mean a salute to the flag. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty, justice for all. >> Cam, could we have a sunshine announcement please? >> Yes, chairman. Um, good evening everyone. Today is Tuesday, October 28th in the year 2025. And this is a Jersey City Planning Board meeting with a scheduled 5:30 p.m. start time and in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. Notice of this meeting has been given to the editor of the Bergen Record, LSPito, and posted with the city clerk on October 17th of this year. This meeting was also posted on the Jersey City Division of City Planning web page, and all distribution materials made available to the board were published and made available to the public. >> All right. Thank you, Cam. Could we have a roll call, please? >> Yes. Acting vice chair Gangadan >> here. >> Commissioner Wick >> here. >> Commissioner Torres >> here. >> Commissioner Lewis, >> present. >> Commissioner Patel >> here. >> And Chairman Langston >> here. >> Okay, we have six commissioners present. We have a quorum. >> Thank you. >> Uh, could we swear in the staff, please, Mike? >> I see Joe Mattim tonight. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. All right. Thank you, Cam. Do we have correspondence? >> Yes, chairman. Um, under new business, item 17, case P2024-0219. Um, this is on page nine, by the way. So, item 17, case P2024-0219. Address is 115 GS or Giles. Uh, preliminary and final major site plan. They've requested to carry with preservation of notice to December 9th. Um then going all the way to page 12, item 26, uh case P2024-0206, preliminary and final major site plan. Address is 373 Communal Avenue. They've requested carry with preservation of notice to December 9th of this year. Um, and then item 28, that's case P2025-000091. It's a minor site plan. Address is 69 Lake Street. They've requested a carry with preservation of notice to December 9th of this year. And then the very last item on the agenda, item 29, case P2025-0130 for a preliminary final major site plan. address is 626 Communip. They've requested carry with preservation of notice to December 9th of this year. And that concludes all of the correspondence I received today for requests to carry. Um, also for the record, uh, we've marked into evidence the sunshine announcement as B1. >> Okay. Thank you, Kim. So, anybody from the public, if you're here for any of those items that were just called out, they will not be heard tonight. You will not receive new notice. We just verified their notice. So, you will not receive new notice. They will be heard on December 9th. Um, so before we get into any other business, uh, I am going to move up our last three items. I'm going to start with item 30, 31, and then 32. So, we're going to start off with the board attorney contract for the year 2026. Cam, do we have anything to read into the record first or no? Um so the planning department did a um solicitation of qualifications um and we received um applications and the application that we went with was for Mr. Santo Lampy and with Precision Reporting Services. Um, we have reviewed their contracts and we submit them to you tonight. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Anybody? >> No. >> All right, Kim. We're going to vote on these separately, right? >> Yes. Okay. Uh, is anybody here from the public that wants to comment? Anyone from public? >> Chair, see no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion made and seconded. Public is closed. So let's start with uh board attorneys contract first. Cam >> I'm sorry. We have to make the motion. >> Chair like to make a motion to approve the board attorney contract sent to lamp and awarded as presented by the planning board. >> Second. >> Okay. On a motion to approve vice chair Gangaden. >> I. >> Commissioner Wick. >> I. >> Commissioner Torres. Um, I just want to just say though appreciate your help all the time. You really um guide us and uh you kind of open up to let us see so I can make a really good decision for what's good for Jersey City. And um I appreciate your efforts with us and the board and what you do. And with that, I vote I. >> Commissioner Lewis, >> Commissioner Patel, >> hi. >> And Chairman Langston. >> Yes. So, I want to echo what Commissioner Torres is. It's it's beyond words what Santo means to this board and to this city. Um, still a perfect record, I believe, in lawsuits. So, >> it's true. So, just for the public, just think about how much money that saves the city in, uh, dotting the eyes and crossing the tees with Santo. So, uh, I I can't recommend them enough and, uh, it's an easy eye for me. >> Thanks everybody. >> Thank you, Santo. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Thank you for all the work you do for us. You make us shine throughout this board >> and be on behalf of the planning department, we are all extremely grateful for the guidance you provide us. means a lot. Thank you everybody. >> Okay, so we >> for precision. >> At this time I would like to make a motion to approve precision reporting contract for approval. >> Okay, we have a motion. Do I have a second? Okay, motion and second. >> Acting vice chair Gangadan. >> I thank you guys so much for all the work you do. >> Commissioner Wick. >> Yes. Thank you so much. Easy. I >> Commissioner Torres >> Mike, you know it's an easy eye for me because your city when we have a long one, you stay there and you plug it longer and you really give it your all. And with that, I vote I >> Commissioner Lewis. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> And Chairman Langston. >> Yeah, Mike. I It's again, same as Santo, it's beyond words what what you do for this board. And uh I don't know how you do it, but you actually make us sound smart in the uh in the record. Um I I don't know how you keep track of everyone talking over each other. It's amazing to me. But uh easy eye for me. Thank you. Thank you for everything you do for us. >> Motion carries. All in favor. And on behalf of the planning department, thank you so much, Mike, for everything you and your family does for the city. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. So, uh, let's move on to the annual planning board reorg. Uh, Cam, I'd like to start with, um, secretary, correct? We'll do that first. >> Okay. >> All right. So, I'd like to nominate uh Cameron Black and Ben Jordan as planning board secretaries, co- secretaries, deputy secretaries, whatever you want. >> He's been deputized. >> All right. Second. >> Okay. We have a motion in a second. Um, any other nominations? Any other nominations? >> No. >> Okay. >> It doesn't look like it now. >> So, motion to close uh nominations, please. >> Second. >> Okay. Can we have a roll call, please? >> Okay. On a motion to approve. Acting Vice Chair Gangaden. >> I. >> Commissioner Wick. >> Great to work. >> Oh, thank you, Commissioner Wick. >> I. >> Commissioner Torres. >> It's a I thank you for answering my phone calls every time I call you. >> Thank you for calling me. Um, Commissioner Lewis, >> some more of that. >> Hi. >> Yeah, Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> And Chairman Langston. >> Yeah, Cam. Same as Eddie. You answer the answer the call anytime we need you. Um, I know it's a tough job. It's a thankless job. You're here every night until the end, beginning to end, and we appreciate it. Um, so it's an easy eye for me. >> Thank you. And I'm a bit biased, but you guys are the best board. >> Thank you. Thanks. Uh, okay. So, for vice chair, uh although he's not here tonight, I'd like to nominate uh vice chair Gonzalez. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion and second for Gonzalez. Uh do we have any other nominations? >> No. >> No. >> No. >> Okay. So, we need a motion to close uh nominations. >> Second. >> Okay. So, uh Cam, do we have a roll call, please, for Dr. Gonzalez? >> Yes. Uh Acting Vice Chair Gangadan, >> I. >> Commissioner Wick, >> I. Commissioner Torres. >> It's another another one that I just don't know how he does it and how he balances it, but he's really been there for Judge City. With that, I vote I. >> Commissioner Lewis, >> I. >> Commissioner Patel, >> I. >> And Chairman Langston. >> Um, it's an I. I'll save my comments to >> when he is here. >> Yeah. >> Motion carries. All in favor. Okay. So, uh, all right. Let's move on to chairman now. I would like to make a motion to nominate uh Christopher Langston, our current chair for the chair for the planning board. >> Second. >> All right. A motion and second. Do we have any other nominations? >> No. >> Okay. Could I have a motion to close nominations? >> Motion to close. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded. Cam, roll call, please. >> Acting Vice Chair Gangadan. >> Chris, thank you so much for all you do for us here. Um, I have filling into your shoe a couple times and I know it's quite difficult, so hats off to you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I, >> Commissioner Wick, >> I'm new to this board, but thanks for all your guidance thus far. Um, I >> Commissioner Torres >> Chris, you know, um, last year and I still stand by it, you are officially a lifelong member of Jersey City in my book. >> Born and raised now. >> Born and raised here in Jersey City, buddy. Um, too bad you're in the Heights. You weren't from my neighborhood, but that's okay. Um, and with that, I vote a big I >> Commissioner Lewis. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> And Chairman Langston. >> Uh, I'm going to abstain. And thank you everybody. I appreciate >> you guys. You, uh, you make it easy. >> Motion carries. Five in favor, one abstension. >> Okay. Um, >> and on behalf of the planning department again, um, you're an incredible leader, Chris, and we all really appreciate the way you've managed the board. >> Thank you. >> All right, maybe we can get some items done tonight now that that's over with. >> Uh, actually, yeah, we do have to do the meeting calendar. Where is that? That's at the end. Unprepared. Okay. Hey, could we have the review and discussion of the 2026 uh planning board meeting calendar also? Uh has everybody had a chance to review? Obviously, we're going to have personal conflicts along the way. Uh we're not going to make every meeting, but any questions? Anybody have any major concerns? >> No. >> Okay. All right. I'll entertain a motion then. public. >> Um, >> I don't think we do public for that, right Santo? >> No, this is a board >> motion to approve the review and discussion of the 2026 planning board meeting calendar. >> Second. >> All right. Motion made and seconded for approval. >> Acting Vice Chair Gungardan. >> I, >> Commissioner Wick, >> I. >> Commissioner Torres, >> hi. >> Commissioner Lewis, >> I. >> Commissioner Patel, >> hi. and chairman likes. I >> I'd like to thank the uh calendar for everything it does for us. Um yeah, it's uh I >> Okay, motion carries. All in favor. >> Okay. Thank you. So uh okay, let's get to the adjourn the adjournments. Um A through I and let's get right into new business. uh review and discussion of certified artist Jason Everspeaker and Steven Olwek. Uh formal action may be taken tonight. Um, so the artist certification board has deemed the two applicants to satisfy criteria 1 through five, deeming them certified artists in Jersey City, making them eligible for the artists housing and um, planning staff reviewed the applications, agrees, and would recommend approval. >> All right. Thank you, Cam. Any questions? Anyone? >> No. >> No. >> Okay. Okay. Is there anybody from public that wants to comment? Anyone from public? >> Chair, see no one from public. I would like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> All right. Motion made and seconded. Um, okay. Could we have a motion, please? >> I'd like to make a motion to approve the discussion of the artist as presented by the planning board for approval. >> Second. >> All right. Motion made and seconded. >> Okay. >> Acting vice chair Gangadan. >> I. >> Commissioner Wick. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Torres. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Lewis. Hi, >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> And Chairman Lang. >> Hi. >> Okay. Motion carries. All in favor? >> All right. Thank you. Let's call item nine is case P25-02000. Uh the municipal ordinance amendment. Uh it's a review and discussion of amendments to chapter 187 inclus inclusionary zoning ordinance uh regarding converted hotel units. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh commissioners. Uh this item has already been introduced before the municipal council under ordinance 25-108. Um and uh this is an item that would not amend the LDO but uh chapter 187 of um the municipal code. Uh and posted to the portal was uh um was the language that went to city council. Uh that language has some yellow highlights. It includes the addition of a a definition uh for chapter 187-2 for converted hotel units which means that which is defined as such uh that portion of a proposed or existing development which seeks to convert or change hotel units to residential units in accordance with the provisions herein the Jersey City land development ordinance or any applicable redevelopment plan. And then further down under applicability and exemptions uh in this same chapter of the municipal code, it lays out uh how developments which include or permit a hotel component um also known as a converted hotel unit component shall comply with the affordable housing set aside and other requirements of this chapter. This chapter being the inclusionary zoning chapter. It lays out how developments and redevelopment plan uh with a residential component existing or proposed uh may uh may request or obtain residential units in excess of the maximum dwelling units per acre and only then would they be able to uh apply uh converted hotels uh hotel units to increase that residential density. By doing so, uh the ICO would apply to those converted hotel units in a development such as that um at 10 or 15% depending on where it is located in the city and pursuant to the map that's adopted in the uh alongside the ICO. There's also the ability for uh a re redevelopment plan project that is utilizing a commercial use bonus or office space bonus, something similar that permits uh hotel units or hotel uses on those floors. Also utilizing this converted hotel provision. Um, this would not trigger a D1 or D5 as it's written in this ordinance and would have jurisdiction before the planning board unless there's some other alternate uh Dvarian uh requested. Uh, and then lastly, the affordable housing set aside paragraph is updated to uh refer to this converted hotel unit language. Um and it just rounds out uh the addition of that definition and and the provisions therein. Uh this uh is sent to the planning board because it's related to development of buildings and and land uses. Um it is I guess for all intents and purposes a zoning ordinance or adjacent to um and looking at this language uh city planning referred to several recommendations in the master plan to confirm that there is uh that it is consistent with the master plan. The recommendation to ensure the city's available housing is balanced and meets the needs of all current and future city residents. recommendation to advance and support policies and programs that create a diversity of housing options and programs such as increasing permitted housing densities, establishing subsidies and provisions for affordable housing development as well as uh the the broadbased uh recommendation at the time that the master plan was adopted to adopt an inclusionary zoning ordinance which would address affordability requirements in new residential developments. Uh staff recommends approval. >> Okay. Thanks, Matt. Uh any questions? Anyone? >> No. >> Okay. Is there anybody here from the public that wants to comment? Anyone from public? >> Chair, see no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded. We have uh planning staff's uh recommendations. So, I'll entertain a motion. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve KP25-02000 as presented to the board. >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second for approval. >> Acting Chair Gangadan, >> I. >> Commissioner Wick, >> I. >> Commissioner Torres, >> I. >> Commissioner Lewis, >> I. >> Commissioner Patel, >> I. >> And Chairman Langston. Yeah, I do uh agree with staff that um there's no detriment to the master plan and uh my vote is I do to forward it to city council with a positive uh recommendation. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Okay. Thank you. Let's call item 10 is case P2025-0193 is a redevelopment plan amendment uh brought by uh Bright Street Partners LLC. Council, good evening. Always a pleasure. Good evening, C. Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Oswin Nadley and I'll be representing Bright Street Partners this evening. Uh, I have with me the client, uh, Mr. Dave Castalano and, uh, I will just be taking brief testimony. from with that I'll have sworn in. >> Yeah, that's not on. >> There you Oh, there we go. Yeah. >> David Castellano. >> C A S T E L L A N O. >> All right. Thank you, sir. Council, uh, you're presenting a fact witness, correct? >> Uh, that's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. >> Uh, Mr. Castellano, are you and your wife the owners of 16 Bride Street? And as such, you're the applicants uh that are requesting amendments to the Bright Street redevelop plan. Tonight >> we are my wife and I own the property under the name Bright Street Partners LLC. >> Okay. What is the amendment you seek to make on the Bride Street redevelopment plan? >> Uh to amend the to amend the uh permitted use in zone 3 um residential infill of the plan to include retail sales and services. >> And how long have you owned the property? >> Five years. Uh can you briefly describe the property at 16 Bride Street? >> The property consists of two rental uh units up above uh and on the ground floor. There's a small ground floor commercial space approximately 1100 ft. >> Uh please tell the board your profession. >> I'm a realtor working for Odell Forno Real Estate and also I'm a musician. >> Okay. How long have you been a realtor? >> Uh five years. And as a realtor, are you familiar with the market in the downtown area of Jersey City and especially within the vicinity of Bright Street where your properties located? >> Yes, I've done numerous deals um over the five years. >> Okay. Please tell the board about your leasing experience and history with the property. We previously leased a first floor commercial space to a realy office but after uh they vacated in 2024. Uh we have had difficulty in leasing such a small space. Um all the possible interest interested tenants or um are retail businesses who have expressed interest. None uh none are medical offices or professional office business which are the only permitted uses in zone 3 of the plan. As a realtor, is it fair to say that there's increasing demand for retail uses in the area? >> Yes. >> Okay. What steps have you and your wife taken to engage the community's support for your proposed amendment? So, on March 18th of 2025, we made a presentation to the Van Bource Neighborhood Association uh to inquire if they could support our amendment to include retail sales sales and services in zone 3 of the plan as we had a possible tenant, a tailoring shop, and um and we inquired as to what retail uses they would like to see in the neighborhood. Uh, what was the feedback you and your wife received when you presented your proposal? >> Our proposed amendment was favorably received and supported by the Vanvor Neighborhood Association. Uh, they even authored an email to the planning office indicating their support provided planning and the local councilmen supported this amendment. >> Are you aware of any other support you received for your proposed amendment? >> Yes. Um, you as our attorney contacted Councilman Gilmore's office to request their written support for our amendment and you advised his office was supportive. Additionally, recently the Historic Preservation Commission on October 20th, 20 of 2025 voted unanimously to recommend the amendment to the to the Bright Street redevelopment plan. >> I have nothing further for this witness. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the board? >> No. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Is there anybody here from public that wants to comment? Anyone from public? >> Sure. >> See no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Matt, do you have anything you want to add? Any concerns? >> Um, no concerns. So, planning staff undertook a consistency review of this amendment request. Um, so this amendment was actually introduced um as an ordinance in first reading by city council at their September 17th meeting if I recall correctly. Um um and um was as Mr. um Mr. Hadley's W client. I'm sorry I missed your name. >> Castano. >> As Mr. Castellano said um this was heard by the Historic Preservation Commission at their October 20th meeting um because um this redevelopment plan partially lies within the Vanvor Park historic district um where they reviewed it for compatibility with the historic preservation principles and the character of the district. They voted favorably. Um and you know this amendment in question um specifically amends accessory uses that are allowed in zone 3 residential infill which is primarily around well just that infill housing providing contextual housing that fits the typologies that are existing in the neighborhood. Um, however, um, as many know, much of downtown is very floodprone and, uh, modern new housing, you're not allowed to have residential space below base flood elevation. And so, what have would have traditionally been a basement apartment in most traditional older brownstones and the like in this neighborhood has to be non-residential space. Um, this was previously accounted for via allowing um, as accessory uses professional office and medical office in this area. Um but as Mr. Castellano stated um you know market conditions have proven that type of space is hard to fill with office. Um you know the type of smallcale retail sales, retail services and cafes that this amendment would allow as accessory uses so not principal uses. It has to be colllocated with a primary principal use which in this district is residential. um would be um it's very typical of the older neighborhood forms you see and the comingling of um of neighborhood housing and smallcale retail um to allow a greater array of services. Um so planning staff found this amendment advances um a key goal the master plan to provide for 15minute cities and neighborhood cores while recognizing and proposing promoting the richness of the historic assets in the city. Um you know embedding the retail within the residential neighborhoods decreases automobile dependency promotes the development of a diversified economy and creates a stronger sense of place. all um direct master plan goals that are being advanced here. Um and I'd like to just clarify. So I mentioned aside from retail sales and services, cafes is a proposed use but not category 1 or category 2 restaurants. Um cafes are a lower impact use defined in our municipal land use law by the absence of a dedicated kitchen um and the absence of um like sit-down like dining with waiters and waitresses and the like. Um so um that smaller scale cafe use which was a requested addition by planning staff. Um the applicant initially only requested retail sales and services but we added cafes as an equivalent compatible use just for flexibility reasons. um fits that goal for that smallcale neighborhood level basic need retail that's appropriate for embedding within residential neighborhoods as opposed to on commercial corridors. And with that, um staff recommends a finding of consistency and a recommendation of the city council for approval. >> All right. Thank you, Matt. Um just a quick question on the cafe definition. >> Certainly. >> So, no kitchens are allowed. Is cooking allowed though on site? So you can have a a small griddle >> that doesn't require ventilation. Correct. >> Yes. So you can do microwaving, you can do like a small little George Foreman grill type. Yeah. But you can't do a full ventilated kitchen the likes of which um is associated with a restaurant category one or restaurant category 2 use. >> Okay. >> And so you're looking at sandwiches, snacks. Mhm. >> Um but no, no one's installing a uh a full-on deep fryer or a big uh one of those big gas ovens or anything that would create um smoke or other potential nuisances that might not be um welcome embedded directly within residential housing. >> Is there anything allowed outside? So, say there's a backyard that they have access to. Are they allowed to grill out there or something like that? Um, no. No, not as of right. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Matt? Anybody? >> No. >> All right. I'll entertain a motion then. >> Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve KP2025-0193, which is the proposed amendment to the Bright Street redevelopment plan amending allowed accessory use in zone 3 residential infill and forward to city council for um adoption for approval. >> Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval to city council. >> Um, Vice Chair Gangadan, >> I. >> Commissioner Wick, >> I. >> Commissioner Torres, >> I. >> Commissioner Lewis, >> I. >> Commissioner Patel, >> I. >> And Chair Langston. >> Yeah, I do believe it's a positive use. Um, I don't think there's any detriment to the master plan and uh I'd like to vote I and give it a positive uh recommendation to city council. >> Motion carries. All in favor? Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Good evening, folks. >> Thank you. All right. Let's move on to item 11 is case P2024-000092 is a redevelopment plan amendment. Uh applicant is WA Golf Company LLC. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Substituting for Neans McCann, Robert Vertoello from the law firm of Connell Foley. Uh this is a uh a uh proposal for a plan amendment. the description that's listed in the um u agenda is is accurate. Effectively, what's going on here is there's a reconfiguration of um permitted uh uses and spaces. Um I do have one witness here this evening, Charles Height from Dresnner Robin, uh just to give the consistency um testimony as far as consistency with the master plan. Um the important point here is there's no addition of density or change in that respect. um whether with regards to residential unites or units andor parking um all the uh limits are staying the same. Um again the main change here is um anticipating changes that are coming down the road with the uh base uh with the flood hazard rules. Um there were some um uh what we were describing as mid-rise villas that were part of the plan. those are being effectively replaced by um two towers um of lower height than what's permitted behind uh those towers. Uh we think it's a more efficient use of the space and with the upcoming change in the rules, we think that it'll um it'll be more uh attractive for development and make for overall better development project. Um we did submit uh pursuant to request from staff uh uh maps that showed the before and after uh as you'll probably note from looking at those um um submitted uh documents there really it's almost difficult to discern what the changes are uh because again the there were six um towers that were permitted. We still have six towers really the substitution is in the uh the villas um and on that um I'll turn it over to uh Mr. height uh just to uh go over um the technical aspects of the proposed amendment. >> Okay. Thank you, council. >> I do. >> Yes. Charles Height. Last name is spelled H E Y Dt. >> And Mr. Height, if you could just state your background experience for the record. >> Yes. >> That's okay. We've qualified Mr. Height before. Your license is current though tonight. >> It is current. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Yeah. So, I'll jump right in. Uh as Mr. Verto has said, we are really trying to anticipate some of the rule changes for waterfront development. Uh really just the redistribution and change in type of residential from the uh midrise to some of the tower on a base which is actually more suitable for waterfront development given the flood hazard area. Um what my testimony today will really be about is the consistency with the master plan. So our office did do that uh analysis. Um we did submit it to the board as part of the application along with the proposed amendments. Uh first and foremost the uh proposed amendments as Mr. Verto said do stay within the overall capacity tables that are a part of the redevelopment plan. Those really actually help us confirm that uh there's no increases. So um the plan does currently allow for 2,320,000 square ft of gross residential floor area. That is not increasing. uh as well as the dwelling units at 2015. Again, this is spread out across uh across six towers. Uh and that is not increasing. Um what uh what is being proposed are the changes in the overall number of um floors across the different towers. Uh there is no increase in building height. The plan requirement actually does require a varied tower height. uh and the orientation of those towers have changed to address the storm water uh the waterfront development rules. Uh we did do a vision a view corridor study um to confirm that the proposed location of those towers um do advance the scenic um visuals from the area um along the waterfront. So I think that was that was also appropriately addressed. In terms of the goals of the redevelopment plan, I will just cite a few for the board tonight. We did do a full study uh and it's included in the the memo, but um the improvement of the functional functional and physical layout of the project area for contemplated new development and the removal of impediments to land disposition. Again, the proposed amendment allows for the reconfiguration of the overall concepts um to to improve the uh waterfront location and still accomplish the mix of uses including retail, residential, and waterfront waterfront plazas. Um in terms of uh the other aspects of the the um redevelopment plan, we are still providing uh the overall improvement of traffic circulation. Uh two specific items here. Uh we are still able to accomplish uh the uh separation of the vehicular circulation as well as that ret uh that retail uh plaza area uh at different um levels of the overall project. And uh as we shift to the master plan itself, um two of the vision goals that I just wanted to call out. Uh one, increase flexibility of programmable space. Uh part of this um uh amendment does allow to uh reprogram that plaza area with uh with some some of the retail. Uh so that's an improvement uh given its location along the waterfront. Uh and then lastly uh I do think that we're advancing the climate resiliency goal too uh to create uh the adoption for the city for increased resiliency. Again, this is forward planning to implement the waterfront development rules. Uh given that the Hudson River is a a titally influenced body, um the proposed amendments do allow for it to meet those state regulations. So, um, again, that's a a quick summary of the critical points in terms of consistency. Um, we're within the overall, um, requirements of the permitted density, permitted unit count, and gross square footage of of re residential for the redevelopment plan. Um, that's really all I have. If the board has any specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them. >> Okay. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Height? >> No. >> All right. And Eddie? >> No, I'm good. Okay. Um Matt, reading staff report, do you need any other testimony from Mr. Height at this point? >> Um staff had just one short request on just um just commenting on potential light and air impacts on adjacent um properties both positive and negative um including you know Liberty Spark, the Hudson Waterfront Walkway and the like. Just to um just to really sort of button ourselves up and make sure those were contemplated here. >> Yes. So I I did reference u the uh visual impact study there. It was really more about scenic views. Um the massing of the overall towers are required to have variable heights. So there's not a set requirement um in terms of maximum or minimum. Each tower has a se separate set of requirements. I think that helps create a little bit of diversity uh and does allow for light and air to enter this overall development as well as the adjacent properties. you know, we're right at the north end of um the golf course itself. Um but uh also um the waterfront development rules do require that buildings be perpendicular to the waterfront to allow for light and air to access and and come in off off the river. So uh we're able to accomplish that as well with this reconfiguration. >> Good. Satisfied now? >> No further questions right now. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, council. Anything else? >> Uh, no. That uh completes our uh presentation. >> Okay. Thank you. Is anybody here from public that wants to comment? Anyone from public? >> Chair see no one from public. I would like to close. >> Um, as set forth on the uh agenda, it's uh 100 Kevin Point Road. >> Okay. Anybody else from public? >> See no one from public. I would like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded. public is closed. Matt, do we uh need any more testimony from you? >> Um, no. I mean, Mr. Height uh provided a very detailed consistency report. Um, you know, I think there's always, um, a little bit of caution to be taken when you're talking about, um, you know, a large amount of development close to a natural resource, but, um, this plan doesn't necessarily um, endanger that resource. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, Matt. Chair would like to make a motion to approve KP 2024-000092 which is a redevelopment plan amendment. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion made and seconded. >> Vice Chair Gangadan. >> I. >> Commissioner Wick. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Torres. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Lewis. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> And Chair Langston. >> Yeah. I think there's no detriment to the master plan and uh I think it definitely advances the goals and objectives. So uh my vote is I. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you councel. >> Let's get into old business. Item A is case P2025-0192 is a site plan extension for 85 Storms Avenue. >> Good evening, council. >> Good evening uh chairman and commissioners. Tom Lean uh of Connell Foley here on behalf of the applicant. Uh this is an extension. I did notice for it though it's not required. Uh this is posted on the portal but I will give a copy to council. Chairman since Mr. Lean did go through the trouble of doing the notice I will take a look at it. It is not required as it is an extension of a prior approval, but it does appear to be the same one that was posted to the portal. We're going to mark it as A1 for purpose of the record. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you. Uh I do have two extensions on here tonight. They're both from the same developer, so the reason is going to be very uh similar for both extensions. Uh just to give a little background, this was an approval for a five-story 23 unit building with six parking spaces in the NC zone. It was as of right. We did not ask for any variances. Uh the approval was obtained back in 2022. My client ran into a little bit of financial difficulty around that time and was unable to obtain financing for this or the project afterwards. uh they do have a new partner involved and uh they were going in to go for permitting when they realized that the uh the approval had essentially um lapsed back in 2024. Uh so though we are asking for uh two years this evening to bring it to 2026, it is our first request for an extension on this development. >> Council, why don't you just explain when it expired and when it's being extended? >> It expired back on July 12th of uh 2024. It will if it's the two-year request is granted tonight, it will extend it to July 12th of 2026. >> Okay. Thank you, council. So, we got to go back a year and a half to pick up six months going forward. >> That is correct. Yes. >> Okay. >> Can't believe we voted another year for you and your math is that bad. Um, >> that's why my bills are so low, council. >> Okay. Any questions from the board? >> No. No. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you, council. Is there anybody from the public that wants to comment on this application? Anyone from public? >> Chair, see no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Cam, do you have any uh anything you want to add? >> Just asking that you agree to all the conditions from the original approval in the resolution. >> That is acceptable. >> Okay. >> Okay. Planning staff recommends approval. >> All right. Thank you. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve KP2025-0192 as presented to the board together with staff recommendation and all conditions. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval. >> Acting Vice Chair Gongadin, >> I. >> Commissioner Wick, >> I. >> Commissioner Torres, >> hi. >> Commissioner Lewis, >> I. >> Commissioner Patel, >> hi. >> And Chairman Langston, >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor with conditions. >> All right. Thank you. Let's call case P2025-0195 is a site plan extension for 833 to 835 Pavon Avenue. >> Again, for the record, Tom Lean of Connell Foley here on behalf of the applicant. Uh again, I did notice for this application there was a deviation involved previously, so I do tend to notice for those extensions. >> Thank you, Mr. Lean. Chairman, I did have the opportunity to review this notice as well. It did appear on the portal. This does appear to be the original of that notice. Proof of publication and mailing. We're going to mark it as A1 for purpose of the record. >> Thank you, council. Uh so again, same developer. Uh this is 833 to 835 Pavonia Avenue. We are in zone 4 of the Journal Square redevelopment plan. Uh this was an approval for five stories with 26 units. The one deviation we did uh request that was approved uh was the depth of the building above the first floor as it relates to um uh to the uh distance from the right of way. Uh it did not exceed 5,000 square feet. So we did not trigger the uh the ICO. Similar situation to uh to the prior request. Uh my client now has a partner on board who's going to work to develop uh this property with them. Um this uh was um memorialized in dece on December 13th of 2022 which would have brought us to December 13th of 2024. I am asking for two years just because by the time the resolution is done here we're going to be into late November. So that's not going to give them a lot of time to move forward. So we are asking that for the two-year extension which would bring us to December 13th of 2026. >> Okay. Any questions? Anyone? >> No. >> No. See, you were granted a two-year extension already. >> No, this is also the first time we are asking for a Yeah. >> Okay. A 13month. >> Yeah. >> Nonp prrong tonk. We're going to go back 11 months >> and then we'll go forward. >> I thought I heard him say that there was granted a two-year extension already. We don't we don't four years. So, >> all right. Anybody else? >> All right. Is anybody here from the public that wants to comment? Anyone from public? >> Chair, see no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Matt, do you have anything you want to add? >> Um staff just asks that um all conditions from previous approvals be carried forward. >> That is acceptable. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion. >> Chair like to make a motion to approve KP 2025-0195 as presented to the board together with staff recommendations and all conditions. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion and a second for approval with conditions. >> Um, acting vice chair Gangadan, >> I. >> Commissioner Wick, >> I. >> Commissioner Torres, >> I. >> Commissioner Lewis, >> I. >> Commissioner Patel, >> I. >> And Chairman Links, >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Okay. Thank you, council. Let's move on to item C is case P205-0179 is a final subdivision extension for 286 Cole Street. Good evening, council. >> Good evening. Uh Patrick Conlin here for Scarency Hollandback on behalf of the applicant uh Cole Street Development Company LLC. Uh so another extension we're uh we were approved for a major subdivision in June 2020. Uh we then requested an extension in uh that was extended until May 24th, 2025. The reason we're back here again, uh we're just seeking one year to originally our intention had been to affect the subdivision by deed. uh we're going to consolidate the deeds, but um the the tax assessor for Jersey City advised that she would prefer a plat and so we've prepared that plat and we just need additional time to have it executed by the relevant people and then recorded. >> Okay. Thank you, council. Any questions? Anyone? >> No. >> All right. Is anybody here from public that wants to comment? Anyone from public? >> Sure. See no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Jen Rudy, do you have anything you want to add? Uh just going to ask the applicants to comply with the conditions in the original approval. >> Sure. >> Uh with that for approval. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Chair like to make a motion to approve KP2025-0179 as presented to the board with staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded for approval. >> Acting vice chair Gand. >> Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Torres >> I. >> Commissioner Lewis. >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> And chairman Lston. I >> motion carries. All in favor? >> Thank you all. >> Right off the bat. >> Okay, let's move on to item D is case P204-0182 is a preliminary and final major site plan and interimm use for 200 Chapel Avenue. And council, you want us to call the uh next item as well? Sure. >> Okay. So, we'll also call item E is case P2024-0229 is the review and discussion of master plan amendment within Caven point redevelopment plan. Uh petitioner is PY Homes of New Jersey Limited Partnership. Good evening, council. >> Good evening, council. Uh good evening, commissioners, uh chairman, council, and staff. My name is Jim McCann from the law firm of Connell Foley. I'm here appearing on behalf of the applicants in case 0182 and case 224. Uh the applicant is PY Homes uh of New Jersey Limited Partnership. The property is lot 15. Somebody tell me the block number I 27503. Thank you. Um, so before I proceed, um, >> council, why don't we get council's appearance on the >> Yeah, I was going to say I'm going to let council appear because I know he has an objection, um, to proceeding tonight. >> Actually, council, before Don't move. You're good. No, you're good. Um, we have two commissioners that were not present at the last meeting. Uh, I just want to make sure that they uh are allowed to >> the case tonight, participate. And um, so let's start. Commissioner Torres, you were not at the last meeting. >> I was not at the last meeting, but I did review all the videos of the um July and the September meeting. >> Okay. Thank you. And Commissioner Lewis, did you have a chance to review? It's a lot. I know. Okay. So, uh, Commissioner Torres and Commissioner Lewis can both participate in the meeting tonight. And we have quorum. Go ahead council. >> Thank you, Chairman. Uh Martin Cavalar from Becker on behalf of an objector, Port Liberte Homeowners Association Incorporated. Um we did have a preliminary objection uh that we wanted to put on the record tonight. I did send a letter into um your council. Um on October 21st, 2025, the portal was updated with seven new documents and maps from the applicant. Um, the municipal land use law requires in that scenario that any maps and documents for which approval is sought at a hearing that they must be on file and available for public inspection at least 10 days before the date of the hearing. That did not occur here. They were uploaded on 10:21. I understand council for the applicant uh advised me. They submitted them to the portal on 10:17 and that may not be their fault. It may be nobody's fault, but the condition is as it exists, they were not up 10 days prior to um this hearing and that does prejudice our client uh as well as members of the public at large um not having that opportunity under the municipal annual law. So, respectfully, we would ask that you carry to the next available meeting date. >> Okay. Thank you, councel. Mr. McCann, do you want to uh >> Yes. address that? So um I don't dispute the facts in that Mr. Kevlar has said or his letter. Um we did upload seven new documents to the planning portal on the 17th of October which is actually 11 days before today. Um we then submitted the package of those same documents to Mr. Cablar on the 20th of October, which is the following Monday, as a courtesy. Had no obligation to do that, but we did. We also do acknowledge that planning did not post those documents on the planning portal until October 21st. We don't dispute those facts. I don't dispute the fact that the municipal land use law has a provision in it that says any maps and documents for which an approval is sought at a hearing shall be on file and available for public inspection at least 10 days before the date of the hearing. However, there's another sentence at the end of that section that says the applicant may produce other documents, records, or testimony at the hearing to substantiate or clarify or supplement previously filed maps and documents. So, just to put this in context, um we've received four objection letters from uh the HOA council. One from a planner, two from their civil engineer, and a third from a traffic consultant. So what we have been doing for the past two months and we told you some of this at the September 9th hearing, but when we get those comment letters, we take them very seriously and we direct our team, PY Holmes has directed our team to do whatever they can to address the concerns of the professionals that are in opposition to this project. And that's exactly what we did after the September 9th hearing when we were here before you and we made our presentation of the plans and documents that we want approved. We knew we were coming back today. So we went back to the drawing board and we made some revisions to the plans after reviewing the letters that we received from opposition council. And I will tell you two of the letters we received on September 5th, which was 4 days before the hearing that we were that we came to on the 9th. So we did not have time to consider and address those comments, concerns, and objections. So we proceeded with the case. But since there was another month between hearings, we decided we did have time. So, we addressed as many of those comments as we could. We put them in a single letter that Langan Engineering prepared dated October 17, 2025, and we submitted it to the portal with the other six documents. So, what we've been attempting to do, we do we don't want to be latigious with the homeowners association. We want to try to satisfy their legitimate concerns about the project. So what we did was we took the time to collate all their objections, put them in one letter, the one I just mentioned for Langan, and address them all. And we haven't changed any location of any building. We did submit a new set of plans. We didn't change the location of any buildings. We didn't make any physical changes to any of the document any of the structures that we're asking you to approve. But what we did do was add additional notes to the plans. We put more specific information in the plans that the HOA asked for. Um and and to give you the the easiest example, when we were here at the last um hearing, there were some concerns by this board because the parking counts that we had produced were from August of 2024. And everybody noticed, especially the vice chairman, that that was not during school. So we had a month from September 9th to now. So what we did was we asked Py homes asked their traffic consultant to go back out and get updated new traffic counts to substantiate the report that we had already filed. We got those traffic counts on October 7th and that's one of the documents that we've submitted to the portal to respond to one of the board's concerns. We also received and we had mentioned this to you previously. We received um comments from the division of infrastructure and we tried to address those by September 9th and the board had said to us, well, did you get any feedback from the division of infrastructure on the plan on the plan revisions you made? So after September 9th, we obtained a letter from the Division of Infrastructure that said, "Yes, you've addressed all of our comments properly except for two. They asked for two more striping changes to be added to the plans." So we added those those to the plans that we then filed on October 17th. So, what I'm getting at is I acknowledge the documents were not filed 10 days before the hearing, but they are in a way that in a way they're not rebuttal, but they're response documents to the opposition that the HOA council has filed with the board or may present tonight to the board. I don't know what the opposition council's case is, but those are documents that were that are supplements that we are addressing comments that have been raised by all parties involved. They're not entirely new plans. So, my position is that we've not violated section 10 of the MLUL. We have leeway in that last sentence that talks about supplements uh to the record. and that we can proceed tonight. >> Okay. Thank you, councel. >> Mr. Chairman, if I may just quickly respond. >> Sure. Absolutely. >> So, in in terms of the fact that, you know, uh the applicant received our objections only a few days before the prior hearing, such as the nature of an objector's case, I mean, that's why this 10-day provision exists to allow us to properly prepare. And virtually on every application, that's when the applicant receives the objections. They received some before that, but a majority of them come in because that's when we know they can't submit anything else. The record is full at that point. Our experts can analyze it and we can respond to it. They did have another choice. They had voluminous uh reports from us that they wanted to address. They didn't have to start on that night. They could have said, "We received these materials. we want to carry uh uh one more hearing, submit new materials as they've done here now at the 11th hour though and proceed in that fashion. They chose not to. They chose to go forward, which is okay. That's their right. I'm not objecting to that. But um I I want to make sure that and I know the council does understand this is that you know there was no uh improper doing on part of the part of the association in submitting that a few days before. That's that's the life of an objector and objectors council. That's what we um we have to do is submit it in that time frame. In terms of the materials that were submitted, they they are significant. And while while I have no doubt that council is being truthful when he says and makes representations about what is in those materials, we should have the fair opportunity of those 10 days to go through them ourselves and make sure that's the case, not just rely on those representations. And the materials, they're not slim. You have the cover letter. Yes. Okay. Fine. You have 26 pages of responses to the reports of the HOA and others. You have 37 pages of revised plans. You have a parking uh landscape uh ratio exhibit. You have the uh updated storm order report consisting of 260 pages. You have the survey boundary and topographic survey, another two sheets. And then you have the traffic assessment report, another 37 pages. And again, that's a lot to go through um in only 10 days. And we've had less than 10 days. So that's the reason for the objection. I understand. I don't believe council or the applicant is um trying to do anything or pull the rug out. That's why they submitted it on October 17th, but the fact of the matter is the facts happen. You heard council say it happened. They weren't uploaded till October 21st and it is what it is at this point. The application should be carried based on the MULL. So, thank you. >> All right. Thank you, council. >> Just just for the record, I'm also not suggesting that Mr. Calibar um has done anything below board or anything by submitting documents at the last minute. I do understand that he has limited time to do things. So, >> all right. Thank you, council. >> Everything's been very professional so far. >> Excellent. That's good to hear. >> Council, so chairman, first I would say that I learned of this issue today. So those that appear here regularly know one of my pet peeves is I didn't get the courtesy of the issue being raised on Friday. So instead of enjoying some time over the weekend that I would have loved to have had and I know the board agrees with this. I'm preparing for a hearing tonight because I do have other clients. I know I prioritize this board, but I do have other clients and other obligations. So, I'm a little uh disappointed that this wasn't put out there sooner. I think that the 10-day rule is the 10-day rule. There's no question about it. It's 10 days. I think it has to be submitted. We can get into what's available, what isn't available, but I think that the fact that things are being submitted 10 days before, objections are coming in the day of, it's costing this board time and this board is made up of volunteers. And I am sure that Commissioner Torres was watching the YouTube video over the weekend and preparing for the hearing tonight. And you know, it's it shouldn't be this way. We have a room full of public people that have come out to hear the application. I don't know what other matters have carried looking at the agenda thinking, okay, this PY application has multiple attorneys. This is this is going to eat in to the the time. But quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, the only people that I'm particularly concerned about is this board. You guys volunteer and we've got a lot of business to deal with. So, uh, be that as it may, off the soap box. It sounds as though what has been submitted by the applicant is in response to what was submitted by objectors council. And if there's 10 issues that objectors counsel and his team have with what the applicant had submitted and now the applicant has gone back and made some changes, maybe those 10 issues are now down to three issues. I would hate to see, as I understood where we left off, uh, Objectors Council was going to put on professionals that were going to talk about all of the things that we've heard about, some of which may now have changed. We don't need to hear two hours of opposition testimony if only an hour of that or a half hour of that becomes relevant to the application because admittedly there have been things addressed. So I hate to to belabor the point, but I think there's that pragmatic aspect. Why listen to three hours of testimony if we only need an hour to address those fine points? I I leave the leave that to the board with respect to whether or not the board can proceed. You know, I think it's a gray area. I think it was submitted 10 days before. I don't know if anybody attempted to come and try to get those plans. It was a Friday afternoon. Uh had they come Monday, would they have been accessible and and everything else? But honestly, I don't know how the board feels, but I'm I'm very concerned that some of the issues that are raised by council that are absolutely legitimate issues, and council, I don't mean to say that they're not legitimate issues, but I think maybe they've changed or maybe they've been addressed by some of the revisions. In fairness, I don't know. I haven't had the opportunity because here's the other thing. that board packet comes out to to the board 10 days before and when I access the link it takes me to what was there in that link. Uh so that's my two cents. Chairman I don't know how you and the rest of the board feels. >> Mr. Chairman if I just make quickly and again I will be brief. >> Sure. I meant absolutely >> no disrespect to the council or to Mr. Atli. In fact, the email that was sent to me, um, council said, "I uploaded this." He sent it on the 20th. I uploaded this on the 17th. My initial reaction was, "I got this on the 20th. Oh, no. I didn't get this 10 days and below." But the representation was made to me. It was uploaded on the 17th because, as council said, they uploaded it on the 17th. I didn't come to learn that it was actually posted on the 21st until thereafter. So, I got it on the 20th. I still didn't get it in time, but I didn't think I had an objection to be made because I was represented to that it's on the portal already. We did this on the 17th, which is their only requirement. Their requirement is not to provide it directly to me. They could have just put it on the portal and then I would have been coming tonight saying, "I didn't even get the courtesy email, but council's much better than that. He sent me the courtesy email and I'd be just arguing based on the 21st." So, I certainly do don't mean to impact anybody's weekend or do anything like that. This is a legitimate issue. And again, the statute says what it says that it has to be available. It's not available. It should be carried on that basis. In terms of what I expect out of my experts, I know two out of the three have had a chance to fully review. Um, and we'll be able to testify if we have to tonight, but one hasn't, and that certainly prejudice us. So, um, in in that matter, I'd like them to take a closer look at everything because it does sound like some of the things have been addressed. So, if they have that additional time, they'll come in and as Mr. Lampy pointed out, their testimony will hopefully be shorter as well. But I assume the applicant needs to put on more testimony too still based on those changes. And that's the unfair part about it. >> Sure. Understood. Council >> council will give you one last rebuttal. >> I don't know if it's a rebuttal. It's a it's maybe a solution. >> Comment, whatever. >> So, I think council is correct. We would like the opportunity to explain the additional documents that we filed on the 17th that were posted on the portal on the 21st. Um, we could do that tonight if council doesn't object to it and withhold cross-examination on those documents until all of council's professionals have had the opportunity to review what we've what we produced, what we uh present tonight and review the documents. That way, they'll have probably more than 30 days um to review them and we can hold comments from the public for any documents until for any of the revised documents until the next hearing. So the public would have had then had more than 30 days to review. I'll just throw that out as a potential solution, but I I would want council to be comfortable with that if we're going to do that. >> It is both council and the board. >> I say this knowing that I'm objectors council. uh it is not my nature to try to be difficult which oftentimes makes it hard for me to appear as objectors council because I want to extend all the professional courtesies I possibly can um to to counsel when it's necessary. The the issue with that again is they didn't meet the requirement don't have that same opportunity for my experts to have that amount of time hear the testimony act in real time to it. They haven't had the material as long so it does impact us still even if they were to start putting on their case. I mean routinely when applicants putting on the case the experts for the objector are obviously listening but also talking with council going back and forth and they just haven't had that material the same amount of time as they should have had that material >> and that's the real basis of the objection. >> Ironically chairman nobody seems to be concerned with whether the board's even reviewed the material. >> I'm concerned about that and >> I'm just saying guys >> Mr. Lampy that's why you're a very good attorney. So, so council and council, no disrespect. My one concern is the board and my one concern is the board's record. We're not going to bend over backwards trying to pull testimony from here and have the public comment on it later. We're going to hear this thing the way we want to hear this application. That's the board's prerogative. It's not up to you, Mr. McCann. It's not up to you, council. So, that's the way we're going to proceed. The bottom line, the information was not available on the portal on the date required. I don't want to take testimony on what the new material is until council's had a chance to review it with his experts. I don't want to do testimony on what it is if his experts don't aren't prepared to crossam uh cross-examine. Council, am I out of bounds with this at all? Absolutely not chairman but commissioner to >> just one comment on what you uh picking back up for chairman. >> Yes that the board has to come back and look but also let's not forget the public. >> Mhm. Absolutely. >> They're going to have to remember 30 days of information to come back to answer a question >> that was brought to them 30 days ago or whatever the next meeting is. I don't think it's fair to the public either. It's not >> I just want to make that comment. >> I agree. It's not fair to the public and and council. I get no pleasure out of this. Believe me, I even though I was at the last meeting, I went through when I watched the video. And guess what? I'm going to do that again now for the next meeting or whenever the carry date is. >> I'm sure it's gripping testimony. >> It's fascinating. It's fascinating. >> Facebook. >> That was a good one. May maybe maybe council and I can get a little more heated at the next hearing a little drama for >> I wish you would. >> It's not our nature. It's not our nature. I don't see it happening. >> So >> or you guys could get together and resolve some of these issues that are being discussed between respective experts. >> So I'm hoping that our submission has done that. I I know there are some things that won't be resolved, but I'm hoping many many many of them are. That was our intention by making the submission >> and and I don't doubt that for a second >> and there may be still some things we disagree on because they were wrong a few times and we told them in our supplemental report >> but I I I understand we're not going forward tonight. So can we talk about can we get on November 28th? >> Damn. >> 28th I believe it is. >> So it would have to be. >> Sorry I get my dates wrong all the time. November 22. >> It would have to be >> before Thanksgiving. >> December 9th. >> Perfect time. >> 9th. >> Yeah. >> For a hearing on wastewater. >> Just the season. >> Okay. Best we can do, council, is December 9th. >> Ah, you and Bright Street. Figured. All right. >> How's that? >> We'll see who win the match. >> Bright street. >> So, must see TV. >> Yeah. I mean, that's the date is the date. I think we're I don't know, Cam. How are we going to handle these two on the same night? >> The Christmas miracle. Yeah, >> I can't argue with that council. So, uh, let's make December 9th. We'll do we'll accommodate somehow. We'll figure it out. But we're going to carry this to December 9th. Can we attempt to make sure that we don't run into this issue on December 9th? And maybe if we're running towards this issue on Thanksgiving, you guys could let me know. >> If there's no further submissions, we won't run into that issue. >> All right. I don't think >> there are, then I'll speak to council. Yes. So you don't anticipate submitting second rebuttal or subrebuttals to a council? >> Let me clarify. I don't necessarily mean from us. I meant from the applicant because the timeline's on them, not on us. Unfortunately, their their burden, not ours. >> So, do you envision that there will be a written submission from your professionals to what council has potentially submitted? >> That would probably be the case. It' help the board certainly if we had that. Sure. So, we've had it in the past. it didn't have the chance to do that. That's why I don't have it tonight. They, you know, but yes, I I imagine we will submit something still. I could probably get that to them relatively quickly and they'll have plenty of time in advance of. >> Yeah. Um, you know, honestly, I think if we can agree on some of the items, great. If we can narrow some of the items, >> I think some of the stuff, you know, will be narrowed at the end of the day. Yes. But there'll still be an opposition case. >> That's what I suspect. But I just it council in all sincerity, you seem to be focused on the issues. You don't seem to be creating additional issues that some opposition attorneys uh create. So >> we are not. It either exists or it does not. And I don't have an expert to say it exists or an legal argument. I won't bring it for the public to bring if they want though. >> Okay. >> We don't know what his case is yet, but we'll see. We knew what it was enough that you submitted 633 pages if I read that email right. >> All right, let's move on with our Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. We'll see you on December 9th. >> Anybody here on this matter? December 9th. No further notice will be coming to you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, got to wait for >> Yeah. While the room clears out, let's take a 10-minute break, everybody. Good night. Come I want to talk about What's that? All right. No one ever talked about Oh my god. Next quarters. Yeah. >> All right. Right. >> I think everyone behind me. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Oh, he's doing You want me to give a few minutes? That's nice. I think I missed Next generation. Not in there. The big What's it going to work? So that's why it's an I got I have my muster. is use that for this work. Yeah, >> there My email I feel like sometimes you ask me It's amazing. Hey, see you again. >> Oh, yeah. remember >> probably >> well at that time depending on how long ago two years ago Maplewood. >> Okay. So, South Orange, >> which is lacrosse and football, basketball. Yeah. >> It's a legitimate Otherwise, it's amazing how My wife was coaching. >> So life I think it's more >> I think young women >> be part of a team. Like my kid is a >> mentor. >> Talk to the boys. Sounds good to see you. That's right. That's right. I haven't seen Never. One more. Okay, can we come to order again everybody? We'll call item F is case P2024-000082 is a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances for 388 7th Street. Good evening, council. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Uh for the record, Charles Harrington of Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant. Uh this matter was carried from I believe September 9th. We we just opened up the testimony and an overview of the project. Uh I would uh we also marked the notices. Um I would note for the record that I believe four of the six commissioners were present there. I don't believe Commissioner Torres or um Commissioner Lewis were were there. So I'd ask if they can advise if they read the transcripts. >> Commissioner, you reviewed Commissioner. >> Okay, we're good. We have uh we have quorum council. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Um so just to briefly uh go back to what this is, this is a a development of a corner property uh seventh street and division division street. It's uh will be 31 residential units with five parking spaces. It's in the Enus Jones um redevelopment plan. uh that plan was uh specifically created to provide for an opportunity for uh contributions to renovate the Enus Jones Park. So, as part of this application, um if approved, this this would be um the the applicant would be making a $420,000 contribution towards Enus Jones and improvements at the park. Uh my client has been designated as a redeveloper uh by the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency. Uh the reason that's important is because that's where the money would go on on similar projects because they they make sure it's specifically used for Enus Jones Park. Um so uh it is a an eight-story building. Uh you'll see during the presentation we are in a flood uh flood plane. So we are um using the the the ground floor uh for uh purposes other than residential. Um but at the end of the day we only have seven residential floors. We are asking for relief on the number of stories, but we're still within the permitted height. So, with that said, I'm I'm going to get out of the way and I'm going to um have Matt Nles, our engineer, uh give you an overview of of the property. Then I have Mr. Vandermark uh to uh take you through the project and then our uh Mr. Bellamy. >> Okay. Thank you, council. >> Good evening. tonight. >> Yes, I do. >> Sure. My name is Matthew Nles. It's Nes. >> Mr. Nules, good evening. We've qualified you in the past. Your license is current tonight. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Yep. Thank you. >> I'm going to try to plug in my screen here. So, I think we're all set. Okay. All right. >> So, we want to show >> we don't have it on on our display. >> Okay. So, we just um Well, I guess >> we don't have it on our displays. >> It's up. >> Oh, there it is. Okay. We got it. >> Apologies. Go ahead. >> Okay. Uh good evening everybody. I have on the screen a copy of the uh the civil engineering drawings that were submitted and that were available on the on the website. So, I'll just start by describing the location of the property. Mr. Harrington did a good job with that, but I'll just kind of kind of zoom in a little bit here on our location map and described it's at the corner of of 7th and Division Street. So, it's about halfway between Inis Jones Park, which is about a block north of the site. And then Hely's Tavern is a good landmark about a block south of the site at the intersection of uh New Orchid Division. So >> not not familiar. So >> good location there. >> Only on St. Pat. >> Yeah. >> Um I got to switch to a colored rendering. So a little >> a little better looking than just the engineering drawings. But uh so just a quick walk around the site. Here we have uh our eightstory building, 31 units kind of here tucked into the corner of the site. Uh we have a driveway entrance here on the left side uh on division street that provides access to our five parking spaces interior and also uh area for the uh the refuse and the other functions there inside the ground floor of the building. Um pedestrian entrance uh a little further down on division street here where I'm pointing which provides access to the lobby and such. Uh and also a secondary entrance here on the right on to 7th Street. Um again, five parking spaces inside the building, three along the back side here. Uh one here along division street and then the last space uh here where I'm pointing in the you know right right hand side of the building and um parking and circulation is fairly straightforward. We do have um we do have some some seven tree I mean the seven trees that were going to remain on site in those uh with regards had some discussions with city forester about these existing trees to remain here both on seventh street and division street here along with a um a green strip which is isn't as as common on the city streets. So those things are to remain. There is proposed landscaping also along the building itself and uh as you can see in these green areas up along the planters that are up along the facades of the building along both streets. Switch back to the drawings and just give you a quick overview of u you some of our our utility and storm water features of the project. Um here we go. You do have a uh a stormwater management system to meet the city's uh stormwater control ordinance which consists of a detention tank uh under the lowest floor under that under that parking area floor uh which will provide for the peak flow reductions along with some some green plantings on the roof as well uh that'll meet the requirements provide the required peak flow reductions and tie into the existing infrastructure in Division Street in terms of our storm water connection there. Um go one more page down. Utility connections. Uh we do provide uh u zoom into that so you can see it actually but we do provide a uh sanitary sewer connection to the existing sewer in seventh street handle this to the sanitary sewer for the building. Uh we do have again that storm water connection on division and along with um uh water connection as well. Water connection to the water mains in division street. I think that's a quick overview. We we have gotten uh review letters from the uh from the transportation planning department. We have already incorporated some of those comments into the latest dri settle plan. So we've addressed those comments particularly among them was the width of the curb cut into the driveway. We've reduced that to 10 ft and addressed sever several other comments there as well. We've also received a letter from the Jersey City MUA. We have no problem addressing those comments. Those are straightforward comments which we're happy to uh address as well. I think it's a fairly fairly straightforward from an engineering perspective. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nolles. Any questions? >> Yeah, I have a question. Um >> go ahead. the vision street going north >> um stops at the park and then you're able to >> you're not able to make a right turn um east right on that street by the park >> yes >> or is it double it's two-way >> east >> so if the garbage removal is it going to be on division street or is it going to be >> garbage removal >> the garbage removal building >> it'll be on division street and they can there's a rim inside the building but they But the containers will be wheeled out onto the division street. >> Onto Division Street. And they'll go they'll the trucks will be able to go around and back towards Brunsw. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> No. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nles. Uh, and just for the record, Council Santo has to use on this application. uh we're comfortable going forward without counsel, but if at any time we feel like we need to consult counsel, we'll stop the hearing. We'll consult with outside counsel. >> Yes, it's understood and I that's consistent with September 9th that uh he he stepped away. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, council. >> So, uh as uh Mr. Vandermark sets up, uh this is Mr. Vandermark is the architect of record and will uh take us through the project. testimony. The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Sure. That is Anthony C. Vandermark Jr., uh, principal of the architectural firm MVMK Architecture. >> Mr. Vandermark, good evening. Uh, your license is current and in good standing tonight. >> Good evening, chair. Yes, it is. >> Okay. Thank you. you are qualified. >> Fantastic. Thank you very much. Um not to be redundant uh on previous testimony, we're here this evening for a uh eighttory proposal. Again, uh number of feet uh is uh compliant with the Eden Shins redevelopment plan. Uh we are proposing 31 uh residential units with five parking spaces. Top lefthand corner. Uh again, not to uh not to keep going over uh the same points is that we have 50 ft of frontage on Seventh Street. We have 100 foot depth and lot totaling 5,000 square ft. As you can see all the way to the north, one block is uh the Enus Jones uh park. And directly behind us, we have uh a very large uh building being constructed at 387 8th Street. And I have a couple of slides to show you what that looks like. The existing site uh is a surface grade parking lot. uh all concrete 100% impervious clearly this application uh with the storm water detention that Mr. Nles had previously mentioned as well as uh various uh intensive uh green roof elements over 24% we have a a much better uh site or much better uh application uh for this property uh as opposed to what is there now the parking lot is privately used it is not public parking um the owner of this property and the developer is Mr. to Ziggy Rosowski. Uh he owns Ziggy's auto body which is directly across the street to the south of this property. In the background again is the uh ninestory uh uh construction going on uh again uh which is in the Enus Jones redevelopment plan area. Uh same zone, we're in the mid-rise transition zone and we're in bonus class C. In the foreground is the parking lot. Uh the existing parking lot is accessed from Seventh Street. Um as part of this application and as part of the neighborhood comments uh uh that we went back and forth with uh you know through various correspondents is that they no longer wanted uh the curb cut on Seventh Street. They would rather have it moved to Division Street um for the two-way uh uh access point. Therefore, we are eliminating that curb cut. One car is going back on the street. However, we are creating a 10- foot wide curb cut on Division Street a little further to the north of Mid Property. Uh, as Mr. Nulles had previously mentioned, we are uh we are reutilizing or we are leaving seven pre-existing street trees. Uh, we have various uh aprons at both the curb line uh and the building line for uh rainwater consumption. >> Uh, Mr. Vandermark, before we go on, I don't think these were submitted, were they? >> Um, I apologize, Chair. These are um uh uh uh current photographs uh of the condition of the property. The the application was filed quite a few months ago and I just wanted the board to have an update of of what exists uh adjacent to this property and and also uh adjacent to the property in the foreground. >> Okay. So >> yeah, we can mark the entire slide deck as A2. >> Okay. A2. And how many slides is it? >> 20 slides. and I am not prepared to use all of them. >> It's nice to hear. Um, okay. So, 20 slides and when were they taken? >> Uh, the photographs were taken uh prior to the uh last meeting. So, that would have been uh one month one month ago. >> Yeah. Prior to September 9th. >> Yeah, correct. >> Okay. Excellent. Okay. A2 20 slides. >> Sorry about that, Chair. >> That's all right. Uh again, uh pre-existing condition. In the foreground is the uh the surface parking lot. Um and in the background is the uh large uh ninestory uh stucco blank wall that our uh property or our building will be uh more or less um you know being built or constructed to but not attached to. Just for background, uh again, as part of the Enus Jones redevelopment plan, construction uh is now starting to take place both on this property and there is a sister application to this property at the World Boxing Gym, also owned by our client, Ziggy Rosowski, and that will be in front of this board uh you know, probably within the next few months. So, it certainly is an area in in transition and and being redeveloped here. Uh proposed application uh has 31 units. Of the 31 units, we have 23 onebedrooms and eight twobedrooms. Very simple, very straightforward, typical floor plans. Um as previously mentioned, uh we have a few variances. One is that we are uh proposing 100% lock coverage and the first floor sits within the AE zone of the federal flood plane. Uh we thought uh rather than just having the building elevated and have a six- foot high uh uh quote unquote uh basement or crawl space that residential uh cannot be uh sitting in the flood plane is that we are proposing uh five parking spaces. One of the concerns of the neighborhood was they wanted parking uh as much parking as we possibly could on this site. Therefore, we are providing five which is permitted within the flood plane uh one corner amenity and also the circulation points as previously mentioned by Mr. Nles. Uh second variance is that on the uh seventh residential floor we are providing bolt street frontages at zero lot length and we are required a setback of 8 ft at bolt street frontages. I will show you uh as part of this presentation that the courtyard was expanded. Uh therefore the lost area and footprint area at the courtyard set back for a greater setback to the adjacent neighbor. Uh we implemented back uh at the street facads at the seventh floor. Uh the eighth floor is set back in compliance uh with the Enus Jones redevelopment plan. However, does have a greater uh setback uh to the western side at 9 foot1. right hand side uh looking at the building and plan uh again a sevenstory section with a setback eight story. We also are providing a rooftop amenity uh with extensive uh green roofing area as well as outdoor space for the tenants. The diagram on the right hand side again shows you uh the blue line of the setback area with the area gained uh due to that setback deviation request. However, in the courtyard, as you can see, uh which is uh adjacent to the neighbor of the east, is that we provided a an expanded uh L-shaped courtyard uh of greater area. You what you have here is a corner lot and it has a rear lot point and the proposed or the required setback is at 15 ft in both directions. However, as you can see, as part of this graphic, we are providing a 21T 9 in uh uh setback uh from the corner to the west and then to the south, we are providing 17T1. So, that increase in uh floor area. Uh when you weigh both the area gained and the area lost, we are still losing uh 62 square feet as part of this proposal of what could be uh permitted or permitted volume as part of the site plan adjacent to it to the left. Uh again we are maintaining seven street trees the landscaping at the curb apron uh on both sides and as well as adjacent uh to the uh building line. We are proposing all new sidewalks uh uh new corner improvement for ADA compliance and again a 10-ft wide curb cut which is uh just north uh of mid building. working your way inbound, uh not to be redundant, five parking spaces, uh sitting in the flood plane, uh a centralized lobby that's coming in off of Division Street. We are proposing uh 20 bicycle parking spaces which is compliant. We have one transformer uh which is going to be dry floodp proofed as well as the amenity space adjacent to it at the corner which is 230 square ft. two means of egress and a trash room uh that's located internally within the garage. As you work your way up to the second floor, we have four uh proposed residential units. We have two onebedrooms, excuse me, two onebedrooms at 687 and 723 ft. And we have two two bedrooms in red at 981 and 1,390. In the corner, we have a an an inaccessible uh intensive green roof, and that's at 317 square ft, which is the inner part of the rear yard setback. Typical floors uh to the left hand side, we have five units per floor. We have four onebedrooms and one two-bedroom, and the onebedrooms range from 687 to 758. And the twobedroom is at 981. top floor, which is the eighth floor. We are proposing two units, one bedroom at 966 and a twobedroom at 1,666 square ft. All in total, 31 units. As you can see here at the rooftop, we have a good amount of outdoor space. On the high roof, we have an intensive green roof system at 220 ft. And then the upper bulkheads have an additional 688 square ft of intensive green roof. all uh all included or all combined. Again, we have 1,225 square feet of total intensive green roofing system. That's the equivalent of 24.5 uh% of the site area. So, a great amount of sight area there. The deck itself at the roof is at 1,652. And we do have a mechanical area adjacent to that tall wall in the previous photograph. All will be screened from view uh from both street sides. Going back to the building facade, uh again we are proposing an eight-story building. Um it is a combination of both uh obviously a terracotta brick masonry and then you have a a a gray or a charcoal blue gray uh aluminum composite material. Two materials at the street facads um with a standard uh window pattern. Two dimensional graphics here highlighted in yellow. That is the flood plane. We need to elevate the first residential floor at the minimum of 5'7. In this case, the first floor starts at elevation 12 which is of the average grade. And then the typical floors are at 10ft floor to floor. The rooftop amenity is at 12 ft and we are asking for one deviation because of the elevator bulkhead. Because of the the height of the building, it's required to be 15 ft. Standard floors are 10 foot4 and again both street facads are ACM material and a brickmasonry material. Centralized courtyard is an ACM material. Again, standard window pattern and an ACM pattern uh at both uh walls uh adjacent to both the northern property and the property to the east. From a sun perspective, uh our building happens to be uh at the western or the southwestern corner of this particular block. Sun will uh you know obviously rise in the east and it will circle south uh to the west. Uh we are fortunate enough to be in a position where uh really only at later in the day will we have impact uh you know kind of directing itself into the quote unquote uh hole and donut of the block. Otherwise, we should not have uh much impact on anything. But again, uh there is already development in place uh directly adjacent to to us to the north. So, the impact of this building is a lot smaller than what's already constructed behind us. So, this concludes my presentation for this evening. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. Any questions? Anyone? >> Sure. The rendering? Yeah, I never No, no. Back with to where you just had it. Um, >> yes. >> The building next door is a fourstory building. >> The building next door is a four-story building. Yes. Correct. >> Then the one um north to that is um the one building that you showed with the uh struck >> is the is the is the very large ninestory building. >> Okay. So, the property line, those two buildings, are there going to be a space between them? We typically would leave a 2-in seismic gap uh in between both our building and the adjacent building to the east and also to the very large building to the north. >> 2 in >> 2 in just to just because the building has a a tendency to move. Um so we don't typically you know go at zero line. It's usually at at 2 in. >> That space in between stays open to the elements. >> Yeah. Well, it's obviously it's covered at the top and it's also covered uh vertically uh you know with gasketing and silicone. However, we do leave room for expansion >> for movement expansion but it's sealed not to be >> correct to the elements. >> Yes. And doing that to the same as the fourstory building. >> Yes. >> Same thing. Very good. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thanks, Eddie. Anybody else? >> No. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Vander. >> Thank you very much, Chair. >> Okay. My next witness is Mr. Bellamy to address the requested uh deviations. >> The truth, the whole truth, nothing. >> Yes, I do. >> Samuel Bellamy. Last name B E L L A M Y. >> Mr. Bellamy. Good evening. Uh, your planning license is current. >> Yes, current and in good standing. >> Okay, thank you. You're qualified. >> Great. So, getting right into the variance, the deviation relief, and I think Mr. Vandermark did a good job of overviewing everything. So, we are located in zone 2, the midrise transition zone of the Enus Jones redevelopment plan. We do have several deviations. Um, I'm going to start off with the building height. We're at eight stories where seven stories is permitted. We are compliant with the 78 ft above the designed flood elevation. Um, the ground elevation of the property is 5' 7 in. The DF is at uh 12 ft. Um so we're utilizing an additional floor to provide for parking um the lobby areas and an active ground floor whereas otherwise um you would have a a void floor or you're very limited with the uh flood plane rules. So we're trying to activate that floor a little bit and provide some usable space. Um but we are overall compliant with the maximum building height. Um the step back above the sixth floor I think directly ties into that uh height deviation. So it's a requirement of 8 feet step back from the street frontages above the sixth floor. We're providing the step back above the seventh floor. So essentially above that residential floor where it's contemplated is where we're proposing it and we're actually exceeding it. Um we have 9 ft 11 in from the division street frontage and then the compliant 8t from the seventh street frontage. So, I think we're consistent with the intent of the redevelopment plan step back requirement there. Uh, with respect to lock coverage, um, we're proposing 100% on the ground floor. That's where a maximum of 80% is permitted. Um, the redevelopment plan does contemplate and allow for 100% ground floor coverage where parking is required. The nuance there is parking technically is not required on this lot because it's less than 75 ft in width. Um, our narrower frontage is at 50 ft. So parking is not required. We are proposing it and as such we do have a lot coverage uh deviation. I think we are mitigating that with the extensive uh green roofing and um bio swale um along the street tree pits uh in the front there. Um Mr. Nullles referenced the the street trees will remain as they are currently. Those street trees don't comply with the current forestry standard. So we are requesting relief from that standard. Um I think maintaining the existing more mature trees is a um is a positive here um and would outweigh any detriments. Um concluding with the elevator deviation. So Mr. Vandermark mentioned the bulkhead height um of 15 ft for the elevator bulkhead. Um that's where a maximum of 12 ft is is permitted. Um the amenity enclosed amenity space and the stair bulkhead itself does comply with that requirement. It's just the elevator bulkhead overrun needs the additional feet. So that's that's where the deviation comes in there. Um we also have a stepback uh deviation for that elevator bulkhead. Um it's a corner lot. So we have two frontages to keep in mind here. We're proposing 9 ft 11 in from the division street frontage and that's where 16 ft 3 in is required. Um we do exceed the uh step uh setback requirement for the the bulkheads and amenity space from the seventh street frontage. Um you know all the deviations I think can be granted where the benefits would outweigh the detriments and as well as the um goals and objectives of the redevelopment plan would be advanced. I think this project also complies and promotes the purposes in the mun municipal land use law primarily purpose A where the uh it's an appropriate use and development of the property purpose C where adequate light air and open space are provided and purpose I I think this is an appropriate scale and and proposed infill development that will complete the street cornage uh the street corner um within the Enos Jones plan um with respect to the negative criteria I don't see any substantial detriment to the public good or general welfare. Again, I think all the deviations are appropriate here. Um, and we did provide for a greater um rear yard corner um above the ground floor to kind of offset the the ground floor deviation. Um, and all the other um stepbacks I think are respective of the intent of the redevelopment plan. Um, likewise, I don't see a substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the zone plan or zoning ordinance. Um, I think with that this project meets both the positive and negative criteria and I'd be happy to answer any questions the board might have. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bellamy. I have no questions. Anybody else? >> No. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, council. That's your presentation. >> Yeah, that completes our presentation. >> Okay. Is there any >> I thought I heard a question coming out. Is anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application? Please come on up. Uh, come on up to the mic. We have to swear you in. Okay. >> Yes. >> Oh, Sheena. U M S H E N A. >> Do you need my last name? P R A D H A N. And address is 60 Chestnut Avenue. >> Good evening. We have three minutes for you. >> Okay. I actually just have two questions. Um, I heard that they are not required to have parking, but subjectively, do you guys think five parking spaces, this is for the planning board, I guess, is enough for 31 units for that neighborhood? And I'm just curious, is this a rental building or will people be allowed to buy in this building? >> Council, do we know if it's a rental or a condo? >> Uh, I don't I don't know if we h have made that decision yet. >> I think it's undecided. Yeah, we're we're still uh my my uh client is still making that decision. >> Okay. >> And with regard to the parking, it it's uh it's not required as as testified to where for lots are uh 50 less than 75 ft uh in width, it's not required, but we are providing, you know, the five. Uh so there's no there's no uh deviation or variance being requested as part of that. >> And to answer the question to the board, that's what we have to consider. It's not a personal opinion whether we think that's enough parking or not. It's what the law is and we have to base it off of what the the zoning laws are for the area. >> Gotcha. And who makes those laws? >> Uh the city does. City council. >> So like the council people make those laws. Gotcha. Okay. Thanks. >> All right. Thank you. Anybody else from public? >> Chair see no one from public. I would like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded. Um, General, this is yours. >> Yes. >> Staff issue a staff report dated August 25th, 2025. Um, and then there are some um conditions in the SE report. I just want to ask the uh applicants to agree to those uh conditions. >> Yes, those would be acceptable. >> Okay. Um, staff believe the project does not have any substantial detriment to the community and it does align with the red plan goal. So staff recommend approval. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve KP2024-000082 as presented to the board together with staff recommendation and conditions. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion made and seconded for approval. >> Acting vice chair. >> Yeah. I think the variances requested here is not a detriment to the public. So my vote would be I. >> Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Torres. So, um I like the building and um and I'm glad to see the changes in the neighborhood. Um we had a conversation with Tanya once uh Enis Jones redevelopment of the the park used to be called the Oaks. U for the people that uh lifelong resident of Jersey City and before it became a park, it was a dump. That's where we played the dump the dumps. um to walk that neighborhood and see it change that way and go watch the kids play at the park, you know, take my nephew to the games. Um it's it's it's really um it's a nice thing. I mean, we sometimes we get mixed up with development, but remember um we used to play at the dumps. Now we play at Enis Jones Park or I prefer to call the Oaks. I like the changes in that neighborhood. I want to vote I Commissioner Luis, >> Commissioner Patel, >> hi. >> And Chairman L. >> Yeah, I do think the uh variances requested are uh I don't think there's any detriment to the uh redevelopment plan and uh yeah, it's a good I agree with Commissioner Torres. It's a good project. Um my vote is I >> motion carries one favor. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, council. Um, chairman, if you don't mind, um, I think it might be worth going through the carried items again, just so people from the public were >> that are hanging around. Um, so before we open our next case, I'm going to say the items that have been carried that will not be heard tonight again in case people from the public were here um, uh, were not here at the beginning of the meeting. So, starting with item 17 on the agenda, case P2024-0219. Address is 115 Guiles Avenue. That is carried to December 9th with preservation of notice. Item 19 on the um actually, you know, I guess this is a good time for me to make that announcement, but I received correspondence from attorney Stephen Joseph and he's requested to carry all of his cases tonight. Starting with item nine on the agenda, case P2024-0099. That's address 565 commun. That's for a preliminary final major site plan with variances and a conditional use. They've requested a carry with preservation of notice to December 9th. >> And then item 23 on the agenda through 25 are all Steven Joseph's cases um at the it's the same project but uh 23 case P2024-011 that's a minor subdivision with C variances for address 86 to 92 Ocean Avenue. They've requested to carry with preservation of notice to December 9th. Item 24 on the agenda, case P2024-012. That's a minor site plan at 90 Ocean Avenue. They've requested to carry with preservation of notice to December 9th. Item 25 on the agenda, case P2024-013. Address is 86 Ocean Avenue for a minor site plan. and they've requested a carry with preservation of notice to December 9th. Item 26 on the agenda, KP2024-0206. Address is 373 Communipal Avenue. Dave requested to carry with preservation of notice to December 9th. Item 28 on the agenda, case P2025-000091. This is address 69 Lake Street. This is for a minor site plan and they have requested a carry with preservation of notice to December 9th. And then we have item 29 on the very last page. Case P2025-0130. Address is 626 Communip. They've requested a carry with preservation of notice to December 9th. Um, thank you chair for letting me do that. That concludes the most up-to-date list of carries. >> Thanks, Cam. Uh, can you I apologize. I was getting Santo in the other room. Um, can you just go through the numbers? You don't have to read the case numbers off. Just >> starting with item 17. >> Okay. 17 19. I have >> Yep. 17 19 2 >> 26 28 >> 23 >> Oh, I'm I'm sorry. >> 4 25 >> Yes. 23 24 25 26 28 and 29. >> Okay, got it. Thank you. >> Yeah, thank you. >> All right, so let's go back to item 14 is case P2023-000013 is a preliminary and final major subdivision for 445 Route 440, Route 44 and Kellogg Street. >> Good evening, commissioners. Um, the next two cases are related. I don't know if you want to read them both into the record and hear them at the same time and vote on them separately afterwards or you want me to do the subdivision and then move on to the site plan. >> Uh item 16 is also involved >> the next two items. >> Yeah, items 14 and 15 on my agenda. >> Okay, so just 14 and 15. Okay. So, we're also going to call case P2023-000014 is a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances. Uh, do we have an address besides Kellogg Street? >> We do not. Uh, they are alternatively for the subdivision 445 Route 440, Route 440 and Kellogg Street. Okay. Those are the existing tax map designations. >> Okay. Gotcha. Thank you. >> Um, both of these matters are uh notice cases. Uh I have noticed separately for both of them and I will provide uh my affidavits. They've both been posted on the uh Tyler portal. receive receive the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to case P2023-000013. This is the subdivision does appear to be in order. We're going to mark that as A1 on case 14. And then I'm in receipt of the proof of mailing affidavit of publication with respect to case P203 00014. This is with respect to the preliminary and final major site plan application. We'll mark that as A1 with respect to case 15. >> Thank you councel. Thank you. Uh very excited to be here this evening. Uh this is essentially phase two of the Bayfront development. I was lucky enough to present phase one to this uh board a couple years ago. Uh that project is moving along and uh the developer Penrose is working with the JC and the city to uh to get that development started. Uh in the meantime, here we have uh the second phase of the project uh that is going to be uh developed by BRP properties. Um the uh the prior application for phase one uh resulted in we required a subdivision to create the development blocks that are contemplated in the Bayfront redevelopment plan. Uh with that subdivision we took the existing lots four, five and six. We broke out three parcels as well as the road system that is to be created around those those parcels which shrunk those lots down to lots 4.01, 5.01, and 6.01. Tonight, we're asking the board to subdivide those parcels one more time to create uh four new development parcels that are contemplated under the redevelopment plan. Um and particularly at issue tonight is block 31 as it's identified in the redevelopment plan which will be the second development which will uh start. The prior uh approved block was 32. This is the neighboring property at 31. Um so the the result is there will be four new development blocks. one parcel that will be utilized as part of the park system that is to run through the middle of Bayfront. That's what the former lot 5.01 will be. There will be parks uh throughout the uh the Bayfront redevelopment plan area. Um and then we're obviously breaking up those created 4.01, 5.01, and 6.01. Uh the result is essentially there's going to be 10 new lots here. Uh and we're shrinking three existing ones. So, just to to break that down, four development parcels, one park parcel. Each one of those parcels is also going to have a road uh area around it that will be in an individual block. And then we've got 4.01, 5.01, and 6.01 that are going to shrink. Those are all in line with the uh the sizes of the sites uh of the acreage uh and the orientation that's uh prescribed in the redevelopment plan. So, we're not asking for any deviations or waiverss to go along with that. It is essentially an as of right application. Um that said, I am going to have um Afton Seitz uh who is our engineer. She's just going to get up, run you through the uh the subdivision plan as proposed um and then we'll get into the site plan portion of the application. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Truth. >> I do. Yes. >> Sure. Afton Savitz. AF T O N. Last name S A V as in violin. It TZ. >> Miss Savitz. Um I think we've qualified you once, correct? >> Yes. I was before this board this summer. >> Okay. Uh is your license in uh good standing tonight? >> It is. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. We're qualified then. Uh, Miss Seitz, you you are not a licensed surveyor and you didn't prepare this exhibit. Uh, however, you are a licensed engineer and you can testify to the road system that we're creating and the compliance with the redevelopment plan. Correct. >> Yes, exactly. And the subdivision was prepared by our office. So, what you're seeing on the screen here is the subdivision plan as submitted to the board. Um, what you're seeing, and it'll go hand in hand with the introduction of the site plan application, is this is off of Kellogg Street to the bottom of the page where I'm circling with the cursor where we're sitting here this evening. This is in that southwest direction right off of the Hackinack River. And as I zoom in here, what you'll see is that as council mentioned, parcel 32, previously approved by the board, is being circled immediately to the east of the development application before you this evening. And then there are subject parcels being subdivided. I'll count them. From the north, there's one. There's that will be a development parcel. Immediately to the south is open space for future park. Uh beyond that is the second development parcel. To the west is a third and a fourth. And then as mentioned in coordinating with the tax assessor, they have asked that the roadway that fronts each development parcel be attributed to its own lot. So that is how you're getting the total of the 10 >> and the purpose of that is eventually those roads will be dedicated to the city in fee just as their tax and blocks that we're creating today. Correct. >> Correct. Not to mention the fact that the redevelopment plan the master plan for this area outline rightway widths to outline minimum parcel sizes all of which this complies with. Council, is there on the portal? It looked like there were two subdivision plats. Last one I think was with a revision date of June 2nd, number eight. >> I think that that is the one that is being displayed right here. >> I thought it had a June 12th date on it. This revision nine I think was the one I was just >> So this one is June 2nd, 2025. Um as I zoom in here, what you'll notice um in terms of discrepancy between the testimony put on and the prior document is just that those roadways have not been separated out. This is prior to any conversations with the tax assessor. >> So what's revision nine? Revision 9 is dated June 12th and it's showing these series of horizontal lines that divide the roadways. All the development parcels remain the same. >> So this is uh the last version that was submitted and this is what we're asking the board to consider this evening. >> Correct. And I do believe this is this is referenced in the latest. I'll have planning confirm, but there is a staff report dated October 1st that does allude to the 10 parcels being created. >> Council, out of an abundance of caution, let's mark it as A2. >> Sure. So, that'll be A2 >> on case 14. >> Yes. 61225 revision date. >> Correct. Preliminary and final major subdivision plan as prepared by Stonefield. >> Thank you. >> I have no further questions. Uh again, it's up to the board whether they want to vote on this now so we can proceed to uh the site plan or if I should just keep going. Um I think uh maybe we vote on it now. >> Yeah, >> if that's okay. Yeah. Yeah, let's separate everything. >> Um so any questions from the board? >> No. >> Okay. Is there anybody here from the public that wants to comment on the subdivision that was just testified to? Anybody from public? >> See no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Matt, do you have any problems with the subdivision? >> No problems with the subdivision. Staff prepared a memo dated October 1st, 2025. We do have just three standard conditions we ask the applicant to comply with. Should the board make a motion to approve? >> Uh, we are in receipt of that memo and we agree to the conditions therein. >> Okay. Excellent. Thank you, council. >> Staff recommends approval. >> All right. I'll entertain. >> Chair would like to make a motion to approve. KP 2023-0013 is presented to the board with staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second. >> All right. Motion made and seconded for approval. >> Acting Chair Gangadan >> I. >> Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Torres. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Lewis. >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> And Chairman Langston. >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor on a motion to approve with conditions. >> Okay. Thank you. So let's continue on with uh item 15, case P2023-000014. >> Thank you. Uh now that we've created lot 31, uh let me explain what we're uh we're proposing uh to develop on the site. Uh this is a little bit taller than the uh the building that was approved for lot 32. This is a 13story building. Uh there is a total of 3u uh 80 dwelling units and 235 parking spaces as well as almost 7,000 uh square feet of uh retail. Uh obviously the biggest selling point and um an item that I know that the the city uh takes great pride in is is that this uh project is going to have a considerable amount of affordability uh affordable units within uh and that includes uh a 20% affordable uh breakdown which is 76 units. Those units will be subject to uh to U-Hack. That means that there will be a mixture of uh very low low and moderate income units uh broken down over studios, onebedrooms, two bedrooms, and three bedrooms. And on top of that, there's also a 15% workforce uh included within the project as well. Um I am going to stick with Afton here and have her just run through the uh the civil site plan uh testimony and then uh we will bring up an our architect who will show you the the pretty pictures of what we're proposing. >> All right. Thank you. So I will toggle to um this is previously submitted to the board as part of the site plan set. It is the cover sheet or C-1 the first page in the set of 12 documents. And I'll go ahead and zoom in to what's what's noted as the aerial map. So as I zoom in here, this is this is showing the existing conditions under lane by that of parcel 31. Again, the one square that's a subject application independent of the subdivision that a proposed lot or a proposed building is being developed or um on. What you'll notice is where you see Bayfront Avenue to the right hand side or the west, Society Hill Drive to the east, along the north, Phil Brook Avenue to the south, Kellogg Street that exists today. That's that grid system that the subdivision is comprised of that the appendices of the redevelopment plan outline the design um parameters for and that are kind of setting the grid of this future development as envisioned by the city. As mentioned the block as it exists today is a portion of lot six. The address while note not noted on all the plans is 80 Kellogg Street will be subject to finalization with the tax assessor and the lot area is 62,123 square ft or 1.43 acres. We are in the Bayfront redevelopment plan or zone one mixeduse district. Immediately to the south as it splits in the east and west there is um that of redevelopment plan area 24 droid point where Society Hill is to the south beyond Kellogg Street of course is the retail development comprised of uh Acme among others to the east currently undeveloped this whole area is infill with the envisionment um of it being developed in the future and then to the west is the Hackinack River um we've kind of jumped across the city for this application in comparison to the former application, but that does have a flood hazard area associated with it as well, which is part of this application. Um, it's worth noting the existing conditions here and as this entire area gets designed and built, the topography of it, the further away from the river you get, the more that it climbs. So, in the northern direction, as you envision Philbrook Avenue, that is significantly higher than Kellogg Street. And then it'll continue to follow that pattern. In addition, lot geometry. Um, the lot geometry is relatively square. It is worth noting as we get to frontages, setbacks, the northern property line and the southern property line are ever so slightly off. So, it is not a perfect square. Um, I mentioned the roadway names. I do know in our coordination with the city as you reference um redevelopment plan appendices the the nomenclature or those designations did change but as you see them on the screen those are um those as as proposed as contemplated. So I will switch the screen um I I'm going to show a colorized site plan. We'll mark this as A3 as it hasn't been previously submitted to the board. >> A2 mark it as A2 for case 15. Understood. A2. It's site plan rendering exhibit shoot one of one. It's prepared by our office and it's dated October 20th 2025. So again, what you're seeing here, um, and council mentioned, you'll see the renderings of the building and the pretty pictures as we transition to architectural testimony. But what we've done here is we've taken the site plan set and we've really laid it on top of one another as you think about each page understanding where is the building coverage, where are their foundation plantings, where will the roadways go. And what's important to note on this one is that there has been um design as provided by JC for the roadway network for the infrastructure which has actually been permitted with the state as well. So when we think about the coloring that you're showing on the roadway, when we think about the streetscape, the street trees, all of that will continue to be closely coordinated with JC and the city to ensure that all of the ordinant ordinance requirements, not to mention redevelopment plan is satisfied. The proposed structure, as mentioned, um this will be a mixeduse building comprised of 380 units with an affordable component, not to mention retail. In looking at the building footprint, again, this is that predominantly light yellowish tan color uh that I'm circling with my cursor within the square. The retail is located along the leftand side or the western side of Bayfront Avenue. The main entrance to the property is the upper right hand corner um or to the lobby, specifically the northwest on Philbrook and Society Drive. And as mentioned the topography uh when we are up on Philbrook or Society Drive at this corner we're approximately seven or so feet above that of Kellogg. So it has been strategically planned in terms of the residential component to raise that outside of the flood hazard area. The retail on the side again all of those grades are climbing as you go up and down those vertical side streets. The building height, you'll hear more from the architect as it relates to the building design, but the proposed building height is 13 stories. In terms of the proposed setbacks, again, you you can kind of notice on the bottom of the screen, uh the property line is I'll follow it in a counterclockwise direction. It's a double dash dark black line, and this is the boundary as as noted and created by the subdivision, but it is not a perfect square. So you'll see the building footprint in somewhat of that yellow color and then you'll see a series of foundation plantings as it relates to setting the building back. The redevelopment plan cites a minimum of 5T for that building uh setback. And there is one location where the proposed development is seeking a deviation for the setback specifically. That is by the lobby entrance. I'll circle with my cursor. Um, you'll hear more from the architect as it relates to this facade element, what the design of it is, but where there's a five foot setback requirement, again localized to this area that I'm circling, where there's a stair and a ramp entrance, uh, we're seeking a 2.7 foot setback from the property line. Um, again, you'll hear more on the architectural side of it, but from a civil engineering standpoint, when we think about this plan, when we think about Jersey City's design for this entire area, it's really with a focus on pedestrian walkability, bicycle, um, all over just access to these developments. And the sidewalk width in that location is on the order of 12 feet. So when we think about the height of this the ceiling, when we think about an average sidewalk width, there is an adequate sidewalk beyond the property line completely independent of the two two feet that's that's here. And that's consistent around this entire project. It grows in some areas again where you have uh slightly skewed property line from the building. But the streetscape improvements here will be ADA compliant. they'll be um in accordance with the city requirements, the JCA requirements to ensure that this this neighborhood become very um blended as it relates to what the city envisions in terms of parking. Um there's 235 parking spaces interior to the building. There is interior parking. There's a driveway as proposed off of Society Hill Drive or the right hand side of the page. in this area. Again, as contemplated from a zoning perspective, there's actually a maximum parking requirement, but there is no minimum requirement. There's an EV as applicable based on our supply, which we will be satisfying. We're not taking credit for that just because of the the zoning applicability. They're not and it being compliant, but it would come down to um actually exceeding the maximum with that credit. Uh bicycle parking, it is interior to the building uh compliant. You'll hear from the architect on that. Additional notable site improvements. Again, you see all of these finished materials based on the phase 1A plans from JC in conjunction with CME associates as part of that design. Uh we do know in receiving the Department of Transportation letter, there's um comments about coordinating the loading zones or some of the more specific right-of-way elements. We certainly have no objection to those comments. will be working with the city and necess and um inevitably working with JC to finesse some of these elements from a storm water standpoint. Um all of this area as it exists is is undeveloped. Um what JC has done to date is they've designed infrastructure for the management of these roadways that are motor vehicle surface where water quality is um required and then these out parcels. So as developed and per or as permitted with the state to date, these sites are treated as what I what I would call a pad site. So they've zoned them. They've designed or not zone them, they've designed all the infrastructure for these to be covered in gravel because they had to size the pipes. They had to permit the outfalls with the state. So from a storm water standpoint, we are reducing the impervious coverage relative to that interim or existing conditions set by JC. And then in doing so, we're meeting the city ordinance as it relates to performative roof treatments, green roof, foundation plantings, the green area ratio. Um, as part of that, in terms of lighting, um, there is as modeled as submitted to the board, uh, wall-mounted and canopy fixtures, all LED fixtures. They'll be dark sky compliant. Uh, we do note there are a couple, um, waiverss as indicated on the plans related to to lighting. One is the maximum illumination at the property line just based on the nature of this project there being a um it's not a lot line building but it's close. So there are protrusions that do exceed that of the maximum lunation. Again, given the right of way that surrounds this on every every frontage, every corner, um that's from our from our perspective, from a civil engineering perspect perspective, it won't have an adverse impact and it's it's not uncommon given these designs. On the flip side, there is a a max or a minimum sidewalk illumination requirement. We do note um as modeled, the only thing that's been modeled are those of the building of fixed fixtures. JC has preliminary plans as it relates to street lights which have not been modeled to date. Obviously, working with them, the location where we do not meet that minimum sidewalk illumination is where the cursor is right now. It's in the sidewalk at that intersection of Phil Brook and Society Hill. That being said, um, from a civil engineering standpoint, knowing that the streetscape lighting has not been finalized nor modeled yet, we have no problem complying with the requirement. This is the main entrance to the building. It is in the applicant's best interest to ensure that it has adequate lighting. Landscaping, I I touched on it a little bit. As you see around the perimeter of the building, there are foundation plantings that are along a majority of the perimeter. Um, you'll hear more from the architect as it relates to other green infrastructure elements for the building. And then street trees. uh we'll be coordinating closely with JC and the city to ensure that the streetscape street trees um comply with the city ordinance and are proposed utilities. Um similarly again JCI has done a lot of the leg work here in coordinating where the utilities will go and then stub locations or um locations that are held for the purpose of future development once those get installed. So all of our sewer connection locations, our storm water connection locations, all of those are previously contemplated. Same thing with water. Um, as part of this application, this does, uh, there's not a lot of site work here. Um, but I do, this does, uh, conclude my direct testimony. I know you hear more from, um, another witness or the architect, but I'm happy to answer any questions as it relates to the civil side. >> Okay. Thank you, Miss Savitz. Uh, I have no questions. Anybody else? No, >> good. No. >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Um, we did bring up the JC a few times, so I should just mention on the record that uh the uh the developer here has been designated as the redeveloper for the site and has entered into an RDA with with the JCA. Uh, with that said, I'm going to bring up Stuart Johnson, who is our architect, who will walk you through the uh, his site plans and also provide some uh, renderings of the building. >> Okay. Thank you, council. And, um, >> Okay. I just wanted to check on Commissioner Torres there. Eddie, you all right? >> Can't afford to lose you on this one. Can't afford to lose you. >> That's how good that game is. Uh, yes I do. >> Sure. Uh, Stuart Johnson. S TU A R T. Last name Johnson. >> Mr. Johnson. Good evening. Your license is current tonight. >> It is. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Thank you. >> Uh, before you start, uh, you have a number of renderings here that were not provided as far as our package. So, I would just like to How many sheets do you have? >> So, uh, I have a multi-page PDF. It's 27 pages. So we could mark this as exhibit A3 which I think is next in sequence. >> Um the 27 pages represent the same package that we submitted the architectural building plans, the building elevations, the building sections, typical unit plans. We simply have colorized the building plans for ease of reading the uses, unit plans, corridors, mechanical spaces, etc. We've also introduced five new illustrative uh uh uh uh perspective renderings that describe the proposed project >> and they're all in the 21 slides. >> They're all in the 27 slides. Yes, >> 27. >> We could submit that PDF. >> So, we'll mark it as A3 for purpose of the record. 27 slide. And thank you. >> So, great. Um so, good evening. It's exciting to be here. I have more than just pretty pictures to share. Um, a lot of thought was given to this site. Uh, and we're pleased to share our vision for redevelopment of the site. Um, certainly the city's planning staff and outside professionals as they looked at this new neighborhood and engaged a master plan for the Bayfront neighborhood. Uh some of the goals and objectives just to highlight at a high level was to create new and diverse housing typologies create new open space and access to waterfront within the city. Um to create new inviting public environment spaces right at the streetscape and at the human level and strengthen both new neighborhoods as well as existing neighborhoods. Uh and we think our proposed application here for lot six parcel 31 does just that. Um so the application is for a new 13-story mixeduse building. Um as previously noted the building is comprised of 380 uh total apartment units. These are rental apartment units. Uh the units themselves are comprised of 247 uh uh market rate units. We have 57 workforce housing units which is 15% of the overall density and 76 affordable housing units compliant with U-Hack standards as well as uh the income thresholds. So that's 20% of the overall density. We have approximately 6,860 ft of ground flooror commercial retail that fronts on Bayfront Avenue which is recommended uh in the redevelopment plan which helps to activate uh the human realm and the streetscape of the building. Um and we also are providing 235 structured parking spaces internal to the building which is screened with active uses whether those are residential apartment units, ground flooror retail or new storefront windows internal to the building. So there's four levels of structured parking and again walking and driving around the building. We really don't see that. Um, so the building screens that we also have 201 uh secure bicycle parking spaces in two different bicycle rooms on the ground floor that are conveniently adjacent to the residential lobby in the garage for residents to gain access to that. Um, the first image on screen here is an illustrative perspective view. This is a view looking southwest from from uh Society Hill Drive and Phil Brook Avenue. uh Phil Brook Avenue fronts on a new central green space or spine that runs through this neighborhood. So we're illustratively depicting that park area that's not part of this application, but it is part of the overall master plan and green space. We can see our primary residential lobby uh which fronts on Philbrook Avenue. Um as previously noted um the application largely uh conforms with the bulk zoning standards, building coverage um uh in terms of the mass and density of the building. We comply uh the volume of the building, the the the the orientation of the various uh forms of the building comply with the design standards of the recommendations of the redevelopment plan. For instance, the tallest portion of the building is recommended to be at the intersection of Philbrook and uh Bayrron Avenue where we have a corner architectural treatment. The vertical mass of the building is recommended to be oriented towards the park space. And there are various uh stepbacks that are required either above the fifth floor of the building uh or elsewhere. And again, we comply with those stepbacks at Bayfront Avenue on uh on Society Hill Drive, Kellogg Street, and Phil Brook Avenue. Um there is a 5-ft setback that is required on all frontages. Uh as previously testified by the applicants engineer, we comply with that setback on three of the frontages except for uh Philbrook Avenue. And it's only at one point and it's it's in the center of the building where we can see the first four floors where we have the residential lobby. Uh the massing of the building protrudes out there. Um as noted, we have a minimum clear width of sidewalk which is 12 ft all the way around the building. If we didn't have this architectural massing and element, uh we wouldn't have an increased sidewalk width. There are planters up against the building that provide green space that soften where the heartscape meets the building. Uh so there's really no negative impact to the public good or you know the public realm. And what this does is it helps to create a sense of place and arrival to the building. It also creates a covered entrance to the building. Uh it's an architectural feature element that helps to break down the scale of the building and relate to the park space. Uh we have a contemporary weathered steel cladding that we're proposing for that two-story element. Again, we think it's an architectural appropriate treatment. Um and the 2.7 setback that we have there uh given the fact that the rightway is set in from the curb, there's really no negative impact and there are uh you know uh better benefits overall. Um so with that being said, I want to walk you quickly through uh the building plans. Um so advancing the slide then we'll move to uh the second sheet and this is the ground floor plan of the building. Uh so again these are the same building plans that we submitted. They're simply colorized for for for ease of reading. The primary residential lobby is colored in yellow here. It's located at the intersection of Philbrook and Society Hill Drive. Off of the off the lobby space, we have leasing and management, package and mail, as well as a fitness center for residents of the building. The primary elevator cores and stairs are located there. Um, as we move clockwise around the building, we have internal refuge and recycling that's stored internal to the building. We have off- streetet loading that's located here off of off of uh Society Hill Drive as well as the vehicular ingress and egress access to the internal structured parking garage that's internal to the building and again wrapped with active uses. Internal to the building here we also have our bicycle storage rooms. Um, and then moving down to Kellogg Street, which is a different street typology and as as identified in the redevelopment plan, we have residential apartment units on our first floor which are elevated from the streetscape and planters outside those units again to soften up where we've have exposed foundation wall of the building. It's important to note uh the engineer had noted we have a significant grade fall from Philbrook Avenue to uh Kellogg Street. It's almost a stories uh sort of height difference as well as gradefall uh from plan right to plan left um or I'm sorry plan right to plan left here uh on the screen. Um as we move then clockwise around to Bayfront Avenue pochade or colored in blue is where we have our commercial ground floor retail new storefront windows that activate that street frontage there and the streetscape. We can see the 12oot clear sidewalk that wraps continuously around the building. um you know especially on those three frontages um and then a secondary residential access points to the building uh here on Phil Brook Avenue. As we move then uh vertically in the building to the upper floors, we move to the typical second through fourth floor. We can again see how the residential apartment units are wrapping that parking garage and screening it with active uses. Uh we next move to the fifth floor plan where we have a landscape courtyard with a new active uh uh pool and you know a barbecue dining area for residents of the of this community. And then above the fifth floor there are recommended stepbacks that we conform with. So the building begins to step back then above the fifth floor. We can see that here on Philbrook as well as Kellogg and society. And then we move to the seventh floor of the building. Um and at the seventh floor of the building then the building steps away. So the vertical mass again uh is oriented with frontage on Phil Brook Avenue. This courtyard here is one story lower than the seventh floor roof. So with southern exposure uh that allows for nice light and air into that courtyard space. Um we do also comply with the required green roof and solar roof area. So 20% of the overall roof area of the building is required to be either green roof area or solar ready uh solar ready area and we comply with the minimum area required of green roof and the max permitted for solar ready area on the rooftops of the building. Um moving vertically in the building then to sheet A6. This is the typical 8th through 13th floor of the building. This is the tower massing of the building. Um, and then lastly, we move to the upper rooftop of the building where we do have a small indoor covered uh rooftop amenity space approximately 3,000 square feet. This is well less than 20% that's permitted and complies with the LDO in regards to rooftop uh uses. Um, so next I'll walk you through the five illustrative perspective rendings. Just talk a little bit about the exterior building materials. Um, so we're looking here at sheet A21. This was the view that we introduced previously. Um, again we can see that the vertical massing is oriented towards the park. Large punch windows for light and air to the residential apartment units. We have three different vertical uh three different uh uh composite metal panels that we're using on the building. We have a lighter gray, medium gray, and a darker gray for accent. a masonry brick veneer that's being used on the base of the building to give a weighted base uh to really define sort of a weighted base middle and top to the building as well as a vertical massing here at the corner. Advancing the slide to the next sheet A22. This is zooming in on the primary residential lobby. So this is a view looking south from Philbrook Avenue. Specifically, this is the entry element that we were making reference to before. So again, the setback from this entry element to the property line is approximately 2.7 feet. Again, we it doesn't impact the 12 foot wide sidewalk uh clear width that we have because of the grading condition. We do have steps uh that occur on that building. We have an accessible ramp which is tucked behind these planters here. Um and again we think that this provides an attractive sense of place and arrival to the building. Uh you know a covered protection um as well entering into the building. Advancing to the next slide A23. This is a view looking south from Philbrook Avenue and Bayfront Avenue. Again we can see the corner tower massing element here. The tallest point of the building uh being at this intersection. We can see how the building and its mass relates to the park in the open space, that wider rightway across the new public park space and the storefront windows which began here on the corner of Bayfront Avenue and marched down to Kellogg Street activating that streetscape. The next slide then is um exhibit A24 or sheet A24 of exhibit A3. U this is a view looking north from Bayfront Avenue and Kellogg Street. So this shows the intersection here where the retail begins uh at the southern portion of the site. Again uh opportunity for new uh restaurant use, cafe use, uh new commercial retail to activate the pedestrian realm uh at the street level on Kellogg Street. We had seen before in plan, but we have residential apartment units on the ground floor. That first floor again is elevated from the streetscape. And we have an attractive landscape design here with raised planters to soften up where the building meets the hardscape. Uh and then the last view that we have to share with you all. This is a view looking west from Kellogg Street and Society Hill Drive. Uh looking down Kellogg Street, we get glimpses towards the waterfront and the new waterfront access. Uh again, this nicely defines uh the massing of the building and how the vertical mass of the building again uh fronts on that uh new public park space. Um it shows how again the building creates a step back right above the fifth floor of the building which helps to create sort of a weighted base or defines the base of the building. Again we could see the masonry brick veneer, the composite metal panel detailing being proposed here. Um and again an attractive uh massing um and form for the building that conforms with the design standards of the redevelopment plan. Um, so with that, I mean, that was a lot of information, but again, we're very excited, largely conforming uh with the redevelopment plan and its design standards, and we're excited to see this building move forward. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Council, do you have anything for your witness before a question? >> Mr. Johnson. >> Okay. Um, one question I want to touch on. Let's talk uh parking garage ventilation. >> Sure. So that's the parking garage is completely wrapped with residential and is covered on top. >> Yes. >> All right. So how are we getting fresh in it air in and >> so the garage uh the garage will be mechanically exhausted. It'll also have a dry sprinkler system throughout. Right. Uh in terms of fresh air uh we will either pull fresh air from the garage door openings if we do an open louver grill, right? quick action overhead rollup garage door as louver grills or we'll have louver bands uh on that facade to pull fresh air in. In terms of exhaust, we would be exhausting vertically to the roof space. Uh so we would design that into the landscape courtyard or the upper roof plan of the building. So we'll have rated shafts that go vertically in the building for exhaust of the garage and for fresh air intake again either louver bands on the streetscape. Uh we indicate some of that on the exterior facads. Right? If you sort of zoom in on the Society Hill Drive side, or again, we would pull from the garage door openings themselves, uh, through through an open grill style garage door that would roll down for security, uh, but but but offer quick action overhead roll up, you know, for secure access to residents. >> Okay. Um, and you said there's a dry sprinkler system. Nothing's climate controlled inside there. >> Uh, nothing would be climate controlled. I mean there are electric kick heaters in the ceiling of the garage to insulate residential apartment units adjacent. The apartment units themselves and corridors are insulated which help to basically insulate the garage. Um but no the >> the building code requires a dry sprinkler system. There are wet stand pipes in the egress stairs uh you know compliant with city ordinance as well as building code. >> Sure. >> But yes. >> Okay. Um, I believe that's it for me. Anybody else? Any questions? >> The building's not fully engineered. This is a schematic site plan application. >> No, we haven't done that just right. Right. So, we know the building will be required to be mechanically exhausted. We know that the build that the garage will be required to be mechanically exhausted. Right? There are CO2 sensors in the garage and the fans kick on if CO2 levels were to get to a certain level. Right? Cars are not running all the time. The fans are not running continuously. If everyone happened to be leaving at 9:00 a.m. or 7:00 a.m. in the morning, right? You know, at a certain time, levels get to a certain point. Fans kick on. Uh we would have raided shafts that run vertically to the roof of the building, which is where we would exhaust. So, we know that. We haven't identified those rated shafts uh just yet. We have an idea where they would be located. Uh and we have an idea of how we would pull the fresh air in for that system which I just described. >> So those final designs will be in the submission packet to the building department. Correct. >> They would be subject to building permit review. That's correct. I mean it's required by city ordinance as well as the you know the building code. Uh so you know the 2021 version of the New Jersey IBC that uh New Jersey has adopted and you know Jersey City abides by but yes that'd be subject to building permit review. >> Okay. Anybody else on questions? >> Um there was uh the A2 um drawing that you had AO2 the it was also in the parking garage. Um I guess would be I guess maybe it was the next one. A1 >> sheet. So sheet A1's the ground floor plan of the building. >> Okay. Right there. So when the cars are coming in through Society Hill there. >> Yes. >> You have a 24 foot opening. Right. They're coming in and out. What is that to the um I guess would be the north part. Is that a loading dock area there where we um Okay, I see the uh you have the eight the handicap. Okay, that's the handicap van handicap parking. Okay, that's what that is. >> Yeah, we have an accessible I mean uh we comply with chapter 11 accessibility. Uh at least 2% of all the parking that we're providing is required then to be accessible. Um do >> you have any loading dock area for >> Yes. Yeah. So I noted we have off- streetet loading. So, we have an off- streetet loading dock >> that's 40 feet in depth. Uh, it also complies with the height requirements for small U-Haul size uh you know movein vehicle or trash truck uh to allow for that operation to occur off street. >> Okay. All right. That's what I was I was wondering when I saw the middle part that was wonder if that was the loaded area and it might it's the entrance of the building. >> We colored it in yellow just cuz it it would be for residential use. It should probably be a darker gray color mechanical which would have better um >> Okay. Thank you. >> Sure. >> All right. Anybody else? >> No. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. >> Thanks. >> Leave this up. >> Yes. >> Um and just very briefly, I know both our architect and our engineer touched on what that deviation is, which is essentially a um a a front yard setback. Um we do have our planner here. I'm not going to have her go over the conditions that relate to it, but just outline uh our uh our justification under the the C criteria. >> Sure. >> And this is Marella Traina. >> Yes, I do. >> Marchella Trina. First name M A R C E L L A last name T R A I N A. >> Good evening. First time here? >> No. >> Really? >> Yes. >> Why am I drawing a blank on this? All right. I'm sorry. Um, your license is current tonight. >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. I apologize. >> No worries. I think I was here for a Westside Avenue project maybe about six months ago, so it's been a little while. Um, yeah, I'll just take it uh take it off. So, um, I'll be very brief because uh I believe you heard a lot of testimony already. Uh, the site is located in the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan area. specifically zone one mixeduse district. Uh we are compliant with almost all of the requirements listed in the redevelopment plan, but we are seeking a minor relief for the minimum frontage setback where 5T is required and 2.7 ft is proposed. As you heard, this is a result of the proposed residential canopy which covers less than a fifth of the front facade on Phil Brook Avenue. Uh this is a minimal encroachment that's only covering the area above the steps leading to the residential lobby. Um it's my opinion that this relief can be granted with no substantial detriment to the public good. Uh this project promotes the objective of the redevelopment plan to encourage a mix of uses including residential units that are affordable as well as a master plan's vision of enhancing and beautifying the public realm uh aligning with MLUL purpose. I um and again it's my opinion that these that this relief can be granted under the C2 benefits versus detriments criteria of the statute which means that the benefits of the overall project substantially outweigh any potential detriments. >> Thank you. I have no questions. Anybody else? >> No. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Council, that's your presentation. >> That is my presentation. Uh I will note that I received a staff report uh that is dated uh September 18th as it relates to the site plan application. Uh I've reviewed the conditions therein uh with my client. They are all acceptable. Given the affordable uh housing nature in here, I anticipate that you chairman will have one to add to it. >> I will. >> Okay. Uh and with that, that is uh the conclusion of our presentation. >> Okay. So, the one I will add obviously uh all affordable units will have the same materials, same fit and finish as the rest of the market rate units. It's throw a curveball tonight though >> all the amenities. They'll have access to all the building amenities that the market rate units do. >> Yes, we can agree to both of those as conditions of approval. >> Okay, great. Thank you. So, at this time, let's open it up for public comment. Is anybody here from the public that wants to comment on this application? Anybody from public? >> Sure. I see no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Matt, do you have anything? Uh >> the staff's memo was already referenced and the conditions agreed to as well as an added condition on the record. Uh this project um talked about it numerous times. It's the phase two to uh the Bayfront redevelopment area. Uh this is a fantastic thing to see. Um it is providing um the anticipated affordable housing and some since it's utilizing the affordable housing overlay as well. Uh the setback uh variance that they are requesting relief from staff agrees with the professional planners testimony put on the record. Uh staff recommends approval. >> Thank you. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case P203-000014 is presented to the board with staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second for approval. >> Acting Chair Gangan >> I. >> Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Torres >> I. >> Commissioner Lewis. >> Commissioner Battel. >> Hi. >> And Chairman Linkston. >> So, uh, I'm going to take a second here to talk about this. Um, I I've been on this board since August of 2013, and you know, obviously I'm getting there. I think my time is limited here as chair at this point. It's true, but um, >> it's not true. >> Th this this is the absolute high point of my time here. Everybody that's been involved as long as we have at this point, this is it. Th this is been in planning for so long and it's it's just a purposebuilt, you know, enclave of affordable housing. The the sidewalks are great. The bike lanes are great. The parks are are well imagined. This is an amazing project. I wish this room was filled to the max right now to see this. Um th this is a big eye for me and uh I I love this project. So um yeah, it's an eye. Thank you, Council. >> Thank you. It's a it's a compliment to our team and the city and uh just the teamwork we've we've put together to make this a reality. So we thank you. >> Absolutely. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> All right. Thank you. Um, do we want to get a break in before we call the next application or um, yeah, we know better than that. Uh, Mr. Harrington, this is yours. Yes, >> the next one. Um, should we take a break now or wait until after? >> Uh, it's up to you. We're, you know, we don't expect to be long. Uh but it's not going to be five minutes either. So >> Okay. Yeah. Let's get a break in now and uh we'll call that next. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> You need to set up. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. I was wondering. I was wondering what. >> Yeah. I only do that in the summer. >> All right. All right, if we could come to order again, let's call item 16 is case P2025-0203, preliminary and final major site plan amendment for 49 to 51 Morton Place. Good evening, council. >> Okay, good evening. Thank you. Uh Mr. Chairman, uh Charles Harrington of Connell Foley. Uh for the record, on behalf of the applicant, uh this is a notice case, so I have given them to council to review for the record. Chairman, I am received the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application that was just called Morton Place Plaza LLC. I've had the opportunity to review it. It does appear to be in order. Going to mark it as A1 for purpose of the record. >> Thank you, council. >> Okay. Thank you. So, uh we were before this board in early August, I believe it was August 12th, um for this project and there was an issue raised with regard to the turnaround of capability on Morton Place. Um and at that point we we agreed to make some changes um for an emergency exit only out in the Morton place. Uh we after leaving uh that night uh we took another look at it and and really wanted to do something a little bit different and that's that's why we're back here tonight. Uh we're presenting um a configuration that we've created uh kind of a a notch that that on on our side of the property which uh would allow everyone not just the the residents of this building but uh all the public to use and then and then to um do kind of a K turn and it takes it away also from the the neighbor across the street. Um and we have we have spoken to him about this as well. Uh we have also reviewed it with the Jersey City Traffic Department and uh they they have also um given their blessing not in a review letter but I do have an email with me if if the board wishes that to see that as part of the presentation. Um what what we also did and um and I'll I'll get out of the way but we made we had to make some architectural changes to the building. Uh we have moved um uh the the uh the two elevators uh to the Orient uh Avenue uh uh frontage. Uh we've moved the mail room and package room. The point is to try to make that the focus of of the uh the building. So when you're coming and going, you want to go uh through the Orient uh Avenue uh uh uh frontage. Uh that was not the case when we were back here in August. It was it was it was very much dominated uh um for the Morton place. So we think that that's going to help have people um you know if they're coming and going or or with Ubers that they want to go to Orient Place. They don't want to go down to Morton Place unless you're you have an an apartment on that side of the building. There's really no point, you know, to to go there because you want you don't want them to bring bring you down there so you're closer. So, with that said, I have I do have uh the three witnesses, but I I have told them to be brief. Um the presentations are brief. Uh Mr. Libuskin is going to walk you through the uh just to show you the the proposed notch um on Morton Place. Then, uh Mr. Kelly is going going to explain uh the the architectural changes. And then there are um as a result of all this there there is like a setback and a coverage deviation that that is is slightly um exceeds um or deviates from from the permitted regulations in the zoning. We're going to address that. Um but it's you know we think it's consistent as as you might recall you can have a 15story building here. We're proposing six. So we're we're not trying to overbuild. Okay. gave tonight. >> I do. >> Brian Libiskin. L I E B E S K I N D. >> Mr. Leein, good evening. Your license is current. >> Good evening. It is >> okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Thank you. Uh >> yeah, Brad, if you could just uh walk walk them through the sketch and how how this uh proposal will work. >> Uh sure. So uh on the screen, this is our revised site plan C301. This is part of the amended application package um that was submitted um for this evening. Uh this is last revised October 1st, 2025. Um as Mr. Harrington noted, um everything on this site plan um it was was previously approved. Um as part of that August 12th uh hearing um also just for for the record we'll note um prior to that hearing um we were in receipt of all um agency comments and address those um including forestry um transportation um and JMU comments. Um so the application um before you tonight is um again you know limited to the the operations um at uh more in place and um again as Mr. Harrington noted is is dual prong you in the sense it's um you improving the operations um outside the building for that K turn um as well as um some architectural um modifications that Mr. Kelly will will speak to. Um so to zoom in uh on the Morton Place uh dead end um uh we have uh added a uh a bumpout uh on the north side of of that curb. Um the building was recessed at the ground floor um to allow for uh two 15-minute parking spaces um you know within that that sidewalk. uh and the uh area on on the west end of Mort in place. Um this is going back to uh the original design with a striped out area um to help facilitate those those turning movements. Um so um again as as noted this this was um reviewed with uh city planning, city transportation as well as the neighbor um and you know in all parties feel like that this is um you addressing the concerns that were that were raised. um the um you the the movements um we testified to um as part of that that August uh hearing um would would still be a three-point K turn. Um but now um you know the this the short-term parking you know would be you know allowed to park in those those spaces. the backup would take place um within this this striped out area in here. So unless there are any um you know specific questions you know related to um this change that would conclude my testimony. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh any questions anyone? Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. >> Okay. Then, uh I'm going to bring up Mr. Kelly uh to explain the the architectural changes which again we think runs hand inand with with the issue of moving people to Orient Avenue. >> Hello everyone. >> Good evening. >> Testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth. The whole truth. I do. >> Kieran Kelly. C I A R A N K E L L Y. >> Mr. Kelly, good evening. Your license is current. >> It is. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Thank you. Uh let me just bring up the drawings. Okay. Sorry. Um so yeah as was described you know we had the the the the original hearing we presented the project and at that time there was always two lobbies in the building but the primary lobby was on Morton Place fronting on to Morton Place and through the course of that hearing there was obviously concerns raised by the board about I guess the safety uh both pedestrian and vehicular at that Borton condition because it's it's it's a dead end street and so you know we went back and it was clear to our client that there was it was very important to have that connection at that location, but it was understood the reason for the concern. And so I guess the the approach for the redesign was a two-prong approach. One was, you know, what Brian just described about trying to best fix the maneuverability in Morton Place, but then obviously from the architecture, uh there was a lot we could do inside the building and namely as as Mr. Harrington said that was refocus the interior organization of the building so as to make the Orient street side the main residential lobby. Now, I have the plans updated. I have them arranged in approved and amended, but quite honestly, I think it might be confusing because you're you're jumping between levels. So, it might just be easier if I explain and then if you have specific questions that I point them out on the plan, but essentially what was originally the main residential lobby on Morton Place is relocated one floor lower fronting onto Orient. And with that moves the double height entry space, the double elevator lobby, all the mail rooms and the package rooms. And they all go down to a grander residential lobby on Orient. Now what had previously been at that location, the kind of back of house services like the transformer room, the electrical room in order to make way for this new lobby, they all get relocated up onto Morton Place. So the only space really left over on Morton Place is a small kind of seating area but essentially uh your secondary means of egress exit out of that location. Now in addition to those to that um there is a 6,000 ft² amenity space interior amenity space which fronts onto the courtyard and that amenity space was reorientated closer to the Orient site so that it's more adjacent to what is now the double elevator lobby or the main vertical circulation point in the building. The remainder of the space was the residential units which were kind of shifted in order to fill up the remaining space. That's that's probably the easiest way I can describe it. Um we did not increase the residential footage and all of the residential units are as they were same number of units 296 same breakdown studios one two threes uh the amenity space all remain the same. Uh so essentially we have done that we we have made the orient entry the main and only the main uh residential entry. I should also note that it was always the case that trash removal and loading space, off- streetet loading space for move in and move out, that was always on orient. We have maintained that because our main uh garage entry is on orient. Uh and that stuff all stays there. We have never intended for there to be heavy vehicle traffic on the Morton place side. Um so, so that's the changes that were made in order to address this concern. I just want to mention uh the upper floor setbacks that you described. Uh the redevelopment plan does require uh a 15t setback on the Orient side, but above the fifth floor that's supposed to increase to 30 ft. Now the whole impetus for us reducing uh this building to a six-story building was the ability to build it out of uh stick framing over a concrete podium. Stick framing is only really efficient uh when you when you try to have a typical floor plan because obviously the interior walls become loadbearing and so we uh eliminated the 30foot setback uh on the Orient site above the fifth floor but of course that's in the context of reducing it from a permitted 16story structure which it originally was. So that's that's that's that just to describe it that was the way it was previously. I just I didn't touch on it in testimony. And then uh just the last change that I want to point out is uh the neighbor had uh expressed a concern because we are proposing pickleball courts on the roof. We had some discussion about the last time the pick pickle ball courts were um on the Morton side. They were closer to his property and so we have moved them away. We've moved them to the north side of the uh roof uh kind of overlooking the train tracks. So away from the property. So that's the extent that the changes in terms of uh the facade. The facade is obviously more or less exactly as it was except here on the right hand side where the car is located. We pulled in that portion of the first floor to allow for those recess spots. Um that's it. That's the extent of my testimony. >> Mr. Kelly, I see the rendering up here. Maybe we should mark the the uh slide deck that you >> uh just uh presented as A2. >> A2 and and just for the record, >> number of slides. >> Number of slides. >> Uh that's a good question. Uh 13 30 >> just for record I think I think you might have um made an error on the unit count. It's 264. >> Oh, apologies. >> It's uh that has not changed >> with 20 28 affordable uh units. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Um, the only question I do have, and it came up in the last meeting, pickle ball courts are only daylight hours, >> correct? >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay, that's my only question. Anybody else? >> All right. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. >> Okay. Now, I'm going to continue with Mr. Bellamy just to briefly address >> the deviations >> and just let the record show Mr. Bellamy has already been sworn in tonight and is still qualified. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. So, Mr. Kelly covered one of the uh setback deviations we're requesting from the uh Orient Avenue frontage. Um this project is in zone C high-rise mixeduse to district of the Green Villa redevelopment plan. It's also in the affordable housing overlay. Um so, I I agree with the testimony from Mr. Kelly really from a bulk standpoint. Um it's this project, this redevelopment plan envisioned a much much larger high-rise building. Um we're proposing a an uh six story an eightstory building. So we're much uh much lower than what's what's contemplated with that. Um we are also requesting a setback deviation from that side um the side uh that's uh butts the residential buildings that continue along Orient Avenue. There's a 35 foot um stepback requirement uh for the eighth to fifth to eighth floors. We're proposing a total of 24.5 ft. Um so we're short about 10 10.5 ft on that that um side setback area. We also do have a maximum building coverage deviation on the fifth through 8th floors. That's where 65% is permitted. We're proposing 70% on the fifth floor and 69% on the sixth floor. Um we are below the maximum building coverage on the second through fourth floors. There's a 75% um permitted coverage and we're at uh 70%. So where we're we're balancing out the additional coverage on the upper floors by reducing the coverage on the the lower floors as well as you know having a reduced height than what this redevelopment plan does contemplate. Um, so with that, I think all of these deviations can be granted where the benefits would outweigh the detriments. I think there's direct tradeoffs and this project does meet the overall intent of the redevelopment plan and uh proposes an appropriate massing and and footprint on the site that does provide for adequate light, air, and open space. Um, with that, I think this project does promote the purposes of the municipal land use law uh purposes A, C, and I. And I don't see any substantial detriment to the general welfare or substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. I think this project really is directly in line with what the plan calls for. Um with that, that would conclude my direct testimony, but happy to answer any questions. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Bellamy. Any questions? Anyone? >> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Council, that's so that completes our presentation. Uh just real short, we think it's a better project. We we took the comments from the board and um we think with the changes we made ma made it a much better project. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh is anybody here from the public that wants to comment on this application? Anyone from public? >> See no one from public. I would like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Matt. >> Um yes. So, um, so yeah, the applicant approached us, you know, with the amendment. They wanted to be able to restore the ability to enter and exit the property on Morton Place. Um, with the notch, they create what you call a a hammerhead intersection, which is a hammerhead turnaround, excuse me, which is essentially extra space that allows the full clearance for a K turn, which I believe solves um, a lot of those congestion issues. As um, Mr. Harrington mentioned um transportation planning and traffic signed off on these as um as satisfying their concerns. Um and I think as uh Mr. Bellamy's testimony mentioned the um stepback variances that they're requesting um were really for the original tower and a base typology that the zoning was written for and they're proposing a low-rise structure. Um staff recommends approval. Um yes. So um staff just asks that all conditions from the previous um resolution carryover with the exception of the emergency exit condition um and that be revised to reflect um the request to have um Mort in place function as a secondary general public entrance. Then >> that's acceptable. >> Okay. Thank you. Chair like to make a motion to approve KP2025-0203 is presented to the board with staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded for approval. >> Acting vice chair Gangadan. >> Yeah. I just want to say um thank you for listening to the board's board's concern and um bringing this back and making this project a better one for the uh neighborhood as well. That's a great addition. I vote I. >> Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Torres >> I. >> Commissioner Lewis >> I. >> Commissioner Patel >> I. >> And Chairman Langston >> I. And uh I do want to thank the applicant for hearing us. Appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay, let's move on to item 18 is case P2024-0134 is a preliminary major site plan with C variances for 180 Baldwin Avenue. And I don't want to say yet, but it is 9:20. This possibly could be our last application of the night. We'll see how it goes. >> Pretty confident. >> Yeah. >> Good evening, chairman. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Gerard Pizzillo. I'm an attorney with Gova Burns appearing this evening on behalf of the applicant 180 Baldwin Avenue LLC. As the chairman indicated, this is a preliminary site plan application with C variances. We did prepare and provide notice. I did upload it to the portal and with chairman's permission, may I approach council and present him with the originals? >> Thank you for asking though. >> So nice. These fancy tabs, >> little things, >> professionally on chair receive the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application 180 baldwin a I've had the opportunity to review it does appear to be in order to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record. >> Thank you councel. >> Thank you councel and thank you again commissioners. Uh so 180 Baldwin Avenue is known as block 10901 lot 65.01 1 and 67.01 located within the Journal Square 2060 redevelopment area, specifically zone 4. Um the project is utilizing the whole block provision which allows for developments that meet those standards to develop according to zone 3 standards. So although the project is zone is in zone 4, we are developing consistent with the whole block provision building to zone 3 standards and also utilizing the office space bonus. So what you have is a multi- uh a multi-phased mixeduse project consisting of six 7 27s story buildings with a total of 288 residential dwelling units approximately 114,000 square ft of office commercial space approximately 1,100 ft of groundf flooror retail space surrounded by a 20 foot wide publicly accessible sidewalk rights of way and a public prominade that overlooks essentially the Palisad uh cliffs. There is a portion of the property that is located within the Peepod district but all the the project does comply with those provisions and and we are not impacting the clips in in any way. The project as a whole is essentially as of right. There are six deviations that are one for each of the towers. And there's an architectural reason behind those uh behind those deviations. And you'll hear about it more from our architect, but simply put the the way the construction the project is being proposed, it's six towers on a common base, and that common base is going to rise up, and the the buildings will rise from that base. the base of the actual building is less than 12 feet from the base facade and you'll see it all. And the impact is it creates large larger view corridors and and publicly avail more more space for walking uh and to enhance the pedestrian experience at the street level. So there are six deviations but it's one for each of the buildings. Uh it doesn't increase any density. Uh in fact it actually is shrink. It's shrunk. Um, but you'll see it and you'll hear it. Uh, I have three witnesses. Uh, Dean Marchettto from MHS who is our architect of record, Gabrielle Grenelli from Dresnar Robin who's our civil engineer, and then Samuel Bellamy who is our professional planner. Before I turn it over to Gabby, who will be our first witness, I do would like I would like to point out that we did uh meet with the Hilltop Neighborhood Association and we did present them the entirety of the project. uh we did indicate to them that we will be back before them because we have to be come back before you if we you know when we prepare and file for a final site plan. Uh so we did take their feedback uh and we are listening uh but what we're presenting to you this evening is what we filed without any of those uh you know additional comments again due to the preliminary nature uh of the project that's being proposed right now. So, with all that said, I'll turn it over to Gabby Grenelli and she will walk you through the site plan. All right. Thank you, councel. >> Truth, the whole truth. >> I do. >> Uh, Gabrielle Gornelli. G O R N E L L I. >> Miss Gornelli. Good evening. Your license is current tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. Thank you. There it goes. Okay. Um, so, uh, what I have on the screen right now is the site survey. I'm just going to walk through the existing conditions. Um, like Mr. Pzillo said, the site is, um, block 10901, lot 65.01, and lot 67.01. The main part of the site is 65.0. 01. That's this um larger portion at the north which fronts along Baldwin and High Street um on the east side. Um the 67.01 is this lower portion uh which has frontage along Academy Street. And and you'll see when we go through the development that the majority of the site development is located on 65.01. Um the entire site is 5.78 acres and the 65.01 one portion is uh 4.97 acres. So, it's the majority of the site. Um the site is a former industrial site. Um the buildings were demolished, I believe, back in 2016, so almost 10 years ago. Um and like uh Mr. Brazil said, we're in zone 4, but we are developing this as a whole block provision um which allows us to develop um with the zone 3 um requirements. we are in the peep pod and we um you know we walked the site uh to determine you know where those those areas are and and you'll see when I go through the site plan that we are not touching those areas and we are complying with the required setbacks. Um so what I have here this is a colored rendering of the the C301 the site plan. I don't believe this was um this has to be entered in because the renderings that are on the portal were a prior iteration of the site plans. So the site plans were updated but the renderings were not. Um so this is A2 >> A2 >> A2 get that uploaded to the portal more >> and I I think it's just easier to go through uh the colored site plan u given the nature of the project. So this is identical to the uh site plan drawings. This is just a colorized version of them. >> Scornelli. >> Yes. >> This is going to sound strange. Is there any way you can make your monitor less yellow? >> Sorry, it's in night mode. >> Yeah, that's what I was guessing. >> Uh, yeah, >> I'm not in night mode yet. >> Sorry about that. It's automatic. >> It's killing me. Killing my eyes. >> Perfect. See what happens. See, let me just lower the I'm trying to reduce my blue light. Is that better? >> That'll work. Yes. >> Sorry about that. >> That's all right. >> Um, so this is, like I said, this is the colorized uh site plan. And our site plan, you'll see it's broken up into multiple sheets because there's multiple levels of this project. Um, so this is our C301 sheet. This is the upper level of our project. So, this is where the site um enters along Baldwin Avenue. It's at the the grade of Baldwin Avenue. We have a driveway entrance which is at an existing curb cut into the site. It's a 22ft driveway and the full block development for the whole block. It's it's allowed to be used on sites that are greater than 30,000 square ft. And it and part of the provisions are that you are allowing public access throughout the entire site. And we're doing that by having this public prominade which um uh the architect will speak to as well which so you come into the site on on Baldwin Avenue. We have this um 22 foot driveway on the west side and then we have this public prominade across across the front and then they it goes south um towards the the rear of the site. And this is all publicly accessible um with minimum of of 20 20 feet sidewalks. Um so you have your full block with the Baldwin Avenue frontage, your High Street frontage, your um Port Authority right of way on the south, and then we have our driveway um on on the west side of the site. Um I'll note that the the definition of a right of way um in the in the ordinance says that it can be public or privately owned and that it's you know main purpose is to convey um to move people or goods. So that's why we comply with the whole block uh redevelopment here. Um um I'll I'll quickly go through kind of some building statistics. The architect will speak more to this. Uh there are six towers. Um we have 2,88 units 658 parking spaces. Um we we do have that one deviation because all of the towers are on a single base. Um this is a mixeduse project which the multiple levels allows us to have the office lobbies on this higher level here which are fronting on this pro this um raised prominade. Then when I go down, so if you can follow this driveway on the west side, we'll go down to the next level which is beneath that that raised prominade where our driveway on the west side continues down. And this is where we have an access corridor and our residential lobbies. So we have an access corridor. All of this the building loading is off of this middle level. This middle level has connection to High Street. Um, so this is your service drive and this is where your residential uh lobbies are for the site. Um, and then you continue continue down further on the driveway and that's where you come out to um, Academy Street where like I said, we're not we're not developing this this portion of the site with a tower. This is just uh where the driveway continues out to Academy Street. We are improving the sidewalk along Academy Street. Um so just to go back to you know show the middle level which I think shows the whole site the most. Um you know we are we do have 20 street trees on the site. Um as well as extensive landscaping and um plantings throughout trees uh within the site as well. foundation plantings along all of the buildings. Um, and and just a nice uh design which is publicly accessible. Um, just quickly I'll go to the the rooftop and we also have um 2,00 24,190 ft of of green roof on the roof of the towers. Um I can briefly touch on the utilities for for the site. Um we are a storm water major development. So what I have here now I'm going back to the civil site plan drawings. I don't have colored renderings of the utility plans. I don't think anyone wants to see that. Um so what I have here is our C 401 sheet. This is our grading plan of the upper level. Um, this is where you come into the site on Baldwin. There's a there's a big grade difference between Baldwin at the north of the site and Academy on the south. It's about a 33 foot drop. So, so we do have a grade change as we're going through the site here. Um, as we continue through, um, we have three detention basins on the site to to meet the storm water requirements because we are a storm water major development. Um, we have one on the frontage along Baldwin, one in the drive way um, on the west side and then a third one in the driveway on uh, Academy Street. The site is uh, not in a flood zone. Um, so we don't need to comply with green area ratio requirements. Um, sorry about that. I'm So here's two of our detention basins. Um, and then the third one is on Academy Street. Um, although we're not required to comply, we do have the green roof um to comply with uh storm water requirements. Due to the nature of the project that we have this prominade that's over a top of the access drive and the parking garage um all of the vehicle spaces, the parking spaces uh do not require any water quality because it's all clean. Um, we do have the driveway on the west side of the site which um is made of pvious pavement to allow for um the water quality of that that driveway. Um for the rest of our utilities, we have, you know, connection to utilities along Baldwin Avenue, High Street. We do have some water manes looping the project site uh that go through our access drive. Um, we did get an MUA letter which spoke to um some utility improvements that are contemplated in the area along Baldwin High Street and Academy that um you know because we are preliminary site plan, we'll have an opportunity to speak to the JMUA about that before we come back for final and make any adjustments to the plan. Um, I note that, you know, Matt Matt's, uh, staff comment letter talks about some cobbles on High Street that need repair. Um, we would certainly look at that with in conjunction with any utility improvements we're doing in that street as well. Um, to repair it. Um, I believe that concludes my testimony. Um, unless there's any questions. >> I do have one. Um, so that that's not a public right away to the left of the screen, right? The uh the driveway. the driveway there. There is sidewalk access along along that. >> But you're able to drive from Baldwin right there. >> Mhm. >> Down to Academy. >> Down to Academy. Yes. >> Okay. But that's a private street, right? It's not a rightway open to the public. >> It's it's a private privately owned street. um which per the right of way definition, it is a right of way per the ordinance. >> Okay. So, how do we prevent >> but it's not a city street. It's not a city street >> and it's not going to become a city street. >> No, >> I got to tell you, I'm going to drive through there all day. >> Maybe. >> I I'm looking at it. It's It's an easy cut through to to cut some traffic off. Um is it is it one way exit onto academy? >> So it's two-way on Baldwin and and the way it's designed currently um just due to the size that that we have for for uh the dimensions. It is one way coming in from academy >> coming in from academy. >> So it it's two-way up to the um garage entrance which is off of Baldwin. Okay. >> I I mean I I I I think we would have signage, you know, to the extent that we can. >> Um >> Okay. Yeah. I mean I I don't know how you would stop it. >> Usually a fence or a gate. >> Just give me give me a key for it. I'm going to drive through there all the time. Well, I think that that might be one of the >> especially doing Russell question requirements. >> I I don't want to see a you know a locked gate by any stretch of the means, but >> so I don't and Matt maybe I'm I'm wrong. it. I think it has to remain open under the zoning as being >> one of the one of the items that we have in our staff memo. Um, one of the conditions is that the applicant should work with staff to review the need for a major subdivision to create a right rights of way whether it's a private rightway might also be a solution. But I think it does need to remain open pursuant to the whole block provisions. Um, I don't think circulation to you or the like which way circulation is on that street is of concern, >> but so I >> Go ahead. >> I don't disagree with what you're saying, Matt. My concern becomes obviously enforcement on the street. Is it a street that can be enforced? Is it required under the redevelopment plan that it is accessible to everybody in order for the remainder of the zoning being sought to I guess be permitted. So >> the the the redevelopment plan doesn't I'm sorry is this? Yeah, it's on. Okay. The redevelopment plan doesn't explicitly call for that to be a street. it does have to be available to pedestrians and public access. So to that extent it does have to be remain open. Now whether it is categorized as a street a right of way uh and to Matt's comment and to the to the proposed condition should the board approve tonight and do because it is a preliminary application. Yes, it it's a valid concern that's going to have to get addressed and will have to be addressed, you know, and in terms of any final application. Um, and we would work with planning and the city to >> address that. Now, I I I know what you're saying when you say that a sidewalk is what was required, but if you read the paragraph before, to qualify for the whole block development provision, you have to be bounded only by rights of way. >> Okay. Okay. So, well, if it's a if it's a private right ofway >> and that's allowed in the definition of rightway, >> right? And and now it's a matter of how do we enforce that it's private or not, >> we'll have to work with the city on that. I I don't think right now I have an idea of, you know, I agreed we can't put a fence there. We can't lock it. um you know how do we ma make sure that people are not cutting through although it's probably a good idea or you know everyone want to cut through >> you know I don't have an answer how we could figure that out right now tonight I mean >> yeah I don't believe you're going to be able to stop people from coming through without it being something like that you can uh prevent people from parking in that area but as far as cutting through >> uh law enforcement is not going to position themselves there to even though you're close to the sheriff's uh building, but they're not going to position themselves there to enforce that. >> Agreed. I understand. And and we wouldn't want to put that strain on the >> sort of like some of the other property downtown by the beer garden where they say it's private, but you cut through all the time. >> Sure. >> But that you can have forced the parking part of >> 100%. Yes. >> Okay. I mean, again, it's we're on a preliminary site plan tonight, so we're not going to solve this tonight, but it's, you know, going forward >> valid. Let's take a look at it. >> Yeah, it's very valid. >> Okay. Any other questions for M uh Miss Gornelli? >> So, council, I just want to go over because it is only preliminary and for everybody on the board as as most of you know and those in the the public Preliminary is exactly what it says. It's before you get to the final. So, some of the plans are not fully designed and uh as detailed. There's additional items on checklists that have to be satisfied. I think what we're discussing right now is one of those situations where you can't get a final approval without this being decided one way or the other. So, if this was preliminary and final and this issue, this issue would have to be resolved. It couldn't be resolved at a future date. But the MUA letter on the portal is the August uh 12th MUA letter. >> That's correct, council. Yes. and are some of those items not able to be addressed because we haven't been able to design some of those issues uh or designed to address some of those issues. For instance, uh item nine talks about the meter pit detail shown on C903 shows a bypass pipe. Please be advised that the bypass pipe is no longer allowed. So, is that something that we haven't attempted to address and will have to address uh and is still a valid comment or was there a revision that addressed? >> Yeah, I I think the intention would be to address these when we go back for final and and possibly meet with the MUA, you know, even before that to go over some of the comments. So, the hope would be when we get to a final, this memo looks a lot, you know, maybe it's one page, you know, it's it's a lot less comments and we we'll work with the MUA between now and when we get there to address as much as we can. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cornell. >> Thank you. >> Question. >> Can you also mark that as a way? >> Next witness. >> Oh, sorry. >> Commissioner, go ahead. Ask the question. I was wondering if you can also probably mark that as like a private driveway. It's still open, but it probably could be marked saying private driveway. Is that possible? >> Yeah, I think we'd have to >> go at it with signage. >> Yeah, the answer is is yes, it could be handled in that way. I think part of the question is how does the board want to handle it? What is the applicant proposing? what's necessary under the redevelopment plan in order for this to be considered whole block >> private >> uh development in terms of what's a right of way, what's a street, what's the difference between a right of way and a street, what kind of access is required. So I think that's >> Yep. what the boards >> yeah I think we would recommend to maintain flexibility as this is a preliminary site plan application only at this time and I we think that the condition we're recommending does that so um if that's if that's satisfactory with the commissioners that that's what we recommend >> okay good all right go ahead council come on up team So, as Dean brings up his screen, uh he is going to be presenting a 16 uh sheet PDF uh which is a composite and and Dean, you could speak to this, but it's a composite of the uh plans that were submitted and uploaded to the portal, but I would ask we and Mark this as A3. >> Permission granted. >> Thank you, counselor. >> So, here's the exhibit. I I'll talk about it. >> Yeah. >> Testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth. The whole truth. The truth. >> Yes, I do. >> It's Dean Marchettto and it's D E M A R C H E T T O. >> Mr. Marchetto, good evening. Uh, your license is current tonight? >> Yes, it is. and you're testifying as an architect tonight. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, as was discussed earlier, um, this is rather substantial project. There's about 31 pages in the site plan, architectural drawings. So, what I've done is I've created a subset of the drawings to to describe the concept that we're going to present, the plans, the elevations, the renderings. The details are all in the site plan set. I have them here on another screen. If there's any questions concerning that, I can go to that screen. But I think that this subset will make things more uh fluent and and expeditious. So with that, I have a 16page set of slides that come out of the site plan and I provide them for uh >> and we I will upload this to the portal this evening >> right now. >> I could if you'd like. Okay. So, I can't tell you how excited I am to present this project. This is a transformational project for Journal Square. You know, Journal Square, we all know what has happened up there in recent years. It's a very developed center of the city, which is what the redevelopment plan envisioned. Um, it sits on top of a bluff. It has a railard in front of it, so it's elevated. Forever the views will be towards Manhattan. And if you're up in Journal Square, unless you live in a high-rise apartment, there's no place you can go to get to the edge to see the river, to see the skyline. If you're a public pedestrian, if you're if you're in the Heights, you can walk to the Fisk Park, Riverview Fisk. You get to the park. It's a beautiful park. And when you get out there, you you see how amazing it is at the wide expanse of the entire waterfront. uh and of course Manhattan beyond. We want to be able to bring that to Journal Square and we're going to try to do that in this project is so Oh, it went out. >> I think you might >> Oh, okay. >> should wake back up. There you go. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. Okay. So, with that as a background, I'm ready to present a a great idea that I think um it's not required in the redevelopment plan. the the project that we're designing tonight uh that we're presenting is a compliant project. We need one deviation on each of the six towers and that deviation is to make the building smaller and I'll explain what that means. So, let me just go through the slides. Here is an aerial view of the site and uh imposed over the top is our is our phase plan. Um, basically we were able to because of the size of the project, it's almost six acres the size of this project. It's about 500 feet across Baldwin. And the idea of having um towers on a base, if you could imagine that sort of shaded area as one big base that can rise 50 feet or 60 feet as permitted and then towers on top, it would block the entire opportunity to look at Manhattan from Baldwin. It would just be a continuous 60 foot wide building. So what our concept is is to imagine the base 60t tall, the six story, the six towers on top that will go to 27 and then to take the base away. Basically take the whole project, lift it up in the air so that you can see through it and get out to the edge where we have a public prominade which is really something special. It's not just a walkway. It's a little bit wider. It's landscaped. It has it has um it has landscape furniture, benches, places for people to sit and really enjoy anyone coming from the path station, Newkerk, Rock Street, coming down High Street, coming down, getting to the property, having four specific ways to look through and to and to walk through to get to the edge. That's the idea. Um I think uh it will make a big difference in the quality of life for folks in general square. So the first drawing I'd like to show you is basically what we call the ground floor plan. This is the level that is at the level of Baldwin. And if you look here um you can see Baldwin at the top of the page right up in here. And then you could see the six buildings. All of the buildings have different shapes. They're very similar, but they're not exactly similar. So, they have their own identity. Um, and then if you look here, there's about a 40 foot open space between the curb and the front of the buildings. And then the towers when they come down in order to pick up the 60-foot dimension which is the contextual line that the base is supposed to present, we recess the building rather than expand the building to open up these wide corridors. And if you look here down the drive, down the middle here, down the middle here, and all the way over on High Street, there are four view corridors. And the towers when they come down and the bottom three floors that are 55 foot tall are all glass so that there's a sense of visibility, a a place that you want to go as you move through the project. It's a place where you can see the skyline and you want to get there. Uh and then behind that um there are three additional towers and they make up the six phases that we have. And then way down here on the east side, as I mentioned, this prominade, right in front of us is a railard that won't be developed. So from that deck level, you'll have a public view of of of the wide expanse of Manhattan. Um so this is the ground floor plan. On this floor plan, we have lobbies both uh for the office as well as the residential. They're separate lobbies as I mentioned. Um the building has an office bonus. So the ground level is basically residential lobby and the office lobby. And you see they're separated by two different colors, blue and beige. And above those are two additional floors that are commercial floors. It's the office bonus. Um and that's three stories for the base and then the building goes up to 27 as you'll see. Um, so these walkways coming down from Baldwin moving east towards the river are open and free. They're just un unhontrolled. They'll be lit. There'll be safety. Uh, and that'll be managed by the developer. Um, but but it's it's almost like a plaza, a public plaza underneath underneath the towers. And when I when I say that the the base is recessed, it comes in as you'll see in the renderings about 7 ft so that the upper building can leave out so that the bottom is constricted. So that's that's the um the ground floor player in Baldwin. This is a view from Baldwin through one of those cores. You can see that the uh the canal lever for the residential floors begins at the top of the base and that the bottom three floors are glass. They're open. They have lobbies. They have commercial space up on the second and third floor. But moreover, when you're standing right here on Baldwin, you get to one of these openings, you can see right through. Now, the buildings above obviously have to have columns and have to be supported. So when I say we pick the buildings up and walk underneath, it's not the whole place. It's just the space in between the bases. The space between these bases vary from 70 to 80 ft each one of these openings. And there are four of them through the site. 70 to 80 feet. And you can see here um as you look through on this particular street, it aligns perfectly uh with the World Trade Center. Now, if you're on Baldwin and you're looking south on Baldwin, this is a view. The new development is to the left. The existing context on Baldwin is to the right. And you can see in the front yard, the building is set back about 40 feet from the curb. So, it's a nice wide prominade that sends serves as an as an entry. And then as you get this to the space between the towers, you could see one here. You could see one in the foreground here. You can see all the way through. and you can walk through the uh to the edge. Um so now from Baldwin level as as Gabriella had mentioned you have a drop to the east to the eastern side. And so underneath the Baldwin level we have two additional levels. One serves as a service level and the other one serves as the parking level. So those two levels are below Baldwin. This one is the one level that's directly below Baldwin. The base of the building comes down to that level. There are atriums in here with light wells that come down to this lower level. And this service road is a service road that allows for loading, delivery, and um ride share to arrive on this separate service road in the mid level below below directly below Baldwin that would provide some convenient drop off parking for um people using ride share or just quickly convenient parking spaces as well as um loading. This is a loading dock for for for building um three. And this is a loading dock here. Truck could come in back in. Loading dock accesses trash and delivery elevators for both the elev both the office and the in the residential buildings. And then the main lobby for these three towers here are on this level. So this is where your lobby is on this level. And then at the very outside edge, we have um some some more office or commercial space in here. As Gerroad had mentioned, um we met with the Hilltop group. Uh, one of their requests was to have more commercial down on this prominade so that um, if you were to go down there, you could have a cafe, an ice cream shop, some kind of cafe or some kind of public commercial use along with the park use or the open space use. So, this is that second level. The third level below is this uh, lowest level. Um, and this level, uh, you enter into the garage coming down this drive. And then the garage entry is is right here. You come in and you have stackable parking in here. And you have some EV charges here. And to get to the loading for the three towers, the loading docks are here, here, and here. and and they'll be managed by um the developer who has his own management company and they'll be able to come in back in and then go back out the garage entrance and there's a a lobby mechanical trash room bicycle parking spread. Here's bic there's let me just I guess look at some numbers. Um uh there is uh 2,000 and what there's 2,000 I think it's 88 units for for the whole whole building all all six towers there are about um there are about 360 apartments in each tower and except for tower A which gets cut off short here because of the angle of the property which has something like 288 department. So it's 288 total, 360 in each. 1 2 3 4 and 5. And number six has 288. The towers above are the residential floors. And and we laid out uh the typical floor. Each one of these towers has approximately 12 to 15 apartments per floor. They're all laid out. We know how many onebs, how many two bedrooms, how many studios. Um obviously because it's preliminary that will develop as we go. Um you can you and you could see um the elevator cores in the middle and that each one of these towers they're a little bit different and when you see the exterior views you'll notice that these towers they kind of wobble on the way up to create an identity uh of their own but they're all similar but they have a tight range and a difference of of each one so they're identifiable. By the way, um our engineering firm uh helped us with the design of those exteriors and you'll see them in the to to to minimize wind uh wind uh channeling and tunneling through the towers because there was a concern about that. So the the odd shapes are designed from an engineering point of view to um to minimize the wind effect um on that uh to understand how that three-dimensional works. This is the uh diagram that shows the the Baldwin level coming through. You get to the end and then there's elevators and two stairs that take you down to this prominade down here which is landsc landscaped as I mentioned earlier. And then there's a ramp that takes you back down to academy in here and and I can maybe zoom in this. Yeah. going too fast. That so here if I zoom in here you can see these upper baldwin level walkways that come down to the edge and you can see here this uh public prominade. If I move down the page, this shows you circulation uh of the different pedestrian movements uh and how you get in and out of each one of these spaces. Okay. So now stepping back and looking west, this is a view of what that looks like in a rendering. You can see here the three towers on the east. You could see the base which is an all glass base that has uh commercial space and lobbies. And then uh below that there's this commercial space down here. This is where this level is where um some of the neighbors had suggested we put um retail which we are going to consider before we come back for uh for a final site plan. And then below that uh prominade here uh you can see that we have uh the garage which is an open an open garage which will be ventilated mechanically uh by taking air in from these facades and then bringing it up to the roof. But you can see here on this left side driveway where you where you can actually walk up and you reach Baldwin Avenue. So you can see how it uh fits uh in that context. This is a computerenerated view of what it feels like to be on that prominade. Like I said, it ranges between 30 and 44 feet from in different widths as it moves along. There's room for landscaping, places to sit, and you know, once you get out here, you've got the wide view of Manhattan in the Hudson River. >> This is at the lower level or the B Baldwin Street level. >> This is one level below Baldwin on the Prominade. >> Okay. Um technically we we did the elevations. You could see here how the buildings are similar but they're different. Um there are three materials on the upper tower. It's a curtain wall design. Um the dark um materials is a cementous panel. It's an opaque panel. The blue is clear glass. And up above uh on the very top of the building uh that's hiding the uh the mechanical equipment is metal panel. We actually have preliminary selections for the colors, but uh we're going to present those as final pro um materials as we come back for final site plan. Um this is a view looking west. So you could see the prominade where my cursor is right in here. You can see the commercial right in here, the base, the 7 foot canal levers, and then the openings between the towers. Um the towers meet the requirement for the maximum diagonal. They don't exceed it. Um, and the space between the towers at any given point varies between 50 and 58 feet between the towers. And this is a view from High Street looking at the elevations looking south. So you're on High Street and this drawing you can understand the the levels. This is Baldwin Avenue here on my right. Then the slope down of High Street. This is the service road entrance. And then you can continue out to the to the uh to the prominade which is right here where my cursor is. So this drawing helps you understand the levels. And this is a backup view of the building. Uh you can see in here uh populated with uh residents and pedestrians using the uh the the prominade and the uh and and the access to get to it. and then uh a night shot. Um what this could look like at night um you know once we develop the lighting plan uh completely and the uh security plan to make sure that this is all uh uh safe and well lit that will be uh finalized uh as we move uh to final site plan. Um, I think I think like I said, if you're up in Journal Square and there's no place to see the skyline, it's it's like the densest place in the town and and we need to be able to do something like that. So, the concept of the project is to have this public access and uh and a view of Manhattan. Um, and so that's a general overview. I have more detailed plans, signage, lighting, you know, we have all that uh in the set, but we um we're limiting the presentation right now to just concept and preliminary site plan. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. >> W. It's ambitious. >> Yeah, >> very ambitious. Um are we too early to talk about construction phasing? Uh no, we did consider that. Let me go up here. The idea here. The idea would be moving from south to north. The first phase would be phase one and four. These are the two towers here. And the reason we need to do this first is because this is the access to the garage. And as we build each phase, the s the the the percentage of the prominade in front of that phase will be built at the same time. U and then we're going to move to two and five moving north. And we're going to work our way out onto High Street as we move to uh the north on phase three and and six. That's the preliminary phasing I did. >> I'm sorry. >> At every level. >> Yes. Yes. the garage, the U prominade, and then the tower above it and the service area above that. >> And we've got nothing proposed on this 67.01. >> No, just the road going out. Uh this academy road access down in here. No building is proposed there. There are seven parcels. We're building on on on six, >> but we're not subdividing any of this council. >> Not at this point. I think that's one of the questions and the comments from staff that we've received. >> I don't think it'll be subdivided because it's all one. It's all one base. It's all connected on the lower below below Baldwin. >> I'm not a site plan attorney, but that my my guess is that it's one project. So, having known you as long as I have, I respect your passion. I can tell that this is one of those projects that you have really run with and believe that this is incredible. I think it's incredible. Personally, I think it's incredibly ambitious. I think from a legal standpoint, how all of this comes together is complex. >> 100% it's complex and and I think that's part of the reason why we're here tonight >> just for preliminary. Uh because all of these items, as you correctly point out, will have to be addressed. Like how are these is it going to be one one property address? Are they gonna is the tax assessor going to want to have a different address for each one of the buildings? Um, you know, fair play and fair points. I But I don't think we're there at this point to to have that question or to answer that question. But you're right. I mean, it's going to come up. There's going to be a host of items that we >> crossments, right? So, there's there's all sorts of and council. I don't know how this doesn't get done with some kind of without some kind of developers agreement or I mean we're talking about pedestrian plazas and multiple levels and tiers. There's no doubt and and and and again referring back to the the staff comment memo and cor correctly pointed out, you know, we will have to prepare easement agreements and, you know, make sure that the publicly accessible areas are publicly accessible areas in perpetuity. Uh because that's the intention. That's obviously part of the redevelopment plan. Um and you know, they will have to be addressed. that that will have to be addressed. So yes, there will be easements here, cross easements, and and again, this is all one owner so that you don't have to to worry about that. And as Dean pointed out, it is it's six buildings, but one project. Now, how that all looks at the end in terms of, you know, addresses, lots and lots, you know, right now it's going to stay as is unless and until when we get to a final, you know, the city tax assessor, city planning, whoever it may be, you know, has concerns or issues, you know, specific to that that we'll have to address. >> Well, and I think the right term was conceptually Right. Um, so long-term it's right now it's vacant land. >> Correct. >> Controlled by one owner. >> Correct. >> I don't know who's going to, you know, the kind of contracts you need, who's going to be maintaining this, who's going to be dealing with the landscape and and all this kind. Right. So, that's all that's all going >> well far from >> what we're talking about. But as you know and as Mr. Maretta will appreciate, one of our biggest uh at least one of my biggest pet peeves is is this constructible. So are we all hoping and then >> well >> it never comes to fruition because it just >> physically can't happen. >> Oh it's physically very possible. I just would also >> when I say physically I mean monetarily Mr. Martin. >> Okay. Okay. >> I before before Dean jumps in um I I would say from the developers perspective he's been looking at this. He's been working with his team and as Dean can as bless you as Dean can attest to you know they've been at this for a while. You know this concept this plan uh and bless you. uh we wouldn't we wouldn't come before you with something of you know this ambitious of a na nature uh if we weren't going to be able to finance it or construct it you know um we value your time and our own time too much to to you know bring this before you this late hour >> as a as a point of reference you may be familiar with the Maxwell Place project in Hoboken where they took the former shipyards and we and I was involved in that site plan and and we took it and we've made four or five separate towers on that. It's all private land. The public espionade, the park out in front, the penins, it's all private land. The pier, it's all private land with an easement for the public to go over. It's open 247. I don't know how it'll work here, but the idea of having a private property that has private residence and public access at the base is not an is is not is not a new idea. It happens in um in New York at the Hudson Yards all over. >> It's not a new idea, but there's agreements and ways of implementing that that >> I don't know that we have here, but >> No, we should. >> And we don't and we don't, but we will have to. Uh but you know, you you asked the question or made the point about landscaping and maintenance. That's of course all going to be on the developer. Uh as as Dean pointed out, it's private privately owned, publicly accessible in perpetuity. And that includes maintenance, that includes the upkeep, the landscaping, that's all on the developer. It's not going to be, you know, passed off to the city because it is publicly accessible. >> So just I know the plan is coming up to talk about the deviations, but just to using the graphics, the deviation is to not put the base, but to remove it so that you can have this opening. Otherwise, there would be a building 60 feet tall along the whole frontage and you just cut off the entire view. So, um that's the deviation. We we meet all the dimensions, but then we decide not to build the base and that's the deviation. So, I just hope that maybe it makes it makes it clearer. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um I just have one more quick question. The garage level also exits onto High Street. >> No, the garage level only goes out on that driveway. >> Okay. Thought I saw a connection >> on the service level. >> Maybe it's the service level. >> The se level goes out onto High Street. Yeah. >> Okay. >> And and you know when we we thought about the staging as we move north, the last buildings would be done from High Street and then the cobblestones will be put back. >> Okay. >> All right. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Mr. March. >> We'll call Sam Bellamy, our last witch for the evening. Thank you. >> Thank you. And I recognize I'm still under oath and still >> and are still qualified. It's still before midnight. So, >> all right. So, um Mr. Maretta is a hard act to follow. So, I think he really did set the table with the vision and design intent with this project and that directly ties into the design alternative deviation that we're asking for and the benefits of this specific deviation outweighing the detriments. Um, we are 5.78 acre lot in the journal square redevelopment plan. That's a significantly large lot that allowed for a unique and you know um ambitious project as this one is. Um so we are asking for technically six deviations. They are all deviations for the minimum tower setback from the from the base facade. That's a specific requirement from the whole block provision. Um this project is also subject to the zone 3 tower and tower and the base standards and we are consistent with all those tower and the base stepbacks and setback requirements. Um so as described really what we're proposing for the base is the inverse of what the plan calls for. We have an inset base that allows for greater public access areas as well as additional light air and open space to all the uh um prominade areas that we're proposing. Um with that there's also a a setback dev uh setback requirement of 50 ft separation for all the towers. We do comply with that. all the towers meet the minimum um m the maximum 180 foot tower depth. So they're all consistent with the tower and the base standards from from that perspective. Um as Mr. Marchett mentioned really we're pulling in the base. We're allowing for more public access into the site and I think it's a direct uh benefit and direct design alternative um that we're proposing um with this project. Um, we do comply with all the other whole block provision requirements. There's a 24 20 foot setback around the um entirety of the site that allows for sidewalk and prominade areas. Um, just speaking to some of the other setbacks, we're 22 feet from the west front property line along Baldwin Avenue. That's where um we're 20 feet from the north property along uh property line along High Street and uh approximately 40 feet from the south property line. Um so that all exceeds the minimum 15t setback requirement as a whole. Um so with that um this project also meets the purposes of the redevelopment plan, the municipal land use law. It is a um appropriate use and development of the site. it's consistent proposed um permitted uses and again it's within the bulk that's contemplated um for a site like this utilizing the whole block provision. Um so it is consistent with purpose A um directly with the deviation that we're seeking. I think we are providing adequate light air and open space consistent with purpose C. And by developing this vacant site with this um envisioned project that allows for public access in a prominade, it is a desirable visual environment consistent with purpose I the MLUL. I don't see any substantial detriment to the general welfare. Again, the deviation I think is creating a benefit rather than a detriment um by allowing for more light and air and also public access. And I don't see a substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. The redevelopment plan has this whole block provision that the site does comply with. And overall, I think we're consistent with the the bulk and and use vision for the site. Um, this is a large project, but I think Mr. March did a great job of covering the the deviation relief. Um, so I just wanted to add to that, but I'd be happy to answer any additional questions the board might have. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bellamy. Um, yeah, I have no planning questions at this point. Anybody else? >> No. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, chairman. That'll conclude our direct presentation. >> Okay. Thank you. So, uh, at this point, let's open it up for a public comment. Is anybody here from public? Please come on up. >> Sheena Pan. >> Okay. And we have three minutes for you. >> Sure. Um, so I live in the building that's in the site plans right northeast to this proposed development. Was at the Hilltop meeting. Heard these guys speak. Um, my main concern is that this development, proposed development, is just too big. Hilltop, if you're familiar, is a low density residential neighborhood. It's quiet. Um, I've heard concerns about traffic congestion. I personally am concerned about noise pollution, air pollution. It's going to block all of the light. It's just going to change the kind of feel of the neighborhood. Um, so if there's any way to scale it back, particularly that that sixth tower, I think uh is like a little bit too close to our neighborhood for comfort. So, you know, we kind of alluded to this earlier that this is a preliminary plan. This isn't a done deal. By no means done deal. >> That's why I'm here. >> Um, >> no, >> no, I'm just standing. >> Okay. I thought you wanted a comment. So, this would still need to come back to us for any final site plan. So, this is the concept right now essentially. Um, and that's what we're voting on tonight. They'll still have to design everything, really go into detail before anything happens. >> Gotcha. So, for me, um, I would appreciate it if you guys could take into account sustainability. Um, public space is great. Like, hold them accountable, make it green. Like I would like to see trees there. >> Sure. >> Um and I don't know a private road. Like maybe that could just be a public road because there is a ton of traffic on Baldwin if you've driven past there. It's under It's been under construction for over a year. >> Sure. >> So >> excellent. Can I just ask a question? When you say the six tower, what do you mean? >> They have six lots and there is a >> Which one is the six? Is it Baldwin and High? Is it the one closer to academy and Baldwin? It's the one closest to the Hilltop neighborhood. So, it's the northeast corner. >> The northeast corner. So, against the rail right ofway. >> Exactly. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Understood. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Council, you look like you wanted to >> No, I just wanted to point out just >> Why don't you wait till you get to the microphone? >> Well, I thought I was loud enough. Sorry. Uh, I just wanted to point out that, you know, as as Miss Grenelli testified to, there is an extensive amount of green space here. uh green roof trees. Uh so we are trying to hit those sustainability in that green space. Uh so I just wanted to point out that out in terms of the comment that's >> understood. Thank you. Anybody else from public? >> Chair see no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. >> This is a very large project. Um it started off with seven towers. uh seventh tower was removed because it was communicated to them. It triggered the ICO that is in the space over by Academy Street uh which is now uh walkway and green space uh according to their plan. This is a application that includes over 2,000 units. Uh, it has about a.3 parking ratio, which is typical for a large scale development of this size. It also has over a 100,000 square ft of commercial space above the ground floors in these buildings. Yet, it only has 1,000 square ft of commercial retail space. Um, that is a very strange um disparity. Um there was comments made um or or council put on the record that the public comment they received at their public meeting was that there's it's underserved as far as retail. Staff would agree. Um whether it's on that lower prominade or on the prominads that extend off of Baldwin, I think should be studied. Um, in a time when we see office buildings being possibly converted into re residential, um, I I find it difficult to, um, difficult to understand the the level of office going in here, but it's allowed. Um, like most of these things in this application, they are allowed. the deviation that they're asking for is is one that we should support. I think it from a design perspective, a C2 perspective, um it improves the project. Um I think there's a lot of improvement to be done in this project. Um as I've just been discussing, another one would be the phasing. I think the phasing plan shown here is as easy way to think about the towers, but this project has many complex 3D elements. It needs a phasing plan in both um datims, the vertical datim, horizontal datim. We need we need we need to we need to look at this much differently when we come back for final. Um to uh lean so heavily on these whole block lot provisions and um phase out the component that allows them to receive this density should not be put onto the back burner. So, I think the phasing plan really needs to be thought out on how they're actually going to be constructing this garage, the walkway that's required, and rightaways that are required that, um, bound this project. Um, in the staff memo, uh, October 21st, 2025, there's six conditions. Uh, a couple of them are, um, standard. However, there are um there are four uh that are would be more unique to this. One would be uh to work with staff to review the need for a major subdivision to create rightways. Um whether that's private or public, we'll figure that out. um work with staff regarding wayfinding signage and signing areas designated for public access and use as this has um a very porous type of public space that we're envisioning here and we want to make sure that that's heavily advertised. One of the reasons why I'm putting on the record that this is under retailed is that if it is just residential and office space, it will not invite anyone in. It will not feel public. It will feel private. Um, as part of a major site plan application, the applicant shall maintain and reset any cobblestone on High Street as deemed necessary by city staff. And prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant will agree to enter into agreements with the city regarding the public access. Um, so staff recommends uh that those conditions apply should the board make a motion to approve. >> Okay. Thanks, Matt. Chairman, just for the record, we did have an opportunity to go through Matt's proposed comments, and my client is willing and accepts all of them should the board vote to approve this evening. >> Okay. Thank you, council. >> All right. Um, we can entertain a motion. We can deliberate up to us. >> Right now it's just preliminary. So >> this is a preliminary plan. So they still need to come back for a final site plan. >> Um with final designs. basically just a concept right now is what we're voting on. >> So it's not fair to say it's just a concept because it is more than just a concept. It's a preliminary approval. So you now have the parameters, right? So this is what's proposed and now you're going to see them come back with more detail for what you just saw to actually go to fruition. So when uh Mr. Ward says, you know, we're going to need to get into and talk about the phasing aspect of this during the final. That's a very real thing, but it's the phasing of the project you just saw. So certain things it sounded as if at least thought about in terms of the layouts of units, at least the mix, right? The general amount of square footage being proposed. I don't know that they don't come back without that retail that maybe is believed to be necessary, but that's what you're going to be looking for in the final. But they may not give that, right? That may not be the applicant's proposal. It'll be dealt with at final one way or the other, but what you saw tonight is what they're moving forward with. If essentially said, okay, preliminarily this has some >> some support, >> they're going to go further. >> Staff's comment makes one thing clear. >> If it's office space only, >> it becomes more private. I work in a lot of office complex. >> I don't know if your mic's on. the staff come makes it very clear that if it's office space only it becomes more like private and I've worked in a lot of different complexes that are office space only and um residential and office space and it to me that is a very true statement. So I think that that comment on the staff report we should stick by. It has to have residential. It just there is no come back to us and there is no stores or type of businesses there, restaurants, coffee shops that will bring people to go to that point. You know that is that that would have to be one of our standard points. Yeah, I I agree with um Eddie as well. Having commercial spaces more public and those commercial space should be more stores, uh coffee shops, restaurants, stuff like that and not just office space. >> All right. Anybody else want to? >> Definitely going to need a lot of commercial place on the bottom if you want to invite more public to that places. Plus, you're going to have office residential. Oh, where are they going to go have a coffee? >> You're going to have to drive out of the neighborhood. >> No, I No. And we don't want them to drive out of the neighborhood. I think the redevelopment plan does provide for flexibility within the office space bonus that it it it's a commercial office. So, if going through the plan, it does provide and permit for additional, you know, retail services and and retail establishments. Uh so even with should the board approve with the office space bonus as is there is the flexibility to Matt's point and the need to have additional retail that would potentially be contemplated and included as part of this the final site plan baked into the office space bonus if the board approves the preliminary application tonight. And and I I just as aside too, I think we've worked hard and we've worked well with Matt extensively on this project. Uh we filed it uh middle of last year. Uh we went through probably four or five rounds of comments. Matt came out to the site once or twice and walked it with us. Uh and we'll continue that engagement, you know, as we move towards the final. I think I started in my opening I briefly pointed out that the community did ask for more retail and and I said you know we will be looking into that uh you know to meet those needs and I think Dean echoed it as well in his remarks um and you know all of the commissioner's points are well taken um and I I the idea here is not to make it more private you know I think the the deviation that we asked for you know completely chose that because we could have done a big bigger building with a bigger base. Uh but we wanted the smaller, you know, the smaller base to activate it to create these areas for public, you know, availability and access. And it it would be silly not to maximize the pedestrian experience with additional retail. You know, it's a it's a city benefit. It's definitely a neighborhood benefit. and it's it's a benefit to the to the community, you know, of the people that may or may not be living here. But points are well taken. Uh, you know, we'll have to look at the retail. Uh, you know, of course, if we get favorably voted on this evening, um, and that's going to be probably number one on the list. You know, 1a, 1B would be the phasing, uh, and, you know, confirming and making sure that's all, you know, fully baked in and understood. And of course, number one, making sure it's acceptable to city planning and staff. >> So, council, I'll be completely frank about my concern. The office space is decided on, the residential aspect decided on. This project benefits no one if there's no retail there. I think that's as much of a component that needs to be solid on the preliminary plan. Well, look, we call it office space, but it's office/commercial, and that's consistent with the plan. >> Sure. >> So, so whether we call it office or resident or retail or medical at this point, it it's there, right? And and it but it's flexible. But we know >> it's not and it's not it doesn't have to be all office is the point, right? We're proposing it as office commercial now just >> as a title. >> We know how many parking spots there are. >> True. >> We know how many units there are. We have no idea what the retail aspect is right now. >> And I think that make or makes or breaks this project. >> Yeah. >> Well, we do we do have an idea. I mean we there is a proposed 1100 square feet of confirmed straight retail space. Now whether that >> 1100 >> let's let's just let's just identify where it is though. It it fronts on the service road. >> Okay. >> The most hidden spot in the entire development. It doesn't front on the public walkway. It doesn't front on the walkways above. it is. I don't know why it's there actually. I don't know what's intended to be there, but it's it fronts on the service road. Um, we talked about this at length, but I think we need I I want the if commissioners to confirm or direct the the applicant on the office space or the commercial space uses are above the ground floor. I are you talking about retail that you can walk straight into because I think that that direction if so that's the direction that the applicant needs not just assigning what the commercial uses may be above the ground floor or understanding what those uses may be I think that that's a differentiation that might be getting lost in the sauce here right now >> that's basically what I'm thinking of too is the off the the retail space should be designed on Baldwin level to bring people just like the viewers. You see it time and time again in everything we do. I don't go to that other block. Nobody went to the old boys club on Gro Street till they started developing back in that area. And you just stopped at city hall. There was no more reason to walk the next block over. And I and we see this time and time again. When something gets developed, now you have a view that's going to bring people to see that view. If they have certain things going on, you have a little show or something, people go for the view. But then what you need though is real estate at the same level. And I think we should be fine with that. some real estate uh stores and stuff, coffee shops at the level of Baldwin Avenue that it could be seen from the from the person that's walking that street, the person that's walking in that neighborhood. >> Correct. You know, >> just as aside, commissioners, um, you know, and as we've heard you and my clients here in the audience, uh, he's just advised me, you know, we could do 16,000 square feet of retail along the ground floor and we can update the plans to detail that piece of it. If if retail is is is you know a big issue, >> uh we will provide 16,000 square feet and that's >> already available within the site envelope as we've proposed and presented this evening. So we can convert again some of that lobby level, ground level uh into straight retail. Uh and again I would point out just the flexibility within the plan that allows for additional commercial and retail uses within the office space bonus. Albeit it may not be at ground level but there will you know there are additional opportunities for more retail. But you you know I just put it on the record uh you know we will we heard you. we hear you uh and or my client heard you and you know and but yeah we can update these plans to show that it would be 16,000 square ft. >> So 16,000 square ft divided by six building or how is it going to divide? >> It would be divided you know spread out between the six towers for yes >> I would say 4,000 per building >> it it might be better to like condense it. So, I think flexibility there is fine Commissioner. But, yeah, that that that to me seems to speak to more of the objectives of this redevelopment plan, which are pushing for an intense mixeduse type of development where right now this might have just been although there is a lot of commercial, but it's a ground above the ground floor. looking at it vertically, it's it's pushing for that objective to be more clearly um ident uh addressed. And so if that's something for the board to consider, I think that that's a good consideration to include. >> So is that something that you're comfortable putting in as a condition a minimum of 16,000 square foot of retail? and that that 16,000 square feet of retail throughout the project comes out of this commercial office and that that's on the ground level and it's not something that you even want to consider actually looking at. You just want to go I I mean Dean's ready to draw it right now. I mean >> draw I >> I know you can do it Dean. A after we went to meet with the neighbors in Hilltop and they mentioned the retail component was very important to them. We went back did sketches over the top figured out where those retail areas could be and it came to 16,000 square feet on ground level. Either the ground level on Baldwin or the ground level on uh um the prominade and we figured that out. So that's why I know it's 16,000 square feet. >> We're talking about on that Baldwin level and then anything else on the prominant is an addition. Well, I can't put it all on Baldwin. It's just the building isn't big enough. But I >> I say on Baldwin, on Baldwin level, on that top level of the prominad. >> We can put some there and some on the prominade. >> See, now we're into Let's make a deal here. >> Well, I mean, >> because you don't have the drawing. I know that you sketched it out. I I couldn't bring the drawing because it's not what we um submitted and I was afraid that if we brought a sketch that you would be, you know, but but we can commit to it because I know it works. I just >> Mr. March council. >> It's quarter to 11. >> Yeah, >> I've been here since 5:30. >> So, we have two options. First of all, we need to vacate the building. >> No. Right. Right. finish this meeting. >> Okay, >> there's two ways we can go. >> We can hear a motion and vote on it. We can go back, take our comments into consideration, and come back with something you think fits what we're talking about tonight. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I mean, >> we can stop the meeting right now and we can continue this at a later date. Same conversation, >> right? No, I I No, I'm comfortable proceeding. I'm comfortable with the condition that Mr. Lampy just proposed. Uh, of course. >> All right, no problem. Here's how we're going to do it then. I'm going to lay out the condition and that'll be the condition. >> Well, we have to come back for a final. So, I mean, we're going to have to meet the condition or not meet the condition. So, you know, I'm okay with that. >> Okay. >> Okay. Just don't make it as wordy as you just uh >> described. I'm gonna ask Mike to I'm gonna ask Mike to read it back. >> We really have to >> No. Okay. Go. >> No. Okay. >> So again, we're either voting on it. We're carrying it to this conversation continuation >> or we're pulling it right now and you're coming back to us. >> I'm I'm comfortable with the vote >> with the agreed with the agreed condition. >> Okay. So, the condition is there's a minimum of 16,000 square feet on Baldwin Avenue, >> ground floor on Baldwin Avenue. >> 16,000 square feet. That level of the prominadon. >> Okay. That's >> um that level of the prominade or any any level or that level or the prominade. You said is that right? >> That level. >> That level at Baldwin? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Dean can do that. >> The principal planner. Are you comfortable with that? >> Yes. Um. Yes. I I think that it could be the other boat either. But I think that that's fine. I think they have significant space. They could probably um more than 16,000. So, >> so >> I I will advise the board right now if we need more deliberation, >> we're carrying this. >> Need to leave the building soon. >> I think we should think about it. >> I I just want to make I just want to make the statement. The reason why we're saying that if we need more is because we need to leave the building soon, they're going to lock up and be forced into a situation right now. >> I agree. I don't want to force you into doing 16,000 ft on ball >> just cuz we all want to leave here. >> We're forcing this right now because of the time >> for sure. >> Yeah. >> We need to get resolutions read in and we need to go. >> So, we're going to carry it to November 28th. >> That's what I'm hearing. >> Just defer the vote. I guess no more test deliberation, right? If you want to bring more testimony, >> additional testimony, but if you want to have the 10, 15, 20 minutes to discuss this, >> we don't have that time right now. >> No, I I hear you. I hear you. I'm not I'm not November 28th right now. >> Uh 25th. >> Otherwise, we went on Turkey Day, >> but uh or some somewhere around there. But uh yeah, I think old business for that date. >> We'll put it right up top. will deliberate. >> Do we we need a motion >> a decision? >> We need a motion to carry it. >> Okay. Can I have a motion to carry? >> Motion to carry KP2024-0134 to um our next planning board meeting which is November 25th, 2025. Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Can we have a roll call, please? >> Yes. Uh acting chair Gangadan. >> I. >> Commissioner Wick. >> I. >> Commissioner Torres. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Lewis. Hi, >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi, >> Chairman Langston. >> Hi. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you everyone. I appreciate your courtesy. Chief, >> before we go, we do have to carry the rest of the items on the agenda tonight. >> Before we read resolutions, council. >> Yes. Uh I know I'm pushing the envelope, but if there's any way we can hear this 612 Pavonia tonight because my client is getting the water out. >> We cannot. >> We're here this late already. >> So are we. >> I know. I know. Thank >> security isn't going to be here this late. >> Okay, understood. Can Can we move this then to the 25th at the top of the agenda? >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. >> Okay. I appreciate that. >> All right. You got it, council. >> And um I have the next one too then. That one 231st Street. Um it sounds like uh it sounds like December 9th is is going to be a long night. Um, I don't know if we're >> there's only two things happening on December 9th. >> Exactly. So, can now that the new calendar has been adopted, can I can I carry that to the first meeting in in January? >> I think it was adopted earlier, right? >> Yes, it was. >> Yes, >> you can do that. >> And then possibly get poll position on on that uh agenda. >> January 13th. >> It is. That's what it is. January 14th. >> 13th >> 13th or 14th. Well, I'm about to open it. >> 13. How many races are in a in a >> Can we do a blanket carry for everything left on the agenda to that date right now? >> January 13th. Yep. >> With preservation of notice, guys. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> 19 Street. >> I got to read resolution. >> I know. >> Let's start with the most important resolution. Resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City authorizing the award of a professional service contract pursuant to the fair and open process for planning board stenographer certified shorthand reporter services to precision reporting resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City authorizing the award of a professional service contract pursuant to the fair and open process for planning board attorney services to law office of Santo Tia Lampy LLC. Both of those for the calendar year 2026. Resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City, Skyway Realy LLC. Preliminary and final major site plan approval with deviations 146 Summit A and 57 Clinton Place, Jersey City, New Jersey. Resolution of the Planning Board of the City of Jersey City. Applicant 660 Grove Street preliminary major site plan approval with deviations 660 Grove Street. Planning board resolution Morton Place Plaza LLC. Preliminary and final major site plan amendment approval 38- 46 Morton Place 43 through 51 Morton Place 202 to 210 Orient Avenue resolution of the planning board city of Jersey City in the matter of 240 to 242 Terrace. Minor site plan approval. Resolution of the planning board, Jersey City Herby Tower 2 LLC for amended final site plan approval and site plan approval extension 1851 19525 Hudson Street. Resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City, Monica Contemporary Tribecco West urban renewal LLC extension of preliminary and final major site plan approval 50day Street. Resolution of the planning board of city, Jersey City, 475 Newkerk Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey. Block 9705, lots 10 and 12, preliminary and final major site plan approval with C variances. Resolution of the planning board of city approving amendment to minor site plan approval for 270 Newkirk Avenue. Minor site plan amendment 270 to 272 Newkirk Avenue. Resolution of the Planning Board of City, Jersey City approving an extension of a minor site plan approval 270 Newkerk Avenue. Extension of minor site plan approval. Resolution of the planning board of city approving extension of final major site plan approval with deviations 394. Summit A LLC extension of preliminary and final site plan approval 394 Summit Avenue. Resolution of the planning board of city Georgia City approving preliminary and final major site plan approval. State Capital Group LLC preliminary and final major site plan approval sends 712 Bergen Avenue. Resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City 165 Newkerk, I'm sorry, Newark Avenue. Third extension of preliminary and final major site plan approval with deviations 163 to 165 Newark Avenue. Resolution of the planning board, Omar Amen for minor subdivision approval, 25 LC Avenue, Jersey City. Resolution of the planning board, Bright Street Partners amendment to redevelopment plan approval. That's case P2025193. Resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City. Approval and recommendation of amendments to the inclusionary zoning ordinance chapter 187. >> That's it. Morton Street. >> I have two Morton Street. >> Second. >> Acting Vice Chair Gangadan. >> Commissioner Wick, >> Commissioner Torres. Hi, >> Commissioner Lewis. >> Commissioner Patel. >> I. >> Chairman Langston. >> Motion carries. All in favor to memorialize resolutions. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. Do I have a second? We have a second. Thank you guys. >> Thanks