of the Jersey City zoning board of adjustment. This meeting is held in accordance with NJSA 10 col4-12 the open public meetings act. I would like to call this meeting to order. Mr. Beasley, would you please
take a roll call? So I see Commissioner Patel here. Commissioner Zlicki here or acting vice chair um here again or still sure how do
you get um Commissioner Burns here Commissioner Baron here Commissioner Bole here and Madame Chair Coyle present we have Cororm okay um Mr. Mr. Beasley, are there any sunshine announcements
that you would like to share with us? Yes. In accordance with the open public meeting act, um notice has been provided to Bergen Records Ellis Bito as well as posted with the city clerk. I'd like to uh request to mark this is B1.
Thank you. And that's it. Okay. Um I'd ask everyone to please stand for the flag salute. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Uh Bridget, I'm going to ask you at this time if you could please swear in any staff that are in attendance. Okay. Um again, Mr. Beasley, any correspondence?
No correspondence. Okay. Any any adjournments? No adjournments, Madam Chair. Okay. So, um at this time, we can begin. Um, and our first case, our only case this evening is
Z19-012. Uh, it's 591 Montgomery Street. Attorney is Jennifer Porter. Okay. Um, before we begin, um, as we go through this evening, um, we will have comments from the public. Um, they will be held
to three minutes and, uh, Mr. Baron, Coun, Commissioner Baron will be the timekeeper on that. Okay. Um, so we can begin. Good evening board members. My name, as you indicated, Jennifer Porter. I'm an attorney and member with CSG Law, and
I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant, Jones Hall Associates. Notice of tonight's hearing was published and mailed in accordance uh with the MLUL. And I do have um an original copy of the affidavit with proof of publication and mailing that I
can provide. Why don't you just give it to Bridget? We'll mark that as A1. No, we Yeah, great. A copy of the affidavit was also posted to the Jersey City portal and with that um the applicant believes that the application
and the board have jurisdiction to proceed. The applicant Jones Hall Associates is the owner of property located at 591 Montgomery Street and designated as block 313601 lot 1.
The property is located in the R4 zoning district and the property is improved with an existing senior living facility known as Jones Hall. Although this is the first appearance by this applicant at this board, this
application was originally filed and this is important for the the background of this project. originally filed back in January of 2019 and over the last six years has been the subject of numerous meetings and coordination with staff site visits,
community meetings, HPC meetings, um, and extensive communications. As you will hear in the testimony this evening and by way of brief background, the Jones Hall property is part of the former Jersey City Medical Center.
That complex is now known as the Beacon. It is listed on the National and State Registers of Historic Places. However, the Jones Hall site itself has a slightly different but important history from the rest of the
Beacon Complex. The Jones Hall site was the only site that was subdivided off from the rest of the complex and sold by Jersey City into private ownership back in 1978 for development of senior housing, which is
the housing that still exists today. And that was prior to the complex's national register uh listing back in 1985. The Jones Hall site is not part of a locally designated historic district. It was not included as part of the
city's Jersey City Medical Center study area or redevelopment plan that was adopted in 1984. Um or the Beacon Rehabilitation Project which took place in the majority of the complex. Um it's also not part of the Shipo historic
easement or associated historic tax credits for the remainder of the Beacon site. It has its own separate and distinct zoning. Nevertheless, because as I indicated before, it's within the state and national
registers of this historic complex as a contributing resource. It is subject to and very careful consideration was given uh with respect to the proposed design to comply with the secretary of interior
standards. And this ties directly and appropriately guides the nature and extent of the relief that this applicant is seeking before this board this evening. By way of its relief, the applicant is seeking minor subdivision and site plan approval in order to
subdivide the Jones Hall property into two lots, one of which will contain the existing senior housing facility, Jones Hall. On the other lot, which will be the main focus of tonight's hearing, the applicant is proposing to construct an 18story above ground mixeduse
development. It will contain one story of medical use with multifamily housing above and four levels of parking both at surface and underground along with related site improvements which you'll hear about uh from our witnesses this evening.
In addition to site plan and minor subdivision approval, the applicant will be seeking use and variance relief, which is the reason why we're before this board. And this application, as I indicated previously, is governed by the R4 zoning that was in place at the time
of application back in 19. So, there have been some amendments to the zoning that have occurred since then. Um, but this application will be governed by that zoning that was in place at the time back in 2019. And as you'll hear further this evening, the applicant is seeking two
devariances in connection with its application. The first is to permit D1 relief for the proposed medical use, which was not a permitted use within the R4 zone back in 2019. However, currently
is actually a permitted use within the R4 zone. In addition to that, medical use, um, which you'll hear from our our experts this evening, is an inherently beneficial use. and is consistent with the historical use of the surrounding Jersey City Medical Center complex that
historically um encaptured the site. In addition, the applicant is seeking a D6 height variance to exceed the maximum building height by 10% or 10 ft. As you will hear in the testimony, the height relief being sought is
justified by virtue of the fact that it is in line with similarly tall buildings in the Beacon Complex. and we'll show you a comparison and show you details in terms of what the actual building looks like in proximity to the building surrounding it. And further, it's justified because
of the extensive consideration that went into the design of the new building in terms of its massing, typology, size, scale, and all of its architectural features, which you'll hear about tonight, to reduce or eliminate any potential impacts to surrounding
properties. In addition, the applicant is seeking a series of bulk variances for both of the lots um that are being split and that will be addressed further in the testimony as well, particularly by the architect and the engineer and then in the proofs of course by our planner.
This application importantly was referred to the HPC from the from this board and from the planning department pursuant to section 405D-110 of the MLUL um for review and recommendation. It is noted that for years prior to and during it it was a
continued um work of effort during the HPC review process that this project has undergone numerous and extensive design iterations. There are multiple versions of this project which some of which you will see um from its initial design all the way up until the finished product
which we have proposed you know to this board this evening. That was a result of comments and feedback from actively engaging in multiple staff meetings and reviews with planning HPC as well as with the public. Thus, although the HPC did ultimately
recommend against the project, and we want to put that out there and put that up front, it should not downplay the project's careful and thoughtful considerations that were acknowledged on the record by the city's historic preservation officer during those proceedings, who favorably recommended
the project in his staff report and gave further testimony at that those proceedings and stated on the record, quote, "The applicants have really have tried extraordinarily hard to integrate this new construction into the existing site. Quote, I am at a loss now for how
to direct the applicant at this point. And final quote, I think that rather monumental effort has gone into trying to take the commission and the public's comments and integrate them into a new development. These are all part of the hearing transcripts from the HPC proceedings. We are here this evening
because we believe and intend to show on the record that the proofs for the relief that we are seeking can be met and that the relief is justified because it results in a better design that simultaneously satisfies the city's historic design standards as our
architect is going to detail for you further. So in connection with our presentation tonight, we intend to call the following witnesses. First, Richard Gerber of Grow Architects, who will provide testimony on the architectural elements of the proposed building. And he'll discuss the lengthy history of the
changes and how we came about to the current design, how it relates back specifically to the historic standards that were bounded by, as well as how it meets the design criteria and the proofs in connection with the relief before this board. Second, we'll have Mark
Chisvet, our civil engineer, who will walk you through the proposed site plan. He'll also speak to the subdivision as well as specifically detail some of the bulk variances, setback variances otherwise um that are being proposed. Third, if the board would like to hear
from our traffic consultant, we have Mr. Hughes present. Um we can have him testify with respect to the traffic impact report that was prepared or simply answer questions. He can also address questions if the board has any with respect to the parking that is proposed for the project. And then
lastly, we have Mr. height who is our planner and he will provide the planning testimony at the end in support of the relief that's being sought. We do also have applicant representatives and others present that can address any further questions that the board may have. So if the board has no questions for me, I'd like to call our first
witness. Please. Great. Mr. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. It's Richard Garber. G A R E R.
Yeah. Did I plug the wrong one in? Yeah. do the fabric. Yeah. There we go. Okay. Can everyone see the screen? Yes. Great. First, if you just want to run through your credentials. I know you've previously been Yeah, he's been before
the board numerous times. We recognize his expertise. Great. Wonderful. And and thank you all for um for seeing us tonight. I know it's a special night uh for everyone to come out and um we really do feel that this is um uh a kind of coming together of a lot of different
sort of energies that that have been involved in this project uh over the last we've been working on it since uh about 2018 as Miss Porter said it was uh originally um submitted to the city um for comments uh in in 2019. Now, the
building is a uh sister building to the Beacon, and this is a rendering that we've put up. Uh you can probably pick out our building, but I'm going to talk with you a little bit about the design credentials uh of the building and why we um we believe that it fits uh into
the site. Um, I'll go through some testimony to talk a lot about the site as well as uh historic design standards based on um Secretary of the Interior recommendations. So, I have a rather long uh presentation tonight and so hopefully everyone will bear with me.
Can can I just interrupt you for one moment? Can we I don't know if this was distributed. Can we just enter it as an ev. Um yeah. So, yes. Yeah. And it's a presentation with how many slides there? Uh there are
11 18 slides. Okay. Presentation with 118 slides. So this is uh we're going to start with an aerial view of our site. Excuse me. I just um I did not say the what we
normally say at the beginning of the meeting between you know 3 minutes for speakers but we do stop at 10:00. So you're saying you have a lengthy presentation. I don't know what anyone else has to say. So just we have to keep that in mind. We're aware chairman. Thank you. Yep. So um I'll I'll talk
faster already. So, so, uh, so, um, this is this is our site, and it's a it's a very, um, interesting site in that it's a kind of corner of the beacon, but it's also at the point where Montgomery Street, which moves, which is a a major east west
thoroughfare in the city, actually passes up and over Cornelison Avenue. So Cornelison Avenue is some 30 feet below the height of Montgomery Street and the frontage of our building um is is on Montgomery Street between uh the
existing asset Jones Hall which we'll talk a little bit about and Beacon Way. Um so Beacon Way you see located uh called out. And so the site that we're we're um really here to talk about is here where I'm circling with the mouse which will be the site of our building.
Now, we are um requesting a minor subdivision in as Miss Porter said, and that would subdivide off uh 591 Montgomery, also known as Jones Hall as a singular building. Now, this is an existing senior housing facility with
117 beds in it, occupied uh to this day. And um the the owner of that building, who was actually involved as uh this historic subdivision was going on, is here tonight. He's been operating this building since 1980, the mid 80s sometime. What that leaves uh partially
because of the change in elevation is this zigzag site that you see. Now, we're really proposing our building proper on this upper uh corner that you see here. That's between Beacon Way and Jones Hall. But we include this because
you see there's a small amount of parking here already. We've taken that parking and put it under our building and we are proposing instead of parking a park and it will be a um a park uh and rain garden actually that would be uh for the uh use of residents of both this
proposed building as well as the residents of Jones Hall. Now as Miss Porter said uh we are in the R4 zoning district. We have a number of different zones around us, the NC, the R1, the R1F, as well as a number of
redevelopment plans. And I'll call your attention to redevelopment plan number four. That is the Beacon Redevelopment Plan. And you can see um when the Beacon redevelopment plan was created, which is sometime in the as um 2004 or five, I think if I'm if I remember correctly, um
it specifically left out our site. And the reason why I specifically left out our site was because we are not part of the historic subdivision. And I will show you some um some further um uh information about that that we received from the state historic preservation
office. Um the beacon is a state on the state national registry as as a complex and um you can see that our site which is that little kind of backwards L in red is there. And what we've done is we've also drawn attention to uh
additional historic districts that are regulated at um this the municipal level. Right? So we have Bergen Hill, we have uh the the downtown historic districts. We are in between those, right? And we will say that the the the the beacon itself is a um a state
historic district. This is uh some information that we received about the easement and this dates back from April 12th, 2019. And I'll just read very briefly. Uh the following map plots the Jersey City Medical Center property under easement shaded in gray. I will
show you that graphic in a second. The 591 Montgomery Avenue parcel under ownership by Jones Hall Associates is a separate property shown in crosshatch. The city has renumbered the blocks and lots and the 591 Montgomery Avenue
property is located on what now is known as block 13601, lot one. Uh, and it goes on to confirm that the map is confirms that the Jones Hall parcel is outside of the easement boundary. And you see that here. So the the dark gray is the
historic easement. That's the rest of the beacon or all of the beacon, excuse me. And uh that kind of backwards L is the lot that we are uh we are speaking about. I'll go back and just make sure everyone understands that. Now, interestingly, um when all this was
happening, we actually contacted Shipo. We thought we would have some kind of oversight with Shipo. And I'm happy to report that we got this letter back from June 2019 that in effect says that Shipo does not have oversight over our particular law. Um, and I this is uh
also in the record, but you'll you'll see this as well. Um, but it it it uh thank you for again for providing the opportunity and comment on the potential for this project to affect historic and archaeological research sources and so forth. Um, but it uh it basically states
that uh that there is no state jurisdiction over this lot. And this letter is what um uh led uh the city planning office to ask us to go to the historic preservation commission for the recommendation that Miss Porter spoke
about. Now we're going to talk a lot about height. We are asking for devariance for height. And you can see our site here which is that that shaded in orange and you can see the the relative height of structures around us. The beacon structures um uh move from
about 65 ft on the low side down Cornelison Avenue, which is more contextual with some of the low-rise buildings there, to about 360 ft at its highest. Now, these are the traditional buildings of the old medical center. And
so, what we are attempting to do is find an appropriate height that is somewhere between here. And you you'll see from our um our application that the height that we're requesting is 214 ft 10 and 3/4 in, which is uh well under certainly
the highest buildings. Um and and more consistent with some of the buildings that you see sort of more south at the southern end of of the beacon. But you do note that Jones Hall uh we have this it listed here at 210 ft. It's actually 214 ft. So we're matching the height of
the sister building. Now this is also important because um we have spent as Miss Porter suggested a lot of time with Mr. Reeden uh who walked us around the the this whole complex uh a couple of times actually and and really asked us as
architects to pay attention to a couple of things. He asked us to pay attention to the massing which we'll talk about. He asked us to to pay attention to materials which we'll talk about. He asked us to pay attention to the ratio of void and plain which means sort of
solid and window right uh decorative features. There's a fair amount of ornamentation particularly at the the base and top of these buildings. Uh as well as setbacks the buildings all tend to sort of wedding cake and window color uh meaning they're not reflective
windows. These are just four of hundreds of photos that we have of of the complex. I should also note that I live on Montgomery Street very close to here and so have spent a lot of time moving within and and past uh these these buildings.
Right now the other thing that um that we I want to just kind of talk about with this this slide is is a is a few other things that we noticed in the complex. Uh and and these are significant themes that carried the way we thought about the design proposal before you. One is the recurring
verticality, right? We talked about the recurring verticality that you saw in the buildings, right? The next is the color uh of the stone and brick masonry, right? And that we want to be consistent with that. Um the next was a consistent
design language that has to do again with that stepping and the way that buildings are adorned at the base and top. Um, and those setbacks and those setbacks uh in in in the way the building's wedding cake, but also the setbacks as they create spaces in
between one another, which is important right now, just to show um there are a number of large lots without buildings uh in the area. Uh and this is to um support u our subdivision request. Uh we have the great lawn of the Beacon. I
will tell the folks from the beacon that we are not building on the great lawn. I know that that was a a um a misconception that I got. Um the great lawn will stay the great lawn. Um you can see that in the upper left. Um you see our site labeled 593 Montgomery. You
see uh a parking lot right across Cornelison and Montgomery which is a parking lot for the um housing comp the housing authority um as well as some large parking lots for the high school that's further down Montgomery Street. right now. The zoning itself, the the R4
zoning is um zoning from the I I don't know exactly when it was was was uh written, but what it really speaks to is many of these buildings that we see around the city that were built in the 70s and 80s, which are towers in a sea of parking, right? And so this is what
um uh is supported by the R4 zoning which is not something that we thought was necessarily um appropriate and we'll talk a little bit about um ex uh what as of right zoning would be later in the in the presentation. Um briefly we are very very close to public transportation.
There's a number of New Jersey Transit bus routes uh that you can see here. Six uh that are that are within a couple of minutes walk including one right outside the building. uh one across the street and we are about a 15inute walk to the Journal Square path station as well. So
we are very close to um public transportation which I think is a very important um uh uh goal of the overall master plan. Now I talked a lot about recurring themes, right? And so you see uh in the
slide to the left um the site as it exists now. You see in the slide to the right um the site with our building in it. And I hope you can notice where our building sits. It sits in the lower left. Uh we are trying to be contextual. And one theme that even from this view
as I was looking at this slide in my office uh about an hour ago, I I I really thought is worth pointing out is that the beacon buildings are all uh for the for the most part not all bars, right? They are they are long narrow
buildings and they cluster together in pairs and threes, right? And that's really what we're doing here. When you when you look at um for instance the larger buildings that sit behind us here, you see one, two, three bars and you see ultimately what we're proposing
is a cluster of two that front Montgomery Street with our building. So I I think that this view really speaks to a kind of urban contextual approach that is consistent with uh the existing structures that surround us. Now further
the Beacon site plan you can see here you see how the structures have been uh have been ultimately um constructed. Right? The first buildings were actually along Cornelison. They were the Laundry and Powerhouse, the the Margaret Hey Hospital, named after the mayor's uh
wife, I believe, um Fairbank Hall, as well well as Holloway Hall. And these are a little little less consistent. You see that um the H building, which is on the left, is a little bit more of a donut, right? Four bars coming together. Um Fairbank Hall is more squarish. Um
and then the others are bars and kind of articulated bars that are joined together. It's when you get into the 30s post World War I that you really see the bar typologies including Jones Hall by the
way really becoming prevalent. Right. And so you see the health services building, the medical building which is the big one um as well as um uh Jones Hall down in the corner. Right? Those are followed by subsequent buildings
that infill that again create bar typologies that cluster together, right? And again, that's one of the things that we're really trying to do here is create a bar typology and and you'll see we have some models that we'll pull up in a second that show how we've really edited
this building down so it really reads as a bar. And um the final slide you actually see our um our building in the context and uh this also shows the heights again for everyone's reference. Um and these heights are to the top roof. Some of the buildings are a little
bit taller. Um so this this slide actually may have um uh a couple of inaccuracies in it but the buildings are all as I said 300 plus feet. Um but you see here what we're trying to do is match the height of Jones Hall. uh as I said before now in terms of the the
variances uh the C variances and and deviations we have here are listed in um in orange the D's uh which I'll talk most about are listed in um uh sort of cyan or light blue uh and those are the
building height uh again 200 214 ft 10 and 3/4 in is what we're proposing uh and that's uh sort of nested in between the building heights that we see in the surrounding context 110 ft are required. So we understand this is a relatively
severe uh variance but we think the context justifies that as well as uh an allowable use and Miss Porter talked about this. One of the things that we're doing which we're excited about is we're bringing a medical use back to uh the beacon right back to the medical center.
We're we're imagining about 7,500 or so square feet of uh ground floor space that would be used for um uh uh a um a community medical use or something similar to that and and the owner has been speaking to various um um
proprietors about that. Um and then you see we do have some setback and width um variances that you see and I'm going to talk about those a little bit more in the site plan. Now in addition uh Mr. ward and uh the planning office asked us
to provide zoning tabulation for Jones Hall because that was you know the second lot in the subdivision. So this is existing right and you see what's interesting is we have a number of C variances that are created. Some of these are created through the subdivision but some of them just happen
to be conditions uh that exist right uh in this building. And so you see there is some relief uh for um rear and uh rear yard setbacks and coverage uh as well as lot width. And again there is that Dvariance for building height. This is an existing building. it's existed
since the, you know, late 20s. Um, and so this is a pre-existing condition. Now, to read into the record, uh, some design key points before I show you the plans. Um, we have a proposed lot area of
28, 301 square ft. We have a lot width on Montgomery Street, so the frontage of 126 ft. On Cornelison Avenue down below we have a frontage of 119 feet 3 in lot
coverage we are proposing 56%. Building coverage on the ground floor we are proposing 33%. The building stories is 18 and that is counted from Montgomery Street. We have four subsurface stories that are parking.
Uh and then that building height as I mentioned before uh 214 feet 10 and 3/4 in. Um the setbacks so at um at the parking levels which are below grade uh we we really have no setbacks. We're
right at the lot line and that's because we want to maximize that for parking. But you'll see in keeping with that kind of form making of the medical center itself that we do step back quite a lot as the building moves up. And I'll talk about all of these as we as we go
through. Um, uh, in terms of our proposed building area, we're proposing 182 feet, uh, 182,754 ft, excuse me. Uh, 98 residential units. We do not need a density variance. Uh, this is as of
bright. Uh, this is 46 one-bedroom units, 52 two-bedroom units. There are 75 parking spaces proposed over four levels for that that we don't need a variance either. 49 uh would be for the residents and 26 would be gifted to
Jones Hall to make Jones Hall compliant by the way. So Jones Hall being a um senior living facility basically has a very low um parking requirement. I I think 0.2 cars per dwelling unit or per bed. Um so there's not not a lot there.
Um 65 bicycle parking spaces are provided. Obviously, this is an elevator building uh fully ADA accessible. The community healthc care, that medical use I spoke about is on the first floor. I'll show you in a second. 7,184 square ft. And there's a common
gym and amenity space proposed for residential tenants, which would be cross-used by the Jones Hall tenants uh in the building, as well as numerous private decks and balconies that you'll see because of the setbacks. Okay, so getting into this, uh, this is
the site plan at Montgomery Street. And so you see that we have a series of, uh, entries. The entries are coded in the, um, orange outline triangle. We have a main pedestrian entry that is centered on our building and the main healthcare
entry, which is at the corner of Beacon Way, so on the west side of the building. And then you see that our first setback that we take is actually at the plaza level, right? and and I'll I'll talk about those setbacks in a second. Um but um so the building sits
within a public plaza which we think is important and that also follows the kind of logic of the building being foursided. You could see all four sides just like um the rest of the beacon um uh the medical center I should say. You can see that proposed rain garden and
park. Uh that's about a 5600 square foot footprint on the lower um on the lower uh side on Cornelison Avenue as well as the driveway to get into the parking structure which is between that park and the existing Jones
Hall. Uh we have a dropoff zone. We have uh pedestrian and vehicular circulation here. And uh this slide is pretty minor, but we I do I do want everyone to know we've really thought about dumpsters and sta and staging for trash removal and so forth. And that will all happen via that
access driveway um from um from Cornelison. Now we did a lot of massing. So this is an elevation. I'm going to talk a lot about this elevation uh as we go on. But um this is an elevation as Montgomery Street moves up. So you can
see Montgomery Street is is slightly um uh rising here and you see Jones Hall here. You see our proposed building here and then you see just masked the taller buildings, the Capitol, the Rialto, the
Orpheium and the Mercury lofts which are considerably considerably taller. uh 300 plus feet up to 360 feet is I think the Rialto right and so we do feel that this is a contextual um response right now in speaking how
how does this relate to the the the uh secretary of the uh interior standards first um uh we want to uh acknowledge the monumental scale of the medical
center and this new addition Right? We want to emphasize the vertical and you can see clearly that the vertical is emphasized contextually. Right? We want to add decorative features that are consistent with our study of other buildings on the site. However,
reinterpret them in a somewhat more modern or contemporary way. And the reinterpreting of that decoration is actually important to us as architects. We want to maintain materials of note uh primarily that um that sort of tan brick
as well as some bronze that is found on the site. And what we're trying to do is narrow the building. And you'll see this in the next view a little bit uh more clearly. We're narrowing that midsection of the building here. Right? So we have
a clear base, middle, and top. And what that does is that's consistent with other buildings in the beacon. And what it allows for is opening up the view corridors through the buildings consistent with the beacon. Um so we feel that this building honors the existing resource but is distinguishable
from it. Um and we've really thought about construction um speaking with Mr. Reeden and others from his office in terms of um the panels that we're imagining that you'll see. Now, this is uh uh a graphic that we showed at the
HPC showing the setbacks in Axon. And this is this building has slendered um quite a lot. And maybe I can show Do we have those models? I'm just going to pass around some models just the two. I really don't want to go into the past, but I'll I'll pass these around.
And by the way, one of them is a little the base is coming off, so just be careful with it. But um this is one of the previous schemes that we have. Um and you can see in plan that this building was totally square and this is the proposed building that we have in front of you as
represented in this graphic. And you can see that it's more rectangular. It's more of a bar. That step back is more consistent with the beacon itself. So have fun toys. Um now what that means as we um as we
move I we had a big model too that we thought we we didn't bring but as some some folks here have seen the big model that we have. Um you see the massing design here as it relates to uh those graphics and the models before you right the building wedding cakes right and so
you can see how we have um a series of um we're showing uh we're showing the tower at the beacon as a as a comparison on the left and our building on the right as we go up. So you see how uh the building form um while not totally
mimicking follows the logic of getting more slender as as you move up. And this was something that was really important and hopefully you could see that in our um in our models that we're passing around. Now to take you through the plans um we have one subsurface level
under Cornelison Street. Uh that is a uh subsurface parking level. you can see uh the circulation and the ramps as they move through and we have about 23 spaces per per level um given given the site and the circulation. So what you see on
the right is Jones Hall um and you see our building here. So Montgomery Street is here and then the circulation in which you'll see on the next slide is is over here. And so that looks like this. So again, so this is the uh what we call
basement floor one. This is the sort of ground floor at Cornelison. And the one thing that you'll notice is we have a dedicated loading zone in front of the elevators. That's actually for an ambulance. So, we're imagining that for the medical use, there'll be a dedicated
place um for ambulances to pull in and out. And there are a series of elevators um that take you up into the building. One will be dedicated for the medical use as well. So, you see three elevators. Two will be for the residential, one will be for the medical use. Uh, and you see where the bike
storage is located as well as a trash compactor room. And then we have some other features here, the sprinkler pump room and things like that that we've tried to think about. Um, second floor above Cornelison, still parking. And then the third floor, which
is basement floor 03 above Cornelison, is still parking again. And again, we're consistent. We have that 20 to 24 spaces. And that brings us up to Montgomery Street and that's the ground floor. So here we have the ground floor of Montgomery Street. You'll see we have
fenistration similar to those models that that allows for a kind of uh proud projection of the residential entry. So you see the residential lobby in the center. You see our elevator bank with our stairs tight together. And then you
see this U-shaped space which is the healthc care lobby and the healthc care space. Now, we've laid it out as just exam rooms and things like that, but ultimately the the proprietor will tell us, you know, what what they need in in that space. But here, you begin to see
setbacks um as listed in our zoning tabulation as well as some dimensions that we start establishing from other buildings. Right. So, on the corner here, we have a 10-ft setback. Where's my mouse? Here in
the rear from our lot line, we have a 25- ft setback. That 25- ft setback puts us at the Montgomery Street elevation, 31 ft 5 in from the Rialto, which is a healthy distance, and 20 ft from Jones
Hall, our sister building. I just lost my mouse. Here it is. And that's uh obtained through a 10-ft setback that we're creating here in the proposed subdivision. Now, you'll notice there is a historic wall that rounds the block. We are creating an opening in that wall.
Uh we've chosen a location that is consistent with the healthcare entry and that also happens to be the uh one of the only locations where that wall happens to be on our property. So, we can actually open up the wall there and and obviously that will be opened up and
um treated as the historic asset that it is. That's we've had a lot of discussions with Mr. Reeden and his team about that. Now, as the building goes up, you see that we have um uh on the second floor uh a series of spaces. This is the the
first residential floor that that begins here. Uh and we have this that that mix of two bedrooms and one bedrooms. I'm not going to go into the unit design. I don't think I need to, but you see that there's a couple of things that continues to happen in the building. We're still in the base of the building,
so that entry is still proud. And then we have corners that are still proud as well. Right? And that gives that sort of um urban form that we're picking up from our fairly exhaustive study of the beacon. Uh you see that 768 ft gym which
is an amenity space that will be used um for um residents of this building as well as Jones Hall. You might have seen there's a gym in the lower level as well. That's a kind of rehab gym uh that that could be imagined for um tenants of you know uh uh people in the in the
medical uh in the medical use. Now our third floor pretty much stacks. You could see that here. Um so the the the the um the setbacks that you see are more or less maintained. And what that's doing is it builds up a threestory
um base before our first setback. Right? And I'll you could see that in the models. Maybe I'll use the model here. So that three that threetory base is here and you can see these elements that are proud setting up that base and I'll
talk a lot about the materials in that uh in a second. Um, so the fourth floor we begin setting back in the rear and we have a series of private decks as well as a common deck and another amenity space, a 768 ft club room for the
residents of the building. And we think this is great and and one one of the things I really like about this building, we don't we don't get to design buildings that wedding cake so much, you know, and um there really is an opportunity for a lot of exterior space in this building and that's something that we really like. um uh in
in our work. Now, the fifth floor really takes a U-ype shape, right? And so, you can see that back here. And what that's setting up is a couple of legs for some some more units while the building is low before this middle section really
kind of takes off and really takes that kind of bar shape and plan that I was um speaking about. Right? So you can see that the the setbacks are are um increasing here. So now we were 315 from the Roxy. We're now 39 ft from the Roxy
on the lower right. Um we're 50 ft to the middle uh uh line here of the building from our lot line. 32 feet back from uh the other beacon the the other beacon sites and we're still 10 ft on uh the Beacon Way side 1310. So you can
start seeing how the building is setting back, right? And that continues all the way up. Um the middle of the building, and you'll see how we're treating that in elevation, is probably the most repetitive part. We have floors 7 through 14 here. And this is um again
two very tight stairwells and our elevator core. And then we have that mix of one and two bedrooms around. So that's something that recurs on every floor. After the 14th floor, we really start articulating that height, that that top, right? Right. So, we have
base, middle, and top. And here we have private roof decks all around. And on this floor and the remaining floors, there's only four units, which is actually pretty cool, right? There's there's like it it's a relatively exclusive for a rental building, you know, um four units as you go all the
way up. And there's going to be some really nice views and things like that here. And you can see at this point because we're setting back um we are very very far at this point uh in relatively speaking from the buildings around us. We're 60'5 in from Jones
Hall. We're 54t 6 in off our rear lot line. Uh 60t 5 in from Jones Hall and then 54' 6 in from our rear lot line. The 16th floor uh is shown here.
Again, four units. This steps back a little bit further. 17th floor. And then finally our 18th floor which concludes uh the residences. And that's really at the top here, right? And so you see there's even a step between uh 1415 and
then 1617 that happens in that model that I passed around. Um at the top we do have a common roof deck that's that's accessed through um elevators and the stairs. That's an elevator lobby that you see there in white. And then I thought I'd show this. U Mr. Shisvet
will talk about this, but the JCMUA came back to us and asked us to look for some opportunities for green roofs on the building. And so, uh, this is a very simple one that we we came up with quickly. Uh, 821 ft of green roof can be achieved by just planting that penthouse
on top, not the penthouse, the bulkhead, excuse me, uh, the elevator bulkhead on top of um on top of that that top floor and roof deck. Now, you saw this in the plans, but just these are some zoomed-in um uh views of our um proposed refuse and bike storage
plans. Um bike storage and trash removal happens out the Cornelison entrance. Cornelison is the the minor street. I would say it's also 30 or 33 feet lower than Montgomery Street. So, you see that here. And then the elevation. So, we'll talk a lot about these, but these are
the four elevations. Uh, so this the the elevation on your left is the um Montgomery Street elevation that I've talked a little bit about already. And then you have the two side elevations, the second and fourth, and then the rear elevation, which is the elevation that faces south, which is the third. Um,
we're going to talk a lot about the materials and the detailing in the subsequent slides. So that main elevation again one of the things that was super critical um based on uh our study of the existing structures is to
really articulate difference in the base, the middle and the top, right? And so the base is um the series of um uh of entrances for the lobby and for uh that
medical use. We're using fritted glass as well as ornament. Uh the middle of the building, which is floors four or so through 14, is is really a series of fluted brick that goes up. And I have details of that
that really makes for the the central mass of the building. And then that wedding caking, as if that's a term, um really is apparent at the top where we're setting back every two floors or so. We have a series of glass railings. Um I do have some some material samples
that we can pass around of the um of the tan brick as well as some of the metal panel. There's a a lot of bronze metal panel uh that we're proposing as well. So this is the brick that you could pass around. It's a dolomite gray,
that kind of tan brick, as well as two samples of bronze color that is adorned. The darker color more at the base of the building and then the lighter color more as we move up. I I was just talking to someone the other day that said since we're back from CO, no one brings materials to the
boards anymore. So, I thought it was uh important to do so today. So um so and those materials are all listed uh on on the side of the building also. And and what's interesting about this as I go through the elevations you see that we do have a kind of recurring window
pattern. And that recurring window pattern has uh is adorned with a dark aluminum. There are dark aluminum windows. They're framed with a kind of so-called hopper and then a a kind of panel that's above it. Sometimes there's a fixed panel. So you see the window patterns. And and what I really want to
draw attention to in these elevations, and I have some zoom in of this as well, zoomed in images of this fritted glass at the base. We have that decorative brick, and you can see that the brick is more um there's more uh difference in it
toward the center of the building. And then as it fans out to the edges, it becomes more flat. And that's another uh uh deco uh uh style of detailing that we picked up on that we thought was important to kind of pick up on in our
building. Um glass railings. Um and as I get through the elevations, I'll zoom in and you can see some of the ornament that is clearly seen in this view, the south elevation on top of the building as well as in in some of the lower portions of it. Now, I thought I'd just show this
building section um that just shows the kind of organization that I just took you through. So, as I said, one subsurface parking level, three parking levels from Cornelison. We have that main um plaza level at Montgomery. Lost
my mouse again here uh with the entry and you can see that entry is clearly proud with decorative elements. then the middle mass of the building which is all the residential units that you see and then we start stepping up at that 14th floor and you can start seeing the
darker ornamental panels that begin adorning it. So we we demarcate the base, we demarcate the end of the middle and we demarcate the top. And this is all um detailing that is sympathetic to
what we've learned about uh in in the beacon itself. Um this is a diagram I thought I'd show that just shows um uh glass to um uh glass to solids. And you will see admittedly that um compared to
Jones Hall, we do have a little bit more glass. I think that's appropriate given um uh the the contemporary living condition today. Um, and I will remind everyone that when these buildings were built, the technology for glass was not such that you could get really large glass panels, right? And so that's one
of the reasons why you see smaller punched windows um in the beacon. Uh, I have a series of renderings. So you see in elevation these details again of that base, that middle, and that top here. More graphics of that. And then um
we've really worked on a lot of line drawing. So this is the the base of the building. I have some renderings of this also where we have the entry for the residential, the entry for the healthcare. We have awnings on both sides that symmetrically frame that
entry which is one story taller. And then we have that fritted glass. Again, lost my mouse. Um that is um on both sides. And that's where we terminate to that middle of the building. And you can see in this view
how the brick pattern really is more intense in the center and it fans out to lesser and lesser to almost flat at the uh at the corners of the building. Right? And that continues up through as
we really take the stepbacks and mix a series of um ornamental brick with the um uh the kind of uh uh decorative ornamental top of the building that you see here. And then that glass frit pattern
at the base is here. And then I have a series of colored elevations of what that brick looks like. So, if you um look down below, now this obviously has to go through a kind of structural design and a detailed design, but we um we we know how to do this. These will
probably be pre-cast panels still to be determined. Um but we will have a series of brick members that are proud. Uh Mr. Ward asked for mock-ups um should this building be approved, and we're we're happy to to provide that and and continue working with um with the
planning office on that. So, you see a series of those details. So, so this is that kind of more intense brick at the center of the building. And then as we fan out, it begins getting flatter. And so you see here uh the relationship of the the that kind of
fluting if you will in both elevation and plan. And then some further details uh as well as the bar relief uh that we picked up from looking at the decorative panels uh uh that exist within the within the
medical center complex. These would be uh in bronze, a decorative bronze. And at the top of the building there are glass rails that we're imagining uh so that they disappear. Really kind of showing those ornamental elements and not bogging the
building down with like railings. Right now what does the building look like from the street? Right. I just took you through a lot of the detail and the logic for the massing. Right. Um, we took a series of uh views from up and
down Montgomery Street, from Summit in Fairmont, as well as uh all the way down sort of further south from Johnston and Grand right now. So, this is the view from Summit in Fairmont. And I'm happy to report that you can't see the building. Uh, the building is outlined is dashed in green here in excuse me, in
um in white here and it's behind the green um Fairmont sign. It is not seen from this view. This is something that Mr. Reeden asked for. Now, where it is seen from obviously is from Montgomery Street. So, this is the view from Montgomery and Baldwin where we're
really looking, if you remember what I said about the um kind of pairing or clustering of buildings together. So, we see the three tall clusters here and then you see our building clustering with the sister building Jones Hall as
part of this. This is the view from Johnston and Grand where you see that kind of ornamental top of our building that I think blends well with the ornamental tops of the rest of the beacon. Um it it it tries to
uh be different to uh the buildings around it. And then I like this view. This is further down uh Montgomery Street by the uh the Turnpike overpass. And so this is a view that you'd see looking up. You can see the housing authority building
sort of in front of us and our building sits um as you see it there behind Jones Hall actually right one more and then the just some renderings that try to take you through the thought that we have in terms of the detailing that we put into this and again this was all
done uh with a careful study of not only the beacon complex but the secretary of the uh interior standards that really led us to kind of subdivide the building into that base middle and top modulate the scale, the relationship of openings
to solids and so forth. And you can see that here as well. Uh you could see the bronze material that I passed around as well as that um that dolomite gray brick which is really a tan brick here. And then some uh views of it um
from the street that are zoomed in that really kind of show the building itself. Now I'm going to try to do this quickly. We do have 10 historic standards that we want to um we want to talk about. The first is site and setting. And that
clearly the way that we are interpreting that is looking at the um the massing, the scale and the materials of the beacon complex and utilizing similar materials sometimes in a creative and
new way, but really trying to be both different uh differential, excuse me, but also and and acknowledging those materials, but also um setting our building off so that it is understood as a later addition. addition to this
complex. Um, and that's certainly um a repetitive theme that we see in in in all of the Beacon buildings. Uh, you saw this slide before I talked about it. Uh, building height is another historic design standard. Um, and we uh attempted
to be uh sympathetic and and um to the taller buildings. We didn't want to overtake them and we thought it would be good to match in height our sister building, Jones Hall. By the way, Jones Hall looks a little lower than our building here just because of the slope of Montgomery Street, but it's imagined
at the same height. um front facades uh are and and and the articulation of bases are very very important and and what we see in many of the buildings most of the buildings is a kind of articulated and heightened
central entry. So this is um Alblo's as it used to be called hall now Jones Hall 591 Montgomery our sister building and this says it quite well you know and and this is very typical for many of the buildings that there's a a further articulated entry that's central to the
building um that we are are tapping into um the relationship of unbroken planes to voids that is in both the uh kind of relationship of of glass to solids windows to to voids to solids, but also
the rhythm of the buildings itself. So, you see here in um in Jones Hall that the corners flare and we have a a sort of middle flare as well. And that's what we're attempting to do here, right? While still thinking about that stepping
um in in in terms of the planes that you see, right? So, the buildings don't seem like big boxes. They actually get slender as they go up and are and are more more designed. uh which is important I think. And then um the relationship of
vacant land to building structures. Uh this is one that I think is is best if you recall the um the aerial view where I talked about the clustering of the bars in threes and we're trying to do that in twos here. Um the projection of exterior
elements to the street. I've talked about that a bunch. You see that here as well as the brick uh that I uh passed around uh in terms of a relationship of new to the major exterior building materials which is is
brick is brickmasonry, right? Um and then roof forms again the articulation after a uh common middle a more uh uh uh uh repetitive middle a more ornamental
and differentiated top uh is is a roof form that we see in the beacon that again I've talked about here uh the visual imagery ofes that just has to do with how roofs are articulated And then the scale of buildings. And that one I've talked about a bunch. Uh
this was one of the standards that we we really sought to try to um speak to. And I think I've shown a number of images that that do that. Um signage. This is the same slide you saw before, but the signage is going to be a deco signage in
nature utilizing uh both the font and the materials, which is a lot of bronze. um uh uh in our building to match the existing and then site planning. Um again, uh I think I've talked I've
talked a bunch about. Um off- streetet parking is handled through an accessory garage. Um uh you can see here a description. Uh all garage facad shall be in character with the immediate surrounding historic properties and must be compatible. What
we've tried to do in dealing with that is pushing our garage down and having it accessible from Cornelison. Right? So all of these standards uh and we iterated this and and uh when we received the historic report from Mr. Reeden that Miss Porter um uh spoke
about, I thought I'd just kind of grab um grab uh some of the commentary from the the testimony, but you can see uh uh you could read it yourself, but on the right um Mr. Blazak, one of the commissioners who actually is one of the only historically trained commissioners
on that board, I I might add, well, other than that, what what they've already done, and Mr. Reeden responds, other than what they've already done, I mean, I could I've noted I've jotted down a couple of things. Sorry, I've jotted down a couple of things such as
reintroduce the metal grills at the roof line, which you saw, to join brick peers together, which you saw. Those are very small things. And then more importantly, I think a rather monumental effort has gone into trying to take the commission
and the public's comments and integrate them into a new development. And so that's what I hope you've seen um before you. Now, I just want to talk very very briefly about existing zoning. Right?
the existing zoning is the is the R4 zoning and um we uh were encouraged to look at what that might be, right? And so this assumes the subdivision that we uh we have here that you've been seeing and what we've done is just taken the
building that would be permitted based on setbacks and tried to put it in here. And so what you see is a kind of rather almost like an M-shaped form that snakes around Jones Hall. We have a 10-ft front
yard on Beacon, which I just highlighted, a 10-ft front yard on Montgomery, a 10-ft sideyard along Jones Hall, a 10-ft sideyard on the rear of Jones Hall. You're following this around, right?
the 10-ft front yard at Cornelison, a 10-ft sideyard at the Roxy, and the 10-ft sideyard perpendicular to Beacon Way that's capped with the 25- ft rear corner
radius. And what that really gives us is a box, right? This is what the as of right zoning would ultimately be. We could go to the planning board, we could say, "This is what we want to do." And um I I would like to give the owner credit uh the owner of of Jones Hall
because this is not what uh they want to do. This is not what we want to do. We think that this really flies in the face of the seriousness with which we've approached this project and really tried to work with the design standards that
um I've talked about that really get us to uh this that you see here. And this is another view of that M-shaped straight up box compared to our articulate and I think appropriate
building. Now design iterations. I'm just going to show a few of them. Um we see uh I think there were a total of seven iterations. You see three of them here. Um the first was a more contemporary application of paneling. The second brought color in
but was still metallic. The third iteration, which is before you, is when we brought brick in and really took more seriously those Secretary of the Interior standards where we're now looking at changing that um more squat
form that was more square to the more sleek and tall form that you see on the right, which is um in my opinion consistent with the Secretary of the Interior standards. And you see another view here of those
early iterations that started in 2019 all the way through to what we have in the current proposal which is on the right today. And then this is a graphic that shows um actually those two models that I passed around in terms of the
slendering of the building that I spoke about. I'll just go through these quickly. Finally, um shadow studies. So all buildings cast shadows. We know that. Um and what we are seeing here uh this was run uh on the winter solstice
December 21st, 2024, which is now in the past. Uh we always look at the winter solstice as the most severe because the sun is lowest in the sky. And so uh we tend to get the most shadow casting there. And I think when you look at this
animation, what you see is many of the existing buildings actually are casting shadows on our site. Um, which is very very important. And that goes to that height diagram that I showed you before where the Rialto and and some of the other buildings in the medical center
are 300 plus 345 360 ft. So those are casting long shadows and you see that here in uh the um the winter which is the most severe. Our building pretty much cast shadows onto Montgomery Street right uh public right of way. It does
not cast shadows back to the beacon at all because of its location uh at the northernmost tip of the site. Now the spring and fall uh this is um March 21st which just happened and September 21st
uh you can see again that the largest shadow casting is happening from uh the beacon buildings the the medical center buildings um which is important to note and again at when the sun is lowest in the sky at the end of the day and the beginning of the day um the longest
shadows are cast and and uh particularly in the evening um those taller buildings are casting shadows on our site. And then finally, the summer. We are less concerned about the summer because the sun is highest in the sky. And so we're seeing that during the day
there's fairly minimal shadow casting happening even from the buildings that are much taller than us. And I think that's important. In the beginning of day and end of day, it's when the sun is at a different angle. uh it's it's obviously casting um deeper shadows, but we're really concerned with that say,
you know, 9 to5 type time when the shadows are pretty mitigated. And so this is Montgomery Street. You saw this rendering before. This is where most of those shadows are going to be cast. And I will conclude with a final uh image which is the same image that I
started with that shows hopefully our sister building blending in well with um Jones Hall and um being differential to the rest of the beacon, the rest of the medical center. So thank you. Thank you. Great. Yes.
So, at this point in time, does the board uh wish to allow for questions next weekend? Great. Great. So, for our second witness, we'd like to call Mr. Chisvat, our civil engineer. break. Do you need a break yet? Sorry.
Okay. Have you have a HDMI? Yeah. [Music] Yes, I do. Mark Chisette. C H I S V E T T E. Again, Mr. Chvetz has been here a number of times and we recognize his
expertise. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So, I want to start with the survey. Um survey was not prepared by our office. It was prepared by Faldi Group and use that as their background
for all our plans. But um I want to start with that because it get you can get a better feel for the for the property itself. So what you're looking at is is the survey. This is not a site plan. This is just an existing conditions plan. Um as you can see um
well just to get yourself oriented. Let me just zoom out just a little bit more. Uh so Montgomery Street is at the top and Cornell is is is at the on the right side. Beacon Way is at the upper left. And um Jones Hall is the gray shadowed
um structure that's in the uh northeast corner of the property. So I'm just going to outline with my pointer the property itself. It's got a little bit of a dog leg in back and down at the bottom along Carnelison. um existing there is a parking lot
that's uh fronting along Kellison and then the um upper portion of the property the back that near near Beacon Way is is existing this concrete patio and there's a a a sloped lawn in between those two that is a considerable slope
Mr. Garber mentioned um the grades along Canelison are around 9 and 10 in elevation and the grade up at Montgomery Street where um where he he described the connection we were going to open that existing wall is at 45. So you know
35 foot difference in grade um and um I'm going to switch to the U site plan for a moment. 45 is the elevation. 35 is a difference in in height.
Um going to the site plan. Um as Mr. Garber explained that the building is is focused on the upper portion of the property which is to the upper left of the plan near near Beacon Way. Um at the very extreme
northwesterly corner fronting on street. Uh there's we will be open to removing two sections of the wall that exists that wraps around the site. Um and that will allow pedestrian connection from the public sidewalk on Montgomery to the
plaza level sidewalk that surrounds the building at that level which is around elevation 45. uh access to the site from vehicles would be off Canelison and that's um where driveway um more or less where the
existing curb cut is now and then that will um enter into uh the garage that's a couple levels below the plaza level because um the driveway is graded so that it's ADA compliant. It's it's not
more than 5% in slope. Um and then what was the parking lot area, uh we were proposing a park in that area. Um the park is is going to consist mostly of lawn, trees around the perimeter and and
permeable pa walkway. Now, uh Mr. Garber alluded to it. We we've had some discussions with the MUA, and these plans have been in front of the MUA for a number of years. They're essentially the same as they were 5 years ago as far as the site plan goes. A lot of changes have taken place at the building. Not
that much has changed with the site design. Uh but in in since that time u there have been some changes in the storm water ordinance and uh the MUA has asked that we try to implement some what they call green infrastructure
u elements to to the site. So uh although not shown on this plan, we've agreed as a condition of approval that we will implement. U Mr. Garber mentioned about 800 and plus square ft of green roof uh that will be added. In addition to that, there's there's about
300 square ft of planters that are uh placed uh scattered across the perimeter of the plaza area. Those are those are 36-in deep planters. Those aren't 6 in planters. Those are those are fairly
deep. And so they can get some sizable uh plants in in them. And then um along the um uh at the park area kind of parallel with um Kelison we will have a uh a a bio retention like which is like
a a rain garden bio retention area. So the lawn that you see here about a third of that lawn about 900 square feet of that lawn will become a bio retention area. Um I I will move to the next slide which is u the grading and utility plan
and you can see in that area where the parking lot is uh we have proposed a fairly substantial underground detention system and that's going to be underneath the lawn area that was the park. So I'm going back to here again and and uh also
uh u working with MUA we we've agreed that uh that u detention system will be uh perforated pipe as long as we're going to we we will confirm uh with soil soil borings that the groundwater is
below the level of that but I'm pretty sure it is uh and and um we will that will allow a lot of that detention to perk back into the Um so it will reduce some of the say actual flow. So as you know how detention um it reduces the peak rates
of flow but it doesn't necessarily reduce volume but in in the case of being a perforated pipe and having the bio retention which will absorb and allow transpiration of the water that will also take some of the volume out and so will a green roof take some of the volume out. And in addition to that,
the the what we've called for on the plans that were submitted to you a couple weeks ago um show stone pavement pavers, but we will replace that with permeable pavers again in an effort to try to reduce the runoff f of the site.
Um the site is actually not a um a major development under the the storm water ordinance rules that existed when we submitted these plans. um and is not a major development under the definition
that exists even today with the DP. Uh so uh even still we have that we have a sizable detention basin. Um and we are reducing peak flows for the two the 10 and the 100redyear storms to the 50% 75%
80% that's required by your current ordinance. Um um there is a just a an enlargement of that park area that we're showing here. Um entrance to that park it will be a
gate off of Cornell and u like I said about onethird of that lawn area will will be by our retention. We are proposing uh trees throughout the park area in addition to uh trees along Krenel and those street trees that are
proposed. Um going back to the site plan, sorry, I apologize for flipping back and forth, but I wanted to try to show the orientation of the park with the detention. Um there is a proposed
u trash area off the entry driveway that uh before so um that's accessible from Krenellison and um off of that there's a there's a a pullover uh parking space for drop off
uh at the bottom of that driveway which will also allow uh pedestrian uh drop off to uh the Jones Hall residents. ing um the parking lot that had been um in the area where the park is now proposed. U as Mr. Garber mentioned, we we're
going to allow uh for spaces allotted spaces within the parking garage for the for the Jones Hall residents so they don't lose parking. Um and now I'm going to move to the U grading and drainage plan. Again, the utility plan, all the
utilities are off of Krenellison. Um there is a uh well everything everything the water comes down from the building comes down the driveway through the detention system and then out to a manhole on Kelson on on the existing uh combined
sewer and also the water uh and the sanitary sewer uh electric everything everything will be coming uh off of of Carellison. Uh there will be a transformer pad uh on the driveway or
adjacent to the driveway I should say just off the driveway um near near the building um right next to where the uh trash area is going to be located and that will that's so the power will come in underground to that and then go into
the building from that point. Um we have um a connection like I said we talked about a connection on uh uh right right in the area near near
uh near where Beacon Way meets Montgomery sheet. There's that's the opening and that's where the the main pedestrian entryway will be into the uh the this the proposed site. Um, so, um, I don't know if you have any other
questions. I'll be brief because I think the most the most most important focus is on the building and the massing of the building. And, u Mr. Chisette, could you go over the, um, signalization at Mills and Montgomery Street, the pedestrian
crossing and the bus stop? Um, yes, there's Let me let me zoom in on that. It's a It gets a little bit crowded in that area. So, we're proposing to just relocate a couple of the the signals standards and so that it's not
interfering with the movement. um because uh there's not much width in that area along the sidewalk cuz the the way the the wall that exists sort of has a a bend and a jog in it. It kind of eats into the rightway. And so in order
to allow for more fluent passing of pedestrians to to walk through that area and get past the s the pedestrian signal that's there um we're proposing just to move it a little bit closer to the curb just to open that gap up a little bit.
Thank you. just uh for the uh the board as well. It there's also proposed ballards at the end of Mil Street to just um harden that edge just in case someone goes straight into this new opening. And a bus stop is considered
but will be worked on with staff similar to um the bus stop island you see at the Grove Street Path Station currently. Uh so that's what's shown on this drawing as well. Yes. Thanks. Thanks for bringing that
up. Do you have any questions? We'll hold out questions till the end. Okay. Okay. We'll take a break, Bridget. Okay. All right. At this time, we're going to take uh 10 minutes, 15 minutes. What do you need? 10. Okay. So, it is um 7:40.
So, we'll be back at 7:50 again once my board members come in. I know. Okay, Miss Porter, this is your next So, at this time, I'd like to ask the board, we do have an additional witness,
our traffic consultant, but I leave it to the discretion of the board. We're more than happy to go directly to our planning testimony, which would be concluding our testimony unless the board would like to hear from our traffic consultant. I think at this time we like I mean we have uh we want to
hear from the um community as well. So, and it's already it's 10 to 8. So I think we should proceed with Mr. Heayen and um see if we need to hear from the traffic planner um at that time, right? And to the extent that there are questions that come up, we can rec
recall him. Okay. Thank you. All right. I do. Yes. Good evening. Charles Height. Last name is spelled H Ey. Um, good evening board members. Uh, I have appeared before this board. Yes, we recognize your expertise. I still remain
a PR, uh, professional planner in the state of New Jersey. Um, I they haven't taken your license yet. Is that correct? Uh, no, they take the dues. Uh, that's what they do. Um, good. But, uh, I have been a part of this project um, since its early inception of in 2018 with the
design team. um through many of the iterations on considering the balance between um really what we're presenting this board is respectful um design with historic architecture uh as well as um good planning principles. So um I will
also say that u most of the time I appear this board asking for relief because certain as aspects of project might not comply fully with the zoning. uh and usually the case is because we have an interesting setting uh aspects of the property dynamics and and
neighborhood might present itself where a proposed design does have better better alternatives um better planning strategies that lend itself to what we're proposing. So, um I do know that every project might
have um impacts on the neighborhood. Uh we'll go through some of them. Uh much of what um I can rely on was presented to this board by Mr. Garber. So uh I have a truncated presentation from him that I will just uh reference some of the visuals that he shared. Um but it's
not uh lost on us that every development whether small or big has uh impacts on an existing community. Uh, as a planner, I can tell you that through this design process, um, we are looking at existing impacts on the neighborhoods today, but also what those lasting impacts will be
for generations to come and some of the benefits that development will bring, not only for residents today, but for future residents that will enjoy this neighborhood, have access to all the the added benefits of of the existing infrastructure and and the the proposed development. So, um, with that, uh, I'll
get directly into the variances. Um I think it's easiest to digest um instead of uh doing it by uh topic is by lot. Um we are requesting a proposed subdivision. Um and the short uh
approach to this is to uh try and isolate the existing Jones Hall at 591 property, provide it sufficient stepbacks, but also balance the existing footprint of that building. The coverage um on this property and uh the residual
area was uh preserved was was transitioned to the proposed lot 1.02 O2 and we're able to uh achieve a few benefits in in that strategy. Um one being the park, two being the parking uh and also the storm water management which don't exist uh which doesn't exist
today. So um with respect to the subdivision, we're at the corner of Cornelos and Montgomery. Um there is a topog topographical change along these facades. Um the overall uh lot width is is one of the first um relief needed for
this what would be the new corner lot um encompassing the existing Joan Jones Hall building. Uh the requirement is 100 ft. We're at proposing it at 92 feet. So we're 8 ft shy um roughly along Montgomery Street. Uh in my opinion I
think that's essentially where we wanted to land. You'll hear uh some of the dimensions uh for proposed lot 1.02 O2. We're basically splitting this frontage evenly between both both lots. Um
the next two are related to setbacks. Um the minimum side requirement is 15 ft. Um we have that uh being proposed at 10 ft. Um again, when we set the minimum lot width to balance the two frontages
on Montgomery, um 10 feet was the comfortable setback that we felt necessary uh to give, uh some some space and separation for the existing Jones Hall. Um and and maintain the light and air uh in the area for that property. Um
when you get to the rear yard uh we're working off of uh the prior zoning um which uh essentially establishes two front yards, two side yards and and we're introducing the the now the the
rear lot point. Um so here in this case the rear lot point requirement is 40 ft. In this setting, um we are trying to tailor the lot to provide for um a necessary setback for each side in terms
of two sideyards. So we don't have a notch in the block. Um this really isn't an interior corner of a block. Uh so that's where we're proposing 27 ft um as the the minimum distance to that rear point. So again, 40 is required and we're proposing
27. Um, I should also maintain ma say from from an existing standpoint, not measuring from property lines, the nearest structure is about 118 ft away. So whether it's sideyard or rear yard, we have substantial space and distance
from the existing um structures in the area. The nearest point to the uh proposed structure on what will be lot 1.02 will be approximately 20 ft. That's the two sideyards balancing the 10-ft setbacks. Um, one of the other relief for lot 1.01 will be maximum lot
coverage. Um, again, I think this is where we were trying to balance off some of the uh building coverage and lot coverage. Uh, so the maximum lot coverage permitted based on the R4 standards uh is 85%. What is being proposed on lot 1.01 is
95%. Um, so you're saying, well, why couldn't you just make the lot better? And I'll I'll tell you why. Um, when you look at a building coverage standpoint, one of the balancing tests that we looked at, um, which permits 60% coverage, we're actually at 50% coverage. So, the the building itself is
reasonably sized for this proposed lot 1.01. It's just the added sidewalks and patio uh, terrace areas that increase the um, the cover the the impervious coverage. I also believe there's um an entryway for some from loading on off of
Cornelius. And um so that's really uh part of the rationale for proposing the 95%. Um we would also say that we're not um discounting the proposed lot, which I'll get into a minute, but uh the
proposed lot 1.01 actually has sufficient space to accommodate the park. Um the calculations for for that in terms of building coverage and lot coverage are 33% building coverage substantially below the 60% and 56% lot
coverage substantially below the uh the the permitted 85%. So, while we are very efficient with the existing Jones Hall structure, we do provide that added um relief in terms of lot coverage and
building coverage on proposed lot 1.01. Um part of that is directly going to offset the impacts of added building coverage. The storm water management um design uh will address storm water runoff um with underground detention systems below the park area to address
the the newly and existing storm water runoff um which will help mitigate uh the impacts of the added coverage. Um so there's again some some thoughtful design and balancing between these two proposed lots. Uh with respect to the
maximum building height um on again the existing Jones Hall uh that structure is 211 feet as we mentioned previously. Um the R4 only permits 110 ft. So clearly it predated um the the R4 limit on
building height. Um much of the testimony I'll give with respect to the proposed structures about context. Clearly the existing Jones Hall has a context. It's a pre-existing condition. Uh, and that's really some of the basis for u what we'll be discussing in terms of the proposed building height. Uh,
there's no changes to the building height. There's no increases to the existing Jones Hall structure. Um, one of the other nice uh attributes about this uh overall subdivision is that we're able to rebalance the parking and create some efficiency by including it
in the proposed structure on lot 1.02. So, it's a really efficient use of land by removing the surface parking, converting it to a park, and introducing the parking that will be made available to the existing Jones Hall structure in the proposed development. Um, that's
approximately uh 26 spaces um which will be transitioned and it essentially is a minimum parking space variance, but the spaces will be real. They will be directly accessible for the existing Jones Hall. um uh senior housing uh and
and they would comply um albeit not directly on the site. So um there's no off there's no direct impact and it's offset with the uh proposed structure. That's the relief needed for
lot 1.01 on paper in the tables. um the highlights draw your attention to it, but I think my my presentation tonight was a little bit of the rationale and some of the justifications from a from a planning standpoint. Um when we move to lot 1.02, uh that's
where we're introducing the proposed multif family house uh house uh multif family building. Um, first and foremost, uh, you heard it at the top of the presentation. I think it was, uh, also referenced. Uh, we do require a D1 use variance. Um, I'm offering that there's
two components here. Um, one, it's an inherently beneficial use with respect to uh, the uh, healthc care facility uh, element to the proposed development, but I also think as a mixeduse development um, it's still consistent with the R4
standards. Um so with respect to inherently beneficial uses um they basically have to promote and serve the general welfare of the community. Um the adjacent Jones Hall is a senior housing. Um, I can't tell you exactly what type
of uh facility or what services will be provided, but um whether it's the Jones Hall's residents or residents in the surrounding area, healthcare is a priority for most people um whether they're young or or old. Uh and
essentially that's a bonafide inherently beneficial use within the state of New Jersey. Um it in other words in a technical fashion it presumptively meets the positive positive criteria. So notwithstanding that it's omitted from
the permitted uses it's recognized as a as an important use that can be considered under a D1 use standard. Um I do also want to say that the inclusion of the healthcare facility is
included in the overall design of the building. Uh it's not an out part. an an out building. Um but it is included in the overall design of the building. Uh so there will won't be any added demand on the uh um the existing uh the
proposed property. Um and uh again I think much of it uh going to fall back into the building mass that I'll get into a bit, but there's nothing um that would draw draw its attention from a massing standpoint.
Um I think that's a good segue to get into the um building height uh D6 variance. So again uh this is the zoning table. Um I covered one of the Dvarianes in blue with respect to the permitted
use inherently beneficial medical facility. Um the D6 uh just in terms of numbers. Uh and this is this is part of the thing. It's like how could you propose such a large devariance? Um so what's permitted in the R4 is 110 ft.
What's being proposed tonight is 214 ft. Um it's in excess of 104 ft. That's substantial. And the justification for a D6 variance, what this board's test is, is has there
been an accommodation on a subject property uh to allow for added height? And is there a contextual basis in the neighborhood that would help put this proposed building height in sort of a consistent framework? And I think we've
met both of them. um it's unusual that you have a historic complex that has towers upwards of 23 stories. It's unusual. But when you have that setting and you're adjacent to those properties, what this application um is presenting to you that we are
basically balancing that historic complex uh and introducing what I believe is actually a much more appropriate historically con uh sensitive solution and also is better in terms of light and air and massing.
Um so just to uh reiterate um the Beacon complex does have a range of building heights from 10 stories to 23 stories. Um the uh units of those structures are 42 units upwards of 315 units. At one
point this application did have more units than what were permitted. Um we were uh roughly over a 100red units. That was one of the aspects we wanted to take off the table, remove a density variance, work within the permitted
units that the um the zoning allows, and then we were still at what would be a very tall, slender structure that needed building height v variance relief. Um so with that, uh the proposed building
height is 17 stories. Um we I think it's very easy to make the context argument because we're we're referencing the Beacon complex. Uh in terms of site accommodation um we still provide uh sufficient uh setbacks um from the
existing Jones Hall structure. The minimum distance there is 20 ft. Um and we are um set step set back on other property lines um appropriately. So,
uh, one of the, uh, and this is a little bit of the the negative criteria. Um, so I I I will will hold on on getting into the, um, alternate massing. Um, but I I do think that this application does meet
those two elements of a D6 justification where we have site accommodation as well as a contextual basis for the proposed height. um thought we had uh an overall image of of the heights that we calculated. I
just wanted to thank you. Um so again, I'm not going to rehash all the building heights of each building, but uh as I mentioned, the range is um upwards of 345 ft. And again, we're the same uh relative height as the Jones Hall structure, albeit just slightly higher
as Montgomery rises going west. Um those are the the devariances. Obviously there's more of a focus on devariances. They have uh a greater ability to impair any zoning. I'll get into the negative criteria with respect
to that impairment. Um with respect to other uh bulk variances needed. Uh the minimum lot size in the R4 is 60,000 square feet. What's being proposed uh is 28,31 square feet. um that in my opinion
uh is a sufficient lot size. Again, the objective from the design team is to balance the building footprints. Um the proposed building footprint is 9,438 square ft. That's the 33% number. So, uh in my opinion, the the lot size
is still substantial to accommodate a tower development. It's also uh able to accommodate a tower development with a 33% coverage which is a good test. That 33% coverage allows for greater setbacks
um to adjacent properties. Uh we al are also able to uh efficiently locate the integrated parking um which is a really nice attribute of of the overall project within the tower footprint. there will be 75 spaces um and I mentioned earlier
the 26 spaces for the adjacent Jones hall um it creates efficiency on the lot which is a benefit um and again that lot size albeit smaller than the 60,000 ft I think is still sufficient and and meets that benefits uh outweighing the
detriments test u with respect to lot width I mentioned earlier at the start of the presentation that we really balanced the distribution of the frontage along Montgomery 300 100 ft is the minimum required. 119 ft is along Cornelius Avenue. This is a through lot.
Um I think you can also see it from from this example. Uh so this is a through lot on the proposed lot. Um 120 uh 119 ft on Cornelius and um 126 ft along
Montgomery. Uh substantial frontage to accommodate a tower. um we're not trying to jam in um or uh propose a a an overburdensome u tower footprint uh within a narrow property. Uh so I do think that the lot width is still
appropriate. Um and again um the overall building height in terms of massing um on the property, you saw the shadow study that was prepared. um we have very little impacts because we
provide greater setbacks with that efficient building footprint. Um with respect with respect to the setbacks uh the front yard minimum is 10 ft where zero feet is proposed. Um this is along Montgomery um and is in connection with the parking
levels um which are actually below the street grade. Um but we're referencing this out of an abundance of um caution. So, um the mixeduse building uh around the perimeter uh will have a 10-ft setback um at street
level. Um and and that that that meets the the sideyard uh the front yard requirements. Um with respect to the rear yard, again, uh this is a um through lot. Uh so the rear yard and
it's in a regular through lot. Um obviously the initial existing parcel has has a bit of an L shape. Um so the rear lot setback is required to be 25 ft in the R1.
Um what's being proposed at the parking base is a zero foot setback in the rear. Um and then at the residential floors again um we are setting back that necessary 25 ft. So from a building mass standpoint um above the parking levels
we would be in compliance. The other two design aspects in terms of relief needed are with respect to forestry standards. Um one variance along Montgomery um Montgomery is is a narrow sidewalk. Um it's dealing
with grade. It has an existing um retaining wall. Um five street trees are required um where we're not able to provide the street trees. We are also requesting relief
um along Cornelius where nine street tree street trees are required but we're able to provide six. Again there's there's a little bit more access along Cornelison um that that prevents the additional three street street trees.
the uh forestry standards does allow for their donation. We will be making that so we'll be in compliance with providing um the appropriate inlue contribution. Um I did want to take some time to talk about special reasons. Um we're dealing
with the D1 use variance which I do think is a little minor um in terms of it being per a permitted use at this current time with the existing with the new zoning. Um but really about the D6 variants. Uh in terms of special reasons, I think first and foremost with
the uh healthcare facility, the positive criteria is met, but I do think that um the granting of the use variance to allow for the healthcare facility will promote the public safety, general welfare, and that's consistent with purpose A. Um I do think it will provide a much added resource for the
neighborhood. Um with respect to uh an establishment of appropriate population density, uh we are in the R4. One of the goals and changes of this project was to respect the density. So the proposed lot 1.02 is compliant with
the number of units that could be generated on that land. And I think that to me is a good signal of appropriate balance for the proposed development. Uh and that's meeting the special reasons of of purpose E of the land use law.
Um and lastly uh I do think this is a really uh creative respectful uh architecture design the design team um 2018 uh that's almost 7 years of a process through design um consultations
with the city different healthc care professional a different um uh historic professionals uh I'm not a historic professional so uh I do rely on a lot of the design intent with the proposed facades. Um, but what I can tell you is that this application, the proposed
building does balance um the context of the overall beacon uh facility with a new building that will be created. Um, I do believe that all the changes made to change the shape and slender um the the
narrowness of the proposed structure, the bar shapes that Mr. Garber referenced, the the vertical elements of the facade. I do all think that that comes into play. Um and I think it furthers purpose I to promote and establish an attractive
building. Um to improve the streetscape and to promote the desirable visual environment. Um those that's essentially my testimony with respect to the positive criteria. Um with respect to the negative criteria, D1 use variances the the
phrases have a greater burden to impair the zoning. Um, the easy aspect about this presentation is that the zoning was changed and if we were making the application today, a healthcare facility would be a bonafide permitted use. I think that's the easiest way to address that there's no impairment. Um, but I do
also think that um there will be uh the the healthc care uh facility in this neighborhood, which is a very active neighborhood along Montgomery um with multiple uses. Uh the R4 zone permits multiple uses. it's not strictly
a residential use. I do think it would be um an appropriate addition um with with uh with the relief being a use variance. Um with respect to the uh building height, um one of the things
that I I wanted to just reiterate and and I I'm doing my best not to repeat Mr. Garber's presentation cuz I do think he covered a lot of the analysis and and design intent. But we did try and ask ourselves, well, if we were trying if
our goal was still to utilize some of the latent demand, latent dem um availability of of land on this overall site to preserve the Jones Hall with the subdivision. What would a reasonable development by the R4 standards look like? It's not pretty. It's a proposed
subdivision. This board still has to grant it, but essentially what we're proposing here is a minimum of eight stories, a maximum of 11, um a permitted building height of 110 ft, the required setbacks, and and Mr. Garber and I went went back and forth on the appropriate
zoning that would be um taken here. We increased the rear yard point um to the necessary requirement. And ultimately through this analysis, what we found was that the generation of an as of right structure on proposed lot
1.02 would yield a gross square footage of 184,000 square ft. What's proposed in the more efficient tower design is 182,000 square ft, just shy of 2,000 less.
Um, I think that's another testament to why this proposed alternative in a tower design is not only more consistent with the beacon complex, but it's also more efficient and yields more benefits in terms of an appropriate building mass, providing more light and air to the
neighbors. Um, more consistent in terms of the vertical nature and aesthetics of the overall beacon complex. Um and ultimately I do think that um it's it's a better better massing um for the property. We're also able to better
utilize the land at grade for the park for the existing Jones Hall and the future residents uh and also introduce the integrated parking. Um I think that references much of the impacts. Um, one other addition I think
that was uh raised up relatively recently was the incorporation of a bus stop. Um, we heard from Mr. Chvet that that um will be further designed. Um, and again that's just furthering the the ability for this project to provide more uh ondemand direct access to mass
transit. Um, I think that was was an impact that was raised by uh transportation planning and city planning. Um, sorry. Let me just I don't know what uh stopped working but
um it might just I wanted to end on the last slide. So the these were some of the other context of the comparisons. Um again happy to answer questions on the massing but what we think is being proposed is a better design alternative. Uh and and this view I think is telling
because of how harmonious the proposed tower will be in the overall complex. Um the R4 district permits high-rise apartment buildings. What's being proposed is a high-rise apartment building, albeit taller. I think it's consistent with the the Beacon Complex
and neighborhood uh and will be a good addition um not only for residents that can occupy it soon, but for residents in generations to come um within this neighborhood. I think that's the my direct testimony. I think I covered
everything I wanted to. So, I'll be here for any questions. We'll hold our questions to the end. Thank you. Okay. At this time, we will have uh public comment. Um, so anyone who would like to speak can please come to the microphone. Bridget, do you need another
break or you're Okay. Okay. Please come to the microphone. You'll have to state your name, spell your name. Um, and I believe provide your address. So, whomever wants to come, you want to line up, it's okay. And at this time, uh, timekeeper will be
Commissioner Baron. You'll have three minutes. Um, he will let you know when you have a minute left. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Do you swear or the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. And everyone state
your full name and provide your My name is Veronica Stein. V E R O N I K A Last name S T E I N. My address is for Beacon Way. I need Oh, okay. Can you hear? Yes.
Sorry. So, did you get my name in my address? Okay. I want to thank the presenters um especially Mr. Garber for your careful attention to so many adjustments so that the building itself
better complements the Beacon building as a historical um art deco building. However, the architectural complex includes not only buildings themselves,
but also their specific layout, planned green spaces, and designed community gathering areas. Introducing a 18story structure in such close proximity would alter that feeling
that is laid out throughout the all the other buildings. If you look at the beacon as a whole, the way it was as the former Jersey City Medical Center, those open spaces, the green spaces are an
very important aspect of the design. And the property that is being talked about for this 18story building was not intended as a vacant lot to be built on at some time in the future, but it was one of those green spaces. And I think
it helps us to understand why there is push back about having this building because it is truly a green space. And as I listened uh to the engineer talk about the different places where you're
going to try and put in green spaces, um it's sort of off in a corner. It's not an integral part of where that uh Jones Hall building is. And I think that's what makes this an uncomfortable
um building to add into this section, even if it could be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. At this time, if we can just um I see that we have uh Councilman Gilmore is
here and I'd like to offer him the time to speak. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. If you would just raise your right hand. Yes. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about given this proceeding will be the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Frank Gilmore. Yes. Um I just have uh just like a few just like logistical questions. I know recently this project came before this board end or around 18 months two years
ago or something like that. And did we we we referred it to Oh, historic for I guess recommendations or something like that. If someone can just explain how that process look when
we typically refer to um to historic and then it comes back. What if anything happens? How does that process look? Uh sure. Um so staff uh wrote a referral memo um ahead of originally scheduling
that item a before the zoning board. And when the applicant received that memo, um they asked to forego uh organizing a zoning board adjustment meeting and to just go and visit uh the HPC with their
application to seek um a recommendation before returning to this board. They had three meetings uh before the HPC um over several months. Um and at the
beginning uh in the opening uh statement from uh council Porter uh the applicant um she went over uh over the fact that the recommendation was ultimately a denial. Um, however,
there was uh historic preservation staff that did recommend approval of the application in its current form. Okay. So, the board as a whole recommended against it, but the board not as a whole. Uh, it was a split vote on a
denial. Okay. So, what what was the number if you know? Uh, on a motion to recommend for approval, it was a vote of uh three four and five against. and on a motion to not recommend approval, it was
uh 64 and two against. Okay. So, typically that board is not really a final decision. It's just their recommendation. In this case, it it's because this item is it's not a locally designated land uh landmark. It's not in
a a local uh historic district. So, it wouldn't regularly go to the Historic Preservation Commission, but for uh on referral because it's in uh the master plan for Jersey City. Okay. Thank you for that insight. Um so, yeah, I mean, I
just think um and thank you to the presenters uh for presenting so eloquently. Um, I just think given the the proximity and the mass of the building, I just it just doesn't feel
like a good fit for for that area. Um, so at this juncture or is the board cons the board tonight is hearing um the proposal to move forward for for this to
go to the next step. Correct. That's what this that's this board would vote it up or down tonight. Yes. And then if it's uh they have the majority of the votes to go forward, then the project would go forward. Okay. All right. So, I just want to um and I know
I get the rap sometime this guy is anti-development or whatever. Um, but I just want to, you know, voice my concerns for the record that I just think that with all going on in that area with the senior home and
everything, I just think that a 18story building right there in that space um is it just throws the fabric of the community off. I don't think it's in the best interest of us as a city to have um
that type of dwelling. Um, I think we really need to be focusing on trying to have as much green space as possible, especially you guys hear these um you're at these meetings all the time and you see the development Jersey City
have went and um we really need to consider um saving um some areas for green space and I think this is the opportunity we have to do that. I know the community have been since the start of the conversation, they have been
extremely opposed to this project. Um, so I just wanted to come here and voice my concern and have that on the record. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Hello. You swear or affirm the testimony you're
about to give in this proceeding with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. My name is Brent Gardner. B R E N T G A R E R E N T Gardener. G A R D N E R
uh for Beacon Way. I'm sorry. For Beacon Way, just keep your voice. We'll do. Thank you. Sorry, I've never done this before. Okay, just speak into the mic so we can hear you. You can even turn it up closer if you have to. Just uh the bend it forward. Bend it up. That's it. Is
that better? Yes. Great. Um yeah, I just wanted to Well, now it got loud. Good. We can hear you. Um all right. So, I just I wanted to touch on a couple of things. Um firstly, I didn't um bring an attorney um or 100 slides, so I'm going to try to keep it under
three minutes. Um and I also haven't been involved with this since 2018, but um one of the things um I I was looking at the um at the legal notice that was provided um and and I just wanted to touch base and just sort of reiterate exactly what it is they're asking. of
you and of of this for this project. Um, specifically all of them all of the variances like it's it's it's a little concerning. Um, I I I understand um you know, Mr. Garber said that they they they careful consideration was given that they edited the building down. Um,
and yet there's still significant variances that are needed to to to make this project happen in the way that they want it to do. Um, and you know, just to to reiterate, I mean, the the you know, the medical use portion, I understand that they've reszoned it, but you know, I I as I understand from what I'm
hearing tonight that they have to um they have to work with the zoning that they had at the time that they that they, you know, started the project. Um, but, you know, just just the additional traffic for that um is something that is of concern. Um, and also the the height um requirement. I mean, I I think um Mr.
or hate said it was going to be over 100 ft higher than than the than the zoning um than the current zoning uh requirements. Um and then the the the minimum lot area of 28,000 square ft where 60,000 square ft is required.
That's double. Um and the uh the setbacks of 10 ft on every side. I mean I'm six feet. Like that's not a lot. It's not a lot of space. It just feels like they're they're they're overbuilding on this tiny little lot here. And again, I I understand like Mr.
Hate said, you know, he called it a creative and respectful design, and it is. I think it's a really it's actually a kind of a cool building. I'm not sure that I agree that it fits in to the other buildings. Um, you know, they they you know, they said they're they have to mimic the the Deco style. Okay. But it's
not the Deco style. It's it's it's it's um new design. Um but you know for such a creative and respectful design I think it it should be on a lot where that they don't have to get multiple several zoning um uh uh variances uh in order to
accomplish what it is that that they want to accomplish. So um that's what I wanted to say. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening to the board. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? Yes. My name is Sya Patang. P A T A N G A Y. I'm the resident. Yes. S A N D H Y A for Beacon Way609 is the unit. So, I just wanted to
appreciate that the presentation was great. The building design absolutely looked great. Please speak into the mic so we can hear you. Sure. Can you hear you now? Yeah. I just wanted to thank all the presenters. It was great to see this building coming, but my only concern is its location and the
structural risk it's going to cost to the building where I live and I call it a home. Um especially when it when we talk about this kind of a large scale construction, we also have to think about the serious um risk this would
cause to the buildings with the deep excavations, the vibration that it would cost which will threaten the structural integrity of this landmark. Um the biggest one that really feared me in today's proposal was the proximity 10
ft. Um I'm almost close to 6 feet. I'm so worried that 4 ft away of my height. I would have this huge building standing right there. So the close proximity which is usually also not allowed by the zoning uh is going to increase the risk.
And the people who might have visited or know the beacon towers. They are almost 100 years old and they have interconnecting internal uh underground passages. So it's not just the outside the exterior part of the building that's
going to get affected but also they are you know under the ground structures will also be impacted by this proposal. So I think we as the board the residents of Jersey City who have honor of having this historic building in our neighborhood. I think we should um try
to protect these buildings um because these towers are irrepraceable structures and I think this should be a top priority to make sure that these new beautiful buildings should not come and uh affect our history. Thank you. Thank
you. Did you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm the testimony or proceeding with the whole truth. I swear that I'll be giving my testimony with the whole truth. My name is Manisha
spelled as M A N I S H A. My last name is a bit big. Brahmachari B R A H M A C H A R Y. I live in uh for Beacon Way apartment 709.
So, uh, what I wanted to say is that this is my first home that I've ever bought and I'm really thrilled that I live in a landmark, a historical landmark. How many people can say that? No, not many people. That too in a city
which is so close to New York City. What I wanted to say here is that Beacon as my neighbor said is a very old uh structure which is almost a century old and it was originally designed for a different reason. It was a hospital and
the surrounding water sewer and the electric systems are really not intended to support the modern highdensity mixeduse buildings. This new development, which although is very impressive and looks great, the overload that the combined sewer and storm water
systems increasing the risk of sewage backups and localized flooding especially since the site is downhill and will collect the runoffs from higher elevation. Um I think one of the people presenting said that all the utilities are going to be off
cornelison the sphere and um everything else and that is the down uh slope that where everything uh accumulates. We personally even now have seen that when there is heavy rains and it happened there's a lot of water logging and
flooding that happens there. It literally you have to take a boat instead of anything else to basically commute there and it takes many days for that water to be cleared off and having having an additional building is just going to increase that problem and I can
guarantee you that 100%. So again, water pressure problems uh are already there for existing residents, many of whom have already reported low water pressure and brown water after heavy rains and including or the construction of this
new building is just going to increase that problem as well. Not to mention the stress on the power grid. You have one minute. Sure. Not to mention the stress on the power grid which is already prone to outages during peak summer months as dozens of new units add simultaneous um
heating and cooling and appliance demand. And there is no comprehensive infrastructure resiliency study that I have seen today that has been conducted to show that the current systems can accommodate this current increase in the overload of structures. And another
thing to be mentioned is that the there is of course they are just 32 ft away from the beacon site as was mentioned today. The potential foundation damage to historic buildings may result from both runoff saturation and vibrations
caused by pile driving or excavation. That's all I wanted to say. I would love to keep stay living in this place and not live in a very congested place where you're just looking at people who are very stressed out. Thank you. Thank you.
Good evening. Please swear or affirm the testimony or basket. I do. My name is Kumar. K U M A R I K A Bergy. B is in boy. A N E R J E. And I live at for Beacon Way.
Um, I would like to just uh tag on to some of the things that my um neighbors have previously brought up, but particularly uh speaking to the impact on the community's character and the significant um increase in traffic that
will be brought to this area. Um the proposed building scale and massive footprint um would would significantly cause congestion to this area. The developers have previously submitted a traffic
study which I reviewed uh somewhat and on the very uh beginning of it they say the existing road conditions and they describe Montgomery Street as a two-way uh roadway that provides travel two
lanes in each direction. This is not correct. Montgomery currently has one lane of traffic in each direction. So this study is outdated. Their traffic study is invalid. Um I don't know if they didn't physically visit the site
the place to do the study or if it was done pre um current conditions. Um so in addition to that I would like to say that you know they're proposing a medical facility. I'm a physician myself. I have worked in a number of
medical uh a variety of medical facilities and they are not really taking into account this added traffic that this would bring. Um medical facilities include medical staff, patients, delivery drivers. You know,
patients don't just arrive using public transport. They are often using assisted devices, wheelchairs, walkers. you know, they have family members and escorts that need to bring them and take them back.
This additional traffic and and the the the entrance to the medical facility is directly on Montgomery facing Montgomery. Um the point here is that you know these cars are going to double park right there in that one lane of
traffic to drop off patients, to pick up patients. They have not made any uh accommodations for parking for any of the staff, all the doctors, nurses, physicians assistants, techs, you know, where are they going to park? Are they going to ride up on their bicycles? Um,
and you know, the patients that are going to get delivered, they're all going to uh dropped off. They're going to be double parking on that one road, clogging the entire street, which is a major artery for emergency vehicles, EMS, you know, in and out of that area. So that is what I would like to say.
Thank you. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding? I do. Thank you. Hello everyone. Uh my name is Victoria Frey. It's f r e u
d and I live in phobicon way. Sure. So I live in forbeon way and I call beacon my home and I moved many times and I love that home. So I'm deeply
concerned about the risk that our proposed construction that exceeds the footprints, the size, the length, the closeness would be uh posing to our homes. And because large and modern hard
highrise that is very close to historical buildings like ours is not just out of character for historical building and for the complex that we live in. It is also very dangerous. The proposal to exceed current zoning limits
for both for both sides overall and height almost 100% is um really maximizing potential profit for new construction maximizing how much can be built on that small space but it also increases risk to what
already exists and that is a part of American history. a landmark like we have is really really rare. So um historical preservation commission that had reviewed that um
demand also reviewed that proposal voted multiple times and didn't recommend it and we believe that speaks volume that comes in from specialists and historical uh preservation committee was created for a reason. So, we live here. We
really care about our community and we really pledge and ask you to carefully carefully examine this case and please ask for additional assessment of risks on a much deeper level to see how it would really impact the historical
complex that we all live in and we hope that it will protect Jersey City heritage. Thank you. Thank you. You swear over the testimony you're besting truth, the whole truth, and
nothing. I do. Uh, my name is Christina Nunan. It's C H R I S T I N A. Last name is N O O N A N. I live at Fort Beacon Way. Another one of my neighbors. Um, thank you for your time. I know this has been a very long day for
everyone. Um, I really wanted, we've spent a lot of time talking about looking at plans of like one block radius and we're all talking about the building. I want to talk about the context of that building for a few minutes. First of all, um, despite the
high residential density, the area remains underserved for a lot of amenities. There is no full service grocery store nearby. I still go to Whole Foods downtown to get my groceries. There's minimal retail and pharmacy options and there's no pedestrian friendly retail
corridor. The development does not address these deficits and will only increase demand um on what's already limited resources for our community. The other thing I wanted to bring up was the pressure on public transit in the schools. Um the nearest PATH station I noticed in the
presentation um was mentioned 15 minutes away. I just made that commute this morning actually from the Beacon. I'm a triathlete. it was more than 15 minutes. It was closer to 20. For a healthy adult, if I was older, it might be a little bit longer as well. So, it's a significant commute, especially if
you're thinking about going and coming back. 20 to 25 minutes, I would assume. Um, the local schools and recreation facilities are also limited and currently strained as well. Um, we talked about reducing green space grace already, so I won't go into that, but um, the proposal makes no contribution
to supporting or enhancing these public services. Um, I think overall one thing that I just want to communicate is that I'm open to development on the site, but I'd like for it to be responsible and reflect the uh impacts uh reflect the the livelihood and impacts for the
neighbors around for over over a thousand thousands of residents that are as people have mentioned um feet away from us and uh I really appreciate your your time and consideration into that. Thank you. Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to proceed to the truth? The whole truth. I do. My name is Crystal Pototts. I reside at Fort Beacon Way. Okay. C R Y S T A L P O
TTS. First of all, I want to say I'm not a politician. I'm just a resident. Um, and I'm not going to be politically correct. I want to say first of all, I think that that um, presentation was a
lot of fluff. It was 119 pages and that 119 pages consisted of some things that Robert said one page was inaccurate. And I think for him to come before you with 119 pages, there was no need for that. I
think it could have been condensed to maybe 25 to maybe 50 pages, but 119 pages. I think you can put a lipst you can put uh lipstick on a pig, still a pig. And I think that's what that
presentation was. I'm not opposed to development. I think growth is important. You know, I've lived at the Beacon for 18 years, and we all want our property values to increase. You know, I heard one person
say it was a 17story uh development. I heard another person say 18story. Now, that's what they're saying, 17 and 18. I think that they threw 119 pages at you because they don't want you to really look at what's
underneath the hood. They just want you to go ahead and approve this mess. And I don't want to go through all of the other particulars because a lot of my neighbors, and I call them neighbors, but they're really my family. And people that I call my family, some family
members I don't speak to sometimes, but again, when we get into something happens to a family member, I'm going to stand there toeto toe, head tohead, and I'm going to support them. And that's what I'm here doing tonight, supporting my family. And
my family is is Jersey City and seeing what's going on. Now, they're talking about variances, you know, and exemptions. That's a problem. And it's a problem. They shouldn't You have one minute. They shouldn't be doing that.
You know, they're talking about granting exemptions. You You won the zoning board. You're residents just like us. You are here. You care about the community. You've been appointed by elected officials that we have voted for
and we're hoping that you will look at what they've put before you and say, "No, this doesn't work." Let them go back and come back with something that is appropriate for the community because what they've come back with for you is not appropriate for us. Thank you. Thank
you. Oh, do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing? Yes, I do. I'm Robert Stein. I speak at I live at the beacon. Also,
uh there are several things I would like to say. I I think the presentation was very optimistic about this new building. It is huge numbers of variances. It basically amounts to asking so many
variances that there may as well not be a zoning law. I mean everything in the zoning law was is being asked to be turned over. Um use your mic. I'm sorry. Um so that's to my way of thinking a bad
thing. They have presented this traffic study which it was pointed out. It seems to think that uh Montgomery is a four-lane traffic street, which it is not. And it's a key emergency route. I see fire engines,
ambulances up and down it frequently. And it's the one of the best ways to get from down below up the hill. So, the idea that they would not take that into account is too bad. The traffic study also did not mention the fact that the
Roxy, which is another building of the Beacon Complex, has just opened and is renting to new tenants and they will have generate traffic. The fact that there's no shopping in the area means that everybody who wants to buy
groceries or whatever is not likely to walk there. So, they're going to be either driving or calling an Uber or whatever. So, you're going to have all the delivery vehicles, the FedEx's, the, you know,
the Amazons, all of that stuff. There will be, there already has been a major increase in congestion and it will get worse. So, I think that's important to take into account. Um, I'm surprised that the traffic study didn't mention it.
Uh there are other things. The when the Z when the uh historical preservation commission looked it over, you have one minute. They had a lot of sympathy for the design which was modified several
times. The reason they voted it down and as a recommendation was not because of the design, which is what Mr. uh Garber spent all his time on. It was because it's fundamentally too big to shoehorn
into the historically preserver preserved space and that was what they felt. So it's not a problem with the building itself. It's just too big for its place. And that's why I hope you will
heed their recommendation and turn this down. I would like to say that uh you're pretty much bound to follow the zoning principles unless there's an extremely good reason not to. In this case, there is no really good reason not to. Thank
you. Thank you. Hi, how are you? Do you swear or affirm the testimony giving this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth? Is that the truth? Absolutely. Uh my name is Patrick Kellaher. I'm the Hudson County Building
Trades President. I represent all the thousands of member in Hudson County and Jersey City residents. Um last name Keller. K E L L E H E R. And your address? My address is uh 74 Roxberry
Road, Dumont, New Jersey. But um 90% of the time in in Jersey City. I represent all the trades in in in Hudson County. I actually absolutely had a uh opportunity to work on parts of the buildings of the
Beacon. Uh I seen the design tonight. I've seen it uh early renditions and stuff like that. I was speaking with the developer and the team here and with organized labor. We build it safe on time. the project is within within the
barriers of what they're looking to do there. And the com the conversation is it's a it's a building that can be built with organized labor and it's built safe and on time. Thank you. Anyone else from the community to speak?
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and everything? I do. My name is Chris Perez, PZ. Um, good evening everybody. Uh, so this evening I'm speaking on behalf of our board at the Jersey City Landmarks
Conservancy. Uh the conservancy participated in the number of meetings before the historic preservation commission and we did object to this project. Um historic preservation is not just about architecture but it's also about the placement of the buildings. Uh
the existing historic buildings on this site were intentionally put in their locations. Um and this proposed building will disrupt the cadence and rhythm of those buildings forever. If um I do recall during those HPC meetings that we
had this hypothetical that since the campus was built over time, if another building were to be placed on the campus, where would they put it? Um and I think that was here nor there, but we don't believe it would be in this location. So, we ask that this board
deny this application um because it will forever disrupt the look and feel of the historic medical center. Um, the real question tonight remains, has the applicant made a compelling case that this site, in the midst of the original historic former Jersey Citical Jersey
City Medical Center, is the site particularly suited for and warranting relief from the zoning rules, including all the C variances and especially the 2D variances being asked for. Do the benefits of the application outweigh the detriments created by the application?
We don't believe so. We ask that you uphold the Historic Preservation Commission's recommendations to deny this application. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else uh from the community? Okay, then I will close out
the public portion of this uh meeting. Um commissioners, do we have questions? I don't know. Do you want to do it? I we can I mean I think we can by 10:00 I'm sure it we won't be voting. The traffic
report was done. I'm going to say before the mayor put in bike lanes, but we could hear it. But that Okay. Was do you have an updated traffic report or we do then it's important to hear it? Yeah. If it's
updated referring to if it's the same one that they're talking about that was incorrect and study that was done back in before co back in 2019 at the very origin of the site and then there was an updated study that was produced um in 2024. Okay, that's a recent one. Yeah,
we need to hear the briefest. Yes. So, I think it would be helpful if we have our traffic consultant address that particularly since there were four comments that were raised that alluded to traffic. So, I think it's very important that we hear from our traffic consultant. Okay. And I'm going to let this gentleman, you have a comment. The
place I took those comments was from the traffic study attached to this particular application and it was dated October 2024. Okay. Thank you. And your name again, sir? Robert Stein.
Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give in this procedure? Yes, I do. Uh, my name is Connor Hughes. C O N O R last name H U G H E S. What are his credentials? I'm not sure
if Mr. Hughes has been before this. No, been before the planning board as recently as last week, but never before the the zoning board. So, why don't you just put some So, Mr. H, if you could please provide your background and education for the benefit of the board. Certainly. Um, so I'm a professional engineer in the state of New Jersey.
License is in good current standing. Um, as I just mentioned, has been accepted as an expert witness in traffic engineering specifically in front of the Jersey. My apologies. Uh, I've been accepted as an expert witness in traffic engineering. Uh, specifically before the Jersey City zoning or planning board,
um, along with over about 40 other municipalities throughout northern New Jersey. Great. That's fine. We we'll accept your question. Thank you. Um so just to head off the comment about the the one lane versus the two-lane um mentioned about Montgomery Street. Our
most recent traffic study dated October 30th, 2024 does mistakenly c uh categorize Montgomery Street as a two-lane roadway. Um it was an oversight and a hold over from our original 2018 to 2019 time frame. um when we
originally conducted that traffic study when it was uh two lanes in each direction. So um just on the record, we absolutely acknowledge that it is a one lane roadway for vehicles. There's bike lanes. Um so again, it was initially
referenced as a two-lane, but we do acknowledge that it's currently now um a one lane roadway. And just to go over the the findings and the um the preparation of our report. No, no problem.
Yes, it's my time up to the findings. Sure. So to review the findings of our report. So the first process of establishing our our report is establishing our existing conditions, our existing traffic volumes and analyzing the existing conditions. Um
and the way that we analyze our existing volumes is we go out and we conduct physical traffic counts um at adjacent intersections near the site. Um, specifically in this case, we conducted traffic counts during the weekday morning peak hour, specifically from 7
to 9:00 a.m. as well as the weekday uh afternoon peak hour, specifically from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. And we did these on uh Tuesday, May 14th, 2024. So just under a year ago. Um now we selected those peak
hour times based on the particular use based on the peak times associated with a residential and medical and senior housing use. Um for the most part people are coming and going during those those peak times. Um so that would essentially
uh recognize as a worst case condition as far as the traffic volumes would go. Um and then what we do is when we have those two hours of counts, we isolate the highest single hour of volume um during those two hours and use that as
the basis of our our traffic analysis. Um so when we analyze our existing conditions um that's how we incorporate that. The next part of that is to look into the future conditions. Of course the first step of that is establishing a
a baseline future condition. uh first without any additional site traffic for the proposed development. Um that's what we call our no build condition. Um what we do for that is we look at New Jersey uh DOT publish background growth rates.
This is based on um the area that the site is located in the roadways that it's located on. Um so they publish certain uh yearly growth rates based on these factors um for us to reference and gauge that future traffic. So based on
that reference um we applied a growth of 2.25% per year uh for a period of 2 years uh which is our projected completion date um for that building and once we have that baseline future
condition established we then project our future site traffic for the specific development. Um and for that we reference a publication called uh it trip generation. Um this is a source that's used widely by um probably all traffic engineers. It's very widely
accepted as essentially the gold standard of projecting traffic volumes and trip generation. And it's based on empirical um studies that they conduct at various uh sites across the country. And they establish average trip rates based on different variables, square
footage, number of units um based on these counts that they conduct at at these various sites and they come up with an average uh trip generation rate um based on this research that is published and that we are able to reference when projecting our our future
site traffic. So based on the number of residential units being proposed, based on the medical space being proposed, about 98 residential units and between 7,00 to 7,500 ft of medical space. Um those projections calculate in the
morning peak hour a total of 43 new trips and in the afternoon peak hour a total of 46 um trips between the residential and the medical portion. And again, that's a total number of trips that includes both inbound and outbound.
So that's not to say that that's 43 new cars or 43 different cars. It's concludes both in and out movements um based on that number. And then of course you have the the senior living facility which is existing to remain. So there's
no additional site traffic associated um with that particular part of the use. So again, 43 trips during the sing the morning peak hour, 46 in the afternoon. Um I will note that the data we used for medical office space is based on a
suburban um more suburban data. Um so we feel that that could be a little bit conservative u based on the fact that we are obviously located in a more urbanized area. Um and that total number also does account for um trips such as deliveries
um you know Amazon, UPS, anything like that would be incorporated into that total number along with the the residential um the actual residents. So just wanted to point that out as well. And just to put those numbers into perspective, um, New Jersey
DOT establishes what they consider to be a significant increase in traffic of 100 or more new trips in any peak hour. Um, as I mentioned, we're at a maximum of 46 new trips. So, we're less than just less
than half of that threshold. Um and that it reference that I mentioned for trip generation, they also set a threshold of 50 trips where they uh state that a traffic impact study should be considered. Um so we're right around that number as well. And we did of
course conduct this full study um irregardless of the fact that we do fall below that that recommendation. Um and of course there's other infrastructure that um you know lead to alternate modes of travel other than vehicles. Obviously, there's mass transit
availability. Um the Journal Square path station, although about 3/4 mile away, um will potentially uh attract some residents to that based on that feature. You have the bus stop right in front of the site along with others around the area um that can help get residents and
um medical patients to and from without having to use their personal vehicles. And there's obviously infrastructure for um bike lanes, sidewalks for walkability, bikeability. We're providing uh bike spaces within the building to help promote sort of that
alternate uh transportation um just to help reduce that vehicle demand. So, there's a lot of factors at play that will help to reduce that that vehicle demand and help alleviate um that congestion that that's being experienced.
And the way that we reference um the operations of the intersection, we look at what's called a level of service. Um essentially, this is a letter grade from A through F that we use to grade the operation of the intersections um that we looked at. Uh in this case,
Cornelison Avenue and Bright Street as well as Cornelison Avenue and Florence Street on the other side of the Montgomery Avenue overpass. And what we find when we compare the no build conditions in the future without the site traffic and then look at the
future conditions with the site traffic we find that there's no change in the levels of service. Um the high level highest level of service was a level of service D which again is um with or without the the addition of the site traffic. Um so this isn't to
say that there will be no impact because any development is going to have some sort of impact. Um but really what this tells us is that those impacts will be minimal. Um and based on the fact that we're below that significant increase threshold, um that tells us that the
increase in traffic will not cause what I'll say a discernable difference in the um in the traffic operations surrounding the site. And then getting into the the parking, as you heard from our prior testimony, um there is a variance for
the location of the parking for the Jones Hall for the senior um housing development, but we do meet the number of required spaces. Um so for the residential portion with 98 units, half of the space per unit is required. We're providing the 49 spaces to meet that
requirement. And then for the senior housing, there are 20 spaces required. We're providing 26. Granted, it is technically offsite from where the actual senior housing is, but it's right next door in the garage. It's not across the street or somewhere else in the area
that they would have to otherwise walk to. Um it's essentially the same. Um it's still next to the building as it as it is today. And then related to the medical space, um the ordinance does not require any uh parking spaces for a
medical office space of this size. Um obviously we recognize that there's still regardless of that um that requirement or lack of requirement that there will be uh some vehicle demand associated with that. Um but the fact that there is no parking requirement,
this is typical of of urban environments. Um and there is enough spaces to accommodate both the the residential the the senior housing as well as any um medical space traffic. And I draw that conclusion because when
we look at the the census data for vehicle ownership in this particular uh census track um we find that on average there's um about4 vehicles per unit uh per rental unit and that equates to 39 parking spaces u based on our 98 units
that are being proposed. And when you include the 26 spaces being proposed for the um senior housing development, that gets us to 65. We're providing 75. So that 10 extra spaces can help to accommodate any of that vehicular demand
associated uh with the medical office space and other factors as well. Um it is likely that the medical office is to a degree going to serve residents of the building. The existing um senior housing development and there is some street
parking availability along Montgomery along the other side of um Cornelison. Obviously it's subject to availability but um it is there to to be utilized as needed. Um, and as referenced during the architectural uh,
testimony, there is a designated space on site for the ambulance. Um, as well as two drop off and pickup spaces to help accommodate um, either the medical office, the senior housing development, or any other drop off and pickup activity um, that might be needed for
the site. Um so with that I'll just conclude that you know on the basis of our our um our study that's based on all of the the general standards that are set forth um we feel that the the proposed development again is not going
to generate a significant increase to the point where there will be a discernable impact um on the existing operations and that's based on you know that the number of trips that I went through and we do feel comfortable that the the parking avail availability along with those other factors of being in an
urban environment and having that accessibility and ability to uh utilize other modes of transportation um that the parking will be sufficient. So if there's any further questions I'm happy to to oblige. Thank you. Okay. At this time u commissioners
do you have any questions for anyone? I have one question mark just and the question really is to clarify because you did acknowledge that there was a error in that being said was the study that you did though on county cars that
was done with the current obviously the current situation on mcgomery street as it is being one way in each direction right so even though that was an error on paper this up this study this most recent study was done with under mcgomery street being under conditions it is right now. Correct? Yes, that's
correct. Second thing is I just want to make sure this from the plan that all the entrance the entrance to all the parking in and out and everything else is on Cornelon Avenue, not on McGomery Street. Correct. Yes, that's correct. No cars, nothing going out. No, there's no
vehicle traffic directly entering or exiting to Montgomery. Okay. All right. That's my question. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, I open the floor if anybody has any questions. I have a question about the medical facility. Sure. Is it urgent care? Is it just for
X-rays? Is it like a mini emergency room? To this point, we don't have an occupant for that space. So, we don't know the specific operations. Um, but obviously, I'm sure the applicant and the owner will be uh sensitive to the fact that there is, you know, some
parking concerns to that nature. Well, urgent care would create more traffic than just X-rays, obviously. Yeah. So, um, yeah, I think it's a very good question. And so of course it is while we don't have a tenant currently uh I can tell you that there's been
outreach to many of the community health organizations in uh town like Barnabas and stuff not like Barnabas like Horizon for instance was one right so so these are these are community- based organizations that deal with for instance female reproductive health um
so that you know there was a previous iteration where we had a lot more medical space and there was some concern that you could have something like a surgical center or something. That is I don't I don't believe that that's what's intended here. We're really talking about community medical and we do think
that um in in speaking with for instance Horizon that a lot of the traffic that they get is indeed foot traffic and so we really imagine that it would be a use consistent with that. Um and that's something that the owner has been um diligently trying to um you know find
find a tenant. Can we get any asurances on that? Because the other thing I have a question about is that you mentioned the gym and that you were this was going to also be used by the health facility uh as well as the residents and I took down your words and is this going to be
a therapy facility or something because that would be in and out all the time. Let me let me clarify that. I what I said was there was a gym on the second floor that would be used for both the tenants of the building, residents of the building as well as residents of Jones Hall. There is a small facility
that would be planned on the ground floor that would be specific to the medical use. They're split. We can't have patients in the same gym as uh you know the residents. That wouldn't be um that would that that wouldn't really work on a number of levels. So would any
part of that be considered a a facility for therapy? No, I I think I think the the owner is is willing to, you know, the owner would be willing to work with the board pending a vote that that we would make sure that we could um limit the the medical use to ensure it's one
that was primarily for traffic and uh and not condition. Yeah, that could be a condition that would be um my my other concern too going about the parking um 98 units, 49 spaces for residents. Again the question and I know that one of the
community and people answered the asked this question. Um where are the doctors, the receptionists, the patients, the the anyone who works the staff going to park? I mean you're giving 49 units over to the senior housing who's parking in
those spots. Okay. I don't imagine a lot of those seniors will be driving and they have staff over there. So those spots are going to be taken by the staff assigned to that facility. So I'm just concerned about where are all these people going to park? I think that I think that that's a fair question also.
So So first I want to reiterate all the traffic is going through Cornelison. Uh we have been asked to comply with the um the lack of parking in Jones Hall right now and we've built that number of units
into our parking garage as shown. Right. So we have a 75 total. I can tell you anecdotally that um there really is very very limited uh cars for the seniors. And so you're right, it's staff and uh
the I can I can probably tell you the amount of staff um if you let me ask the owner, but that the amount of staff that is in Jones Hall with these seniors um is a is a relatively small amount and we think that we will actually have uh an
abundance of parking. as Connor suggested, that would be used for medical staff and um the community folks that would be working in the medical use on this on the first floor. Okay. But there are no assurances about that.
Well, we could I mean, so so my other thing is so if there's 49 parking spaces for residents and now patients start to come in or the staff starts to park there and they're not out by the time the residents come home. So now they have to start looking around for space. So you still have that because we don't
even know what the hours of this medical facility might be because you don't know what the medical facility is going to be. Yeah. Just one second, please. And we're happy we're happy to get get this right. I'm sorry. But we closed out the public
portion. Okay. So, there's 23 total from my understanding existing between staff and residents that are currently parking that would then continue to park uh in the new garage. So, we're provide so 23
now, 23 proposed. Um what's the be before it was said that there's 49 spaces for the residents in the 98 unit building. I'm talking for the existing demand for the senior development. We just understood that there's a total of
23 cars that are parked for the senior development. So those 23 cars will be encompassed in the 26 that are being proposed on the new in the new garage. And then there's 49 additional new spaces that will be for the new
residential units. So the medical department, the staff will not be permitted to park there at all. I think they they will and the fact that the shared parking will allow that to happen in the sense that yes, while we do not know the exact hours, um that is
something that can that can be managed and based on the um the characteristics of the area. I went through the the census data. It's actually slightly less demand than um what the ordinance is is asking for. So, can you explain to me
how it's going to be managed? You just said it can be managed. So just give me an idea about that because I'm a Jersey city person and parking is Sure. Yeah. So it could be managed based on the hours of operation if they you know decide to end that before
um before residents would be coming home. Even if there's an overlap those residents would be coming home as staff would be also leaving. So that's where the shared parking approach comes into play.
I have a question. Go ahead. Go ahead. So, um, how big is the medical office again? The size of it. Just over 7,000 square ft. Okay. 7,100 ft. Okay. That would include room, some other stuff. You don't even you don't know what kind
of medical office it's going to be at this point anyway. Correct. So, like this is sort of like maybe this, maybe that. Like we were talking about, maybe a condition or two for the kind of medical office. So we couldn't, you know, staff and others, you still have to check in with them on conditions to
make sure that it's appropriate. But someone brought up pharmacy before and a lot of medical offices now havearmacies in their medical offices that can be utilized by the public as well. I've seen it. It's common. So my suggestion
would be to somehow incorporate a pharmacy within that medical office as well. So that this way the residents I think someone brought that up already could uh utilize that and now it becomes a little bit more of a public amenity to the people that live in the area. So that would be my strong suggestion to do
that especially being that you don't have a tenant. You don't know who the medical office is going to be at this point. Uh let's say it isn't medical. I don't know. Let me say put a supermarket. I don't know a 7,000 ft supermarket. That's still a possibility it sounds like to me because you haven't really filled that space out yet. But
that shouldn't be the basis of this building, this project. That's something that everyone has to work together on. And I think, you know, as you mentioned, it's a condition that maybe we should think about. Uh, and I don't know how in terms of that or we we rely on staff for that, but um, that's something I think
you guys should consider when it comes to the medical office. Yeah. And it again, it's not atypical, especially in multi-use buildings in its in this stage, um, to not have a tenant yet. And so it's you know something that will be
can be worked out. Um it can be managed with appointments as well limiting potentially limiting number of appointments per hour. Um so there are ways uh to work with that and again the owner applicant is obviously hearing
these concerns and can be sensitive um when choosing this particular tenant. Yeah. when you said another condition you said which is a good one um the thing about pharmacy but also you said you'd limit the number of appointments how would you
how would you do that with a doctor's office or something you couldn't do that you could yeah not if it's urgent care or anything of that sort sorry so I'm sorry we were just were conferring and apologies for jumping in but so two things one um uh it is agreed that that
a pharmacy would be an appropriate use excuse me and that might be tailored to um specific speifically the seniors and things like that, but it could be a pharmacy that also worked for for the public. But the point is the seniors do have a need for pharmacy. So it it could
be an immediate uh filling an immediate need. Um the other the other um thing that uh ownership is willing to do is limit the hours of operation. So, in the event that more of the parking than anticipated, I still believe Connor's um
Connor's testimony speaks to to additional spaces, but if if we needed to limit the hours of the medical facility, let's call it a community medical facility, to ensure that residents of the building had their parking spaces at night, that would not
be a problem. And so whatever that means, 5:00 p.m., 6 o'clock p.m. when people are coming home from work, we're happy to comply with that and we feel like we can make it work. Okay, that's a good condition. Okay. Um, do anyone else have any questions? Because I do have
another question. Nobody. Okay. Um, so I did hear people talk about um the damage uh to the old building and medical center is an old building. I know it's a pretty strong building, but it's still an old building with tunnels. Um are
there any plans or thoughts uh anyone put forth in order to try to minimize any of the damage that could occur? Yes. So so we've we've uh being that this project has been ongoing for quite some time, we've been able to explore a number of different things. And so one
of the things we have been exploring more recently is how construction would actually work on this site. So um there's there's a couple of mediating um factors. First, we have the slope from Beacon Way, right? And so, the nice thing is on the west the west side of
the building, there's a road, not buildings. Now, roads are have foundations, they're infrastructure, but that can be managed um with um you know, basically temporary retaining walls, right? Uh so, supportive excavation as it's called that would allow for
sheathing to be placed around the site. We deal with the Roxy in the same way and try to minimize vibration. Now the other thing that is um to our advantage is we talked about the 30-foot slope right our site if you looked at it the
existing condition in section it's practically a triangle right so we for so in terms of the amount of soil that we need to remove um half of it is removed already given the existing condition right so we aren't excavating
four stories of bedrock right and Uh we have some uh geotechnical information. There probably will be piles. Um but piles are driven, you know, all over town. And I I will mention that there have been and continue to be tall
buildings immediately adjacent to the Beacon. There's one on Jordan. There's one called the Triangle that's right up Montgomery Street by Bergen that are being planned that are all dealing with these conditions. And I think um you know the the city construction office does a really really good job making
sure that everyone stays on point. We as architects attempt to do a really good job making sure everyone stays on point and I trust that this building will be built um professionally and if things come up uh we will we will deal with them. This was a conversation that I've
had with the community several times. I've offered that they can give me a call um and uh we're happy to work with them. Any other questions? Yeah, just one more. Uh, well, on top of that, I was just going to say the closest building to this building is actually the other
building owned by the applicant, which is Jones Hall. So, like would think the last thing anybody would want is damage to his own building as he's constructing it. So, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak. So, that's number one. Number two, uh, the park itself. There's, you said there's
going to be like green space or park on Cornelen Avenue, right? That's correct. That's something that Cornelos Avenue lacks. I can't think of anything green on Cornelius Avenue right now. And I want to I want to just also reiterate and this is part of Mr. Shisvet talked about that he's over there. But um the
so we had to um uh because of the zoning that we fell under, right? We and this is why we're asking for the the D6 for for the for the medical use. um we had to maintain our um previous storm water management system which was retrainage.
Now in in today in 2025 um uh storm water has to be managed more passively right and so in speaking with the MUA the MUA said fine we'll we'll allow you to do your retainage as Mr. Shisvet testified to, but we'd also like some passive strategies implemented.
Right. So that's when I talked about the green roof, but more importantly, we have a 5600 square foot approximately plot of land right on Cornelison that will will be green. I mean, it is a park for use uh by residents as well as a
rain garden. And that rain garden is going to do um passive retainage and slow the recharge of water back at a point that happens to be one of the lowest points in the city as has been mentioned by um one or two of the community members. Okay. Okay. If we
have no other questions, I'd like to hear from the staff. Yeah. I want to remind um the board that this is an application with two components. is a minor subdivision with C variances and a preliminary and final uh major site plan with C and D
variances. Uh I want to emphasize that in the R4 zoning um there's something unique in it. It's been there for a very long time. Um senior housing is permitted um according to the R1 standards with the exception of height.
height is allowed per the high-rise uh apartment building standard in R4, which is the 110 ft. Um, we're not looking at the height of the Jones Hall uh building as it's a pre-existing non-conforming uh condition with the subdivision, but
there are some C variances that are associated with that uh subdivision. Uh given the lot size at uh 2,800 and change, I'm sorry. 28 thou,000 and change. Um they would be
able to make a conforming um uh lot per the R1 standards uh avoiding some of the the sea variances associated on the Jones Hall lot with their subdivision. um potentially leaving uh some balance
of land um for another lot that could be developed for R4 standards or per some sort of condition should uh should this this subdivision application be denied.
Um, so it it leaves um kind of an interesting hole that I assume initiated some of the the study of this this lot um for the future uh or for the development that we're considering here tonight.
Um the uh Dvarianes are associated with the site plan application. So, we heard uh the uh the D1 uh variance for the use, the medical use. Uh there's been testimony that it's inherently beneficial. We've been talking through
some of uh the conditions uh that were put on the record. Uh one to limit the the medical use to foot traffic oriented medical uh such as Horizon. um and a willingness, and I'm not sure if that was um put on the record or offered up
by the applicant, but a willingness to limit the hours of operation to 5:00 p.m. or 6 p.m. The parking that's been provided um is split into two um two categories. One to address the uh
the senior housing um minimum parking requirement of uh 0.2 2 per bedroom and the 0.5 minimum parking requirement for uh the R4 standard. Um there has been a lot of time in in uh the life of this
application. Um under the new uh standards um should this application be denied uh one they would have no parking requirement for the medical use. uh
medical uses were widely um permitted throughout the city um following on the heels of CO um and it was uh apparently clear that at the time uh we needed to encourage those uses to be more prevalent and easier to
permit. Um, in addition, uh, the R1 standards have been amended. Um, and at one time, uh, senior housing was allowed through a conditional use. Um, which in many, uh,
respects was, um, something that the community did not like because, uh, it allowed for eight-story buildings in the R1 district. And it was argued by uh many applicants that because um uh eight
stories was allowed in that district that eight stories could be permitted somewhere. So that standard was removed and subsequently all the other um use specific conditions bulk related uh standards that went with that use. So
now um if R4 still points um to uh R1, they'd be by the regular standards in R1. So a 25 by 100 25 by 100 lot would be a conforming lot. Um and uh this
building being the size it is, it would probably be uh able to conform um with the subdivision standards even easier than what they did in 2019. Um, sorry if that's confusing and a lot of backstory. Uh, this application um
has uh uh had several uh witnesses. Um, we've heard about the architectural uh civil and planning testimony as well as now the traffic. Um, we had some questions that were answered by commission uh by the
commissioner's questions or I had some questions that were um answered by commissioners and uh them asking of the testimony um which I'm glad to hear um uh with regards to the gym or the parking for Jones Hall deliveries and uh and such as well as the green
infrastructure which um they were addressed further through civil. Um this is a a complicated um application. It has history going to the HPC. Um we talked about what uh
transpired there. Uh one of the reasons why uh the application uh was ultimately not recommended to this board was um sight and setting. Um but the the recommendation was split on its vote. Um
as well as the staff uh historic staff uh recommended approval. Um it could easily be said that no building is meant to be here. At the same time, it's easy to say that an 18story
building does fit in with the character of the larger context of the site. Uh again, they were able to make a subdivision at this site um per the R4 standards.
Um this application has uh made a great effort to uh make a building that is meeting in the sight and setting as best as they can. Um it is subordinate to the
motifs and architecture of the larger site. Uh it is modern which is what you are supposed to do according to the secretary interior standards. Uh when adding new construction to a historic site
uh you are not supposed to mi simply mimic an older building. Um it is supposed to um be of its own time. Uh I think this application um with
regards to their planning proofs uh put the testimony on the record to support the variances. I would ask if the applicant has reviewed the staff memos uh prov provided by engineering and city planning and if they've reviewed the
conditions um that are recommended by staff should the uh the commissioners put on a motion to approve this application. The applicant has read all of the reports and the applicant agrees to comply with all the conditions set forth in those reports.
with the added conditions uh put on the record. Um I would just like to confirm if uh they were in agreement to limiting the hours of operation or if that is something that the commissioners would like to consider in uh studying this application. The applicant can note for
the record that they are willing to agree to a condition limiting the hours and a pharmacy. Uh and is that 5:00 p.m. or 6 p.m. as stated on the testimony? 6 p.m. Okay. Uh I I am here for any and I'm sorry
pharmacy and an addition of pharmacy. I'm here if there are any questions about this application. Correct. The applicant agrees. I'm here if there are any questions about this application um beyond what
I've just uh explained. Thank you. Okay, with that said, do any of the commissioners have any additional comments or questions? Okay. Um, so Matt, do you want this in two motions? One for the subdivision, one for the That's
typically how we do these applications. Yes. Yes. Subdivision first. Okay. Okay. So, at this time, I am asking for a motion uh to vote on a subdivision of the property. Can I get a motion? I give you the second to vote on. I'll
make a motion for uh on the subdivisions on the site. Can I get a second? Second. Okay. Commissioner Bole subdivision. You good? No. What's the matter, Bridget? Oh,
to say approve. Okay. Commissioner approve. Okay. Commissioner Bole, I'll just approve. Okay. Commissioner Patel. Yes.
Commissioner Burns, approve. Commissioner Baron, yes. Acting vice chair Zlicki. Yes. Madame Chair Coyle. Yes. Okay. Motion carries. Six in favor, none opposed of
the sub subdivision subdivision. Okay. I am now um may asking for a motion uh to vote on approval for the building the new building site that is being proposed. Yeah, I know. You tell me something. Can I get a motion? I'll make a motion to
approve the the the site plan. Can I get a second plan? Second. Commissioner Bole, approve. Commissioner Patel, approve.
Commissioner Burns, approve. Commissioner Baron, yes. Acting Vice Chair Zablicki, yes. And Madame Chair Coyle. Okay. Um so I don't personally um for me um a compelling argument was not
made this evening for me to vote yes and grant the variances. Um what you are requesting are variances to build what you want when you could be building something that fits more into the neighborhood and within compliance with what is there. So I vote no.
Motion carries. Five in favor, one opposed. So at this time, do we have any other board business that we have to take care of at this time tonight? Nothing. No. Okay. So, can I get a motion to adjourn the meeting? Ajourn.
I'll second. The meeting. Okay.