welcome everyone today is Monday March 4th 2024 and this is a regular meeting of the city of Asbury Park planning board chairwoman KAC can you please call this meeting to order yes this meeting is being held in compliance with the open public meetings act chapter 231 public a 1975 adequate notice of the meeting has been provided to the coaster and Asbury Park Press by publication of the annual meeting notice and post on Municipal Bolton board and Municipal website all notices are on file with the board secretary official action may be taken the following maners is before the board fire exits are located on the east and west sides of council chambers as well as the back of the building I will ask anyone with a cell phone or other device to kindly silence your device for the duration of the meeting this meeting is being recorded by APV for your viewing pleasure in the near future please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance the United States of America and to the rep One Nation God indivisible liberty and justice for all I will now take roll call James ban here Council Clayton here Eric galipo is absent this evening Jim Henry here mayor Moore here Daniel sheno Jennifer saer here Vice chair Mike gunan here and chairwoman Barbara KAC here all right the first item on the agenda is the resolution for approval of uh 138 140 144 bordon avenue for the resolution anyone have any concerns about the resolution before we uh take a vote no all right can uh can I get a motion to approve the uh resolution for U 138 4144 board and now second second okay James Bano yes councilwoman Clayton yes Jim Henry yes mayor Moore yes Daniel shano yes Jennifer saer Yes Vice chair gonan yes and chairwoman KAC yes all right the next item is a resolution for approval for 614 cookman this is an item where um there were some ISS that came up after the presentation if Mr bman would like to explain what happened and I'll chime in if need be all right so uh just to get everyone up to speed there were some concerns about the representation of the applicant having two units and how those units are oriented um and it sounded like the testimony was um that they were oriented side by side which uh the relief that the board thought they were approving um was related to to horizontal uh units as opposed to Vertical units so Jack has spoken to the applicant and the applicant is going to have to come back and continue some of his uh presentation to the board so the board understands exactly what they are uh they're going to be renting from the property owner because as you recall this was a tenant making application of a pre-approved site plan that was approved for for sa um I'm not sure the name at owns that property um so Jack anyway uh we originally were going to have it as a discussion and have that um the applicant come back but it's a notice issue it's it's factual issues it's additional testimony so they have to notice uh because it wasn't carried at that last meeting because the expectation was that tonight there would be an approval a resolution as opposed to additional testimony all right so I'd like to get a I mean does anyone have any questions before we move on okay then I'd like to make a motion to um to carry this application for April 1st that's the applicant does know about that we've the applicant knows the applicant understands that they do have to um provide notice for right that is with notice so uh that's in the paper and and notices to I believe it was almost 57 um 57 neighbors yeah there was a lot there was quite a few it was quite a few and um besides that I think that that's uh the that's all okay um I'd like to make a motion to uh move it to uh to carry to April 1st um James Bano yes councilwoman Clayton yes Jim Henry yes mayor Moore yes Daniel shano yes Jennifer saer Yes Vice chair gonan I don't think I and uh chairwoman Barbara kach yes all right up to uh applications for 512 and 514 Summerfield at this point I Mr beakman will speak before you go on yes Mr goonan talk to Jack you may be able to yeah I watch the video yeah watch the video I just didn't know come back up so I'll watch it yeah okay sorry it's okay because I don't think it's new I don't think that the information that's going to be provided is 100% new so I think that that mean it's not like an amendment or anything like that I think it's going to be I think that uh Mike you're going to have to just watch it if you want to participate yeah right okay all right um 512 514 Summerfield Avenue yes so uh that is if you recall U Back when the applicant made the application for the amended site plan um we required them to come back to this meeting and present on the uh um buffering that they were going to have around the Transformer the submission was just delivered last week Marie is that correct yeah late night yeah so obviously it wasn't submitted in time but because we carried it on the record uh so that there was no notice necessary for the continuation of that portion of the of the um amended site plan it's going to be carried until April what April 15 15th right so this this will be carried to April 15 without notice without notice that's correct without notice uh I'd like to make a motion for this to be carried to 4:15 without notice can I get a second second just a quick question as I recall this application they were going to provide a uh survey of what was there do you do you remember that or am I mistaken so um they were to provide an update to exactly what you're saying not only above ground but below ground utilities and everything yes I'm not sure I haven't looked at the plan so I don't know if that's in what they're submitting for the buffering um but that was a condition of the resolution of approval to have the Transformer servicing Banks um the plans before they get their um CEO they have to provide that they on the on the submission that they made they show the electric line coming from uh 520 from the north side of 527 Banks and it is in a straight line as I recall what they had shown uh originally was not in a straight line it went out into the parking lot then came back in to the area of the Transformer well let's so before we get too in depth with that maybe save that for a question for the applicate fine um thank you but Marie if you can reach out to Andy Carris and maybe just let him know to make sure that the plans that they're submitting identifies the exact location of those utilities we we'd hate to have them come back and need them to come again yeah yeah so if there's a question about it obviously you can ask that okay I a motion with second okay James bonano yes Council Will Clayton yes Jim Henry yes mayor Moore yes Daniel shano yes Jen saer yes Vice chair goonan yes chair ran carac yes all right the next item we have for consideration is uh the Redevelopment plan for 121 Memorial Avenue I'm sorry Memorial Drive good evening folks I back again on this Redevelopment plan thank you very much for coming out for uh for this topic got a really brief presentation just to to help walk us through this evening should did it turn back off the cable yeah [Applause] there okay almost just to get the present one second uh I'm sorry I don't know why this is not mirroring my screen you might have it set that it's multiple screens it think this is a different screen oh hold on okay here we go now we're cooking with gas okay so folks we're here uh tonight to review okay we're here tonight to review the revised Redevelopment plan and it's really principally for one reason and that is a correction of the plan for something that was just quite simply an oversight on my part as you may recall the [Music] building looks like that thank you um and as you can see it is uh four stories from there and if you look and I'll show you a better uh imagy just a moment behind the language planning Board review uh sorry I don't know why it's voice it feels we need close cap oh my goodness okay so anyways uh the building is four stories with a a fifth Story that you can see behind the language planning board reveal and when I was here before The Narrative of the text stated that it was four Stories the actual height the correct height and the height that is depicted in the renderings is actually five stories and that is the substantive change that has triggered this plan being sent back to the planning board and so just real quick for the record as we talk about the site being referred to as 1201 Memorial Drive what I actually mean is it's roughly half of the block that's located along Memorial Drive between fth Avenue and 4th Avenue and as you can see here depicted on this aerial photograph it's a it's a vacant property uh along Memorial Drive and so the purpose of the Redevelopment plan is to facilitate its Redevelopment with a mixed use building uh that is predominantly residential nature with first floor first floor parking as well as a few commercial spaces the changes in the plan as I said are principally first and foremost due to an inaccurate Building height in the Redevelopment plan text that I'll review in just another slide but while I had the opportunity to come back to all of you with this revised plan I also went ahead and made a handful of additional amendments non-substantive changes to it that I think really just strengthened the plan many of which were at the recommendation of the planning board the last time I was here so it includes things such as clearly identifying what regulations would be variances versus exceptions during the site plan process allowing the planning board additional discretion on that design of the rear yard buffer with the exception it does maintain that a fence a six- foot fence is required uh additionally uh providing additional Clarity that the commercial spaces shall be provided and shall be done so consistent with the concept plan included in the Redevelopment plan also adding clarity about the number of parking spaces that are required and in particular stating that the required number of parking spaces shall not be reduced as a result of EV credits or perhaps shared parking spaces for the uh shared ride parking spaces and then lastly uh giving the planning board discretion on streetscape Furnishing so think about where benches and uh whatnot might be located and their style so that will also be subject to the planning Board review but as I said at the outset the big change is on the building height and so one thing I want to be very clear about although I'm here for a substantive change on the building height it is not to the ultimate project that was intended to be regulated so this rendering ing shown on the screen is the exact same rendering as was included in your uh in the previous version of the Redevelopment plan and this is the building that the previous version of the Redevelopment plan was intended to regulate and to permit as I said the building height The Narrative the text itself in the plan was incorrect as it previously stated the height limitation was four stories 48 ft what is depicted in this picture is five stories 63 ft and that is what the plan now reads and that is the that is the substantive change that has triggered me coming back before all of you uh for this uh specifically of course we're here for master plan referral as well as any planning board comments uh that you might like to make to the council and so with that folks I'm happy to talk about any aspect of the plan but that is uh ultimately the conclusion of my very short presentation to all of you and so with with that I'm happy to answer any questions or uh to talk about uh master plan consistency if when you're when and if you're ready I will say that you do have a a resolution uh that was passed previously on November 20th when I was here uh that I think that the board could continue some of some of the findings uh if you're so inclined some of these are no longer relevant as I was able to make those Corrections about the various points of clarity that I had reviewed in just a few moments ago so for the so the resolution that would come out of this and correct me if I'm wrong uh Jeff is that whatever we'd already recommended stays and if there's something else will add to that's correct it would be just an amendment to this resolution to this resolution so it's not none of this goes away that's correct okay so and we don't have to repeat it again no you don't have to repeat anything that's already here that's correct okay uh so so Jack will probably prepare the resolution I'll give him notes he's probably just going to take this old resolution and just if there's anything in addition to that we have to add he'll just supplement okay okay so um is there are there any questions from the board members of of our uh for the presentation of our witness I'd like to some ask a question sure not and you didn't testify about this but is there some way that we can make the facades of these buildings a little more interesting um you know and know and I know it's really not on you but we end up with boxes with Windows MH and if you if you ride down Main Street and take a look at at the uh the roof lines of buildings that there there's something a little bit interesting in almost every one of these buildings why can't we build it into what we're approving now okay I I just throw that out okay I appreciate the uh I appreciate the sentiment that the city's looking for for as much interest in variation and just interesting buildings um I would say uh right now the Redevelopment plan does require that the buildings shown in the plan uh are constructed I think that if the planning board would like to make that comment to the council you're I would certainly encourage you to do so if if the if the board thinks uh that they'd like to incorporate that into a new resolution I can also keep that in mind for any future Redevelopment that might come to the city and uh make its way back to the planning board thank you that's a question so the last time we we talked about this is four stories with a penthouse Y and now it's five stories what why can't this just be four stories with the penthouse what makes it this story so when when let me say this when I realized the mistake one of the things I tried to do was work with the the language in the Redevelopment plan to see how we could see what the options were really from a legal perspective and I also talked to the developer about what options there might be with building adjustments and um I don't know that this will answer the the heart of your question but from a language perspective of what's in the plan in order to the first part to facilitate the project that we're looking at I really don't have have an ability to to adjust the language in a way that might uh that might uh mitigate some of the the height impact without without fundamentally changing what we see um from the working with the developers uh perspective and speaking with them their indication is that they they believe that this size project is what is necessary in order to produ uce some of the uh some of the things that they would identify as benefits principally the affordable housing on the property the 20% set aside as well as some of the other benefits that they see such as the and not to say that I don't see them but just in terms of passing on the the developer sentiment um but also maintaining uh the public art maintaining the commercial space and some of the elements of the setback and streetcape design that that I I do think benefit the project so from the developers pers perspective it's about maintaining an economy of scale and being able to produce those units on the site that support the 20% set aside and some of these other aspects I have one other question I man uh when I read through this I didn't flag it unfortunately uh I recall reading that the commercial space was optional did I did I read that correctly no no the commercial is a permitted use but one of the changes I made in here are to uh add Clarity that the commercial space is not optional in fact so I would say no it's not optional okay maybe I just thank you the building design didn't change correct the same renderings are included the same design has been intended all along story is small set back yeah correct yeah yeah you're just saying the before did you call St yeah so right so let me be clear the building height is I mean the lab is just so flaky any flexible any is the problem I will I'll defer to all of you to to judge that but I but I will say from a from a legal perspective having that addition story in the building is a substantial change it may not feel a substantial change or might it may feel differently to other folks but from perspective of having to come back before the planning board I'm obligated to bring this back before you because it's it's it's a substantial change in the in what is written about the written in regulations about the building second question is I think you spoke time before and talking about you know affordable housing requirements and stuff that's the Lincoln houses yeah that's part of it yep was you know we have we have so many I the number one95 something like that that from RCA something yeah is this 20% is that going through no so the the Lincoln what you're referring to is the city has uh we have an RCA problem if you will in the sense that we had an RCA program it was not implemented properly the remedy to that uh unfortunate implementation is through the Lincoln Village project that we talked about on the Home Place site so that project will it's more complicated than this but it will ultimately produce not less than 69 affordable units that will uh Rectify our RCA problem our mismanage this Yep this is on top of that so this project with the 20% set aside is is separate and apart from that this will just simply produce additional affordable unit available does that satisfy anything that we owe oh I'm sorry uh because I thought you said the last time we only have the RCA problem that's correct other towns we didn't have a you know so the city has two types of obligations it's the RCA and Rehabilitation this project will not meet either of those this will just simply address the general need for affordable housing in the city but I will say that should the city gen have an affordable housing o oblation in the future this project will be able to satisfy it's in the bank yeah it's in the bank perfect yeah it's a good way to put it m and one more question if I qu correctly the reason why this is a b development plan is because the zoning there doesn't this that's correct yeah so in fix Z yeah that's correct so we did a Redevelopment plan one to to fix the zoning and two to provide a certainty to uh to the public to the council to the planning board and to the developer so this way that the zoning you know the building the city knows the building that that it will uh see constructed in that location in exchange for the development plan rather than leaving the design uh details to the developer oh so that's what we meant was this has to get built yes yes so if you have a if you have a project that comes before you on this property trying to use the this Redevelopment plan and it does not look like those renderings the planning board should not should not approve it they won't be able to approve it because it'll be fundamentally in conflict with the Redevelopment plan okay what is a real rationale in well the rationale is one to adjust the zoning in order to encourage affordable hous and inary development uh and then the Redevelopment plan the parameters not only does it accomplish that but it also gives additional certainty to the to all parties essentially and it gives additional control over how the site will be [Music] developed it does but there are aspects in this Redevelopment plan regulations that we could not put into zoning so for example um we would uh we would not be able to require specific architectural uh facades and Designs we might be able to include some general architectural uh standards but it would be subject to interpretation by the developer we would uh also have uh less ability to deter to set forth uh uh exactly how the architectural standards will be interpreted additionally we have uh sustainability requirements that we would not be able to require for for example they're required to participate in the energy star multif family project that type of uh Green Building or sustainability requirement is not permitted in zoning in New Jersey we're not able to require developers through zoning to Simply uh construct a a green building if you will but you have the ability to go above and beyond that above and beyond what's permitted in zoning uh through Redevelopment planning and so that's an additional advantage and then we ask we encourage those do if they come here you know for S Reon I I don't know if you call you know my B about Redevelopment plans is you know make they get exemptions school they may I understand I see a much better way actually understand anybody else have any other questions to this witness anyone from the planning board professionals just uh um we talked about one thing Beth um the building height in D3 or I'm sorry E3 it's on page eight M um the the penth houses are no more than 12 feet high correct yes okay so um probably should just clarify that cuz right now just just says are nowhere than 12 ft I'll add that um and and to go along with with the questions um those pen houses would be in addition to the five stories yes yes and that's the same type yes short answer saying pen houses when they're not in they're not in content um so the fifth story is not the the fth when you look at the renderings the fist story is that setback story just from a visual perspective first that's the fist story um the penthouse is if the developer provides a penthouse it would be subject to this language that you see in the plan and is also very similar to what you see in say the b District where you also permit penth houses and this would permit them the ability to uh to for example have additional area that might uh be serviced for an elevator different Mechanicals Etc so mechanical pous not part of the living area not part of the it it's not it's unstated but I say that as a result of viewing their concept plan and uh their floor plans the requirements specifically pen houses are exempt from height restrictions provided they cover not more than 20% of the main roof area and are not more than 12 feet in height with that addition in height um and further provided that all building service equipment and aart are enclosed in the penthouse in addition to any permitted use in the zone where located uh you're right the mechanical pen houses not correct yeah what that that seemed to contradict what she just said the this plan permits the fifth the five stories it's the four uh full stories if you will we see five stories on here we see five stories yep plus that fifth Story at the top it would also allow for Penthouse areas that would be I say I anticipate that there are going to be uh elevator pen houses and mechanical space as well but it is not required pursuant to this plan the pen houses are permitted to be not more than 20% of the main roof area at 12 feet I'm sorry that's okay we're talking about this having a p on top of the roof of the p yes so now I don't know are you saying they are they are limited to Mechanical PES or they are not they are not so they could be part of the units they could be a bigger unit yes so so you know then again you know again I'm from New York so you know call the story of FL a penthouse you know usually a penthouse just means it has a smaller footprint than the floor below it's still a story mhm so now we're talking about six stories so if I read this correctly it could be 20% is limited to 20% of what uh 20% of uh of the main roof area so is that the roof of the fourth floor or the roof of the fifth floor I would interpret that as the roof of the fourth floor correct so whatever that is so you could have another 20% of that on top of the roof of the f mhm and is there a setback on that there's no there's no re specified setback yeah there's no required setback I would say the limitation if if the board's looking for one is the requirement that it be consistent with the renderings included in the plan which the pen houses are not on the plan correct you do not they're not depicted from the uh from Memorial or or from any of the other uh Vantage points so theyr through the RO I would defer that to the to the developer um they're going to be obligated to produce a a set of architectural plans that do not have uh they're required to be substantially consistent with the renderings that you see in here and so to the extent that you have an architectural plan with significant uh uh roof protrusions for penth houses and the board deems that that's substantially not substantially consistent then I would recommend that the board make that finding and find that the applicant is Seeking a site plan approval that is inconsistent with the Redevelopment plan well and you know like Advocate you could say oh you know come on you you can't really see you know if you had given me a plan of the roof or a shot of their rendering of the roof from above it then I can see if they they said no there are they're actually contusions here but you can't see them in the rending so my architectural plans are consistent with these rending so I mean you know in one way you're saying this Redevelopment plan gives us the power to say you have to build this but already now you know there seems to be State Clauses and stuff these R you these PES well it's also because the rendering doesn't show it all right but that's it doesn't show it so so how do we say it's inconsistent when they give us AR jwes the architectural jurry show us something that these renderings can I think that's part of the I think that's clearly part of the substantial consistency evaluation if their con if their architectural plans depict something that is significant whether it's a penthouse or any other building feature that's simply not on this plan then I think that that is a deviation from the renderings included in the plan and that's got to be part of the planning board's findings there uh a statement that well it wasn't shown therefore it can't be consistent or inconsistent I think is uh uh very faulty it does say mechanical equipment other than utilities providing service the building shall be shielded so as to not be visible from ad adjacent streets and lots yeah okay but thing is now these we're talking about at least I was under the impression that the mod ation of the language you know from four story pen plus Penthouse we're talking about you know the this actual fifth floor was previously characterized as a penthouse but now we have a fifth Story and now we're talking about additional penth houses above that and that may or may not be uh limited to had the mechanical P so you know one up with architectural draw of another 20% of units being you know partial FL 75 ft I I don't liation well 12et is your max 12et above 12et above right 12et above the 6 correct but I would but I would urge the board that if you have a plan that depicts a height of 75 ft that is not consistent with the plan it is not consistent with the renderings they may be able to deite the uh the penthouse language but if you're looking at the plan and it shows what appears to be a six story that is a fundamental inconsistency I don't I don't want to argue with it but I don't know how it is because the language allows for it so the language is inconsistent with the REM I'm not just so you know some says it says in the language the language does seem to allow five stories plus pen houses not exceeding 20% of the main roof area which is unspecified to be I mean I I was making some of my own comments that I was going to review with the board and that was one of them we probably need and it's 20% less than the fourth floor correct 20% less than the fourth floor no 20% of the four yeah 20% of 20% of the of thank you not so it's not 8 % it's 20% 20% okay so 20% let's just say in theory if we take a look at this depiction here this rendering 20% is roughly one of these squares one of these pieces because you see that there are four of them going across this is memorial app Frontage you have four of them going across that's let's say 25% a piece one of them is 25% so the the this Penthouse area is essentially those the length of four of those windows somewhere on the fifth floor above the fifth floor thank you so it's somewhere like here we don't have yeah so it's somewhere above that so the fifth floor is already setback the penthouse will be 20% somewhere it could be actually in the same it could be have the same set back okay but it's only 20% of the roof correct does the 20% include the elevators the Mechanicals like are the Mechanicals included in that 20% yes it yes is I mean if you have just simply a HVAC uh piece of equipment I don't think that qualifies as part of but if it's contained within something such as an elevator yes so can I ask another thing is is that is it possible that the elevator shafts are going to be even higher than that than the 12 feet than the 12 feet all the so you got fifth floor 12 feet where does the Elevator Shaft stop I think the 12et it needs to contain the elevator Elevator Shaft okay okay so there's probably two elevators at least in this building if not more than that mhm I would assume so okay okay I guess the the thing is does the board want to in other words is the board happy with that 20% Penthouse that it's not limited just mechanical space or is it going to be part of the I feel like it's Del language should be in there you can have the penous whatever it says in 3A there but it can't be happen space that but this just let's be let's understand also that like let's say Michael if we say that let's just say that this is a recommendation to the council the council can say no or yes this is a recommendation from the board saying that that's what this is this is nothing more than that correct okay I would find it hard just like you said Mike 20% once you put in two elevators there's there's not much left I'm just saying I'm just thinking but um I don't know what anybody else's thoughts on this from the board I think Michael suggestions that it's not habitable right yeah I mean personally I'm found with them using that rooftop space for Mechanicals I mean as long as shielded we'll probably put them on the fourth floor anyway but um whereever they put mechanical fine but they don't get another I understand and 20% of that space well let me ask you is the penthouse meant to be on the roof of the fourth floor or on the roof of the fifth floor it it is not specific pen houses are in this language taken from other Zone districts that you have here is really intended for yes uh um additional living space as some developers will use it and sometimes it's used for uh the elevator Penthouse to accommodate the elevator I would but I don't have uh my expectation but not guarantee or certainty is that it's likely going to be on the fourth story but I don't want to represent that as a promise to the planning board yeah again I don't know what definition the city part the state of New Jersey using we go to P that they tell you to protrusion from the highest level you know for whatever so so we may be talking about not going up the fifth floor in terms of where that Penthouse would be located yeah I well I assume if I assume the elevator's got to go to the fifth floor right so you're going have an elevator motor room it's got to be above yeah so and let me tell you the city does Define pen houses it's defined as a roofed enclosure up to 12et in height on top of a building and occupying not more than 20% of the main roof area which I recognize is not that helpful because it's largely consistent with what the re development plan says but just to your point of how is it defined um so again time def find the main roof well the main roof area from what you said was fourth floor I don't know that's what that's what Beth had said that's my interpretation of it yes 20% of the fourth floor not the fifth floor which is smaller I think the definition you you read is that it's a protrusion on the on the main roof yeah yes so would be on the fourth floor correct and that language mirrors what's in the Redevelopment plan the main roof area BL uh certainly to the front and the rear but there's an area on either side that I think uh that I anticipate is going to be the elevators and that's where you're likely to see the the penthouse but again that's what I anticipate not what I can guarantee and and we don't see that we don't see any of those I mean I think what I think what's going to drive that is whether or not that fifth Story our independent units that they need elevator service to versus the second story of a unit which begins on the first on the fourth floor and that's part of what I I can't think dle yeah that's what I can't state with certainty for the board my expectation is that but not my my guarantee my expectation is that they need an elevator service to the fourth story but that could be incorrect um and and that's why I say I don't want to uh make any promises or guarantees located yeah we just don't see it I I can imagine how you're saying like that if it only goes to the four floor and you know the pen hous look like they're part of that setback store M are up there reac to that rul just see yeah is there a reason why we don't see it it is like is there a reason why we just have not seen it cuz I know that you're saying that it's going it could exist it might exist it probably will exist but it's not depicted here in any way no h there are the uh the renderings included are obviously uh Limited in the sense that it provides uh A View From Memorial and uh uh it just doesn't provide 360 degree views I will say that if you look at the Redevelopment plan uh you can see the fifth uh the Fifth Avenue Frontage the memorial and uh and you can get a little bit of a picture of what the the Fourth Avenue might look at if you start to extrapolate but um but I agree that it it doesn't show all the Mechanicals whether or not that's because they're simply not visible from these Vantage points or or they haven't been added is unclear right but it's but it's the penthouse that we're not seeing and it does that mean that when you're saying that we don't have the depiction is like is it because it you could only see it from Fourth Avenue or that you can only see it on the west side of this building these pen houses because it just doesn't seem to make sense to me that they're not here I mean that there's no sign of them and it it I mean it's we're this has to be built as you said this has to be built but we're just we just don't know what that sixth floor is going to look like where it is where is it going to be FL if it is well it essentially it is a sixth floor well no it's fifth floor plus 12 on the fourth floor on the roof could part of the fifth FL we don't know don't know more I would like this to change the language and say you can't have habitable space But the thing that think feel better is we can't see them in these renderings when we get to site plan time yes we see something we don't like we can just say it's not compatible okay if we see something we like we can say okay so if we see something we don't like we can say it's not compatible with the concept yeah I think you have two points of protection one is is just that whether or not it's consistent with the concept and also the protection that mechanical equipment Etc must be shielded right right I'm I'm fine with what you're saying Mike we could add the word habitable to uh to that language under item B3 Building height non habitable not yeah uh pen houses are exempt from height restrictions provided they are nonh habitable comma cover them not more than 20% and then go on but but but there is a restriction because there's 12T yeah that's also stated in here but okay saying that they would be exempt if they meet these certain elements of criteria such as the 20% the 12 feet in height and if the board is inclined not habitable right I think that I think that that's something that I mean I I don't know we'd have to pull the board on whether or not they're that that's something of Interest with them but once again it is a recommendation to the council and U the mayor and councel how do you guys feel about adding non-habitable I'm for that I think Mike's comment is well taken I think okay all right well that's all right anything else that anybody else would like to uh to question the uh the witness planning board nothing just one other point of clarification does that 20% include or sorry are the in closures for mechanical equipment included in that 20% it depends on uh let's see your definition if it's included within a roofed enclosure it would be included within that Penthouse requirement if it's just simply let's say uh uh an HVAC unit that would not be within a building enclosure and that would just simply be subject to the screening requirements okay and is a fence area or a uh We've required in many uh of these developments throughout the city we require the mechanical equipment to be fenced with a uh so so I don't know that I require a fence specifically but it requires screening which I will say often takes the form of a fence so that if we require it to be screened they shall be uh shall be shielded so as not to be visible from adjacent streets and lots the plan doesn't State how they shall be shielded I think that's subject to the planning board's discretion as to whether you want a fence or masonry enclosure or anything along so if we require a fence as that screening that's included in the 20% it would not be incl it would not be within the definition of a penthouse is a roofed enclosure so if you're simply providing a fence around the mechanical equipment that would not be a roofed enclosure that is subject to the 20% so as long as you didn't have a roof yes that's good to keep in mind any other questions all right let's open up questions I have one going back to Jim's original question where where in here do you think it says that um the commercial spaces shall be included it says I just want to make make sure we have appropriate language it's on page I believe it's under the architectural requirements but let you find it it is page nine item G1 uh exerior elevation shall be substantially consistent the last line This requirement shall include but is not limited to the placement of non-residential uses which are depicted on the concept plans I don't know that that's uh clear that it's mandatory though cuz the other section and we talked about this before the other section is the permitted principal uses deviation and and this is on page six deviations from the following shall be considered use variant as deviations ground floor non-residential uses permit it in the business district residential lobbies utilities amenities parking it doesn't mandate those things it just says if the ground floor doesn't if one of these things is not part of that ground floor then it would be a use Vance so so if for example if if there's something other than parking residential lobbies utilities and amenities or non-residential uses it would be a use VAR now off the top of my head I I can't think of what that might be but but um other than Apartments you know so if the board would like to strengthen that I'm happy to uh I will say you've got it listed as a permitted use you have that requirement under architectural standards you also have the three retail spaces depicted within the sites concept plan uh which the board could also utilize to uh Define substantial consistency or not when they uh identify where their commercial uses are located I would suggest that that number one add um which shall be constructed on the ground floor I don't have any objection yeah because that's what we're that's what our concern does it say like how much commercial SP it on the concept plan it provides floor areas uh listed but the plan itself does not identify those it allows the planning board to find whether or not substantially consistent with the the three spaces identified yeah it's here I'll read it's uh there three spaces at 437 ft 500 ft and 926 ft so now you're saying those have to be built correct yeah yeah it's so it's required in the concept plan uh depiction of the concept plan is required in the architectural standards and if the board would like to add uh further strengthen uh the permitted uses we can do that as well yes and it may be as simple as uh changing that heading from permitted principal uses to required principal uses but there may be a few other ways to do that as well is there anything that else you have Jeff no I would just say um I don't know that you necessarily have to say maybe you say permitted and required uses sure and then have after B an and a and d so you have a b and c sure meaning that that ground floor has to have each of these Els right um any other anything else from the board members all right um just have a before before we get to the public um just have a question for for as far as process is concerned um there's a resol the resolution that was provided to the council we had like four items on there okay those four items now you're coming back now we're going to go back we're going to give the council mayor counsel other other requests and then obviously once they they're ready to build they're going to come back to us so how do we know as a planning board what was what the council agreed to or didn't agree to how do we know that how do we find that out so when they come back how do we know or do we or is it just included in our packet the resolution of what I mean how how does that work I don't know I don't know how we find out I don't know the planning board's typical procedure uh but what I could do is simply share the adopted version of the Redevelopment plan with the planning board on presum gets adopted and then you have that then we would then we would have to look on our res on our request to see if all of those things were included okay so we would have to figure that out somehow well at the same time when when an application actually comes before the board right a copy of the final plan that was approved by Council should be should be part of the packet okay and we could also ask of that of CCH to say okay of all the things that we requested which ones made it or which one's didn't okay okay sure all right so we'll that way we'll know um okay I'd like to open it up to the to the public for questions for this applicant or this witness any any uh anyone from the public has any questions okay any um all right let's can I get a motion for comments from the public so second okay anyone want to uh ask any have any comments about this project of what was presented here today okay motion to close public second okay all right um Jeff do you want to go through what would be in a uh resolution here so I just had a few comments that I was writing down um okay in general add that commercial space shall be mandatory um the fifth Story is to be set back for the rendering attached uh renderings attached to the plan um the penthouse shall be not more than 12T in additional height inclusive of all bulkheads stairs uh and uh elevator shafts um I think there's a suggestion maybe to Define which which roof is the main roof area as it relates to pen houses is it the fourth floor is it the fifth floor well it would be what we're suggesting I believe was that that it's essentially above the fifth law that we're saying non- inhabitable the 20% not to be inhabitable correct but the 20% is it calculated from the fourth floor is it calculated from the fif FL I believe that it was from the fourth yeah I think the decision it should be clear that it's calculated from the fourth floor if that's true if it's calculated from the fourth obviously I would prefer it from the fifth but I believe that it's stated as the fourth yeah right um as far as page six permitted and PR permitted and required principle uses for a and then we're going to add for a b and c under number one ground floor we're going to add the word and or suggest that we add the word n um in on page 8 E3 we're going to add pen houses are exempt from height restrictions provided they are not habitable cover no more than 20% of the main roof area and are not are not more than 12 ft in additional height uh and the rest of it the same M um in G1 we're going to add at the end uh which shall be constructed on the jet on the ground floor according to the concept plan and concept building renderings and I believe that were those were my only comments did we uh did we miss anything anyone okay um if we have nothing else then uh can I get a motion to uh for the approval of these modifications with all everything that uh was just mentioned by uh Mr beakman can I get a motion to pass Mr what am I moving you're moving you're moving the fact that approval of the recomendation approval of these recommendations to council I'll second James bonano yes councilwoman Clayton yes Jim Henry yes mayor Moore i i attended tonight for basically the two other applications I did not attend the November 20th 23 meeting on this because at the council level I was a no vote on this so I said like if I'm no at Council why attend this and calls a quagar or whatever so I'm either not eligible because I wasn't the November 20 to vote on this or I'll simply Vote presid or abstain I if if you don't want to vote I would say vote abstain abstain just because again at the council level I was the no on this project um Daniel shano I think that was it yeah you're eligible to V on this yeah because this this is a hearing on what's in front of you tonight uh Jennifer saer Yes uh Vice chair gunan yes chairwoman KAC yes thank you folks okay so I will make a list I'll send that to Jack I'll make sure please copy yes okay all right can I a motion to adjourn second about the next oh I'm sorry the next meeting that uh is going to be on April 1st 7 o'clock the meet the meeting the second meeting in March is canceled March 18th March 18th is canceled so April 1st is our next meeting 7:00 p.m.