United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you everybody. Can we have a sunshine announcement, please? Cam. >> Yes. Good evening, chairman, and good evening everyone. Today is Tuesday, July 29th 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, El L Espelito, and posted with the city clerk on July 24th of this year. Uh, 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. >> Thank you. Could we have a roll call, please? >> Yes. Vice Chair Dr. Gonzalez, >> here. >> Commissioner Wick, >> here. >> Commissioner Torres. Commissioner Stamato >> here. >> Commissioner Lipsky >> here. >> Commissioner Dr. Desai >> here. >> And Chairman Langston >> here. >> All right. We have seven commissioners present. We have a quorum. >> All right. Do we have correspondence, Cam? >> Yes, Chairman. We have um five items that have requested to carry. Um and those items are under new business continued. Um so that is item 16 on the agenda. Case P2025- Z0048. Address is 590 Grand Street for a preliminary and final major site plan with variances. They've requested to carry with preservation of notice to August 26th of this year. And then right after that, item 17 on the agenda cases P20 23-07. Um it's a preliminary final uh preliminary major site plan and preliminary and final major site plan with variances at 590 grand. And this is um also uh requested to carry with preservation of notice to August 26th of this year. Um and moving right down the list um item 18 on the agenda P2024-0199 that is um a minor site plan with C variances at 10 exchange place they've requested a carry with preservation of notice to September 9th of this year. Um, and then item 19 on the agenda, P20 uh24-0102, addresses 111 Colden Street for a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances. They've requested a carry with preservation of notice to August 26th of this year. And um I believe Mr. Wine >> just just hold off if it's okay. Cam, hold off on carry number 29. >> Okay, we will hold off on carrying item. >> Mr. Burke were carrying that 111 Colden Street. >> Yes, we are. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, so that concludes correspondence. Chair. >> Okay. Thanks, Kim. >> Thank you. Could we swear in the staff, please, Mike? Forgot about you. >> I see Matt, Matt, Ben, Sophia, and the truth. The whole truth. >> Yes. And the sunshine announcement is marked as B1 in evidence. >> Okay. Thank you, Kim. >> You can. >> Mr. Joseph, do you want to come up, please? >> Stephen Joseph, Cassan, Quigly Troy. >> Good evening. >> Hi. How are you? Um, I want to apologize to everybody. We uh were supposed to renotice 487 Bright Street. We failed to do that. I think this is the uh first time we've ever not noticed for something. Of course, it's on this application. I've wasted a lot of people's uh time this evening. I owe a lot of people a lot of drinks, so I'm uh I'm very sorry about that. >> Can't accept that, but thank you. Um do we have a date yet? >> So, I I think we were going to have some discussions about potentially a special meeting or figuring out a a a time appropriate regular meeting to have it. Um, I think we're going to work that out this week and then notice for that meeting. >> Um, and Cam, I don't know if you want to write these down. I have a couple dates that I can't make and I want to make sure I'm here for that application. Um, August 26 is a no for me and October 7th is a no for me. Okay. Noted. We will take that into consideration when we schedule. >> Thank you. Thank you, council. Thank you. A >> lot of adjournments on here. All right, let's jump into old business. Under item 7A is case P20250110 is a site plan extension for 252 Monttoello Avenue. Good evening. Stephen Joseph Casano Quigley Chami. Um this is uh an extension application for 252 Monttoello. There's already been two extensions granted on this one. Um this is the the third and the final extension. If this is granted, the approvals will expire May 18th, 2026. Um, the reasoning for this is the the applicant is a is an artist, I believe, a certified artist with Jersey City, not a developer, trying to work out the financing for the for the studio. >> Okay. Any questions? Anybody? >> No. >> All right. Thank you. Is there anybody here from public that wants to comment? Anyone from public? >> Seeing no public, I move to close. >> Second. >> All right. Motion made and seconded. Public is closed. Ben, do you have anything you want to add? Staff recommends that all conditions of approval remain in full force in effect and staff recommend approval of this motion. >> All right. Thank you, council. You're okay with that? Of course. All right. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion to approve case P205-0110 as presented to the board here tonight. >> Second. >> All right. Motion made and seconded for approval. >> Vice Chair Dr. >> I. Commissioner. >> I. >> Commissioner. I >> I >> Dr. Desai >> I >> Okay, thank you. Thank you, council. Let's move on to item B is case P2025-0118. I think I glitched there. Um preliminary and final major site plan amendment with variances for 535 Monmouth Street. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Ronald Shaunian from Schuman Hanland appearing on behalf of the applicant Newport Associates Development Company. Uh with respect to this application, uh the uh present extension expires uh in August August 23rd, 2024. I'm I mean 2025. We'd like a one-year extension. Uh, as a matter of fact, there's a site plan amendment that is is I think is being filed shortly for a change due to the elevations uh in the flood plane and I'm going to be coming before the board on that application probably in the next month or so. So, I would appreciate it one-year extension. This is a second extension. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Anybody? >> No. >> No. >> All right. Is there anybody here from public that wants to comment? Anyone from public? >> Seeing no public, I move to close. Second. >> Motion made and seconded. Public is closed. >> You have anything? >> Staff asks that the conditions of the original approval remain in full force in effect. Okay. And then staff recommends approval. >> All right. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion to approve case P205-018 as presented to our board tonight. >> Seconded. >> All right. Motion made and seconded for approval. >> Roll call, please. Uh, vice chair Dr. Gonzalez. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Wick. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Torres, Commissioner Stamato, >> I. >> Commissioner Lipsky, >> I. >> Commissioner Dr. Desai, >> I. >> And Chairman Langston, >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor with condition. >> Okay. Thank you. So, let's move on. Thank you, council. Let's move on to new business. Item nine is case P205-0114. uh is the redevelopment study and preliminary investigation report on 155 Montgomery Street as an area in need of redevelopment without the powers of condemnation. Formal action may be taken tonight. God bless you. this [Music] one. >> Yep. Okay. Um, so we don't have the hard copy, but uh the notices are on the portal. I'm scrolling them up now so you can kind of see. Um, but we did notice appropriately for the study which is um redevelopment with no combination. So, we did have to meet the notice standards to notice the owner. >> All right. So, for the record, we're going to mark that as I like to use the letter B. So, B1 is the notice. Thank you. >> Okay. So, I I will be quick even though we have plenty of time. Um I mean we do So this is a I don't I don't know if you want to also mark this in evidence. Uh this is the presentation of the report. It is not the report. It is not a substitution for the report. Um but we will just be going through the highlighted points. Um it is for the determination for the study area of block 313 103 lot one an area need of redevelopment without the power of condemnation. >> We're going to mark it as B2. Okay, so we're a little familiar with the area. Here's an aerial. Um the red arrow is depicting the site which is more commonly known as 155 Montgomery. And you can see that to the north is Montgomery Street, Metropolis Towers, even though it's cut off a little bit. You're not familiar with Metropolis Towers. They're two 20story buildings in a kind of sea of parking. uh City Hall to the west and Marin Boulevard to the west of that little uh text Marin Boulevard. It's actually the parking the secondary parking lot for city hall employees. Um behind the school uh behind the parking lot is the OLC school and that's actually along York Street that becomes the historic district and directly to the east are Montgomery Towers. So you have a kind of an idea of where we are. This might make it a little bit even more familiar. Um, the site is currently utilized as commercial parking. And this is a from the Marin Boulevard. What's cut off right here kind of at the on the left side is the statue. Um, so you get a little bit of a if you're trying to figure out where you are. Uh, commercial parking. Uh, and it is all enclosed within fencing. and there one entrance um along Montgomery. So, it is currently part of the Gregory Park redevelopment plan. Um the yellow dot is the site that we're looking at. It is surrounded by the brown is the historic district, specifically the Vanvor historic district. Um, and even though they're not bordering or touching, you can kind of see within the area there's the Majestic Theater redevelopment plan and the Grand Street redevelopment plan. And all the way to the bottom, at least I guess my left if you're looking at it, um, is Liberty Harbor North. So, this is currently in a redevelopment plan already. So, part of why we're here and part of why we're doing this is that the Gregory Park redevelopment plan is the oldest redevelopment plan in Jersey City. I believe it's 1955. I don't know exactly. Um, and within the redevelopment plan, there's language that says the redevelopment plan expires. Now, without getting too crazy, basically, because it can be convoluted and trying to figure out what that means, what we definitely know for sure is that maybe the designation um is is not what it what it would be. We need to relook at it to determine if it's still meets the area need of redevelopment standards versus what it did not just 50 years ago, it's 60, 70. How old am I? This is pretty sad. I would have just said that it was 50, but it's more than that, isn't it? Yeah. Years ago, if it still meets the standard. So, some of the plan has been built out. The towers in the park, um, Gregory Park, Metropolis Towers, some of the plan has already kind of come to fruition except for this site. And commercial parking is not a permitted use even though it's existed there for, I'm sure, as long as many of you can remember. I believe it existed from at least the 1960s back from what we can date. So, this designation is a way for us to ensure that it still meets the area need of redevelopment without using the condemnation powers. Um, I'm going to go through some of the criteria. I know we have a new commissioner. So, the redevelopment uh you might hear usually use the words municipal land use law and that's the state statute that kind of uh gu kind of guides what we do here legally. Um but the redevelopment law is done for the local housing redevelopment law which is another state statute that uh legislates redevelopment. And in order to do that there's a couple of things that you have to do. One of course is a resolution and there there is a resolution that was done here by city council authorizing this board authorizing this the department of planning to conduct the study to determine if it meets the needs uh it meets the criteria for redevelopment within that statute there's letters basically right and there's v various criteria so it's up to us to do the study we do conduct an on-site kind of physical study we look back into the tax records the owners um and then go ahead and determine which one of the criteria can be met to see if it actually meets the standards that you need in order to achieve that redevelopment status. So there's a lot of words and again this doesn't replace the report. The report is on the portal but I kind of want to go over these things and I'm not going to read them verbatim because there are a lot of words. So subsection D, I think what we're focusing most on is the obsolescence. And it is a parking lot and there is some back and forth about whether surface parking lot can just kind of generally be used as a criteria, but it's a parking lot that's within distance of a major transportation hub. So it is obsolescence in the sense that it is um underperforming in an area that is less than even I think I I did the the radius it's less than like 1,000 ft from the grocery past station. It has super great transportation access even if you weren't going to just use the path. Um you could also get on any bus. The site itself, if you're familiar with it, you can kind of look back, has access to bike lanes. So, all of these things indicate that this site being used for surface parking is an underutilization of the site, right? So, that on itself, so again, the proximity to transit um the site itself, I just going to go back just as at least like we can all have the same conversation looking at the pictures together. You can see that it doesn't activate the streetscape. So, the fact that this is two blocks away from the pass station and it is um on the way to higher density buildings, taller buildings, this becomes a streetscape where people are walking, crossing all of the time coming from the historic district. If you're here, you always see a lot of people that are crossing at these intersections. So, the streetscape itself um being having that kind of fence, it almost acts as this blank wall. And so the street street the streetcape is not activated at all. Um and there's excessive land coverage which um in this area the infrastructure is incredibly old. And to make matters worse, we have a 100% paved surface parking lot. Lata, since you have that up, just a quick point is each one of those parking spots is taken and so my dentist is down the block and I know what it's like to try to get a parking space. So, let's just say for kicks and giggles that we take this and we make this beautiful building. Now, we have, you know, that many fewer parking spots. So, I get there's a hospital and there's a light rail not far and there's path and there's bikes and ve and all these great things, but at the same time, I mean, would that include like uh like we did with the journal square plan allow for density bonuses for parking? And you're shaking your head. Good. >> Yes. So, this is this is like part one. Part one is we go ahead and we make the designation that it meets the standards for redevelopment. The part that seals in that redevelopment is a redevelopment plan. So things like making sure we can place the public parking, having those conversations, those conversations come in with the plan status and that, you know, there's there's nothing um nothing I'm going to talk about right now about the redevelopment plan, but I can tell you that some of the early preliminary meetings have been about kind of what are we going to do with this parking. >> Thank you. >> Subsection E. And um again, I don't really want to go too far into it because it's going to come up in 2 weeks or 4 weeks from now. Again, the conversation, but the redevelopment plan has expired. And so there does have some kind of ambiguity to what the zoning is. Um and that kind of meets the standards for subsection E where we're really talking about diverse ownership. Um not being able to kind of put parcels together because we can't get people to agree. That's kind of the idea behind subsection E. But the the reality is is that um when there's confusion and you can't put things together or the lack of zoning, it becomes an issue that you need to get involved with with for redevelopment. Again, this is not condemnation. I just want to make that clear. And finally, subsection 8, which is consistent with the smart grow principles. And I think some of that's going to be a little bit obvious and I've already said it, which is the proximity to the light rail. Um, mass transit and mass transit specifically is the path of course and then the buses. >> So Tanya and stop me if you want to just keep rolling through and I'll just save my question for after. >> Does that work for you? >> Whatever works for you. >> Well, while we're talking about the plan expiring, is the plan currently expired? Is there >> expired? >> So, >> so we're not including it in a certain plan tonight. We're identifying. >> Yes. This will be for a brand new plan. Okay. >> Right. It's for redevelopment to redesate or newly designate this area based on the reality of the fact is is that it's 70 years later and circumstances have changed. Yeah. But that's not spelled out in any of the any of the plan in front of us tonight that it's included. >> There's there's language in the report that talks about the expiration, but it doesn't go so far as to say >> that this is part of that plan. Okay. >> Correct. >> All right. >> But it will be its own plan. >> Okay. >> Hopefully, we'll come up with something more creative than block 13103 lot one. >> I'd love that. And just to kind of close this out, it does of course meet the standards or the recommendations of our 2020 master plan. Um, our master plan does also nod to the fact that we have redevelopment plans that we've had redevelopment plans since the 50s and the 60s. Um, and that we have to really relook at these areas because some of them have been completely built out. Some of them are still in the process of uh redeveloping. This is one of the sites um if you think about it, how much of Jersey City downtown has redeveloped um everything around it, even within this plan and the fact that this is not even a 5-minute walk away from the Grocery Pass station and it still remains undeveloped um is part of what the master plan was talking about. us being able to take a fresh look at the old redevelopment plans to figure out um basically new zoning and to take advantage of the fact that we are so close and this site is so close to mass transit and being able to develop that um into a higher density mixeduse building. And then those are the two quotes that I have here from the master plan. That's the essence of the first one and the essence of the second one really is that the redevelopment plan for the Gregory Park for Metropolis Towers was that towers in a sea of parking and we don't develop like that anymore. We put the parking, we wrap it, we screen it in the building um and we incorporate it. And so instead when somebody or the pedestrian is interacting with the building, they're not interacting with um miles and miles of asphalt, they're interacting with buildings. Um more things like that. So it does meet the the recommendations of the master plan. I believe that it meets the criteria of D, E, and H. Um and that's really the extent of the report. I can answer questions, but I mean ultimately obviously staff is recommending or staff is um agreeing that it does meet the criteria for area need of redevelopment without combination and that it should be recommended to city council for such. >> Okay. Thanks, >> S. I have a question. I'm sorry. Go ahead Pat. >> Um, so what you're saying, let's see if I understand this. the existing parking number spots you have now. If they were going to build on this location, it would also include the same number of vehicles that you have there now, plus whatever the the new facility or building. >> I'm not saying any of that, but it is a possibility. That's those are the conversations for the redevelopment plan creation. The only reason why I'm saying that is because I'm asking is because I believe somebody had made a comment before about the existing parking and how vital it is and is like it was pointed out every spot is filled for that you know lot and there's nothing except that the parking. So I would like to see if at all possible is have the same number of vehicles being able to park there on the outside and anything above that you're putting up above that I would like to see that utilized >> when >> so that's the next conversation >> when we're talking with when we're talking with the owners developers it is something that we can remember that we had this conversation with the planning board and we can bring it up to be a part of the conversation. All right. Thanks. >> And my and my doctor's down the street, too. >> You know, I have a question. >> Doctors, too. >> You go to city hall and there is no parking >> and you going to take away all this parking. So, whatever building they they build, there should be three floors of parking before they build the apartments and anything. >> I I think the message is well received. >> So, there's but there's other public parking there. It might not be an outdoor surface lot, but there's other garages in the area that you can park in. >> That's correct. >> I totally filled far and few in between >> especially exchange place you go you there is nice walk and everything. Only thing there is no parking >> there's a how you going to walk there foods parking lot. There are there are actually we overbuilt parking. I know nobody thinks that, but we did overbuild parking in a lot of our earlier waterfront buildings, which is why a lot of those parking lots, the the garages are public commercial parking, >> but again, that's >> we're we're way out. >> Not today. Not for today. Today is really, right? Right. Today is really what does it meet the criteria um established within the local housing redevelopment law in order to be designated for redevelopment. >> I have a question. Yeah, >> Tanya, I just um I have a concern not on the plan itself. It's 70 years old. The Gregory plan, it's um going to be changed. It's going to be deleted out. So, Saint City surface parking is not allowed in Georgia City. Okay. My concern is the plan that was already developed already. the housing that's there. Uh we seen a change in the Gregory apartments with um more of subsidized housing too in the building. Uh would that affect any changes in this plan now to those buildings that exist because there is no plan no more. So now we could turn around and not have the section 8 there. >> So there still is there still is a plan. Uh we're not touching any of the buildings outside of this block. This study is only for this. >> It's only for this. >> I know that there's confusion when we say things like expiration. And I I kind of tongue and cheek said it's something that we have to deal with in a few weeks when we're talking with the with the chapel application. But right now there's a determination from the zoning board based on an appeal that the zoning remains. Right. That is as far as it goes. So the zoning remains for Gregory Park. The thing that is in question, it's in flux is that designation, right? And after something has been developed within redevelopment, they usually get this certificate of completeness and they do that in order for that you can't re eminent domain it. You can't recondemn it. >> Okay. >> So the zoning for Gregory Park as it stands stands. If somebody wanted if if this uh developer wanted to develop exactly as the plan reads today, I wouldn't say that we needed a new designation. I'd say you can go in go get your go to the zoning not the zoning board. I didn't say that. Go to the planning board and get your approvals. But because of the fact that we are looking to change the zoning uh the better place to start would be to reddesate to make the determination that it still meets those criterias. The criteria is different even than it was in 1950. Yeah. >> Well, and that's really the key, right, is the fact that this was designated. It's within the plan, whether the plan is or there's some ambiguity in the plan as to how it expires, when it expires, etc. This piece was designated when it was designated and met the criteria when that happened. Rather than perhaps just amend the plan knowing that that designation is as old as it is. The prudent thing to do is to look at it and make sure, okay, it meets today's criteria to be designated and then we can go through the redevelopment process. Because as we all know up here, we don't want to learn about something 6 months, 8 months, two years down the road after we've spent the time, energy, and money. And oh, you should have gone back and looked at it and redesated it. Not that it wouldn't have qualified, but you should have started there. So, this is the prudent way to go. See if as it sits today, it meets the criteria under the statute and recommend to the council how they move forward because we don't make the designation, it's the council. >> Same thing then happens when the redevelopment plan appears before us, whether it's an amendment, a new plan, whatever you want to call it. Well, I just I I just want to be clear that, you know, not I understand the park the the the zoning for the site itself. You know, I' I've walked there my whole life, you know, it's like by that parking lot. So, basically, I understand that part. It's just when we talk about a plan being 70 years old and it's why I just want to be clear that nothing is going to happen to the senior citizens and the people that are in the other part of the plan that was developed and established. That's right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Any other questions? Anybody? >> I don't think so. >> All right. Anything, Tanya? >> That's it. >> Okay. Okay. Is anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application? >> See, no public. I move to close. >> Second. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Tanya, obviously, we have your recommendation. So, >> yes, I do recommend that it be um recommended. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion to approve uh case P205-0114 redevelopment study and preliminary investigation report on 155 Montgomery Street as an area in need of redevelopment without the powers of condemnation and forward to city council formal adoption. >> Second it. >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded for approval. >> Vice Chairman Dr. Gonzalez. I >> think this is good. I would. Commissioner Wick. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Torres. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Stamato. >> I. >> Commissioner Lipsky. >> I to recommend the recommendation. >> Commissioner Dr. Desai. >> Hi. >> And Chairman Langston. So obviously it checks every box we need it to here. Um and that's as far as this board goes tonight. So it's in city's council in city council's hand at this point. And uh it's an easy one. It's an eye for me. Motion carries. All in favor to approve with a favorable recommendation to city council. >> All right. Thank you. Let's move on to item 10 is case P2024-0147 is a preliminary and final major site plan amendment with variances for 301 Westside Avenue. Good evening council. >> Good evening everybody. Uh James McCann from the law firm of Connell Foley appearing on behalf of the applicant in this matter. Um, my architect is going to take just a few moments to set up. Uh, in the meantime, uh, council, this is a notice case. This is an amendment, um, to a site plan that was previously granted in 2023 um, with some deviations and variances. So, we did notice I'm going to tender my notice to you and ask that you mark it as A1. [Applause] Sorry about that. Turn to see the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application at 20 or 277-301 Westside Avenue here in the city. Does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record. >> Thank you, council. >> So, uh, board members, just to give you a little bit of background on this to hopefully make this a little bit more of an efficient presentation. Um, this property is at 277301 Westside A and 19-uh 23 Fisk. It's a block 22103 formally and previously lots 13 and 14. However, the tax assessor has consolidated the lots and so we have in our application that it's also known now as lot 5.01. Um this property is on the corner of Westside Avenue and Fisk Street. Um it's in the Westside Avenue redevelopment plan. Uh the property spans two districts, the Loft residential district and the residential district. The redevelopment plan provides that um if your property is in the lofts residential district, if you meet certain requirements, you can develop it in accordance with the residential district. Um and that how that is exactly how this project was approved in 2023. Also, the previous approval takes advantage of and uses the affordable housing overlay zone overlay requirements section 345 uh-59.7 of the JCLDO. So, this project currently has 10% affordable housing and will continue to do so if this amendment is granted. Um, as I said, the approved project was under uh was in 2023. Uh it's case P22-069. It was a preliminary and final site plan approval with deviations and variances. And effectively the project is an adaptive reuse of an existing twostory uh industrial building on the corner of Westside and Fisk along with the construction of a new sixstory building that will have two at the time it was approved would have 200 residential units, 100 parking spaces and a structured parking garage within the building um with stackers and that was primarily along Fisk Street, which is the residential section of the re the residential district of the redevelopment plan. This amendment is very limited. Um it has a little bit of detail to it, but effectively you are still going to see a six-story um residential building. It will have um a slightly modified footprint, reconfigured interior, and changes to the unit mix. Um the adaptive reuse building will be prime will just be just about exactly the same with some interior changes and the addition of two residential units. So if you approve this amendment, the project will now have 202 residential units, 20 affordable housing units in accordance with the LDO and the developer will pay an additional $36,000 toward the affordable housing fund for the increase in two units. Uh the parking garage will continue to have 100 parking spaces. However, there will be a reduced number of stackers because the parking garage has been reconfigured. Um that's kind of a summary of what you're going to see the architect present. I have two witnesses really tonight. uh the architect for the project um and also uh a professional planner to to explain some of the uh adjustments to the deviations and variances because every deviation you're going to see tonight has already been granted. However, the building has been reconfigured slightly. So, some of the deviations and variances have changed by literally a dimminimous amount. In some cases, one foot, in other cases, six inches. But we still have to explain it to you and how to provide notice for it. Um, just one last thing, uh, my client is not the original developer or the original applicant from 2023. My client, the applicant now purchased the property from the applicant that you who that this board approved in 2023. Hence, a redesign of the project. We have a new architect, a new civil engineering firm, uh, but the same planner. uh call my first witness unless anybody has any questions. >> Oh, go ahead. >> Yes, I do. >> My name is Anoir Al- Katib. A N W A R. Last name is Al KH AI. >> Good evening. Sorry. Believe we've qualified you in the past. Correct. Okay. >> Your license is current in New Jersey tonight. It is. >> All right. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Can I be? >> So, I want just let me ask you a couple questions. So, you're familiar with the redevelopment. >> Council, if you could uh just speak into that mic so the >> the kids on YouTube can hear you tomorrow. >> Hello. Hello. Is this >> uh So, so Anoir, you're familiar with the Westside Redevelopment Plan, correct? >> Yes. >> And you've reviewed it for tonight's presentation. That's correct. >> And you've reviewed it in connection with the plans you've prepared. >> That's correct. Yes. >> And you're also familiar with the previous plans that were approved by this board. >> Yes. And you've used those plans to provide a a set of amended plans with changes to the project. Correct. >> That's correct. Yes. >> Okay. Take over the presentation. >> That mic should work. Just tap um >> there's a button. >> Yeah, there it is. >> Council, let's identify the exhibit market please. >> Yes. Um, so Anoir, your slideshow, can you tell us how many slides it is? >> Okay, so we have to >> 25 slides. >> You'll have to uh reconnect the HDMI. >> Yeah, you move your computer and disconnected. >> Oh boy, >> it's very sensitive. >> It's disconnected from here. Just try disconnecting and reconnecting your computer. Just pull it out. Just give it a This is all part of the test. >> No matter I I always feel like I've done something wrong when nothing happens. >> Even if it has nothing to do with me. I just bottom. Come on, Mr. Sal. There's one. >> You have another [Music] my watch. Yes please. >> Yes. >> All right. You gota use voice command. Okay. So, back on the record, uh I believe it was 25 slides. Request that they be marked as A2. >> Correct? Yes. Um the slides that we've been showing you are uh taken from the pages of the application that we submitted. So, all the drawings that we have in the file, all these slides are taken from it. So, nothing is added to the the drawings. So we just taking pieces of that application and just explain it to you guys so I can understand what we're doing here. >> All right. So we're going to mark it as A2 and we can submit it after the hearing for >> Thank you. file. >> Okay. So um as a stated area on the introduction of the project we um as an architects were hired to take a look at this existing building and to do some modification on it in terms of the parking um the apartments layouts and it also tried to see if we can add additional units on the existing building. So this uh slide here is taken from the uh approved drawing G- 100 which shows the approved um plot plan of the project shows you know that we have a six-story building a corer in the middle and we have existing two-story building which is right now it's called the historical building on the corner of Fisk and Westside Avenue. I'm showing this just to compare with the proposed site plan that we have which is the amended site plan shows also still have a six-story building corridor in the second floor and the existing two-story building um remains as two-story building with different types of views that we have inside. So this is just a brief description of the uh plot plan of the two two applications. The approved ground plan ground floor plan which was uh from the previous application shows uh a parameter of the building. So I'm trying to show this slide to show the parameter of the existing ground floor versus the parameter of the proposed ground floor. So we can understand how much of changes happened to the envelope of the building. So if we look at the um blue line here wrapping the the ground floor, this is what was approved on the previous application and the red line which is shows what we proposing to do to this approved amendment. So if you can ch see it's very slightly changes on the rear yard. Uh slightly change on the corner of Fisk Street by the wherever the new building is touching the existing building and also slight change on Westside Avenue when we have portion of our um courtyard or like setback is a little increased and other portion of the street um level is being like more straight out having this pump out. So it's very minimum in terms of envelope changes on this project. The next slide on showing is the uh comparison on the zoning chart which is prepared by our civil engineer. Um all the uh arrows that we have in this zoning chart shows that you know there's no changes. So I just highlight the areas that we have some changes on. So if we see we have the minimum sideyard and west side avenue. I'm highlighting in two different colors. I have the yellow highlight and the orange highlight. The yellow highlight is shows that we improved slightly the u setbacks by you know the creating new envelope and the orange orange um highlighted area. like small changes that happens to the um setbacks that would increased the variance that we have there so far. So looking at the sideyard the approved was4 ft and it was a deviation on variance and we improved to 1.2 so the improvement is very minimum also the other sites there is 2.8 eight we change it to be a 2.3. So we uh increased the um variance by 0.5 foot which is 6 in. Next to you see the 9.6 foot um yard which is another side yard. We changed it to be 9.9. So it's improve of.3t of of uh of uh of a yard. The rear yard also was changed from the approved 12.3 as a deviation as well. We improved it to 12.5. So it's a 0.2 two feet changes as improvement. The U maximum building coverage was changed from 88.3. Now the the variance the the setbacks sorry the lock coverage increased to 88.6. So it's a.3% of changes from the approved to the amendment. At the same time the lot coverage is improved from 95.4 to 94.7. So um the changes that we have they very much offsetting itself. So we improve portion of a foot in some locations. We have some issues or like some additional variances portion of a foot in other locations. >> So So Anoir, what just to clarify what you're saying is deviations that were previously granted in some cases you reduce the amount of the deviation. >> Correct. >> And in one or two cases you expanded the amount of the deviation. >> That's that's correct. The >> in all cases they're very minimal changes. >> Correct. Yes. So, >> and they're reflected by the red on the previous slide. Correct. >> Correct. On the slide that you have here, you see the yellow, the highlight, the yellow. There's improvement on the deviations and the orange the you can say like the additional variances on the same existing deviation. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, the rear yard I'm showing another slide here which shows the sideyard and the rear yard wherever we have the changes. So, the red number the 5.4 4 sideyard and the 12.3 rear yard that represents the existing uh setbacks that were improved by the new application. The the 2.8 sideyard which is shows in green that shows the sideyard that was like changed to a negative condition on the second application. So if we move to the approved to the proposed plan we see the sideyard is improved to 1.2 two from the approve from the approved point4 the sideyard was changed from 2.8 8 we're proposing now 2.3 and the rear yard is improved uh to 12.5 from the 12.3 approved plan approved uh rear yard. So this is basically the changes that happens in the building envelope and the setbacks >> and onward would any of these changes impact the surrounding area the streetscape? No, no, no. >> Too too to too dimminimous. Correct. >> Very minimum, especially in the in the in the sideyard. That's you're talking about less than a foot of improvement or less than foot of like disimprovement. >> No impact on the light and air sur in the neighborhood. >> No, nothing. >> Would would a pedestrian walking by even notice these deviations, changes to the deviations? >> I I don't think so. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So, uh now I want to go just very briefly of the approved ground floor functions that were changed on this application. So this is this slide represents the A-101 which is the um approved floor plan and it shows here that we have the main entrance of the residential building at Fisk Street represented by the purple color. We have an amenity/ retail which is I think they call the commercial amenity at that time and we have also an amenity purely amenity for the building. So the amenity was shown as a orange color and the amenity commercial amenity shows as a gray color. The commercial amenity was approved to be along westside avenue. The amenity of the building was approved to be on Fisk Street. Uh also this approved plan shows that existing parking with existing stackers. At that time we took over this project you know when we did the first analysis we noticed that there is no columns in the in the parking itself. So that's one of the reasons that we have to redesign the parking. There was no way we can design a six-story building on this parking with that open of span with no columns. Adding more columns, you need more space. So we need to re redesign the the building itself. >> So the original developer or applicant would have had to come back to this board anyway. Correct. Because when they did the site plan design, they didn't account for the fact that when you advance the design to construction, >> That's correct. You need to have columns. >> Yes. Yes. That's especially then the parking spaces are eight and a half ft. So adding columns will will require you to read the configure the full floor plan completely. >> Thank you. You're welcome. >> And also the um our client he did the best he can do to reduce the the amount of stackers. I think about like 70 parking spaces or stackers in this application. So we're trying to reconfigure the parking spaces and parking design and the entire ground floor to reduce the number of stackers to a minimum number. So you were able to fit more conventional parking spaces into the redesigned garage. >> That's that's correct. So if we >> we still end up with a hundred, but we just get we have fewer stackers. >> That's correct. The number didn't change, but we have like half of the stackers. Now in this case, the approved application shows also the the trash and recycle removal for the building through a corridor on the back of the building toward Westside Avenue that shows in in the brown color that we have here. also and also the approved application has um a vertical circulation for the tenants on uh on the west on the fisk street entrance with two elevators. So in the proposed floor plan that we have after we did all these changes and the adjustments, we relocated the entrance of the lobby to be from Fisk Street to Westside Avenue and the amenity commercial space remains on um the Westside Avenue within the existing building. We added an additional lobby to the to the project on uh uh Fisk Street. So we call the secondary entrance and the circulation of the parking itself as driveways remain as the approved ones. We didn't change any circulation in terms of parking, you know, entrance and exits. We added the columns to this project. We reconfigured the uh the design a little bit better and we added you know more standard parking spaces and less uh stackers. So now we end up being only with 24 stackers in this case which is total 48 parking spaces. The remaining will regular standard parking spaces. The total of 100 spaces remain the same. in this is the the column that we added. So if you see the amount of columns that we have to add in this building for sure they will change the the design of the previous application. The uh trash and recycle removal for this project changed. We kept the um the area location of the um compactor room and the recycle uh bins are the same pretty much the same location same area but closer to whiffs street. So now the um access and discharge of the recycling trash will be from the building toward uh toward physics street instead of being toward Westside Avenue. At the same time you know both of them has its own corridor. So nothing changed in terms of the function will be the same function except different uh access from west side now it's to physics street. What we did here also in this uh improvement that we added three elevators in this building instead of only two elevators in one location. So we distribute the elevators in this huge parking area that we have in three different locations. So now the residents in this project will have better access to the upper floors instead of parking for example in north section and you have to walk all the way down to the south they have three access points to go to the upper portion of the building. So that's a big improvement that we need to then we add it to this building for a better circulation for uh our future tenants. Um moving up to the second floor. So the approved second floor plan shows the MID space on the um existing building and show distribution of the new apartments on the proposed building with a courtyard which includes sitting areas and a pool. What we're proposing to do was not much different that we we had before except that we divided the space into a smaller area because we want to add more amenity on the upper floors and we added two apartments which is these are the two apartments that changes the count on this application from 2002. The new two apartments will be uh located in the corner of the existing building and um they will be accessible from the exist from the proposed building through the same corridor. So they will have a full access to the building as well. The amenity spa the place the location of the pool also changed slightly from the right side of the courtyard more to the left side. We try to have a better uh communication between the the pool and the amenity space. So have a direct access between them and the rest of the open m space will be distributed with some sitting areas. The approved uh application was not very like um was not showing that much of circulation on the um courtyard. We just tried to improve a little bit better and have more functions to be more defined. So that's now when you see all the sitting areas on the um proposed emary space and the pool with with a hot tub next to it. It's very much detailed right now. Um, moving to the third floor. So, the approved application, this is the approved plan. It shows that the roof of the existing building was only a green roof with no functions to be used. The remaining of the um third floor of the new building would have the residential apartments. We kept the same thing the same concept except the roof itself of the proposed of the existing building is used as now as an amenity space an open amenity space connected to the um proposed thirdstory building. So instead of having the only green roof in this area, we move the green roof to the uh main roof of the new building and we convert this roof to be um a space for you know sitting areas some hanging on locations for the uh building tenants. We set back the u a space on the roof about like a 3 ft from the parapit. So we have minimum visibility from the street to the functions that will be done in this uh amenity space. Also one improvement we add to this building in the previous application we didn't have any balconies on the courtyard. We all the balconies on the approved plan were on the outside facing the streets. So we added uh balconies for the residents facing the courtyard which is a nice improvement for the uh future tenants that will have better view to the courtyard and better function to you know use the beauty of that we have in the courtyard. the um the remaining of the floor plans are just typical residential apartments. The changes will be only in the apartments themselves and the apartment layouts. Nothing changed in terms of like functions. So I want to jump now just to the approved roof plan which is have a slightly changes to. So this slide shows the approved uh roof plan which was the um the deck area which is the amenity open amenity space uh facing Fisk Street with access court with the access to the elevators on the south portion of the building. What we propose to do right now is we move that uh open deck amenity space to the north portion of the building closer to the west side avenue and we added a additional green roof on the entire leg of the north portion of this building. The approved plan didn't have any green roof on the proposed building. This one has a lot of improvement. We added the entire side as a green roof. Um this sheet also is part of the application that we have shows the comparison between the approved areas gross areas for the building and approve and uh amended areas on the this application. So if you can see here the approved um gross area for the uh application was 213,282 ft. We're proposing to have 216,620 ft. So the 3,000 ft² extra that what created some of the changes on the building layout itself and probably push some of the setback to change slightly from was approved before. And also we have show here that the uh approved residential counts changed from 200 units to 202 units. Uh in terms of the apartment themselves, you know, there's slightly changes on on the apartment. We try to just configure the interior of the apartment. So for example, this is a typical studio that was approved 398 431 gross area for square footage with a kitchen, bathroom, two closets. What we did is just we improve it to 497 square ft. We uh created a washer and dryer in the area with a small al cove for the for sleeping space and we added a balcony for the apartments that are facing the courtyard. But in general, the the you know, the shape and the geometry of the of the studio itself didn't change that much. And again, a one-bedroom apartment. It was approved. This is like a typical one about 690 square ft. Has a kitchen, bathroom, walk-in closet, washer and dryer, and and a bedroom. We're proposing to have very much the same design, some reconfiguration. We enlarge the closet a little bit more. We tried to have the um the bathroom, you know, change in in orientation, but in general, the area of the of the apartment 69 2611 ft² that not that much of a change and the layout is not the function is very much the same. In terms of two-bedroom units, same thing. You know, this is one approved plan. It shows two-bedroom units with two bathrooms. Um our two our two-bedroom units that we proposed has the same function. two bedrooms and two bathrooms. Wash and dryer, hot water heater, PEK U heating and cooling system similar to what was approved. Slightly changes on the layout, but nothing not much to just go over it like in detail. Also, we have a couple of three-bedroom units in this building. Same thing, the approved three-bedroom units, you know, changed because the approved um application showed the three-bedroom units with one bathroom. We uh redesigned the apartment just to add a secondary bathroom, the three-bedroom units. So now we added more bathrooms into the application for the three-bedroom units. The the square footage of the three bedrooms they were proposing is a little bit bigger than was approved, but in general, you know, they have P tags, they have washer and dryers, they have kitchen. So very much the same for the only for the exception of adding an an extra bathroom in this design. Uh moving to the materials, this slide shows the approved materials on the previous application. So clearly we can see we have uh it was approved to have a brick. We have some uh fiber cement board um panels. We have limestone on the ground floor. We have black windows. We have um some uh they are like pedestals for the for the open deck and aluminum um storefronts with a black color. Uh what we're proposing to do is we very much kept the same but we just improved a little bit the the color of the bricks is more warm color now. Uh we also using the warm color of the limestone. We still using fiber cement similar has a wood look. We have some samples here. We went ahead and as an um exhibit for the application. Uh the black color of the windows remain the same. Black storefronts the same. um you know very much the the material we're using similar to was approved but in terms of the building design you know it changing location the uh approved signage in the previous application the main entry was um uh physics street and the um the existing building has an access to be also from um main from west avenue. So what we changed is this is was approved previously. They have the the all the signages, you know, channel letters located above the the canopy of the building. Uh we're proposing it's not much different. We still have channel letters. Our main building identity has changed from Fisk Street to Westside. So our 301 301 Westside signages will be next to our lobby. We have the the sizes here. We're in compliance with the score of the signages. We have a main sign on the west side avenue and we have another smaller signage on Fisk Street to have an entrance for the residential allocation. The um this is the approved rendering. So as you can see the building was um uh full brick building with some I believe it was called also as uh staco cement board u panels and black windows but the brick was all the way from the ground floor all the way to the to the top. This is only in the main elevation which is fix street and westside avenue and there's a muer located also in the corner of Fisk Street and Westside Avenue above the uh 301 Westside Avenue entrance. We're proposing to have is we kept the location of the mural very much the same but um we changed the material now. So we have uh these limestone in the ground floor instead of brick as approved. And then we have the brick itself from the second floor going all the way up and divided into between sections. So wherever we have balconies facing Westside Avenue or Fifth Street will receive cement board with different colors. The border of these balconies will be a black color. The inside of these balconies will have um a cement board that has a wood look material like similar to what we have here. You have the colors there but we have a sample. So we be similar to this color and this is another view from physics street clearly shows you know how the the orientation and the distribution of the material on west side on the physical street will look. So we have you know pretty much the same the balconies divided dividing the building vertically into areas with brick and areas with with fiber cement. And on the ground floor we have the entire uh st um limestone covering the parking structure covering the also the um entrance for the uh for the lobby. The existing building I was approved. It was supposed to be plastered and you know recolored. We kept the same identity of what was approved before. So, no changes on the existing building material except for the just the green roof replacement with um an outdoor amenity space. And that's the presentation that I have today. >> Thank you. >> That was good. Um any questions from the board? >> I have none. Anybody else? >> I had I had a quick one. Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry, Mr. Alcatib. the um the the studios that you added a balcony on the court side um courtyard side. >> Are they the square footage is that in include the balconies? >> No. >> Okay. >> No, the balconies were not added in the gross area. >> Got you. Yes. I didn't think so, but so they have a little bit more square footage obviously. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. >> All right. Anybody else? >> On the question about um balconies on a courtyard side. Do you have anything uh in the elevations you already showing that? >> Yeah, on the elevations on the application. I can share them here if you want. >> See, you have the USB. >> Now, this courtyard um it's um for the people to sit down, stay there. children going to be playing down there and everything in that section of the courtyard right? >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. >> So, I have a little thing with balconies. >> Yes. >> So, I I heard >> You heard about it? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> We're ready. >> So, I mean, I don't think we should ever make a swimming pool out of a balcony by putting a uh a kick plate that doesn't allow the water to flow out. that'll be dangerous to the building itself. Um, it's not a good idea. But, um, you keep in mind any type of things that one of you architects could come up with so I don't have to keep bringing this up one day, you know. Uh, >> yeah, I I understand the concern >> that allows the water to leave the balcony right? >> Correct. Yes. >> But does it allow anything else to go down and hit somebody that is >> That's correct. Yes. with their child or adult or anybody that's below there enjoying the courtyard. >> That's that's that's correct. We have u first you know we're trying to have the the pitch of the balconies to very much to be into the middle of the balcony itself without laying it down. Plus we have u a horizontal railing in the bottom and the horizontal railing will be like spaced double like two inches only. >> Two inches only. >> Yeah. So the water can't come come out but it will stop anything like that. Also in addition, we have the square edges of the people do the square edges. We change it to round edges. So nobody can put any kind of material or like on top >> on top of the railing on top falling down. So >> we have that already addressed on the drawings that were submitted as an application. So >> So you have a space underneath the veilance and it's less than 4 in. >> You're saying >> two inches? >> Two inches. >> Yes. Yes. So we'll have a sculper there. >> No, that's a that's a plus. That's a that's a mostly they're 4 in. And that boggles my mind every time I see the code maximum for. >> Yeah. Why 4 in? You know. >> Yeah. In this case, we have >> somebody's cat's going to kick the ball right out, you know, uh from underneath there. >> The other application we have just to clip, we probably will do a curb also. That's another thing that we have. And the curb will have only scopers on it. So there is no way anything to roll. It will stop by the curb. So the scarpers would take care of the water instead of having that full open balcony. >> I I understand. Yeah. I just don't I I I like the fact that it's not it doesn't have to be 4 in. It's Why is it so wide uh big down there? Um also I I'm a plumber by trade. So I don't believe that taping it copper thing on the side allowing water to sit there or something like that and making it harder for it to drain it's a good idea either you know without because otherwise you have water damage right so that we don't want because you're looking at it in a >> 10 year 20 year idea right you know not when you first built it it's not a problem but when you go down the years pass water can become a problem, you know. So, >> we have floor drains that have to be repaired all the time and maintained. Also, the good thing I think the the problem that you always see about these kind of railings when you have the prefab balconies, metal balconies with the with the prefab slabs, we're building these balconies from from scratch, you know. So, we that's why we have to put a curb in this location. The curb is an advantage of protection of anything rolling at the same time will give us more strength to to the railing itself. And then we have to have we can have these coppers facing out. So, >> okay. >> But you're going to keep it at you're going to keep it at two inches or less. >> Two inches or less. That's in case you have it open. Now, if we put a curb, this thing is is gone. >> Oh, okay. Yeah, >> exactly. So, the curb is probably the idea that we moved forward to do. >> I don't know. I don't know the curb is going to work, but that's not the design. Um, I'm looking at the safety. Yeah definitely >> because you're you're you're putting it in a you know, obviously the building pass with all the balconies in front. When I saw that picture, my stomach turned, but that's a different story. But the balconies in the courtyard, um, you know, let's let's try to make it safe. >> Correct. So, yeah, at the time when we have the the flush level of the balcony, if it's flush with the railing, we will keep the two inches maximum at the bottom rail. Yes. >> Thank you very much. >> Water. >> All right. Anybody else questions? >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. >> So, um, as you can see, 99% of the changes to this project were all architectural. We did file an amended set of civil plans, and I have the engineer here, but the only change really to the civil plans is um the parameter of the build, the the parameter of the building. So, I wasn't going to have them testify unless there's questions from anybody. >> I don't think there will be, but I don't >> anybody? >> No. >> Okay. >> Okay. So then my next witness is Carolyn Worstelle, the planner, just to review the deviations. >> Okay. Thank you >> with the board. >> I do. >> Carolyn Worstelle, w >> Miss Worstelle, good evening. Your license is current. >> It is current this evening. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. Uh thank you. Nice to see everyone this evening. >> Um so we're here because we have a couple of deviations that were previously granted that are obviously have some very minor modifications a result of this proposed amendment. Um so I'm just going to sort of go through them very quickly. Um and if we have questions we can certainly bring back up some of the images to talk about where specifically these are. Um but so the first one is that front yard setback. So, um, and I sort of going back in time, if you can remember when we first approved this, there were setback, um, deviations granted that basically put the building wall at 5 feet from this, uh, from the property line. And so that was the deviation that was granted previously. What's happening with this application is that we are modifying where the building sort of had some of the step backs and some of the like undulation of the facade. And so bec because we've made those changes, the proportion of the facade that is at that five foot line setback line has changed. And so we're here because a slightly larger percentage of the building facade is at that five foot. we're not any closer to the the um lot line than was previously granted. It's just that there's more of the facade at that five- foot line. Um so that is why we're here for those front yard setback variances. And that hap that happens on both uh Westside Avenue, which is where you were sort of seeing that because of how they modified the bays, there's a little bit of um push and pull that's a little different. um as well as on Fisk Street where there was originally there was a little bit of an inset um above sort of the ground floor and now they've sort of straightened that out where the the old building connects to the new building. So because of those modifications to the the structure in that way we're here for additional relief um because there's more of the building at that 5 foot line. Um I don't again I don't see there so being a substantial impact um to light and air as a result of these modifications. The overall building facade is where it was previously granted. You're still at that five feet. Um and so I I don't see this as a substantial detriment or or a substantial change from what was previously granted. The second one is for the minimum sideyard setback. Um, and this is has to do with some of those again minor modifications in that rear yard area where the building meets essentially got trying to to straighten out certain aspects of it. Um, and straighten out the building. Um, and it's just minor modifications. I think it's 6 in uh is what what we're requesting. Um, where we had a sideyard setback of 2.3 feet. Um we're asking now for 2.3 where we were previously granted 2.8. So it's 6 in closer in one very small portion of the building at that rear facade where we are going up against um a portion of the the rear yard setback which is or the rear lot line which wasn't or sideyard that wasn't fully straight. Um so again I don't see that this is really a substantial impact. It's not really a substantial change. It's really a very dimminimous change from what was previously granted and and really won't result in any substantial impacts again to light and air versus what has already been granted. Um and then in terms of the building coverage, um and again this again relates to those very minor modifications that we talked about along the front uh lot line uh with with how the the facade has changed a little bit and those minor changes in in the sort of rear corner area. Um and that has resulted in um essentially a building coverage increasing from 8.3% or 88.3% to 88.6%. So that's.3%. Um so again we we don't see this as really a substantial deviation. The majority of those changes are happening at the front of the building. Um, so really where you're getting that additional coverage, you know, you're looking at um, you know, it was over the the sidewalk or or those sorts of areas. So, um, we we've actually managed to decrease our lot coverage even though we're increasing our building coverage as a result of some of these modifications. So, again, I I don't see these as being really a substantial um, detriment or impact beyond what has been previously granted. Um I do think that this project continues uh to promote the purposes of the municipal land use law um consistent with purpose a encouraging uh municipal action to guide the appropriate use um that will promote public health safety and general welfare. Again, this is still a use and development that is consistent with what was intended to be developed here um a multif family residential building along Westside Avenue. Um it will still provide sufficient space um for the residential use consistent with purpose G. Uh promoting a more desirable visual environment consistent with purpose I again through the adaptive reuse of the existing industrial building and incorporating it into the overall site design. Um looking at the negative criteria I do not see this resulting as substantial detriment to the general welfare. Um while we are having those minor increases in those previously granted deviations elsewhere we're reducing some of the previously granted uh impact. So again we're reducing that lot coverage um from 95.4 to 94.7. So we we are having a minor decrease there. We are increasing that rear yard setback from uh 12.3 to 12.5 ft. Um we're still uh uh continuing to to meet all uh provide all those benefits which were um part of the original application. You know, existing uh eliminating existing curb cuts on Westside Avenue, providing infill residential development which increases uh provides additional walkability and vitality to the Westside Avenue corridor. Um adaptive reuse of the existing structure. um and uh uh you know providing benefits to the neighborhood including new street trees, sidewalks and and having that the off- streetet parking. So I you know this project continues >> and affordable housing >> and affordable housing. Yes. And so it continues those benefits which were part of the original application. Um I don't see this as resulting in a substantial impairment to the intent or purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. Um it still advances the purposes of the Westside Avenue redevelopment plan. Um providing a significant opportunity for residential development uh promoting the principles of transit village uh by providing a variety of housing choices uh and minimizing auto automobile use by encouraging uh reduced parking and creating pedestrian friendly streets. So that was what was um that that was created and and uh uh benefits of the original application and I believe that those benefits are still being advanced with this uh proposed uh amendment. So overall I think uh the the requested deviation the amendments to the deviations can be granted and that they both meet the positive and the negative criteria. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Anybody? No. >> All right. Thank you, councel. >> Uh, that concludes my presentation. >> All right. Is there anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application? >> Public. I move to close. >> Second. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Matt, you have any uh concerns? >> Uh, staff agrees with the testimony put on the record um regarding the dimmin changes to the application uh the increase in the two units. uh they already put on the record that they're recognizing the fact that they now have a contribution that's required uh under the uh affordable housing overlay um which is also a recommended condition uh in the staff memo um staff recommends approval. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case P204-0147. >> Uh just one second. There is one thing um >> there um along Fisk Street uh the plans don't show any lighting >> um >> because there's existing lighting at Fisk Street. So what Mr. Ward and I have decided to do is as a condition of this approval um the engineers are going to go back out. They're going to do a study for the lighting along Fisk Street. And then if we need to add more lighting to bring the lighting along the street up to the one foot candle requirement, we are going to provide it um prior to the issuance of a CO. So just wanted to put that on the record. Mr. Ward and I have discussed it um and I expect it would be a condition of our approval. >> Understood. Yep. I agree. And it's just been a while since uh >> this was first scheduled to today. >> Thank you for that. >> That wouldn't trigger an amendment with us. Correct. >> Noing. Yeah. We're asking the board to allow staff to work with the applicant to adjust. >> Okay. Gotcha. >> Okay. We have we have transportation comments memo dated December 23rd, 2024. We have already reviewed these and we will agree to work with division of transportation to revise our plans in accordance with um conversations with them over these of concerns. >> Okay. Excellent. Matt, do we have a we need some help with you on the brick selection? >> Find a brick color. >> Oh, I thought we uh selected that. >> I want to show you the samples. So, can we be we connect with you directly to show you the samples of the brick? >> That's acceptable to me if it is acceptable. >> Absolutely. Thank you for your trust. >> Okay. All right. >> We're good. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion now to approve case P204-0147 as presented to the board tonight with the additional uh condition about the lighting and work with staff on lighting and brick color etc. >> All right. Thank you. We have a motion and a second for approval with conditions. >> Uh vice chair Dr. Gonzalz. Yeah, I think the uh changes uh being sought are dimminimous and they advance the west side uh redevelopment plan, Westside Avenue. >> Commissioner Wick. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Torres. >> Yeah, I think the changes are the project, but um I think that project really look good on that neighborhood on that block. You know, it's going to make a big difference to that section of West Side and Fence. I vote I >> Commissioner Stamato. >> I'm impressed that the balcony changes vote I. >> Commissioner Dr. Desai >> I >> Oh, Commissioner Lipsky. >> What did you say? >> I and Chairman Langston. >> Yeah, I think the changes um are dimminimous and I I even though they are, I think it's a better project. So, uh it's an easy eye for me. >> Motion carries. All in favor on a motion approve with conditions. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you for your time tonight, everybody. Appreciate it. >> Mike, do you want to get a break in? >> Okay. >> Um, I think when we come back, uh, Mr. Wine, how do we look? Are we going to make it? >> Yeah. For case 13, we do. And case 20, I'll put on the record now to formally request to uh to carry to August. Okay. >> I can do that when we get back. >> Okay. Sure. Uh, but I think I might change an order around. Uh, Mr. Burke, maybe I'll have you go next. Mr. Wine after and then Jersey AB will close the night out with Jersey AB tonight. They'll be quick. That's why I'm moving them. Don't worry. >> 12 is case P2024-0158, minor site plan for 3053rd Street. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman and board. To pick up on what you said, in the words of coach John Wooden, we'll be quick, but we will not hurry. That we will get through this. Cru cruel but fair. We do. >> Um >> or as he said, it's better to do it right because when will you have time to redo it again? >> That's right. >> Go coach. >> The um uh the description is very accurate. So I'll bypass that. I'll just mention we have two witnesses. One is Jensen Vasil, the architect, and then we also have Brian Leekin, the engineer. So I'll bring uh Mr. Vasil up first. He'll walk through the plans. Um hopefully uh he can do that quickly and uh and then we'll turn it back to the board for any questions and then Brian will come up to just basically touch base and make sure minor site plan issues have been addressed so that this board can proceed and hopefully give it a vote. Uh thumbs up. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, council. >> Good evening, commissioners. >> There should be >> Oh dear. Thank you. >> I do. >> Jensen Vasil V is invio. >> Mr. Vasil, good evening. Uh, we've qualified you in the past. Your license is current. >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. Thanks. You're qualified. >> Thank you. >> All right. Jensen, just a couple questions and then turn to the plans. Um, presently the site has a one-story building correct? >> Uh, two stories. >> Two stories. I'm sorry. Uh, and the intent is to demolish that building. Uh, but there's also a curb cut and there's two parking spaces on site now. >> That's correct. >> Okay. All right. I just want to set the table for that. Uh, why don't you proceed and walk through the plans? >> Good evening, commissioners. Uh, my name is Jensen Vasil. I'm the architect for this project at 3053rd Street. Um, as Mr. Burke introduced uh we'd be uh demolishing an existing two-story three family building and constructing a conforming fourstory 4unit uh uh building on the lot. Um everything about uh the from the ordinance perspective is conforming. So the um the lot is conforming, the proposed building is conforming. Um and as you'll see the uh the landscaping, hardscaping, all of that is conforming. Um on the front page is the zoning table um prepared by our uh engineer. Um as you can see there are no variances required. Um we're within the height permit permitted height um within the um the rear yard setbacks and um and density and all the other uh requirements. So uh the proposed building is uh 100 100% lot coverage. So we would be um bringing that back to 70% which is an improvement um on the the density of the site or the coverage on the site. Um the proposed building would be situated towards Third Street. It is uh it is on the um it is just off the corner of Third Street on the um on the the south side and um it does have a alleyway a public alleyway in the back, excuse me, on the north side of a the south side of Third Street is correct. And there's a public alleyway that comes from Cole Street uh that has the parking uh the existing parking has a is internal. It has two garage spots inside the the building. Those would be eliminated and now it would be open with one uh with a with a place for one uh parking parking and uh also some uh landscaping in the back landscaping and hardscaping. the front building, the front of the uh the sidewalk would be redone and there would be a street tree added um and new utilities for the building >> and the facade. Did you work to mesh it with the buildings adjacent or fit into the neighborhood? So, um we have the building is um is large glass aluminum panels uh or glass um windows with aluminum frames in black and the um and the siding material is cement uh fiber cement panels. So, it's panels um around the the portions that aren't glass, specifically the spandrels and at the parapit. And there's a different texture, a uh a plank texture towards the door with a backlit uh bronze uh uh compliant signage uh for the address uh for 305 as well as the entry door. And uh the building is raised I should also note that it's raised to um to elevate to above the designed flood elevation. So the uh the building is about 3 ft above the uh prevailing grade at the sidewalk and about 4 and 1/2 ft above the prevailing grade at the rear. Uh there is a small uh aluminum overhang which would cover protect the uh entrance from at the door at the entry door. And um as they enter as they enter into the building, sorry to skip around the uh sheet Z1, uh they step up to the design flood elevation. So the entrance is at grade and then it it goes up into uh into the building itself. Um as I mentioned, the building is four units. Um they're two-bedroom units and um and they have uh most of them, three of them have three bathrooms, one has two and a half. Um and they range in size from 1,410 square feet to 1,753 square feet. Um the building is um on one side it's completely covered by the adjacent building and on the on the on the opposing on the 303 side um on sheet Z3 you can see where the our building extends past the uh that 303 uh third street building. So that the side also would have the the same fiber cement panels would wrap around. Uh one last thing to note is the outdoor space the um the ground the unit two which is in the rear of the rear duplex would have access to the backyard and units three and four which are the duplexes upstairs would have access to the roof. uh the roof decks are conforming and what isn't covered by the roof decks is covered by um extensive green roof which we have uh a detail in in u included in this set. >> Okay, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any questions? >> Um >> Watabi is the name of the building. >> No, that's just a that's just a uh a sample for the uh for the backlit. Okay, >> correct. >> I was hoping it was >> relation to Graham Watabi 2009 silver medalist snowboarding. Um >> I that's my only question. Uh anybody else? >> No. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> He's American. Was the Aspen Olympics? [Laughter] >> Mr. Chairman, uh, for the record, should we open up to the public for questions? >> Uh, I thought you had, uh, one more. >> We do. Oh. Oh, that's right. I forget >> pounds, it's one at a time. Here it's in mass. Uh, okay. Second witness will be our engineer, Brian Leipkin. >> I do. >> Sure. Brian Libiskin. L I E B E S K I N D. >> Mr. Leiskin, good evening. Your license is current tonight? >> It is. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, Brian, I would just like you to um confirm that from a site plan, minor site plan issues. Uh um this this project meets those as far as water capacity, sewer capacity, sewer lines, and so forth. And u and then also you did a shadow study. So, I'd like you to touch upon that that there's no issue involved as far as a detriment to the neighboring properties. >> Uh, correct. Yeah. In regards to utility connections, um, shadow analysis, all uh, complies with the requirements of the city and and no concerns. >> All right. So from a site plan from Jersey City site minor site plan criteria, you believe that it meets all the criteria and this board can grant an approval based on your your uh your your statement. >> Yes. Uh yeah and uh the architect alluded to some of the the site plan improvements. Um and you know we are again a fully compliant project with the RC3 zoning. Um you know and then also as mentioned existing condition today 100% lot coverage proposed 70% so creating that rear yard patio with uh one parking space. Um we worked with the city professionals um you know to adjust that um that rear yard to uh improve the you maneuverability of of cars pulling in and to not impede the uh 10 foot wide uh alley that exists behind the property. >> All right. And I said that there's already a curb cut. There were two spaces. It'll be reduced to one. Correct. Two parking spaces reduced to one space now. >> The existing lot is 100%. >> No. No. Sorry. For parking. Yes. There is two parking spaces existing now with a curb cut and the proposal is one space. So it'll be reduced by one, >> right? >> Sorry. Yes. I guess it's it'll be a one surface. >> Yeah, that's it. That's right. I just want you to confirm that. >> Okay. Um that's it for uh this witness. >> Okay. Thank you. I have no questions. >> I have a quick question. You keep saying that's the rear of the building where the alley is is where the the curb cut is right? >> That you keep me too. >> Yes. Yes. >> So you go through the alley on Cole Street. >> Yes. >> And there's a bunch of garages behind each each building. >> Correct. >> And there's a sidewalk there with a curb cut. >> No, he was referring to the front. The the back there's no sidewalk >> in the alley. >> In the alley, there's no sidewalk. We're putting a curb cut in the front of the building. >> No, there is no additional curb cut. Now, I just want to confirm there is one and it's going to remain. >> There's a curb cut in the there's a curb in the alley, no sidewalk. Is that >> correct? >> And there's a there's not a curb cut on Third Street. >> Correct. >> No, no curb cut on Thirst Street. >> Correct. >> Okay. That's what That's why you confusing. So, we have the >> It's wide enough for two to curb cut. You're going to make it >> one. Okay. >> Yeah. Two have been there because runoff. >> I don't remember co cut over runoff. >> Thank you. >> All right. Anybody else? Any questions? >> Nope. >> All right. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you, >> council. That's it. >> That concludes our presentation. >> Okay. Is there anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application? >> I move to close the public portion. >> Second. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. JenRoo, anything? >> Um, yes. uh staff prepare a self- report dated April 16th, 2025 and I would just ask if the applicants have review and great to the conditions. >> The applicant reviewed it and agrees to those conditions. >> Okay. Seth recommend approval. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2024-0158 is presented to our board tonight. >> Second. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded for approval. >> Vice Chair Dr. Gonzalez >> I. >> Commissioner Week >> I. Commissioner Statwell. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Lipsky. >> Give me one more. John Wood. And it's not important who starts the game and it's who's finished. Good finish. I vote I. >> Commissioner Lip. Uh Dr. Desai. >> I. >> Commissioner Torres. >> I. >> And Chairman L. >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, council. >> All right. Let's call item 13 is case P2024-0245 as a conditional use for 33 McAdoo Avenue. Council, do you want to take care of the second thing before we take care of the first thing? >> Sure, why not? Okay. So, you are going to carry item 20, case P2024-0242 prelim preliminary and final major site plan with C variances for 194 and 196 Culver Avenue. >> That's correct. And in speaking to Mr. Black, uh we would respectfully request that that be carried to August 26th with preservation of notice. >> All right, Cam. Yes chairman. >> Okay. August 26. So, we're going to carry that to August 26 with preservation of notice. Thank you. >> That's 20. It's the last one. All right. 26. >> Okay. Okay. So with that, chairman uh commissioners Benjamin Wine of Prime Toull and Misselli on behalf of the applicant Madu Realy LLC. Uh just uh by way of housekeeping first uh we did prepare a notice and it is posted on the portal but I will nevertheless hand the original to Mr. L. Jur see the affidavit of service proof of publication with respect to the application at 33 Mudo Avenue here in the city. It does appear to be the same one that was posted to the portal. Had the opportunity to review it. Does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purpose of the record. >> I'm actually glad for that because my parallegal was out today so I assembled that myself. So good for me. Um, with that uh I'll >> Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Still can't figure out how to do a UPS label, though. That's, um, >> it wasn't on the, uh, citizenship test, right? >> Not, it was not. >> Okay, good. Good. >> So, I'll, uh, I'll I'll briefly introduce the application this evening and I do have one witness for you. Uh, the application is at 33 Madoo Avenue and, uh, for the record, that's block two 27004, lot 4, and we are in the R1 district. Um, this is somewhat of a of an interesting uh location of a lot. It's not on a corner, but it kind of is on a corner as you'll see uh in actually it's in uh CAM staff report is a good image of that. It's also on the plans that you see there. Um, this is one of those applications that I think uh when when uh the governing body overhauled the uh the land development ordinance a couple of years ago, this was exactly the what they had in mind when they proposed these conditional uses of converting an existing garage into a third dwelling unit on the property. Um this is a site, as you'll see from our architect and as you see on the page now, it's got a curb cut uh leading to a garage on kind of a weird angle um right on Makadoo Avenue. And uh ultimately what we're going to do this evening if the board approves it is to close up that curb cut and convert that garage into a third unit. And like I said, I think this is exactly the intent of that conditional use. What I intend to do this evening with my one witness, our architect, is to walk through those uh predominantly through those conditions of the conditional use um so that uh Mr. Black especially can be confident and comfortable that we do meet the conditional use. Beyond that, we have no variances associated with this application. And uh chair, unless you have any questions of me, I'm happy to proceed with my witness. >> Sure. Go ahead. >> So, I'd like to call up Alan Feld, our project architect. I'll shift over for you. >> You sure any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Alan Feld, FD, >> Mr. Feld, good evening. Your license is current. >> I just renewed it, so yes, it is. >> Good to hear. All right. Thank you. You're qualified. Um, so Alan, if you can just uh if you can direct uh Mr. Black as to what sheet you'd like to refer to and very briefly walk the board through what exists and how we're converting it this evening. Start. >> Correct. I think we could even start on drawing A2. >> Okay. >> Because uh that's a site plan. Shows the existing plan on the left. Um it's an existing threestory frame building. Um and the uh proposed plan on the right um shows the changes to the to the sidewalk. There is a curb cut now. There's a garage on the first floor and two apartments on the second and third floor. There's two apartments up above, one on the second floor, one on the third floor. And there's a garage on the first floor with a curb cut on Madoo Avenue. Uh we intend to close that curb cut up uh put new paving and a new uh planter in front of the building and plant a new street tree. Let me go to the next page. There you can see again the proposed site plan and uh the proposed elevation where we're going to replace the overhead door that's for the garage with a pair of double hung windows. And there's some samples of the paving and the landscaping. It's going to be a a raised uh planter bed. And here we have the uh existing uh on the left the existing first floor which shows the garage and an area behind it. And then the proposed first floor which um is a three-bedroom uh dwelling unit and the second floor is also three bedrooms and the third floor three bedrooms units which there's no change to those. And and these are just um electrical drawings for the new uh work to be done uh in the new dwelling unit on the first floor and uh the schematic. Uh >> so Alan, I just uh want to walk through and I'm reading directly out of Mr. Black's report. I just want to walk through what those conditions are of the conditional use so you can confirm for the record that we do in fact comply. Um so the first one is uh that adaptive reuse of a garage as a dwelling unit is permitted subject to the following conditions. So a maximum of one additional dwelling unit is permitted for a maximum of three dwelling units in the principal structure regardless of lot size. Is that correct here? >> That is correct. >> Okay. So we're adding one and it's a total of three. >> Correct. >> Okay. adapt. The second condition is that uh the adaptive reuse of the garage be for a dwelling unit. Is that correct? It will be a residence >> solely. Correct. >> Okay. The third is that removal of the driveway and curb cut and prohibition of any off any I'm sorry off streetet parking. So that will be done. Is that right? >> That is correct. >> Okay. We will also be installing new curb and complying with the forestry standards. Is that right? >> That is correct. >> And uh Oh, there's two more. And if the front yard is 3 feet deep or more, which I think you identified it is here, we will be installing a knee wall planter in the front yard and landscaping it with ground cover. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. And then finally, um, which I don't think this is applicable, but uh the portion of the garage not used as a dwelling unit can be used for storage, mechanical refues or other uses. Are we even proposing that here? >> No. >> Okay. Um, so I believe that that uh that is the the uh entirety of the conditions of the conditional use. So, chair, I don't have any further questions for Mr. Feld at this point. >> Okay. Thank you. I have no questions. Anybody else? >> No. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Feld. >> Uh, that concludes my presentation. >> Okay. Thank you. Is anybody here from public that wants to comment? >> Seeing no public, I move to close. >> Second. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. >> Um, Cam, >> sorry. >> You have anything you want to add? I keep >> um only to add that this meets the purpose of the R1 zone. um to accommodate existing housing, encourage compatible infill, preserve the streetscape and utilize and preserve on street parking where law 400 is narrow. Um in this case, we are providing for compatible infill um and accommodating um a nice adaption to provide for more housing in the city. Um, testimony provided by Ben and the architect have satisfied all staff's concerns and we did hear did did I hear did you agree to all the conditions in the staff memo? >> I would never do that. I'm kidding. Uh, of course we do. Yes. >> Okay. Um, so with that, planning staff recommends approval. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case P204-0245 as presented to our board tonight. >> Second. >> All right. Motion made and seconded for approval. >> All right, vice chair Dr. Gonzalez. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Wick. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Torres. >> I, >> Commissioner Stamato, >> I. >> Commissioner Lipsky, >> given that Mr. Wine has gone against his convictions and complied with staff recommendations, I will still vote I. >> Commissioner Dr. Desai >> and Chairman Langston. >> Yes. So, this is the exact You hit the nail on the head. This is the exact project that >> So, you can make that you know, change uh references. So, it's an easy eye for me. I think it's great. >> Thank you. >> Motion carries all in favor with conditions. >> Okay. Thank you. Have a good evening. >> You too. All right. Let's call item 11 is case P204-0126 is a final major site plan with C variance for 853 Jersey Avenue. Good evening, council. Sorry. >> Good evening. Good evening, chairman. Good evening, commissioners. Thank you so much. Maria Vjo from Chason Lampereella Malapuzo. On behalf of the applicant, this is a notice application. Uh the notice has been up uploaded onto Tyler. I do have the original notice for you if I may. >> Please. Thank you. Chairman, received the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application here this evening. It does appear to be the original of the one that was uploaded to the portal. Had the opportunity to review it. It all did appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record. >> Thank you, council. >> Thank you so much. All right. So, we are here today seeking final major site plan approval for a project. It's a mixeduse project at 853 Jersey Avenue. That's a vacant lot located at 853 Jersey A. That's Jersey Avenue and 18th Street or 18th Street between Jersey Avenue and Cole Street. That's block 60005, lot 10. Um, that's a mixeduse density area and that's on the Jersey Avenue Park um uh redevelopment plan. Okay. And we were back here with you back in August 2023. Some of you are new, so you may not know this, but um for for those of you who are here, you may remember we were here for preliminary site plan approval. And back then, we received approval for the following. And this is exactly what we're presenting to you today for final approval. 322 units, residential units, and two towers. a 19story tower, a 13-story tower, a three-story podium, uh two floors of which are going to be a garage housing 166 parking units, um 166 also bicycle parking. Um there's also going to be retail on the ground floor. Part of that approval also consists of a deviation with the sidewalk with on Cole Street as well as 18th Street. Um it's a slight deviation. It really sort of conforms with the appropriate um properties across the street which is the cast iron lofts. That deviation stays. We're not asking for anything different. Essentially, we're looking for the same relief that we were looking for and what we already received approval for in the preliminary site plan. So, nothing really changes there. There's some slight changes that we are asking for, but those changes are really born from some requests that came from the city planning, some requests that came from the forestry department. Um, as well as complying with the state storm water rags, um, little things like changes in the type of species for the trees, um, adding tree grates, um, removing some on street parking spaces as a result of where the entrance to the garage is situated. Those are the types of requests that were made and that we've incorporated in here. So, the plan is that we're going to walk you through the project, reorient everybody in here, those who weren't part of the project in 2023, acclimate you to it, and then highlight the portions, the small changes that we have um so everybody knows those changes and then um present that to you. We have three witnesses. We have an engineer. We have our architect who's also going to be talking about our landscape as well as then our planner. Um we have two slide decks which is essentially the same documents that we have uploaded. The slide decks are the for the engineering there are four pages and for our architect it's 11 pages. So um council I don't know if you want us to um mark them now. Yeah, we can mark them as they get presented. We can mark them as A2 and A3 respectively if they're going to be used by different witnesses uh and identified that way. But council, in my review of the plan, it seemed that and based on your comments, the majority of the project has not changed. There are some clear slight changes. I don't know that we got to go through the entire preliminary uh version of the application again or if we can just really kind of identify what's changed as a result of moving into final site plan. >> Oh, absolutely. We can we can abbreviate it much more if you'd like. You're absolutely correct that the majority of it is identical to what has already been approved and there's just those slight changes and they can highlight that. We can do that for them. Correct. Yep. So we can we can really streamline the line that for you. >> Yeah. Let's just highlight what's different from the preliminary. >> Absolutely. Final. Okay. >> So if that's okay, we can go ahead and move forward with our first witness who is Gabrielle um Gelli. >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> It's happening a lot tonight. Extra HDMI floating around >> here. That's okay. Hopefully it works. >> It's not the right thing. Sorry, I was on vacation last week. >> The whole truth. I do. >> Uh, Gabrielle Gornelli. G O R N E L L I. >> Miss Gornell, good evening. Uh, your license is current tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thanks. You're qualified. >> Thank you. Um, so I'll flip through the I have the cover sheet here, um, sheet G001 from the civil drawings, but I'll go right to, uh, C301, our site plan, to highlight the changes that have been made between the preliminary approval and the final. So just a handful of changes. Um we have coordinated with the architect, the landscape architect to um make any necessary changes to the background, but specifically to the civil drawings. Um there has been some new striping um on the surrounding roads um since the original application um on Cole Street 18th in Jersey. Um so we incorporate that existing striping um just to make it more accurate. um mainly in the um the striping of a bike lane and and part of part of that um there is a ramp from the bike the existing bike lane on Cole Street which goes to the bike lane in the rear of the property. Um so our tree location um interferes with that ramp. So, we added a note basically that this ramp will be relocated in coordination with city planning um so that that transition from the street bike lane to the bike lane in the rear of the property can remain. Um we also there's a parking space on the street right here um just north of the garage entrance that um there was a request to remove that parking space because of you know the the cars coming in and out of the garage um get close to that. So that parking space that striping will be removed. Um and then we we modified at the corner of 18th and Jersey there were a few tree pits here that um there was a request um from the forester um and city planning to um eliminate some of the trees here which the architect will talk about. So we have just planting um at the corner here. So uh the next sheet is C311. It's our circulation plan. And this shows um both a passenger car and a SU30, like a typical box truck for deliveries um entering the garage. Um and that that's where that that one space that gets really close to the the curb cut um has been eliminated on the street. And then finally, I have my C uh 401 sheet, my grading, drainage, and utility plan. Um since the initial uh submission when we went for preliminary the state storm water rules as well as the Jersey City storm water control ordinance has changed. Um it requires us to model storm water in a different way um and also to use um green infrastructure components of detention basins when previously that wasn't required. So, um, our storm water detention basin has changed from a non-green strategy to a green strategy um when previously um it was located um under the building and right now we have it shown um in the rear of the site. So, that concludes the civil testimony unless there's any questions. >> I have none. Anybody else? No, >> just the uh the eliminating of the parking space where the trucks are going to be coming in and out. Is just going to be basic signs saying no parking or how are you um >> Yeah. >> What are you putting there that somebody doesn't park there anyway? >> Right now it is striped as a parking space, but I think we could agree to a no parking sign there. >> That would be a problem. No parking sign or maybe like stripe >> stripe it stripe it off like a diagonal stripe >> diagonal stripes where it's not uh >> that somebody just doesn't park there anyway. Right. Cuz to say it's eliminated doesn't mean >> somebody's not going to pull a car up there. >> Yeah. I I think we can make that change. >> Okay. >> Okay. Anybody else? >> All right. Thank you, Miss Cornell. >> Thank you. >> Guess I'm plugged. Don't break that cable. >> And if it's okay. >> And at this point, if I can call my architect. Sure. >> Scott Herrick. [Music] >> Truth. Truth. >> I do. >> Scott Herrick. Last name is H E R R I C K. >> Mr. Herrick. Good evening. Your license is current. >> Good evening. Yes, it is. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Give me a second. So, as council stated, the the uh the building is substantially uh 99 99 something% the same as what was approved submitted presented and approved uh a couple years ago. And I'll just quickly walk through and and point out the things that have changed. >> Council, does any of this have to be marked? It was that was something else. So, this does have to be marked as well. I'm too short for this. Um, sorry for that. >> So, this is um 11 slides. >> All right. So, we'll mark this as A2. It's 11 slides. >> And these slides are all taken from the full package that was submitted to the planning board. So, just quickly um you can see here the image of the project. The 19tory tower is in the foreground on Jersey A. Uh the podium uh as was talked about um joins the two. It's topped by a amenity rooftop deck and then the 13story tower is in the u back of the of the rendering view here. Just quickly this is the site plan with the two towers and joining podium. um floor plan. Again, the overall characteristics of the building have not changed. It's 322 units. It's 4,847 square ft of retail on the ground floor. It's over on this uh right hand side on Jersey Avenue is the retail. Um and then those two combined to create a requirement for 166 parking spaces and that's what's provided. Um, one of the changes in the plan was just minor. We bubbled it. It we just reconfigured bike storage to provide the um required number of spots. >> Again, parking. Um, we did there was there were some questions earlier in the preliminary. We've labeled everything in terms of where refu is, where recycling is. Um that's all been clarified on the plans. And then in the elevation view, uh the one the one notable change is that up at the rooftop mechanical units, we did provide screening. Um, and that's uh you can see over on the left here in the smaller tower, the west tower, and then on east tower a couple different places. And the elevation views from the other side just show the same uh the same thing. Materials are all the same. It's three different types of bricks, some concrete um all in warm uh tones, black black aluminum metal trim on windows. And then landscape as was mentioned um what we did was at forestry's request we changed the um tree uh species to trident maple um and we added the Jersey city approved um tree pit guards um with the using this the standard city details and that's just what's shown on this last sheet. So in a nutshell that um that is our presentation. >> All right. Thank you Mr. Herrick, any questions? Anyone? >> All right. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> And um if we can call our if we can call our last witness, Samuel Bellamy, who's our planner? >> Good evening. >> The whole truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Samuel Bellamy. Last name B E L L A M Y. >> Mr. Bellamy. I know your license is current right? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Great. So, I'm just here to confirm that the uh deviations previously granted in the preliminary approval are still intact with this final approval. Um there hasn't been any change or intensification with the sidewalk with deviations of 11.08 ft on 18th Street and 12 ft on Cole Street where 15 ft's required. So, those same dimensions are in place here. Um you heard from both our engineer and architect there. the streetscape improvements have been coordinated with the Jersey City departments, the forestry and planning and transportation. And on top of that, um I think the uh now the striping for the bike lanes along the sidewalks provide for a per further buffer of the pedestrians and vehicles. So I think this project continues to meet both the positive and negative criteria. And as I said, there hasn't been any change from preliminary to final. Now, >> all right. Thank you, Mr. Bellamy. Any questions? Anyone? And we've also had the opportunity um you've had the opportunity to take a look at the March 20th 2025 actually not 2024 um comment letter from city planning. >> Yes. So just two minor comments I think the dated it was dated 2024 instead of 2025. >> Correct. It was 2025 in actuality. Um >> and there was one uh I think typo in comment 7. Um it should be work instead of uh It said uh park and I think it should be work. Um the second to last sentence in there. >> Um yes, the applicant shall coordinate with staff, the department of infrastructure to ensure duplication of work is minimized and both projects can continue unimpeded including the final programming of the public right of way to the greatest extent possible. Um, yes, that is the intent. >> And I think other than that, we were acceptable of all the uh conditions in that staff report. >> Okay. Excellent. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> And that concludes our presentation. >> All right. Thank you, council. Is anybody here from the public that wants to comment? >> Seeing no public, I move to close. >> Second. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Matt. >> Um, certainly. Um, Mr. Bell may already address the memo conditions and the staff agree to abide by them. Um, staff recommends approval with conditions. Um I just want to note for the um benefit of the board that the street conditions that u Miss Granelli talked about are currently um in what our transportation staff calls quick build which is you know you see the jersey barriers the plastic ballards etc. It's the quick we can get the paint on the ground and make things safer for folks immediately while we um amass resources for um a more permanent design. Um, city transportation staff has um let city planning know as well as the applicant that there's an intention to um reconstruct and reprogram this streetscape at some point in the near future. Um and just to safeguard that um um the kind of agreed as a condition to cooperate with that and then if any um changes to landscaping, sidewalk design or street tree placement um be necessitated by that reconstruction that that be safeguarded as an administrative approval um subject to staff review. >> Sure, I have no problem with that. Staff Gman's approval with conditions. >> All right. Thank you. >> I'd like to make a motion at this time to approve case P204-0126 as presented to our board tonight. Second. >> All right. We have a motion and a second for approval. >> Vice Chair Dr. Gonzalez. >> I, >> Commissioner Stamato. >> I, >> Commissioner Lipsky. >> Yeah. Uh, throughout the night there's been the word dimminimous and I think the change is diminous and I think the project's good. I vote I. >> Commissioner Dr. Desai. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Wick. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Torres. >> Hi. >> And Chairman Langston. >> Um, so I was a big fan of this project the first time I heard it. Um, it's early enough. It's 8:15. Um, I'm going to take you down a trip trip trip to me. Oh my >> um, not good. I one one of the first applications I heard when I got to this board was uh the I don't know the name of it but the one that sits on the back of Hobokav there was nothing other than Cast Iron Lofts there at the time. So um this has been you know really fascinating to watch and you know that and you know that Eddie um it's been >> excellent. So um you know this is a great addition to the neighborhood. I'm happily voting I and uh best of luck. Thank you. Thank you guys. >> Motion carries. All in favor. >> All right. Thank you. Let's move on to memorialization of resolutions, please. >> Okay. Mr. Chair, with your permission, I'd like to make a motion to approve the following uh 11 uh resolutions for memorialization. Sorry. Uh resolution number one of the city of Jersey City Planning Board in the matter of 285 Liberty Avenue designated as block 3304 block 46 application number P204-0139 decided on July 15, 2025 and memorialized July 29, 2025 application for a minor site plan approval. Number two is City of Jersey City Planning Board in the matter of 109-11 Beacon Avenue LLC. Application number P2025- 0052 designated as block 5704 lots 4 and 3 located at 109 and 111 Beacon Avenue decided July 15, 2024 memorialized July 29 2025. application for preliminary and final major site plan approval with C variance deviation and design waiver/exception relief. Resolution number three is a planning board of the city of Jersey City uh petitioner the honorable councilman Richard Bojano ward C for finding of master plan consistency proposed amendment to the journal square60 redevelopment plan case number on this is P2025-0122 Fourth resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City applicant 3053rd Street SP LLC property 3053rd Street Jersey City New Jersey block 11 1 06 lot 7 for minor site plan approval case number P2024 T 01 uh 58 hearing date July 29 2025 and the result approved resolution number five of the planning board of the city of Jersey City applicant JNS Equity Associates for a preliminary and final major site plan approval with C variances at 927-933 communal Avenue Jersey City New Jersey block 18102 two lots 20 and 21 case number P2024-0185. Number six is resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City uh approving amendment to preliminary and final major site plan submitted by 25 River Drive South urban renewal company for block 732.02 lot 6 and 8. Case number on this was P2025-000076. >> Close this out. Resolution number seven is resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City approving amendment to preliminary final major site plan submitted by Tower America general partnership for block 7302 lots 46 case number P2025-000077 uh resolution number eight of the planning board of the city of Jersey City approving amendment to preliminary and final major site plan submitted by tower east general partnership for block 7302 lots 45 and 46 case number P20 20-000078 resolution number nine of the uh planning board of the city of Jersey City approving amendment to preliminary and final major site plan submitted by 30 River East I'm sorry river Court East general partnership for block 7302 that's 33 and 31 case number P 2025-000079 10th resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City approving amendment to preliminary and final major site plan submitted by 20 River Court West general partnership for block 7302 lots 34 and 31 case number P2025-000081 and the latest and last resolution resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City approving an amended preliminary and final major site plan with deviations and conditions applicant is Pathside Holding Company 2 uh LLC address 499-501 Summit a block 9501 lot 18 case number P2025 5-0066. >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion in a second. Could we have a roll call, please? Cam, vice chair, Dr. Gonzalez, >> I. >> Commissioner Wick, Commissioner Torres, >> Commissioner Stamato, >> Commissioner Lipsky, >> I. >> Commissioner Dr. Sai, >> hi. >> And Chairman Lang, >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor to memorialize resolutions. >> Thank you. Council, do you need executive session? You good? >> That's a no. Your silence is a no. Uh, so I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All right, we're journed. Thank you guys. Have a good night.