Um, we're going to start our zoning sub for 8:30. Wait for some people to show up. It's 8:40. Um, in attendance today, we have our our township manager Jack Hashmat, our deputy mayor, Karen Morgan, our planner, Golden.
Um our our redevelopment attorney Mike Ash over to a second. Uh is anyone um anyone else? Good. And of course our our MI director of MIS Andrew um okay um so with that said uh this is a
public meeting for now. If Mr. Attorney believe that it should be closed if there's any negotiations or any legal matters just please let us know. Okay, >> we'll do. >> So, please go ahead and tell us why we're here. Tell us what you need. We've already read the memo from our planner and we're ready to uh discuss or
reviews. >> Sure. There there are two matters listed on the agenda. Uh the first one um had to do with the project known as the mark. Um there's an amended site plan application that was filed for block
6002 lot 3. That is the second phase of the project. Uh in reviewing the amended site plan application, our planner reviewed for consistency with the redevelopment plan. Uh there was one item that was found to be uh
questionable as whether it's consistent or inconsistent. Um and as detailed in that memo, it was the requirement for a midblock crossing which was on page 16 of the redevelopment plan. and the requirement specifically that a publicly
accessible walkway shall be provided to serve as a midblock pedestrian pathway within one or both sideyard setback areas. Uh review of the amended site plan application, it was unclear whether or not this was going to be provided in
phase 2. Um we did discuss with the applicant's attorney and they have advised that they will revise plans so that they will comply. Uh so there's there's no decision that this subcommittee needs to make on that matter at this time.
So, we'll move along on the agenda uh to the second listed item uh and that's 189 the plaza. And this applicant is uh proposing to revise the concept for the project. There is a
redevelopment agreement in place. There is a financial agreement in place and there is site plan approval. Uh we did meet with the applicant and their professionals uh back on uh January 7th to discuss what revisions to the plan uh
may consist of. Those proposed revisions were also reviewed by uh our planner and the findings of that initial review are in the topology memo dated February 26.
I believe the applicant is here with the professionals uh to discuss these items and to confirm consistency with the redevelopment plan um or not or whether there is uh an intent to comply. >> Okay. So let's hear from you just for
the record. >> Sure. Um good good morning everybody. Uh Jason Tu attorney for um Solomon uh builders the uh developer here the redeveloper here. So, I guess I was planning on addressing two issues, I guess, at this meeting. One was I was going to have Mr. Vogle just explain
where he is in the process of the redevelopment um of the site as I know we asked for an extension on the agreement. So, I can have him come up and kind of give you a status of where we are. Um I did get Gold's memo um two days ago. We did, just because of timing, we didn't have a chance to go
through it as a team, but I I read it and basically to sum it up, there's a couple items that she needs us to um confirm as to whether or not we're going to comply with. In my mind, they're they're pretty minor things. They really deal with more architectural guidelines
and features. Nothing has to really do with setbacks, coverages, building height, parking, the things that you would typically be concerned about. Um she also determined in the memo that um you know these none of these items would rise to a level of a of a devariance meaning that has nothing to do with 10%
of the height use anything like that but there might be some deviations that we would need from the planning board if we didn't comply um with the items that you flagged that were inconsistent um with the redevelopment plan. So, Gold, I actually thought it might be helpful. Jack Raker from Mininoasco is on Zoom.
May maybe you can mention the couple items that you wanted us to confirm or were inconsistent and then I could have Jack go through the updated plans, address those, and then after that, Jonathan can explain where he is with just the site from a business perspective. Is that okay? >> Sure.
>> Okay. Uh >> just before Golden Talks, it is on if you if you open it. No, that's off now. >> Um and I believe I see Deputy Mayor Denise Belchure on Zoom as well. >> Um I think she's on mute,
but well, we'll see if she has any questions. I see her hand up, but why don't you continue and then we'll go back to her if need be. >> Sure. And I just want to give a caveat. you know, we just we just have floor plans. So, I'm making some presumptions right now. Um it's been informed, I think, at the last zoning subcommittee that you're not changing height or the
physical civil plans >> look of the structure. Correct. >> You know, we're going to eventually look at that, too. So, this is just kind of on a presumption on the materials at the moment. >> Yeah. >> Um so, what we determined is that the second floor in the redevelopment plan in the parking garages, they want
screening. It's usually to the intent is because you don't want to look at cars in screening either because it's a a lobby in the way or some kind of >> some kind of use like a lounge something that makes it so you don't really look at cars through the parking garage. So there is a car that there's some cars
you can see. Um >> so I think that's just like a redesign of your internal garage. Then the redevelopment plan speaks to private terraces on the eastern lot line requiring them. Um, so just looking at the floor plan, you can clearly see
they're not there. Uh, and then items to confirm. These are more about like labeling some dimensions. Uh, requirements of garage entrances being 30 ft. Transparencies, you know, when you're removing the uh
terraces, it probably will change it. It will change how the elevations look. So there's just other things that are going to be regulated on the elevations that I think as you flesh it out just put those details on the plan. >> Yeah. And I mean we could I could talk about it more as we proceed with the plans, but I don't think a plan
amendment would be necessary for just not having terraces. We just would probably eliminate them and ask for the deviation. To me, going through that process might be uh but if we have to amend the redevelopment agreement anyway, then maybe we just do it. But if that's really the only deviation that you found, obviously subject to
reviewing full plans and and so on so forth, I think we would just probably go back to the planning board and just ask for that deviation. >> Right. So I bring it to the attention here because I can't really make the decisions. >> Yeah. I'm just com I'm just give >> what you're saying is if we find it dimminimous, we move on. If it's not,
you'll if sorry. If you find it it needs to be changed, you're just going to drop it. If there's other stuff you have to go back to the planning board anyways, then you'll go for it. >> Is that what you just did I summarize? >> Yeah. What I what I basically said was saying was if the if the council after evaluating it feels that something is really like an important change they
would have to amend the redevelopment plan. If we felt that like for example just not having private terraces was something dimminimous not really material to the project we would just go to to the planning board amend the site plan and ask for the deviation and see if the planning board would be willing to grant that deviation.
>> So it seems like you're >> but again that would be up to the council is what they want to say. >> So what are you looking for us now? I don't think I think it's ultimist. That's just my personal opinion. And most importantly, I think the most important thing we need to know about this project is when is the ground breaking? It's literally all we need to
know. That is the most that is the non-deminous matter right now. When is the ground breaking? >> Yeah. I think um do you want >> need another extension? >> Right. Yeah. Did you want Jack Jack, did you see did you hear the um the comments that Gold had just those couple comments regarding screening of the um of the
parking garage and all that? Is would that be something we could address in final plans? Yeah, I I don't think that's a problem. The question I would have is we do have parking up against um uh you know exposed wall. If we had fenestration
there that didn't allow you to see the garage, the cars, would that be okay or do we need a separate use between that exterior wall and the parking? >> He was a little muffled. Are you Did you catch that? Can you translate what he
said? Oh, he said that um there are some cars that are exposed. He said, "Do you need to put like a separate screen there?" Right, Jack? Is that what you said? >> Yeah. Yeah. Can we just use fenestration like windows >> versus screening? >> Rather than guessing, give me a moment. I'm just going to read verbatim the
redevelopment plan. Sure. >> Let me just find it in the redevelopment plan. >> I'm not a certified translator, by the way. Just saying. >> Let's see. Let's see. Along the second floor facing the plaza frontage, at least 40% of parking spaces shall be
located behind active uses. The remainder of parking spaces may extend to the facade. I don't know if we define active uses, but I believe if you read the paragraph before, the intent numbs like lobbies, utility rooms,
essentially to not see the cars. >> Is this the second floor you're asking for this? It says second floor along the second floor basing the plaza frontage. At least 40% of the parking spaces shall be located behind active uses. The remainder of the parking spaces may
extend to the facade. >> Oh, so you know what you actually could if you look we we just revised the plans. We have put some active uses along that. I'm not sure we're quite at 40%. Um but we're probably pretty close mid30s. Let's take a look at page 19 of
the red development plan. >> I think the answer is we could address it. >> I think the answer is we could address it. If there is a deviation, it would probably be dimminimous or small and we could deal with it at the planning board. >> So, do you want you want me to have Jonathan come up and just go through
where he is in the process or >> No, I'm that Deputy Mayor Belchure. >> Oh, sure. Sure. >> And that's on Zoom, right? >> Deputy Mayor Belchure. Sorry, you're >> Do you have any comments on this? >> Yeah, sorry. >> Okay. Uh, Deputy Mayor Belchure, do you
have any comments on this before? Uh, >> yeah. I I've been uh just um just wondering like um how much of a change is and I know you're you're kicking it to the planning board. Um is this uh change in terms of the balconies. Um I'm
just wondering um from our planners perspective what what is your comments on how much of a change this would recommend uh and and what recommendations would would you have? >> So from my planning perspective um you
know out outdoor space is probably what the intent was um but there is still I believe public terraces. It's just these are private. >> Yeah, >> this is an elimination of like very specific unit private balconies. >> Jack, do you want to share your screen and just indicate where where those
where those are eliminated and to Gold's point where the public space or amenities are? >> Sure. We haven't eliminated um balcony. So, every unit gets a balcony. So, I'm I'm There must been just a misreading of the of the way the plan was shown.
>> Can you Is he able to share a screen? >> Yeah, I'm going to share my screen. >> Okay. Just give me a second here. Okay. So um the ground floor the first two levels are garage but where the units are the first level of units
these are all private terraces along this edge and then at the other edge we have an amenity terrace and then along the plaza we have two terraces and along
uh state street we have uh another terrace. So all of the units get terraces and as you go up I believe I understand why we should have shown maybe a line across here. Every unit gets a private terrace.
>> Okay. And then Jack, what was eliminated just to be clear? >> So I believe in the original design the terrace ran the full uh depth all the way across um at every level and they were larger
terraces for every unit. >> Okay. So decrease the size of the unit. >> Okay. >> All right. So, we could label that a little bit better, but that I think that clarifies the issue a little bit better. Do you have any update to the elevations, Jack, that you could show? >> Well, we we've generated elevations.
They are progress. We are working through them and I have not reviewed them against the redevelopment plan. We did design. >> That's okay. >> I'll present them. >> Yeah, that's okay. >> Go back to that screen. There we go. Thank Please, please, could we please build this? This is like
>> All right. And obviously once you once you finalize it, we'll send it to Golda so she could do an evaluation of it. >> And maybe in the context of the community, the parking lot's never going to be the same. >> All right. And then
>> this is the plaza elevation. >> Right. So that that second floor is the area that Gold was mentioning requires the screening, right? >> Right. Well, it requires active uses. So, >> yeah, to screen the parking, >> we have an active use right here and we
have an active use. I'm just going to highlight these areas and then I'll I'll try to highlight them a little bit better. We have an active use here. Make that a little thicker. I don't know if you could see my the boxes I've drawn.
>> Okay, we just got to get that to 40%. And if it's a little bit less, we'll just we'll discuss whether we just go for a deviation. >> Is that you? >> That's the plaza, I guess. The Yeah. Yeah. The park is >> the plaza elevation. Yes. >> Yeah.
>> And those are windows like what is the let's say you don't hit the 40%. Is it still screened by grills or some kind of >> These will likely be some type of decorative screening. Um, these will definitely be windows in the
red highlighted area. Um, the center portion might just be some type of screening that match the same has the same rhythm and and and grill work. >> Okay. >> And then you can see the lobby at the at
the first floor. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I'll take you to the next elevation. We do have you want to see the grade change. >> What? >> So we do have terraces
at these areas. >> State Street. No, that's >> No, this is this is >> that would be Palisade Avenue almost, right? Palis Avenue. Got it. >> Yeah, you won't see this is where the grade change happens. To the right is the plaza. To the left is State Street.
>> Got it. Looks great. Okay. Um, do we want to move on to extend you after design? Yeah. >> Do we talk about what the next extension steps are? Is that the next >> Yeah, I mean we have the Mike, we have the 90 days, correct? >> Correct. >> Um, we need obviously we're going to
need longer um if we have to, you know, finalize this plan. So, I just wanted Jonathan just to give you can you give an update just on where you are? >> Sure. >> Okay. So, come on. >> Sure. >> Hard hats. Just the hard hats. >> All right. So, uh, so we've been working
and and, uh, >> state your name just put >> Jonathan Vogle. Uh since our last meeting uh we've had meetings almost every day with uh with different different groups with equity groups uh that expressed interest um builders and
GC's and also uh marketing and leasing companies uh and as well as you know running our own informal for focus groups and and what what amenities uh just to refine it and working with uh Jack at Minowasa
uh at his office is um to refine and give us the best the the best plan. Just refine the numbers uh and um and work on the the equity and debt and to get this thing built. We know we want to stick a shovel in the ground as soon as
possible. Um and we know the town wants that as well and we are we're working towards it uh as feverishly. We're working as as quickly as we can and we're happy to give as many updates as possible. Uh uh I'm excited and I'm
proud of the work that Minowas is doing and uh and all of us uh Stephen especially. Um and uh yeah, looking forward to just continuing to get it done. >> So what what's are you asking for timewise?
Tom was I I think that um we should I I think give us a little bit one more update and then we'll we'll be able to give you the the timing. >> Well, right now you have the time for that. >> We have Yeah, we have the we got the 90 days. Um maybe we meet again with the
zoning subcommittee, you know, I don't want two weeks. >> We'll talk about that when we're done. We'll talk about a few >> because I do think these these very periodic updates are important for everybody. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, if we're done with 189, we'll go on to next meeting situation. Are we done with 189? I don't want to rush him. Um,
okay. So, Deputy Mayor Belchure and um I guess Golda and Karen, we have two >> I do. I do. Yeah. Uh if you're asking for questions on 189. >> Oh, sure. Sure. Go. >> I I just wanted to know um um from uh the developer, I know he's doing due
diligence in terms of analysis. Um my question is has analysis been done in terms of a consideration of resales for this development? Uh we all know that we
are looking to to have a a balance of um rentals and resale units within our community and I'm just wanting to know if he could share what type of resale analysis that he has done because it
looks like I mean having individual condominiums where we could have homeowners paying the township um property taxes versus um you any other way of looking at it. Um, has
that analysis been done? >> Deputy Mayor Belure, uh, thank you for that question. Uh, we we uh we we have been looking at that. I'll I'll tell you um the uh the ability because the uh cost of
building each one of these units uh is is what it is. It's it's high. Um and the the the if if we were to to res resell the entire building, um the the highest comps for selling an entire
building. I'm not saying this would this is the plan. This is not the plan, but that it would be $600,000 per per unit is like the high mark of what these sell for now. Um for to buy the entire building for a rental building. Correct.
Um, and uh, our cost is substantially even higher than that. So, it's not something we'd be able to build and and sell the entire thing. What you're asking specifically is uh, have we looked into the condo route? So, um, we
have um really I if um, in order to to get the the the issue with with condos is that we would be really like the first ones to do it. there aren't comps that uh have been sold at at a high
enough number to make sense. Uh our the closest comp to it are those terrace circle apartments that sell for for less than half of what it would cost for us to to actually build these. Um so it's not a good business plan. However,
however, there is a group of uh of people that have already um sought me out and had said, "Well, if you build condos, we would love to do it. We'd love to to be first uh to to buy them." So, we're we are running the analysis
and we would do that. Um and I think that um I'll give you a further uh update. Um the what's really going to help us make that decision is whether or not the uh the eventual uh equity partner that we bring in wants to do
that. And if we did condo um we wouldn't go we wouldn't be able to go all in on the entire building being condo. It's it's just way too big of a risk and we wouldn't be able to get the financing for it. So instead, it would kind of be
like a uh a hybrid where you we we sell we sell the amount of condos that we can rent the rest of the units and then sell them as condos over time. Uh so that's something that we're we're looking into. Obviously, it's more of a complex
analysis, but um something we would consider. >> Sean, I'm I'm going to interrupt. >> I don't know if you have any followup questions. um if you could please get us the report because it's something that that Deputy Mayor Belchure really cares about. Um and I actually understand exactly what she's saying. She's going
to talk about the National Association of Real Realtors which discuss how um condo ownership is better for the community and we all know it is that said and I'd love to be the condos there and I bought my first condo on State Street in 19 December 1995. um one of the people that you were
looking to speak with reached out to us and met with me um the Evergreen developers and they were interested in purchasing the site for condos and they pencled it out to $1 million per and then they said there's no market for that. What I think that the deputy mayor
wants to see is do the analysis, do that report so then she can sit there and say, "Okay, community, it's something we tried. A million is not palatable and let's move on." But right now in most people, maybe her and many people I know will never fathom that $1 million
number. They'll be like, "What do you mean? I could go to Fort Lee. It's less." But so if we can just I don't want to say put it to rest because it's an important conversation, but just get a two-pager on it so we can say here it is. To which many people would be like, "Okay, how much is the rent?" So >> I think what Jonathan's saying is we're
not he's actually not um dismissing that yet. and that it's a possibility that a condo aspect could be in this building, but he he needs to run the numbers and if >> produce the numbers, not even two major report and and if it and if it was actually beneficial to the project, even if it was a hybrid, like we just said,
we'd have to change we'd have to talk to Michael and the township about changing the the pilot structure, >> but the first step is the the report. >> Yeah. >> And and and uh Mr. Mayor, let me just just underscore this and and I I certainly would entertain I think a hybrid um uh you know example of uh a
compare and contrast is what what we're looking for for all of our projects. In other words, we may say that rentals are the uh better financially for individual residents wanting to live there. However, we don't know what we don't
know. And we know something once a developer comes and says, "We've done the analysis. This is what it would cost to for condos. This is what it would cost for rentals." And of course, from the perspective of not just his financials, but the from the perspective
of also um what would what it would cost the residents. So that that's all I'm asking. I'm not just asking for 189. Um I'm asking for the all of our projects. we should have that analysis so that we have we can clearly say that we've done
our due diligence in terms of uh the development. >> Okay. Excellent. Um okay. So now that's the 189. Let's pivot to two other matters. And this is uh Mike, you requested um a meeting on 54 West
Anglewood for next week while I have two other council people here. Um is that did you get the the dates needed or do we have a date on that yet? Um, we don't have a date on that yet. >> Okay. Um, I'm available. Deputy Mayor
Belchure, are you are you available? >> Is she on mute? I can't see. She's on You're on mute. Okay, we'll wait for um Deputy Mayor. >> Uh, yes, I'm here. I'm here. Sorry about that. Can get off. Uh so yeah, I'll make
myself available. Uh yes, 100%. Um I I think later in the week is better for me. Um you know, Thursday, Friday kind of. >> All right. >> Excellent. >> I I can't make it till 8:30 Thursday night. >> That works for me. Anytime works for me. I'll make it happen. So, and Friday,
you're available. >> Friday, I'm available all day till about 4:00. >> Excellent. Okay. So, we have those. Next step, um we have got Easter, Passover, Ramadan finishing up. If we could just look at our calendars, whoever is here for the next subzoning committee, a few new items and if we could just look at
our calendars. Um, and I were thinking Passover ends in Easter. Um, like the 13th. Are we looking for the 17th or 24th? Is the 17th too early for you or >> I can do 24.
>> 24th. Go to 24. Deputy Mayor 24. April 24. >> Yeah, that works. >> Perfect. So, let's do April 24th. We'll we'll firm that up and we'll work toward those goals. And if you have anything else for that you want to present back then, let me know. >> We'll if we have stuff ahead of time,
we'll forward it to Mike and Gold so she can evaluate and share with you. >> Perfect. Um Okay, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yes. Um, if we can just look at our calendars again, uh, and maybe consider the council meeting schedule, that way
we can have another subcommittee meeting, uh, understand what this project needs to move forward. >> Are are you saying in after the 24th? Is that what you're asking for? >> I'm I'm saying maybe we have this next subcommittee meeting before the 2. >> Correct.
before >> so that we have a a council meeting before the 90-day extension times out >> when Okay. So, we have a council meeting on the 28th of April. What are we >> do we have a 90-day? What's a 90-day? >> That that that would take us through to
the the 28th. >> So, so you're saying we're fine? >> Yeah. >> Quick question. >> Uh Mike, Mr. Ash, uh are we presenting are you asking this because we're this is going to go before the entire uh you know, council. All of our colleagues will hear this, right? >> Correct.
>> Okay. All right. >> Yeah. And let me let me let me let me clarify that a little bit. Um so right now the applicant is working on concepts for an amended site plan. Uh they have a
a an existing approval. They have a redevelopment agreement. They have a financial agreement. So the next step what we have been extending since December there was one extension through the end of January. The end of January there was a 90-day extension. Uh the
next decision for the full council will be terms on an amended redevelopment agreement with this new revised project. Okay. So, so the 28th works because it's after our 24th, right? So, you're good
now. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, if there's nothing else and then we have nothing else on our agenda, uh, we'll close. We're good. We're good. Good. Deputy mayor, we're good. Everyone good? Okay. Good.
>> Yes. >> Yes, I'm good. Good. >> Okay. Meetings adjourned. Thank you very much. Um,