it's apartment buildings or residential how how homes. So, the master plan again did suggest uh that we at least allow for residential and at least have a university zoning overlay. So that is in line kind of with
the master plan which is to say that we need to open this area back to residential and allow for those allow for those uses. The chart in front of you is a comparison chart. Commissioner Chad Rothman who is no longer on this
board but was on the board at least in 2020 always used to say if it's not that zone I don't want to hear about it. But what I need to do is to tell you that the reason they used the R1 zone
was because I told them to. So the last time they met with me, they the last time the application was in front of us, it was for a fourstory, four unit building. Um and I said, "You need to build R1." because even though the homes
to the east um were in the R3 zone, they were really R1, right? Like the R1, which is really just we used to call it the one and two family housing district. Now we call the neighborhood housing district. and we have a density, but
it's a threestory typically twounit building, which is that row of homes that we're looking at that uh a lot of people are referencing this evening. So, the direction to use the R1 came specifically from me to and
at least match kind of what was there and the intention that was there. There have been also conversations to reszone some of the properties within that like little area either RH1, RH2 or R1 to
take into consideration that they are on our historic master plan list and that there is some language or reason in there that we can have a conversation about preserving or having more preservation language for those houses.
Right? So if you look at the standards uh that are in front of you, you can see that the use itself. So the university is the left obviously the standard is all the way to the left, then the university, then the R1 and what's
proposed. And you can see that the only real deviation is for the use and that's the residential. Um all of those things are kind of subsumed into it. So 42 units an acre gives you three units. Uh
42 units an acre is the density for the R1 zone. Uh the R1 zone permits three units here as of right and it does permit an ADU that this is pretty much matching exactly not pretty much matching this is exactly matching the um
the R1 zone uh sideyard, rear yard, all of it. three stories, 33 feet coverage, etc. and parking. So, there's a standard within C and D that unless you have 26
foot wide lot, you can't have parking. So, this is a 25 foot wide lot. So, no parking is permitted. Um, and the only uh real height standard here or the height deviation is relevant to the accessory dwelling unit. And that's
because within the zone, within the university zone, the accessory uses are capped out at I think 12 or 15. 15. Um, and this is 18 in the R1 in anywhere we do permit ADUs. So, let me go over real
quickly where we permit ADUs. We permit ADUs in the R1, RH1, RH2, R2. That's not here. R2, but no, not the R3. That's where I'm pretty sure it ends. Um I have to double check on the
R2 and they are permitted to be 18 ft tall, two stories. So all that to say that um that's my report. I'm really like my goal here is to kind of get to get to you to a point
as to tell you why you're looking at a project the way that it is. We have been working um Mr. Ryan for a while trying to get him to a project that is kind of amendable um that we could agree on and matching the R1 is really what we
requested and they were able to meet. Um I can't speak to the design standards necessarily. I think the general design standards are being met here. the extra level of historic design standards um
are not relevant here and they wouldn't be relevant in the university own either. Um so staff does recommend approval. The conditions are pretty standard. I think the report has at least been on the on the website for a
long enough time. So instead of wasting any more time and reading them all into the record, um can you just acknowledge that you've read them and you're fine with them? Certainly. That is my testimony. Okay. Okay.
With that said, do you have Carl? Despite that. Okay. And look, I get it. I mean it the weirdness of this project is like you have competing zonings one lot next to the other and you're trying to somehow
make this work and appease everyone and unfortunately this is just a very weird scenario the way it is. Um and it also looks like obviously this has been adjusted a lot with your you
know work compared to where it was in the university zoning and so on and so forth. But I still want to keep the condition of getting rid of the metal roofs and the metal stoop. I would cuz that it has to match a little bit better. Understood.
I just want to make sure that's on record is condition. If the commissioners are okay with that. Sure. Okay. And could I request a break? I'd like to call my client. I know there have been a couple. That's one of the things I just want to confirm before I commit to. But would that be Yeah, sure.
Yeah, I you can use a break. We can all use a break. So, okay, we'll have a what? We'll have a 10-minute break. Thank you. Okay, session. All right. So, Madame Chair, uh, acting chair. Oh, do we want to wait?
We waited. What about you? So, I'm sorry. No, that's okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry. One of the uh So, I think that the biggest comment that came up, I think Mr. Zlicki raised it regarding the uh the metal roof. Um, yeah. I mean, my client after speaking to him has said despite going through a number of design
changes, he's willing to change that and he's willing he's he's asked that you actually tell us what you want there and he'll say yes to it. Like there's no I just he doesn't want to go back around the let's not have some clarity. Like let's let's have some clarity and let's let's find out exactly what that
recommendation is. I don't know anything about my about Well, I'm not building a roof. I'm telling you that right now. I don't know anything about roof. So, can that be left just to the discretion of staff to like match it up match it up with whatever most appropriate with the the block? You can leave it to staff
material wise and yeah. Okay. Whatever he decides that coinc we'll will happily accept that. Um so with that um I'll be very brief but I think you heard the testimony um this evening. You heard the testimony last
time. You've really heard the testimony for three years about multiple iterations of this project. I couldn't have said it any better than Miss Marion and her report that this is appropriate for residential use this property. You cannot it's not impossible to put a university use here. It's just not the
right use for this property. It the right use is what it historically was which was residential and what what we're proposing which is residential. We tried at the R3 standards and ultimately the board felt which is their right that it's not appropriate for this zone despite the fact that as you saw all the
other residential all the other non-university university zone properties on this block are R3 zoned and so we took the initiative to go back to Miss Marion and say well what is what is appropriate like I like you guys a lot I enjoy being here I present before this board all the time I don't want to
be inefficient and I don't want to be before this board with multiple iterations of an application I want to come with an application that has been vetted out by your professional staff as well as this board and its professionals to come up with something that everybody feels is appropriate for this site. I
also want to stress, let not perfect be the enemy of good, right? You've heard there's no question you heard comments from the public. A lot of the members of the public are the same public that that you've heard before that we've engaged with in the past. And I and and I appreciate those comments, but without
speaking out of turn, we've gone through seven or eight iterations of the facade design, of the this of the that. We've made changes throughout the process. And ultimately, it's almost like nothing is ever good. So, I I I hate to stand here and say it, but we've tried. I feel we've tried. My client feels we've
tried. My professional team has has feel that we've tried has felt that we've tried. And at the end of the day, if if the answer is just going to start with what we were initially told and we have in an email, which is we want to see this remain green space to a resolution that was put forth to city council and
adopted that would ultimately allow the community to apply to the green acres program to keep this as green space. There's unfortunately no middle ground between green space and non-green space. And so we have moved heaven and earth to try and come up with a design here that is ultimately appropriate. As I said
last time and I'll say again, if there's other elements of this design that this board feels they would like changed, I the LA during the denial, there were comments about the facade design. So, we've reacted and we've done whatever we possibly can. Ultimately, what's before you and I I'll conclude with this. It's
a land use application, right? This and I don't want to lose sight of that. This is an application for development. An application for development, as you well know, and I'm speaking to you, I'm speaking to the public, rises or falls on the merits of the legal arguments and the planning arguments for that
application. This is not a different iteration of of the application. This is this application and we put on test architectural testimony. We put on planning testimony. You heard testimony from your own planning staff recommending the approval. So when you have an applicant's planner and the
city's own retained planner recommend that this is what's appropriate for the site, it should speak for itself that the proofs which are that we have to show that the positive and negative criteria, the the benefits of the project as as enumerated substantially outweigh any detriments. Those are
substantial detriments, substantial impairments, not just I don't like this or I don't like that. it has to be substantial and that we have to show that the site is particularly suited for the residential use. So with complete and utmost respect, I stand here tonight
after what is two meetings on this application but three years of my life dealing with a relatively small application asking you to please approve the application as presented with the multiple stipulations that have been put on the record since since the inception
of this project so that we conclude this and ultimately can bring something to this vacant site. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, with that said, I think we've had no comments. to some sum up actually. Okay. Okay.
Good evening, commissioners. My name is Cynthia Hajianis. I'm here on behalf of the owners of the neighboring property, Sharon and Nathan uh McCormack. And um I know this is a little bit of a retread because we had the prior
application uh a year or so ago. Um, so first I ju I just wanted to say the applicant has the burden of proof and I think Mr. Wine just addressed that. Um, and the positive criteria that have to
be met. Um, it the the key prong is particular suitability. So back in January of 2024, Mr. hat's colleague Carolyn Worstelle came before this board and testified
that an R3 compliant project was particularly suitable. Couple of months ago, June 2025, Charles Hate came before this board and testified, well, now we think an R1 compliant project is
particularly suitable. my clients came up here and a number of members of the public and this is actually one of the exhibits that was presented last time and this for the benefit of some of the board members who weren't uh here in June. Um
they they so our planner and my clients they felt that something similar in size and scale to the adjacent homes in that particular historic row a one family or two family that that is what is particularly suitable. So I tried back
in June to pin uh the applicant's planner down Mr. Haye and I said well how would you analyze what's best? How can you have everything be particularly suitable? And this was the answer I got. No. And I want to make clear, we're not
proposing everything's particularly suitable. Adjacent properties are residential uses. Um adjacent properties are multif family are less dense one and two family. What we're proposing is a residential use.
that's consistent and that's what we believe meets particular suitability. Not industrial, not institutional, not rail yards, nothing of those sorts, but the general use of residential. So the applicant's planner testified that
something residential is particularly suitable and not industrial, not not institutional. Tell us something we don't know that we already know that. So, I'm not sure this generic testimony that a residential use is particularly
suitable meets the applicant's burden of proof. Um, and and there was nothing on the ADU. There is nothing in the record about why an ADU is particularly suitable. And I find them already highly problematic in
the R1, in the RH1, and the RH2 zones. I think that this board isn't obligated to okay that spreading to all these other zones. I think that they may we may even want to reel back what they're allowed
to do. The master plan talks about converting accessory structures into accessory dwelling units. It they never there was never a recommendation to allow new construction to just stick a house in the backyard. And to me, if I
were a builder, I don't even think it makes sense. I think you're getting rid of green space that probably adds value to the property. If I were considering buying a condo in a three family house, I don't know that I'd want to pay as much if there was a house in the
backyard. So, I'm I'm not I don't know why it's attractive to developers. I think they like to just maxim they have this impulse to maximize whatever the zoning allows or whatever they can get away with. And I don't I don't think there it's working that well here and I
think the board has discretion now. Um and I and there is no I don't think the applicant met its burden of proof on the ADU. Now the R1 as default zoning. You saw that it was a column on the plan. There's not an entitlement to an R1
compliant project just as there was no entitlement to an R3 compliant project. and what you're being asked to do sounds an awful lot like spot zoning. Um, and the use zone does talk about
residential. It promises neighborhood stability and residential quality of life. And there and as you've seen over the past year, there's been a lot of upheaval due to St. Peters selling off its
properties. Maybe St. Peters is having financial problems, but when you live in the university zone, your fate is tied to the health of that institution. And here, these neighbors have seen an incredible amount of change on the
block. And I think that for that and and and the developers had his other R3 compliant project, I think they're entitled to certain protections that the zone affords to them because they have to put up with dormitories. They have to
put up with large uh dormitories being converted to residential um and and they have to put up with sort of this wholesale devestment of properties. I think that the zone is still important. Now we had the staff
testify well the you know and I liked that historical perspective. I thought that was so interesting actually. But um I thought there was kind of a very, you know, she she was seemed to be saying, you know, the university zoning is not really working. The university is not
getting bigger. It's sort of selling things off. And I don't believe the answer to that is to spot zone. And I think we almost had an like what I thought was very incredible an admission from planning staff that she's
recommending spot zoning because the uh you zone isn't really working um or zoning by variance. So that if the university zoning is not working, this board doesn't have the power to reszone by variance. That is a something only
the governing body can do. So if they want to go back to the drawing board and start to implement some more of the master plan, fine, but that's not within this board's purview. Um I I do think it is very astute for that the board
pointed out some of the issues with the ADU. Um I I think that's leading you know that that instinct to want to kind of cover every square foot of uh you know the lot is leading to some other problems with
the project like having to have a green roof now so that the the units two and three can have some outdoor space. If they didn't have the ADU, maybe there'd be enough outdoor space for people living in the building. Um,
and I did just want to uh, you know, I think you've heard from the neighbors there's a certain amount of healthy skepticism about the developers representations that this is going to fit in even though they've made like what seems to be an attempt uh, to
to make some design changes. Uh but the but as as you've seen from the photos in a picture's worth a thousand words. Um it's it it's the other companion project didn't fit in and I think there are some
similar if you really study the plans are similar problems with this project. the front facade, it does not match the prevailing setback on the block and the height is bigger and and the light and air is going to be interrupted and I
wanted to just um make one final point um or just to correct the record. I did check my emails when m commissioner Shadid had asked the question if there if they we had been uh contacted to um meet with the developer
and um I just checked my emails and when Mr. Wine sent the updated plan. He he wrote an email to Tanya. I was CCD on the email. There was no Maybe there didn't have to be, but there was no invitation to engage or have a meeting. And the last time we met was on the
prior applications. Well, you could. Yeah, but but we didn't we didn't meet and and we weren't invited if that's the impression you got. Um, so thank you. Thank you very much. I this has been a bit of a saga and I appreciate everybody's time.
Thank you so much. Okay, I just want to thank everybody that took their time to come out. I know we've heard from the residents, we've heard from the public, and we've heard from the lawyers, and we've heard from everybody. So, with that said, Eric, may I have a We need a motion.
A motion. Oh, I'm sorry. May I have a motion? Thank you. Okay. Um, I'll make a motion. I guess it's make a motion to approve uh case number
one sec. Case number Z2025-000020 with the conditions that were discussed and agreed upon, the roof and the stoop. May I have a second? Second. Okay, Eric. Now, may we have a roll call?
Yeah. Commissioner Zablicki, I vote I. Commissioner Burns, I. Commissioner D'Angelo, I
Commissioner Shadid, I. Commissioner Baron I. Acting vice chair Allen. Yes. Acting chair ar.
I gave this a lot of thought. Um but I vote I okay motion carries. Seven in favor none opposed. Thank you everybody with with added conditions. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Thank you. Okay.
Okay. So our next case it's um Z 2 we're not ready yet. It's not even 10. No 0024
001 one and that is 626 Palisate Avenue and is Steven Joseph. I don't see how many I don't know. Are you representing Stephen Joseph? Oh, you are. You're not Steven Joseph.
I'm not Stephen Joseph. I'm twice his age and he's on vacation and I'm here. We know we we know who Steven Joseph is. Okay. Yes. So, he's on vacation. My name is James Bruno. I'm with the firm of Castano Quigley Tramy representing the
applicant. Um this is an application uh for site plan as as well as variances which um we have three witnesses uh who will go through the variances with you and we'll try to be as brief as we can. Um it's a
it is a um let's finish this let's try to finish this thing. It's a mixeduse building, 24 dwelling units uh with 838 square foot of ground for commercial. The commercial is what requires the use
variance. And again, um I have three witnesses. Mr. um Wickerman will be first and he can go through those um with you, what they are and justifications for them. Then we have our engineer who will also uh testify
briefly and then um Carolyn Warell who is our planner. Uh so with that I'll turn it over to Mr. Wickman. Thank you. Yes I do. Thank you. William Wackenman. last name W C K E N M
A N. Yes. Thank you. And uh can you give your qualifications for the board, please? Uh I've uh testified. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Wman, if you can just go through
you just go through the application describing the key elements and the variances required. Sure. Thank you. Thank you for your time this evening. Um, this is a a project that we've been working on. Um, I'm sorry if you have any conversations.
Can we have them outside, please? We still have another case. Thank you. Thank you. Um, so yes, uh, this is a project that we've we've been working on for, um, the past two years. um
uh the owner of this property. He's um uh he he occupies the property currently. Um and he's uh you know, we've worked very hard here to um uh present a project that is uh contextually appropriate um and uh fits
in nicely with the with the neighborhood. Um we we've had multiple uh this is another project that has been a a very good collaboration with the uh local neighborhood association. Um we've met with them several times. We
met with their uh development committee um along with uh some of the immediate neighbors um who provided us with very good um feedback uh that we were able to incorporate into the project which um
the version that I'm going to present to you tonight is is very different from where where we first started. Um, I think it's a much much better project um because of the input that we got uh from the neighborhood um and from from planning staff. Um
uh I'm sure there's things that uh they they uh we don't necessarily see eye to eye on here, but I I think this was a very very good um collaboration. So, I just like to touch on a few of those things uh first and then I'll get into some of
the the variances specifically. So um the first uh suggestion from from the neighborhood group which is related to the use variance um was that there was a very strong uh support for commercial space along this section of of Palisate
Avenue. Um, this stretch uh to the south um does have some larger buildings, but there's uh wi with some historic storefronts um but there's not very many commercial amenities. So, the um what we
originally had was a a garage entrance here and a large lobby. Um and what we did was we we kind of flipped the building. So, we took the lounge and amenity spaces and moved them inward and then created this really nice uh large
uh commercial space in the front of the building uh to really engage with the neighborhood and to provide uh an amenity uh for the uh for the neighborhood at large. Um, one of the other items that we um
are providing is um for this application, there are two uh two affordable units that are required. Um, in conversations that we have with the neighborhood, there was a request that we up that to five units. Um,
um, which unfortunately was was not feasible, but we are providing one additional affordable unit above what's required. So, this project will have uh three three affordable housing units. Oh, okay. Um which I believe is is one one more
than what's indicated on the on the U agenda. Um and then finally, you'll see this on one of the later slides, we did rework the roof amenity space uh per some of their feedback to minimize its impact and um
uh create buffers to the surrounding uh properties. Um, with that, I would just like to pull up a quick um I'd like to enter this as as an exhibit.
Uh, this is a an aerial view of the of the property. Just before we do that, I'm sorry, my procedural mistake. I uh failed to give the proof of service. Yeah, let me uh just uh get councel.
Sorry, you're waiting for me for that. Sorry. So, it's it's the proof of uh publication is on the portal, right? Y I have looked at Okay. Just want to be sure. proof of service. That's correct.
Okay. And just one other uh if I if I may, both on the agenda and in the planners report. This property is listed as lot two, but it is actually lot one. And you'll see for more law submissions, including our proof of notice, um it is lot
51. 51. 51. 51, not 52. How is it? That's correct. Um, okay. Thank you. Typically, we have a site plan, but but, uh, it's it's on the civil drawing. So, I I think that but I think the aerial photograph is is is helpful to see some of the, um,
context. So, um, we are asking for for the use variance, which I touched on previously, but we're also asking for a height and rear yard setback variance for the project. Um so the the building that we're proposing
is um four stories which is um consistent with the neighbor immediately adjacent to this property um to the south. Um one of the one of the other unique features of this stretch of palisade um is that there are a variety
of of building heights. There's a variety of building types from uh mixeduse buildings, larger multif family buildings, uh one and two family dwellings. So, um on a on a block like this where there's not necessarily a
uniform height, um uh uh a four-story building here is is uh contextually appropriate. Um, additionally, all of the multif family buildings in this stretch are either four stories or greater. So, uh, the the multif family
building that we're proposing is in keeping with the, uh, sort of commonly found, uh, situation on the block for, uh, multif family building. Um the other factor is the uh um the proportions of the facade which I'll
touch on later in my presentation. But the three over one the division of the the residential floors and the commercial floors on a 50 foot lot. Uh it's much more appropriate to have a taller building as opposed to a shorter three-story building. Proportionally it just it works better. Uh architecturally
it works better. Um so from from that perspective too, not just from a context standpoint, but from an actual architectural perspective, uh the taller height is um uh appropriate here. Um the uh rear yard setback, just to touch
on that uh briefly, um as you can see here, Palisade uh does not have a a uniform rear yard. Uh you don't have that doughut configuration that you see elsewhere throughout the city. Um there
are buildings that have uh uh increased rear yard setbacks. There are situations where over here you have a principal building which is set all the way back to the rear property line. There accessory buildings scattered throughout the block. Um so um again in this
situation, you know, rear yard setback is uh is appropriate. Um, one of the other things I'd like to point out is it will be considerably shorter. The proposed building will be considerably shorter than the the building immediately to the south. Um,
and then the uh the final point I'd like to make is that the currently the site has a a two family building towards the front and then an accessory garage building towards the rear of the property. This this garage is going to be removed as part of the project and
dedicated as green space, open space for the project. So the there's about this garage is about 680 square ft and the proposed footprint of the new building that will encroach into
the rear yard setback is uh only 335 ft. So, we're actually reducing the um even though it's a it's a new building, the amount of square footage or building footprint that extends into the rear yard set setback will actually be
reduced uh by this building. Let's go back to the first page here. Um, so I'll just uh I'll now quickly walk you through the floor plans for the building. Um, and I I'll I'll touch on some specific uh concerns that came up uh this week um uh
from the adjoining neighbor uh because it's it's not shown uh on these drawings, but I I do want to put it on the record. Um so uh currently this uh so Palisate Avenue is is here to the to the right of the screen. Um
uh north is towards towards the bottom of the screen. Um the the neighbor to the north has a uh lot line window here that um the the surveyor missed. Um the owner was aware wasn't aware that it was there and we missed it when we did our
our field investigation. So um typically in this situation, we would step the building back around that window. Um but in conversations with the neighbor, we we have agreed to um relocate that window to to this wall and close up the
opening. Um so that that's something that the owner is is willing to do. Um a couple other issues um with with this with this neighbor that we want to address. There's by putting a building here up against this this window well um
it restricts the drainage. So um we will be including a drain here within this courtyard even though again it's not on our property. Um we're we're alleviating uh any kind of drainage issues here by including the
the the yard drain. And then finally um there were some concerns um about uh visibility when when coming out of this driveway. So, uh, we've we've also agreed to put a, um,
uh, a strobe or a notification device on the building to alert pedestrians, um, that, uh, you know, there there's a car coming out of this garage. Um, and then finally, um, there's a, um, service mast
here, um, that will be relocated, um, as well. So, um I just want to be clear that if there are any issues with with the neighboring building, um if there's anything that needs to be modified as a result of the construction of this building, uh that the owner um
the applicant is is more than willing to to work with the with the neighbors to address any concerns and and if necessary pay for any work to uh alleviate uh those issues. So, uh, with that, I'll just quickly go through the floor plans. Um, uh,
fronting, uh, Palisade, we have the the main building entrance and lobby. Uh, and then we have the commercial space here towards the center of the plan. Um, the amenity space, the lobby is pushed back towards the center of the building. And then we have three uh side and
rearfacing um rearfacing dwelling units on the first floor with access to the rear yard. Can you just address the uh commercial space, what it's designed for? That is one of the questions that was raised. Sure. Um, right now it's we're thinking
a a small retail shop, a coffee shop, um, uh, something of that nature, a cafe. Um, we don't have a tenant in place. Um, uh, I know in the staff report there was concern about the potential for a
dispensary here. It's not permitted and the owner has no interest in, uh, entertaining a dispensary tenant at this location. So it would be a you know general retail uh tenant. Um moving up the plan
uh floors two through four are generally the same. There are two rear facing units uh two frontfacing units. The core of the building is in the center and then we have uh three sidefacing units. The the difference between this floor and the upper floors is that the we have a three-bedroom affordable unit which
will be provided in this in this corner here. Uh again, this is floor plan is the same. We just have a slight tweak. This is a two-bedroom on the the upper two floors. Um moving on to the the roof plan. Um the
roof has a uh a common amenity space uh towards the center of the roof. This was um repositioned to be a little bit smaller and further back from the front facade. Uh the idea was to try to minimize the visibility to the greatest extent possible and locate it towards the center of the roof as opposed to
having it towards the front. Um we have a a large green roof uh some mechanical space and then we have a uh a common area roof deck um towards the rear. Um, another feature is that we have a a a green roof around the
perimeter and uh that was to provide a buffer to the neighbors so that you don't have the the the occupants of the roof deck, you know, right up against the back of the building or leaning over. So, it provides a little bit more privacy um to the to the adjoining neighbors.
Um I I touched on the front facade uh a little bit uh earlier in my presentation. Um again we have this uh three over one situation with um the the first floor of the building being largely glass uh with aluminum accents. So um you know high visibility into the
the retail space. Um and the upper floors were using uh brick as the primary facade material. Um the overall design is fairly simple. Um simple simple brick building with with punched openings, variable punched
openings. Um and then this this here is the profile of the roof deck, but this this is a flattened view of the building. This this is set back uh substantially. This is the uh rear elevation. It's a similar similar design. Large oversized
uh windows. Uh we do have balconies along the back back of the building, you know, facing uh views of of Manhattan. Um is a little bit simpler as we're using fiber cement laps siding as the primary material for the back. Um and
this design continues around um the uh south elevation as well. Uh it's same same general design. Um, I will note that we are extending the where the building set is set back from the there's a sideyard setback on the south side of the building. We are carrying
the the brick um around that corner um to uh um provide a cohesive view from the from the front of the building. Um this is finally this is the uh north elevation. Again, we're right up against the property line. So, it's it's very
very simple lapsiding. Uh, this is the courtyard that I I referenced um previously. Um, another thing I want to point out with the neighbor is that there are um attic vents that are on the on the building. Um, I I haven't seen
them myself. Um, so I I can't provide any direct testimony on to how we're going to treat those. Um, but I will put on the record now that uh if they are obstructed by the building, uh we will address that um with the neighbor to his uh satisfaction.
Um this is uh just our material board. I won't spend too much time here. Is there any questions? Um and then we also have our our shadow analysis which again is is pretty straightforward. I I I will answer any
questions that that that you may have and then uh finally I'll I'll conclude with um with the rendering. So uh thank you. That concludes my testimony. Well, can I ask you can you detail just um quickly the variances required and the
reasons for them? Um, would you like to provide testimony on that? Okay, that that'll Caroline, our planner, will testify uh further on the variances. Okay, that's it for this.
We'll hold the question till the end. Okay. Okay. Our next witness is our engineer Want me to pull up your truth? I do. State your full name, please. Brian
Liebuskin, L I E B S K I N D. Thank you. Thank you. Can you uh briefly describe for the board your background qualifications? Uh, sure. I've uh presented before this board u previously my license is in good standing.
Yes. Thank you. Uh so as uh the architect just went through uh the uh existing site that uh currently uh is made up of a the the main residential dwelling um as well as
an accessory uh garage uh in the rear of the property. Um the existing site is nearly 100% impervious um and includes surface parking in both the front yard and the rear yard. um as you can see
from the application um for you. The uh proposed project uh would would create um a a landscaped rear yard um the the setback proposed is 30.2 ft um from the rear property line um with uh a small
area for pavers and then the the remainder um to be uh seated and uh uh and landscape material. Um, we will be replacing the uh streetscape uh along Paliside Avenue
uh per the city standards with with new concrete sidewalk uh new curbing um street trees and and lighting. Um the existing uh driveway and curb cut um bas on the site will will be removed as there's no uh parking proposed um as
part of this application. Um and we we are in the paliside preservation overlay district. Um we have provided a plan in the uh civil set as well as in the engineering report. It outlines the compliance with the the setbacks um in
the the pup requirements. Uh I also want to touch upon the stormwater for the project. Um the uh site is 7,500 square feet. Um and based on the the disturbance um thresholds for per the
Jersey City storm water control ordinance uh we are classified as a minor development. Uh we have provided the uh calculations for a dry well system in the rear of the property um collected from the the roof drains. Um
we understand uh from um the neighborhood uh uh you know concerns about about flooding um and can uh make improvements to to that system and provide a more of a traditional detention basin um under the building.
Um as mentioned the existing site you know uh nearly you know 100% impervious you know by by virtue of um you know providing the landscape in in the rear yard and um you know we are providing
reduction um but we will um uh you know as part of the uh the application and um the submission with the JCMUA provide a a detention system under the building um in lie of the the drywalls that are shown in the rear
yard. Um, there are no further questions, that would conclude my testimony. Okay, our last witness is Carolyn Welletow as our planner. I believe in the first case she was qualified as an expert. So,
we can dispense with that. I acknowledge I remain under oath. Let me pull up the correct project. Um, so we're here this evening for a couple variances. Uh, the first one is a D1 use variance that is related to
commercial space, a D uh five density variance, a D6 height variance, and then two bulk variances. Um, one for the for the minimum rear yard setback and the rooftop apartment height. Oh,
do you So, this is this is showing the zoning table. I mean, if we can get the engineering plans. Okay. Okay. Um, so I think I'm going to start off with the D1 use variance. Start start at the top. Um, so we are requesting a D1
use variance for the commercial space. Um, and as was sort of testified, uh, this was something that came as sort of an ask from the community, um, as something that they would potentially like to see at a at a ground floor here. Um, this is a larger site. It's 50 ft
wide. Um, typically in this area, you're going to see more 25, you know, by 100. That's your more typical lot. This is 50 ft wide. And so it really allows for an ample space for not only to have a a a decent sized residential lobby, but to
have 800 square feet of commercial space. Um so we thought that this was an appropriate use down here to really activate that ground floor um rather than having, you know, um potentially additional residential or or parking here. We thought that this would be a
better use of this space that would be more appropriate for Palisades Avenue. Um and again part of what makes when we look at a D1 use variance we're looking at um what is uh something that will
again promote the general welfare and is particularly suited to the site. Um so Palace th this site is located on Palisade Avenue which is one of the sort of major um
it's a it's a bit of a commercial corridor within the Heights. Um south of here uh south just south of uh Congress Street um is uh an RC zone where you've residential commercial is permitted um and encouraged. Um so this is very
consistent with the development style that is up and down this corridor. Um additionally this is just like 02 miles. It's you know with just a couple minutes from the 9inth Street Congress Street uh station. Um you the the steps down to
it. Um and so that really allows there to be a lot of foot traffic you know along this corridor people coming back and forth trying to access uh the light rail station. So again, that's another uh uh reason that we think uh commercial use would be appropriate here. It's
going to have the necessary foot traffic um going past the site to support that type of use. Um and I think it really will promote the general welfare here. Um again, one of we we could have parking here, but we
think that this is a better use because it eliminates that curb cut. creates the more pedestrian friendly um character um that we think is appropriate. Um and it would also help to remove it would also remove fencing which currently extends
into the sidewalk. So overall I think that this results in a better u pedestrian experience along Palestine Avenue. Um, and again, I just think that this allows for that smallcale retail which enliven the streetscape and allows
for that 15minute city, allows for those small commercial uses which make these urban communities places that people want to live. They want to be able to walk down the street a couple blocks and get to a small store, a small c cafe,
something like that. So, that's the type of use that people like to see in these communities. and it it's particularly along Palisate Avenue where where it's appropriate. Um looking at the D5 density variance.
Um so uh under relevant case law when we look at a density variance the standard here is whether the property uh can accommodate the proposed density. Um so this project is proposing 24 units
that's 139 units per acres in terms of density. Um and we believe that this site again is appropriate for that in intensity. Uh it is a larger site. You know it's 50 ft wide. It is um 7500
square feet. Um so it's it's not only is it wider, it's deeper. So you get a much larger site. Um and so you really can create a building that has a footprint that creates that diversity of housing typologies. You can create uh you know
studios one two three bedrooms. We we have this footprint that we can create that diversity of housing. Um and it's really consistent with other multif family buildings who are in this neighborhood. um directly in the
adjacent uh I think the 618 Palisades Avenue uh that's 8 units 109 units uh per acre there's 615 Palisade which is a 16 unit building 139 units per acre um there's some other 620 Palisades Avenue
which is 18 units 75 units per acre 650 Palisades 34 units 170 units per acre so as you can see it really fits within this context within this uh this block of there are these you know larger lots
that have these sort of uh multif family buildings that have that 100 you know 40 units as as an average. Um so I do think that this site can accommodate
this use. Um you know we we are providing conforming um uh coverages. we're actually improving the coverage the impervious coverage on this site as as was testified. So I think we can accommodate that use. Um and again this
this project is situated on Palisades Avenue which is a corridor where denser mixeduse development is encouraged in the RC2 district which is south of Congress Street. So this is sort of the continuation of the character of the corridor. Um and it is you know like I said it's very close to that 9inth
Street Congress Street station. So again, we're close to transit, which is where you tend to want to see your higher densities for transit oriented development. So I think you know all in that this is an appropriate site and it can accommodate that additional uh
density. And then this is an ICO application. Uh we are per meeting the standard. Uh the standard here would actually be 2.4. Uh it's 10% so 2.4 units. Um typically if you had 2.4 for you provide two units and then you pay a
fee in lie to cover that point4. This application we're providing the third unit. So we are actually sort of going above and beyond what the ICO requires and we're providing that additional unit. So there are three affordable units in this building. Um so that's
that's above you know what is the minimum required. Uh and then looking at the height that's the D6 variance. Um and again looking what what are the the special cate what are the special reasons what's the criteria that we look for um and we look
and say is it going to promote a harmonious consistent visual environment while not offending the purposes of the height restriction which is namely light and air. Um this building is proposed at 43 feet uh 8 in and four stories. Um that does exceed the what is permitted
in the zone. Um, but I I believe that this will create that consistent harmonious visual environment. It is consistent with the adjacent structures uh to the south of it. It's consistent with the other multif family buildings that are interspersed throughout this
block throughout the corridor where you are seeing those fourstory buildings for multif family housing. Um so again I those four uh properties I had mentioned before 6 uh 618 Palisad
620 Palisad 6 uh 615 and 650 all of those are fourstory building. So again when you're seeing them multif family you're seeing them in that four-story context. Okay. Um and I think the additional height really is going to have incremental impacts on light and air to the adjacent
properties. uh it's really limited to early afternoon hours. Uh those morning shadow shadows are primarily cast on the street. Late afternoon shadow impacts mostly encompassed within the existing building shadows cast by the other existing fourstory buildings. So again
it it will have an incremental impact on on the shadows. Um when I looking at the bulk variances, um we're asking for a minimum rear yard setback. Um so this project is providing a 30
foot a little over 30 feet of uh rear yard setback. And again, this is a much deeper lot than we typically see. So that's why 30 feet, even when we have 30 feet of rear yard setback, we're still asking for a variance because we we're
that 30 feet is still only 20%. Um, but there's a little quirk of this lot. Um, the uh there's the lot line and then when you look at the property, there's a
retaining wall that goes around sort of the edges. That retaining wall is actually on the property behind us. And so visually it looks like there's another 5t of the rear yard, but that's not actually on the property. So the 20 the
30 ft that we're proposing, that's from our lot line. Visually, functionally, we're going to have 36 because we're going to be removing that um existing garage which is in the reard and that does extend beyond our property line
onto the adjacent property. that will be removed. All of the pavement back there will be removed. And so overall, that space will become, you know, open space. It'll become part of functionally part of that yard.
Um I don't see that there's um you know, light or air impacts that are a detriment to this. Um the building that's a directly adjacent to us to the rear, they're the bottom of that retaining wall. They're backed up to that retaining wall. So they're not
really going to feel a lot of the impact from our height cuz again we're already we're 36 ft back from where the wall is, which is what's already creating impacts for them. So they're really not going to see significant impacts from from this variance.
Uh looking at the maximum rooftop a pertinance height, that's the final one. And this just happens to relate to the fact that um in the uh Jersey City land development ordinance, when you have buildings that are under 45 feet in
height, um you're only permitted 10 ft of a pertinance on the roof. And essentially, it means you can get a stairwell up there, but you can't get um elevators. Uh but in order to make this roof accessible for ADA, we have to get
an elevator up there. They're typically 14 16 feet because you have mechanicals on top. So this is this is a very standard height for an elevator bulkhead. And so that's what we're requesting. Uh it does meet all the setback requirements. So it really won't
have a visual impact uh from the street. I think that this project advances the purposes of the municipal land use law. um you know it's providing appropriate uses in uh along this corridor consistent with purpose A um I think
it's going to provide the adequate light air and open space consistent with purpose C um you know we are creating more open space than there exists today and I think that's a really great benefit um it will promote an appropriate population density consistent with purpose E um we are
again like I said you're creating that diversity of housing types we are providing the three affordable housing units. Um it'll promote a desirable visual environment consistent purpose I um again where right now you see a parking lot and a building and then
there's a parking lot behind it. This is going to be a new structure with ground flooror commercial. You know it's going to be uh creating and continuing that that um building wall along Palisade Avenue that exists from from the south
and continuing it. So, I do think that this is an improvement. Um, plus you get the new street tree and and the improvements to the sidewalks. Um, I don't see this as a negative will result in a substantial detriment to the general welfare. Uh, it's a cons multif family dwelling is consistent with the
residential character of the neighborhood. Um that proposed use again as I said I ground floor commercial use I think um adds to uh the character of the corridor the character of the neighborhood um as as a sort of mixeduse
corridor um that will provide benefits to the local community. Okay. Um and uh I don't see this as substantial impairment to the intent and purpose the zoning plan or the zoning ordinance. Um, it's advancing the goals
of the Jersey City master plan to provide unique, attractive, high-quality residential areas that serve an existing residents, attract new residents with a wide range of housing sty housing and lifestyle choices. So, I think it really meets the goals of that master plan. Uh,
so I think overall the variances can be granted and that they meet both the positive and the negative criteria. Um, and that's my direct testimony in case any unless anyone has questions. No, we'll leave that for the end. Thank you so much. And uh is there anybody in
the public that would like to speak? What? Yeah, he only had Is is that your is that it? Yeah, he said only three. Yeah. Okay. You have three minutes, Mr. Shy. Paul Stillanu. Uh my name is Paul
Stillanu. St Y L I A N O U. I reside in Hope, but I own 628 Palisad Avenue. that the testimony you will provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Yeah. So, um I heard Will mention
at the very beginning, the architect, Will Wackman, um that they've been working on this project for two years. They've reached out to the community. They've been talking to people. I live next I own the building next door, 628 Palisade. Nine days ago when I received
the certified letter is the first I've heard of this. So, in the nine days, I had to very quickly teach myself how to read blueprints and shadow studies and all this other stuff. As best as I can tell from their shadow studies, the only time
my building will go from having sunlight all of the time to basically just having sunlight for an hour or so in the afternoon starting at about 4:00 on. So my my entire building because they're going all the way to the front lot line
and they're going three four stories up the front of my building is rendered sunlight less if that's a word. I'm sorry. Is that that white building next to it? Uh yeah. Can Yeah, it's the it's the little white building right next Yeah. The white building back up there.
Actually, it would help. Oh, it's not up there. Well, I see it here. So, it's the white building right next to So, basically, uh there it is. There we go. Okay. So, yeah, I'm the immediate house next to the left. Okay. So, um the testimony that I heard from
the planner was basically referencing everything south of that lot. Everything north of that lot with the exception of one old apartment building that's way north is all multifamily threestory houses. It's
not it. I think they're twos and threes, but I there's nothing that's taller than three stories north of my building except for that one apartment building that's been there forever in a day. Um, so this is quite unique. It's it's we're
taking a two family house, turning it into a 24unit building. We're taking away seven parking spaces, but we're adding 22 families and God knows how many cars, right? It's already tight on parking up
there as it is. Where are all these cars going to go? Mhm. I I can already anticipate the number of times I'm going to have to call to get cars towed out of my driveway because people are double parking, desperate, what have you. Same thing goes for the restaurant cafes
they're going to put into the base. people are going to be double parking all over the place. I I mean, I I understand it looks pretty, especially compared to what's there right now. And I have to I have to say that once I reached out to the owner and
I managed to track down the architect through the plans that were online, they were very accommodating about, yes, we have to fix that lot line window that wasn't in the survey. Yes, we'll put in a drain in your window. Well, you know, they're going to do all that stuff,
but um I don't know that this is still the right thing is over. Okay. All right. Thank you so much. Any other U speaker? I do. Bridget Fujio. Bridget Fujio.
F U J I O K A 631 Palisade Avenue. Okay. Hi. Um, thanks for letting me speak to you guys tonight. Um, I want to reiterate what my neighbor said here is that until last week, this is the first
time we've ever heard of this project. We didn't get any notification. And there were several other neighbors that did want to attend this meeting, but because of the short notice and not receiving anything, they weren't able to. Um, so
first of all, like he said, anything north from that area, there's nothing taller than two to three stories. There's also no retail over there. It's only it stays right to the corner. Um, and it does affect the light, air, and
privacy of all the neighbors around us from me across the street to next door. Um, it blocks the light, but then you also have the idea of this roof coming up and people put roof lights on there. These flood lights that stay on all night.
Also concerns about this business going in. Are they going to have lighted signs that are going to just flash into my window all day in addition to that um strobe light for the parking that was suggested? How is that going to affect everyone that lives here? Um there's
also um from my understanding and I'm very limited in this is there has to be a a hardship that the owner of the property has a hardship and that's why they're asking for this variance. I don't see how there's any kind of hardship. It just seems to me like a
poor business decision if you can't keep in line with the plans that are allowed here. Why are we keep approving and asking for variances? This happens time and time again. communities speak out and we're not listened to. Um we're concerned about the storm water
management and flooding. Flooding has increased in the heights over the years. Um many have attributed that to the increase in non-permeable surfaces and uh let's see what else the height's too high.
Um I also have concern about who is the owner. The affidate ownership there's a discrepancy there. who actually owns this property seems a little I don't know suspicious. Um let's see. There's no the alert.
Um you have this big property now. It's three times the size of it's three times the units that are usually allowed. Who's maintaining the garbage, the retail space? Is that garbage for all these units going to be on our sidewalks for? I don't know how long.
30 seconds. Okay. Um, yeah. I just really wish you guys would listen to the community, listen to the neighbors. Uh, this is not good for our neighborhood. Nothing north of uh that to Union City has anything of that size.
No commercial space. And it really is uh impeding on our quality of life and the people who have invested their time and energy into their homes and their community. And that's all I got to say. But thank you. Thank you. Okay. Hi. Hi. Good evening.
I do. Viviana Perez. Yes. And your address? 637 and a half Palisa Avenue. Okay. I just want to reiterate what my neighbors have said. I just received this notification
and you can it can you can the the date is uh 7:25 and I picked it up from the post office last Saturday and that's when I just came to know uh about this
project didn't know a word about all all of this project that they have been working so hard for the past two years okay okay um I came to the heist 20 years ago and I I came with the understanding that
I was buying an old house in an old city and that I would have a tough time finding parking because I had no garage. And I was okay with that. And I have live okay in my house for the past 20 years because I had incredible sun
sunrises and beautiful sunsets and I have plenty of birds in my backyard. But now what I'm experiencing 20 years later is that I'm being surrounded by these giant boxes. So I have a giant white box
in the bar in the back that block my entire view um of the sunset of the planes coming into New Airport. The birds are not coming anymore. Not in in the amount that that they were coming
when when I first moved. So the lady planner was talking about the character of the neighborhood and I can tell you that the character of the neighborhood is nothing like the behemoth that they are showing on the
screen. The the project is simply too large too large too max too much for our community and for our neighborhood. It's it's going to put a strain on an already overburdened infrastructure. Mhm.
We don't have we don't have the infrastructure to support and yet another project of this size because we already have enough with the 620 with the 642 with the 617 with
the 618 and not to mention all the ones that I that had they have been built in our back and then what is happening is that you guys are not listening to the community seem Simple as that. Please do not allow this to become another 128
Glenwood. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Hi. Do you swear that the testimony you provide will be the truth? Yes, I do.
Uh Bob and Patel. B H A V I N. Uh Patel. Thank you. uh uh 211 Webster Avenue. Thank you. Um so good evening. I'm gonna strike a different tone. So my name is Bavin. Um I'm a resident of the Heights living at Webster and Bowers. I've been back for 5
years in Jersey City, having been born here once but moved away. Um so I'm here today to speak in support of the proposed project S626. Um and hope that the board approves applicants variance request. So many current height residents and many people would hope to be our neighbors in the Heights can
attest to the can attest to attest to the brutal conditions of our residential rental and ownership market. You know, we experience acute housing price pressures due to intense demand but a dire supply. Bringing these 24 new units, three of which are income restricted above and beyond what's
required in the ICO. Bringing them to market is vitally important to bringing making bringing down housing costs across the neighborhood in the city. public policies public policy experts have consistently found that building more housing helps improve affordability across a broader neighborhood. Even if
these failings don't feel intuitive to my neighbors is nonetheless true. Um if for no simple other reason that we all compete for housing with one another and with newcomers and so to build more housing is to make affordable housing make make all housing affordable for everyone. Okay.
I regularly run up the stretch of Palisate Avenue where the proposed project would be located. A four-story 24-unit building would be completely in character with existing mixed use and moderate density elements of this of this of this neighborhood. You know, there's there's a there's a 16
building or 18 sorry, pardon me. There's 18 unit building directly adjacent to the building uh to the proposed project, 16un building across from it, and a 34 unit building uh just up the street at Palisad and North. all of which are at least four stories tall and have higher density um higher unit
densities than allowed under the current zoning. Additionally, the inclusion of uh ground retail will add more eyes in the street, enhancing uh community safety and vibrancy. To make an analogy, your iPhone has a thousand gigabytes of data storage and fits easily into your pocket. This proposed project is an easy
fit for the neighborhood and our housing needs. I think the real question is not whether this I think this real I think the real question is not whether this project should receive a variance from the R1 zoning as I suggest it would but rather is the R1 zoning appropriate for this parcel given that it's only a minute walk from
many major US bus stops and three-minute walk from the light rail. I think the heights deserve smart growth, appropriate densities, greater vibrancy and more housing in congruence with the city's master plan vision and this project delivers that. So, I hope tonight the pro the board approves the zoning variances as sought by the
applicant for the project. 30 seconds. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Good evening. Good evening. Do you swear that the testimony you'll provide this evening will be the truth? The whole truth. I do. State your full name, please. Juan Martinez.
And your address? M A R T I N E Z. My address is 623 Palis Avenue. Thank you, Jersey City. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My English is not so good, but I want to
say one thing. I live right across the building that they're going to build. As um I lived there 46 years and now I
I know that they're going to do that building and you got uh a law a new law that the zone permit is only three story height. They pay a lot of people professional
to to study what's going on with the city, what is more convenience for the city. Uh after that they make a rule. the rule that they chain whatever was uh put like 30 something years ago. Now
that they chain for threetory building, no parking, it's okay. No parking. But now this person that they want to build uh another building, they want to put four story which is what I understand is
not going to be four stories like four and a half. If you you can show the plane the the not not this uh picture the plane is show like another half of for floor on
the on top. So it's not going to be four floor. It's going to be four and a half. And they said okay no parking is okay. The it's good for us. The new uh zone is
good for us. No parking. So they take advantage of that. But now they said, "Okay, we take this one, but we want four floor, no three floor." So I live right across.
It's not going to be no sound for me. It's not going to be no enough air for me. I got to share all the uh the sewage line with all these people because everybody got to go to the bathroom.
Now we're not going to have maybe enough supplies to do all all our necessities. Why? Because they want to make profit more uh unit. I don't think it's fair. Okay.
I don't think it's fair. Plus right now I got problem with the parking. I got a parking space all the time. I got to be fighting because they park over there and they got no excuse. They said, "No,
no, I got I got no nowhere to park. Nowhere to park." What's going to happen with the the other 24 uh apartment? They don't have 24 cars. They going to have maybe 40 cars because one family,
they don't have only one car. Sometime they got two cars. Yeah. Maybe some of them they don't need car to go to work. That's time. Your time is you have time. Jessica. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Can can I ask you a question just before
my three minutes start? So I'm representing the Riverview Native Association and uh what I was asked last time is to not have every you know 20 different members of our group uh speak and that I represent. Could I get five minutes just in light of that? Okay. Is that okay?
Yes. Go ahead. I appreciate that because I I have a bit to get through and I and rather than having 10 people speak. That's fine. That's fine. Just go ahead. Has anybody reached out to your Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We we we have but obviously the they didn't reach out to these neighbors which is a problem of course. You got to be the last one.
Yeah. Go ahead. Okay. So I'll swear. Sorry. Do you swear that I don't understand but he's going to be the last one. Yes, I do. Somebody Kern Weissman W K E R N. Last name is W I SS M an AN. And
I'm at 576 Palisade Avenue. Thank you. Thank you. Great. I appreciate that accommodation. Um so, uh I am Kurt Weissman representing the Riverview Native Association. I'm also the chair of the development committee. Um so I I'm going to read a prepared statement and then I'll get to a couple other
items. Uh good evening members of the zoning board. Um, I appreciate all your s, you know, sometimes thankless job you're doing here. Um, speaking uh on behalf of of the the association in our current position. I certainly don't speak on behalf of the neighbors. Um,
but I I support and understand what their objections are. So, our objection is very straightforward. Uh, the the project is just too big and granting this variance will undermine our zoning zoning ordinance and master plan. So first uh and this is important because we are a city of laws, right? We should
just try to adhere to them. So first the proposed density is extraordinary. It's 142 units per acre as their planner testified more than three times the R1 zone maximum which this sits. This isn't a minor adjustment. It's asking you to ignore the rules entirely for the zone.
That's just reality. Um you're really not in in law uh allowed to reference other variance approvals like the one next to it. You're actually not supposed to do that. You're supposed to each individual project is supposed to be looked at in its own merits not in reference to what another variance that
may have been granted because those conditions site condition may have been different. Right? Okay. Um so second the applicant wants an additional floor while providing really nothing in return. They keep talking about the, you know, this this this
variance for a commercial unit, but really they're asking for a floor and and and and really not providing a significant community benefit. What they're asking for is really a windfall for them, additional units, additional height. Um, so in our discussions with the applicant, which we did have to
answer your question, we identified two alternatives that RNA, you know, would support. Again, not speaking for the neighbors, but two that we would support. So, one was simply building the height to three stories as that's allowed. And then using the affordable housing overlay, which thanks to Tanya
and Matt and others and planning department put put in place. They put that in place very specifically for lots like this. The affordable housing overlay was meant for this. This is exactly so it increased that options for developing large lots within the R1.
That's why it's there. So we said okay you can do that or if you're going to proceed with a fourth floor that's going to have quite an impact as you heard here there's got to be really something significant the only thing we could think of that would be really significant would be going above and beyond the affordability and doing like
20% affordability that's where that you know the five came from it they simply refused to do that so we said okay then then just build as of right you can do it there's no hardship on this lot so this request is particularly frustrating because we just completed a new master
plan process, updated the zoning map. Our comm our community and our group participate in that process. No one at city planning in this entire process or the community said that this block should be triple the normal density with four-story buildings. That was never
came up and this was just on last year. I was intimately spent I mean do dozens of hours on this. The community and the city planning agreed on density and height limits for good reasons that the those reasons haven't changed. The zoning rules provide predictability for residents such as these and ensure
thoughtful development. We're asking you to just uphold those rules. That's all we're asking here. Um granting this variance what undermines the affordable housing overlay which is really important. The HO offers relief from density limits but it also but it all all requires other bulk regulations be
respected and that's the key. It was designed precisely to discourage a proposal like this one. We ask that you simply uphold the intent of the law. It's all we're asking you to do. Uh we urge you to deny the request of variances. We need we see no hardship. Developer has a great deal of freedom
under the R1H regulations to build an economically viable three-story building with no density regul. They can put as many as they can fit via building code. One minute. Yep. There are no public benefits from the addition of the fourth floor. Granting variance here will sub substantially impair the intent and
purpose of municipal zoning ordinance and master plan. If you approve the variance that triples the allowed density in R1 just because the developer asked for it and pro and provides the rewards to the AHO without enforcing its restrictions. What's to stop the next developer from doing the same thing at
the at the lot next door? The last thing I want to cover and this is important. The plans you have the engineering report is inaccurate. This is a major site development. I I want to be clear. I know I spoke plenty about this that it requires the the storm water ordinance
says if you replace if you replace 5,000 square feet of regulated impervious service that you must this must be considered a major development not a minor and and just to be clear on that just to to read this through this
the definition of imperous surface and again I'm that was from five minutes over let me just finish this one wait a minute we're letting him finish. Thank you. Yeah. And and I just want to make this so the replacement of over 5,000 square ft of regulated impervious surface that's from your Jersey City
storm water ordinance that you guys need to enforce, right? The the one of the definitions of regulated impervious surface is the total area of impervious surface proposed to be collected by an existing storm water conveyance system. Existing,
right? So you're basically saying I'm going to now sorry it says newly collected by an existing storm. Meaning that if you're building a new project, you're destroying and demoing an existing building. You're putting up a new building and you're now uh disturbing over 5,000 square feet of
impervious surface. That is the condition of which makes it be a major. So unfortunately your current plans that you have in front of you that you're being asked to vote it on are that engineering port isn't accurate. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I have a question for him. Did the RNA ask for the use variants to
be included in this application? No. Some neighbors suggested it as an alternative to the original proposal that was to drive into a driveway and then back out upon Palisade for like Yes, they did. No,
RNA did. No, some neighbors suggested that. Some neighbors did. some neighbors that were on the initial call with with the group basically said that as an alternative to the original plan which was to have a driveway they suggested that an alternate was to use
okay because it was just testified I just wanted to make just I just wanted to understand it was suggested by neighbors to do that though okay thank you if I can clarify it was should it o and that and that was a meeting that was uh organized by the development
okay it was RNA development committee Uh I believe Kern was there along with some of the neighbors. Yeah. So um Okay. All right. Did I Did you conclude all your speakers? Is that it? That that concludes all our speakers. You have another speaker?
Oh, I'm I'm just a public member of the public. Okay. Hi, my name I do. Uh, Dario D A R I O Gutierrez G U T I E R R E Z. Um, 36 Magnolia Avenue. Um, yeah. Hi. So,
um, I just wanted to, um, I wasn't going to speak today. Um, I was just here, um, you know, uh, sitting with a friend u watching, but I I guess I just wanted to address like a a specific point that was made, which is, you know, they could use the AHO. Um that would that's true but
um you know under the HO and the three stories I don't think that they would include uh three affordable units like they're including now. Um you know have I I guess I it's 10%. It's 10% but now they're doing 12 a.5%. And there's units on the first floor too
and you would remove that first floor so there would be lower unit count. There wouldn't be the um the bulk um that that this building has. Right. So there would be a lot less living area 10% of a lot less living area compared to 12 and a half% of you know what's more living area in this plan. Um I was wondering
you know question for the the team. Um did did you guys study a three floor uh AHO compliant development for this or did you I'll I'll ask I'm sorry. Go ahead. Um I don't know if I'm allowed to ask them but did you study an AHO compliant
development for this site? Um we did look at it. Yes, we looked at a different configurations. Yeah. Would any of them have had three affordable units? Can you please answer? Um, you know, would you would you have
been able to put like, you know, enough units in the threetory envelope to uh reach, you know, the three units that you're doing here? I mean, we we did look at a number of alternatives here. You know, I hate to speculate on alternatives since, you know, that that's not the application
that we're we're presenting tonight. Um I mean it goes without saying that if you reduce the number of units then you reduce the number of affordable units. So uh just without any sort of official review or analysis if we did theoretically reduce the building height
we would end up with one or uh possibly zero units depending on how how we reconfigured the unit mix. So yeah. So so you know so that's all I wanted to say. you know, um the the gentleman over here was talking about five units, you know, affordable, and
he's saying three is not enough, but you know, now you're going to push a plan that would have zero or one affordable units. You know, I think I think that uh you know, if if we want affordable housing in Jersey City, I think this is a good plan. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay. So, um we are That's it for the public. Is that it for the public? Okay. All right. So, we're going to try to finish this case right now. Okay. So, yeah. Do we have any comments from the
the commissioners? Yeah, I do. Me, too. Okay. So, so my my I have two questions and a comment. My first comment is I think this should go back and the immediate neighbors should be heard
and informed on the project because it seems like the immediate neighbors on Palisades had no clue up up until the 25th of July. The um first question is do you have a retention um system plans that we can look at
tonight? And the third question, I don't know who these questions would be directed to. And how deep are the ledges on the windows? Because it seemed like it's gonna be a gathering place for the pigeons. Do we let us finish? Any other question? Are you going to answer the question? Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead.
Yeah. I mean, it's it's a couple inches. It's it's, you know, fairly minimal projection. We do this kind of detail all the time. Um, I I'll let uh Brian um uh comment on the this. It's not a detention system, but I'll have him
offer more insight. Um, and you know, I agree it's it's unfortunate when we have, you know, neighbors who are, you know, blindsided uh by these applications. But, um, you know, it it was noticed properly. We did meet with RNA, the development group from RNA
several times. Um, and the owner is here almost every day. He has an owner occupied unit on the top floor and he's had conversations with with people. I don't know specifically who, but he he did inform me that he's had conversations with with neighbors. Um,
so he's like I said, he's there every day. So, um, okay. Um, I my question would be I see this building and it seems like it's You have to wait. Um, I see this
building and I think it's protruding too far out where it is infringing on the other building, that building right next to it. I don't I I I really don't see the purpose of that. I think it's it can be moved back a little back so it can be
aligned with the other building. So like that it won't be um see on the that white building. I mean, it doesn't have to protrude so much that it will infringe on this other building. Um, I think it it, you know, and in addition
to that, there doesn't seem to be any space between these buildings. I don't know. I mean, from what I'm I'm only going by what I'm seeing because I don't know. But from what I can see is there doesn't seem to be much buildings, any kind of space in between these
buildings. And there's no I I'm really not not not happy with that. I just don't see that design as something that I would I would approve. Sure. Well, I I will say that we're not requesting a any kind of setback variance for the for the front yard or for the sideyards. You know, the the
neighbor to the to the north is built to the lot line. So, we are permitted to also build to the lot line. Um so, correct. There is no space between the buildings to the north. We do have a setback on the south because because that building is set back. So the the yard setbacks for the side yards uh are
are conforming and um um again you know the we are matching the um uh for the for the front yard. Yes, it it does project beyond the um you know the neighbor next door. Um I I agree that that's a legitimate um it's a legit
legitimate concern. There is a transition that happens on this block. um you know, you do have a series of uh uh detached or semi- detached buildings that are that do have a front yard setback. Um but then on the southern side of the block, you do have a zero
front yard all the way to the to the corner. So, uh this is continuing that that that streetscape and there's there's always going to be a transition at some point and right now it happens at this property. Um and what we're proposing is that it's it's on the
but even even from the bottom I mean you can see um even the protruding from the stores. I mean there there's a like like a sort of like a roof over the stores. I mean you can even push it back and kind of get it some kind of I don't know some
there has to be something that can be done to go back and kind of have it in line with the stores. I mean, if you're going to push back the stores, the stores are pushed back. I mean, you don't have to have that that that roof or whatever it is that, you know, coming
out. Yeah, we do have a canopy and I I think we would be amendable to removing that as as a condition if it's it's if it's considered objectionable. Yeah, I was in that like like screed as I was going to say, is there a way to
design that corner redesign the corner of that building closest to the house next door? Yeah. like even square it off proportionally so it's fully set back. Also the driveway it's blindsided when you're trying to pull out of that driveway. You're going to I
mean someone could be walking riding a bike and just it's blindsided the the driveway. So it's a little concerning there. Um I mean are you willing to go back and figure this out a little bit or they would have Yeah. Yeah. I mean I mean it I it looks nice. I like the
restaurant stuff. I mean it it always is good to have Jersey City grow in that respect but it's like there are some issues there. Sure. I understand if you wanted to keep it a four story like you got to try and figure out how you could maneuver it. And then the other thought was three stories with the
fourth story being set back a little further like like even three and three forts or something like that. I mean just thoughts. I'm not saying you have to go do that but just to rethink some of these things cuz they're kind of noticeable. And they understand the street, the building next to it, their
street, their street line is equal to yours, but there's no house next door. The house is next door to yours, unfortunately. Yeah, they're noting on another property. Yeah, that's the Yeah, that's it is what it is. Yeah, I mean, it is what it is.
We did have a conversation about potentially recessing this corner. you know, it becomes typ diff difficult at a corner situation to recess the building on the first floor substantially. Um or all the way off all the way up a little bit on one side being able to
reconfigure. I don't know the answer. You're the architect on that. But uh just an idea if if you want to go mess around with a little bit maybe there's something to do in the back that changes it and you could trade off the front. I mean, listen, this everyone has to the community, everybody else has to
talk and figure things out. Some things are just the way they are. Like, it's the zoning is the zoning and this is this and that is that. But we're trying to change some things and, you know, at least make an effort. Not that you didn't, but I'm just saying there are some people that didn't get the notice.
And I don't I didn't see the the the mailing date or the postage date on it. So, I mean, one person brought it up here, so I'm assuming the date might have been the what was the mailing date. All right. Okay. Notices.
Okay. So, I don't know the answer to that, but yeah, that that's the required timeline. That's when Yeah, it's more than 10 days. That's what they're required by law. Mhm. No, it was post 25th, you said. Correct. post this.
It just needs to be postmarked 10 days prior. Yes, postmarked 10 days. Yeah, but still I think they should have a little more notice and I think they should I I I I'll apologize here because we rely heavily on the neighborhood associations. We tell applicants continually to reach out to them. You
know, I don't know what the uh membership is of the RNA. I don't know if folks on the the street have been part of it at times or not or or choose to participate or not. You know, we do rely heavily on that. There is uh to
require them to do a community meeting um outside of outside of neighborhood associations is quite a big uphill task for them to uh find a form for that to do that. So they reasonably rely on neighborhood associations for that. Um,
so I apologize if that is not in that sufficient. That is typically sufficient throughout the city. Um, you know, and and and they're they've reviewed tons of applications. They're very knowledgeable um, these community members throughout the city um, and
often give great insights. Um, and I think they did probably here. Um, I don't want to step ahead um, my full testimony, but I like to share that with the commissioners and I was going to I mean agree with you on that like I mean some people just
don't get the mail on the same time as everybody else and we can't we can't go by that all the time and you're right the neighbor you know community groups come a lot of times to speak about things and they know or should know what's going on when it's happening and so on certainly you can't pick and
choose when you want to say I do know something and don't know something but understood and my issue isn't even with that let's just go back to the project itself I'm just talking about some of those issues, that's all. I'm not even worried about the mailings at this point or anything like that as the basis for my decisions or anything.
Sure. I mean, you know, typically when there's redesign requests that that that we get, I mean, we could handle it either we we could come back with further revisions to the building or we could handle it with staff. I don't know if
there's um it's hard for me to say because uh yeah, I I would say and having sat through the uh Glenwood Avenue project, you know, you do have a lot of different views from neighbors and from the what I
heard from the neighbors objecting, I don't know how, except maybe with the corner uh issue with the shadows, how we can satisfy uh the neighbors. So, I don't want to get into a situation where we're back and forth uh with it, but if it can be handled administratively, um
that would be I think it's better that they they they table this because and come back. Would you like to table this and come back to us with the uh proposed changes? Sure. Um but u I'm more than happy to do that. Um
do you want to I don't know of any. What are we proposing to change? Well, that's that's what we would have to clarify. So, corner would push it back. There's just a couple of things. The there's additional um comments from the public
that they want they wanted to be informed. They want input. Okay. So, I I haven't even given my testimony. I we're not going to base um Okay. If you want. So, I mean, I I think
that if we're going to talk about adding things to the list, um we should understand if there's even accuracy in some of the public comment that came through regarding the storm water ordinance. Um but if we want to talk about uh um the scale and bulk of the building, I think that that um I hear
what the commissioners are saying and and that sounds like uh we should couch some of the conversation on uh redesign there for now at at this moment. Um, and if we need to revisit storm water, we should do so at a later date. So, I just want to be very specific with
what what we are going to revise and and come back with. So, um, please correct me if I'm I'm I'm wrong here. So, um, we'll look at the corner
and address some sort of, uh, better or more appropriate transition at the corner of the building as it absuts the neighbor. Um, I think one thing, uh, if it's, uh, if it's preferable, we
could also remove the awning. Um if the board feels feels strongly about the the awning. Um um I'll look at the Okay. So, we'll look at the corner, the awning, and then um I think another thing we could we could do
if if it's agreeable is look at recessing just the first the first floor of the building so that at street level you have a more of a better transition um around the corner
and as you move down the block if that's what about the fourth story. Excuse me. You're not on the record right now. Um, I just feel that maybe that whole side
of that those windows on the side you can probably eliminate all those if you eliminate those windows would be good and then push it back. I mean this is just a drawing. I mean you can you can do make the changes. Eliminate the side the windows on on
which on on next to the next to the white house. She talking about the north the north side. Do you have a those windows? These windows here. Yeah. Do you need that? I mean I don't know. Maybe you can just push it.
I mean I think what we would do is look holistically at the facade and what a transition at that corner would look like. So it may impact the windows. It it may not. It's I can't tell until we look at it and study it further. Um if there's anything
Vinnie, will you suggest tableness? Well, I guess it has to be table, but Matt, do you know what we're doing here? Um my understanding is that we're going to address the corner by potentially pulling back that corner all the way up and recessing the whole ground floor.
So, canal levers uh the floors above will can lever uh and the awning will be probably flush with the floors above. So, instead of a can a canopy coming out from the whole plane of the building,
it will just be that recess. And so, there will be some um cover to the elements um by the that can lever the building above. Uh so um that sounds like that sounds like uh I'm hearing the majority of it. Um I'm not
sure if there's any any other items, but I I think I understand. Yeah. Good. Thank you. You understand more? Absolutely. Thank you. And they're good comments. They're valid comments, so I'm we're happy to entertain them and and come back with some alternatives. Yeah. All right. How do we get this gentleman to notice
these people who are around the vicinity? Okay. Yeah. So they get a little bit more notice. Yeah, you already had your chance. Uh I can I can say that they we they could contact me at the office and I
could I could create a list or if there's a point person for the community or the block. Um I could connect them with with the applicant. Okay, great. Thank you. Um and if they want to come up with me after the meeting, I can I can try to facilitate that. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Sound good. Yeah. Let's procedurally we'll table it.
Let's table it. require us to well, will we be carried to a next meeting or we'll have to resubmit and renotice? It'll have to be October 9th. You can Yeah, you can speak with Eric and we'll have to table it till to October 9th. Okay.
It's the Yeah, that's the most suitable date. Okay. So, we can table it till October 9th without notice to a date certain October 9th. You don't have to be noticed. Okay. And these people here can uh notice of that. Yes.
October 9th. October 9th. All right. Sorry. I guess October 9th, we'll carry this too. Yeah. You should go back and inform the public, the ten the um your neighbors. Let them be more informed so like that when they come in, they are at least a
little bit in line with what you're you want to present. Okay. We will. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Right. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Nice. Okay. Okay. So, so Chuck,
yeah, our next case would be which we going out of the norm, but our next case will be Z24-0078 and this is 1727-1733. Mr. Harrington, who promises to be fast,
we will be as efficient as we possibly can. I appreciate it. Okay. So, uh, for the record, Charles Harrington of Connell Foley. On behalf of the applicant, I do have the public notices to give the council.
We'll have those marked. Iris, let's go that way first. Iris, thank you for staying, too. Will one second these people? So, uh, no. Uh, no, you can give them to Eric.
So, Iris, so the record is clear. You've just marked the notices for this case as A1. That's an affidavit, a proof of service, and a notice of publication. Thank you. So, we've accepted them for the record. So, She can she can go. Okay. She leaving or she's
No, she's coming back. Okay. Let me hold on a minute. She's coming right back. Yeah, she just needs a little break. Okay, I do. It's Richard Garber. G A R B E R. Thank you.
So, just for the record, maybe I'll I'll just skip my kind of summary and jump right into Richard because he's gonna, you know, tell the story. Okay. Go ahead, Richard. And my license is still current. My license was just renewed. Uh, and
everything is in place. So, thank you all. It's nice to see you again. I will do this very quickly. Okay. Um, we are here to talk about um a project uh seven. Eric, can you put us up? Uh, do we need to mark yours? Uh, oh yeah, this should be marked. Yes,
this is um four parcels being consolidated. 1727 JFK which is a corner a prominent corner lot on the boulevard and then two lots 1731 and 1733 which are on Danforth. Now, the interesting thing and the
reason why we're before this board is it's splitzoned. The Danforth sites are R1. The Boulevard site is RC2. And normally what would happen is uh the the lots that have the larger square footage
would govern in terms of the zoning to follow. It turns out here that the R1 lots when combined are 39 square ft larger than the RC2 lot. And it was close enough, this is a prominent corner that in speaking with um both the
councilwoman and um the planning department, we were it was suggested to us that we could move forward with RC2 standards understanding we'd be before your board and there would be more variances uh because the R1 is technically governing. Now this is the building. I will come back to this.
We'll talk a lot about that. But just to kind of give you a sense of the site, you can see here it's um a kind of wedge shaped corner lot right at the corner of JFK and Danforth and then there are two adjacent lots next to it. And as um Mr.
Harrington said, we've been meeting with uh during during the evening meeting with the owner um who was not present at any of the community meetings we had. She had some concerns and hopefully we we've worked them out. We'll talk about that as well. Um, you can see here why
we're asking for RC2. This is the the entire boulevard in 2020 was was reszoned to that RC2. RC2 is uh it replaced the NC zoning. So, it's groundf flooror retail with uh multif family above, a little bit higher density and
uh that's the building you want on the corner of the boulevard 100%. it's appropriate and uh just because this the lots are being consolidated it it as as I said it's we're before your board. Okay. Um some photos including a Google aerial photo and then photos that we've taken
that show the existing it's kind of like a mini mall type thing. There's a florist there. That florist will be vacating to make room for the building that we are proposing here. I live there. Now, I'm going to read the design key points into the record prior
to showing you the zoning tabulation because I want everyone to understand these key points before we get to the variances because there are variances because of the R1 RC2. Our total lot area is 11,525 ft. Our total proposed building is just
under 60,000 square feet. Uh, excuse me, just under 53,000 ft. 52928 ft. Uh this is primarily a residential mixeduse building with uh parking garage and retail. Um lots 18 and 19 which are
the Danfort lots are in the R1. They total 5782 square ft. And lot 20 is 1727 JFK on the boulevard. That totals 5743 square ft. Again, if you subtract those, we're talking about a 39 square foot
difference between R1 and RC2, which we thought made the RC2 appropriate. Um, building height per RC2 is five stories, 59 ft. Uh, we had proposed 56 residential units and speaking with the neighbor, we are willing to drop down to
54. So, we'd lose two units and I'll show you how we lose two. They would be two one-bedroom units that are lost. So with that and updating these tallies in real time, 16 studios, 26 one-bedrooms, four one-bedrooms with den, four
twobedrooms, and four threebedrooms. We will still have eight affordable units in this project. And those units are one studio, four twobedrooms, three threebedrooms. Now, when you do the math, because of the decrease in units,
we get a tally, we had a tally of 8.4 four, meaning that point4 overage would have to be paid to the affordable housing kitty. Um, now ultimately, uh, we're down to 8.1. So, we'll still be paying that 0.1% more point
10 10th of a more, excuse me. U, but there will still be eight affordable units. Um, as with many of our buildings, most of our buildings, an elevators proposed, uh, providing wheelchair accessibility. The first floor, which you'll see in a second, is made up of the residential lobby, bike
storage, mailboxes, trash room, parking garage, and three retail spaces. The total retail, which is all on the boulevard. Very nice. Uh it's 25 thou 2591 square feet. 2591 square ft. We're showing that subdivided
into three retail spaces that might get changed based on market conditions to one or two spaces as well. And we have that flexibility. Um, bike storage is provided for 28 parking spaces and there is a common roof deck at 4,000 square
feet as well. Um, the variances, so there are variances and the variances are because we're basing this on the R1, right? And so I'll just read through the yeses. We have uh a conditional use which is the mixeduse uh multif family
uh with a with a retail at grade and that's again per the RC2. Um, we have a density variance because we are using RC2ish standards. Uh, we're proposing again the 54 units uh that I mentioned. I don't know the units per acre. It's
gone down a little bit since we decreased. Um, the rear yard setback will also change and I'll show you that. Uh, we are actually going to be compliant now. Uh, Eric and we'll we'll talk about that. Um the maximum building height stays at five stories and 59 feet
and our coverage stays at the 91.3%. Um we are proposing 18 parking spaces including six compact spaces. Now what's interesting about that is we're noticing for this the 18 spaces are what would be
required but we are noticing because we have more compact spaces than would be permitted. And to be clear, uh, the minimum size of a standard space 8.5 times 8 by 18 feet. The compact spaces
are 8 feet wide, right? So we're de, so six of those spaces go down in width from 8'6 in to 8 feet. Still fine for compact cars and things like that. We do that all the time. That won't be a problem. Um, and then finally, we're noticing for residential sign for
residential and retail signage because we could have as many as three retail spaces on the boulevard as well. Um, in terms of the site plan, this is uh uh the ground floor. You can see that we have the uh the the blue uh triangle
shows the uh the driveway, the driveway. So that the curb cut is on Danforth and then the residential lobby is east of that uh also on Danforth. And then you can see we have three doors on the boulevard and those are for the retail
spaces. Uh in addition, you can see here called out the 28 bike spaces. You can see the parking garage with the 18 spaces. You can see we have storage and trash room. We're anticipating a transformer vault. That transformer vault is per PSENG spec, which is I
believe uh 25 ft by 18 ft. Uh whatever that spec is, that's what we're showing. Um and uh Eric asked for this diagram. This is the rear setback diagram. This has been decreased now. And I'm going to show you why when we get into the plans,
we're basically cutting two of the units down on the upper floors. And so, while this does still exist at grade and on floors two and three, it is decreased to be compliant on the upper floors. And I'll show you that. And obviously,
should this be approved in compliance review, we'll have all of this uh uh taken care of. Um, briefly, we have a site lighting plan. You can see the fixtures. We have um outdoor sconces and then the outdoor down lights that are coated in blue and green. Um bike bike
bike plan and trash removal plan. You can see here I won't go into those too much. Um there is a trash compactor in the building by the way. Uh and that will be dedicated. We do have a sellar floor plan and that is uh only one stair, no elevator and that's just for building infrastructure, plumbing room,
mechanical room, electrical room. are sinking that down to try to give more space to the retail, the parking, and the residential lobby, which we thought was important. The owner was okay with that. This is our first floor plan. Uh, briefly, you can see the 2500 square ft
of retail divided into three spaces in green on the boulevard. You also see the transformer vault in the lower left. You see our circulation system coded in orange, two stairs in an elevator. The bike storage is in the rear in blue. And
then that residential lobby that I mentioned is uh is shown uh on the upper right hand corner. We are acknowledging a three-foot sideyard setback per the R1 and you can see that clearly delineated
on the Danfor Danforth side. Um our second floor plan uh I will show you and and the floor plans had previously stacked. There will be one modest change to that, but you can basically see how our floor plan is
laying out where we have a a double- loaded corridor that makes a sort of truncated U. So, the double- loaded corridor functions on Let's see if I can get my mouse up here. Uh the double- loaded corridor is on the Danforth side
and partially on the boulevard. And then we have a single corridor that serves these units in the back. And I'll show you on this plan. It's this one-bedroom unit that I'm circling that will be removed. We've agreed to remove it in
discussions with the neighbor on the fourth and fifth floor. And what that does is it gives the neighbor I don't have a total dimension, but it's over 25 ft. And it's it's somewhere between 30 and 35 feet of open space from the third
and four from the fourth floor up to give the um you know optically her her rear yard will feel like it's not being encroached upon. So we thought that that was a nice resolution and I hope that that addresses concerns regarding shadows. Right.
That addresses concerns regarding shadows. That's right. She gardens in her backyard. So, the third floor stays the same and it's the fourth floor and fifth floor where this unit would be removed. And again, uh should this be approved, we'll we'll handle that in
compliance review. We can uh it's basically cutting that unit off and then that studio will grow a little bit because we don't need to bring the hallway straight straight back. Fairly simple fix. Um I did mention there's Sorry, sorry, Richard, but I uh can you
speak to the windows as well? Yes. Uh, so one of the other conditions, thank you, Chuck. I was going to uh do that in the axon, but one of the other things that the neighbor was concerned about was if there were sideyard windows that were facing her property. Now, the
thing that's clear is we never had sideyard windows in the front building mass. So, where the mouse is right now, there's no windows here. We did have three windows in these in this one bedroom. Those windows will be relocated to the side. So, we'll have one on the
bedroom here, one on the living room here, and we'll be perfectly code compliant, and we'll acknowledge um the neighbors concern, which is a fine concern, uh for privacy, and we can totally handle that. And there will be no windows that face that that lot. Um,
and we also talked about, for the record, uh increasing the fence height on the second floor to 8t, and it will be a wood board fence. So it will give more visual privacy for her and her um her children.
So the roof plan no change uh except you would see the you know that this part get truncated a little bit more but we are still showing a very very large roof deck which is a nice common amenity 4,200 ft. Uh it is joined by two stairs so is uh ADA um compatible. Um and then
the elevation. So we we did do a little tweak on the elevation. And I'm going to just show you very quickly. And all we did was uh this was the elevation that was submitted. We think this is tasteful, by the way. Uh these buildings to me started looking too much like rows. And so all we did is and I'll
switch between them. We just moved um the materials so that they um finger a little bit more uh just to kind of break up that kind of singular vertical feeling. And you'll see that in the rendering. It's a a very modest change in terms of how we're dealing with the materials. Um and you can see it here in
the before and after uh uh where uh for instance just to show you here the darker material it's carrying over a little bit wide a little bit deeper than it was in the original and it's just allowing for a little bit more interplay of these masses which we think is a
little bit more tasteful. It it allows for vertical differentiation through materials while still talking about a kind of horizontal continuity of the building which is important to us. And I think that rendering looks sharp. So I'll show it to you. Uh same thing on this side again. I'll show you in the
rendering. Um no change on the side elevations with the exception of these windows being moved to front and back now. So these windows will no longer be there. They will be on the front and back only. And then the um uh the other
side elevation, there's no change. Uh we have block elevations just to show scale. Obviously, it's a little bit of a larger building on the boulevard, but uh this is all zoned to be the same height as this building. And then we show that would be the similar condition as we
transition to Danforth. The only change here is the two lots that were in the R1 on Danforth are uh being consolidated into this lot. I won't go into the enlarged elevations in details. Um, we have these axonometrics that begin to show the before and after, but you can
really see it here where we just are extending these materials a little bit more and we think the building looks that much sharper. It's a modest change. Hopefully the board agrees with us. Um, we did do shadow studies and uh this was one of the reasons why we decided to uh
truncate the building in the rear. And ultimately summer sun's high in the sky as it is now. There's not a lot of shadow casting in the main part of the day and that's why you see a lot of white here. The winter, conversely, let me go to the winter. The sun is lower in
the sky. You get a lot more shadow. So where we care about, we care about the spring and fall equinoxes, which are the same. And what we're trying to do is look, all buildings cast shadows. This is a tall building, but fortunately,
because the boulevard actually bends at this area, the site is kind of on a diagonal. So the shadow casting we're getting, we are getting some shadow casting on the neighbor, uh, we've talked about, which will be mitigated by dropping the rear of the building. But
because the the boulevard bends, the shadows are getting cast on a diagonal and going into the street primarily and we think that that's important. Um, we're trying to be a good neighbor. Hopefully that sounds good. And, um, I think with that, um, I can end my presentation. So, uh, Caroline can
speak, but I'm happy to take any questions you might have. Well, hold it to the end. Chuck, you got another witness. Oh, yeah. Uh, we have Carolyn Worstelle. I forgot it's to at the end. I was zoning out. So,
Chuck, if it's too late for you, you could sit down. It's the white hair. Yeah, I'm still under oath. Yes. I know. I know. Quickly.
Okay. I will try to be as quick, but not so quick you can't keep up. I will try. Um, so we're here this evening uh for this this building and we have a couple of uh variances. I'm going to start off with the D3 conditional use variance. So
um as you heard um this is the split lot zone and all the variances I'm going to talk about tonight. These are all relating to R1 standards. Okay. Um the R1
has a conditional conditionally allows corner commercial. Uh but it has some certain requirements. Um it requires that you that it allows you to increase lot coverage when you have
commercial from 85 to 90%. In this case, we're proposing a lot coverage of 91.3%. um that is like the 1.3 over what is permitted. Um this does allow for that larger footprint. It allows for you know the
diversity of unit sizes. It allows for that larger ground floor space. Um and a lot of it has to do with the fact that with the larger building, we do also need some of the uh you know additional areas outside of it that have um walking
paths for fire safety. So that that's another aspect of it. Um we are trying to mitigate this additional coverage with uh over 3,00 3,73 square ft of green roof. Um as well
as any other um uh meeting any other you know storm water requirements under the ordinance. Um, so I think that provides that storm water benefit for the property. Uh, with that green roof, we're also providing
new street trees uh on Kenned Kennedy um and Danforth. And again, those will provide some additional greening um and visual uh improvements to those two streets. Uh the other condition that we're asking for relief from uh for the
D3 variance is the the other standard is that you have to have a twoft setback for the commercial space. Um we are uh provide we're proposing a zero foot front yard setback and that
conforms with your underlying R1 zone. So, we're not asking for a setback for the building from the R1 zone for the base. It's only for this commercial aspect of it. Um, but we're proposing essentially the zero foot. We think it's
appropriate. There's an existing commercial space on this corner. It has zero foot front yard setbacks. So, we're essentially maintaining that existing corner condition. We're just putting in, you know, a new commercial space. Um the
uh sidewalks here are over 15 ft uh or are 15 ft. So there's ample space for pedestrians. You're not going to be really feeling that pinch on the the street. It is wide enough. Um and then the commercial storefronts have been designed also to have the doorways inset
so you're not going to get the swing. So again, we're we're doing everything we can to make sure that you're not feeling the pinch of, you know, the impacts on this this uh sidewalk. Um so you you are going to have, you know, maintain the corner and you're not going to really
feel the impacts on the street. Uh we're asking for that D5 density variance. Um you've heard me several times this evening talking about what are the standards here and that's whether or not again the site can accommodate the associated impacts of
the increased density. Um this project um is going to be 54 units. So I think we're around I just I quickly did the math. I I think it's 207 units per acre now. Um the uh
this is a really substantially large lot. It's 11,000 square feet. Um, it's approximately five times the size of your typical R1 district or R1 lot. Um, we are at a corner. The RC3 zone does
allow for higher density development. Um, although we're we're still beyond what that would permit. Um, but we are going to be providing that affordable housing that would be required. uh it's going to be those eight units even with the loss of the two units. Um you know
and again with these larger footprints of these buildings you get the ability to have those diversity of housing types. You get to have the studios and the ones and the twos and the threes. And that's just sort of what happens when you have the larger footprint. You can have the efficiency of your floor
plans. You don't have to have you know so many staircases and whatnot. you can be more efficient in your floor layouts and so you can create these these housing types. Uh so again I think that this is an appropriate density. We are
providing on-site parking here. Um and and I think that overall you know the this density is appropriate for this corner. It's con appropriate for the fact that we are along Kennedy Boulevard
which is an RC3 zone and ask for it's appropriate to have a higher density mixeduse development. So overall I think that that this site is appropriate. We're also asking for the D6 height variance. Again whether or not this is
visually consistent with the environment while not offending the purposes of light of height restrictions namely light and air. Um the the RC3 zone envisions five stories here on this corridor. That is what is being
provided. Uh it is going to be consistent with the development that's across the street which is under construction. It is five stories. So you're going to start seeing that fivetory condition along this corridor consistent with what is permitted in that zone. Uh so we do think that this
is going to be provide that consistent visual environment. Um, and as you as you heard, we are providing the stepbacks. We have the the sideyard set back at, you know, three feet along the whole sideyard. We are going to provide additional stepbacks at that back corner, which again allows that
additional light and air into the rear at that corner. Um, we are in a corner. We are, you know, a lot of our impacts are to the streets on either side of us to the, I guess, south south of us down Kennedy.
Those are other more commercial focused businesses. They're not really going to be feeling an impact for light and air. So really, their our focus on light and air impacts is to those neighbors to us on Danforth. And as mentioned, we are going to be making those amendments to
again to increase additional light and air uh to address their concerns. Um I know that we are setting back those upper floors. We do still need that rear yard setback uh because we need it from the ground up and we are still going to
be within that setback area on the lower floors. Um we're corner lot. We're a little bit of an unusually shaped corner lot. Uh we end up needing an approximately 29 by 30 foot courtyard at that northwest corner.
Um we are providing um a setback at the ground floor. It's going to be 6 ft from uh that it's like the southwestern lot line. It's adjacent to the commercial to us to the south uh by 50
ft. So we end up having a a overall in the sort of rear yard between the two sort of areas where it it goes along. We're creating about six uh 610 ft of open space in the rear.
Um on the upper floors, we're providing additional setbacks. Those would result in like about a thousand square feet of open space. So again, we are creating the open space. It's just not in the exact configuration.
Um and then you know once we get to the fourth and fifth floor we're going to be compliant. So we are asking for the leaf now only on the first, second and third floors. Um but I think overall you know we meet those consistent sideyard setback requirements. We are providing
the adequate setbacks uh from those adjacent buildings um for building code purposes. Um and again this just allows for those building footprints that create the diversity of housing types. Uh lock coverage
uh we are 91.3% as proposed. Um again we have it's 85% in your underlying R1 zone. You get increased to 90 with the commercial. So we are at that 1.3%. So to be uh
safe, I'm asking we're asking for the lot coverage even though we sort of covered it as part of our D3 variance. Um so again, you know, we're mitigating that with the modular green roof system. Um you know, so we do believe that we're providing, you know, some of that storm
water benefits uh here at at the property to mitigate that additional 1.3%. Um and then finally, the compact parking space. Um, we're proposing six compact parking spaces. The requirement in the ordinance says that compact spaces were
approved by the zoning board shall not be less than 16 ft long and 8 8 ft wide. There's no restriction on the number. There's just a requirement that they be approved. Um, the spaces themselves are 8 by6. They meet that minimum standard.
We're proposing six uh which is approximately a third of the spaces. So again, I I think this is appropriate. Allows for the diversity of car types. Um and it it allows for an efficient parking uh design in the in the garage.
Our last and final variance is for signage. And again, this happens to do with um the way that the ordinance reads. Um they basically permits only one commercial sign. When it was sort of set up, it was the
thought that you were in smaller spaces. You only have space for one commercial use. We have a larger lot. We have potential space for three. So we're just asking for the variance so that we can have more than one commercial sign. So it would be one per tenant, which we
think is appropriate. Um, so I think you know overall this project has a lot of benefits. The benefits here outweigh the detriments and with terms of those C variances. Um, again you're revitalizing this corner
and it's more consistent with what the vision is for this corridor long term. Um, it advances the municipal land use law. It's an appropriate use consistent purpose A. Uh, it'll maintain adequate light air and open space consistent purpose C. uh and promote that desirable
visual environment consistent with purpose I uh I don't see this resulting as substantial detriment to the general welfare. Again, this is uh a project that's advancing the intent of the zoning for that corridor, that RC3 RC2
district along this corridor. Uh and providing that diversity of residential uh residential opportunities through the mix of the uses as well as the affordable units. Um you know, we're eliminating curb cuts on Danforth and on Kennedy. We're increasing pedestrian safety near the
Buds Stop on Kennedy. you know, we're installing new street trees. So, again, these are all benefits that are result of this application. Um, and I don't see a substantial impairment to the intent and purpose zone planner zoning ordinance. You know, again, this is the
split lot zone. Um, you know, it's in meeting the intent of the RC2 district to promote um historic mixeduse districts um and providing residential uses, which is the purpose of the R1 zone. So I think overall this project
advances both the positive and the negative criteria and that's my direct. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Uh and just for the record um I do have our traffic engineer here and our civil engineer uh here tonight in in the
event the board has any questions or wants to hear from them. And then uh additionally, I usually would address this in my opening statement, but I just want to point out that what you're seeing tonight is a result of uh working with the planning staff and we also had a uh community meeting that was
organized by Councilwoman Ridley. Uh and that's that's where some of the you know the the changes in the parking um were were a result of that. And that uh completes our presentation. Okay. Thank you. I'd like to hear from that lady. Yeah. The public.
Yeah. Okay. Um, do we have any comments from the public? Yeah, cuz that lady looks like she really wants to go. It's been a long night. A very long night.
Welcome to our world. Yes. Dan River Ortiz. I'm sorry. First name. D A M A R I E Ortiz. Ortiz. Otis. And your address is 261 Danforth Avenue. So I'm the only one from my block. Never heard anything
about community meeting. Um I'm directly next door to it. Um I own the two lots there. I've lived there my whole last 20 years. Um first I want to say thank you to the architect and um the gentleman. They did speak to me. They did um you know show me some concessions and stuff.
But if you look at the final picture that's still showing there. One of the things that that I keep asking about is that so you don't even see my house. I disappear. Okay? It completely swallows me, right? So it takes away from
what I represent in my community for the last 20 years. Single mom, my own house last 20 years. Everyone else rents. Everyone else that lives there that owns does not live there. So I respect everyone's opinion, but you don't live there. I live there, right? I'm the one that has to deal with
it. I respect everyone's opinion, but unless you're there, you don't know what's happening and what's going on, right? So, when I look at this and I say, "Okay, my house, let's say the porch starts here, the gate is here. You're starting to build from here. So, I'm completely swallowed, right? It
takes away the whole 25 foot of the front of my house." Right? You're telling me you're putting a tree there. That's great. But my pole is there for my electricity, so no trees going there, right? Then you say, "Hey, we took away the tube in the back. That's great. I appreciate it. You moved the window so
it gives me so it gives me privacy with my children because I was concerned for my safety." Right. But then when I still look at it, I'm like, you're still towering over me. So if you look at the pictures and you look at it, it literally is double my house in the height. Yeah. So I understand that they keep saying
the commercial side for for the five floors, but this side is only three. So if you're going to be considering this for some things, but then you want to consider this for other things, I don't think that's fair or correct. You're you're using what's accommodates you. So
you have the density, you reduce by two, you're doing affordable. I'm that is great. I want things to build. I want things to go forward, but there's no parking. You mentioned the house across the street, but the building across the street also has no parking. It's going to be taking more parking. And you also
mentioned, oh, it's comparable to that in height. Yes, but you're comparing something that's across the street to a building that's already next to another building that's high. You're in a section that's with single homes that are three floors, not five floors. So, I understand all this. I appreciate all the concessions, but I still have those
concerns, right? 30 seconds. If you're double my height, you're basically two floors above my roof where my AC is. So, I still keep saying there's going to be shadow. I understand the engineering. I understand all the things, but it's just I'm the one that's
going to be impacted. I'm just one person and that's it. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Can I have comments from the uh board, the commissioners?
Any comments? I'm sorry. So, I'll go. So, I don't know if this is for the uh traffic engineer or Mr. Gerber. Um, but we don't have the brightest people driving cars nowadays. Um,
yeah. And and I I've seen people do stupid stuff. The garage entrance is is that the absolute best place to put it? And I know you guys do this all day, but it's it's just the the um
No, he he you want put it up. Yeah, it's just I I can see somebody doing something stupid coming off the boulevard trying to make a right and then make a quick left and hitting somebody. That's all. Yeah. So, I I I would just and Lee is
here. He could get qualified. while that's happening. So, you know, when you have these corner projects, right, which we work on a lot of corners in town, the the the main goal and the main kind of uh guidance we get from the municipality
is to push that curb cut as far away from the corner as possible, right? And we've done that with the exception of putting the residential lobby sort of between our curb cut and Miss
Ortiz's lot, right? And so there's a little bit of a buffer. So I actually So the car so in short and and and Caroline spoke about how this is a little bit of an oddly configured lot because it's a little bit more of a wedge. We've pushed this um I think as far away from the
corner as we possibly could without losing parking efficiency, right? And so let me just run through that. If we were to push this all the way to the lot line, we wouldn't be able to take in take advantage of doing a row of parking along that wall because that's the way
the cars would come in and we'd have to find so it it it it doesn't um the best way to do parking for the to maximize the amount of parking is the same way we do housing. Hallway in the middle, units on both sides. Same way for parking, drive aisle in the middle, parking on
both sides. So, this is uh I think the most efficient layout we can get while still pushing that curb cut as far over as we can. And I don't know if you have anything to add to that, but actually I wanted to make a comment on that is that there's a gas station right
across the street from this building. Yes, there is. And there's going to be there is always significantly more traffic coming out of that gas station that's going to be going in out of the apartment building. And there isn't any better place than where you have this right now.
Yeah, we Thank you. We agree. Um I have I have a question. How far is this building from this lady's home? Does she have quite a space? Yeah. And we we talked about that a bit. Yeah. So So
So her what's her address? 261. 261. So, so Miss Ortiz's house is is immediately adjacent on the lot line. Now, what the R1 says is if you have a lot line condition, you can build up to that lot line. We have created a buffer,
a small buffer, but a buffer nonetheless of 3 ft. And as stated, there's no windows that we show in our drawings now, no windows over the primary portion of the building. And then that small little leg in the back that we've decreased height of, we've removed the
windows from that side as well. So, there's a there's a there's a three-foot buffer before our main building, no windows. We've also raised the uh the fence to 8 ft from six feet. We've we've
uh agreed to do that. And then we uh will relocate the windows. You you increase the the fence the from 8t to six feet. Did I say that? Richard, maybe you should show that. That's on the on the deck above the
first floor. So on the So this building is a lot a lot like many of these kinds of buildings in that we have a larger footprint for the parking area and then the building gets a little bit smaller above and where the building shrinks it's a perfect opportunity to put a
deck. Right. So this is the parking area I have here and then this is the the the uh the first floor. So you're seeing that area that's highlighted in that kind of gray that L is the private deck area. And what Miss Ortiz had said was
she was concerned for privacy and for security and things like that. So which is very valid. So we have a a fence uh proposed. Let me just see if I can get this. Oh yeah. So here we were showing a
six-foot uh metal slat fence and we've agreed to change that to an 8ft board fence. The wood is a little nicer. the wood absorbs sound a little bit better and I think it's actually a little more sturdy the way that those things are built. So, it'll be security, it'll be
visual, and it'll also do a little bit of sound absorption. And those are private decks, too. It's not a common deck over there. Yeah. There's not going to be a lot of people out on that deck. And this will infringe on her backyard. There's not infring No, there's no infringement at all. There's no infringement at all.
We're we're we're a minimum of three feet off in the front here. Mhm. That three feet continues. But then so this setback is 15 feet on the second floor and third floor
and then on the fourth and fifth floor we remove this onebedroom unit. Just lost my mouse here. So that wall ends here. So this distance grows. So I I'm guess I'm guesstimating this. So this is 25 here. So this is probably
another to be conservative let's say seven or eight. So I think it's it's over 30 feet for sure. Probably like 32 33 feet of space that we're providing on the highest portion of the building which decreases the amount of shadow
casting and and so forth. So that part of the building is brought down to a three-story building. I see. Okay. Yeah. Any additional questions? You have a question.
Any additional questions by anyone? Okay. Can we have staff input, please? Yeah, staff agrees with the uh testimony provided by the professionals. Um from a density standpoint, um staff sees this
as a good addition to the community because it helps address the housing needs. Um, as Carolyn Warel pointed out, there are affordable units here being proposed and a range of units, you know, from studio to threebedroom. That's
that's really good. That's what we want to see. Um, as far as the height and bulk of the building, um, you know, Rich Garber mentioned that they're going to remove some units to kind of create more of a buffer.
Yeah. and you know for like potential shadow casting and so forth but also as Carolyn Warstone mentioned towards like the south southwest um there are like two parking lots over there and it's commercial there's a commercial building over there um so I
really do think and even to the actually now thinking about it even to the east um a lot of those lots have like a significant rear yard setback um so I really do think that they've done the best they could of creating a
buffer and reducing the you know light and air um impact. Um and uh to kind of address some of the public comment I guess to start with the street trees um you know I do CO inspections all the
time and you know if a street tree is not feasible to be planted somewhere um we definitely get that addressed. um we have them donate um to the division of forestry and have that tree planted somewhere else.
Um so if it turns out that that will you know get in the way of utilities of of some kind that street tree will be planted elsewhere. Um, you know, as mentioned, the front yard setback that that front yard setback is permitted.
Um, uh, and actually that creates like a sense of enclosure. Um, having that front yard set back there and having this this home, the adjacent property set back a little bit. Um, I think that
does kind of create a sense of enclosure um, for for that I'm sorry. Yep. I'm sorry. I Yeah, I didn't hear that. Um
yeah, I think a lot of the a lot of the changes we'll we'll kind of work with or work on behind the scenes for signature sets, but otherwise um staff just requests that the applicant agree to the conditions in the staff memo dated
August 5th, 2025. That would be acceptable. Um otherwise, staff recommends approval. Okay. So with that, may I have a motion? Go ahead, Mr. J. Motion. Um,
I'll make a motion for the approval uh for case Z 2024-00 78 uh 1727 to 1733 John F. Kenny Boulevard.
Can I have a second? Second. Second. Okay. Welcome, Commissioner Zublicki. It's um it's good to see some new development in the southern side of the city. So, and especially those corner properties, it's always the most
important thing to set up neighborhoods and and communities. So, um good to see something there. I vote I. Commissioner Burns I. Commissioner D'Angelo I I
Oh, you turned it off again. I Perfect. Commissioner Shadid I. Commissioner Baron I. Acting vice chair Allen I. Acting chair rule I.
Motion carries. Seven in favor none opposed. Any resolutions? No. None. Thank god. Thank you. Thank you so much. Have a great night. Thank you very much. Thank you for broke a record tonight. We didn't even do we need a motion to adjurnn.
Motion to adjurnn. Yeah. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. I