##VIDEO ID:oRLYreOI5Ps## in the past with storm order management review so if we need him in the future we would have the ability to use him Mr yes yes Mr FL yes Mr yes m m yes Mr yes Mr qu yes yes yes and next we have our professional appointments for the year 2025 uh which we would like to appoint uh Jim Slate's board engineer David Hansen alternate board engineer Bernie Sanger as alternate board engineer and Sonia Santiago as our board secretary can I have a do we need a resolu a motion for that I believe yes to motion to accept those I think that's not a resolution historically so motion second motion second and a voice V make a motion that we um move on what the chairman just said I'll second what the chairman just said never be wrong uh all in favor I opposed unanimous no that one is that one is not okay and then we have our uh site inspection committees which again these are my appointments so I am I would like for the site inspection committee a number of our standing committees so I would like to appoint Michael nun again Chief nun as the as the chair the chairperson of the site inspection committee with uh Mr aleso and myself self as on also on that committee um the street naming committee I still say I've said this for the last two years that we're not going to let Mr Ben W and Mr pulling off until they actually get to name a street name something I am I on that committee okay so yes you are and the legis legislative committee we are fortunate again to have you Mr grigia and Mr and Mr Rabbits with us so you know they will be our legislative committee and Jesse I'm hope I'm assuming you would continue as our open space committee represent design sure okay so there's our there's our standing committee structure for the year and I don't think that's That's My Prerogative I don't think we need to vote on those so um we do have a couple more uh resolutions um sorry chairman I apolog just for interrupting we may have skipped the TCC form oh did Skip oh yes even though there's that's usually I did oh I don't want to skip the TCC uh important work I gather there are municipalities that don't have things like the TCC and not all do and and I have talked to people who really find it very you know people really difficult to deal with that because you get a lot of issues resolved before they go into public meetings and public meetings don't drag on and so I really appreciate the work that the TCC does so we will have actually we'll have Mr Warner Mr Phillips and Mr Slate on our TCC continuing on the TCC and again appreciate the work that you do moving things forward and getting things straight before we have to deal with it so thank you thanks for reminding me there passed over it okay a couple of resolutions here um on uh selecting the meeting dates um we all have the meeting dates there they are published they have been out for the meeting dates I would uh entertain a motion to accept these meeting dates for the coming year I make a motion we accept the meeting dates for the year of 2025 second I believe that is a roll call at the resolution yes order no early voting for order yes Mr flowers yes Mr rabbit yes yes yes yes and finally the designation of our official newspapers uh designating the uh Morris County daily record is official paper of the planning board and the Morris news be designated as an additional News newspaper to receive notice of meetings I'll move that and I'm glad we still have newspapers I'll second I'll second that we still have newspapers again roll call yes yes Mr flowers yes Mr rabbit yes M Murphy yes Mr yes Mr yes M yes Mr B yes thank you very much that pretty much concludes the reorganization portion of our meeing and I would like to again thank everyone it looks very much the same as L as last year the board itself but I have a feeling that our schedule will be very much different than it was last year so um appreciate everyone stepping up and the work that they've done in the past and uh and we'll continue to do thank you very much um so now moving on to the uh regular meeting uh the first thing you'll notice is uh the issue dealing with Red Oak School which you may have been confused to see on the agenda again and I will let Mr Warner explain where we are and what we might have to we might be able to do about this certainly Mr chairman and we may I may have a little assistance as well on explaining but I'll at least kick it because we do have some representatives and I believe perhaps even Council uh for Red Oaks here this evening as well but just to remind the board this was a an approval uh granted not too long ago by the board about a month or so ago uh and uh at the time there was one condition uh uh actually the uh at the time the uh the representatives of the school and the architect were here that evening were under the impression that a wooden sign was a temporary fixture that did not uh uh excuse me as the school did previously have an approved temporary sign uh they had indicated that that wouldn't sign which was thought to be a temporary sign would be removed uh and that was understood to be a condition of the approval uh uh I leave to the board as to whether it was material or not uh as a condition uh but nevertheless apparently the uh Representatives at the time were not correct in their understanding upon closer examination after discussion with other school stakeholders they were informed that the wooden sign was actually intended to be a permanent fixture and actually had uh been part of a landscape plan that was approved by the township through a zoning permit uh all of that was provided under cover of uh Council for the applicant from the fox Rothchild firm that uh letter with the attachments are being dated December 2024 before all the board members provided to all the board members um so I probably stole a little of the Thunder took the wind out of the sign I don't know if that's possible but out of the sales perhaps but nevertheless uh that that's understanding so they wish to uh uh uh as I understand it um asked uh the board to consider whether they would uh make that modification uh to the approval um but as the board knows if it is a material condition uh then uh my advice would be that they should uh uh notice and have another hearing to eliminate or excise that condition uh from the approval we have not yet adopted the resolution uh and but the decision was rendered and so uh I thought it best that the board make that determination after hearing from me and if possible which it is hearing from them uh and then you can make that determination so with the chair's permission maybe we should invite a council and representatives uh to let the board know where I and how I got it wrong if at all is there reference as to microphone um you know maybe if you can come over here just for past precedent and uh and introduce yourself and I don't know if we need witness testimony or not then we're not going to have a hearing per se right so you can make the representations with your clients here to the board and the board can make a determination how we will proceed uh on this request yes so uh good evening members of the planning board Ruben Perez of fox child um on behalf of Red Oak School Inc um Mr Warner pretty much uh described it perfectly it's essentially in short we're just asking respectfully for an elimination of the condition that the this wouldn't sign which faces and fronts onto Speedwell Avenue that that condition be removed again as Mr Warner said um it was initially thought that it was a temporary sign it's actually a more permanent sign um in the package that was provided to the planning board um as well as to the planning board secretary and which Mr Warner was referencing previously um you'll note in I think it's exhibit a the uh actual sign as you can see it's a professionally made sign um that uh is um a part of pretty much that landscape um uh area and so it it's that's really the only uh the only request at this time well yes go ahead no I was just going to fess up at the outset um before you do please give your name and address uh so I'm Chris Weaver I'm the head of school do you want my home address or you want the school address uh the business address is fine for the record and again this is not a hearing so I'm not going to swear you in but uh with Council if you're explaining the circumstances at least for the board to decide how to proceed that that's acceptable okay and we're at uh 238 speed well have um I started in the job over the summer the sign thing has been going on for uh probably two years or so and I pointed to the only other sign I knew of on the campus uh that small uh wooden sign um because the temporary sign have long since been taken down um so that's my Maya and uh if that's all from Council for the pl if with respect to the uh explanation of what's before the board now again said it three times so I should but I'll say it a fourth not a public hearing at least as of yet um I did uh I think Mr Slate may have some information that helps uh inform your decision as well uh and that is with respect to the landscape plan because the representation was made in council's letter uh that the current wooden sign was part of a landscape plan that was approved by the township through a zoning permits be attached uh Exhibit C that zoning permit uh is attached and I believe there's a landscape plan attached well corre and uh maybe you could speak to whether or not that zoning plan is on the site plan that was or the landscape plan excuse me that was part of the permit application I can confirm that the sign is shown as part of so uh confirmation of the representation made by coun for in his letter is is the point there uh so does uh if there's nothing further does the board have any questions or any board members have any questions as to how to proceed before well to discuss and make that determination well I would know having gone through that as Jim say was on the plan but you notice that you know in the documentation I came with that they applied for permission for a temporary sign at the same time they applied for the per for the permanent sign as part of the landscape plan I guess clearly because the landscape plan would take longer to implement so they wanted to put the temporary sign up there um temporary sign is no longer there it's been removed and personally I vote you know I voted and thought that we were at you know asking them to remove a temporary sign that temporary sign is no longer there so as far as I'm concerned you know it's no big deal we could remove that condition without without a big problem I agree yes I'd like to just Echo those comments I actually was surprised to hear that you were removing the sign that was out uh closer to the street but went along with you when you said you were going to do that it's it's a it's actually a very attractive sign and is no longer a temporary sign um so I wouldn't have any problem removing that condition either and you don't in my opinion you don't need to come back for another yeah Mr Lo so I'm just a little confused so when we gave them approval to put signage on the outside of the building there was a temporary sign that we thought was temporary that was no longer there right and it is no longer there but the permanent sign which is I guess the one at the entry way where you make the right turn into the church the left side right on speed well there's a sign a permanent sign that's going to stay so it's basically you're leaving the permanent sign that's there that we thought was a temporary sign that would be taken down right right now I understand as I think vult was already indicated uh there was a misunderstanding from the applicants perspective certainly the board uh uh did not make any mistakes whatsoever it's just simply they they understood a permanent sign to be a temporary sign um and the well I'm sorry but the permanent sign permanent sign is saying it's it's not a temporary sign that's going that's really the difference yeah Mr just real quickly again echoing the comments of my colleagues this is a fine looking sign um I see no reason to not to remove that stipulation and the the misunderstanding of what was permanent and what what this sign is this is a f looking sign that that adds to the the Aesthetics of the property and if I understand from the dialogue of the board members in essence uh it was not a material condition or even the intention of the board to have the removal of that wooden sign uh take place as part of the granting of the balance of the approval which was if I recall correctly a wall sign and if that's accurate then I would assume unless any board members have any further questions or concerns uh then the uh in essence clarified the decision that the board made a resolution memorializing uh that decision will be forthcoming for our next meeting and the applicant is not put through the burden perhaps of although it should be a pleasure to come before our board board for for another hearing is correct in that regard I believe you're correct yes I think then that is the uh instruction to me to advise uh the applicant who is now so advised so that'll be modified and the memorializing resolution hopefully will be adopted our next meeting perfect thank you everyone thank you so much thanks for coming in thank you okay moving on to our first public hearing have a another amended site plan on that could you introduce that for us son next amended 849 315 Madison Avenue and the RDP Zone R development plan Zone applicant proposes to reduce the scope and scale of the previously approved plan for the Redevelopment of the Abby AR H for a Furniture showroom Mr wner yeah thank you Mr chairman and as I always do I uh like to make sure that the board has jurisdiction by way of the notice uh before we get to far if at all into the application I did have an opportunity to review the notice uh I found the content of the notice to be sufficient I found it to be timely served and published uh served by certified mail on January 2nd published on January 2nd as well both at least 10 days prior to this evening's hearing date so the board does have jurisdiction in my opinion to the application uh and if it's completed decide the application this evening and I know we have counsel for the applicant so I'll turn it back to the chair okay um so Mr V would you like to introduce yourself and yes sir we're we're facing it this after this evening yes and it's um very nice to see everybody um Larry David said Happy New Year is usually good three or four weeks in so I think I'm in within that uh and it's good to see everyone including Mr Warner's pocket square than which I understand there was yeah gonna bring in another chair for that pocket um so um I'm with the law firm of sales commas and gross I represent the applicant uh this is rh's application for amended site plan which we are making pursuant to the Abby Al call Redevelopment plan we were last before this board in the in about the summer of 2022 and at that time this board approved a significant change to the facade of the new Gallery restaurant building an increase and an increase in the number of restaurant seats the board also required RH to save certain of the windows in the stained glass windows in the Abbey and it also approved rh's decision to keep the southern wing of the Abbey which was scheduled for demolition as you will hear from our professional this evening we're proposing to reduce the size of this project um you're going to hear from our Witnesses by approximately a third um it's not an exact number but um this reduction in scale will allow us to park the entire development on site uh as you may recall there was off-site parking um that was allocated for this project and we had stacked parking or um double loaded parking that has been eliminated um and so will be able to have everyone on site and for that reason we also will not need valet parking everyone will be allowed to self- park on the site we're also reducing uh the number of restaurant seats promosing proposing some minor revisions to the floor plans and we're proposing to demolish the southern wing of the Abbey which was the original plan for this project um pursu to the Redevelopment plan there was a change to keep it as a ruin but now having looked looked at it and looked at the scale of the project uh we're uh we don't need that portion in our business plan anymore so we're going back to the original intent of the Redevelopment plan regarding the wise um for the changes and the reduction in scale um you're going to hear this evening from the gentleman to my right um this is rh's Chief real estate and development officer Jared stool we also intend to call um in support of this application our civil engineer Aton savitz are uh oh are we okay okay back I was going to say my pocket square joke wouldn't land that well the second no it came out okay he's recording great um so as I said we intend to call in support of this application our civil engineer Aton savitz our architect Russell pakala and our planner Matt seckler we also have traffic uh landscape and operations Witnesses here should the board have any questions specific to those disciplines so with that board thank you again for having us we are ready to begin our case and to call our first witness Mr chairman with your permission I can swear in all the witnesses that we intend to have or even may have to to play it safe so if they'll all stand raise their right hand as well as our board professionals Mr Phillips and Mr slay can raise their right hand do all of you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you all thank you very much Mr Warner and so first we'll call Mr Jared sto thank you Frank um good evening members of the board um first off as as Frank mentioned I'm reasonably new to RH I joined about a year ago could you again State Your Role Chief real estate and development officer for restoration thank you and if you just give us a business address is fine for the record right sure 15 Road CTO Madera California 94925 I'm sorry could you spell your name Jarrett j a r r TT last name stall St t u l thank you and so I joined RH on uh January 16th of last year and so one of the priorities uh upon coming aboard with the organization was to take a look at what has been in the pipeline for quite some time and Gary our chairman and CEO the organization brought me through this project over first sort of 90 days of my timeline at the organization and what I'd been made aware of at the time is that the project had obviously had years of approvals design redesign and was finally out to bid um come about May of last year we received our bids for the project from Whiting Turner and what had come to light is that in a postco world the project had grown from a cost and escalated to a point where the organization was unable to make it work from a business perspective um cost of construction had gone up and we looked at it and said our original underwriting plan did not necessarily align with our ability to make the investment that we had proposed historically um I appreciate that the site you know over the last several years has been left in a state of disarray and over the last several months as I'm sure you've seen on site we've made the investment to get it cleaned up to get it safe with our intent for this project to hopefully kick off in the springtime the reductions that you're going to hear about today we're really all based with the intent of maintaining the architectural integrity and the design Integrity however reducing the scale down from an operational perspective and being able to have a building that we can build efficiently within the cost parameters of what we had originally underwritten and had been approved by our internal board this is a project that is very near and dear to Gary and to the entire organization it's something that quite frankly you know there's a level of embarrassment that it's sat around for the period of time that it has and since my first meeting you know coming out here in the beginning of September and working with the TCC and and the team here it seems as if there's you know a level of enthusiasm and excitement to get it built um it is our intent to get it built it's our intent to build this project as originally designed in terms of the quality of the materials the quality of the architecture and the quality of our operation um the reductions in scope and scale of the project are purely from an efficiency perspective um there's no intent to Value engineer any of the architecture any of the design but purely scale it down and have less of an impact on the property um with that said you know I I look forward to the support and hearing any feedback you might have and any questions that come up so thank you for your time we'll make Mr Sol available questions yep any questions I guess I have a question about the the degree to which you're scaling back it doesn't seem like that much of a reduction in terms of the floor space in particular it's not that much of a reduction I believe corre um in terms of overall floor space and and I'll let um the experts speak to it correctly but roughly about a third of the overall square footage but when you extrapolate out the height reductions and the scale reductions in addition to the restaurant producing by roughly half in terms of total seat count those all add up and you know it's it's for us it's a game of inches and dollars every square foot saved is one less brick to put on the building one less seat to put in from a Furniture perspective it's one less thing to procure so as we've looked at it we think these reductions are sensible and will get us to where we need to be the restaurant is being scaled back by about 50% right but the rest of the of the building is being scaled back by much less than onethird correct as well as the removal of the ruins that needed to be structurally reinforced there are areas in terms of investment that we had previously planned to go ahead and make and taking those out will allow us to meet our budgetary goals okay all right thank you of course is it appropriate to ask for questions from the public at this point of the I just profal after the oh yes right I just have a quick question on the restaurant and I wasn't on the planning board you know back in back in the Heyday when this was uh being discussed but I saw that the restaurant is is half the seating capacity but I didn't see on anywhere where the actual restaurant itself size has been reduced has the restaurant yes size been reduced in half the overall box of the restaurant yeah the bo we've made it symmetrical so it's changed slightly in shape before um and I'll have to defer to The Architects in terms of the exact dimensions but now it's a perfect square whereas before wrest what were the exact dimensions previously the uh the restaurant was 3600 for we're down to about 20 thank you yeah I would just note that in general it wasn't easy to determine what the changes were from the original plans I I had them so I could go back and look and even that didn't make it easy to try to understand where the savings came um but you know it yes it is smaller so and and can I ask also yes if I recall correctly which certainly may not have the wine bar was eliminated with the last yeah application but it appears to be in there again right so that's within the 2400 F feet with in that corre dining area yeah so there are two service bars that are balanced and symmetrical on the entryway into the restaurant which do act the service bars to serve the patrons um but there is no seating at the bar per se they are Serv that was my question okay so it's there for Serv servers not for people to sit at correct there are no seats at the bar they are purely service counters thank you yeah people stand at the bar and get they are not designed in in our experience across our 23 restaurants that we operate none of them have patrons that are standing they're built with coffee machines and service counters for our servers to be able to pick up and distribute within the restaurant uh the just in general um the ruins will be gone okay but the other portions that Mr vello mentioned the windows will still be saved correct the Landscaping other than because of the change and kind of the configuration the Landscaping essentially stays the same on that uh the sidewalks outside and the sidewalk extension to up that that remains also correct okay that's any other questions anything from our board professionals no questions here no questions anything from any questions of this witness from the from the public could you please step up to the microphone and anybody has I I'm sorry to if anyone has any questions if you're not familiar with how this works there'll be other witnesses will be addressing I believe architecture uh uh planning and Engineering so more detail that question to know how it works um but please feel free to come up and ask questions but there will be questions after and and at this point I'd also remind everyone that the questions are for the witnesses and what they have said there will be time you know at the end for General comments on the on the pro on the we also have an opportunity but so the the these portion of the public comments are to ask or public questions are to ask questions of the witnesses so thank you for stepping up and going first we just demonstrated a lawyer joke that my apology please remember your question because I think their attorney said he remembers it and this gentleman might be able to answer it oh okay well me asking it again right perhaps what am I supposed to do my name name and address name address Linda Wilson 22 Crescent Drive uh Morris time to and I guess I was you have a time frame on well actually now that I'm here U I was under the impression on the first ation that the restaurant was going to be inside the building that's already there that's was that is that real the restaurant was uh is not inside the existing building it's a new building um that we are proposing no not to my knowledge so umist and do you have a time frame as when you're gonna be able to finish this our intent is to go ahead and complete our plans over the next several months subject to the feedback we received this evening our goal would be to start our Construction in the springtime and we anticipate it'll take somewhere roughly between 14 and 20 months to complete open no we will do one opening there will not be a phased opening of course yes gam um 63 Canfield Road so the only question I have really have is the entrance and exit of the facility on can is it I think originally it was only supposed to go um towards Madison Avenue so I just want to see if that was set we'll have our engineer answer the Ingress e questions that's okay because I I think cons more from can traffic one way or the other way that's that's all I have sure and we'll get our engineered to answer that I appreciate it thank you okay thank you any more questions to the public okay then we could proceed with the next witness thank you thank you yes we're we're next going to call Aton Savage she's the civil engineer for the project and need just a minute for her to okay we have um we have sets um printed sets of of the plans we're showing this evening and the exhibits would everyone like one to follow along or would you rather follow along I'll take one are the are these different from what you submitted no uh uh they're the presentation yeah so what we so this will all be Mark as one exhibit it's presentation that we're making that have incorporates the plans and a new color oh okay yes yes I would yeah thank you right something besid we can actually deal with those yeah oh I agree yeah thank you thank you oops thank you oh there we go yes this answers my questions much CLE yeah it wasn't easy no I was just I had ask I was just trying to figure out this how they got the parking over there was really hard to find to yeah that's great yeah okay you ready okay could you again name oh she's still setting up oh no help how many people are watching around good evening chairman memb of the boards Aton savitz from Stonefield engineering Miss savit um you or U you these plans or you drafted these plans for the project I did yes you're familiar with the plan I am yes and uh can you just give the board the benefit of your education and your experience in your licenses sure and business address is 92 Park Avenue Rutherford New Jersey 07070 I earned a Bachelor's of science from civil uh from Bucknell University and civil engineering I've been working in the field of Land Development for over 12 years I'm licensed in the state of New Jersey and my license is in good standing qualify have have you appeared before other boards before yes last month I was before the Morristown planning board the mendum land use board previously mortown zoning board very familiar with the area okay yes I certainly will accept qualifications please proceed great so the packet that was handed out to you we also have on the screen this is a 17-page document which will Mark for the record A1 A1 that as the uh what what would you like to refer to it as it does have some page numbers at least part of it partially it is yeah correct cumulatively 17 sheets it's dated January 13 2025 we'll call Public Presentation yeah and this will be used for Testimony throughout this evening not just my own thank you thank you so I'll move to the second the second sheet of the set and what you're seeing is an aerial imagery replicating um the prior condition on the property for orientation of the board this is block 8409 lot one address 355 Madison Avenue for New New Jersey Route 124 the lot area in total is 3.92 Acres we are in the open space government use Ab Al Mcall Redevelopment plan area and the orientation um which will be consistent throughout this presentation is North is diagonally to the to the intersection of Madison and C Canfield so I use the cursor or the hand that I believe is visible on all screens to Circle that that is Madison Avenue on the bottom of the page Canfield Avenue is extending vertically up the right hand side of the page again North is directed in that direction South is the opposite or the top left property line corner under existing conditions there is Frontage both on Madison Canfield both front yards noting Madison under State jurisdiction travel direction is north south um under existing conditions along that Frontage there's no curb or sidewalk um Additionally the same existing condition on Canfield though under local jurisdiction the existing structure as we all know well the Abbey previously a two still a two-story building uh proposed for renovation and the lot geometry though you can't see the property line here I will transition to the next slide and it will become more visible is generally rectangular in general the slope of the site is relatively flat but you note that the existing Abbey structure if you've been to the property is raised off the ground probably a foot and a half relative to that existing grade there are mature trees um focused primarily in front of the ABY that will remain to be protected again similar to the existing the previously approved application a lot of the design intent remains and I I noticed or I noted um the conversation about trying to understand what's changed since the original or the prior approval um we did submit a summary of changes but visually to to help tell the story the third sheet of this packet is a colorized site plan that is to the back or subdued relative to an outline of a polygon that is blue or a tealish cyan blue color what that's indicative of is the previous building footprint so you'll notice it is centered on the page The Abbey and again I'll use my cursor just to identify from left to right The Abbey is along hand along the leftand side or that Southwest location to remain you note the Western Wing as mentioned by Council and consistent with the Redevelopment plan previously was going to be restored it's now going to be removed and as you notice as you work WS Can field again on the right hand side you notice that the building is coming down in size and as a result the buildings if you were to treat them as separate though they're all interconnected they they become closer to one another pulling back from the property lines where feasible of course the OB will remain in location and then as a result there's more space to work with on the property so this application as mentioned previously by both Council and and um Jarrett what it does is it looks to balance the site both the development of the building the uses on the site the parking all of it centered on the subject property where you'll remember you you'll recall the Redevelopment plan is written for that larger density with 2third of the parking to be concentrated on the site where previously we were seeking overflow parking across Canfield that's no longer being proposed as part of the application this evening just for reference as it relates to the background and I will transition to the next slide to focus entirely on the proposed design here what you'll also recall is in the upper left hand corner or closer to the Residential Properties or that Southeastern property line there used to be tandem parking um tandem parking was permitted by the Redevelopment plan maxed out at a certain quantity in that location it's now balanced for that of perious coverage not to mention storm water purposes um I'll go into the details regarding the parking Supply but in looking at this application the building size the uses as as contemplated and the scale not to mention the parking it allows for additional space on the property an actual increase in prvious coverage and being able to utilize it in a better way so I will this is the fourth sheet of the slide deck or exhibit A1 and what this is showing this is a colorized version of the site plan sheet submitted to the board what it's doing is showing some color relative to where the buildings are where the parking is and then layering on top of that the Landscaping as proposed and this is still oriented in the same direction you have Canfield Road as indicated on the Le hand side and Madison Avenue as indicated on the bottom of the page so the proposed structure now that you can see better without the blue turned on is that of everything that has white coloring and again just for the board's reference for any public listening I'll Circle the ABY to be restored along the left hand side or that south side and then move closer towards camfield as you have the center portion of the building and then the additional retail Wing In addition when we look at the proposed site design a lot of it does remain consistent with the original application when we think about the size now granted previously we were seeking approval for 148 restaurant seats and over 50,000 Square ft of retail that's comprised of both indoor and outdoor retail the application before you this evening is comprised of 76 restaurant seats and a total of 36,7 199 square feet of retail so for comparative purposes I know we mentioned the building size does get a little smaller there's a retail component you'll note in between um the buildings themselves that I'll Circle again with the cursor just for reference these are exterior Plaza areas or Furniture Gardens where the retail space can seem or those using the retail space can SE seamlessly transition from an indoor to an outdoor viewing but it does count towards the density it does count towards the parking demand it does count towards the utility demand so with the building becoming smaller with them becoming concentrated on the center of the property those spaces as well reduce from a building size perspective the building coverage um is reduced by over 5% but again we're balancing the other site elements that go into how this density has come down the Abbey structure as mentioned will be maintained the Western Wing wall to be removed or uh consistent with the Redevelopment plan the building as a result becomes setback further both from Canfield Road and that of the Southern property line from Canfield Road it's now over 90 feet where it was approximately 49 and from the southwestern property line it's now approximately 50 2 or 51.7 ft pulled off of that property line the front yard setback we are seeking consistent with the previous application we're seeking a deviation for the front yard setback of the ABY now I'm sure you're thinking to yourself have they moved it do they contemplate moving it we certainly do not the Redevelopment Plan called for 120 feet for that front yard setback as the project transitioned into obtaining survey and then increasing the level of survey detail related to the facade intricacies the front yard setback um as being pursued is a little more precise and that front yard setback is 1182 feet you'll note the previous application had 118.0 feet again no change to the design of the Abby in terms of the location but for the record um there is a deviation associated with that from an access standpoint um the driveway location as it exists on Madison Avenue will remain in the exact location again under do jurisdiction that will stay as as is um again for the board's reference I'll just use the cursor in conjunction with this presentation provided everyone can see it that you can enter the property from Madison Avenue and then Circle in that um or you can head right or move we move in a counterclockwise direction another revision to the proposed development is that there are 90° parking spaces immediately in the front of the building where there was previous a motor Court um and the building was slightly larger there are now 90° parking spaces with a focus on the Ada being in that Forefront right in front of the building as we continue in that counterclockwise Direction there is entry off of Canfield the first of two driveways driveways remain unchanged from the previous previous application but I know there was a question regarding access and the directionality both from the public and the traffic review letter the first driveway from Canfield you can enter it is restricted to Right Turn Only out or encouraged based on the geometry of it as you continue in that counterclockwise Direction you do have additional perimeter parking in that can field front yard again the building is pulled back so there's an opportunity to provide more parking here it is screened with Hedges um but again as we continue up in this location that is another change to the application the second Canfield driveway as I continue up the page um this was previously denoted for deliveries again restricting right uh restricting um or limiting those uh egressing from the property to right turns headed towards Madison as opposed to further further Southeast uh Southwest on Canfield Road and then as you continue around there are additional parking behind the back of the building the dry vial this is where any deliveries would occur where the utilities are concentrated um there is some parking here there are evb Chargers to support the requirement from the application but the perimeter applica or the perimeter condition in this South the southern Corner um the main difference is the tandem parking the tandem is taken out as an opportunity as a result any development any pavement any vehicular traffic is pulled further away from that property line and then you continue closing the gap on the the clock counterclockwise circulation with the additional parking this property line generally speaking Remains the exact same as the original approval with the 90 Dee parking from a proposed parking standpoint in terms of how many are required based on the adjustment to the use itself 105 spaces are required based on those 76 seats and the retail square footage as mentioned there are 108 spaces being proposed we do note on the site plan the black and white site plan that was submitted to the board both vertical Drive 90° Drive aisles and I'll Circle one to the south of the building and I'll Circle the other closer to Canfield Road they do indicate 19 um parking spaces vertically on either side of the drive aisle which is incorrect there are 18 as counted as noted in the traffic review letter and when um added to all the other parking on the proposed site plan it does sumate to 108 it's just those we'll call it four rows of 19 as indicated should say 18 in addition EV spaces are required based on the supply they're not counted towards any of the parking compliance so this application is compliant from a parking standpoint um even independent of e EV parking access as mentioned um full circulation throughout the site that has not changed as it relates to the application with two-way traffic the driveway locations have not changed either the frontage under existing conditions or under the proposed conditions consistent with the Redevelopment plan there is a land taking or a widening on Canfield which is indicated on the site plans and will be incorporated in addition sidewalks they remain consistent on the plan as originally designed ensuring that people can get to the property um safely and from their vehicles and you'll note the Abby as I mentioned lifted off the ground ever so slightly under existing conditions what the the design strives to do do is level the the existing building with that of the proposed building so there are ramps with handrails for ad ADA compliance to ensure that access path I mentioned the outdoor furniture Gardens and I'll I'll circle with my cursor again they're just these are the pockets in between the buildings um there are four location or two larger locations um on either side and then four smaller locations that I'll Circle again with a cursor in between the two building or the ABY and that of the new building in entirety it's 7,33 square feet square feet of exterior Furniture space that goes towards retail and again what that what that does or how that supports the use is that if you were on the property for the purpose of the retail or the store showings what you can do is you can move in and out there will be exterior Furniture displays um comp complimenting that of the retail use specifically the finished materials in the furniture Garden hedging remains uh a primary feature of the landscaping that's consistent with the previous approval the finished materials will be of the stone pavers there will be a decomposed gr Granite aggregate in between there um Landscaping hedge additionally in these areas on either end there will be a fireplace for aesthetic um for aesthetic environment out there the Redevelopment plan does detail very specifically the design for the exterior space or the furniture Gardens um consistent with the original approval back from 2021 since the more recent Amendment and consistent with this design there are some elements that are not being proposed um again previously removed were that of climbing vine walls or trellises um additionally water walls um in this area are not part of this proposed application nor were they previously but we do require a iation for them the only other revision relative to the Redevelopment plan for exterior spaces in is in the front Motor Court as you drive in off of Madison Avenue there is the motor Court um located immediately in front of the building where previously there was a fountain there's no longer being that's no longer being proposed it is a flush Stone P it'll be of um that aesthetic for drop offs uh but again given the Vision that people are parking themselves the there's a focus on safety from a pedestrian standpoint from a storm water standpoint um it Remains the approach remains similar with the original application but what has transpired since we were last year is that the rules have changed so this project just based on the sheer size of it constitutes what's called a major development where you're required to meet for water quality standpoint what quantity and then groundwater recharge where applicable so in this case we do have new motor vehicle surface we do have um disturbance exceeding one acre and so what we're doing is we are slowing down the water under existing conditions or prior conditions it was there was a large parking lot none of that water was being treated for motor vehicle surface or for oils from your car under the proposed conditions we are we are going to meet all the state requirements and then based on the more recent rules we're actually treating for the current rainfall event and for and those predicted in 201100 so it's even more storm water that we're designing for and then we're slowing down to improve the conditions that exist today and the way that we're doing that is through a combination between porest pavement systems and some of the driveway and some of the parking areas and then that of an above ground um bio retention Basin from a lighting perspective again very consistent with the previous application where there's perimeter um downward facing dark sky compliant LED light poles that's for um a safe illuminance of any dryes or parking areas um all of the parking does comply with the ordinance and then um from an illumination standpoint additionally there as you get closer to the buildings any ground there are gr um ground mounted ballards for the purpose of supporting safe pedestrian um circulation the only deviation related to um lighting that we are seeking again consistent with the previous approval um is that of building lighting where it should be predominantly or primarily focused on facade Lighting in the form of scones the proposed lighting design does have um some balled lighting nearby some up liting varying sources that um do not have a negative impact from a lighting perspective but is not exactly uh mimicking that of the Redevelopment plan utilities all of the utilities um similar with the with the last application the new building the restored Abbey they'll all require new utilities the previous application and working closely with the board professionals Advanced a lot of these approvals pretty far with that higher density of course we will have to work with them to obtain any amendments to those approvals but knowing that the density has come down um that that process is very clear and I'll I'll end with that of retaining and signage so the signage for this application the only change for signage is that where signs were located at every entryway um most of which on an entry pillar or structure they're now going to be reduced by two and I know the Redevelopment plan um talks about Monument signs they talk about signage type I'll be consistent in my testimony as to how it was explained to the board and of course if the board planner um asked for clarifications relative to them being walls or signs I'll certainly elaborate on it so from a signage standpoint um there is one Monument sign and I will again circle with the the cursor this is right at that Northern point of the property so the monument sign is as it was always or it was originally designed facing the intersection of Madison Canfield the M the monument sign in terms of height is compliant um in terms of that of the overall length it's somewhat angled so you'll notice in I'm going to just zoom into this corner for the purpose of showing this a little bit more clearly you'll notice there's a front face and that it does angle backwards so we are seeking relief again consistent with the original application related to the overall length of the sign um at when it is um based on the facing of it so the height of the sign 6 feet or 6 feet maximum is permitted the width of the sign there's an OT Center as it faces the front and then comprised of the entirety of the sign if you were to lay it flat it would be um approximately 23 ft in length so I will zoom out just to cover the other signage though you'll notice this symbology this is um a placard sign that is on a brick-faced masonry Monument sign mounted to the ground or mounted with a foundation to the ground um in addition we do have vehicle entry signs so at Madison Avenue there are similarly two pillars that are on either side of the driveway that's consistent again none of this has changed but just to to refresh everyone's memory um these two pillars do have U placard signs on them as we move to Canfield there is one um pillar or rectangular like pillar sign that has a placard sign on it as well and then as we move to Canfield there's another single placard sign on a brick masonry um structure where previously there were two in this location so as it relates to vehicular entry signs there is one less than previously being proposed or two less let me clarify two less than previously proposed again this is um where there this is for also signed as deliveries only at this Canfield entrance as we move closer to the building in terms of signage um there are tree signs those are similar they're the same placard sign which is a stone which is a uh same placard sign which is a castone plaque um they are on the on two pillars that provide entry to the furniture Gardens there are two to the north of the restaurant there are two to the south of the restaurant and there are two at the main entrance of the building and finally the facade sign there is one facade sign above the main entrance um it's attached to that of the canopy or the extension from the building itself um that is a fix to the building from a relief standpoint the number of signs um we are we are seeking relief from the number of Entry signs six being proposed where four is permitted um in the Redevelopment plan again in terms of the proposed design from a site engineering standpoint um this does conclude my direct testimony I know the signage may be a little convoluted though very consistent with the original application so I'm happy to answer any questions as it relates to the design as it relates to um anything the board the board professionals may have uh well I have a few questions youve mentioned um what is the comparison of the uh fraction of impervious surface with this compared to the original and as approved in 2022 and now so I I can get you the two more recent and if you give me one second I'll get you the third but since the most recent approval the impervious coverage is being reduced by approximately 7,000 square feet okay uh the other question was um you mentioned the storm water manager and the bio retention Basin you is that the the rain Garden is that's referred to in the back where where was the tandem parking yes so this will I'll use my cursor just to circle the area that is in the rear um there are similar to a Rain Garden there are brakes in the curb that allow for storm water to enter I think it's listed up on the landscape plan is a rain garden with a Ernst company seed mix of something or other I can't remember but don't get but that is what you're referring to is back that is that is the bio retention yes yeah back here uh any other questions so I'm sorry on that bio retention does that mean that you're not pumping water into it to help by gravity flow into the correct it is by gravity flow for the purpose of filtering through that atg grade material to to treat it and then it is being eventually conveyed out to the Canfield system I see okay thank you I just have a couple of clarifying questions if I may um and there are different subjects so I'm going to bounce around a little bit um the outdoor retail space is that allseason retail space so it would be uh all four seasons but uncovered is that correct yes so in our our galleries that have inclement letter our intent is to make make sure that you can see the furniture obviously in times of snow and things of that nature we do our best to keep them clear but our intent is that people can see our furniture does not get removed by season okay and it's uncovered uncovered at night open okay my second question I I was not clear when you said Right Turn Only onto Canfield was that from both esses or just from the one in front for the Canfield driveways yeah there's two Canfield driveways yes and I will zoom in just to to address your question um in working apologies I'm just going to flatten this so it stops moving as I do um no change to the document just just a little Tech complication here uh both of them are designed with geometry that suggests a right turn so it is I believe it's signed and it's encouraging that vehicular is turn right towards Madison Avenue on on both driveways on both driveways off of Canfield and signage will support that instruction for drivers yes that's consistent with the original application um and that's unchanged from as approved right correct okay I just wanted to make sure because I wasn't sure if you're were talking about just the front one or the both of them the final question was can you repeat the reason for removing the um the back Wing the the ruins as we called it back in the day I think unfortunately I do think that would be better suited for the architect to address okay take care I'll hold that that's it for now Mr abbit just a quick question on the E the EV charging I see five spaces there and two EV Chargers is that those two little FL rectangles I guess those are the charging stations oh let me turn my mic on so others can hear me those are the charging stations up on the upper left hand corner I guess on the South Corner uh yeah so there's F so there's two EV Chargers going to um service five five spaces so I think um again good question the as indicated is showing them on on either side of parking spaces the intent is that there will be charge for all spaces as require all five all five spaces okay and will there be uh I believe you only required four so and you have two two station Chargers that would feed that the middle that middle one is probably not some cars might be able to reach but there's only four cables well can I get some clarification on that yeah yeah oh yeah yeah so yeah there are an apologies for um so the middle space is is not for charging not intended correct so there'll be two to Service uh two spaces each okay thank you and will there be any uh so somebody coming in off Madison Avenue uh will they be directed if if they driving an EV will they be directed to the spots where um EV charging stations can be found or it's it kind of just kind of hunt and uh and search for them I don't think there's any signage for Ev proposed at this time but we'll certainly work with the board to ensure that that is made clear yeah this way you know come someone coming in with an EV that you know can can do a little top off can see where in the parking lot the uh the stations are located thank you that's it for now Mr Alo have a couple questions um this I'm not really sure if engineer answer director construction how many employees are going to be at the site when you're at let's say full capacity terms of operations I can't he gallery and about 50 for the restaurant so you'll have 85 employees in addition to the guests that you're inviting but they will't all be working at one time I'm asking how many will be working at one time excuse me can you use the microphone please to wish her to inform the uh witness where spoke or to testify as an additional witness counselor you want we have another witness coming on or is she providing that information to the come and introduce yourself in your dress or right here and then yeah and tell everybody hi I'm Jane cini um I am the senior vice president of galleries on the East Coast the G on East Coast can't hear you we can't hear you can't hear me yeah um I'm Jane I'm the senior is it I don't think it's and Joe we can't hear you either is your microphone on no it is than you thank you I'm Jane seini I'm the senior vice president of galleries um for the East Co PO for RH and a business address uh it would be 15 cot Road at the thing and I swore you went earlier correct you were part of the group it was swor I believe so okay you said and raise your right hand then we're good so the question was how many at any given time yeah I I'm I'm trying to acertain how much parking parking yeah if you're not familiar with me I'm the guy that voted against it twice I think the project is too big for the location there's not enough parking I'm trying to you've made it smaller which I think is fantastic but now I'm trying to understand if really there is enough parking sure it depends on the time of day so I would tell you on AIM approximately you're probably looking at 20 to 30 um Gallery Associates and probably I'm going to say 40 um restaurant and where do you expect those 65 people to park a lot of them some do public transportation some live nearby so and some Park will park right the people that live nearby are going to drive right they're not going to walk there correct so so do you have a guess of how many people you think are going to park I do not okay right thank you you're welcome my next if there's any other board questions on operations um since we have this witness if anyone has any questions on operations now so this now goes back to the engineer so in the original approval I believe there was like 170 parking spaces and of those 17 May was 175 and you were filling 60 of them by renting space at the next door building now building's got a little bit smaller so I guess what happens is there less restaurant seats means that there's less parking required and the smaller footprint I'm not sure what the calculation is planner probably knows but you've now you're now allowed less parking so the question I have is you have 108 you went from 170 to 108 by shrinking the building and by reducing the uh seats but the tandem spaces are gone and you're not using any off-site parking I'm just yes that's correct yeah is there any um again I guess this is maybe again an operations when when you're at your busiest what happens when people start parking on the street or parking in the office buildings next door how do you police that yeah I me typically not our responsibility to you know police neighboring properties um obviously with an operation like this we'll go ahead and like in any of our operations we make sure we have great relation with their neighbors if there's an issue that comes up we obviously address it but from a day-to-day patrolling and having this place completely full um that's not something that we go around and police across the street and such and um you know from our experience in terms of total capacity we are a business that they operate as I said 23 restaurants across the globe it is very very rare that we have 100% capacity inside of our restaurants whereby we space out our reservations to capacity we don't want people waiting as designed we don't have space for people to sit and wait in queue we don't have a stand up bar or sit down bar so we're dissimilar to a lot of restaurants that actually want people to come and stand in queue so we generally space out our reservations to accommodate appri thank you no more questions yes Mr quillin I have a couple of questions about signage and about parking my apologies do you mind repeating the question uh can you hear me yes I I have questions about signage and about parking the monument sign that's at the North Corner uh could you just repeat what the length of that would be and what how that compares to the ordinance on under the prior the prior plan certainly so as it as it relates to the prior plan it is consistent the monument sign has not changed as it relates to the order the monument sign again this is the one and the northern Corner um as at that intersection the monument sign is approximate is six feet high um so in terms of height relative to the ordinance or that being a retaining wall or structure in the front yard um it is compliant relative to um Canfield the length of the sign as it relates to the ordinance um it it does exceed it so so the overall length of the sign again if you were to lay it flat knowing there's a there's a front and then there are two Wing walls if you will is approximately 23 feet in length and and what what is this length of the central section and what are what are the lengths of the wings so I will um I'm just going to transition to the detail because I think it will show it a little bit better and this is as submitted to the board previously so this is drawing c16 it's part of the site plan set that was submitted to the board and dated November 22nd 2024 so this is the monument sign just for the board's reference or the center or that front facing before it works backwards into the page is approximately 8 feet and then that as split between the remaining is five or so feet remaining on either side okay and did you say that in 2022 um the approval was for an identical Monument sign it was yes okay and I have a question about I think this is a question for Mr Slate about the location this is something that perhaps I brought up in 2022 I don't remember um if the roadway were to be relocated to line up with um the roadway on the other side of Madison Avenue uh is that still something that's under active consideration or something that we should be trying to reserve the possibility of in the future the uh RightWay dedication is being provided by gr R in order to facilitate that and there's been ongoing discussions between the police department and the state on uh advancing that project to actually complete the construction for the rewind so you know nothing you know concrete as far as dates go but there it's there's further discussions so RH is providing a away yes and the and the sign is in the right away no no no if you look yeah I'll F I'll backit you'll see there's a big one area that triangle is where the dedication is occurred for the future realignment okay there's more land on the other side okay all right thank you and then with respect to parking I wanted to ask about the parking across the front of the building and how that compares to the 2022 approval of what what did that parking look like in the 2022 approval so the parking in front of the building um on the Madison Avenue side the previous um application had had parking spaces um along the perimeter of the motorart um where the building did not have parking adjacent to it and now it is being proposed with 90° parking spaces in front I'm sorry how many the row of 90 degree parking spaces in front Okay 90 and and that includes some um General parking spaces right across from the entrance the Madison Avenue entrance they're not they're not disabled uh parking spaces they're just general use parking spaces is that right there are parking spaces on on either side so there's a motor cart um that you would drive through and then the parking is on the right hand side of that and the left hand side of that and one more question that I have on an unrelated subject is you referred uh at least once to the main entrance to the building what entrance is that as a civil engineer I speak to the front of the building knowing that the Abbey main entrance is off of this Madison Avenue Drive aisle as is that of the lobby as you move your way towards Canfield or this front-facing wall I'll I'll let the Architects speak to um the internal related relation to the building but there are main entrances on the exterior of of these three walls so you were talking about entry signage next to the main entrance do you recall saying that yes that would be the entrance of the proposed building immediately adjacent to the Abby okay all right thank you that was it can I just um I just wanted to speak briefly to Mr alesso's um parking question which is a a good one and um I believe you also had parking concerns in the first two goers rounds which is why we have a post construction parking study that we agreed to do and so we do comply with the ordinance for uh or the Redevelopment plan for parking both for the restaurant and the retail nonetheless there was some hesitation or concerns about how this all is actually going to play out and so for that reason uh and this probably will catch any of the um maybe neighboring property I mean all this is going to be considered when we do our post construction parking survey and so we'll be able to come back if there's a problem um with the parking Supply and we may have to go offsite again who knows but um for now we're we're um confident that we can park it all on site but we do know there is the ability both across the street and potentially next door should we have to do satellite parking um but we are going to study it and we're going to report back to you guys yes Mr just as a com your mic yeah so I appreciate that my concern still is that you're not going to have enough parking you've scaled down the project so it looks more like it now fits on the property I want you to be successful believe me I want you to be successful the last thing I want to see is you not be successful and then we have an eyesore on the corner so I want you to be successful I'm just concerned that you don't have enough parking when you have what could be 45 employees uh on a Saturday or a Sunday and then they you know if you're successful you're going to fill up your parking lot yeah and there's you know I I tell people this all the time when you have a business that's new and that you want to succeed if we have a parking problem we have a problem um in general so yeah we have the greatest interest in making the parking work and so we'll do our best and you know we'll see how it goes you know I I appreciate the uh the question though it you know I heard the numbers too so I know where you know where you're going Mr Robin you got another question yes just following up on my colleague's question about the uh post construction traffic study when does that take place after you open so I know that's it's laid out um in the approval I don't have it right in front of me but um I can have our since there's been a couple questions about parking and we do have our parking and traffic person here and so um in the interim I'll have him get more detail for you on on the study I believe it was six months or a year but I I can't say for sure typically you know typically with businesses opening days opening months is always everybody wants to see what's new and and exciting in town and then everything kind of levels off to a you know to a to a normal so I'm just curious as to when that followup would be yes and and we'll get the exact timing for you Mr Rabbits thank you I I had one more parking question I six months thank you with the chair's permission I I did just cross reference the original approval uh back in uh 21 uh condition 6 page 31 references the obligation of the post construction parking analysis AKA parking L that audit corresponds to the requirements parameters set forth actually in the Redevelopment plan itself so it was contemplated back from the beginning I guess so to speak uh section 3e4 which provides several things including a time frame parking count shall be conducted getting 6 months after the opening of the facility and shall occur during the course of the ensuing six months so that's the specific for the board to have that information contemplate at this time thank you yeah one more parking question this EV related who mentioned you know I think by you're required to have the four EV ready spaces and you have four EV spaces but I believe there's also requirement for one uh accessible evb ready space and I didn't see that anywhere on the plans yes and it the applicable requirement um previously the supply triggered 5% and then 5% of that to be Ada um the minimum of one to be Ada as designed will comply with is is that is that an additional one or uh incl as part of that sample that four one would be okay but okay so is one of those four spaces we will supply one of the four spaces as ad okay okay I we'll be able to do that speak the engineer of course uh uh uh without losing one of the proposed spaces or would we be losing that space in the middle of the two EV spaces that is not an EV SP so the exact location of it um we'll work with the board professionals it won't it's not anticipated to impact the parking Supply but the exact location for that ADA spot we will work with board professionals on so they can still count on the same number of spaces even if the same number of spaces is one or two more than what you you believe is required yes they are 10 parking Supply is proposed this evening even in conjunction with converting one to the Ada isn't it will remain unchanged thank you Mr chairman yes um this might be more expansive than just your testimony but could you go over any variants or deviations that are proposed herein that were not already approved so two years ago yeah so we our planner will will enumerate enumerate those for you okay thank I on that would board members be able to look at the they got the notice right Sonic they got copies of the notice right notice of the notice for this hearing there's a list of of several items laid out as to what the changes are in the list format don't yeah so just so you know and to preview the planner Tes 40 about 40% or so are pre-existing and so about half are new and so I told the planner focus on the new ones um although right you know he still touch on the other ones we want to stress the ones that change from the blast approval we'll hear from yes you will uh Mr slay Mr Phillips I do have a question in regard to curving I believe you're showing curving along the frontage of Canfield Road I I don't know I don't think that's there now but that's proposed is by recollection that's correct did not see a new plan curving along m Madison Avenue and that may have been an oversight but we curving should go in along the front of Madison Avenue just it protects people on the sidewalk you saw what that's going front is that I guess my question would be is that something the apps I think it may be in Prior conditions I'm not 100% sure roadside definitely no curving I'm we got well okay thank you okay but they're going to provide it now we'll work with you regarding the the prop thank you Mr Phillips or Jim anything else no okay I do have yeah Mr War one or two it's neither my colleagues to my right or left have I I do but you can go first please that's okay either way the the I I appreciate applican Council for uh leading into it by referencing prior conditions um the uh I think the applicant stipulate can stipulate to all prior conditions to the same uh to the extent same would not be inconsistent uh with uh what may be approved see yes okay and specifically in addition to that auditing I just wanted to remind the board uh and the applicant members of the public that there's a post occupancy noise audit that was one of the conditions of our prior approval uh as well as uh an Endeavor to retain 100% of the existing Leed stained glass windows installed at the ABY uh in conjunction with the historic preservation commission as well as many others so I didn't want to lose sight to that and thank you I call up for the applicants continue stipulation to all those conditions that are not inconsistent with the potential approval this evening yes you're on Mr pH um can you confirm that there's no reduction in the uh with of any of the perimeter buffers that AB but uh single family residential or any change in the Landscaping that was previously approv indor constructed so the I can confirm that the at the minimum width as proposed previously for a landscape buffer is being maintained um it's being increased in some locations beyond that in where the tand parking was exactly correct okay uh also the I just want to be clear on the signage and this got a little sort of complicated at the last meeting because the Redevelopment plan spelled out uh there were sections on fences and walls and signage and my sign and you kind of did a little bit of a hybrid if you will with the pillars and so forth so rather than to get into the weed Zone all of that is I understand your testimony that um you're not looking for anything more in terms of the deviations from signage other than what was previously approved or you're actually lessening the amount or size of the signage do I have that right that's correct thank you um the only other thing is uh at some point I don't know if it's now or at the end i' just like to make a comment on the parking now a good time yes that's we sure so I have to say when we drafted the the Redevelopment plan one of the things that we really struggled with was coming up with a parking standard we didn't know I don't think anybody knows the applicants admitting in some respects that they don't know you go to standard sources in the planning literature and it and Urban Land Institute and so forth there's no it's an ocratic use you can find a standard for a furniture store which is a pretty low standard you can find a standard for a restaurant this is a combination it can be very popular as Mr rabits indicated it's probably going to be very popular during the grand opening phase and we didn't want to underp park we didn't want to overpark so we tried to find a balance um and we came up what we thought was the most reasonable standard when this was a larger project both in terms of the rest restaurant seats and the square footage of the retail and they couldn't provide it all on site which is why they had to go across the street for that extra cushion of parking and we didn't even know whether that was going to be enough so that's why we instituted in the Redevelopment plan the monitoring and as you might if you read my TCC report I did not have a lot of comments other than go through the plan with regard to compliance and what was approved which they've done and I think their plan will also do and I've done and the other the other recommendation was we still wanted that post construction monitoring study notwithstanding the fact that they technically now meet the parking standard I don't think anybody knows okay what what it's going to be like we did the best we could I share Mr alesso's concern we struggle with this from from day one and we again we try to come up with the right balance and again not withstanding the fact that now they technically meet the Redevelopment plan standard I don't think any anybody knows whether it's going to be sufficient it's too much or too little and that's why I think the fair reconciliation is continue to do the six month uh post construction monitoring so that's that's my comment on the par thank you Mr Phillips you're welcome uh any questions of this witness these Witnesses actually from the public yes pleas name and address hey everybody uh Dan 47 Crescent on 47 Crescent Drive um actually just moved in May uh to Morristown so happy to be here thanks Council to speak um really appreciate the information I like 12 14 questions on parking I do I do like share some of the concerns and and the discussion not concerns but discussion Park important um Mr Alo I I definitely comment I started to picture um cars outside of my address at Crescent Drive and definitely don't want that so definitely recognize the importance of the parking uh I want to shift to lighting though and I I obviously wasn't here for the original approval I haven't I tried to find as much of the documents as I can as I can online I love one PS I don't know if citizens can get that but I would love to take a look um but you mentioned the lighting uh I think sconces were mentioned you also mentioned F lighting I wonder if you could just talk a little bit about um what the lighting is going to look like particularly on the what is it the West I think I'm lot four so I'm right here really what I'm concerned with um like what is the lighting on the building that to look like and then what is it going to be like in the in the parking lot hoping it's not you know kind of like bright fluorescent street lights um up above the parking lot just wondering about that it's a good question um the lighting the sight lighting that I can speak to so the sight lighting um especially along the perimeter it's all going to be downward facing meaning it's directing light downward um in terms of the illumination levels um they're they're low for the purpose of security levels but not exceeding um ordinance standards what that means is as we get to the property line especially with the the Landscaping buffer the sound buffer that was previously installed it won't spill beyond the property line so where you live where the neighbors to um the Southwest live the foot candles as measured um will not exceed zero um so the temperature um expressed in Kelvin is 2700 when we think about that scale we think about um a holiday Decor light that's very blue is 4,000 so it'll be much warmer than that okay that's helpful um on then I have another question on the parking lot itself um is it black top asphalt or is it like cob Stone like what kind of is the actual surface it it'll be um it will be paved but a portion of it will be porest pavement for the purpose of storm water improvements it's like asphalt a porous yeah it will appear um similar to Asphalt when it rains the water is is going into the ground as a difference okay um just where I'm going for the council is obviously the Ping itself again am right over the hedgeline so thinking about that I've got a couple uh two young daughters obviously basketball not pleasant is what it is also thinking about the heat sir I'm sorry to interrupt the chair's permission as you the procedure may be new as well for you I want to help they you will have an opportunity to give all public comment you wish to you know give uh at the end of the proceeding uh but we're supposed to stick to the questions now you got it all right I think those are my relevant questions have some more probably I I would point out the uh site plan itself St at least somewhat upto-date version is available on the website that has and I know specifically it does have the lighting plan on there with the foot can proposed foot candle measurements and all that it's kind it's a huge PDF document takes a while to to get to look through but it is there I diing for yeah Mr Alo can I just ask a question Mr Warner sorry just a question Mr Warner I know that in the past site plans we've allowed or we've asked for lights to be shut off at a certain time and I'm just wondering if there was anything in there that so that the homeowners nearby that they're concerned about it I believe that we we we allow for certain lights to be shut off 10 o'clock at night 11 I don't know what if they stipulate it to anything or I don't remember I'm G ask applicant counil the rag commercial it's in there yeah we do shut them off it's security level lighting uh we have a that strike that that's offsite parking which is no longer out um but do does anybody know up hand I think the shut off time my recollection is it's it's a half hour after they close for the purpose of employees to leave safely and it goes down to security security level lighting one half hour after closing yes that's for safety of course is that in a isn't that in the resolution was in the former approval just having trouble is that the only um lighting that's going to be on 247 is the security lighting the concern the concern during the testimony was any lighting u in the parking lots uh around the building right and that will all be whether or not there's a light on in the building itself turn off so all the lights we're not in the business me like apparently my family is um uh condition 14 of the original approval all lighting shall be reduced to security level lighting one hour so my apologies uh as well as apologies from others uh one hour after the closing of the gallery restaurant on the property the details of saying to be subject to the review and approval of the township engineer uh so he's monitoring we expect to see you there I'll be the last drink Transportation uh okay I guess battle to the bottom and I'm losing oh your next W yeah next witness I guess yes thank you very much no I'm fine wait just wait a second Mr rabit have step out for a minute while we move ahead we got the same okay we we now call our architect Russell yes Russ Russell palala I'm with spilman farmer AR Architects uh 720 uh Stillman Drive in Bethlehem Pennsylvania I'm sorry apologize but we're going to wait he's back he's back are to make sure everyone qualify here yes okay can you please give the board the benefit of your education okay I'm um Russell P I'm a registered architect um in Pennsylvania and New Jersey um I work with spilman Farm architects of betham Pennsylvania 1720 spilman Drive um I've been practicing architecture for 40 years or so um uh in all capacities of institutional retail um multif Family residential Etc would ask the board to qualify this witness exper yeah I'll accept those qualifications please continue Mr please take the board for your presentation so um as you noticed on the site plan the you know we are reducing the overall size of the building um these perspectives that that uh show the current design um I think the appropriate uh scale of the new additions compared to the existing Abbey you can see the proportions I think are a lot more um conducive to making the ABY the the focal point of the design and uh as we page through these different rennings you'll see that especially when you come into the property that the Abbey will sort of be the focal point of design so again on the left for orientation is the existing Abbey the middle is we'll call that the main entrance and the restaurant sort of building and then on the right side is the modern G which is a two-story space and that's all consistent with the previous application um the overall concept for the for the new design was again staying with the same quality materials we're talking about brick stone Sills Stone coping um the overall proportion and scale keeping sort of with the vertical vertical elements of the ABY the windows are ver vertical the bay windows are vertical even the corner turrets are sort of vertical so the the window fenestration on both uh the middle building and the the twostory modern uh gallery has the vertical uh Windows um just to keep that Rhythm also across the front plane um and as as per the Redevelopment uh there's no one single plane that's over 50 ft as the Abbey plane moves in and out so is the the modern Gallery uh plane moves in and out it's just not one flat plane it's a little hard to read when we see get to the plans I'll show you where that sort of steps out a little bit and the same thing with the with the main entrance and then there's a a main canopy that sticks out over that uh main entrance okay that's a sort of a ground view of the of the front entrance again gives you a little bit better idea of the height of the the main entrance again the the main entrance is a single story building with two grand connector Halls that connect to the Abbey and then to the modern two-story gallery on the right the next is just sort of zooming into that main entrance um and the canopy that sticks out over the sidewalk to allow pedestrians to get out of a car be dropped off at that particular entrance the next uh page eight um is the uh perspective as you turn in off of Madison Avenue again you're sort of looking straight at the entrance to um the ABY now we we're calling the Center building sort of the main entrance only because that's where the drop off is but there are entrances to all three buildings The Abbey uh door uh the modern Gallery the two-story space there's an entrance there as well and then what we're calling the main entrance at the the drop off as far as the plans the the plans are very similar to what was presented before again just this gives you an idea proportion and scale how it's being scaled down this is the the basement plan um again very similar in size the next page um page 10 is without the overlay so the the existing Abbey basement is being used for back of house um so uh um staff member uh areas downstairs and any kind of small storage we're not there's no furniture storage but just um literature or material samples that sort of stuff will be used in that basement area um the general public will basically not be going down to that that basement area and then in in the twostory modern Gallery there is a small mechanical uh basement area and then the Elevator Shaft will partially go down as well and the stair Tower if I go if I sorry if I go back one there was uh a small basement area underneath the kitchen building uh which is no longer needed we go to page 11 again that's the overlay of the first floor just to give you some idea of how that works and then the functions on page 12 are basically the same the ABY on the left side will be Gallery space on the first floor um the uh center part is the main entrance leading to the wine bar that then leads to the uh restaurant and then the back of house the kitchen and staff and deliveries and so forth for the restaurant will happen in the building in the back and then on the right side is the modern gallery that first floor is all Gallery space um the next page 13 is the second floor and again there's no second floor to the middle building just the modern gallery has the second floor space that uh and obviously the uh Abby has the second floor Gallery spaces as well and at this point I'll point out that you know the portion of the Abbey that's being demolished uh will be taken back to where there's a little change in the width of the building um and we're going to reconstruct the bay window that was at the far side of the uh of that southern part that we're demoing repurposing the uh leaded in glass windows it'll be made of the same brick as the Abbey with the corner coins and the crenellations across the hoping um that's again that's just the second floor plan and then the roof plan um similar to the last uh last rendition some skylights in the middle building the middle building the uh the restaurant is all it's an all glass roof and then the other roofs are uh low slope flat roofs similar to the ABY um and then there are some screens on the roofs to screen any mechanical units that we have on the roof page 16 just gives you an idea of the front elevation uh the difference in Building height and how it's being scaled down uh for the front elevation and the the elevation that uh faces Canfield and I really think the when you look at that when you zoom into that front elevation and you're on the next page no I just uh correct 17 sorry when you zoom into that front elevation you can kind of see the the verticality of the proposed windows and again the proportion and scale the the we're trying to keep the roof line of the new building building down below the roof line of the existing ABY the materials again like I said the brick will be a complimentary color we're not going to match the brick of the Abbey we don't we don't want again we're trying to distinguish we're not trying to make a historic you know a exactly historic duplicate of the Abby at all so it's going to be more modern but it'll be a brick that'll complement the colors of the Abby and again a stone coping and stone Sills at the doors and the windows any questions yes I I have a couple of questions I want to go back to my question from before could you repeat again why we uh why you feel the need to remove the back Wing portion that was there's a couple reasons one is one it was very narrow and the other reason is that it was structurally not secure if you you whoever went in there it's it's barely standing up to be honest with you so to the cost to reconstruct it and then reconstruct it and have space that's not very usable was some of the decision- making into into removing that and and to open up the back uh Furniture garden with views towards towards that direction so it didn't feel so confined so you partially answered one of my other questions which has to do with the stained glass windows you said you were going to uh move the bay window in the back up to the end of the building that you are retaining yes are you losing any uh stained glass windows at all in that removal I'd have to double check there might be some smaller Windows there aren't a whole lot of Windows in that that West Wing especially I know facing the furniture Court there's not I'd have to go back and take a look at that um I will admit I have particular interest in making sure that we preserve any of those stained glass windows so if there's anything that has to be removed um I'd like us to follow up on uh how we're going to protect and retain those okay did you the glare that I call I think there was there something in the r yeah I just yeah and I just wanted to say that whatever conditions we agreed to with respect to the sting glass windows on the 22 approval we will abide I remember you were going to put them in storage which was something that made my here go on fire so um we don't want that uh we'd like to display if there's anything that comes down that I remember useful and can be displayed let's do so addition two in our 22 approval and and indeed uh Mr Slate along with the historic preservation uh uh uh commission uh are designated as not only making sure that everything that can remain does remain uh but everything that uh is removed is uh stored or preserved pursuant to their determination meaning our engineer and the historic preservation right okay and then finally I just uh when you look at the drawings it appears um that the buildings have been significantly scaled back which from an aesthetic standpoint is a positive and it appears to fit the lot better than what we had before I did a calcul on your square footage though it looks like you're you're still at 95% of the original square footage so is that is my calculation correct you went from 39730 to 37 926 are you talking about the footprint I'm talking about or the overall square footage called square foot of furniture showroom space so are you are you still at 95% even though aesthetically it looks much smaller I'm not sure what you mean by 95% so what what was approved previously on the square footage divided I divided um I divided the two numbers and came up with 95% the 37,000 was further reduced oh it was further reduced 36 CH oh 36799 right okay so what's the percentage of showroom space that you showroom space from the 39730 original to where you are now how much how much well I don't have the 31 so all the numbers I have were um for the showroom so the modern Gallery is is uh is 15 and the existing ABY is is was 15 so that's like 30 31,000 and now we're down to 10,000 and 99,900 so that's that's a that's yeah it's almost 10,000 square feet of reduction so I'm looking at letters that were received in December and November of 24 and looking at the numbers that are represented in those letters who who's the letter from it was um this pH Stonefield Stonefield John Cork and Matthew head it could be combining the restaurant in there Lind and that's the you were talking just about the furniture gallery well they referenced it as Furniture showroom space then and then uh kept the restaurant as a separate item I'm just curious to know where you ended up in the scaling of everything okay so Alinda when the planner comes up he's going to give you and because he's from snowfield so he can give you an explanation and clear with the numbers I'll hold my thoughts I I was I had the same question and I I brought it up before the meeting started and from what I understand the letter of December 23rd superseded the the letter of November 22nd is that right Mr Warner I believe that's correct but I believe again it's referring to 36799 of showroom space so maybe we should await the clarification if that is showroom and restaurant as opposed to just showroom we should wait and let the applicant clear it up for us I'm guessing I was guessing as to that being the answer but I don't want to guess and it's not for me yeah I'm sure the experts know I'm sure they do experts any other questions yes I would just say that the footprint changed from 43,000 to 20 almost 29,000 so that that's a 34% decrease in just the footprint the numbers I have so while while it's all fresh in our minds Miss Savage come on up why why belor this you want to explain you have a math problem yeah the 30 the 36 36799 that is the occupiable retail space for the purpose of that use so that is also inclusive of an exterior site Furnishings area that's approximately 7,000 so that's independent of the seats or the space at which the restaurant seats occupy it's independent of any of these backa house spaces he's mentioning and I will go so far go so far as to clarify I believe you're referencing a traffic um traffic statement dated November 22nd 2024 which has been replaced with a more recent version that clarifies that okay U Mis reference if you will thank you another question on the portion of the ruins um do I recall correctly that that extension that wing of the building was not a original that was added on that's my understanding okay so that is not actually part of the original structure of the ABY it was added on later and is somewhat different anyways as maybe falling apart and the there are some different detailing to and I think it was for um you know help quarters and so forth so not the quite the same level of detail as the rest of the building yeah thank you and that that's a that's a really good point because the reason why in the first iteration of the Redevelopment plan it was schedule for demolition is it was not part of the original building it did not fit with the historic nature of the the restoration we were doing so Mr chairman Mr Ben I seem to recall that on the previous drawings there was more of a parit on the new building I could be wrong about that and looking at the drawings it looks like we can see the the mechanical equipment on the roof and maybe a larger parit would hide that more your referring to which building the big one on the far right right the modern yeah um there I think there's about a 3-ft parit yes it's not very much but not well I think there was a 3ot parit now we now it's probably only like a one foot per we were trying to bring that scale down okay and then there's going to be a a visual screen of any mechanical unit so that's what sort of sh there'll be a screen Beyond what's showing on the on the drawings um they should the screen should be shown on the drawings is that the screen okay I can't tell page five shows them okay I couldn't tell was the screen of the or the equipment yeah again the screen here um there's actually a screen above the kitchen area as well and the rendering does they shows mechanical units here but if the units stick above the roof on the ABY there's also going to be a screen around those mechanical units but until we design those units that's to be determined okay I guess I just like the higher parit but I guess it is what it is that's fine any other questions board professionals question Mr Phils are you you weren't the architect on the original were you that's correct I was not and the amended plan neither no I was not okay are you familiar with the architecture on either what was originally approved or amended on the amended plan okay so it seems to and I'm doing this by recollection as well that the uh the architecture in terms of the in terms of this plan in terms of the design the massing the material treatment the penetration the proportionality seems to me to be relatively similar to what was recent most recently approved which was different than the original approval is that fair to say that's fair it say yes good um the uh we talked about the Mechanicals on the roof and you shown that and you do have I think you just indicated there is uh sort of an enclosure of screening on those Mechanicals on the rooftop correct that's correct okay um the what is that can you tell us what the height of the building is now the the twostory modern Gallery the top of the parit is 30 feet okay and what is it to the top of any of the mechanical screening because based on the Redevelopment plan that's how height is measured I assuming you're within the I think it's a 42 foot height standard so uh on top of the 30 ft is another possibly around well 3 foot n is on the drawing so another possible four feet okay so we're at 30 foot four 34 feet sorry 3 34 feet in total yeah for the for the for the two-story building right exactly okay and the ABY building we continue the existing height in terms of the Redevelopment plan what it that's the The Abbey was about I believe 30 39 feet I believe yeah can you turn to uh page 16 so the um and again I don't recall the prior plan I'm looking first at the North elevation which I think is the second one from the top and I noticed that there is a in the center there sort of a blank wall as opposed to where there's penetration on either end was that always that way you're talking about this section here yeah um I believe on the previous rendition behind the stairs leading up to the second floor right on the interior side of right there there was Windows full hey Windows yeah and you removed and we did remove that it was problematic with regard to how the stairs went up and where the landing kind of fell uh fell halfway between and there was a lot of concerns how do we detail that correctly to make it look right so it was hard to expose that from from the view from The View yes and then the I'm still on the North elevation all way to the the rear there's also that's like back a house for the restaurant yeah this is actually the uh the indoor um Refuge area looking in the storage room so there's no there's no back a house yeah yeah and then can you just go down to the uh west elevation as well okay yeah okay and then that that where there's sort of a a blank wall without fenestration that's back of house on the other on the correct yeah Okay cooking storage freezers I'm sorry yeah and was that always that way in terms of no treatment or articulation of epde it was yes okay and then above just above that that that's a screen wall right correct okay great that's and that one's again that parit is at yeah higher plus the grades lower there and then the the screen wall that that in particular might have to be an acoustic wall but that's to be determined at this point and and just to just to if I pull over this was the sort of redesign of that South Wing that we're taking off and moving that bay window in that location just I I meant to point that out earlier thank you that's all I have Mr chairman thank you Mr chairman yes to to Mr Philips question uh regarding those large expanses of blank wall um is there any way to soften that with some um landscaping or something that makes it a little more attractive than just this wall here is part of the furniture Garden um so there'll be planting and trees really in front you're not going to see that right okay the this blank wall I'd have to look I believe some I believe there's some plantings but not not as not as as intense as in the furniture Garden right yeah there are right the well that's true the parking lot trees will be you won't see it from Canfield because of the trees that are in the parking okay maybe the maybe the best thing to do is go back to the uh yeah I I would just look for ways to try to soften that the parents uh a bit somehow some way again well see now I'm calling myself a liar here because that the parking lot is here on this blank wall along the kitchen and that's The Refuge area this wall here in front of the stair there will be a hedge there will be there'll be these trees along that edge so that's probably not going to be that noticeable from especially as people drive by on Campfield and then on the back the the the service Drive is right up against the building there it's a little hard to soften that unless we do something more vertical with Landscaping well there's the BM and the trees planted along the back lot line there so yeah again from from the neighbors you shouldn't be able to see that well the neighbors won't see it because it's already locked yeah are you talking about potentially um adding some variation to the brick wall itself or just planning around it uh we tend to shy away from Big blank expenses of walls and all of our applications uh we did the same thing over at the marketplace um when we talked to the developer over there um and he requested some blank walls like that and we said don't really like that look and feel so I'm just throwing that out for some consideration maybe some discussion yeah like architecturally Shadow windows and Shadow doors and ways of making the brick appear so there's really a window there when there really knocked that sort of just DET to break it up a little bit okay does that sound okay yeah so we could we could certainly as a condition of this uh application um come up with a way to soften the blank walls subject to uh the planner's review thank you and just uh for my authorship of the resolution um the uh we're talking about uh the can we just briefly describe the two areas that particular that we're talking about building areas elevation wise okay um East Elevation and so it would be the it would be the backa house kitchen building it would be the it's going to be the we're calling it The the north wall and the South Wall of the kitchen building and then we'll call Gallery number uh the G the modern Gallery building the two-story building at the it'd be the north elevation at the stair Tower okay that gives me enough the long thank you for considering that kind of that's craing the wall I mean I I think I whatever solution I think the applicant and architect can come up with I think I mean Linda just pounced on my point when I was talking about the the blank walls anything that's you know reasonable to soften that uh I don't know what the right design solution is as I said here and I think you've indicated you want to take the time to do it right take take a look at it but anything's on the on the table to do that are there any questions from the public on this for this witness yep we have one entrance at 71 Canfield Road um that's the CAC to the south of the ABY um we are the neighbors who would be able to see that flank wall um and we'd also be grateful for more information about the trees that were supposed to be put there um my understanding is that at at least at one point perhaps of the last meeting that trees that were as tall as 30 ft to be put there which would go a long way helping um break up that wall from our perspective at least as well as prevents question of yes the question is could you uh talk a little bit more about the uh um the trees as well along the southern yeah well not this witness but um our planner coming up next he's our last witness and he can he can identify for you the trees and the areas you're asking about no other questions okay next witness we have one more witness it's U Mr Matthew seckler he is our planner he is also our traffic expert if there's any follow on uh questions is there regard to parking and traffic he wears many hats yes yes please so Mr seckler why don't you uh please give the board the benefit of your education training with an eye towards both traffic and planning certainly and again it's Matthew seckler that's SEC kle R I'm with Stonefield engineering design address's 92 Park Avenue Rutherford New Jersey a Bachelor of Science and civil engineering from Union College of a m in syney Regional planning from rucky University well a professional engineer professional planner in the state also recognized professional traffic operations engineer been accepted for this board and testified as a planner and traffic engineer on earlier portions of this application oh accept him please please continue so I'm just going to go back a couple slides here to the top down view so again uh I'll go into more of the planning discussion but obviously I'm here to answer any traffic questions that were uh that may come up again uh just briefly from a traffic perspective really no changes from an access management point of view we are still prohibiting the turns making a left turn out into Canfield so everyone coming out of the site on Canfield needs to make a right turn out of the site and as was mentioned we are leaving the dedication for the future realignment of Campfield Road uh to align with punch bowl across the street and you've heard from your engineer regarding you know a potential timeline or Improvement in that nature terms of the application before you uh and you've heard from a number of witnesses really we're seeing here is somewhat of a a um a downsize of the building on the site uh again obviously the existing building will be maintained as discussed by the engineer and the architect but essentially as it relates to the U new buildings and new structures on the site uh this is a lessening over what this board has previously approved you're still getting the uses that the board was looking for here I think it was important for the um AB for this site to be uh successful going forward that it was not just a restaurant or just a um or just a Furniture showroom I think it was important in being part of those Redevelopment discussions that you have this unique uh you know at least one of a kind for this area type of use although I know that this um user and tenant has you know had multiple very successful sites similar to this but bringing this type of use to this location was imperative in order to uh keep this make this site successful and keep this um uh site have it be a successful adaptive uh reuse project so again as it relates to um deviations from the Redevelopment plan you've heard a number of discussions here regarding the vast amount of deviations that were are unchanged as part of this project they relate to the signs Aton went through extensive amount of discussion on the signs but the key pieces all those deviations were previously approved as it relates to the location number size all that was previously approved there are some other uh deviations as it relates to this application um that are actually um uh somewhat being improved so I'll hit those um we previously had a deviation regarding the amount of parking spaces that were tandem now we have no tandem parking spaces so obviously that's an improvement by bringing something that was in non-compliance and actually eliminating the tandem stalls at all which again I think are an improvement as it relates to this application there are a couple of deviations uh that are I say technically changing I think you would uh uh we will put on the record that these are deviations that we're seeking although I guess uh it could be somewhat flexible your Redevelopment plan was very specific regarding square footages of certain uses within the building uh it discussed that the and building shall not exceed 44,000 Square fet um in terms of interior space which we still comply with but it's spelled out the amount of square footage that is to be reused for certain things such as the new modern Gallery size the existing G Gallery size the size of the restaurant the number of seats and all those things had plus or minus in the uh Redevelopment plan now I don't know what range plus or minus allows I don't know if that means plus or minus 10% 20% it doesn't discuss so just to be clear on the record we obviously are reducing the size of a number of those um um Square footages so just on the record we I would say would be seeking a deviation but again we are not exceeding we actually reducing that number of square footage so being less intense than was previously approved but we'll put on the record plus or minus is pretty vague we'll say we may do deviation in that case there's also a deviation as it relates to there was discussion about that valet parking because we had parking off site during peak time periods since valet parking is written into the Redevelopment plan and we no longer seek to use uh valet parking we again would seek a deviation again it's very technical I actually think again it's an improvement that people are not forced to valet park their car in parking spaces in other Lots or having to Tandem Park spaces on this slot so again while it is a new deviation that we do not have valet parking I think that is an improvement as it relates to this application one of the main changes as it relates to this application uh in terms of new or change deviations relates to parking fields that are located and I'm going to uh along the Campfield road which would be the right side of sheet four and along Madison Avenue which is um plan sheet down or the bottom facing uh Madison Avenue we did have parking in both of those areas but the parking spaces were not perpendicular they are parallel so we are seeking a deviation as it relates to that I want to speak to the fact that the parking spaces that we are proposing actually have further setbacks from the streets than the old parking spaces that were previously approved so our parking space setbacks are actually improved along Canfield Road and Madison Avenue they've just the space instead of being paralleled they're now more traditional perpendicular uh we also again are increasing that buffer along the residential neighbor to our rear again we had we were much closer to those uh to that site and in terms of our parking field and that's been vastly improved as part of this application although we did not have a deviation previously uh we are now 49.7 feet away from that nearby resident previously we're 10 feet away and that was what was permitted uh just to give you some numbers from Madison Avenue we were 60.4 feet to the closest parking space now we're 78.8 so again a significant Improvement in terms of uh parking space setback and along Canfield we were 5.4 SP feet where five was permitted now we're 6.9 so again it was always permitted to be where it was we've just increased that buffer now to mitigate that because typically when you uh think of uh the type of deviation in terms of not allowing let's say uh uh perpendicular parking uh facing a street or in a front yard one of the key aspects is the screening of those parking spaces when cars are pulling in or pulling out are you seeing headlight glare are you seeing those parking spaces I want to show this plan here this fourth sheet of the of the um uh exhibit that we had prepared to highlight the fact that on both cases we have extensive screening so you will not see the parking spaces even upon planting the planting of the vegetation along Canfield Road again would be above at uh at planting height the height of a vehicle so you would not see any of those vehicles that are parking within the perpendicular stalls along Canfield Road and in terms of Madison Avenue I want to highlight the fact that we have these hedge rows that are specifically designed and angled to block the parking spaces but not block that Center view of basically the Abbey and the the basically Center entrance so we've looked at making sure we didn't want to hide the ABY completely we didn't want to hide the site completely so we made sure we had clear line of sight at areas where there were no parking to be screened but in the areas where there were parking we've been able to design both hedge RS and obviously the decorative I guess walls that hold the the signs to the site to be able to mitigate uh that uh um line of sight to those parking spaces so overall I do think that what we have here before the board is a Improvement as relates to the plan before you again I do know having sat through the last uh goor rounds of this app there's always concerns about intensity and the type of uh site this would be and again we've reduced the square footage reduced the number of seats which I think is a real driver in terms of what you expect from the number of people coming to a restaurant again I don't know what the friendlies is up the road from this site but knowing having been in friendlies before they typically range between 60 and 100 seats and again we're in we're in like the 79 seat range so again in terms of the number people that could be sitting inside the restaurant portion it's pretty much akin to what you'd have at a friendlies although I imagine much better food Ambiance and experience I know but but I just wanted people understand that this is not like the new steakhouse in Marist toown that has seats Beyond seats Beyond seats that does sometimes lend you to have you know overflow or needs for overflow parking this being a restaurant of only 79 seat it's a fairly small siiz restaurant compared to what you kind of see in some of these um uh uh these areas so I wanted to highlight that in terms of that kind of friendlies uh comparison uh but again in viewing the application I believe these deviations uh can be granted because I do believe that the overall plan is being uh Advanced the overall purposes of planning is being Advanced as part of this application I do think again a number of improvements reducing the number of Tandem spaces to zero reducing the need for off-site parking increasing the buffer to the uh rear neighbor behind us and also reducing increasing the buffers along Canfield and mass and Avenue are vast improvements here and that tradeoff uh more than Ben more than out ways any negatives as it relates to the parking fields and the front yards along Madison Avenue and Canfield that are now perpendicular versus parallel spaces I do believe that we do meet purposes a which is po public health safety and Welfare purpose I which is advancing visual environment purpose J which is conservation of historic sites um which are all uh purposes of being advaned as part of this application I also do want to highlight that this application and I probably mentioned it the last two times I've testified in terms of the U uh planning proofs for this project but we do uh and remain consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Redevelopment plan which is preserve a historic structure in grounds that's important to the history of Mars Township and to by encouraging the appropriate reuse options which I think is still here we still have gallery and restaurant which is very important the ReUse of the site to transform through adaptive reuse of vacant historic property into a viable more productive retail commercial property they'll provide for an increase in the economic base uh for the Redevelopment plan area in the town which I think is being Advanced here and to improve Aesthetics on the property so I think all those items are being Advanced as part of this project I do not see any substantial negative impacts in terms of granting this deviations whether it's the existing deviations or the new ones and I do think the applicant has gone out of its way to mitigate any of those potential negative impacts by having those plantings and hedges that will screen those parking spaces that happen to be perpendicular in the front yards so overall I do believe this is an application uh that uh the deviations can be granted um similar to the previous versions of this uh this uh site plan thank you Mr any questions yeah Mr L I have a memo that was handed from they that's us that's our yes right yeah yeah he's with yeah Joe Fishinger out on vacation so John J I believe is the author of that so I just question the turns that come off of the site on standfield are restricted left on turn on right turn right right turn no prohibit left turn yeah so is that enforceable by the Mars n Police Department or is that just something that you have best you is that an ordinance that needs to be passed doesn't that have to become a law in order for the police to enforce it it would have to be included with uh I believe it's titled 39 yes so it would have to go in the ordinance if if that's the way it's going to be handled title 39 it is 39 yeah yeah title 39 gives the the police department uh authorization that's provided by the applicant for on-site uh circulation in on this is well but no but also Ingress and egress this would be egress uh in title n Authority we given ability to uh to control it uh our local police it's not I'd have to frankly double check if it has to be a separate ordinance or just giving them the authority give them the would do it wouldn't it be challengeable if it wasn't an ordinance person getting the ticket turn around and say it's not state law well it's not a matter of state law it's a matter of of of local La ordinance and the fact that it's per an approval with title 39 Authority subject candidly I'd have to double check I guess the point is is is uh in the event an ordinance were necessary uh the applicant would being Inc coming upon the applicant to make the request that the C committee for saying I don't know that one is candidly I don't know if applicants Council does off hand look at the plan I I believe the intersection needs to be listed in the ordinance and then that gives the title you please the ability to do the title 39 but that you're talking about the intersection of the site or or intersection specific site intersection site intersection okay so it's two they're both on c yeah my my concern is I just don't want to see those turns being made and then we find out there's really nothing we can do about right right and I know there's efforts to dissuade and signage Etc but title 39 would be provided correct yeah okay uh and then all I can say is to the extent necessary uh request would have to be made for uh uh the ordinance Amendment consistent with the approval given this is a Redevelopment project that started uh uh involved the governing body I would imagine but I can't predict that the governing body would be amenable if there is an approval uh so I take it the applicant would make the request as a condition absolutely yes limited to that issue to issue okay we have the applicant has stipulated and Council has gone along with it yes you can imagine if you give the council another shot at a Redevelopment plan no that's all I was y specific request only if necessary so second question Mr Warner if the six Monon review finds that there's not adequate parking would the applicant be able to use that area that was standon parking or would they have to come back to the planing board to get approval how to rectify that come back yeah that'd be they'd have to come back and and they should come back yeah you don't you want to know you want to know and you want to have some control over the way to mitigate any Undo You Know parking and again that's a uh at the six month just to be clear at the six month audit when it start duration of six months as I understand it yeah yeah it was not just a snapshot if you will you know what's what's going on that day no it's not that so it's an ex thank you extensive AIT my opinion I have a question and it's just like this is actually more for you now based on the civil engineers testimony I correct in finally maybe understanding is that the storm water management rules have changed since we approved the last one and there there's been some tweaks by and so it's it's a more stringent or better storm water management now than was approved if they if we didn't allow this for some reason and approve and they built to the old the original approval one the storm management system or plan would not be as robust as it is no that's correct okay thank you and I just want to clarify in terms of the parking uh study because I have the read velopment plan here it's required to be done on days selected by the township engineer on Friday Saturday and Sundays and it's there's 11 time periods that it's supposed to be studied on those days and then if it is there's an issue required to go before the planning board and it discusses possible remedies such as leasing off-site spaces potentially mbly owned Lots uh talks about a church During certain times obviously not Sunday uh during the day but again it discusses it right in the Redevelopment plan possible remedies and does require us to report back if there's an issue any other questions from you Mr Question uh I have a question about the planting buffer along the South uh border um if you look at the North elevation where that long blank wall is that we were talking about uh so there there'll be some perhaps changes to that wall but um in the absence of that what what can you say about the screening vegetation that will be along the border how tall it will be are from the are you referring to this wall or the wall that faces Canfield the one that faces the resident or one that faces wall that faces the spur of Canfield Road that goes behind the the ABY so this one here so again the way that the driveway is aligned if you're driving past and you peek into the site through the drive you're actually going to see kind of if you follow that drive you're actually going to see the the trees over here because the driveway is not perfect perfectly aligned it has that skew so you likely would not actually see that blank wall as you drive as you drive by because of the way that the entrance is skewed that said we definitely could work with the um landscape architect in terms of maybe some additional screening and I'm point to now this landscaped Island um that looks like it would be a perfect location to do some plantings that would potentially be able to screen um that blank wall uh right before you reach that back aisle of about 10 parking spaces I was worried more about the neighbors than I was about people driving in so so the neighbor the neighbors the neighbors have um screening along the back and again we've added obviously vegetation in the rear I do know I believe there and I think the neighbor had asked about it earlier I do believe there are two trees that have died in the rear of the site which will be replaced with new trees um upon planting season and how tall are those trees now how tall might they grow in a few years so before we do that gentlemen will ask a question can you just come up and Point again where your your lot is up on the screen so everybody know can you come up CU I want to make sure we know where you're L and you're really tall so here um our lot is um back here along this uh up I believe this is 73 which uh RH owns and then we're are 7 one on the other side got so the trees that will be repl placing the trees that have died back there will be planted at 20 ft and grow to about 40t what our Lance Arch advised that's a big tree they've been growing already okay thank youif will be planted will match the existing height we not I was assuming that but I should have asked yeah thanks any other questions from Lord yeah any board professionals yeah um I thought Matt you were G to be the lucky one who recile oh thank you I think Aton thankfully did most of it I just want to state that the traffic study specifically looked at the parking requirements and the parking requirements does exclude certain aspects of back of house kitchen things of that nature so when you look at the architectural plan square footage it's not going to match what the traffic engineer myself looked at from the parking standard so that's why that square footage likely differs than what was testified to in terms of the building I think what the board is looking for in terms of the reduction is simply interior square footage right how much on a square foot basis was previously approved and how much is now not withstanding that some of it is restaurant seating and some of it is Gallery space and and so forth because there's some misunderstanding about the amount of the or the level of the reduction and there was some issues with the numbers and it didn't sort of recile and maybe it's not you Matt but I just maybe somebody else no it was himot so that was if I may Mr chairman that was my question I'm I'm trying to get us a kind of a mental model if if you started out at 100% And then you scaled it down in 20 22 and now we're scaling it down again what is that what do that scale down look like relative to the 22 approval is it you know what percentage did it come down let me let me address that so um for the overall total square footage of the building in 2022 it's 51,6 155 sare ft the current plan is 3533 feed which is about a 32% reduction okay that's what I was looking for thank you that's what we're all that's the square foot of the architecture the build the building right basement first floor second floor okay thank you exterior which is why there's a discrepancy because the parking standard includes the outdoor spaces but not the kitchen and stuff like that so that's why the numbers are not going to line up 30% bu so Matt just quickly I want to make sure that we've got uh the new deviations yep okay this is not what was previously approved but this is what I have for the new deviations the perpendicular spaces where only a parallel were allowed both on Madison and on cville Madison you're taking away the valet which was part of the reason there was U parallel there in Canfield now you have more room to do a full parking Bay that's the logic there correct correct great I you discussed the square footages and you know the plus or minus in the Redevelopment plan I went back and looked at that most of that language is sort of permissive it talks about what's allowed what's a maximum what's permissive I'm not sure that a deviation is required there so I think you're you're fine there um you mentioned the technical DV ation that the valet has been removed uh the tandem I think was also just permissive so I'm not sure there was a deviation there the um their parking Bays now located along the frontages which is similar to what we just talked about both Madison and Campfield that's a technical deviation uh the there's a requirement and this was just based on the original concept that the new Gallery Wing be located at least 100 feet away from the ABY the close point of the a because you scaled back and brought everything in need here it's now like 75 ft correct and I I don't think I did mention that you're correct I think previously the new Wing was 104.7 feet now it's 75 again it's basically the Building Development got smaller and again you look at positives we able to to change that parking alignment we've incre we've increase the impervious coverage reduce the impervious coverage by more than two tennis courts on the site so there is a good trade-off I think in that and the only other thing I had is the from the what was either approved or in the plan was the I think the water feature the water fountains gone and that's now a deviation that was I think in the last version it was in the first version not in the second still out in the third okay because there was both a water wall feature and a fountain feature yeah there was a there used to be a fountain in the front but that I think the Redevelopment plan spoke about Canfield Road so I think I don't think that counted for our water feuture okay and that's all I have is the new DV are you consistent with that's consistent with what I have that's all I have Mr war or SL have you got anything before because it'll take St forever so no I'm done I have no questions oh okay you're up thank you uh in a nutshell because you you provided the detailed uh planning testimony with respect to all the deviations I understood them in a nutshell to be utilizing the C2 flexible C variant standards which are provided for in the Redevelopment plan because any of the deviations uh could be established by either the C1 undo hardship or the C2 flexible see benefit substantially outweighing the detriments these were all quote unquote c2s in your opinion yes these were C2 following Kaufman versus uh Warren Township uh I think would be the basis of of this application alternative correct okay thank you and um I don't know I'll direct it to you I guess uh is based on the testimony with respect to the potential number of employees and based on the parking configuration either as a professional planner a traffic engineer or perhaps uniquely suited not just particularly suited both uh would there be any utility in there being an encouragement for employees to park in any particular area or areas parking Fields I'll call them or parking areas yeah I think the desire would be most likely to have the employees Park in the spaces furth this from entrance so that's usually in the rear again we do kind of have some potential rear access but typically on the rear or the edge of the site would be the the preference and and there are roughly what about 20 or so spaces that would fall into that category uh approximately yes and there are roughly about 36 spaces that would be in each of the side yard parking Fields correct would there be any utility in picking uh on Peak employee days uh either of the side parking fields to join the rear parking field as a desired area for employee parking I note one is next to uh uh Canfield if I recall one is next immediately Jason to residential uh Lots yeah the if if there were to be obviously the one next to the residential lot you'd prefer to be employees because they have less turnover that said I would like there to be able to see the site operation to get an idea of really the true employee demand that drives I know specifically in the food service business a lot of the employees may not drive again you have pretty good decent bus service right here on Madison Avenue um and you know a lot of people make carpool as well um so again I I would hesitate to specifically call out spaces right now until we know what the employee base would be and understood I guess the only question I would have is would there be utility to guiding them toward the rear at least initially and then see how it plays out and then there's the audit coming up correct yes okay may and and that that could be a stipulation as well then we could include that in the parking audit okay thank you nothing further any question I do have a question as a followup to that is there I'm not sure to the extent of the um storm order management along the back where there was uh tandem stack parking but is there any benefit to is it possible to have a a bank parking area there in the event that some uh parking you know would be necessary or that study shows that uh you know the six Monon review shows that you know 10 spot spots are necessary and and if there was the ability to show that bank parking in that uh you know back lawn area you know back I'd have to work with the engineer regarding the storm water management aspects back there before I designed the fly but that does seem to be a possible alternative um you know like you said have a a safety factor in there let's say leave room for 10 spaces in case they're needed and if not no one knows the difference the Redevelopment plan lays out the process so technically if you change the process you have to amend the plan or seek a deviation the plan on the process I i' hate to put I don't know i' hate to put the parking spaces there banked with the stipulation that we have to put the parking there see what I'm saying if we have an issue I'd like the client to have the option of either renting an off-site lot or looking for some other option than having to put the parkk own site what's that rather than putting Park on own site so um in in the uh Court terminology I've been over rulle so it's fine you want to designate these as bank fcking now that's fine with us I apologize for but the maybe there the board professionals can there is a process uh and that needs to be followed number one and number two to the extent at least in my thinking please jump been for because I'm the last person talking about it but uh if if it is a potentially viable alternative that exists already perhaps it's best to allow the process to proceed the professionals to review it in connection with the audit the real circumstances on the ground make sure from a storm water management perspective and otherwise it's the best option and then you can if I understand correctly you know at that point you'd be coming back to the Bo and and maybe the answer would be hey uh uh uh uh that is the best option and and and that might be what happens but it gives everybody options and and an opportunity to review what is in fact the best alternative if it's necessary at the time I don't but that was my way of of giving my thoughts and giving uh handing it off to Paul I'm Excuse me I'm not clear on what we're talking about are you designating Bank parking now or you're saying when we do the review we're going to decide whether that's an option or not I was suggesting that yeah I suggest that we wait and see if there's an issue before we decide I hate to go against Jim but I mean the other thing is Jim and that there may be as pointed out by the witness there may be storm water issues there if they're using it for storm water but I think we have to see first whether there's a problem what's the extent of the problem and that may not solve the problem even there so TBD I think it's a TBD lay out parking and I'm just trying to simplify the process what we have spelled out is uncomplicated you know involved I I don't think the applicant can disagree with me but I don't think it's in the context of this Redevelopment plan the idiosyncratic nature of the use and the everyone knows parking is always an unknown but a a major concern as Mr aleso points out I don't think it's unreasonable or honorous to ask the applicant to do the study they've agreed to do it they come back with the results and then the the board and the applicant work out a a solution which may be beyond the tandem parking so why Bank it now is kind of my Mr BL has now been overruled fr's back in charge any any other questions yeah Mr Mr flowers Mr Jessie Mr Jesse yes uh so on the other side of that where we're talking about perhaps banking the spots but but we're not now where the STM water management area is Rh owns that property right there's there is there currently still a single family home there 73 C field yes so the home still stands is it okay to ask is it like what's what's the status of that what's the plan for it yeah certainly um our intent at some point in time will be to redevelop it and sell it okay that's fine that should be a different conversation I'm sorry we're gonna have a public comment portion so you can under make your comments I wasn't even sure if it was hear me who's talking we we we're we're g to have a public comment portion of these quasi judicial proceedings but they must follow the law that portion is not yet it will be shortly thank right now it's time for any questions of public of this witness okay seeing none um thank you Mr chairman this would you like to sum up your uh yeah I I I'll be very very brief oh I'm sorry I'm Sor oh I'm sorry I didn't see stop me it's not I was wondering about traffic on the Madison uh M I guess the main entrance was there any study done on how traffic in and out is going to impact this the Madison app traffic I'm asking because I live on Crescent I turned left out of Crescent to go get my daughter at daycare um particularly at rush hour like around like five o'clock there can be like some back it's never horrible but there can be some backup at the I guess it's the punch bow Canfield intersection do you guys do any reports on like how that is going to be impacted yes so we did reports during the last two portions of this application we also did an update as part of this portion of the application because everything got less the traffic levels that we studied previously that are being generated by the site will be reduced because the number of seats went down so you have less customers for the restaurant the square footage of the uh showrooms went down so you have less customers for the showroom so the traffic study previously and I'll give you the the quick synopsis um does support a full movement driveway along Madison Avenue that's supported by the dot so you can make left turns and right turns out but the key aspect here is that this application is providing a dedication on Canfield Road so Canfield and punch B could line up and the issue why you get traffic here a lot is the intersection because it's offset has what's called split phase timing which means Campfield goes and then punch field goes or vice versa they can't go at the same time so it leaves Madison Avenue with red lights for really long periods when they get realigned they'll run together so you'll be able to actually get more green time on Madison Avenue which will then help alleviate some of that so this kind of unlocks the key for that to happen I think Mr Slate spoke about the timeline or potential timelines that the police and the township are looking at coule comment okay now sorry just and I the the I would just want to make sure the uh Bri view engineering memo of January 13 2025 still warm the the the the um can you stipulate everything in there there are a couple items towards the end I noticed 7 and8 with respect to signage striping traffic controls I just wanted to have it clear on the record because if there's an approval it will be even the approval so yes we will we will we will agree okay thank you I'm sorry okay I think we all missed that one yeah yeah we still need public com I just wanted to make sure we got that s i' like to fell a chance to sum up and but we we still need public comment before his before the summation oh okay I'm sorry okay now is the time for public comment and anyone with a comment now this you need to swear them in right yes I'll swear them in each as they speak just so you know what when you make your public comment I swear you win just like I swar in the witnesses for the applicant because your public comment is every bit as important uh so I wanted to be testimony by I don't want the law requires it I also want but the law requires that we swear you in so that it has the same weight as all evidence provided by the applicant so that's why I'll do that when when you get to the podium each of you as you provide your comment thank you m so if you'll raise your right hand do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you and your name and address again for the record please um I just wanted wanted to say that uh we strongly support many aspects of this plan we think that the reduction in the size of the gallery in the restaurant are much more conducive to the size of the lot as well as the neighborhood as a whole um this includes the reconfigured parking the less impact on the rear yard neighborhoods is important to us um for both like noise and light fing purposes a quick note about our experience with the um with the trees so far so not that AP from this point too much um but my understanding was that the trees that would be planted would be 30 ft I'm not sure I'm not an arborous but I'm not sure the trees that are planted currently are deeping 20 ft right now um additionally although two are dead I think they're May more that are dying right now um from my second floor in my house I can see straight through to the canfields passing Avenue intersection whereas I think it's the trees were 20 ft that wouldn't be possible um so yeah we appreciate that the trees um would grow to E 40 ft but I want to seek some clarity as well I'll just share those observations so far um otherwise we look forward to um continuing to collaborate R and if I might be able to ask a question to perhaps help clarify for you I don't know if it's 20 30 ft or 20t on installation I'd candidly be surprised if it were 30 ft but but but nevertheless there is a maintenance obligation with respect to Landscaping uh uh uh for dead and disease trees Etc uh for a period of time isn't that correct Council for the applicant yes yes okay please raise your right hand do you swear to God or affirm testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you and again name and address for the record G 63 Canfield Road and the only thing I I wanted to bring up was when you talked about the Redevelopment of the property owned by RH which is right adjacent to the property that's residential neighborhood right next to the Sarah um but can that just be redeveloped as part of the property or is it no residential that property is outside the limits of this Redevelopment area but it's own by but that doesn't matter who owns it yeah I think the the confusion is that he said the word redeveloped and I think he was just saying rebuilding the house ROV renovate it yeah yeah yeah yeah no it's a no it's a good it's a good pickup sure yep good question yes yep uh yep you can give up thank you do you SAR God to affirm that testimony you're about to give as a truth the whole truth and nothing but truth I do thank you name address again please thank you and 47 I promise I'll make this quick um if you could just go sorry zoom out I had a couple questions again I'm new I wasn't here for most of the previous discussions so I appreciate um I was wondering why the trees stop they're only on the uh losing my directions the South Side how come they don't come along I guess the West Side what was the rationale for that was that ever consider well you could just say tell them so those trees uh I think it's just not coming through in the rendering uh those trees are existing and healthy today so it's just not coming through on the rendering but there are trees that that are filling this Gap right here adj these were right that um because one of the things I was thinking about there was discussion about I think the blank wall right here um I was having the same thoughts about the blank wall on the other side of the building which obviously faces my house and the house right next to me um so if there are like mitigations for that side of the building I wonder if they could also facing building for you we will do that and okay this is really but I just have to ask again you this little white box this guy it looks like on the plan which I was able to find thank you uh is a Transformer I know there was a noise study done but I'm not SCI is that thing gonna be rumbling and rocking all night long like what is that Transformer there any information available on that is that something that you know we're sitting in our backyard we can hear that thing kind of popping and crackling or was any research done on that I will say generally when a Transformer starts crackling and sparking time to fall the fire it shouldn't make that's why the sound ball they're look I can't speak transform although I would agree with Mr slave about calling the fire department it was but there is an the condition with respect to the occupancy noise audit is post occupancy noise audit so in other words hasn't occurred yet it will happen uh uh when there is uh when the property is if approved occupied uh so uh uh I suspect that that any noise coming from the Transformer if there is any would be included within it and there are standards provided by the State Department of Environmental Protection uh that they cannot exceed and that's how it's what against yeah and I would also note that um we spent a fortune on hedro with a sound attenuating fence in the middle of it yeah and so if if the I you know I we highly doubt you're ever going to hear that nonetheless you know we will have this post occupancy study and so if there's any issues there there we will certainly address it app just to ask yeah no no for sure yep you got it okay yes if there's no more public comment Mr chairman then yes we are at the point of summation by applicants Council um again I'll be very uh brief thank you board for your time this evening um as they say let's hope three times a charm here um this is the second amendment of this plan um you know sometimes things happen for a reason I it's a smaller project it's um we think um right sized for the site now um you know like things after covid retail Furniture everything went nuts so there were of course bigger plans more money Etc but this one actually it really worked out terrifically we think we were a to retain the design and the high uh the materials for this site we park it all on site you don't have issues of people running across the street valets that whole business now um we're avoiding um so we're very happy with the way um this amended site plan turned out um you heard the proofs for the deviations uh we believe they're well founded and I think if I speak for my client we're very excited to continue the work that's now just been started on the site and finally get this uh project to fruition so we all can enjoy it so thank you very much for your time this evening thank you Mr certainly Mr chairman I'm happy to try to te it Tee It Up as I always do and hopefully occasionally I succeed so this the what the board is seeking what the board what the applicant is seeking uh is as I have it and please correct me if I'm wrong amended preliminary and final major site plan approval and Redevelopment plan deviations the Redevelopment plan deviations I'm going to go from the notice that was provided and try to quickly go through that list and and I can be uh corrected where I'm wrong if anything's changed since uh I have modification of conditions of Prior approvals the ballet parking is now eliminated front yard building setback of 1182 feet from Madison Avenue whereas 11 18.8 ft was previously approved I think that's about a half foot uh and 120t is required by the plan uh building a bu parking setbacks approximately 11 perpendicular parking spaces between the building and Madison Avenue where only parallels are allowed uh building and yield parking setbacks approximately 38 perpendicular parking spaces between the building and Canfield Road where only parallels are uh permitted uh building in yield building yield indoor space approximately 11,993 square feet of retail gallery or showroom space where a total of approximately 14,000 ft of the existing Abbey is required to be repurposed for such use uh building and yield building yield indoor space proposed approximately 9,988 square feet of new modern Gallery space where a total of approximately 15,000 square feet spread across two floors of the new modern Gallery uh is required uh uh more indoor space deviation proposed approximately 2396 ft of restaurant uh and Associated wine bar space although technically it's not a wine bar anymore it's a service bar but uh in any event we're approximately 15,000 square feet of restaurant and Associated wine bar space uh containing a single story restaurant with thin indoor seating and food and beverage preparation space is required so those are deviations going back to the original plan uh as well uh parking requirements parking configuration proposed parking along the Madison Avenue and Canfield Street frontages whereas the plan required service parking shall be provided in parking bays located to the south and west of the building away from those bounding streets building design massing requiring that any new construction be separated at least 100 fet from all areas the remaining Abbey structure where the applicant is now proposing new construction approximately 75 ft not 100 ft from the remaining Abbey structure bear with me there's a few more uh building design materials requiring the use of trellises or canopies framing first level windows and doors particularly along hallways and other passages uh and used as armatures for climbing plants where the applicant is not proposing the use of these Divine Design Elements uh materials requiring that all facade lighting shall be by means of wallmounted sconces where the applicant is proposing facade lighting by other means uh outdoor patio Furnishings requiring that outdoor patio display areas ad joining restaurant shall be landscaped and furnished with high quality elements uh that create an inviting attractive space with valued sensory benefits all year round uh and shall include fountains sculptures jet water Etc um whereas the applicant is not proposing these design features or elements some of them I I'm uh noting were prev viously eliminated prior approvals uh outdoor patio Furnishings requiring that the installation of a water wall feature along Canfield Road Frontage not to see 16 feet in height uh where the applicant is not proposing to use this design feature again that was one that was previously eliminated as I recall by a prior approval uh outdoor patio Furnishings uh I'm sorry outdoor patio and related plantings requiring the installation of climbing vines on trellises and or walls of the new wings to soften the facades within the two outdoor display areas where the applicant is not proposing these Design Elements uh outdoor patio and related plantings requiring the installation of Mediterranean and similar species of fruit trees within the restaurant to create dappled shade a feeling of enclosure and an organic contrast to the architectural features within the two outdoor patio display areas where the applicant is not proposing these design features I have to say some of these uh uh terms I did not learn in law school uh fences and walls the applicant proposes pillars having a height of up to 9 feet 8 Ines along Madison Avenue and up to 7 feet N9 inches along Canfield why you're a lawyer the height of pillars is not specifically addressed by there's a lot of reasons why I'm a lawyer the height of and nothing else the height of pillars is not specifically addressed by the Redevelopment plan however the maximum permitted hyper walls along Madison Aven is 4T and can field 6 feet so the walls still exceed uh Monument signs proposes a total of six Restoration Hardware logo signs and a total of six structures whereas there was only one Monument sign permitted previously uh the width of the monument sign is a deviation uh uh they propos a monument sign having a dimension of 23 feet wide by six feet high at the corner of Madison Avenue and Canfield whereas the maximum permitted sign for Monument sign is six feet tall by 3.5 feet wide and 3.5 feet deep per the Redevelopment plan and finally he says uh entry signs uh proposing three entry signs same consisting of three pairs of Entry signs or six entry signs in total located at the front facade and two rear gates from the parking area to the rear Courtyard whereas four plaque style entry signs each sign not to exceed Four Square fet are permitted I hope you kept track of that because I don't think anybody wants me to repeat it those are the all of the deviations I don't think I missed anything did I uh uh applicants counsel or or planner I don't believe so thank you master excuse me um I didn't hear maybe I missed it the um followup action on any remove stained glass and the softening of the walls yeah no though I haven't got to the conditions yet oh okay yeah that that was literally just the items of relief deviations there were 19 deviations uh the conditions are uh as I have them are all prior conditions uh stipulated to and and from all prior approvals to the extent not inconsistent with this approval if there is appr an approval of course if there's a denial there's no conditions uh the um uh and that would include uh uh the salvaging ETC of the stained glass uh the post uh occupancy noise audit uh the post occup it's the uh parking audit that was discussed and all the other conditions of both approvals uh in addition we have a few new stipulated two conditions of approval those being as follows um the uh Madison Avenue curbing I think that might have been a condition or an original site plan requirement but nevertheless uh it's stipulated to uh We've also have stipulations uh the softening of the back walls the two walls and now the three walls uh that uh require softening by virtue of a lack perhaps of fenestration uh on those walls um I have North and South wall and then the the wall that was described by the member of the public that was stipulated to uh those three sub uh subject to the review and approval bear with me uh I don't know why I don't have it here but uh I believe it oh yeah here it is I had it first subject to the review and approval of our our planner um as I anticipated uh and think we also have the title 39 uh ongoing obligation as well as to the extent necessary uh if an an ordinance is amendment is required to include uh the intersection of the two Canfield egress points uh with the subject property uh or the intersection with Canfield Road uh to the extent uh uh an amendment to our ordinance is required uh the applicant will request same strictly limited to the uh left turn prohibition from both ESS points um as well as uh guidance to the employees to park uh in the rear parking lot uh and that is all I have but I'm open to whatever I guidance to where the EV charging stations can be found uh oh will there be guidance to signage Ada oh they there'll be an an an ADA EV space yes one of the EV spaces must be an ADA space I'm just talking about a small little sign that that somebody can be directed to where they can find Park that dictates where you can find EV Park you'll s to that that will be a uh EV parking directional sign will also be stabil too I just have a question is that really necessary because in in the EVS don't they tell you where the Chargers are yeah like don't the car tells you where to go the car is smart tell you where they a little bit signage is not always good I don't know no you're right the cars as an owner of EV I don't think it's necessary can can I just refer to excuse me uh Bri view engineering I don't think we need another it number take it back four oh no item number five says based on the parking table and the amended plan the site provides 108 total parking spaces inclusive of 48a parking spaces and there are also four readymade EV parking spaces inclusive of 18a readymade EV so already they said it's already there right that's yeah the yeah the the no right view engineering said it's already in the plan right right they I think they got it right I think you got stipulation it's already the plan yeah I did not see that I for that yeah I looked for it I didn't see it that's why I asked the question on the I understand what's in the report right right on the plan right yeah they that we'll have as a condition so they make sure okay uh that one of the EV spaces is indeed an ADA EV space even though that's the intention so suspenders requ a charger there we'll all show up with a belt and susp so and just for clarification we uh are not uh accepting thank you never nevertheless the stipulation for Ev parking directional signage as I understand it right uh IEM miss anything applicant all those conditions were stipulated to yes sir thank you hopefully uh we're ready for the board to deliberate and vote question yes Mr Warner Mr Warner if this application supposed was not to be approved then the bounce back is to the last application that was approved I'm going to let applicants Council weigh in even though I believe I know the answer this is why we having discussion yeah yes I'm sorry is there a motion I move for approval real quick the curbing you said Madison Avenue but I think it's both Madison and Canfield right well shown onfield already had it already has it yeah yeah the concern was Madison because apparently wasn't on the plan so we wanted to make sure okay thank you Mr chairman I move for approval with all the laundry list of stipulations and I'll second that with a laundry list of conditions stipulations any quick comments before we had a quick comment chairman as everyone knows I've voted against this twice um I think the site is still um too small for the size of the project I believe there'll be a parking issue but based on the fact that they've greatly improved it I take back uh my objections strong okay yeah I I agree I think there's a lot of improvement in it uh architecturally and practically and everything else I'm I'm kind of pleased to see how it's turned out and hope that it continues um come back again yeah no please don't come back again please do not come back again I don't mind coming back we have a uh a motion and a second um can you call the rooll Mr Alo yes yes flowers yes rabbit yes and best of luck Miss Mercy yes I'm I'm gonna visit the bar in the restaurant no there's no have a wi yes I'm going to walk there yes yes yes thank you very much thanks thank you thank you members of the public thank you very much um it's not on the agenda but before we move on is there a comment from the public unrelated to the specific application but yes but it but it's in the plan the question was because he didn't see the curbing on Madison Avenue but the curbing is in the plan to be installed as part of the thank you thank you uh any anything reports from the legislative committee no no need for a closed session at this time I make a motion we is there a second second all in favor I was