welcome everyone today is Monday July 1st 2024 and this is a regular meeting of the city of Asbury Park planning board chairman Gman will you please call this meeting to order yes uh this meeting is being held in compliance with the open public meetings act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to the co in Asbury Park Press by publication of the annual meeting notice and posted on the municipal bulletin board and Municipal website all notices are on file with the board secretary official action may be taken on the following matters before this 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 everyone with a cell phone or other device to kindly silence your device for the duration of this meeting this meeting is being recorded by APV please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance Pledge Allegiance un States stand indivisible liy and justice for all so Kevin K okay I will now take roll call James Bano here councilwoman Clayton here Eric gipo here Jim Henry here Jeremy Hoffman mayor Moore here Daniel shano here Jen saer here Vice chair goonan here chairwoman Barbara kurzak is absent today all right um so we only have one thing on the agenda for tonight and that is consideration of the Redevelopment plan for 1101 1 Avenue um so Beth if you want to come on up before we get started uh mayor Mo just wanted to make a comment yes uh thank you very much Michael um so this morning a friend called me this morning asking how John how could you let this happen again you're a man of your word and you said publicly this would never happen again I said what are you talking about he said well I got an email this morning saying that the hearing tonight wasn't advertised I said well that's totally not true truthfully this hearing should have been two to three weeks ago and because it wasn't advertised I asked for it to be postponed and the applicant agreed I found out today not only once but twice did the applicant send out notices because of our fantastic Hasbury Park postal system just dropping them all in a Lobby so residents within 200 ft were notified of tonight's meeting it was advertised in the newspapers and City uh the planning board attorney when I said was when the meeting was advertised in the agenda I said was it notified the answer was yes Jack looked into it and found out everything was done perfectly legal so I just wanted to do that little bit of housekeeping thank you yeah if I may um actually Mr Kennedy over over notice uh his obligation was to notify Everybody by this certified mail put the notice in the newspaper which he did and it turned out that the poting took a lot of the certifi and dumped them in a lock never delivered so he he did it a second time which he didn't have to do but he did uh so he's he went way bent over backwards to give everybody adequate notice then the content of the notice is fine we're in good shape I'm SA so we have jurisdiction tonight we sure do well we would have it without that because that's a municipal ordinance not a state land use requirement so board would still have the authority to proceed city of asway park has decided that they would be asking these applicants to notice which they have we're good thanks Che you're welcome you want to join us hello Beth how are you I'm doing well please raise your right hand swear affirm testimony about the giv this the truth the whole truth and nothing the truth I do please state your name for the record spell it and give us your affiliation with the presentation this evening sure my name is Elizabeth or Beth mcmanis MCM Aus and I am the city's planner I've put together a presentation on the draft Redevelopment plan Amendment this evening okay with that um let's introduce as exhibits uh we don't have to introduce the notices because we looked at them they're fine but the council resolution that referred this matter over to us is resolution 2024 223 let's call that Marie C1 that's in city1 and then the actual proposed amendments that have been circulated and prepared by B's office uh let's call that C2 okay with that I'll be quiet okay [Music] do you want me to exp be is do that you want explain to the public how this type of hearing works okay this is more of a this is a review function it's not an application for development there's no approval or denial of what is before us under the municipal land use law of the state of New Jersey any proposed amendment to a Redevelopment plan which this is must be referred by the governing body over to the planning board the planning board has the right to look at that and with the background of being the city master plan and such other matters that the board deems relevant General in terms of Planning and Zoning um the board then will make recommendations which can which may or may not be followed by the governing body there's no statute that says they have to be followed they're just recommendations M the way we operate with these sort of things is presentation will be made members of the public will be afforded an opportunity to ask questions of the presenters or the witnesses relevant to their testimony that they've given and then at the end of that when we're all done with that uh portion there will be a public comment section that allows every member of the public to get up and make a three minute statement as to what their feelings are about what they've heard [Music] this yes why is the developer presenting as opposed to because is a city this is a city proposed Redevelopment plan and that's the way it is it's this isn't an application for development if the developer was here for site plan approval Beth wouldn't be sitting here because it's a city ordinance that's going to be possibly amended by the mayor and Council there's no it's no guarantee that it's going to happen but it's just over here for review yes sir just one point I I watch this on APV every week and you're very hard to hear on TV is that a fact usually people tell me I'm too loud no no you're so hard to hear and you say the most important things and all right I'll speak up I'm sorry no no no worries I hear you here but on TV it's it's a little difficult okay I'll do my best thank you thank you okay okay thank you aome all right folks so as uh is Jack uh ging a good introduction for this is this is for uh a new amendment to an a Redevelopment plan so this is uh for a site referred to as 1011 and it has an existing Redevelopment plan what's before you this evening is simply an amendment to that Redevelopment plan sorry I was uh there we go I guess my computer just needed a breath um so uh so more specifically in addition to just simply being located at 101 1st Avenue it's also located on block 401 Lots 10 11 12 and 13 the property is about 1.3 acres and as you can see from the plan here uh the site is the uh the vacant property at the center of the of the screen uh it has Frontage along uh Langford Street towards the bottom of the screen it's got Frontage on Second Avenue towards the right of the screen and then of course it also has Frontage on First Avenue to the left of the screen and so you can see from the from the aerial photograph here that the site is surrounded by really what I would say is a variety of land uses we've got some generally speaking single family homes directly to the rear we've got uh town houses and multif family located to uh to the north on the opposite side of Second Avenue and then we have commercial uses Loc ated uh to the South opposite along first and also uh along Langford as well and so we've really got a variety of of uses ranging from really from more industrial to single family homes this area really runs the gamut um other noteworthy characteristics about the property is that yes it's vacant but I think more importantly it's been vacant for about 25 years or so it's a former industrial site uh I think a a Plastics manufacture I believe um and I do know that the site is contaminated and so as part of Redevelopment efforts will come clean up of those contamination of that contamination in terms of that site history like I said uh the site's been vacant now for more than two decades but from a planning and a regulatory perspective I think the most important site history here is the fact that we have an existing Redevelopment plan that we're amending and building off of that plan had been adopted in 2018 subsequent to the plan adoption the previous property owner sold the property to uh to the new entity that the city is is uh engaging with today and uh they've been working with the city now for a couple years most recently uh there was a Public Presentation that too was publicly noticed in October last year and that presentation occurred before the council uh where the developer provided the presentation and public comment and questions uh were welcomed at that point so let's let's get into this what are the way I've I've set the presentation up is to provide a comparison to what's currently proposed versus what had previously been adopted so as you can see uh there are a couple I I think some of the most important distinctions are one a change in use and two a change in density on the property so previously the site was permitted for residential as well as commercial uses and as you can see here we have just residential use is now permitted so that means we're eliminating uh retail restaurant office and service uses on the property the other change is an increase in the density from 80 units a maximum of 80 units to now a maximum of4 units so another 24 units the affordable housing Remains the Same at a 20% set aside obviously as the as the number of units go up the number of affordable units will go up but the set aside Remains the Same the parking for the residential uses has uh not been changed it was in remains today at 1.2 spaces per unit however with the elimination of the commercial uses we certainly don't have those parking requirements uh being necessitated anymore for the for those that might be interested though the previous parking requirements were for commercial space it was one parking space for the first 10,000 ft of commercial area and then one additional parking space would be necessary for each additional 3,000 square ft of commercial area above the first 10,000 so if you had 13,000 of Comm 13,1 Square ft of commercial space you would require uh a total of two parking spaces for the commercial and then for the residential as well but when you say the density is increasing is the density is the hypothetical potential building increasing in size or is the increase in number of residential units staying within the same hypothetical envelope and and you know that's you get that increase equ you're eliminating now non-residential uses so I the 2018 plan does not include building plans or renderings that were required but I do think think that the answer is that the building footprint is going to get larger as a result of the increase in residential units yes and as you'll see one of the things I wanted to point out is the building height has not changed but things like the uh some of the other standards have been adjusted to accommodate the 104 units so I think the reality is a building built in 201 18 or 19 with the 80 uh 80 residential units might have a smaller building footprint than what might be built today with 104 units so I I assume you'll get to like was distributed like is this now what's proposed to be amended what was approved no that is what is proposed for today there was no Building Concept plan no footprint that was required and approved as part of the 2018 plan correct correct can we go back to slide before we do this the the parking requirements um does that include the affordable unit yes okay so 1.2 for all4 correct question on sure in the in the actual language uh one of the changes is to require 30% of the portable unit inome unit is that just updating it for current r or that not the amendment is um both the so that's consistent with the current regulations that were not uh specified or uh were not specified in the old plan okay yeah Beth one question I'm sorry sure so the 2018 plan included 10,000 square fet of commercial space it permitted it presume I I would assume the developer would have wanted to build that out but I I don't know for certain because there was no plan required all right thank you so other I think think important building changes so we have uh no change to the building height or I should say important building regulations one of them is no change to the building height it was and continues to be uh five stories 55 ft there are changes to the building and lot cover they've gone up 15% respective 15% each from 65% to 80% for building and 75 to 90% for lot cover uh the rear buffer is largely the same I I think what uh the distinction I'd like to make is that this Redevelopment plan regulates the rear buffer versus uh the 2018 plan just simply pointed to existing City standards in addition to that so there's a five- foot buffer required under both scenarios but this Redevelopment plan also requires a fence at the rear of the property and then the the last distinction that I wanted to make between the two plans is that the this current plan the 2024 Amendment includes concept plans those that are included in the in the back of the plan that the developer obligated to comply with versus the 2018 plan did not uh there were I know that there were Concepts that were associated with the discussion in the Redevelopment plan but they were not required to be implemented here we have a very different scenario where the uh were similar to other Redevelopment plans I've written for the city it requires that the developer comply with the concept plan it requires that the developer comply with the building renderings and essentially any document or any plan that you see included in the Redevelopment plan will this be a slide yes I think it might actually be the next one yep there we go um so I've got there as you'll notice in the plan there's two versions of the uh of the site concept plan not that they're different but they just provide different level of details so here's a plan where you can see where the building footprint is located on the property itself and here it is where with uh with more detail provided and you don't see the the aerial surrounding area yeah I think I was going to say I think this is a little easier to talk to so bying is in 2018 something like this was not presented right just show the foot it was not required was it show I I I I don't know I wasn't involved in that in that my my point being cut to the chase is I guess if I got my directions right it's the Northeast to the right the South yeah right so you Noti like the footprint comes out pass the front of houses that through us so extends a little yes was that in 2018 did that exist in 2018 or ably increase in the footprint the I have a follow on question that may combine well with this because I I need a clarification I think along the same exact line did the 2018 plan allow a zero foot setback yes yeah so it's so the setback is the required setback is not changed what the between the 2018 plan and the 2024 plan um and so where that building might might have sat in 2018 2019 how they proceeded I can't exactly predict because we didn't have a required concept plan but I can tell you that the uh the minimum setback is unchanged from the street so so that's something I'm we're not all to talk about and say I mean is that's something we're not approving correct we're allowed to make recommendations you're allowed to make a recommendation that you feel relevant as a board sure okay okay um so as I said this is the concept plan I think some of the important details uh that you can that I think I wanted to provide both Concepts but this one is a little easier to read and to digest I think in a presentation but important uh notes that I that I'd like to make here is one you see vehicle access to First Avenue over towards the left of the screen and what you see facing Second Avenue in the gray area facing the The Lofts building which is the building just just shown on the side of the screen opposite the site uh that gray area is is really the resident Lobby amenity bike storage area and so the I would say the the people access so to speak faces second the vehicle access faces first I'm sorry I'm going to ask again you know does I I know it was that Zer set that when that building one second let's make sure because somebody not get picked up with all that no there's the issue that the I I don't know if it extends this all was I know my property I had an issue with it the the right of weight of the city is 100 ft in other words right and streets are about 60 so you know M you can't have any build in in that 100 ft mhm does this does that is that the same situation here and does that footprint then go into that 100 foot right way yeah so let's take a look at this concept plan I think this plan is is better for that level of detail that you're asking for um I wish I had a pointer but uh if you if you take a look you can see the the lines to uh [Music] yeah um what I what James is going to help me identify is the fact that the building is at about a z foot setback I think it's just maybe two feet shown on that on that plan right there and you see the same thing on the opposite side and it's uh facing Second Avenue and it's a bit deceiving for exactly that point that you're making if it looks like the building has a setback of about 21 22 ft but that's only because of how why the right of way is and how much of the grass and the sidewalk is actually within the city RightWay as opposed to the private property so when the setback States 0o feet and the building shows a setback of zero feet or very close to it the the the visual impact is not of a zero foot setback instead it's something closer to a 10 or 20 foot setback because you have these grass areas uh in front of the build between the building and the sidewalk not to mention the sidewalk walk in the grass area on the opposite side well I I don't know if that it doesn't it doesn't you know like so for instance the city's Right Way comes right through my front wall you know I have steps you know I can help you I can get the setback is from the front property line of the of the applicant right correct within so that would not be within the city right away they would own their they own their property up to the twoot twoot mark in front on the other side of it that's in the right of way like you have part of your front lawn might be in the city right away that's in the right of way but the structure itself is not the structure will not be in the C oh no I'm sorry that was a question that's simp yeah yeah the building was not will not be in the right of way for sir how far does that building sit in front of the prevailing setback of the residential houses on second and first uh I would say it's not dissimilar as you take I don't have an exact measurement but as you take a look at for example on Second Avenue the the majority of the building Frontage uh Building sepac looks very consistent with those first few homes uh as you take a look at the properties along uh along first it looks as if the building extends Beyond those existing setbacks by approximately eight uh excuse me uh 10 or 12 ft this this dim menion here says about 15 ft right mhm we get an exact measurement yeah that is to the property line uh in the building has 15t right You've Got 2 ft here right and 15 ft here and we're just assuming that this dotted line is approximately equal to the porches here that feel does that feel Fair mhm so there's this this side of the building will sit 12 full feet in front of adjacent properties mhm [Music] so let's take a look at the building itself so there I don't have every image from the from the Redevelopment plan because there are quite a few but I did pull some of the more important renderings I think this first is from the corner of Langford Street and Second Avenue and so uh as you take a look at this building what what you see along uh second which is the road to the right of the screen that's the entry area for the for the lobby that I pointed out on the concept plan that gray area at the corner of the building the other portions of the building where you can uh sort of on either side of that piece of art that's on the first floor that's uh that's the first floor parking and so those are the the architectural screens if you will that provide shielding of the parking of course the the building is uh facing Langford as well as second as you'll see on first it's it has two stories and then is set back for the second two stories similar uh to The Lofts uh adjacent across the street and then you can see at the top of the screen that fifth Story that's uh sort of peing out from above the fourth story sorry the only not improving PL correct but the only reason we're looking at this is because one of this amendment is they have the build to this correct yes I yeah I certainly don't yeah I would not show concept plans if they were not required in this type of a meeting um correct and so so if I may for the so then it would be fair to comment from comments from the board about architecturals and the like yes I think the part of the absolutely architectural concept plan the narrative or the text in the plan is all within uh the board's review yeah because if it comes over as law and adopted then our site plan review would be limited correct okay yes so now here's Now's the Time and here's the place okay thank you okay and so here's the the First Avenue rendering and uh what you can see some of the important points here I think are the fact that the building is a similar design to what we just saw along uh Langford and then you can see right there the uh vehicle entrance as well here's a uh a straight view for Langford of course and you know one of the things I do want to point out if there's some public art that's going to be incorporated into the building and so that'll be another uh just another point of interest for the building facade here's the the Second Avenue Frontage uh and so you can see right towards the center of the screen that's the access to the lobby as well and then this is the the rear of the building along First Avenue uh and I wanted to show this because it depicts not only uh the property Frontage but also it gives you a sense of the the buffer and the fencing that's now required along the rear and then sorry you said this yeah so this is the rear of the property that um that image is taken sort of from the corner of the property along first looking to what would be the back of the building can you go through the slide before yeah so that little protrusion above the to apart is that uh so so right there that's part of um that's not part of their unit necessarily that isly going to be used for uh circulation area but what you can see I would uh I would point to the second uh three story gray area of the building you can see behind that that's the fourth story that's behind that's located to the rear where there's residential space does that make sense and answer your question I'll that set back yeah that's set back okay and so we've got First Avenue building rear and then the last part I wanted to share with folks because of course you guys are here for or I guess I'm here for two reasons first is to review the Redevelopment plan the second is to talk to you about what master plan uh policies the board might consider as you think about consistency and I pulled about five of them together here uh and so this is all of course from your 2018 reexamination report the first one I wanted to point out is some language regarding ensuring that infill development complements the context and qualities of adjacent neighborhoods with an appropriate scale of massing and character we also have language to encourage Redevelopment uh in appropriate locations in a manner that's compatible with the organic or historic development pattern we also have a language to balance housing options including affordable housing to encourage development of really a mix of incomes ranging from uh low all the way up to market rate and then to fully integrate affordable housing both within projects and geographically within the city and then lastly to identify inclusionary zoning opportunities and so these are five policies or uh specifically goals and objectives that I think that I would recommend that the board consider I think they're quite relevant to uh to this Redevelopment plan is any affordability limited or period No it's h it's limited for at least 30 years and is part of this I assume as a revelop the ability to go for a pilot and the exempt from school taxes they have the ability to make that request yes um and I think with that I'm happy to entertain more comments and questions from the board in public I got a few I'll say I don't I don't know you just jumped you just jumped on Jim that's all right go you know I don't like that the of the the building will on First Avenue uh go past and the the houses that rest extends Beyond I'm G to agree with you Dan and say that to the point of the Redevelopment I'm sorry the re-examination points that you brought up um in there it says consistent with the historic development pattern and while this had previously been an industrial site for some time many years prior they were Residential Properties therefore they probably aligned with the prevailing setback and I think that that part of the setback both the part on the private property and the part in the public right way are part of our historic City plan and maintaining that East West View Corridor and restoring it where possible should be a goal uh specifically what is this amendment uh supposed to do what specifically what drives this amendment as compared to what was approved back in 18 well aside from the just the the differences in the plan and the requirements that I went through I think that the purpose of the amendment is to try to facilitate development or Redevelopment of a long vacant property to try to work with a new property owner to see the site get developed to be productive in the city and to to do so in a way that that uh represents something that the city is comfortable with and that the developer can construct um specifically why is it now being proposed that the uh commercial uses be eliminated why are the commercial uses being eliminated um I can't speak to the developer intention uh but I but I don't recall any uh any desire to to do commercial uses on the property so from the developer side I think there's a lack of Desire from the from the city Side I will say it reduces the activity on the property uh from potentially a busy restaurant or retail store to just simply residential use and so it reduces the activity uh reduces uh some measures of intensity in in that way as well this particular property is sort of in a transition from Memorial to the residential uh buildings residential areas to the west and it seems to me that uh you have a long lford you have a lot of uh commercial uses and that it would be appropriate to continue those uh commercial uses the city needs those uh uses as well as residential uses and I think in the long run it may be more advantageous to keep that to keep the commercial uh element in that building uh as it was originally proposed in 2018 thank you and um since it's all residential uh being proposed now what is the City's goal as far as uh affordable dwelling units I me we're picking up 21 uh affordable units in this particular uh proposal what is the overall um goal for the city well there's no numerical goal that's been cited for new construction but I think that generally speaking the goal is to integrate affordable housing throughout the city throughout any new development uh to try to slow uh gentrification or to try to address and mitigate gentrification more specifically and to try to address the uh the growing lack of affordability that the city is experiencing as housing prices have increased well this particular development by changing it from a uh a density of 65 units per acre uh this proposal increases it by 30% and now we're up to I think I forget the number 82 or there about uh units per uh per acre that's awful dense and the 65 is pretty dense but now we're uh we're increasing the density and if we're going to keep the footprint approximately the same uh it seems to me that all the units now are going to become smaller and is that really desirable well I think that the footprint is going to uh to increase a bit so I I don't I I don't want to suggest that this is just simply more units going in the same box that would have been permitted um so I do think that the building footprint will increase we've certainly allowed for more building cover uh than was previously permitted but in terms of the building size or excuse me the unit size let me [Music] just you didn't show us where the footprint no but the building cover has been increased in the Redevelopment plan it's typical this footprint push from hyp no I I mean I haven't I'm I don't want to represent that I know what would have certainly been built under the 2018 plan I've seen renderings that they had put together but I can't represent that that is definitely what was going to be built and that the planning board can consider that as a definitive change but per per the plan the setbacks have not changed so even though now we have a concept plan that shows the coverage the setbacks in the plan haven't changed is that right uh that is so correct so first and second Avenue were always at zero feet uh for Langford it was a maximum of 5et it's now a minimum of 5 ft I don't want to suggest that's a significant change um but there is a literal adjust to it and I think you said ear earlier that even though we don't have a an affordability requirement now besides you know whatever the RCA all these units this will go like in the bank for us should we get abs yes yes absolutely all every affordable housing unit that's regulated in this plan and anything I've written will always be eligible for credit against the city's obligation and so while the city doesn't have a number like an obligation that we need to put these units towards the city has other types of affordable housing obligations that if we wanted to we could use these credits again so for example the city has a rehabilitation obligation uh an obligation to work with uh tenants or homeowners that are low and moderate income to provide uh uh funding to help bring their units up to code the city has made a policy thus as of today or as of a handful of years ago that is not going to create new housing units to satisfy that Rehabilitation obligation that is permitted and so if that policy changes in the future if in five years 10 years from now the city decides it wants to satisfy its Rehabilitation obligation with these new H newly constructed housing units we have the ability to do so and so even though we don't have that obligation making sure that all of our affordable units are eligible for credit gives us the flexibility in case we get an obligation in the future and to potentially use them for uh alternative means if necessary but when you get an obligation in the future does the obligation come with the time limit for in other words when you get an obligation do they have to be 30 years minimum yes I yes there's some Nuance there but yes okay so like we're five years down the road you know we build these today so the 30 years but 5 years time only got 25 years remaining they still get accredited toward your requirement then sh yes yes had a question on the side the size yeah the size before the T talked about square footage for different typ of hous I just want to know what that what that is based upon is that the standard that you you it's the last item actually so just yep for for folks that aren't looking at this directly there's an average minimum average required for the uh affordable units um and it is either the average size of the market rate units for that same bedroom type or a specified figure like uh for example 875 875 sare ft for a two-bedroom the square footage requirements come from uh the New Jersey housing and mortgage Finance Agency they provide funding for 100% affordable housing projects and those minimum bedroom requirements are set forth in those rules they're commonly pulled for purposes like this y question about um the amendment chose the sustainability like a change the sustainability requirements is that the the other ones say as is and the EV is the only change yeah that is correct the the the um the original plan it requires I think it had uh a maximum of two EV parking spaces and so this has just simply been amended to require compliance with the state law but there are existing uh sustainability requirements that will not change there's some Energy Efficiency uh some and some Roofing requirements and a few other items as well I think there's just nothing to do with the amendment but the it says New Jersey Department of energy but shouldn't that be um uh DCA and it says number one the most recently adopted energy standards by New Jersey Department of energy just like a typo I think oh in the original plan yeah cuz there is no Department of energy that I don't know if that really matters just I see that uh BCA well it's not something that's subject to uh to this particular Amendment if the planning board has a comment if if that's potentially incorrect language it's probably worth noting so that you have that information in case you need to make an interpretation at the time of site plan because it would just be Community Affairs Community Affairs uh depart it be if the energy standards are governed by New Jersey Department of um Community Affairs BPU has a role but if it's talk about code DCA I mean if you're referring back to this it should just be accurate okay yeah thank you I'm still concerned about the uh number of dwelling units that we're talking about here uh we have no particular goal in in the city and we won't know until next year what the state is going to require but we don't know how many units we already have so we have no idea uh as to the correlation between the two and we talked a few months ago about uh the home plate area and uh a couple of other uh developments on uh Memorial and at that time you were pretty certain that uh our uh 2 uh 2015 to 2025 obligation was satisfied and while you didn't want to speculate as to what comes next year uh you felt pretty comfortable with what we had at that time uh going into next year now we're heading another uh 100 and some units and we're adding another 21 or 24 whatever the number is of affordable units uh this is kind of an Overkill when we don't really know what our obligations are at this point are the 120 units affordable I'm sorry are the 120 units you just mentioned affordable or is that the gross amount of units in no I said 21 more affordable units that's roughly the set aside for this 21 of them are Oh I thought you said 120 my my error I'm sorry that's okay maybe I did all right okay but okay your intention was 21 yeah okay got it okay I mean it just seems at this point next year this may be a very valid Amendment but at this point this year just seems It's premature uh and as a planner what's your comments on I think that this Redevelopment plan this amendment much less the original is not intended to strictly meet the city's affordable housing obligation this is a Redevelopment plan that yes it's intended to provide affordable housing because the city has an affordability problem but its sole purpose is unlike a lot of communities is not to just simply meet number and be done with it and so I think that the desire or the requirement for affordable housing in this plan really transcends the city's affordable housing obligation um the city is and just for context the city has a zero unit new construction obligation affordable housing obligation not because it's not a recognition that we have so much affordable housing that exists in the city instead it's a recognition of the city's status of as a qualified Urban Aid municipality and so it's it was a decision from the state that goes back uh 40 years ago or so that found that the state's urban areas that meet certain requirements including aspbury Park should not be burdened with an additional affordable housing obligation because uh in particular at that time they were housing the majority of low and moderate inome folks and the problem at that time was and yes to some extent certainly continues but the problem at that time was an inability of folks of modest or low means to move out of the Cities out of the cities and into the Suburban areas that offered better quality schools housing and and many other things as well now if you fast forward while the city this city continues to have significant challenges with the income of its residents one the other things that it has even though we continue to have this problem we have an affordability and a gentrification problem and so Redevelopment plans like this are not intended to just simply address a number and and be done many communities are interested in doing as little as possible addressing the number and moving on here this is really about yes encouraging Redevelopment of a long vacant property but it's also about bringing housing and affordable housing to the community to help uh address these issues that EX exist regardless of what our affordable housing number is but 7 years ago when we adopted the last master plan the city had determined that along this carridor we needed commercial space and now we're getting a proposal uh to change that and I don't think anything has changed since that Master Plan uh uh re revision back in the 17 well you know one thing that I do want to point out is the the 2018 plan it permitted retail restaurant and office uses as well as of course the the residential but it did not require those uses and so a plan built pursuant to the 2018 plan may have been similar to what's being presented this evening in the sense that it it there's nothing in this adopted plan that would prevented a 100% residential building from being constructed don't speak out please uh I thought that it is a committed proposed in in the 2018 uh approval that there was and I forget how many uh square feet of uh commercial space but there was commercial space allocated and now we're changing that requirement there was commercial space permitted yes that's true okay but it wasn't allocated it was permitted corre was it was it required no that's my that's my point is a permitted use not a required use yeah I think it should stay at it's a it's a sorry sorry it's a weird lot when you look at the the like the zoning map right it's kind of stuck between R1 R3 and and light industrial it's a it's a strange little lot yeah it's a transition yeah so to that point Mike thank you for bring that up um do do you do you have a zoning map available um I can bring one up for fol I think you know be helpful for everybody here so this site is technically the underlying zoning is the light and drial and I should note that this Redevelopment I'm sorry just one point that I didn't make before uh it was done before is uh is that I'm sorry this is the old one is that uh the Redevelopment plan is an overlay and so as a result uh the LI District it technically remains in place thank you James so I have a particular thing about that now adjacent to this Redevelopment property there is one single lot that you'll be orphaning and it's a non-conforming residential use in the L industrial zone is that right hold on one I'm sorry one second yeah sorry do I need to press something so while we're getting while we're waiting for that to come up so the zones that surround this are light industrial which does not permit industrial or does not permit residential corre the R3 Zone has what density I I can tell I just it's a 50 units per acre okay the the B Zone adjacent to the East and not quite the west but kind of um that has a density of 40 units per acre and the R1 Zone doesn't really have a density per acre but you could get eight if you did some quick MTH right it's approximately six yeah six to eight depends um and so this one's being developed at 80 you units per acre and in the plan it says this is supposed to be a transition between higher density and lower density uses but the fact is it's the highest density of anything that surrounds it so that's one point and then the second point is is that a non-conforming residential use in the industrial Zone in that orphan lot there I would presume so but I haven't looked into the zoning of that enourage you to include them in the Redevelopment plan not to give them more density or anything but to you know like why would you just orphan them as the only you know they're essentially the recommendation is to include it in the Redevelopment plan rather than include it in the r in the R1 District yeah but that's not happening now right but it's not within the Redevelopment it's a rezoning n it's a rezoning regardless it should be left as a non-conforming use between a Redevelopment plan and the conforming zone right [Music] so but you can't do that without us do we doing the zoning we would have to actually move the zoning line for one yeah no I'm fine with that mayor and Council would have to amend the ordinance right yeah or or the council could include that parcel in and not necessarily to create you could give different regulations to that lot that make them essentially a conforming residential use capable of taking advantage of an Adu for example which you know just sort of making them lightly conforming while not conforming I I like go through the process of finding that to be an area in need of Redevelopment no I think we would be acceptable because this is the Redevelopment plan is pursuing to the Citywide Rehabilitation area but I do think I I I appreciate the concern that we've got this isolated non-conforming lot I do think rather than crafting standards in in the Redevelopment plan I would I would rather work to put them in the zoning District that is consistent with the the neighboring law the R1 district and then they would have the same rights as I think what we're it's same same result but you'd also have to make sure that they're comfortable with you essentially downzoning their property cuz that person can sell to a Tannery or you know horse Glue Factory whatever you know like right and you could essentially have a chemical factory located between this new building they could yeah sure yeah you got Point yeah but I I I mean so I agree though this is you know now that we're looking at the area this is an opportunity to to highlight and make recommendations to adjust zoning that has been triggered you know the thought process has been triggered by this I think that's a great comment for the planning board to make to try to bring that lot into Conformity right I think it could be done either by crafting special regulations that give them equivalent rights to their adjacent R1 Neighbors in this Redevelopment plan or by adjusting the zoning lines now or later yeah you know I would hate personally I would hate to first of all I'm against these Redevelopment PL in to because I understand the city is in an area need Redevelopment and it's not spot zoning butons but my real my real problem with it is again is because in the Redevelopment so you can be exempt from school taxes and you know it's just simple ma the school school budget will be what the school budget is if you have a 100 people paying for it versus 200 people paying for those school taxes the 100 people will pay a higher percentage Dan you're not saying that you're prejudiced against all Redevelopment plans that come to I'm not I don't like expanding them okay because you don't want to say you're prejudice against it or you'd be excluded so I would rather you know I mean you could down Zone them it's not like down zoning them in anticipation of acquiring their property down Zone proper over time so I think the orphaning of that lot is one concern okay the second is that how did we arrive th this this this proposed plan I'm trying to be careful about my language allows a density of 80 units spr is that correct 104 divid 1.3 I think so yeah yeah it's 81 I think yeah okay we'll just call it 80 and so that's twice as much as what's allowed in the business Zone 60% more than what's allowed in R3 and 10 times more 10 12 times more than what's allowed in the R zone and so I'm concerned that that doesn't necessarily provide the transition that it claims to because it is not the transition everything else is transitioning from this to that and so how did we arrive at 80 units per the process was uh looking at the original Redevelopment plan and speaking with the the new property owner who expressed concern about their inability to have the site developed property financials were not viable essentially and so discussion was how can if and how can the Redevelopment plan be adjusted to ensure that the Redevelopment plan provides for a viable development and at that point uh it was evaluated from the perspective of architecture site function uh Etc as opposed to a simple simple numerical exercise um as opposed to just looking at a number it was really uh an effort to determine if the property the proposed building the proposed function of the site was appropriate for the area so who performed that anal like was so I just want to make sure I'm characterizing it correctly there was an analysis performed on the financial equation necessary to make this a viable project no that's not what I said what I said was yeah we're working with a developer who's who there's a goal to have a long vacant property be redeveloped we're working with a developer property owner who's indicated that the property is not viable under the existing Redevelopment plan and is there an opportunity to adjust it to ensure that the property is viable and it can be redeveloped who determines the viability of the new plan we're working with the developer there's a presumption when you have a developer in support of a project that the property that the Zoning for the site is realistic and that it's viable so I don't want to be laborate or be fractious but did the city perform the analysis of financial liability no okay no that's not been done if there's a pilot request it's certainly a financial analysis would be done at that point but I think that's a different analysis than what you're referring to has there been a pilot request for this site it's my understanding a pilot will be requested but there's been no uh no official action no uh no analysis in support of this particular plan so we anticipate that the potential developer needs a two time zoning it's hard to say because it's industrial I'm just looking at the kind of zoning density around it more than twice as much of most of what's around it but then we'll also be requesting a pilot to make the project viable I would assume that they'll ask but I can't I can't represent specifics or in or to be honest uh represent that the city will grant it they get Brownfield credits as well they may I don't have that detail Eric you find may I would like you to clarify something for me a very interesting point that you brought up you indicated that this is a transition area from what where you getting that from from what to what I mean from higher density to lower you said this is a transition location that's I believe I said that check sorry I said well where do that information come from master plan where does it come from Master well the goal of the development areas is to provide a transition between I guess the kind of industrial commercial character and higher density zones on one side of the site to a lower density on the other okay we typically see that I mean and there's all sorts of the the things you brought about in your the points you brought up from the master plan if you don't mind you're able okay I'm All Digital so I'm sorry totally I appreciate I understand where you're coming from you're saving and it's just getting to the point that if it's supposed to be consistent with surrounding character exceeding the surrounding character doesn't necessarily feel consistent or transitional or melding one to the other this will be larger in density than anything that surrounds it by multiples be larger density than the right yeah there were 32 units in the lofs I just looked it up yeah and there areund I'm sorry there are 60 okay yeah but what I really think that you should have more consist zoning than popping up development zon you know like why doesn't this why isn't this in the same fashion in terms of density as the walls CL they High um so it's interesting that on the parcels to the east for the three blocks between third and Asbury there are only one six residential units so we're going like nothing along Memorial to a very high density to the lowest potential density so it it just feels like there's a lot of [Music] you location you know I think that and that's one of the things that I mean I appreciate the the commentary about the density of surrounding area but one of the uh one of the things that I see in this neighborhood is a huge diversity so yes we have the single family homes and maybe I'll bring up a larger area in a second but yes we have the single family homes directly to the rear we have the Lofts to the right right on the screen and the commercial what's that and the APA housing I'm sorry APA yes yeah and that's exactly my point so in addition to these immediate surrounding uses which range from four to to one story depending on which building we're talking about um as you look at the the much as you uh pan out and I can show this if the board would like to another two blocks or so surrounding the area you see a much larger diversity in housing types and building Heights as well um with buildings that go up to I want to say eight stor for the Robinson Towers uh yeah eight stories we've got lumle homes it's six stories comto core it's seven stories and so I appreciate that's a little bit different than density itself the form of those buildings is quite different it is but my point is that there's significant diversity in the area and this is not an area that is simply say a single family District that has one building that's the odd man out this is an area of the City that really has a variety of land uses ranging from those single families to things that are more Industrial in nature to a supermarket to uh much taller uh apartment buildings to modestly uh or a similar height townhouse or condo buildings to single family homes and so the I think that's an important consideration as you think about the character of the area and and whether or not you think this building fits it's the story is told not just by the frontages that abut the site but really by I would say the surrounding blocks to the property but should should one of the considerations that this planning board uh take into account looking at this amendment is the financial uh viability of this project no uh so we should not we don't get into finances ever exactly my point Jack In other words what I'm saying is we shouldn't really be concerned with the developers Financial uh correct needs we shouldn't even be talking about I don't disagree but if asked why we had why we engaged with the developer I I want to share the the honest reason well what what I'm thinking of is that if it's not financially viable for the developer this year maybe three or four years down the road it might be and in the meantime exactly they trying to avoid we shouldn't be discussing the finances of the project we shouldn't be discussing that we we shouldn't speculate anything obviously if there's a private I'll go out on a limb here obviously if there's a private developer that comes before the council and asks for an amendment to a plan and they want to construct a project economics are always going to be the bottom line okay they're they're always going to be part of the bottom line because no developer is going to develop something that they can't make a profit on but that was derived from me asking a question about how we arrived at this density I understand I understand but I'm saying shouldn't say if they're going to it might be more viable in three years from now and all that we should stick to planning issues we all know in the background the finances are the the driver of these things you know my comment Jack was going to be that maybe this would be a great site for a park or a bll field at this point yeah but we that's not before us and that's not our job is to look at a lot of a lot of comments and they're good comments like I actually think this has been a great discussion um but what when it comes down to what we have to do tonight is the city council asked us to review this and give them recommendations so in the for the sake of and we're going to have to hear from the public absolutely you still have many things to characteriz being more productive there we made a lot of comments are there any um kind of more concrete suggestions that we would want give to the council in our supposed to be R reviewing consistency with the master plan that's our goal right that's the prim goal yeah I think we're not get directly we can go beyond that but we don't get into irrelevant jobs that we don't gets master plan like how is this consistent with a master plan that tells us inconsistent it's not how is this consistent with the master plan that tells us that the projects we undertake should be providing reasonable transitions between existing neighborhood character and new development which is if you don't mind pulling up which plan the the the the things you the master yes listed from the master and that was the point of my inquiry infil development complements the context and qualities of adjacent neighborhoods with an appropriate scale nasing and character so it's up to us to decide whether or not we think it does that exactly so the second thing I have a question about which is about transportation and traffic traffic at this density has there been an estimate of the number of cars associated with this site and meaning there are how many parking spaces provided it's 1.2 spaces per unit 30ish I counted yeah so it's 130 parking spaces has anyone estimated the number of cars likely to be associated with the site for the purpose of parking demand no there's been no study okay has there been an estimate of new trips ins and outs traffic that will be generated by the site no okay and has there been an estimate in the count of traffic existing in the area car counts pedestrian counts bite counts and uh crashes no okay so it seems hard for us to determine consistency and and none of these things but there are many things in the master plan that deal with pedestrian safety I think there's something in here about block ability or well this about organic historic development pattern so that speaks specifically to the setbacks on second and first and then my concern would be that with aund four units that there should at least be an estimate of how many likely cars would need to be parked on and off site so that the neighbors can be aware of what the likely impact is going to be on them as well as an understanding of the number of trips and to that point how did we arrive at First Avenue for the car entrances uh First Avenue was selected because it it seems to be the best uh location given the fact that we have residences long second facing the Lofts and so the idea of simply not adding uh vehicles coming out facing those homes in Langford is a rather Narrow Street first faces commercial uses and that was deemed to be the the most appropriate location Langford however has no neighbors and not in foreseeable future correct there's you're essentially looking at a blank wall on one side and an empty lot on the other which are both zoned light industrial yes however the like there are residence Residential Properties on both first and second right so commercial but to be fair I mean I don't want anybody to think that the the driveway exiting the property is facing residential units instead it's facing commercial the commercial uses along first and so if there were an access drive along Langford there's no reason to think that folks would not exit off of Langford and go up first or second absolutely correct however there are two stop signs on lford meaning that the traffic is likely and should be the slowest on Lanford is that correct I I would assume so yeah so it seems to me from a safety perspective the slowest traffic entry point would be on Langford rather than the flea free flowing traffic and bike lanes that it crosses on first and second and I would think that the council should consider relocating traffic towards Langford which is much more likely to remain a a street with this industrial next character than the side streaks of first and second which are extremely residential in character mhm [Music] I think that the board certainly has the power to make that recommendation um you got if if there's a majority of the board that wants to see the access shifted from uh from first to Del Langford certainly the board should make that consideration um I can tell you that that had been uh reviewed I don't want to suggest it was a an access study by a traffic professional but it had been reviewed and the concern cited was uh the narrowness of Langford and just the uh uh improved ability to uh to access first part of what you can see from the concept plan is that there's also increased setback of the building to the cartway as opposed to just simply from the property line along first and so not only do you have a wider street with a bit more maneuverability but you also have greater sight distance as you're exiting the building um there are multiple examples of other driveways within feet of Langford across First Avenue the partner engineering site has I believe two different entrances onto Langford with no setback and similar sight distance I'm not telling you it's inherently unsafe I'm just sharing the reasons why it was supported to First Avenue but like I said if the if the board thinks that that's an appropriate change you should make that comment for certain and I and I think that it's just we're looking for consistency right so we're doing we're creating a were we're opining on a Redevelopment plan and while they are one off here and one off there I feel like we should at least be looking for consistency among amongst them to some extent and also with the master plan and the master plan has much in there about protecting The Pedestrian character of residential neighborhoods if we have the opportunity to put the driveway on a street that is and is likely to being like industrial or commercial character that seems a better choice and has no bik LS that seems a better choice the it's an entrance yes we enter yeah yeah you got to run it by the rules yes there is an make sure you chance to make that it ends on one side and out on the I concern with doing a driveway Ling with it's about 35 ft wide uh bringing all these4 units you're going have a lot of cars on the street if they're parked on both sides usually you kind like 7 half park car you're going to have about 19 ft for 2way tra and usually you want a minimum will be like 10 ft travel so it gets real narrow with cars turning in that driveway but also C going down the street that's my only concerned with M uh Street being the driveway and the that's setbacks on first and second are better than L but more the WID than that however driveways exist up and down L sure yeah yeah and and they work for build for literal 18 wheelers from the laundry and from the grocer Drive okay so I would recommend that you know we ask for a you know reconsideration of how access is provided to the site to maintain The Pedestrian character of the side streets on first and second are we recommending pulling back the footprint from the first I also think that's that well the way they should work is that everybody will have their comments voted on by the board collectively whatever board votes in favor of will be included in the recommendations I I feel like we are segueing into comments which is which is a good thing but um haven't heard before we do that yeah we haven't heard from the public so um what we're going to do is anyone from the public who wants to ask questions of Beth about her testimony you can ask her any questions you like this is not the time if you have comments where you want to express to us your feelings about this this is not that yet we'll get to that we promise we'll get to that but this is if you have questions for Beth about her testimony um now is the time to go up to the microphone um tell us your name and your address you can ask Beth anything about what she has testified [Applause] okay all right do me a favor please yeah now are you using your phone for notes or are you communicating with somebody I my notes are in my phone perfect okay is that okay that's fine okay great now before you ask the questions could you please identify yourself and where you live yes my name is Sonia Spina I live at 1012 Avenue in The Lofts building I'm also the communications director for the city of Asbury Park oh okay um hi Beth um I have some questions for you which um were in the information that was um shared with us which I don't think you discussed but can you explain to us um the amendment talks about Podium parking and what that changes yeah I would be happy to so Podium parking let me just actually this is a good image for it Podium parking is uh just a term used for uh surface parking that is below a building okay so uh if you can you can see in this plan right here the the cars parked those are parked in a uh just essentially like an asphalt you know surface parking lot with the building the building as a Podium above it so maybe the name Podium parking which is commonly used is perhaps not the most dist descriptive because I guess the building itself is on the podium but but that's what it means that the building the residential units are generally speaking above the surface parking okay as opposed to a parking garage that you would circulate up on multiple stories but some of this parking will be open yes and this is another yeah so if you see on this picture uh for example along first you'll see the parking exceeds the limits of the building and then if I go back to the concept plan right there um if you if you look at the back row of parking spaces on the right side of the screen you see a line that runs through it if you can see from back there that's the line of the building and so the building so basically a portion of those back parking spaces on the right and then the back parking spaces on the left with the access is what exceeds the building and those will be fa in the houses so yes so um the way that the parking is oriented on the three sides uh Langford to the bottom of the screen obvious maybe not obviously but those Vehicles will face the street on second uh on the right side of the screen there are no vehicles facing the street they either face uh to the uh to to the uh to the rear or towards the the lobby area towards Langford and then on on First Avenue the vehicles in the in that case yes they face the street and then to the rear closest to Langford they face the rear property line but I do want to highlight once more that required in the plan is uh is a 5 foot buffer but also a solid fence along the rear property a solid fence yes okay and then the other question I have is um it looks like they're asking for a change from the uh maximum I should brought my readers with me they're not actually um online no I'm okay thank you um so they're asking for an increase so five floors right but it says with the exception of common areas depicted on appendix B so how high will Those portions of the building be it so the Redevelopment plan requires oh that's the wrong way [Music] come on there we go sort of hold on let me just I'm going to show you the building height requirement in here there we go so the building height is 55 ft excluding the uh excluding Penthouse Mechanicals and elevator stairs and bulkheads uh I don't have a a specific requirement but we have that maximum height and I also want to note elsewhere in the plan it also requires that any uh mechanical equipment Etc be located centrally to the roof of the building and then also screened if it can be viewed okay and then my last question is for the increase in lot coverage that they're asking for which looks like from 65 75 to 80 90 is that um a common request from all the developments that are coming through to increase the coverage on their properties I would say anytime you have uh a development that's seeking additional intensity whether it's residential density or sorry I just want to make sure I'm picked up whether it's residential density or for commercial property they're looking for more retail area for example that's typically coupled with an expansion of the building cover and the lot cover so it's to the extent that you have that the city or any town has developers coming in looking to do something uh I would say it's very common for them to request increases to those measurements okay um and I keep my comments to myself till later right I think so yeah SAR please state your name for the record and your address Jordan Modell 101 2nd Avenue like most of us from the ls um so there's a few things that I wanted to um address ask you're going to ask questions yes I yep yep yep yep well I wanted to clarify something right cuz if you have something on here and it may or may not be correct can I can I clarify that please please no worries okay so the the previous plan um the developers the previous developers actually did come and show renderings um it was I just wanted to clarify it was four stories that were proposed not five so I understand was adopted but that's not was proposed the commercial space they actually had two restaurants and two retail stores there that were proposed and rendered okay so I just wanted to clarify that that has changed dramatically to the comment that you had before on that this is very much a mixed use area you had a it was a slide that you had up on maybe the a historical was it you know the gentleman with the black T-shirt I can't remember I'm terrible at name sorry sir um so one of the things that hasn't been brought up in in relation to parking just to your comment is both Lumley and what's the the name of the tower stock court or the Robinson Tower Robinson right okay does not have a lot of vehicles right they parking lot there's not a lot of vehicles associated with if you're going to testify you've got to be sworn in okay and that's not the time for Testimony got it you're going to get their chance but I you've got to start asking some questions okay sorry so uh first question contaminated what type of contamination is there we just found out I believe there were underground storage tanks but I really don't have additional information on that okay second um at one point they were saying that um to cover the 1.2 parking spaces or the 130 parking spaces they were going to double up on parking spaces in other words they were going to have you know one on the bottom one on the top um is that still the case no uh I think you're I think you might be referring to when they came to the council meeting in October 2023 that had been part of their proposals uh as well as increased number of housing units as a result of that meeting the density has come down and with that has been the elimination of the parking stackers as they're called got it okay um I'll save the rest of the col yeah you'll get your chance we'll make sure hi I'm Dave Swanson from the lofs as well and my question has to do with the rendering that you showed and again talking about the setback that um Eric was pointing out um not that rendering the yeah so you from the picture it looks as though there's a grass area sidewalk which I assume is the the the city's right of way but there also shows another grassy area before the actual building itself so if you're saying that on that street there's a zero footprint I'm confused by the rendering because it doesn't appear to me as though it's a zero footprint with the building if there is that grassy area so which you I to believe the statement or the picture uh both but let me explain why it's confusing because I I appreciate your concern it doesn't this picture fundamentally does not look like a zero foot St act correct yeah um but you're I think a lot of your assumption is correct so what we see here is where you can see the street tree there that's certainly within the city right away I think as folks would accept uh expect the sidewalk is within the city right of way as well as you would expect what's also in the city right of way that you would not expect is the area they're showing it with uh between the sidewalk and the building sort of plantings in that area that's also actually within the city right of way okay so how big is space how it's going to result in a a setback of I want to say 25ish feet okay I think it's I want to say it's noted as 20 seven on their plan from the cartway it's 27 on uh on the appendix on the rendering thank you yeah and how wide is this from Cur from the curve just to give me some context so because I'm I don't do this every day so yeah uh I think the sidewalk in this area is maybe four feet or so five feet 5et can you go to the site plan again cuz because the setback is always measured from the property line we don't measure side Backs from the curb right that's why that so much of that land is within the city right here yeah okay and there's a twoot setback from the property line everything to the north is technically in the city right way so it's got a two foot setback on second am I correct and a two foot setback on first okay there is an anomaly here where this the houses on second are closer to the street than the houses on first I totally understand and appreciate that comment that part I understood thank you you good questions or answered that that's my question I'll yeah okay sure hi uh Mike Sedano uh 4th Avenue question yes how many units are there the plan permits 104 and how many parking spaces it's 1.2 parking spaces per unit so roughly 130 or so so will the developer be restricting renter I mean are these condos renters buying I don't uh I'm anticipating for rent so will the developer be restricting the residence to 1.2 cars per unit uh well certainly not 1.2 cars per unit um how what whether the uh developer put something into the lease is something is not an answer I know right now that would certainly be subject to planboard discussion as well as any Redevelopment agreement if the if the city felt appropriate so I guess the question becomes what happens to all those people who rent in the 104 units and have two cars where do those extra cars park well some of those extra cars might be uh will certainly be accommodated within the building for those units that don't have two cars um there are one of the things that the the board and the public might find interesting is the breakdown of the market rate units for example so there's 10 Studios 26 one-bedrooms 15 one-bedrooms with a den and uh 32 two bedrooms and so given the the number of studios and the one-bedrooms I think that we're likely to see uh vehicle ownership uh for at least those units certainly below two two vehicles per unit that's going to create space within the parking garage and yes to your point or I'm sorry I'm assuming your point there may also be uh folks that are using uh on street parking as well on street parking on Langford first and second presumably do you live on first second or Langford no thank you any other questions from the public for this witness okay move to public comment Y second second thought of something else another question like what do we get to meat we'll allow you so you know in in other Redevelopment plans throughout the city there are public realm and sort of public RightWay requirements placed on the potential developer so I'm curious if there were any conversations to transition some of the parking to head- in parking perhaps on first or second in the area of the site to increase parking Supply that discussion has not been had okay okay public comment so this is the part where uh you guys from the public can well you got to get sworn in there your opinions it's got to be based on Bel to be the truth and your address and I'll sorry Jack there's no other Witnesses right just me just okay sir please raise your right hand Sol swear or firm Tes you're about to give this matter with the truth whole truth and nothing but the truth I do okay please state your name again for the record can spell it and your give us your address once again David Swanson spelled s w a n s o n like Jak brought thank you and I live on one1 Second Avenue great you got the floor okay first thing I want to say is I want to thank the board um I watch you guys for every single meeting I love your passion and I love what you do for this city Eric you especially as both a citizen and as a board member you speak to my heart when you talk about the city and you guys are terrific so thank you very much for all of your effort that's the first thing I want to say the second thing um I know that we just had another meeting about Fourth and Fifth Avenue in the vacant lot there and there was a lot of uh talk about the same types of questions about the density about the parking with that picture that's shown up there the one thing that I kind of question is you can see that there's a tractor trailer parked on Langford Street there um there's one parked with a cab attached and there's one parked without a cab attached and I don't know whether or not that's legal parking on Langford um but that consumes a lot of parking spaces and I've taken pictures of it I was going to bring it but my printer ran out of ink so I didn't have enough to show you guys luckily it's right here in the rendering um those kind of things if we had a little bit more um I don't know like I said I don't know if it's legal or not legal for the laundry to be parking their trailers on on the road but if it is legal maybe we should consider that and that might relieve some of the parking concerns that I know everyone has but the density issues are a concern and um I especially feel the same way that Eric does about the setback and um the importance of lining the building up with uh the at least the front porches of the houses that run along long First Avenue there I think that that's an important part of it and that's why my question was about the uh um the setback and so forth so um that's all I have as far as comment goes but thank [Music] you please raise your right hand swear testimony about to give this Mar the truth whole truth and nothing I do pleas you state your name again for the record spell it and give us your address Sonia Spina SP n my address is 101 Second Avenue thank you um thank you everybody we really appreciate um being noticed even though it was a hard notice I'm glad we got them and I had a chance to come and listen to this um I feel like I'm going to say a lot of things that other people are going to say and I'll I'll be fast um the density really concerns us um as someone mentioned the Lofts is 32 units um and it does feel like it fits nicely into the neighborhood there I I don't feel like we are an overwhelming building with an overwhel overwhelming amount of traffic um I worry about adding so many units um in the middle of our neighborhood um the uh parking um thank you for explaining that earlier I didn't really understand and what that meant um one of our concerns is um the amount of cars um and um lights going into everybody's units um around the four sides of the building so just want to keep that in mind um the one thing about uh you know I I laugh every time I hear the 1.2 which you know I know James going to come over and talk to me tomorrow about it but um it it it just never makes any sense to me like every single person in our building has a car Unfortunately they drive all over the place to work and back you know the entire point is we try to park and then we try to ride our bikes everywhere on the weekends um but there are still cars like every single person that's going to be in that building is going to have a car and they are going to have their friends come visit they're going to have their babysitters they're going to have their housekeepers they're going to have everybody coming in and it's an extraordinary amount of traffic and I just want to keep that in mind as you are deciding what to do with of these cars and where you were going to park them um the height of the building I still want to understand that because um I you know again these on SEC first and second Avenue you know we walk around our neighborhoods all the time the view is beautiful it is so nice to see everybody on their front porches we are raising our kid here we have so many kids in the neighborhood um and I just love the feeling of walking up and down the street and seeing everyone out I don't like the setbacks that basically cover people's porches and um it feels like a big brick wall that you are putting at the end of our neighborhood um and that I'll leave it everything to everyone else thank you ready Marie all right let's get the gentleman this morning sir please raise your right hand so swear affirm the testimony about the giv this matter the truth whole truth and nothing but the truth yes please state your name again for the record spell it and give us your address sure you can put your hand down okay uh Jordan Modell uh Modell Store Jord secondary country secondary store 101 Second Avenue at the ls yeah your fair enough okay you want to start the thing I'm not going to take um actually basically ditto to Sonia thank you very much for articulating that I just wanted to take it a little bit further about our concerns on height parking and density um the main one is actually I like to cover a little bit more on parking and what parking is like now and what parking would like be like in the future um one of the things I think that is not being taken into account um as a lot of people pointed out is the business the washing the people that are washing the sheets right those people need to park somewhere and I don't know how far they're going to be chased by the parking that's going to be taken up by this incredibly dense building and as Sonia correctly pointed out their babysitters their friends and everybody else who's going to be parking if you go on the Second Avenue that old area right now you will find a parking spot but it's not like there's no parking whatsoever I mean there not like you can always always find a parking spot especially in on High season the second thing having been it being on the parking committee that's pointed out is these people can charge whatever they want as far as I understand for parking so for example on the one on Lake Drive Right their parking lot is James please correct me something like 25% empty because they're charging what is it two or $300 a month for parking and people can't afford to pay that or don't want to pay that so they will actually be forced out onto the street tuo so it's not even that all of the units there will take advantage of the parking there if they charge exorbitant amounts for parking so it is really creating a tough situation for the neighborhood for parking for accidents we've been having a lot more accidents on Second Avenue um the second thing is as far as a developers go um whatever he speaks with fork tongue which is meaning that they keep saying one thing and then I keep hearing another thing and just as a citizen and My worry is that if you approve this all of a sudden they may come back to you and say you want know what I still can't afford it I need X more I need X more things from you what truly truly worries me is that they have not proven their financial need I understand it's not part of this conversation but it's the whole point why they're going from 80 to 104 there's no proof on there for that nor has there been a parking study I don't understand how we could possibly move forward with this without doing a major parking study thank you very [Music] much Sor right please raise your right hand so swear of confirm I swear okay well the testimony that you're about to give this matter be the truth the whole truth and nothing the truth I do you state your name for the record spell it and give us your address Mike Mike Sedano s o d o 104th Avenue thanks Mike here we go again um for the last six weeks we've been uh voicing our opinion on density okay density at 1201 Memorial and now we're hit with density on Langford first and second I don't understand how density gets approved how we get how anyone can possibly say we need 104 units yes it's great that we're getting development but why do we need 104 units on a in a in a neighborhood uh like this number two uh the parking okay I I won't go into all that number three the setback okay you're putting this building right up to the sidewalk have you seen the Waterfront lately okay and the buildings in the Waterfront that are right up to the curb right up to the sidewalk it looks like mini New York down there and it's just going to continue so I don't understand why we keep approving building right up to the sidewalk since I've been here in 2007 all I've heard um in in complaints about the Waterfront Redevelopment are I'm sorry we really can't do anything about that because that was all approved by an earlier planning board Bo and an earlier city council well in 10 years you guys are going to get the blame for approving a project like this in 121 Memorial because people are going to start complaining about the density again of those of the units that are coming up so I strongly urge you to relook at density um parking and and um what' I say uh setbacks okay um and somebody should do an impact study okay what is the impact of these developments in the neighborhood sure you can count cars but what's the impact and there's got to be somebody who says the impact of 104 units and and whatever the guy wants to be you approved for 1201 Memorial has to have an impact on the neighborhood we should be looking at that and being a little smarter about our decisions thanks [Music] you're please raise your right hand help me swear affirm testimony about to give this the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do please state your name for the record and spell it and give us your address my name is suzan s u z i n NE e maraki m a r o c CI and my address is 100012 Avenue thank you the picture here of Langford doesn't show that occasionally there'll be a school bus pared because I believe on the corner there's a board of bed like truck maybe they keep plows or something there but there's there have been school buses as recently as last week no one else no one has mentioned that one block over and one block west is an elementary school so we have a lot of children walking to school I don't have children of school age but a I see a lot of children walking to school and my concern is the impact on all the park the cars that are going to be coming and going whether it's in and out of Langford in and out of first just the increase in the cars coming to for the people who live in this building and um the the increase of traffic during the school hours so nobody's mentioned the school that's just right around the corner and I'm not even talking about the impact that the residents of the building may have on the school good or bad I don't I don't know how filled the classrooms are but I do see a lot of children walking to school I mean now it's summer well now they have summer school but um that's just my observation um I think there was one other thing if my I have kind of a question but an observation if the entrance to the building is First Avenue why is it considered the back of the building the west side of the building not Second Avenue which you'll have a a fence where the fence will go and a 5 foot or whatever property line or buffer zone and if the lobby is Second Avenue most guests will be coming in and out so they're most likely going to be parking if there is parking on second if the lobb's on Second Avenue there on the on the north side of the building that's where the guests will be most likely parking and I'm not even sure if he can park on both sides of the street of Langford I've only seen cars parked on the west side not the the east side so that's all thank you you're welcome any other comments from the public motion second second all in favor I any opposed eyes have it when you in your deliberations now and your comments my recommendation to approach this in the most logical way would be give me some findings and then I need recommendations so that we have both these are our findings these are our recommendations for a consistency with the master plan or inconsistency with the master plan and such other areas that you deem relevant when you say findings what do you mean well like you know based on what you the presentation let's say for example you find that um uh according that it may not be consistent can you put those four things up it may not be consistent with the master plan and what why you think it's not inconsistent and then you know go right down the list of things that you find like we find that we should have a uh transportation thing and then then the recommendations would be based on our findings we recommend that the mayor and Council consider these following requests for modifying and upgrading the uh potential project I think that the uh the asking for the increase in density is out of context with the quality of it's not the appropriate scale since it'll be at a much higher density even even the approved density is higher in the surrounding area and it's exacerbated by request for an increase in density and I think that the U the the the footprint on First Avenue which is have a building going past the fronts of the vacation homes going west makes it out of scale as [Music] well I'm sorry I I interrupt you're good I S A comment I mean one just to keep in mind that these are the master plan review items that were shared but there are other elements that could be considered in terms of the master plan besides these um but one thing that we didn't really talk about much but um I think Sony's comment brought it to light is that the architecture does not lend itself to interacting with the neighborhood so if that's a a desirable characteristic I mean this type of architecture exists in plenty of places in the city but to have a quality of interacting on the street which that neighborhood does have a lot of interacting on the street now um this by having Podium parking which might be a necessity I don't know uh yeah I mean it's definitely an inward in my opinion in inward facing architecture so it's you go you live there and it's sort of a community to itself in a sense because there's no from the architecture that I see now which I realize might change to some level um I don't see much that would make one want to interact with somebody on the street which I think is a desirable quality um in most place in the city and yeah any of the inward facing it just concerns me that it's it's very inward facing architecture I'm going to come back to the setbacks um to me when when when I first looked at this plan this was the first thing that that jumped out at me um especially because this has come up in other plans uh on First Avenue it looks like the building is about setback with the prevailing setback of the houses at Second Avenue it's not and just to think out loud part of me is like well you know if you look around the corner if you look across Langford you look on the kitty corner on First Avenue there's buildings kind of all over the place um but I actually think Eric said it really well which is how do we think forward how how do we make the city better how do we restore the plan of the city and if we have an opportunity here to restore the sight lines along Second Avenue um and kind of preserve some of the uh sidelines of the neighborhood interactivity of the neighborhood I think that's a a recommendation worth making to the council so my recommendation would be that we you know that the city consider making the setback on Second Avenue um the prevailing setback of the single family homes you me first yeah first yep everything I just said switch it no no no no no I get it I just didn't want everything I said I said it backwards okay no no no just reference to Second Avenue I got the rest I'm I'm sorry everybody I got the rest of it we're good go down the line a good Jim I also think that the U permitted uses should not be changed from the original I think that uh there should be some commercial uh uses in this building I don't think it should all should be all residential and so I recommend that the no changes be made in the original uh uh resolution ask you a followup question Jim so in the original resolution the the commercial uses were not required they were permitted yes but this amendment uh changes is that it uh it says that on the ground floor residential uh amenity space and parking and uh basically that eliminates the excuse me that eliminates the commercial use uh unless it's the possibility of commercial eliminates the possibility of commercial use [Music] I think the the issue of commercial use here is not clearcut because there are no true retail locations because it's industrial so this isn't you know I guess but within industrial uses you could have car repair shops or you know machine so there is stuff that could be reasonably as retail I don't think I don't think a small retail stall or a cafe would be an unwelcome addition but a necessary one I wonder because Memorial Drive and Main Street really serve that function within the local so I you know I'm not I'm not trying to contradict you in any way Jim I just it's more Thinking Out Loud Like is this where an only residential use is needed but something that was said about what makes the front of the building the front and what makes the back of the building the back right we we're treating First Avenue like it's the back of the building because it has a drrive the dry bile and we're treating First Avenue like it's the front because it has the residential entrance so it does have a very clear frontal Direction orientation towards first and maybe having two residential lobbies on the corners something like that and the drive aisle in the middle on Langford could kind of create the sense that these are two you like it has two fronts which is the neighborhood has two sides The Mirror Has Two Faces um you know it so there's a I think there's something to be said there but I guess it we have to get to the first point before we get to recommendations which I think Dan was saying about like do we think this is consistent with the master plan and I think that's a difficult question for us to first answer and if it's yes that's one thing and if it's no then we have a series of recommendations would you agree Jack yes but you you you elaborated on traffic and things like that oh yeah I mean I can talk also about those things yeah you made some comments that you thought that it wasn't necessarily consistent with because if we can take all of this I'm going to ask the board to vote on this as and then we will edit out what the board doesn't want collectively or and keep in what the board does want just a point of Cl I'm sorry Eric just a point of clarification Jack can the board still provide comments if they uh recommendations if they find it consistent with the master plan yes yeah okay I thought I thought so I thought you I thought you were saying no for that's fine okay but if we say no I think the list is probably potentially a lot longer no that's fine I just want a clarification on that yeah absolutely it cuts both and and I think from the perspective of transportation and parking at the bare minimum the developer should be required to conduct and this is an important distinction an impact study on the local network and parking demand in the neighborhood that will be created by the site not simply how many cars drive up and down the street now what more do we expect to be added and what impact does that have on the surrounding neighborhood what are the likely Roots what traffic calming elements are necessary to modify behavior is there are there any regulatory things that need to be put in place like right turn only or certain hours when you can move that way or that way I don't know do we do we need a four-way stop like you know what is the what is the what is the plan to manage the impact and I just don't know that that's been answered and the so the just so I'm clear because I'm probably going to chat with the developer and certainly the council about this is the recommendation to take the the traffic impact study that the planning board would get at the time of site plan instead basic Ally submit that to council as part of the Redevelopment preparation process is that a traffic impact study though I think that's I mean I think that's essentially study well traffic impact study is how much traffic is going to be generated by the project what are the likely turning movements do those turning movements work has the level of service changed do what is the parking proposed does the parking work on the property that you're saying that goes with site plan approval yeah I mean that's the typical traffic impact standards that we have to apply we don't have traffic impact standards that we apply we only have the regulations for Z how can you how can one how can anybody assess whether or not it's I I don't want to say consistent with the master plan because that's not it but like how can we assess anything if we don't understand what it's likely impacted you can't I'm not saying you shouldn't have it they hire Traffic Engineers they perform certain studies and come back and make recommendations but you if it's but yeah I mean I think that that's prior to thear development plan those things should be done that's all part of large scale redevelop all developments okay but if we can can we focus if perhap we can think about uh what what section do we find it to be generally consistent with the men plan the exception of X Y and Z or what I mean I I I need to get that from the board I I can't create that for you I mean I find it consistent from the perspective of meeting affordable hous housing goals from many other perspectives I do not find it consistent okay well you don't have to give me no I don't have to give you a lithany of the Saints but you can give me a oh yeah so I think for my for my perspective is the traffic and part impacts the setback and okay relationship to surrounding neighborhoods and transition between higher density and lower density I got that [Music] okay [Music] okay I would just say um the creating pedestrian friendly streets aspect is not I don't see that happening with this plan yeah like the kind of level of activ see if I can uh put this say that not you don't think4 request is consistent I think the plan is consistent with trying to meet our affordable housing goals I sort of Sid stepped whether 100 before is the right number because I have no way of knowing how about if I C let me couch this in these terms and see what the consensus is okay uh your Finance okay it's pretty much in general of anyone who's made a comment that the density the issue it's too dense right it's got to be elaborated upon but it's too dense based on uh cir the condition of the neighborhood the transition of the Zone all the zoning all that sort of thing okay you also find that the setbacks are inconsistent with the prevailing setbacks within the neighborhood especially along first aenue and the organic or historic development patter okay okay well okay um uh and the articulation of the architecture is inconsistent with the Street Escapes in the neighborhood uh one individual would like that the permitting existing commercial uses be permitted to go okay the recommendations obviously would be the converse of these that uh mayor and Council consider increasing those setbacks on First Avenue um Ingress an ER a traffic study in addition to a detailed traffic study and impact study on the local on a local Street Network I would call it a traffic impact network analysis okay but how however you want to call it that's fine because you I I'll expect comments from you when I send this resolution okay uh and best location for Ingress ESS you're going to need traffic counts the impact on Langford with the commercial vehicles being parked that there you need an extensive study that gives you that addresses the issues that the board has raised okay and that that the council should consider that okay uh have I missed anything I have one last thing to go uh this I did not bring up earlier is about the public art I would encourage you to think less about murals and more about how the the grassy areas might be used for something less paint based a sculpture yeah a statue any so you you want you want site you want very I mean I don't know how specific it is in the plan you're showing kind of mural spread across the front so the the plan requires the the architecture be consistent but not not certainly not the specific murals on the plan those are not mockups of what would be constructed but the one thing I wanted to say I'm not sure if this is relevant you're talking about the sculpture and other folks have talked about the um the activation which it's not an activation issue but there is a a provision in the plan that allows for the the way the right of way and the frontage is designed to be at the planning board's discretion so it it doesn't address things like activation from the perspective of having a commercial use that is active on the street but in terms of board discretion on how that right of way is treated what what goes there whether it's art or uh Street Furniture for or plantings that's subject to the board's discretion really like that Eric I'm writing that down for when we get back to S what sculptures sculpture yeah we have so many lovely murals we need a sculpture we need a companion sculpture for all those lovely murals I have a practical question because it's in the that area is in the city right away when you just say the planning board has um input or whatever the term that you just said when because I know it's often an issue as to anything in the right of way maintenance and the city and everything so in this case since it's a Redevelopment plan is that different because usually it's very limited what the city would want the Redevelopment plan doesn't uh doesn't disrupt or change the Ci's existing regulations but in terms of how that right of way is treated is something that I think that the board can weigh in on and to the extent that uh there's activities proposed within the right of way developers will provide an easement to the city uh so that they can conduct activities or put structures there approve it any right away mayor and Council has to approve it right it's not an encroachment like so let's just say there were pedestrian bump outs at the corners narrowing The Crossing distance on first and second that's not an encroachment that's just a literally just a different treatment of existing that's more of like a street design change that the developer might weigh in on maybe I don't want to get into how that might work from a relationship between the city and the developer that's sort of a different issue I mean if the area between the sidewalk and the building if the planning board felt strongly want to weigh in that's within the the board's discretion and uh to the extent that the board wanted to direct what type of plantings what type of area uh design might be appropriate um it is within the city's right of way but I would encourage the board to make those comments during the site plan application so that they can be incorporated into the site plan any future Redevelopment agreement into the extent that there's an agreement with the council to handle the way that right of way is treated uh the board would have an opportunity to weigh in can you clarify for us can you just go to a site plan and tell us where that area of discretion starts and ends because I I just got confused because it's in the right way but yeah so let's look at this there's uh it just simply there's just simply a statement that says that the uh the Landscaping uh and frontages need not be consistent with the concept plan it can be done at the planning board's discretion and so uh my point here is is that what you see shown on this plan are basically um uh decorative plantings essentially between the sidewalk in the street I think that that's an area that the board should uh if you're interested weigh in on ask questions during the site plan hearing and if if the board feels strongly about way that the way that area should be treated I think it's within the board's jurisdiction to uh to make that clear during the site plan approval even if it uh is going to lead the developer to have to have a discussion with the council there's I'm anticipating a Redevelopment agreement ju for this site just like most any other Redevelopment project that would move forward can you go back to a site plan if you don't mind sure just so that so I just want to be clear so you're talking about the area between the property line here and the building is that the area that well that's not within the right of way but that is certainly part of also what I'm talking about I was I was speaking the larger area along the Avenue to the curve from from the property line to the curve is also sort of within the yeah you see they're ID well you can't see because I know the the plan is small uh but the text there says uh landscape area identified in sort of these greenish boxes I think they're more clear on along First Avenue um but yeah they're also along second that does the Redevelopment plan dictate the streetcape improvements no it does not so that's something that has to be by the planning board as opposed to being imposed correct okay so that yeah much like the way the board would indicate whether you wanted a bike rack on the sidewalk ex taken up in s plan yeah I mean I would encourage like much broader thought about The Pedestrian amenities including bumping up the curves to narrow widths and slow cars down and like there's just so much that could be done yeah the the plan doesn't take a position on that and so it's it's open for for discussion by the board and by the city I mean I would suggest that's the responsibility of the developer you could make it similar to the project on Grand cookman and Lake Avenue they exensive those bump outs all that whole bump out spent a lot of time on them now that one I think the plan itself they dictated those bump outs so here you're going to have to come up with something no the plan there said that it result of the infrastructure element of the Waterfront plan which did not allow bump outs it was there there was some ordinance or statutory document that said this is what you need to put there here we don't have that this is going to be up to discretion of the board to improve the street schem well I think what we might be saying is within this Redevelopment plan we could request public Lo improvements such as yeah you can request that when the r vment plan is so amended that there' be a provision putting in there allowing for the board to impose you know sculpture work and sculpture pieces and so on and streetcape improvements for the project so that they don't come up and say well there's nothing in the plan that allows you to do this yeah I I mean I think that that's we shouldn't be we shouldn't be stopped at the curb essentially because that doesn't allow us to move the curve it's also so that I'm I'm like a broken record but the activation thing mhm like I'm not to belate but the first AB because we're treating the first AB like the back of the building is that can it's a really long expanse of just looking at a parking you know and so what happens between the sidewalk and the building is going be really important and there are opportunities that we can say now to not have it just be the back of of the building and I absolutely think that you should have front frontages on first and second to talk with you about this it's going to be complex trying to keep it simple I'm trying to keep Notes too yeah I could okay you don't have an AI not take that's next I'm sure you could okay you can run the video I I kind of get the gist as long as the board gets the gist of what we're doing and what our findings are and what what uh our recommendations are so I'm going to need that in the form of a motion and then we got to see if the board collectively approves all of them or they want to start editing out I don't dictate you dictate to me does anyone want to make a motion basically what we've just discussed is there any is anybody not I guess I guess the one I'm still stuck on is are we saying this is consistent with the master plan or not because in my head I feel like it's largely it's it's attempting to be consistent with the master plan but but with but could be improved upon to be more consistent with the master plan well through the magic of Lees okay and how lawyers can we can say make the general comment board FES the that the proposed amendments to the Redevelopment plan are generally consistent with the master plan however in the following areas the board feels that the project is not consistent with the master plan and those areas are we'll write down this list that we talked about and these are the recommendations so you can do it you can I think we should I think we should split the baby or whatever they say what's that expression um yeah like I think we essentially say it's consistent with respect to providing affordable housing but it's inconsistent on these levels yeah yeah I mean it it's not it's not there's no magic I mean I I I can say that in general you know you're not saying the whole thing is bad you know you want to throw the whole thing out and tell them start scratch you start from scratch we say that it's generally consistent however these are the IR areas that the board deems that it's not consistent and just go right down them and in in light of those findings we we feel these are the following recommendations that we give to the mayor and Council for revising this my concern with saying that it is generally consistent though is it's like almost an immediate hour it's like it's actually not quite you're lawyering the thing Eric I'm the lawyer you're lawyering the thing let me do what I do and I if you're saying the whole plan is bad then say it's bad but if you're saying that in general it's somewhat consistent fine but I will point out the areas that you believe that it's not consistent and that and that and not leave anything that you want out and then make the recommendations most I I would believe the goal is to find out what you think is inconsistent and what the best recommendations are to get the best project back from the mayor and Council before the planning board that's that's a win for the City win for the applicant and a win for the neighbors yeah and I I actually see this as two things is there there are things about the plan that I I think we could say are inconsistent with the master plan and here's a recommendation and there's also other things that are not necessarily inconsistent with the master plan but that are recommendations we could make um to improve the project basically that's it and I go right right right to the point get what you want down on the paper so that the council understands exactly where you stand and what your recommendations are I make it clear I can't make it any clear you notice in theing years I've been doing this I keep things simple but directly to the point so that nobody can misinterpret what I'm saying and that's why I suggest it so we have to take on the on the issue Well yeah if couch this in terms of a motion and see if you can get the votes to pass the motion well so I guess where I'm sitting right now is I I have five things written down uh I want to go through them and I kind of just want people's take on sure are they inconsistent with the master plan or are they just things that we would like to rec are not necessarily in inconsistent with the master plan but that are things that we would yeah recommendations we'd like to make like I'll say number one is that the density is too high compared to the surrounding neighborhood sure and we recommend looking at reducing density to me that is in consistent with master plan yeah but don't but don't say that because as Jack said you we're we're saying in general this meets the requirements but specifically we think that the proposed density is too great and not consistent with the plan right okay that's pretty straightforward so do people feel density is or say do people feel density the density here is or isn't consistent with the master plan I think it's inconsistent inist in terms of the neighborhood and the overall density in the neighborhood okay and how you're going to apply it to those principles in the master plan okay you feel that it's not consistent I get that so that's that would be not an appropriate transition yeah that's fine I get it that's one whereas so the next one is setbacks setbacks do not respect the historic development pattern of the city yeah okay okay next one the exterior of I want I think we should clarify that that setback you know like you have to look at setback on all three sides it's not just first or second it's like we got to look at it from all all sides well has there's been no finding that the setbacks along lford or inconsistent if you're going to push and pull here you're going to have to push and pull there it should yeah what I had actually written down was that the setbacks aren't consistent with the historical development plan and we would recommend that the setback on First Avenue be consistent with the prevailing setback of the single family homes at first pretty straightforward and to that point when you're starting to recognize the kind of Urban Design of the neighborhood there are front doors on first and second lots of them and this site should have a front feeling door on both sides so that you don't have the back of a building 300 ft long by 200 feet wide with one entrance facade next one I have I think like activated facades that's the next one I have the exterior of the building is not interactive with this surrounding neighborhood right um and we recommend uh increasing I would say ground floor Interac first and second like they are front doors and treat Langford like it's the the the the vehicular and service entry like that's the nature of the street do we want to get that specific well that's how I think that's where the you want the facade and character of the building to interact with the residential character of first and second like prioritize those for interaction act activation okay and is this this is one where I'm struggling with I would love for the building to be more interactive of course is it inconsistent with the master plan or is this just something we'd like to recommend I think it's inconsistent with the master plan I think it is too is a pedestrian from the walkability encouraging yeah it's safety too like everybody's always coming in and out of one side and it's much easier to get away with something where you know nobody's coming in out okay next one I have is um that's not I don't know how to put this one but we're we're concerned about the increasing traffic and parking we're going to recommend a traffic impact and network analysis inconsistent with the master plan or just something we want to recommend yeah I think it's inconsistent to where where is it inconsistent yeah that's well I think we don't know the impact and so we can so just say so then don't worry about whether it's inconsistent or consistent it's it's it's a good idea it's a good recommendation and we'll put it in there as a strong recommend finding and a strong recommendation I'm not concerned whether it's technically inconsistent or consistent with the master plan it just makes sense I think it's a great idea you know get the point across the idea is trying to get them I'm I'm the the the B I'm not worried about consistent or inconsistency I'm more concerned about the remedies and seeing those remedies come into fruition okay okay and so I think to the like you could bundle together a bunch of things about pedestrian safety traffic transportation and parking all into one thing which is to say that the design of the street and the impact of the traffic and parking should all be okay part of this revelop plan okay next one I have is use so this is one uh Jim recommended that we leave commercial uses on the ground level is a permissible use I I struggle with this one for for one reason and that's because I know if there's commercial uses on the ground level there will be less parking that's just what happens right there's only so much area on the ground level I put that one to a vote yeah what do people think let's let's go right down the line well if you excuse me if you um if the density is uh not increased but uh left as it is then your parking requirements are substantially less but the issue is before us whether or not you want to leave that commercial use as you recommended in or out correct I think yes okay so let's get a vote on you okay let's go Right Down the Line Eric yes in or out yes or no before you vote can I actually interrupt thank you um I actually would like to bundle this one with we talked about we want to make the exterior of the building more interactive um and our recommendation was just to increase ground floor interactivity that's that's hard but we also yeah what does that mean I don't know reality but I would like to bundle in there if we we could just bundle in there and leaving a commercial use as a permissible use then they can decide how to make that ground floor more interactive maybe it's adding or maybe it's not that complicates the issue isn't the isue whether or not you want to continue commercial use at this C I think I think we're pining words it is permissible to be Reed no it's being asked to be no I but it's only permitted it's not no this plan prohibits it the previous this 2024 Amendment prohibits the commercial use the 2018 plan permitted but did not require correct 2024 you know personally I don't I'm not for requirement it could be permitted but I'm not your vote is yes to continue with allowing commercial okay just I was unle what Jim wants it to be that's what I'm saying about the distinction it is permitted it is permitted there's no change to that there is a change there yes it is not permitted in this current plan only okay wants it to be that plan is residential only in the amendment the amendment changes correct correct original uh appr takes it out it takes it out you want it to be allowed to remain not a requirement to be stay but permit I'm gonna say for now I'm for it as well because we're asking him to make the ground floor more interactive so it gives them option okay so let's go right down the line Jennifer yes youon yes what are you voting on um we're voting on whether to allow to per continueing okay a yes yes obain okay James yes sure all right Dan all right yeah okay so it's in okay okay the only other two little things I had that are more like uh housekeeping things are that Little Orphan lot if we want recommend I I'm going to say I think we should just recommend rezoning it with the next reexamination with the master plan but I don't know if anyone else that feel has strong different feelings about that is that included within the plan that we're reviewing no no okay deleting then we really we're going outside we're going outside the scope of the review yep um and then there was that one typographic thing j brought up energy yeah Department of energy versus DCA would work if if it if it just said adopted energy standards of New Jersey and you don't need to identify the agency I can't um I I I I think the board should make a notation of that but it's not in it's not within the amendment so I can't make a change to it as part of um as part of the adoption process but personally I think it would be good just to identify that maybe it's just in the minutes but just to make clear to the extent there's confusion later uh when the applicant applies exactly and that's part of why I just yeah wanted to make the notation because I was thinking about when you come back to the new version of this and then it'll have those requirements and it won't make sense it's minor all right okay so you want to put a motion out these recommendations with these findings so move recommendations second you got that all right call R James yes Council Clayton stain Al yes Jim Henry yes Jeremy am I eligible to this we have nine members seven so he's the ninth member for tonight yeah can't have more than nine votes so he can vote Yes sure all mayor moain Daniel sh yes yes yes now I have a request this is a very complex matter I would like you to email me your comments so that I can consider them when I do this resolution because I'm not I'm not I'm a copious notetaker but I got a whole bunch to sift through and be specific I know you were so give me some specifics please the resolution with back yes do you mind reviewing for us like the the headlines sorry but like that maybe just the categories if that density okay setbacks architecture consistency impact and network studies traffic Ingress egress parking um just some just some ideas about transition consideration of the transition area and density uh the commercial we're already putting in that commercial is going to be permit you're recommending that it be permitted but not actually required he leave that in the plan and leave that take that out of the amendment where it's being [Music] removed uh uh in terms of the architecture also the facades the front and rear facades how you talk about the First Avenue Second Avenue addressing those issues and that's basically the the gist of it simple I'll make it there once I get everything and I keep whittling it down I'll make it simple okay anyone have anything else motion to adjourn