i aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all hi Cam could we have a sunshine announcement please yes chairman good evening everyone today is Tuesday March 25th in the year 2025 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 L Espolito and posted with the city clerk on Friday March 21st 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 chairman vice Acting Vice Chair Gangadan here councilwoman Prince Arie here commissioner Torres Commissioner Lipsky here and Chairman Langston here all right we have five commissioners present we have a quorum all right could uh we swear in the staff please Mike i see the match joe Tanya you guys the whole truth yes all right thank you uh correspondence Kim yes chairman okay so we have four items on the agenda tonight that are requesting to carry and that would be to our April 22nd meeting um the attorneys representing the applicants are here and um we could probably bring them up to state their case okay starting with um Joseph Paparro of Grass House what's the item number on that that would be old business item C that is 523 Tunnel Avenue they have requested a carry with preservation to April 22nd do we have council here for them i I'm assuming their attorney is not here um item 13 under new business has also reached out to staff um their attorney is Mr harrington and um their Good evening Mr chairman commissioners uh Charles Harrington of Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant on on this one um my understanding is there was a glitch on Tyler uh otherwise it was it was a very straightforward application it probably take as long as me being up here right now um but I've heard that Uh in that regard I I'm respectfully requesting it can be carried to the April 8th meeting um in instead of the uh April 22nd it really is uh shouldn't take more than five minutes cam I don't know what April 8th looks like yet it's crowded of course yeah um I could get I could get out of the way in in in the beginning do you have something else on that night that you're willing to bump i'd have to check yeah I don't know i'm sure you do um um yeah we could do April 8th because it's a subdivision and they have stricter deadlines for being heard it's it's as simple as there was a subdivision that that took the property and made it part of one lot that other owner didn't want it so we're taking it back sounds easy enough that's half my presentation okay Cam let's move that to April 8th we'll put that right up front okay yeah thank you thank you council okay the the next item on the agenda that I corresponded with staff to carry was item 15 on the agenda good evening Joseph um I after discussing with Cam I don't think there's any chance that this application gets heard tonight some other professionals had child care uh issues so we decided to carry it sure to whatever hearing the board would graciously uh give us April 22nd yeah okay thank you council okay so just for the record anyone that's here for item C is case P2024-0149 it's a preliminary and final major site and conditional use for 523 Tunnel A that will be heard on April 22nd item 13 preliminary I'm sorry case P2024-0180 preliminary and final major subdivision uh for Harborside Place that will be carried to a date certain April 8th with preservation of notice as well as item P2024-000035 is a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances for 135 Garfield Avenue that is carried to a date certain April 22nd with preservation of notice so anyone that's here tonight are you here for one of those yes so that's not going to be heard tonight they've carried it i apologize but another certified letter to let me know no you don't ma'am which case are you here on 135 okay so this is us saying that we're preserving the notice is your certified letter that will be on the agenda for April 22nd you're not going to send me another letter we don't send that the the attorney sends that for the applicant april 22nd we'll hear it there will not be another letter ma'am there will not be another letter but that meeting is on that application is on April 22nd in this room and the time 530 same time 5:30 okay so let's move on to chairman actually we have one more item item 16 requested to carry and Maria Vallejo is here to speak on behalf of our applicant okay good evening council good evening Mr chairman ria Vio on behalf of the applicant um this is another matter that had a little difficulty with Tyler we did proper notice um but the application documents were not able to be accessible by the public so we are asking for to be moved with preservation to April 22nd okay so we're going to move uh I'm sorry we're going to carry case P2024-0126 a final major site plan for 853 Jersey Avenue once again to April 22nd anybody that's here for that application this is your notice you will not receive new notice thank you council thank you cam do you want to get We'll get the artist done do you want the um legislative item in there too yes okay we are going to move a couple things around real quick just uh to get them in real uh before before the meeting gets heavy um we're going to call item nine under new business review and discussion uh of certified artist Matthew Novak Yang and Samuel Jablon formal action may be taken okay chairman um we have three artists here tonight who have met criteria one two three four and five to be certified artists and be eligible for the artist housing that the city offers and um the artist certification board has recommended approval and planning staff agrees we recommend approval and a favorable recommendation to council okay thank you Kim anybody any questions okay is there anybody here from the public that wants to comment on this anyone from public seeing no one from the public uh Mr chair I move to close second motion made and seconded public is closed cam we have your recommendations so I will entertain a motion chair I'd like to make a recommendation to approve the certified artist as listed in the agenda this evening for approval and sent to council second okay okay motion made and seconded for approval acting vice chair Gongadin hi councilwoman Prince Arie hi commissioner Torres hi commissioner Lipsky hi and Chairman Links i motion carries all in favor all right thank you let's move on to item 10 is case P205-000042 this is the review and discussion of an amendment to the land development ordinance regarding the general development checklist formal action may be taken tonight okay uh yeah commissioners so we have um uploaded to the portal is a checklist with highlights uh that add language and strike language uh to um our development checklist uh we are updating this to uh with regards to doing digital submissions and digital signature for for plans so you'll see that we're striking this affidavit of submission because we now uh accept them digitally through Tyler which collects the signatures of the applicants um we recently updated our demolition uh standards and and ordinance so we are striking the determination of significance memo uh we are adding in that the department of community affairs electronic plan certification form is required for these uh digital submitted plans we're also adding to our zoning table that the that they add uh or uh notate what sort of storm water control applies if they're a minor or major development uh as it relates to our local ordinance and then uh we're striking um some outdated ICO requirements that were uh leftover from the first ICO that was replaced by the second uh so these are very out ofdate kind of language and has been a cause for confusion uh master plan consistency um for these items is that we're undertaking zoning revisions to clarify regulations and address current issues and there are also uh items in here that help us promote planning for sustainability and climate resiliency staff recommends approval okay thank you Kim anybody any questions no okay is there anybody here from the public that wants to comment please come on up truth the whole truth i do explain michaelski 225 Liberty Avenue good evening k U L O W K I good evening sir we have three minutes for you okay can you explain to me is there a due diligence requirement in in in this and why is that sir that's focus duty of of the city right what do you mean due diligence due diligence if somebody applies with the city for something the city has to investigate who the person is right investigate the applicant yes there are disclosures that have to be filed yeah but it's voluntary by Not voluntary not voluntary mandatory under the statute yes but they have to submit if they lie to you there's no means of verifying it right means of verifying that they submitted a certification lying correct okay yes if people lie under oath that's against the law correct but they still do right it's possible i can't speak to whether people lie or not if you have if you have your own due diligence report that you take responsibility for it right you don't rely on somebody who is already convicted fraudster in case of one of the person who will appear here absolutely not people certify the things and that's what the statute requires that they certify that their ownership interest is as they state but there's nothing prevents the city to require own due diligence report I'm not going to argue with you sir you asked the question that's the answer okay so I'm requesting that this will be added own city own city own investigation and report to diligence report Okay that could be noted yeah that could be discussed at city council when it comes up in front of them for a vote thank you got it thank you sir okay anybody else from public chair see no one for public i would like to close the public portion second okay motion is made and seconded public is closed uh Matt we have your recommendation so I'll entertain a motion so I'd like to make a motion to approve KP2024-000042 which is the review and discussion of amendments to the land development ordinance regarding the general development checklist second motion made and seconded for approval acting Vice Chair Gangan I councilwoman Prrenzeri I commissioner Torres I commissioner Lipsky I chairman Langston yeah I think uh everything's in line with the master plan and I think it should uh get a favorable recommendation to city council from us i motion carries all in favor okay thank you so let's go back to old business uh we have a case P2023-0106 is a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances for 119 Merit Street chairman I believe that that's ajourned i'm sorry that's under adjournments that is under adjournments i apologize everybody okay so under old business item A is case P205-000030 is an extension for preliminary and final major site plan with variances for 120 Storms Avenue good evening council good evening steven Joseph Casano Quigly Cheram for the applicant this is the first one-year extension uh relatively large project maybe on any other agenda this would be a big project but not tonight so we're just requesting that that one year to continue to pursue financing for the project okay any questions no oh um Mr joseph uh does the applicant agree to um to the conditions of the original approval of course then staff recommends approval okay thank you so uh before we entertain a motion is anybody here from the public that wants to comment on this application anyone from public chair see no one from public i would like to close the public portion second okay motion is made and seconded public is closed we have staff recommendations so I'll entertain a motion i'd like to make a motion to approve case P205-000030 is presented to the board second okay motion made and seconded for approval okay acting Vice Chair Gangan i Councilwoman Prince Avery hi Coun um Commissioner Torres i Commissioner Lipsky i Chairman Langston I motion carries all in favor all right thank you council all right let's move on to item B is case P205-0026 this is an extension for preliminary and final major site plan with variances for 26th Street council I believe you're going to recuse on this matter that's correct chairman okay thank you good evening Mr chairman commissioners my name is Eric D mcculla from Waters McFersonen McNeel on behalf of the applicant Newport Associates Development Company this was an approval from 2022 for preliminary site plan approval for a 1723 unit building on the Sixth Street Pier the applicant is requesting its first one-year extension to continue to investigate the opportunities okay thank you council and uh before we continue let me just put on record we are obviously without counsel right now if the board at any time feels like they need to consult outside counsel we'll reserve that right we'll carry your application until a certain date when we can advise with council certainly i understand and I will we will consent of course anticipating the question we will consent to all the conditions in the original resolution okay thank you council any questions anyone no okay hey is there anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application anyone from public sure see no one from public i would like to close the public portion second okay motion is made and seconded public is closed uh acting vice chair Yangadan we have any recommendations oh yeah sorry um anything you want to add staff recommends approval okay given thank you chair like to make a motion to approve case P205-000026 as presented to the board for approval second okay motion is made and seconded for approval there you go um acting vice chair Gangan i Councilwoman Prince Avery i Commissioner Torres I commissioner Lipsky I chairman Langston I motion carries all in favor all right thank you thank you good evening thank you council okay let's move on to item D is case P2024-0210 is a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances for 2966 Kennedy Boulevard and 69 Cottage Street uh this had previous testimony taken on February 25th okay uh thank you uh Mr chairman for the record Charles Harrington of Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant uh as you just stated there was prior testimony at the last hearing it was at the very end of the meeting and it was um somewhat rushed if you will um in that regard it you know we'd like to take a step back and kind of you know represent if that if if that's okay i'd appreciate that council okay um and I just want to you know kind of give an overview of uh why we're here uh if and remind or refresh the recollection of of board members if they're not familiar with the project this this is a project that had um I believe two prior approvals um maybe three uh where uh the most recent approvals for 35story building with uh 252 residential units uh a hotel component a restaurant component a banquet hall component and on-site parking uh it incorporates uh a uh the base zoning which is zone three uh an office bonus uh zoning which allows it two additional floors and then there is a corner bonus for uh for this lot which then would permit you to go up to 31 stories um as of right it was um approved with deviations to go up to a 35 uh story building uh before this board uh my client started construction uh on that uh and I I I want to I don't want to misrepresent but he's you know somewhere between four and six stories out of the ground um I'm sure you've seen it it's the old Pep Boy sites but when uh when the amendments to the Journal Square redevelopment plan uh were adopted in August of of this year uh he he actually you know put put some brakes on it uh because he wanted to relook at the at the uh project and see how that would uh affect this and could he could he do something with with the new zoning uh as you know that the new zoning uh requires 10% affordable uh the prior approvals have zero affordable uh didn't require any um so uh the idea it also allows you 5,000 additional square uh feet of residential space for every affordable unit uh within the project and uh 250 additional amenity space for each affordable unit and allows you to to go up um up to an additional 20 uh stories so um what we're proposing tonight um is a 56story building now as of right it it would permit a 51story building um and uh why are we asking for that it's a it's a brand new application because the change of the number of units is 20% or more so we can't seek an amendment to the prior approval we have to seek a brand new application but based upon the existing conditions that we we are approved for a 35story building we're out of the ground uh so essentially you got 35 stories in your back pocket not to be too colloquial but um we're seeking the additional 20 stories and then that brings you up to 55 and now the 56 story where does that come from because under the new zoning that rooftop uh area the the rooftop amenity space under the old zoning that wasn't counted as a story when you covered only up to 20% of the rooftop but under the new zoning that's now considered a story so that is now gets us to the 56 stories um but what we also have to do is request um a number of deviations with this so the deviations that were were approved as part of the last approval the 35story approval um they don't carry over into this this this is all brand new um you don't get uh the benefit of of saying "Well they were they were approved last time." All right and what's unique about this too is when when we're going up I know you know the planning and the the planning board and the city council uh when they made these these new you know accommodations uh they made some tweaks to the tower on base regulations uh and the idea was to try to comply with those as as you go up um unless you can provide you know the appropriate reasons in this instance we already have the structural supports coming out of the ground the columns so that affects it all the way up and we have our structural engineer to touch upon that so we can't accommodate that all the way up um and that's that's why you're going to see the project you see tonight and and the request for a number of uh the deviations for for the uh the additional 20 stories um but that being said this we think it's it's a great opportunity this is I think the intent of uh the um the amendment is to create affordable housing in the Journal Square area this is going to result in would result in 63 affordable units that's actually 11.6% of the total units not 10% which is the the minimum requirement uh we'd have still have the hotel component 154 hotel uh keys if you will and we still have 202 parking spaces so that's not changing still providing for the restaurant uh use the banquet hall and and the retail on the on the ground floor the the the ground floor is not changing um that's already built right so it's really everything about going vertical you have right down the street you've got these Journal Squared buildings that are 70 plus stories you know so this is not going to be an outlier in the area uh it's it's consistent with what the amendments were were um adopted for uh but it is beyond the 51 stories but I think this if you know I would hope the board looks at this how it's it's a unique situation because we're already out of the ground um and we're we're and did we choose to do that i say we the client they yeah they chose to stop and they but this is an opportunity to provide this affordable housing um in in this project without it you know you you revert back to the to the existing approval which is 252 residential units and no affordable housing so um that being said that's the the the background for for why we're here i have uh Mr vandermark will walk you through the application again and the architecture then I have um our structural engineer to touch upon those issues uh Mr christie and in Sam Bellamy to address the requested uh deviations okay thank you council and just for the record um the only commissioner that wasn't at the last application and granted we're starting fresh and walking it back a little bit but Commissioner Lipsky was not at the last application commissioner did you have a chance to view the transcript or record did and I saw that there was some sort of arbitrary u time block on Mr vandermark of like 15 minutes and I I said how could we so I read it no we need at least an hour of Mr vandermark no less testimony tonight the whole truth of the truth i do sure that is Anthony C vandermark Jr vandermark van Ner MK principal of the architectural firm of MVMK Architecture mr vandermark we've qualified you in the past your license is current tonight uh yes it is chair okay thank you sir you're qualified great thank you um good evening everyone and uh as Chuck had previously mentioned I had maybe 10 minutes of testimony uh you know at the last hearing and and I would just like to kind of back up maybe slow it down a little bit and just start from scratch again because I I do feel like it might have been a bit rushed and I and I think I was maybe providing too much information within that 10 minutes and I I would kind of like to walk the board through this application um I'm not going to go through the uh complete nuts and bolts of the application although this is being considered a new site plan application um but I will take you through uh each floor and each use going up to the top of the building just to make everybody familiar once again with the site um as Chuck had previously mentioned it is the old Pep Boy site oh you know why because I'm not plugged in yet it's fine there we go vandermark I believe that we were or had marked a slide presentation correct we have 44 slides in the deck um I should be using 39 this evening but 44 in total it's the same one that we marked as A2 previously you haven't added any slides haven't taken any away yes sir no okay so Mr harrington we are on A2 which is a Vandermark slide deck believe Mr harrington that that had been submitted after the last hearing yes not what's that okay no we did not no all right okay just to uh reintroduce the site to everybody uh it's formerly the old Pep Boy site um it is on the southeast corner uh of Kennedy Boulevard and Cottage Street cottage Street runs from east to west uh Kennedy Boulevard north to south uh the proposed site area has not changed at 20,800 square feet which is roughly 60% uh greater in area uh than the uh baseline uh zone 3 uh for 25 stories uh and above um this is the equivalent uh to a half an acre and again uh corner lot um oversized lot and we are utilizing the office bonus corner lot bonus D and also the MIH which is the mandatory inclusionary uh housing uh for an additional 20 stories as Chuck had previously mentioned uh and also in my original testimony there's a pre-existing ing five-story structure uh or the podium uh of the building that's already constructed um as you can see here the formwork and framing for the sixth floor uh has already been made um in the background as you can see the journal squared towers and right to the left uh background you can see the Homestead Place uh Nomar Projects uh midblock on Cottage Street this is standing south looking north again five stories of this uh structure has already been constructed uh and we are proposing this evening 56 stories three-dimensional rendering of the new proposed 56story version of the Imperial Tower um we had previously uh had a predominantly ACM uh clatted design on the lower 35 stories and we have a glass curtain wall structure growing above uh the original 35story structure topping out at 55 stories with a 56story uh rooftop restaurant amenity space okay so why are we here right the original approval uh was for 35 stories and we were here in July uh July 11th of 2023 um this is considered a new application uh site areas remain the same we're proposing to the principal roof height a 55story building at 592t 8 in the number of feet uh is a nonvariance we're just asking for a variance here in number of stories um so again uh the building height in feet uh is permitted at 592 feet and 8 in the 56 story as Chuck had previously mentioned uh was at 20% of rooftop amenity uh and restaurant space due to the fact that the uh RDP or redevelopment plan has reduced the rooftop amenity to 10% this now becomes an additional story thus 56 story the top of that rooftop amenity is at 613 excuse me 609 9 ft 10 in while you're permitted to have uh an amenity at 613 ft this proposal again takes advantage of the MIH the mandatory inclusionary housing for additional 20 stories but we're here to add the additional 21 stories uh the one being the rooftop amenity residential use at 542 units being proposed as Chuck had previously mentioned we're 252 in the previous application we are proposing 63 units uh dedicated to affordable at 11.6% the application has not changed at the base of the building uh we are providing two retail spaces at the first floor the lower 35 uh again the yard setbacks as previously proposed and approved uh there was no change uh as we will go through uh this application and this proposal we have slight uh increases in the setbacks of floors 35 through 55 of two feet at the east west and north and then a 5' one to the south this is to offset the gained area uh uh as part of their proposal or the requested variances for the setbacks the parking spaces remains at 202 we will be fully compliant with the mandated uh EV charging stations uh of the uh 17% which is 34 we're proposing 154 hotel rooms uh that's the same as the previous application bicycle parking spaces have increased uh due to the density increase we're at 295 interior bicycle parking spaces with eight uh outdoor being proposed this application has six floors of dedicated hotel use and as I will take you through the graduation of this building uh these six floors could have been obligated to residential however they are now dedicated to uh hotel use banquet hall originally at the 30th floor moves to the 54th and the restaurant now is at the 55th floor and partial 56 which is a rooftop amenity so Mr vandermark I just want to be clear there's a lot of qualifying language being used yes this is a new application correct these are not existing variances so for everyone's edification they don't exist this is a new application agreed just trying to take the board which was previously approved but is not a continuation of this application everything here you see before you has to stand on the merits of the application before you this evening not which was previously approved question I don't see the previous approved stuff in front of me so when you keep going back I have nothing to reference to so if you're going to keep bringing that up I'm not sure what your Cuz I don't shut it off on me just pull it down i Thank you i don't see the previous approved items that you keep referencing and stuff like that in front of me i don't have a drawing that show me what was approved and what was not approved and um so by stating that out of all the applications that we have listened to in the amount of years that this one has gone really sorry I'm not going to remember everything that was approved and not approved unless it was in front of me so I don't know I don't know if we can keep hearing this part because it's getting a little confusing as you just started i'm not going any further into the previous application just stating numbers and facts and that's it now I will take you through what you have before you this evening i agree with you i agree with you but there are numbers and facts that you have in front of you that I don't have in front of me understood that's the problem i agree with you that that that was brought up to the board it was approved right numbers and facts brought up to you that you have that I right now I'm going crazy on this thing looking you know I'm looking even for 55 story i find it all the way on the top line up here and everything else I see is 51 story on your header of your first page of your architectural draw so I just want to put that in the record sure absolutely okay go ahead Mr vandermark thank you so the application before you uh again is proposed for 56 stories we are proposing 542 residential units uh as part of this application 108 of those 542 will be studios ranging from 553 to 596 252 onebedrooms that will range from 625 to 684 72 onebedrooms plus den at 8:14 to 856 we are proposing 72 twobedrooms at 112 to 1154 we have 25 twobedrooms plus den and they are all at 1,269 and we are proposing 113bs at 1,248 within that ratio uh there will be 63 affordable housing units broken down uh uh in accordance to uh the affordable housing program as Chuck had previously mentioned the variances listed and we have Mr bellamy that will uh go into further uh detail of these variances we are proposing uh a building height variance in number of stories not feet tower front yard setback a side setback abuing a lower density zone a setback from adjacent properties rear yard lot we are proposing valet parking as part of this application that is a variance and we are proposing head in and head out parking and loading uh at the base of the building at the first floor as part of this application we are proposing seven different project uses again first floor retail we are proposing parking uh a commercial uh amenity of a gym uh and a dog daycare we have proposed hotel use residential use banquet hall and restaurant spaces at the 55th and 56th floor this application before you uh again uh to the top of the amenity 56 stories 609 ft 10 in centrally located we have a principal roof level of 592 feet 8 in and that's at 55 stories the proposed site plan approach is we have a continuous curb line with five street trees all uh new sidewalks and new curbing with also bio swells that are interconnecting at Kennedy Boulevard we have new intersection improvements at the corner of Cottage and Kennedy Boulevard as part of this application we have a proposed drop off area uh for both uh deliveries short-term deliveries of Amazon and also passenger drop off for uh residents uh for Uber um and also uh anybody visiting the site we have a depressed curb or a curb cut on Cottage Street and followed directly to the east with the transformer vault as you can see here in footprint area we have a large amount of uh open roof deck at the roof uh with an elevated pool deck and an infinity pool to the northeast portion of the upper roof the lower graphic before you we have the footprint of the base of the building uh located in blue and the proposed red outline is the uh new floors at 36 through 55 um outlined in red we have some small minor setbacks at the perimeter of the building um to bring the top of the tower inward um that I'll get into uh when we get into the residential floors in a few minutes at the base of the building I had previously talked about the curbing uh and the uh site approach we uh have a corner uh residential lobby uh of double height space to the southern portion of the property we have a 4,857 square foot uh hotel lobby and retail cafe that'll service both the tenants uh the tenants and anybody coming in off of the street uh that wanted to eat or have a cup of coffee we're proposing uh a centrallylo twocar elevator system that will take us to floors 3 four five and six which is the parking garage as well as the seller um we have the vehicular approach coming in off of cottage for ingress and egress uh that location also services as a loading bay as well as the ADA uh van uh an ambulance space all the way to the back of that garage portion centrally located uh elevator system with also two uh hotel uh lobby elevators coming in off of the retail cafe and of course the commercial elevator all the way to the right uh coming in off of Cottage Street graphic on the right has the tower with the proposed uses in color colorcoded uh for each uses i'll walk you up the building and through this application mr vandermark if I may do you have a site plan that shows the setbacks at at the first floor mr mr harrington are we going to have a civil engineer that's going to go into any of that or I didn't hear that in your witnesses no we were just going to submit on the architectural the uh it h it hasn't changed uh I mean it's it's an existing condition that was built out consistent with the prior approval were there variances granted for the ground floor i don't I don't believe so i think we complied with the the sidewalk i think it was all those set all those setbacks are compliant we would Yeah we we the prior application would have had some setbacks at the ground floor level as well I believe right well the both sidewalks were compliant in the original application and the 20 foot sidewalk on Kennedy and the 15 foot wide sidewalk on Cottage Street as being proposed not to go into the original application but the proposal here in front of you are compliant with the sidewalk width that is required in the redevelopment plan but the the ground the ground floor setback deviations were with regard to the sideyards if you were will not not along the noted cottage we have the abutment to the we need to know what those are and what the request is no well we're I understand what's been constructed what I want to know is what the requirement is and what we're showing because you need a deviation for that i think we all agree on that right so I can't grant something without knowing what it is and then the justification for it so I need to know what the deviation is we'd have on those so if a different witness was going to provide that was my initial question i respect that but can can you provide that in yeah i mean I I I will talk about it and again our our planner is here to talk about you know the deviations in accordance to what this application is being proposed this evening so I don't have a site civil engineer to have the site plan sheet right with the setbacks or therefore the deviations along I guess on this drawing the right side and the bottom side if I'm following what you guys are verbally stating and and and this graphic does show you the deviations just to make it clear if we start to the right of this graphic um we have a deviation of 30 feet on the setback abuing a lower density zone so that text up at the top of this graphic shows you what the uh deviation is it shows you the 30 foot line uh abuing the zone 4 so we are we are that's the requirement 30 ft that's the requirement we are proposing zero at the podium of the of this building and then the tower graphic as you can see uh has a 15 foot setback and then a 20 foot setback so the deviation request is for uh it is for 15 ft and is for 10 ft as you go up the building so I guess and if the board's following then that that's fine with me but what I'm struggling with is I see the blue and the red and if I understand correctly the blue and the red is the tower am I correct Mr vandermark that is correct sir and if I understood what you just said the podium the base has a zero setback that's correct so when I'm looking at this drawing this drawing doesn't show what the requirement is so this shows where the building is proposed to be located so you have a zero where 30 is required on the right side I don't see an arrow as to direction is that correct that's correct and then how about what is the lower side okay the lower side or the bottom is a 30foot rear yard setback uh abuing uh the the rear property line of an adjacent property and we are at zero on this line at the podium and the requirement is 30 feet and the graphic is here and just for the record we do have civil engineering plans that were submitted as part of the application but we do not have the civil engineer here tonight because we anticipated that Mr vandermark could walk walk you through the project and the setbacks and Mr bellamy as well our planner yeah council i don't see any civil i don't think I saw them either on the site i saw a survey but I don't recall seeing engineering i see a survey a storm water management report a traffic assessment a principle point statement uh notice notice transportation comments yeah I'm not seeing site civil drawings Mr harrington can you tell me what they're labeled as uh Mr lean's showing me that it says civil engineering plans yeah they're they're here they're they're just under civil engineering plans on on on the portal i don't know what happened i lost it on the phone i saw it i'm not disputing that I saw it but I don't have it on my portal micheline you're accessing that directly through the data portal are you logged in are you logged in or is it on the public facing side ah he's logged in um here I'm reviewing the public facing side right now um publication staff report checklist first revision transportation comments 200 foot list sample draft principal point statement um Mr lean is do you see the Can you show me yeah it might help illuminate what issue may exist think we should go back to paper let's do a new checklist so it appears based on my look that and I can I need to log into the back end to confirm this that um that there was a civil engineering document submitted um and I want to go into the back end and confirm this um but it seems to have this for whatever reason um the setting is not was not clicked to make it publicly available um so Mr harrington here's the problem I have and I'll ask the board i haven't seen civil drawings i don't know what else was submitted that's not on the public portal of of course we go by the public portal right as far as you know this board's concerned we're a member of the public when we're looking at this information where we should be viewing exactly what the public can see nothing more nothing less um and the public should have access to as well obviously that's that's the Open Public's Records Act um and that's I mean it's a glitch um we're not responsible for understood i'm not saying you are um I just want the public to know that so were were engineering studies done yes on the I mean obviously there's a a lot more weight yes the structural engineering studies were done and we have our structural engineer engineer here tonight submit a report is there a report because that's not on the portal either there's not a there's not a report we have we submitted a a letter uh to planning back when we were discussing this but there was no structural report submitted tom I don't have that letter either planning did not receive a report um there was in in discussions a letter i I it wasn't entered as evidence though it was my intent it was my understanding that Mr harrington intended to have his engineer testify on the record that's correct we we did not have a structural report prepared we just had a letter submitted the initial discussions was can this be done when we met with the planning department said we need a letter from your structural engineer that says this absolutely can be done and that's what was provided but there was no further structural report if that's are you saying you know the board needs to see that's that's another question is the board is considering this as a again a new application so we can't go off of an existing engineering report especially if it's not on the portal if we're not looking at that versus the new letter that your structural engineer is sending a And it hasn't been submitted to the city's engineering department correct or has the letter been the letter was just submitted to the planning uh department it was So Mr harrington obviously the issue that I have is I have no idea what the letter says but if it's just a oneline conclusion that says this is structurally feasible then that's what the letter says i haven't seen it it's not on the portal my bigger concern in real time is what else was submitted that is not on the portal and I don't know how to address that issue other than to have Mr lean look at what I'm looking at and compare it to what he submitted uh but again chairman that puts us in a very difficult spot in terms of proceeding here this evening with the public not having access to all of this the board not having been able to review all of this mr harrington I absolutely understand that this is a glitch in the matrix and is not something that the applicant did and I'm not trying to say or to give anybody the impression that the applicant did any of this the reality is at the very least as I sit here I don't have a letter you're referring to and I don't have the civil drawings i haven't had them and I have not seen them yeah and I mean I I know it's an issue here with the civil engineering plans not being available on on the portal i just know for the record our public notice provides that they're available at the office of the division of division of the city planning and the the portal right because kind of go back to old school like if you if you did you submit this in paper what's that did you submit it in paper no I I submit but you could go to the office and say can I see these plans if if somebody doesn't not everybody has a computer not everybody has has a I'm not saying that that solves the problem we're looking at tonight council are you suggesting that the board do their their research in the planning department only and not at home no absolutely not because you know that's up and above the public being allowed to look at the plans in the planning department we we need access to these things yeah no understood on our own time that's what I was going to say Mr santos comments what else Mr olympia i'm sorry um what else is not there we don't know it doesn't matter right now because we can't get over the first question the civil the civil plans aren't there that's a problem right and the board wants to see them that's what I'm hearing 100% and And you want them to have be available for the public yes so how do we how do we make sure that everything that was submitted gets on the public aspect of the portal and I think that's a question for the applicant and I guess you Matt to throw you under the bus no it's it's it does require applicant staff cooperation and um it's clear somewhere in that process there might have been an oversight i'm going into the back end right now to see if it is indeed there on the back end um as in the non-public side of the application um um but yes I mean ultimately it does require it's it it does require the cooperation of both the applicant and staff to make sure these are available they need to submit the documents um and then we need to certify that everything's set up correctly in the portal so Matt are engineering reports required for a building of this size and scope so planning typically reviews we review storm water and the like with the storm water plan and there's a um there'll be a traffic assessment but as far as the structural engineering of a building goes um generally that's not in our jurisdiction um obviously if there are questions about that that may be relevant from a planning perspective that can come up and we can ask for such a things but um ultimately the structural soundness of a building um is determined by staff in the building department and if I could add it's not I don't believe it's a checklist item like you don't provide and this is a unique application uh so yeah we did have a structural engineer look at it if if the board wants us to provide a a more formal report for for your eyes and review then that's you know that's something that that we can we can provide we want want you to have all the information in in front of you so Mr harrington if I'm understanding what I've heard thus far and what I've reviewed thus far the applicant's intention is to have a much larger tower placed on the podium that has been constructed to date is that a fair statement yes and I think the chair's comment is how do I know that that podium can support a much larger tower and I think with respect to the structural engineer it sounds like the letter indicated that the structural engineer is not concerned about that that's correct but he hasn't provided a formal report to that effect it sounds like it was just I'm not concerned about that well he I'm but I haven't seen the letter right i'm sure he you know he did his analysis and that's that's the letter didn't provide that analysis he may have done it no he just conclusion he just provided his conclusion that's right so I think that report is going to be very helpful but is but is that the letter that's sitting in the back of the portal that was accepted no so miss um council's referring to the you know so we had in a letter we had an engineer testify to us that they thought it wasn't an issue but any sort of report or calculations were not provided and I believe um Mr lampy is requesting those calculations to well Mr harrington just said that the structural engineer submitted a letter that stated structurally this could be constructed as proposed that the structural engineer made that conclusion mr harrington then said "Of course he believes that that conclusion was based on an actual analysis which as attorneys we would imagine that the licensed professional did an analysis before providing a conclusion so the analysis would be the basis of the report that forms the conclusion and that's what the chairman and the board is asking for well let me ask this question council is to Matt's point if a engineering report is not required by the planning board is that not a moot point or is it just a gratuitous act it's not a moot point the board can always ask for anything that it determines to be reasonable and necessary when weighing the application so if the board feels it's necessary then the board has the absolute right to ask for it whether it's a checklist item it's not a checklist item so that just determines completeness and whether the board can start the hearing aspect of the application once the application starts the board is entitled to ask for additional information that will help guide the board in making its determinations mr harrington has agreed I believe to provide such a document it sounds like it exists like it's done it's already done to some degree i don't know how hard it is to take the analysis and put it in a formal report but you know I that's what I think my contention was whether or not Mr harrington was willing to do it gratuitously or under duress no no we're we're we're willing to do that we we understand it's an important issue as part of this application because it's a unique situation and that's why we had our structural engineer here tonight to address the issue because you don't see structural engineers here right i love to see him here um unless we're doing the Peep Pod Mr lampy but I asked I just spoke with my structural engineer and he he said absolutely he I can put together a structural report sure so you're right it's probably the analysis is probably done it may be in you know different notebooks and he puts it together in a form so that you can you can uh review it and walk through it and then we can have him testify to it to uh confirm his conclusions so council I So that's a senior partner answer i just want everybody to understand that's what the senior partner said mr len would have to go back to the office and work on drafting that document i have some clarification on these civil plans i was able to log into the back end of the system um so the civil plans in the portal and not made publicly available were from a um an earlier revision of the project and there in the in my checklist review there were items um flagged for correction in terms of the likes of typos and the like and um I do not see that a a revised set of civil plans was ever submitted so that is the reason why they weren't put on the front end okay so council we can make that happen we can get civil plans updated yes and I I I certain aspects of this project we have to hear in a vacuum we you know when it comes to the variances that are requested we have to hear those separately from what was previously approved but you know this is reality so there's a base there already you plan on building on the same base so we're going to talk if it's structurally sound whether you can just add 20 more stories on top of that that's right you know about Thank you 21 um that's a that's a valid question for the board so I I don't think we're out of line asking for the structural or engineering report um and you know as you stated the the report's done if your engineer is saying that it's sound so we'd like to take a look at that report let's get all the civil plans up there updated make sure that they're available for the public and the board um at their own leisure to look at at home not in the planning department uh anything else that we're just want to make sure that anything that was submitted is accessible by both the board and the public and I think staff and the applicant are going to have to work together to make sure okay here's what was submitted let's make sure it's it's live public and I guess from your point of view Mr harrington uh you guys have to try to log on as if you're a member of the public and not through whatever account you have set up that Yeah right this guides you as to what the public is able to see just for my confirmation that would be clicking the link on the agenda is that what the public sees um correct and you can also um on the city planning homepage there's a link to just the the portal in general and in lie of logging into an account like you were an applicant submitting you could just go into public search as an option on the homepage of the portal and public search allows any member of the public um to see various um points of information about any planning zoning construction application ever submitted um obviously almost some of that information is available to the public by default but the existence of every application plus um some public information about its status as well as any attachments that have been categorized as available online are available for the public to view and we use that public link as part of the link in our agenda on our noticing um to direct members of the public and in this case members of the board as well that's where we to materials that's where we look okay and I guess Mr harrington and I'm curious from an applicant standpoint because I don't see it this way when you log on and you're looking at your matters i think you're looking at everything that you've submitted that's right and believing maybe that everything that you've submitted is therefore viewable by the public do you get any kind of notification that or any request to make this particular document public do you have to coordinate with staff to do something like that do you know no we submit on Tyler on and and we have access to that and it's my understanding whatever I submit on Tyler is going to be submitted or put onto the link and available for the public to review i don't know if planning kind of parses that out and says "Well this is an old plan i'm not putting it on." I'm not I'm not sure but my my understanding whatever I put on there would be transferred over for the public to see i I don't get any notification that that says this is now being put on Tyler or the portal or that this is now available for the public to view well that begs a good question council in that the you know attorney representing client submits isn't there some discretion for the planning board to weed out the uh the shaft from the wheat yes and no right so this is the problem with the the digital error you cannot Boomer thanks Boomer you maybe another way of phrasing it to make it easier is is that I mean if planning deems something either inappropriate for whatever reason or in excess or excessive do they not have discretion um so Mr uh it's a question legally whether they have the discretion if Mr harrington submits a rendering and he wants it to be part of the file and available for the public to view planning does not have you know the grounds to say we're not going to allow it to be viewed publicly it's not part of your application mr harrington's position is going to be I submitted it as part of my application it's part of my application just like planning can't deny the public to see a particular document that is part of the application so that's the only reason I say that the problem with the electronic filing in my general opinion is it's an instant and it goes live right so it's like any other posting in the sense of once it's there it's out and if you uploaded the wrong document you know I have seen a lot of oopses happen live because you went to click on something and share your screen and it's your tax return so but to that point did Matt did you want to say something yeah I guess I just I'll provide some illumination to sort of how the process of document submitt and approval works um so the applicant submits documents um and then the planner reviews those documents and we either label them as you know complete by the standards of our LDO and the MLUL and therefore moved over to the category where they're public available or we note that they're somehow incomplete or deficient and we flag them as required for resubmitt um and so the required for when you flag something as required for resubmitt it never moves over to the public side and so in this case we had flagged their initial civil engineering plans as required for submitt based on several items outlined in my checklist that I fill out and I give to every planner and then um it seems another set of civil plans was never submitted for me to review and so that's how these civil plans never any set of civil plans never made it over to the public side all right so I just want to see if I could square that with my round peg is that you're saying that earlier that a civil engineer report wasn't essential for the application but for the code enforces um but then at the same token you're saying that you made it a requisite for this application to be complete i think I think you're confusing the report in the civil engineering plans so the civil engineering plans is a standard item we ask for the civil engineering report would be non-standard in this case but if the board feels they need that information um to make a full judgment about whether or not to grant a variance the board can request that information and and specifically relating to structure but Matt I had a question regarding and again I think this is very educational for everybody which is why I'm spending the time on it chairman if you have a submission that needs to be resubmitted from an applicant do you not get a notification on that particular file until a resubmission happens yes so if they submitted a new file I would get an automatic notification telling me they submitted a new file and if they don't nothing right so because you didn't respond to that there was never a notification that you did respond to it and the civil plans that you had submitted which were not accepted and looking for additional comments never got made public i'm learning uh a lot tonight too because I I have seen those Tyler where it says resubmitt then I'll resubmit a plan i don't get any further notification so I'm assuming it's it's okay and I maybe that didn't happen in this case i don't know but it's like you said earlier sometimes you I get these notifications are you ready to replace this one with this one and I'm like I'm not sure I want to hit this button right now you know but uh yeah I'm with you 100% i know when I sent the courier with the plans like I just assume you know the fact the fact that we're we were here before the board that all all was good that no one no one said I just have a a quick clarification oh where's Matt for Matt you turned around matt yes sorry so the quick clarification that I just wanted to ask when you review and you mark up the civil plans were the uh client uh informed um yes so um in our established staff process so when you mark an application is incomplete there's an automatic notice I also upload um my checklist detailing the deficiencies um in like a bullet point manner based on different categories we have a standardized checklist form and then often as a courtesy in the automatic email which goes out which will um I will be CCD on as well as the attorney um and any other professionals attached to the application often as a courtesy I'll follow up with an email with um a copy of that checklist and maybe some you know specific larger tasks that I noticed or any further context that might be needed yeah there's there's a process that goes back and forth the communication open communication with the planning department but sometime like said sometimes you open up the portal you've got 20 items there and you might see three sets of engineering plans three sets of architecture plans like which is the last one so it's all about trying to identify them and and really I thought and sometimes I guess things fall through the cracks because we thought all was good because we were scheduled yeah but that's not the case so we have to fix that and to clarify we thought all was good so we were scheduled and so there was there was a failure of process here um there was no malicious intent on either side no intent to obiscate it was um an an honest mistake where um you know I think both sides failed to so how do we rectify it before I complete I just want to thank you for your clarification on that so that at least you acknowledged that your office was also informed thank you so council I you know I'm going to ask you to carry i I get no joy in asking you to carry we're here tonight to hear this application members of the public are here tonight to hear this application obviously your team is here to hear the application we need to cross the tees and dot the eyes here so we we need the information that we need um I I'd ask um if you could be carried to April 22nd is that the second meeting cam we've mentioned that date what three times already tonight i don't know it can be done yeah we can he says enthusiastically can we rectify all of this and get the structural engineering report in 10 days before yes that that's we're going to work with with uh Matt and and cross our tees and dot our eyes yeah we're going to make sure this is in perfect order before the board sees it again for both our sakes cameron there's another application that I'm thinking about that was carried from a prior meeting and I'm hoping it's not April 22nd and that was the Don't say it it is yeah there's there's two larger cases that night as well it might be prudent to carry to the first meeting in May honestly yeah you're behind that uh that other case so you can come but you're not going to be heard we can't say that officially i can't imagine we get unless the same thing happens that last time okay as they say we'll hear i don't want to drive down people that don't want to be here and sit here all nighter so is the the bright street is on for the 22nd is that is that the one correct don't say it but yes correct yes okay if if we get carried to the May meeting can we get listed up top may 6th may 6th may 6th you're you're already under old business so you can't really get closer to the front yeah so we'll carry to a date certain May 6th with preservation of notice testimony taken we'll put you right up top okay okay all right thank you guys thank you thank you Mr harrington all right we're going to take 10-minute break everybody i know we're early don't run Mera you're fine okay let's call item 11 is case P2024-0127 is a preliminary and final major site plan with variances for one Journal Square also known as 2965 Kennedy Boulevard chairman I'm I'm sorry i apologize guys I don't mean to cut Chuck off here but uh I understand uh we we don't have a quorum for 772 West Side oh I did not know that you're going to refuse i I have to okay okay um Cam a lot of pressure may 6th may 6th is the only thing that makes sense okay okay so we're going to carry uh case P23-024 as a preliminary and final major site plan with variances and minor subdivision for 772 to 788 Westside Avenue to a date certain May 6th with preservation of notice anybody that's in the room for that application once again this is your notice you will not receive new notice for this we will hear it on May 6th and uh the applicant does consent to the tolling of time and hear the application okay thank you council thank you Mr harrington good evening again good evening for the record Charles Harrington of Con Foley on behalf of the applicant uh this is a notice case um and I do have the originals to give to councel thank you Mr harington mr chairman I receive the affidavit of notice proof of publication with respect to the application at 2965 Kennedy Boulevard here in the city it's block 9403 lot 14 it does appear to be in order we're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record thank you councel thanks ma'am okay um so just uh kind of a an administrative um matter uh the agenda lists this as a preliminary and final site plan um we are only seeking preliminary final site plan as as part of this application um it is Did you just I'm sorry you misspoke then you're you just said preliminary final major site plan so it's just preliminary it's just preliminary okay yeah i'm sorry that's all right you just took the and out that was that marbles in my mouth that's okay so yeah we're seeking preliminary site plan approval only uh this uh application was filed and deemed complete prior to uh the adoption of of the amendments to the Journal Square plan in August um so it's it's been around uh for a while uh so it is being presented under the prior uh zoning uh we are uh seeking a uh 28story uh mixeduse building with 657 residential units ground flooror retail uh two stories of hotel uses um or commercial uses on the office bonus floors and we have parking within this uh site if uh I'm sure everybody's familiar with it uh it's uh the smaller building on the corner of uh Kennedy Boulevard and Cottage Street on the west side of Kennedy Boulevard i think it was one of the first office buildings built there um by Mr panipinto uh many many years ago uh just uh north of the former ad I always call it the ADP building it's no longer the sign's no longer there um but it it is uh you'll see that we are requesting uh some uh deviations as part of the application and a large uh number of them are a result of the slope of the property because it slopes down from Kennedy Boulevard uh to um to the west along Cottage Street um so but it is a corner lot um so it does um does help in that regard with the for the egress and ingress of the parking which would not be off of Kennedy Boulevard obviously uh for the record it because it is on Kennedy Boulevard this would be subject to the Hudson County Planning Board uh review as as well and that would be something that we would um seek uh after after this meeting uh in the event it's approved um so it is in uh zone three of the journal square plan that's why we're we're seeking the the uh 20 28 stories and I note you'll see during the presentation that 28 stories and is an internal uh parking level so we're not asking for any additional development than otherwise would be permitted with regard to the residential stories so I have uh four witnesses tonight uh my first one is uh our architect uh Mr rodriguez uh we thought he could take you through the site it's probably a better presentation and then we'll we'll turn to the civil engineer Eric Blue and then Tom Carman is our landscape architect and then Sam Bellamy uh we follow up with regard to the deviations so with that said I'm going to bring up Mr good evening any testimony you get tonight i do juan Rodriguez j U N R O D R I G- U Z mr rodriguez good evening we've qualified you in the past uh your license is current tonight yes okay thank you you're qualified good evening everyone before you start if you if we could mark your uh slide deck as A2 and if you could identify that for the record uh yes uh so we've prepared um a Yeah it's not plugged yeah we don't see it sorry about that okay you guys let me know when you can see it we have it okay all right um so we've prepared uh a series of slides uh consisting of 11 uh 11 pages total uh the majority of these slides with the exception of the first sheet uh are part of our site plan submission uh there's one slide that has not been included as part of the the publicly available documents which is an aerial photograph uh showing the boundary of the site um so I'll just uh kind of just start here with this first slide uh just to get you guys oriented uh Chuck kind of already started u letting you know where where the project is u we're on the corner of JFK and Cottage Street uh in this image uh JFK is running uh left to right north to south and Cottage Street is running uh east to west along the bottom um the site is block 586.5 plot B uh and it's just under um an acre uh the site contains uh currently uh about a fourstory uh commercial office building and some surface parking u that cover uh you know the remainder of the site this sheet is an elevation of the building as seen from Cottage Street uh you'll notice that the the project is um as Chuck already covered it's within the Journal Square Redevelopment Plan uh we're in zone three uh and the project has been designed to be um you know under under the guise of the the Tower on a base um zoning uh the building form is conceived as two residential towers um that come down onto a a combined podium uh and at the base of that podium you have residential building lobbies you have some retail space uh you have some parking uh there's also uh two stories of bonus uh uh hotel use uh some residential and then uh at the eighth floor the buildings uh kind of break apart there's a 50-ft separation between the two towers uh and then the the remainder of the project uh is all residential units uh the total uh project consists of 650 uh7 residential units uh on within that um the the two towers and the podium there's a total of 422 689 square ft of residential of net residential area um as you see here in the building section uh at the third and fourth floor uh where we have the extended stay hotel use uh there's also 50,683 ft of extended stay uh hotel um you'll see in the plans that uh the two uses are separated by two uh designated lobbies uh so this is essentially a mixeduse development uh consisting of u you know multif family residential and uh the hotel on the ground floor um I'll zoom in so you could see it better we have uh double height retail and lobby spaces uh those those spaces are going to have a height of about 26 ft uh what we've done is uh create taller spaces along the street frontage uh behind those spaces uh we were able to accommodate u additional parking for the for the development uh which is one of the variances that we have within our application um you'll see here uh this is the the kind of lower level seller plan uh on the left side of the page um is would be the the kind of lowest point along Cottage Street uh where we would be at about elevation 79 there's about a story and a half grade change around the perimeter of the corner um with the highest point being the the southeast corner of JFK Boulevard uh the area of this plan that's covered in this gray tone would be the portion of the building that is below the the JFK uh kind of cottage grade um which you'll see the the ground floor is set so that the the the first floor of the building is at the street elevation of JFK um so what we've done is to to kind of preserve the the public facing frontage along the the areas that are above grade we've located the parking and loading areas and some mechanical spaces at the kind of lowest point of the site uh to allow access into uh a kind of cellar uh level of parking uh within this parking garage you could then get into multiple floors of stack parking u within the building uh there's also load loading space um right next to the parking garage entry as well uh in the area that's below grade we also have a common mechanical electrical uh fire service rooms uh there's also a combined bike storage room within the garage as well uh you'll notice that the two building cores come down to this level uh what we've done is is locate the building trash rooms within the seller um the thinking would be that both towers would have trash services come down to this level um all the trash will be collected within the building and then it could be brought out to the to the loading space um that that you know I pointed to earlier uh the retail trash is also envisioned to come down to this level uh so none of those functions for trash removal are going to appear uh you know on the street frontages uh everything is going to be handled internally to the building so as I said earlier the ground floor of the building has been uh kind of situated so that it's at the elevation of JFK uh which is running uh along the right side of the page um starting with this this kind of corner which be the the southeast corner closest to the PATH station uh the building has been pulled back uh to allow for a 25- ft sidewalk um that sidewalk is covered by a portion of the building which overhangs onto the sidewalk you're going to see a series of columns here that uh kind of break the width of the sidewalk um so that's another deviation which our planner will cover a little bit more but uh essentially the the the the columns are the only thing that would interrupt the overall width of the sidewalk where 20 ft of sidewalk is required we're providing 25 ft uh but it is going to be interrupted by a series of columns here along the street um along that colonade there's a about a 7200 square foot retail space uh which is going to be uh kind of wrapping the corner of JFK and cottage um at the middle of the the development kind of midway of the the lot you're going to see a residential lobby uh this lobby would be sh uh a kind of shared singular lobby for both buildings from here you could you could come up a series of steps or or walk along the colonade uh and you could go uh to the left to the west tower or you could go to the to the right to the east tower uh both towers would have shared package mail uh kind of mechanical services uh it really is envisioned to be a single development uh just consisting of kind of two tower mass um also along this uh this cottage street frontage we've located the lobby for the extended state hotel use as well there is some surf some uh internal parking um that is located uh behind the lobby and retail uses uh there's a portion of the parking that uh would be visible along cottage uh that parking would be masked by architectural facade similar to the rest of the uh the buildings at the second floor uh we've uh continued the parking up to this level uh in front of the park and we have some indoor amenity space um that amenity space would be a kind of extension of the ground floor lobby uh with some uh potential for you to be able to look down and and have a visual visual connection to the lobby with maybe a stair to bring you up onto this amenity floor uh there's also uh about 3,500 square ft of retail area uh also uh connected to the retail space that's along JFK as well at the third and fourth floor the building uh you start to see the building podium uh the building uh kind of steps back from the south allowing for uh windows to to be located along the south frontage uh we're also starting to set back and respect the the bulk uh requirements of the journal square plan including a a rear point uh 30-foot rear point setback along the southwest corner uh it's the the thinking was that this would be two floors of again hotel use uh at this level there would be some space some outdoor terrace space and some uh shared u amenity deck space as well on the on on the fifth to seventh floor uh the the the building podium shape uh continues up uh we still have the same setbacks along the south side and the rear point uh you also notice that there's a 50-ft separation between these two uh you know the beginnings of these two tower elements um these floors contain uh residential units um and uh they kind of start to set up what happens with the towers up above uh so this is a plan of the eighth floor um where the building towers start to really take uh you know shape for the first time uh you'll you'll see that uh from the west side the building tower steps back uh 20 ft um it steps back again uh 20 ft along the south side uh side lot line um and both towers step back 15 ft both from the JFK lot line and the Cottage Street lot line um these these bulk uh standards meet the the intent of the journal square plan um on this floor there's also some indoor amenity space and some additional outdoor landscaped areas uh that will be common for the building uh this is the typical floor uh which would be floors 9 through 28 um you'll see that again it's uh we've envisioned this as as two individual towers uh they each have their own set of cores um they they uh have residential units uh fully on all of these floors uh the building towers um again meet the this all the setback requirements around the full perimeter uh they also are each within uh the kind of maximum allowable diagonal dimension of 180 ft uh the west tower uh measures to its widest point 142 feet 7t and 58 in and the east tower uh measures 148 feet uh zero foot and one half inch uh within uh both buildings uh there are again 657 residential units uh broken down uh as follows uh we have 367 studios which is 57 56% we have 142 one-bedroom units which is 22% we have 133 two-bedroom units which is 20% and we have one 15 three-bedroom units which is 2% of the total just uh for reference the west tower has 310 units the east tower has 248 units and uh this is a plan of the roof of the building um uh a big feature of the building is the fact that uh we wanted to be able to combine um uh the the two roof decks uh which would be landscaped and available uh for tenant use uh with a a kind of combining skybridge if you will so this would be a indoor amenity space of about 7,310 square ft um and this would allow you to come to walk from one side of the building to the other uh and if you're a tenant here you could have access basically to a contiguous roof amenity space uh through this bridge um just circle back here just I'll just cover the parking a little bit more um so the total the parking uh we have 8 81 parking spaces um that are all inside of the building uh out of those 81 14 spaces will um be equipped with an electrical vehicle charging station um and we also have uh 384 bikes uh bike parking spaces uh for the project so that that includes my testimony i'm happy to go back and answer any questions that you guys may have all right thank you sir um I I know it's it's going to come up again in planning testimony but can we go over the uh the loading spot where it's uh head in back out yes uh we're here on the seller floor um the loading space here which is uh it's about 35 ft deep it's about 17 ft wide uh will allow trucks to back into this loading space and back out um you know to load the building back in or back out they would they would they would back in and head out head out okay um Okay yeah the the way [Music] the Matt and I apologize the staff report reads um pull in and back out so back in and head out is a big change that's a big difference for me so okay um anybody else any questions right now i have question right now uh in the transportation memo um they just made a question about um door access to the bike parking area and seeing if you could locate one off of the uh elevator yeah I did see that note and we could accommodate that yeah I would I would say that it should be done from probably both near both elevator banks uh I think they they where your hands hovering they identified that one but you probably should put one on the other as well i I agree that makes sense we can make that change yeah okay thanks all right anybody else okay thank you okay appreciate it okay thank you our next witness will be the civil engineer Mr belaloo yes the truth the whole truth the truth i do eric Belaloo e R I C Beloo B A L L O U mr belaloo good evening uh your license is current tonight it is and in good standing okay thank you you're qualified thank you very much all right okay so I'm advancing to the rendered landscape plan L1 so I guess would this be exhibit A3 this would be A3 a3 okay great so what this shows is shows the illustrative landscape plan of the lower level of the project uh I'm going to focus on you already know the project i'm going to focus on some of the deviations sort of related to the civil related items uh one is regards to the landscape as well yes yes it is right so I'll use the first sheet then the landscape architect can walk through the remaining five pages okay thank you uh I'm going to start with with the loading area u the one of the deviations is uh we talked about the turn back in and then pull out uh the other relief we're requesting is the ordinance requires 40 feet of length where we're at 35 feet of length um which we feel is appropriate because we would anticipate things like a box truck like a 30 foot wide truck uh the longest U-Haul is approximately 26 feet um so we are requesting relief from 40 feet to 35 feet in length for the loading area also the way the ordinance reads you would be required for this building to have two loading areas we are requesting a deviation to allow one loading area uh based upon the control that the applicant has to monitor move in move outs and and other activities they felt that one would be sufficient to handle the needs of this project staying within that same area uh there's a driveway width so the way the ordinance is written you're allowed a maximum driveway width of 18 ft so the situation that we have which is common is that we actually have access into the garage then adjacent to that we have access into the loading area we just spoke of so that total width to accommodate both of those uses is 43 feet uh right now in perspective there's actually two curb cuts already for our frontage out there uh that allows access into the parking area so which would be approximately 44 feet of curb cut we're going to be approximately 43 feet of curb cut um so we believe this design is appropriate and safe and the 18 is really minimizing the amount of width really necessary for these activities uh regards to the project uh you know right now it's almost virtually all impervious you have building combined with the surface parking lots is about 96% impervious but with that said though we're actually installing a storm water management detention system combined with green roof so we'll be reducing our storm water rates for the 50 year 50% for the two-year 75% for the 10 and 80% of the 100redyear storm systems so we will be reducing the storm sewer volume coming off of this site from a rate perspective uh other civil items uh we did receive adjacent away review letter as always we will we will address those comments uh there was also the traffic review letter talked about having a bumpout and I think the purpose of that is is that uh along our frontage on Cottage Street there's a right turn lane and a left turn lane onto JFK they want us to place a bump out on Cottage Street to ensure that cars don't start parking within those turning lanes so we would agree to to accommodate that as far and then you know this project is good it's actually out of the flood zone so uh there's no green area ratio com requirements to be addressed so it's actually a very high and dry part of the the city which is excellent as far as direct Chuck that's that's what I I have right now for my direct from a civil perspective okay yeah I I have no further questions i don't the board has any yeah just one question in terms of the storm water retention percentage changes how is that work i just can't vision that definitely uh so what we do is we have uh well the green roofs you know act more like regular soil than pavement so that reduces the flow then the storm water what happens is the roof water's collected it goes into storage volumes underneath the garage portion and then we have controlling orphoses that only allow a certain rate of that storm water to leave the site so therefore by holding back the water and releasing it slowly it's beneficial to meet downstream requirements all right anybody else i have one question just looking at this image um there there's like a a row of head-in parking spots that look like they're being cut off uh that must have been what on the facts on the ground must have been part of the parking lot for this site but now they'll be cut off is that going to is that offsite and what's going to happen with that area right how about these yeah those are offsite so they wouldn't they would have to be adjusted on the opposite property okay how are they accessing those currently but there is a dry vial through our parking lot so it looks like they're being accessed possibly through that at this time it I think it's under common ownership so but I don't know i believe is isn't that the access drive to the garage the future garage no the existing garage no I think what you're looking on the other side of what looks like a wall that's probably the access drive to the garage these spaces here but I don't you you'll figure it out it's a legitimate question sure Mr harrington is that is that part of the property i'm assuming that you guys uh might be over the property line with those parking spots but facts on the ground looks like you probably access them from your site um I'm not incredibly surprised all right so that I guess maybe or maybe the image is not showing correctly so scaled correctly what is on the screen mr harrington mr harrington all right so I've now put up the site plans that were submitted okay juan can can address it sure absolutely i just want to clarify if you go back to that landscape plan can we mark what was just placed on the screen that everybody just saw Mr that is Let's do that first that's part of his civil plans but we can mark it if you'd like let's just do it for the record a4 is the Go back to the the survey Mr blue it wasn't a survey it was the site plan set which is an existing condition plan which represents the existing survey of the property and you know you'll see here on the survey those spaces that we were just looking at on the left side of the property they're actually on our site so if you go back to the landscape plan wait can we zoom in on this for one second please zoom in on that all right so these spaces here are up against our our western property line they're on our site so you see the the two spaces back to back there's a there's a graphic issue in this landscape plan the it's to the right scale but the the plan is actually justified to the right you see how it kind of like goes uh into the kind of JFK right away a little bit so this whole plan should actually be shifted about 20 feet to the left on top of this uh Google Earth background so those cars that are parked in those spaces those are the spaces that are on our property and appear here on the survey yep and the other spaces and those spaces will be eliminated by the development and those spaces are related to this property and only this property that's correct it's not a question of common ownership whatever's on the west side of the wall is on the west side of the wall the wall is kind of the property line that's right they'll go away and that the spaces that are on the western side they do have their own independent curb cut off of Cottage Street so where there's no change of access to existing spaces to the west for clarity right sorry no actually makes sense actually thank you actually that was that was good okay anything for Mr blue okay thank you sir thank you okay then I'm uh going to continue with Mr carman who's our landscape architect and he can walk you through the plans and explain that as well so uh it's a little offc center i can good evening tonight's going to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do sure thomas S carman c A R M mr carmen we've qualified you numerous times as well your license is current tonight it is current okay thank you you're qualified thank you very much um yes so I'm going to refer to uh the package that was just re reviewed which is A3 and um utilizing this first drawing L1 as just clarified by both the architect and the civil engineer yes this graphic does show the overall landscape plan superimposed on top of a Google aerial and um it's the whole landscape plan is shifted uh a bit to the east which is having the confusion that um Matt had indicated so overall the overall site um and landscape plan fit within the property area that is just the the one discrepancy right there and I apologize for that so um I'll give you an overview of this the street level landscape plan then we'll make a quick run up through the exterior amenity spaces um but on uh cottage itself there are um five proposed street trees and on JFK Boulevard there are four the street tree tree pits the planting the dimensions of the tree pits are all in compliance with the um the forestry standards sidewalk treatments are in keeping with uh city requirements for Journal Square uh redevelopment area as well as the uh JFK um streetscape boulevard standard requirements um there are four bike racks proposed along the frontage uh to accommodate eight bikes and then um central to cottage you uh heard earlier about the plaza space that's on the north there are some steps that lead up to that area it's just a natural extension of the interior lobby uh and to the east there is an ongrade access um ADA accessible being that cottage does slope down within that plaza area there are a couple of ornamental trees and then there are some seating as well the lighting along cottage and JFK Boulevard um intended to remain and in compliance with uh current standards moving up to jumping up to the second image within this um six page set this is drawing L6 and this is up at the uh the third floor so this exterior amenity space allows um access out onto it where there are few barbecue grills some outdoor lounge seating opportunities and some game tables there are also some private terraces for those units that front on that level moving up to the next level here we are now just is drawing L7 and we're on the eighth floor so here again some um connecting the two towers there is an exterior amenity space uh lounge seating barbecue grilling the um any of the outdoor grill areas or fire pits include the code compliant emergency shut offs moving up to the upper level this is up at that 28th floor so the uh tower one which is the tower on the west side a dog run proposed some outdoor lounge seating a children's play area and then just a turf panel on the north side the uh tower on the east side includes again some lounge seating barbecue grilling and then a raised pool area um pool terrace with ADA access and stair access up to that raised pool on top of the bridge connection that you heard um testimony on there is uh extensive green roof throughout the lower levels that I just spoke about the third floor the eighth floor and the 28th that's all intensive green roof profile so a little bit of a deeper soil depth up on this um extensive is the more shallow 4 inch uh soil profile the last image that I have just uh is just an overall composite graphic that layers in all of the levels um of the uh of the the the rooftop and I should note that this image is also slightly skewed to the uh to plan east that provides an overview of the uh the landscape lighting and exterior amenity improvements all right thank you Mr carmen um the Cottage Street Plaza is that open to the public or No that is that is so access up the stairs as well as as I indicated that ADA access under the colonate okay all right anybody else questions all right thank you Mr corman thank you okay and then uh my last witness is Mr bellamy who will address the requested deviations tomorrow you get tonight's going to be the truth the whole truth and nothing truth yes I do sure samuel Bellamy last name B E L L A M Y mr bellamy good evening uh your license is current tonight good evening yes uh current and in good standing okay thank you you're qualified all right so um getting into the deviation relief tonight there are there are several deviations we're requesting um one for the building height and stories and feet um other related to the loading requirements mentioned and then several deviations related to the parking garage frontage along uh cottage street um this property is located in zone 3 of the redevelopment plan area uh I do find that all the deviations overall can be granted um pursuant to the redevelopment plan due to the uniqueness of this lot and the topographic conditions the significant slope down cottage street as well as the all the uh the benefits of the deviations would uh outweigh any detriments here um getting into the building height to start off with we are requesting 28 stories and 32 feet 10 in that's where 27 stories and 293 feet are permitted with the office space bonus um so we're asking for an additional story which is the second floor mezzanine parking level um as well as the additional uh feet and height here um the project is utilizing the office space bonus floors uh floors on the third and fourth floor of the building um the ground floor will largely be retail space and the lobbies for the residential use and the hotel use as well as the parking garage entrance um and then the second floor above has those mezzanine levels for the residential amenity space the uh retail mezzanine as well as the the second level the the parking here um overall that the base of the building does comply the base height of the building is comp in compliance with 85 ft proposed and 88 ft permitted um what's really equaling this additional height that we're requesting is due to that second floor uh mezzanine level um it's been designed to really be incorporated and appear as a one-story um first floor of the building when viewing from all the frontages and that's due to having the the setback allowing for the mezzanine level so when viewing from Kennedy and Cottage um it has the appearance of a of a one-story structure um containing both the first and second floor levels um in addition we do have the building overhang here that starts on the third floor so again that that kind of gives the appearance of a one-story base if you will um that that contains both the both the levels overall the residential floor to ceiling heights all comply with the minimum and maximum standards here um we do have a a slightly greater floor heights on the seventh and eighth floors that's due to the transfer slabs going from your base to the to the residential tower as well as the amenity space that's proposed on the eighth floor and a little bit of increased uh floor to ceiling height there to to accommodate that space um we are requesting a a minimum floor to ceiling height deviation for the ground floor um again that's related to having the second floor level um mezzanine portion of the building so some of the spaces within the ground floor have a 9 foot floor to Florida floor to ceiling height where um sorry 10 foot floor to ceiling height where 20 ft's required but overall the the retail spaces and and lobby um generally have a a combined height of 26 feet a double height ceiling um for the the front portions of those of those spaces um as mentioned we do have a significant uh drop off in the grade here that occurs along Cottage Street about probably 3/4ers of the way down Cottage Street um dropping the the elevation from about 90 ft at the corner down to 78 ft along the western side lot line um okay overall the uh the next deviation I'll cover is the the maximum tower diagonal addition um deviation we're requesting so that as Juan mentioned the uh residential amenity space on the the upper floor has a maximum diagonal of 200 uh 231 ft 9 in uh where a maximum of 180 ft is permitted um the towers themselves both comply with the maximum 180 foot diagonal dimension um they're at 143 feet and a max of 148 feet uh respectively um the towers also meet the minimum separation distance so here we have two towers on one property the minimum separation between them is 50 ft and that's being proposed here um overall the the project itself is complying with all the other setback and stepback standards of the plan um we we actually have some increased uh stepbacks um for the towers where 20 ft's proposed along the side lines um this property is a little bit unique where it's completely surrounded by zone 3 uh properties so there's no lower density zone adjacent to us here um that would kick in an additional step back above that um that base sideyard uh step back um we do have a minimum sidewalk width deviation that occurs along Kennedy Boulevard um that's related to the the columns that come down for the upper floor overhangs of the base um overall the the sidewalk width is predominantly 25 ft but where those columns do come down it reduces the sidewalk width uh to about 12 feet um from the edge of the column to the the edge of the the curbing um overall I don't think the building columns interfere with the pedestrian circulation here we're actually proposing a a wider sidewalk 25 feet where 20 ft's required and then we're improving the conditions that currently occur on the site there's there's a wall and steps that you currently access to get up to the uh office level building um we do have several deviations related to the parking uh parking garage frontage and also um maximum non-active street frontage we're asking for a maximum of 23% or uh 96t 8 in of consecutive linear feet that's the loading area the garage entrance and then some mechanical space along the cottage street frontage that all occurs to the western end of the site um where that drop off and grade does occur um so I think it's a logical location to have the garage entrance and really those consolidated types of uses uh allows for a complete retail frontage along Kennedy Boulevard where it's required and then even wrapping along to Cottage Street we continue the retail frontage into the the um residential and hotel lobbies uh couple more deviations we have a maximum driveway width 43 feet proposed where 18 ft's required our engineer really covered the testimony and I agree with his testimony we're consolidating the curb cuts here and uh again we're locating them in an appropriate location um and it provides for the the drive uh garage and loading access i will mention that the loading doors themselves uh are both have a width of 15 ft so they do tailor down to be consistent with the with the 18 foot requirement there i think meeting the intent of the redevelopment plan uh with respect to the loading requirements I won't add too much testimony onto what the what the uh engineer covered uh again I think um this location in front of the garage the cottage street does widen so it allows for a little bit uh more space for maneuvering for the you know deliveries loading vehicles and and garbage pickup to occur um I think without interfering with the vehicular traffic along Cottage Street here um as I said overall I think the benefits here outweigh the detriments um we're also promoting the purposes of the municipal land use law this is an appropriate use in development of the site a mixeduse building in a prominent location uh we provide for adequate light air and open space consistent with purpose uh C and then it it is appropriate location in the general square plan for this mixeduse building consistent with purpose G i don't see any substantial detriment to the general welfare here again the the building is largely in compliance with all setback and stepback standards um as the building was designed thoughtfully with the core in the center we have active frontages on all sides and I think that really speaks to this prominent location and and providing a visually attractive building uh in the journal square area likewise don't see any uh d uh impairment to the intended purpose of the zone plan or zoning ordinance this is directly in line with the purpose of of zone 3 and would promote the purposes of the redevelopment plan and master plan um with that I think this project meets both the positive and negative criteria and I'd be happy to answer any questions the the board might have okay thank you Mr bellamy um and council I wanted to hear Mr bellam Mr bellamy Mr bellamy's testimony that was a tough one for me um I wanted to hear that testimony on the loading zone before I dug into this um if we could you know between all your witnesses maybe just walk us through how a loading day would occur so a truck pulls in from JFK onto Cottage how is it going to back into that spot one so um so I think if if a truck is coming from JFK whether they're they're making this left uh going north or either way yeah yeah uh they they they could drive down um you know kind of to where the this this curb starts to taper in you you want to put up the ground floor i thought I could cover it here but probably better just uh the last plan had the rest of the curb but basically I think that a truck could uh go ahead into cottage uh moving to the left uh and then they could back into there's enough width here as covered by SAM uh so that they could back in to this loading space um you know whether it's uh you know if they're bringing in trash uh from you know three yard bins into the back of the truck or um if they're you know someone's loading and moving moving into the building uh that those operations could happen internal to the building uh and then at that point they would their the head of the truck would be you know facing the street and then they could just drive out and then make that right back out to cottage and then get out onto JFK is is there a traffic study that shows the turning radius for a truck right there uh I'm a little concerned with you know that truck crossing onto the wrong side of Cottage Street to back in do we have a turning template Council i I don't know if we prepared one i I don't believe we've got any comment from Jersey City traffic what's the largest truck that you expect to be doing that i think that garbage truck yeah I think that the garbage truck would probably be the biggest truck or trailers or anything like that that would never do that yeah that would never fit in that garage space yeah this holes are pretty long holes are on the on the table here i know 26T was mentioned before that's the size of the box correct that's like a 25T 26T uh that's probably standard to the majority of um you know movement operations sure now the other drawing you had had cars parked right because of the cross the street you have a uh a very busy food uh uh supply chain so these cars are permanently parked on that side of the street on the north side yes so I mean I think that the simplest thing to do would be to we could prepare a turning template if if that's required i think that um there is enough width here in and Cottage Street to accommodate the maneuver um I'm sorry i was just wonder if Eric do you have a Do you have attorney no there's no attorney okay um so council why don't we go through what the requirement is for the loading zone so obviously the requirement was two we're providing one it's my opinion that it's supposed to be head in and head out in a continuous motion that that is the the uh the regulation within the Journal Square plan but I I don't think there's there's any properties or if there are any properties there very few that that can accommodate that uh because you're you know you're trying to it has to be big enough to to go through the property uh or a through lot i don't know if like the Kushner the KRE buildings have that but I know I have not worked on any project in the Journal Square area that that has the capability of doing that a lot of them don't even have loading zones as the board's aware because uh we end up putting uh loading on the street because traffic has uh you know advised that they they prefer that you just create a loading zone on the street but here we're trying to you know create it off off you know obviously off the street i mean this part of Cottage Street obviously I'm not a traffic engineer but I think we all you know know that it's not a very busy um portion of Cottage Street yet yet we we do not have a turning radius i mean and I remind you that this is a this is a uh preliminary uh site plan approval um so you know when we come back we we still have to uh in the event it's approved we have to go to the county planning board um and you know see what their comments are but if we grant that variance tonight we're stuck with that variance even if we don't like the turning radius the turning template that is correct council that is that is correct i mean it's a it's you know the alternative is to not have a loading like zoting loading zone in the building because you're not going to do access off of Kennedy Boulevard no I'm just I'm concerned about that turn on Cottage i'm concerned about the truck driving onto the wrong side of the road i just I don't know that that the deviation is worth that i I don't know if the case is there for it anybody else any concerns here i I agree i've seen too many times where on paper it looks okay but in practical application it can become problematic so I'd like to see a little bit more information about that i I think we could provide that and you know we'll review it more i think if you consider the placement of the loading zone now um I think it's in the area that's least impactful on the site um you know starting with the frontage that we have for retail you know wrapping along JFK i don't think that you know anyone wants to see any loading access on JFK uh you know we're using the m twothirds of the frontage along Cottage for you know more public facing uses the building lobbies are located there so I think we've we've placed it in the in probably the best spot uh we just maybe have to do a little bit more homework to prove out um that that the maneuvering on the street won't negatively impact the rest of the traffic flow agree with you um I think that the the deviations are for u you know the amount of loading spaces which we actually have one less than than what's required so I think granting of the deviation would actually support you know lesser impact uh and then the depth of the loading space uh you know we have maximized it to allow for for the building core it's more of like an internal thing but it does allow for the building core to end up in the right spot in relation to the overall building form uh so I think if we you know if we were to be more compliant we would actually be required to have more loading spaces which would you know be even more of an issue it just a thought maybe qualify if the board were to approve the deviation for the number of loading spaces and and and having having the requirement that you go in and out that you you could grant the deviation with with the condition that when we come back on final site plan we have to demonstrate that the alternative is is a better option that that needs to be approved by the board and that allows us to to um you know take another look at the internal circulation of the garage maybe maybe we maybe we take it inside and we have turns inside you know yeah I think that the deviation now is to have less loading spaces than what's required so that's what we're seeking relief from but but make it clear that any approval would be uh would require us to come back on final approval and have the board approve that but I don't think we're ready to get there doesn't sound that way to me mr harrington sounds like they want to see it now and chairman for clarification is it and to to help the applicant is it a question of whether we get loading on the street with a drop off and address the number and size of the curb cut is that something that we're contemplating or I I have more of a problem with the mechanics of the trucks getting in and out of that loading zone than I do with the amount of loading space deviation um you know from a safety standpoint a a loading zone on the street to me is safer than this situation right now but this is a dead end down there right this is a dead end uh there's a small alley that goes into the bank that's that other parking lot but if a truck pulls down other than make this turn I don't know how they turn around on cottages well they see but uh that's it's a it's a wise street and um right now they're doing it when they have that business across the street that has trucks all the time coming in and out um there is a a large food uh distribution company right on directly across the street and that's the quarter when I go down and that's the quarter they use it yeah and trucks are doing that turn as of right now where on Cottage Street they're going down they're going down they're backing doing a back way go it and then turn it back out again they're unloading they're unloading on Cottage Street right and they're unloading on Kennedy Boulevard but if they make either a left or right off Kennedy doesn't really matter yeah that doesn't matter they're on Cottage Street facing west how are they getting out of Cottage Street when they come back how do they come back east they turn into an alley or they turn it into a uh an existing parking lot perhaps yes that's what they're doing but this will be But that'll be gone and the large the large trailers that I've seen are backing out backwards out of that for that business across the street they're coming out backwards out of it so I don't want to create I don't think we I know i understand what you're saying i don't want to create that problem i understand what you're saying but can a truck make a turd if you do a shot for me to decide or us to decide but that's the concern they're doing it no well so we don't want to I don't want to make it worse make it right but it's pedestrians i'm just going to say for the record that it's better than having hopefully not losing that loaded dock area because basically right now that's what the the problem is there is no loaded dock for any other business and you have all these trucks barking right on the sidewalks right on the street which is why I wanted to clarify I understand the applicant obviously because I Mr harrington I I don't know if you were listening to uh some of the general concern right so the general concern going down cottage is it's a dead end right so if a truck were to turn onto cottage they got to get off of cottage somehow we understand that trucks are now turning on to cottage loading and unloading in relation to a business across the street somehow those trucks after they unload or load on cottage are turning around sounds like they may be doing it in a parking lot because I don't think they're making K turns on Cottage Street well they're Yeah it's not that bad truck right here in this uh Google Earth image it's it's doing something that there is a small street I know down to the right that takes you out to North Avenue perfect place yeah i don't know how wide that is but that it gets narrower yeah that's JFK it comes two lanes one to make the left turn and one make the right but once you go past that going further west so I think that's why we have to have loading happening on site and off the street i think Yeah I think that's what we we could look we could have it offsite i mean in in the building uh within the garage area and and figure out the mechanics of that is that Yeah that that's what we were just talking about we we have to look at you know some head height you know ceiling height issues and stuff like that but um if if that's what the board recommends then you know we'll we'll we'll find a way to try to get it to work and that way you're not doing that the mechanics of the turnaround on Cottage Street you would be making a left into the garage yes and then you you have to you know this Yeah you're going to be at that point the the loading truck will be heading out and then making that right to get back onto JFK that's how you know one would that you know figure it out with Mr belaloo how we can we can make that happen but as you know a condition of approval we could have that that is a requirement that the the the loading unloading has to be done within the building i want to see it and you know we'll clear that all up uh when we come back for final um any other revisions will be clarified um you know that are needed to to meet that i I just don't know if we can approve something with a variance that we plan on pulling back later that's Well I I think and that's a legal question for I think you can approve it you know subject to your review and approval of the final design at final site plan if if I was here asking for final site plan I think it's a different story but yeah absolutely we're still coming back to you you still get you still get the uh the discretion to review and approve that agree or disagree i I don't agree because we've got a loading situation that there's an issue with that the board is not going to give a deviation or variance relief to without it being determined what that relief would be it can't be conditioned on the future design of it it Well I Amy I because what you're asking for is that this be approved and that we revisited in the future at final and I just don't agree with that what I'm hearing is that the board does not like the situation presented because of the the turning movements you also don't like the idea of on street parking because if it's a deadend street you're still going to have turnaround movements on Cottage Street sure so the solution would to have is uh would to be having have it within the building and to have it within the building then those those deviations I think are justified to grant but with the condition that we want to see you come back here at final and we'll tell you if we if we like the solution so I I mean I think you can I think he can grant the the uh the deviation well we because it is only preliminary we can't grant the the head in head out obviously right that's what I'm hearing we're going to pull that yeah we we I'm hearing that it's got to be designed and it's not designed so what was proposed and what was presented is what it is the board has concerns about it that obviously the applicant is not able to answer tonight so it may be that a turning template answers that question and the applicant decides that this is the best solution and maybe the board agrees with that or maybe the answer is that it does have to be internal and there's a redesign that has to happen to make that happen so chairman my legal advice to the board is let's figure it out now not potentially in the future because we don't know and we don't have the information to make that informed determination other than to say this at best is problematic sure as it stands but maybe not so my question is this is a preliminary site plan this isn't a preliminary and final let's say they come back with a design that is just a I love this expression a concept of a plan um where where they say we can accommodate a driveth through loading head in head out yes internal to the building but we don't have the final mechanics of it does that satisfy a preliminary site plan variances or variances deviations or deviations once you grant it you can't you can't grant the deviation with conditions as to what that variance is going to look like or what that deviation is going to look like i agree i I'm saying that so you either grant the deviation for this loading space with this idea that in the future it's going to be worked out no I I want to see at the bare minimum just a a design of a head in head out you want alternative situation not right this second obviously we need but do you want to see a turning template for this space and a head in and head out concept i I just want to clarify with the turning template issue i think that what you were looking for is a turning template of what's happening on Cottage i think at the end of the day we know that it's for for that truck to back into the space as we have a design it's going to be crossing a lane so even if we show that turning template it's not going to satisfy the I don't know that that satisfies us yeah so and and I on our side we're in agreement with that i think that what what is left to do is for us to look at an alternative where we remove the loading dock as we have it now and then show this kind of internal mechanics of how the truck could make that maneuver inside can we keep the parking you know count intact like that kind of stuff i think that that looking at the plan you know I'm confident we could get that to work inside of the building and solve the issue so the truck heads in and heads out the right way yeah so yeah at this point you know I I hear council I hear the board you know we're at the goal line but we're not there yet um we need to we need the the tushbush of the uh the Philadelphia Eagles here but um we uh I I think we'll give us some time to to uh to look at this and and I'd respectfully request that we could be carried to a date certain maybe the first meeting in in May um that gives us time to to to look at this and and g get back uh to planning and to the board i I would didn't even want to throw out the April date so no that would that would have been we're voting on it 2026 is open in April if you just joking i mean does that work is it because it you want us to come back right i I think that's appropriate so Cam you tell me if if we can't make the six worth work work yeah we you just we're filling up the sixth i know um and I don't know what's May 27th oh okay i I know what the next date is after this okay yeah well strangely it it goes three weeks normally it would be two i don't know why that actually happened but Memorial Day oh there we go okay so um anyway yeah May 6th or May 27th may 6th while it's still fresh in our heads let's go may 6th okay day after Cinco de Mayo may 6th all right yeah it gives us a couple hours to recover from Cinco de Mayo yeah okay all right let's call it May 6 carry to May 6 please okay thank you all right thank you guys i just I want to get something done tonight no no no motion want a break no no motion we should have a motion okay okay okay so I'll entertain a motion to carry case P204-0180 i'm sorry I just read the wrong chair i'd like to make a motion to carry case P204-0127 to a date certain May 6th 2025 second okay we have a motion and a second can you start with Commissioner Lipsky please yeah uh Commissioner Lipsky I all right thanks Steve uh acting chair Gangadan I councilwoman Penzari hi Commissioner Torres hi Chairman Langston i motion carries okay thank you um we're going to take two literally two okay 013 is a minor subdivision for 22 Bergen Avenue uh good evening members of the board my name is Rebecca Mayerello i'm an attorney at Connell Foley and we're here tonight um for application P2025-000013 um on behalf of the applicant 22-24 Bergen A LLC um I'm going to take from a checkism at the last hearing and say this is a notice case um so I would like to mark um the notice that I prepared for this case um with the cover letter dated March 17 2025 this was also uploaded to the Tyler portal council application with respect to the application at 22-24 Bergen Avenue here in the city does appear to be in order we can mark it as A1 for purposes of the record thank you um so this property is located at 22-24 Bergen Avenue it's a single tax lot designated as block 24902 lot 2.01 this property is located within the R3 zone it is a vacant lot currently and the applicant is here tonight seeking a minor subdivision to subdivide the single lot into two conforming lots the proposed lots were proposed to be designated as lot 2.02 and 2.03 um just for a few housekeeping items um we received approval from Hudson County for the subdivision on February 20th 2025 or rather an exemption letter from the county and we're also in receipt of the planning board report of the planners report dated March 19th 2025 and we agreed all the conditions stated therein um we have one witness tonight as our project surveyor Mr jeremy Clapper and uh he's right here so oh sorry tonight's going to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but truth i do can you state your name jeremy Clapper k L A P E R i assume you don't need my first name and yes my license is in is active and in good standing thank you uh Mr clapper can you please just give the board an overview of the current conditions of the site okay presently this is a vacant lot it's 50 feet across approximately on average 112 feet in depth um and it possesses 5,623 square ft of area in land and what are the proposed conditions um that would occur if this board were to grant this subdivision so in the proposed and I'll try to scroll it over so you guys could see um we're going to create two 25 ft lots um and they're going to be 110 ft in depth approximately some a little larger based on that Bergen A is going on a skew u none of the lots I think lot 2.02 is going to be 2,800 square ft and the other one's going to be 2,700 square ft and um none of the lots will have a variance associated with them thank you i submit if this board has any questions for my witness okay thank you council um is there a curb cut involved or no so presently there is an existent 17 foot wide curb cut um I don't know what they proposed but I think that's kind of out of my purview so with this current application um the applicant doesn't have any current plans what he's going to do with this property um whether he's going to confirm with the R3 zone or you know if there's any deviations that may be required we'll be back before this board of course sure um should that be needed um but as your planner report noted um that should we not propose any changes to the curb cuts which we are not at this juncture um they are okay as is but of course if the applicant were to modify it um they have to be compliant with the requirements in the R3 zone and if they're not then we would need to be before this board again okay so if I if the curb cut was to remain we have no problem with that if there is a change we would want a a shared curb cut for both properties okay that's acceptable yes um that was noted in your planner report and that's perfectly acceptable to the applicant okay thank you anybody else yeah as as of right now the curb cut looks from the photo that it favors more of one property than the other property you know it favors the property chores on if you're looking at it face to face the property on the right side has most of the curve cut on compared to the photo that you that you uh the exhibition so yeah it would have to be put into the center yeah yeah i if they changed it maybe only one of those properties gets a curb cut or gets a driveway okay thank you if there's no other questions I'll open it up for public okay is anybody here from public that wants to comment chair see no one for public i would like to close the public portion second okay motion is made and seconded public is closed uh yep um yeah the proposed sub minor subdivision appears to comply with all development standards in the R3 zone um staff recommends approval okay thank you chair I'd like to make a motion to approve KP2025-000013 as presented to the board together with staff recommendation and approval second okay motion is made and seconded for approval okay acting Vice Chair Gangadan i councilwoman Prince Avery hi Commissioner Torres hi Commissioner Lipsky council on your inaugural visit to our sacred chamber you did a heck of a job i vote I thank you and Chairman Langston I motion carries all in all in favor all right thank you thank you everyone have a good night you too all right let's move on to memorialization of resolutions there's five resolutions resolution of the city of the planning board for Jersey City applicant is Grove Street Partners LLC for second extension of final major site plan approval 659 Grove Street Jersey City New Jersey block 6002 lot 8 case number is P205-0045 resolution of planning board for the city of Jersey City recommending to the municipality council approval and adoption a certain amendments to the Chapel Avenue industrial park redevelopment plan applicant is specific outdoor advertising l4 resolution for the planning board for the city of Jersey City recommending to the municipal council approval and adoption of certain amendments to the Chapel Avenue industrial park redevelopment plan in accordance with the NJSA 40A 12A-7 case number 2025-0037 resolution of planning board for the city of Jersey City case number 2024-0135 minus In a site plan with se variation variance applicant is Ayan Gutich and Shannon Smith address is 325 328 Holiday Street Jersey City New Jersey block 1 19007 lot 30 resolution for the city of Jersey City Planning Board resolution of memoralization Hudson County New Jersey conditional used address is 3662 John F kennedy Boulevard case number speed 2024-0225 approved March 11th in the matter of Cifra and Suns LLC resolution of planning board for the city of Jersey City approving a conditional use applicant is Marst New Jersey LLC for conditional use approval for Jordan Avenue block 15102 lot 27 case numbers P2024-0189 Nine second acting vice chair Gangaden hi councilwoman Prince Arie hi commissioner Torres hi commissioner Lipsky hi and chairman Langston hi motion passes all in favor to memorialize resolutions we need executive session anybody no all good motion all right motion do a second second all right thank you guys we're adjourned appreciate