##VIDEO ID:VXh_jteNM4o## good and please join me in a salute to the flag I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the Republic for which it stands one nation under godible liberty and justice for all thank you everybody could we have a sunshine announcement please Camp yes good evening everyone today is August 6th in the year 2024 this is a Jersey City planning board meeting with a scheduled 5:30 p.m. start time and in accordance with the open Public's meeting act notice of this meeting has been given to the editor of the Jersey journal the Jersey City Reporter and posted with the city clerk on August 2nd thank you this meeting was also posted on the Jersey City division of City Planning web page and all distribution materials made available to the board were published and available to the public okay thank you Cam could we have a roll call please yes okay acting Vice chair Gaden here councilwoman Prince here commissioner Stato here commissioner lipsky here and chairman Langston here okay we have five Commissioners President we have a quum thank you could we swear in the staff please Mike see Francisco sopia Eric he's back there you guys any testimony tonight be the truth the home truth nothing but the truth yes all right thank you do we have correspondence C yes chairman um two items have requested to adjourn uh with preservation of notice so uh first we have under old business uh 150 vom um yes 150 vroom Street it is a item a under seven old business and that is case p2023 0087 it is for a site plan extension at 150 vroom Street and they have requested to carry with preservation of notice to the August 20th meeting that would be our next regularly scheduled meeting um and then lastly we have the last item on the agenda under new business that would be item 17 and this is uh case p2023 d71 it's a preliminary and final major site plan and uh it's at address 76 to 82 Liberty Avenue and they've requested a carry with preservation of notice to September 10th of this year and that concludes correspondent okay thank you Cam so let's uh get right into Old business we'll move on to Item B is case P9 194 is a uh termination withdrawal of a preliminary and final major site planwood deviations for 632 to 652 Grand Street anyone chairman I don't see Mr oconnell in the audience so I ask that we come back to this if Mr oconnell uh does appear have we heard from Mr oconnell Camp all right okay so let's move on to new business this is the review and discussion of certified artists copi Rodriguez Gail Marie woit uh Johan walstrom Randy rayus and formal action may be taken tonight okay so as we normally handle these um the artist certification board certified these applicants um as meeting the criteria as being certified artists in the city under criterias 1 2 3 4 and five and planning staff recommends that the board approve them as certified artists and that concludes okay thank you anybody any questions Commissioners no all right anybody from the public if anybody from the public has any questions comments please come on up right now CH c one the public I would like to close the public portion second okay motion is made and seconded public is closed cam we have your recommendations I'll entertain a motion CH I'd like to make a motion to approve the recommended certify uh Artist as presented by um our planner this evening for approval second okay motion is made and seconded for approval okay on a motion to approve acting Vice chair gangan I councilwoman Prince I commissioner Stato I commissioner lipsky hi hi and chairman Lon hi motion carries all in favor okay thank you let's move on to item 10 is case p2024 d42 is a conditional use for 415 Monmouth Street good evening I'm David Wallace attorney from Monte New Jersey appearing U for Mr Dela who can't be here on behalf of warrior Reed LLC is that mic on Council I'm sorry is that microphone on just tap the no yeah that's the button trick me but I think we figured it out okay Council thank you do you need my appearance again or we good um we probably should that picks up the the recorded feed my name is David Wallace I'm appearing for warrior weed LLC on this application for 415 Monmouth Street and um just briefly to summarize we have the um Memo from Mr Espinosa with with his recommendations um indicating that he finds us to be meeting the applic the uh requirements for the Zone in the neighborhood commercial for a class five retailer this is of course a cannabis uh dispensary project in an existing building which will be described by Mr wenman our um architect and I have one of the principls also with me Jamie Moran uh there were issues covered by the um planner indicating that we're not within 200 feet of the school there is another U planned project within 600 feet but at this time that's a vacant lot which has not been approved and there no uh construction approvals or the like so according to the planner he did not feel that was a conflict with this application and uh he of course requested information regarding security issues um odor ISS or odor and noise mitigation and uh We've submitted a community impact statement a uh have noticed labor peace agreement and uh a security schematic plan which Mr wenman will review and uh we also have of course the approval of the um CCB in uh in your record and with that I'd ask Mr wankerman to review the um aspects of this U plan project how it meets the zoning requirements and addresses the requests of your planner okay thank you Council before we do that let's just qualify the notice please I don't have the notice I don't see it council do you have the notice or a copy of the notice uh for the meeting yes um I did see that there was one there was a link I don't have a copy of it I could I'd have to open my laptop to get it you have it on the portal Francisco I say it I'm not saying it there's just a sample draft Yeah that's what I got you looking for the Affidavit of publication yes was the notice uploaded to Tyler portal I wasn't notified it's a question for Mr Delano which he should be to okay tell you what we're going to skip ahead to another application and uh get back to us when you have the notice please thank you okay thank you so let's move on to item 11 is case P20 24-10 is a conditional use for 497 communa Avenue does have his okay do you want to hand them out to everybody when that comes up you have copies that should be on the port is that the same thing for this Francisco good evening Commissioners for the record Tom lean from Connell Foley here on on behalf of the applicant uh cream of the pot Inc uh this is a conditional use application and it is a notice application I did upload my affidavit to Tyler however I will provide counsel thank you Mr Le go ahead Santa yeah while we're doing this I I do need to take a minute here um all right just uh let's not have any testimony any discussions until I get back boards in recess for five minutes come up and he's going to walk you through uh the architectural site plans okay thank you truth the whole truth trth yes Michael Higgins hi g g i ns Mr Higgins good evening we qualified you in the past uh your license is current tonight it is okay thank you you're qualified thank you very much Council let's go ahead and Mark yeah yes I don't think this has been uh pres uh was uploaded to the portal so this would be A2 I believe 16 Pages he too thank you okay I'll start the presentation um first uh this is a location map an aerial photo with North at the top of the site the project site is outlined here in yellow it's a 1.27 Acre Site um it is bound by Marin on the East 16th on the North and 15th on the South Streets uh some of the adjacent large projects in this area include the Hudson house Soho Lofts the proposed uh building at St Lucy's and the lacana center this is an aerial photo that shows some of the height of these buildings that are on the western side of this project the proposed uh St Lucy's is about 265 ft and then this shows our building and we're proposed height of 169 fo1 uh there's two reasons for the height change so while it's four stories we're asking for uh three stories we're asking for apologies two of them are just in a space at the base of the building that was previously a very tall space for an automated parking system we've added two stories there of parking slabs and then we've cut the building back along Marin and this diagram shows two exom metrics the one on the left is the existing building and the outline in Gray what's the volume that's outlined in Gray is being cut off to allow more light and air to shorten the length of the building facade along Maron and allow more light and air into the courtyard so that the units facing the courtyard have a better um light and air and also views out to the exterior we've taken that volume and added it to the top of the building uh we're only adding asking for 9 fo 11 of height so it's a amount of an increase that's less than 10 ft um but the number of stories is what triggered the new application here this is a view of the new proposed facade and the existing facade the uh the approved the current approval is on the left and the new proposed facade is on the right it's very similar in terms of context the building has a masonry base and is a um window wall or primarily Glass and Metal panel Tower both projects step back at the top floor for a penthouse they have a setback requirement that we comply with but one of the advantages of this stepping this back in addition to letting light and air into the courtyard space it allowed the facade to wrap the corner now where my hand is whereas the previous one had a blank facade because it was a property line wall so we couldn't really have any windows on that facade so it didn't have this has a little bit more of a balanced composition where these two facades have a relationship to one another and present a sort of symmetry when viewed from this angle Council I just want to stop real quick and make sure sure that the public is following and really myself I say the public cuz I don't want to embarrass myself this is a new application this is a new application yes so we're not abandoning the prior approval we are not abandoning the prior approval the prior approval is still valid and in place that is correct but we are now seeking a new approval but we're going to do some comparison to the prior approval for illustrative purposes that that's correct the the reason that you are seeing um the side by side is is essentially what I said to the board the board approved this same project uh last year uh at 14 stories as of right as designed in the plan there is a um within our ordinance there's a requirement that if you go 20% up or 20% down in stories or unit count it has to be treated as a new application this would be before the board as an amendment to the prior approval but for that requirement in the ordinance so that's why we're back and that's why it is being treated as a new application but for those who who are on the board at the time we wanted that we wanted the board to see what it was they approved and what we're changing it no and I appreciate that I think the board appreciates it and I think the public appreciates it so thank you so Council to your point if this goes forward and is approved then it negates the prior application not necessarily but it's my client's intent to construct this project even if you get an amendment it wouldn't kill the other res resolution it would be eventually phase out through the uh the requirements in the the statute well Council I think if you you can have two approvals and then you choose which one you're actually going to build correct so that's the legal reality whether Mr lean and his client if this application were to be uh looked favorably upon would abandon the prior wait till the end of the evening for that answer okay go ahead Mr Higgins please um this slide is a side by side of the existing ground floor uh or the approved ground floor and the proposed ground floor so one of the advantages of the well self Park compared to a four automated stacking so this stacking System created a 33 foot tall uh space at the ground floor and it didn't count as a story what we've created now is a garage that you can drive into in self park it has an entrance on 15th for the ground floor parking and an entrance on 16th for the second and third floor parking So within basically the same volume we've we've uh added a self Park Garage which we think will perform better and function better for the building occupants um the number of Park so the garage has 221 self Park uh spaces um it has a series of electric charging vehicles and some compacts but all in compliance with the requirements of the code one of the things that making the self- parking garage one of the advantages was it allowed us to have a larger retail space so the retail space at the ground floor is now 11,803 Square ft that added about 7778 ft of retail from the previous approved project the lobby entrance was also relocated over to 16th Street side for a little bit of a closer location to the um what we think is the better pedestrian experience there where You' walk down Marin over to uh 18th Street towards the Waterfront uh the rest of the ground floor consist of the typical mechanical rooms electrical water um and loading trash and those things which are both on 15th Street and 16th Street the project consists of two primary Towers in l-shape that fronts on 16th and Marin and then a single bar Tower uh that's on 15th and these are all connected through the common Podium can we enlarge this without cutting off let's see here oops is that better and beautiful okay thank you so this would be the um second height Second Story of the uh of the building um on the right is our proposed building so the garage is fully lined with residential units or two-story uh retail and Lobby spaces that's the white area the yellow is the um the units that line the uh base of the building so none of the parking garage is visible from the street go to the next page okay okay again this is the third floor of the building now with units that line the entire perimeter of the building and the garage with the garage third slab as you can see in the previous approval it was just a very tall volume and all those were very tall spaces around the base of the building a little bit too too tall for what they wanted to be they were more like 30 ft in height where really even a space a retail space with a mesine only wants to be about 20 ft this is the typical plan which is largely unchanged so on your left you had the previous approved plan and now on the right we have our proposed plan it's all units there are two amenity spaces that are located in purple uh you can see at this corner the southeast corner of the building this is where it's cut back to to allow for more views and light into the courtyard and all those units will benefit from that these are the typical proposed residential floors the new mix of units um is 117 studio apartments nine of which are affordable 188 one-bedroom apartments nine are affordable 265 two-bedroom apartments uh 55 are affordable and 43 three-bedroom apartments 19 of which are affordable this is the penthouse floor and as you can see it steps back 10 ft in conformance with the uh requirements of the Redevelopment plan um and there's really no change in this level in terms of the uh the number of you units this is a rooftop plan that shows the proposed pool deck at the top of the plan the green roof the landscape green roof uh and the amenity space there's both an amen space on each Tower the larger one is on the East Tower uh North Tower which is 3215 Square ft and on the south tower it's 475 squ ft both have outdoor spaces green roof uh the North Tower has a a pool and a larger it's a more uh active uh roof deck area these are some of the so this is a relationship from the proposed um St Lucy's project just to give a sense because we are asking for a height deviation here but only 9 foot 11 in so it'll be still significantly lower than St Lucy's which is on the next block here's on the left hand side of the page is the approved height that was the existing as of right 160 ft above DFE and here's our proposed where it's 9' 11 from above DFA the section tells the story quite well about the on the left is what was previously approved so you see the large toll volume at the ground floor with the four High car stacking system and now we just added two floors in this space and then we added a floor in the tower to offset the loss of space when we cut back the building facade on Marin okay see and we have one view here of the ground floor this is a corner view of the building looking at the uh building entrance uh the lobby at the ground floor the covered arcade along Marin this view is from the uh northeast corner the laana on the right side of the page just check few okay 1613 units there's been no change to the number of units we're asking for 17 stories and 169 ft 11 in of Building height I think that concludes my testimony I have no more questions okay Commissioners any questions okay okay thank you sir thank you uh next I'm going to call up Joe mey I'm going to have Mr mey uh qualified as an expert both as a civil engineer and a professional planner is that better thank you Mr melee good evening um special night we never get to qualify you twice um is your license as a a civil engineer and planner Cent tonight yes it is okay thank you you're qualified thank you very much so what is uh presented uh on is this uh projected it's okay thank you so on your screens is the first page of the site plan application that was submitted for this uh for this project uh I will go through some of the existing conditions for the site uh that was that was kind of touched on already by our architect project located at 619 Marin Boulevard designated as Lot 2 through 8 and lot 11 of block 7103 the site occupies about 2/3 of the block and it's 1.27 Acres uh site contains various one and two story commercial buildings and the remainder of the site is asphalt concrete about 95% of the site is impervious currently today the site is in the neighborhood District of the Jersey Avenue Light Rail uh Redevelopment plan it's located on the North End of the city about three blocks from Hoboken and there's an inactive elevated rail to the north that was seen very well on the uh 3D rendering that was presented by our architect Exxon gas station holiday in to the South TD Bank Best Buy surface parking lot for Acme is to the east on the opposite side of Maron Boulevard and the St Lucy's development that was described earlier is on the west side of the site on the other side of Grove Street touch on proposed conditions for this application um as as an overview I'm going to touch on some of the the differences between the prior application and this application both applications did have 613 residential units 15% affordable housing units so both applications were consistent in that regard the density here is form based uh this application has a 17-story building at 169.99 feet in order to provide better visibility to the east obviously to the Hudson and New York uh the building still contains commercial retail spaces uh this application has 11,803 Square ft of commercial space one of the other major differences between the two applications is the parking that was also touched on the prior application had uh one level of parking with uh quadruple stackers and that would require an attendant uh this application is a self- parking Arrangement three levels of parking uh providing a bit more parking than the prior application as well I believe the prior application had 200 parking spaces and this one has 239 parking spaces uh the building's still fully enclosed the parking is still fully enclosed by commercial space and it has an enclosed trash room and um no longer like I said no longer contains it stacked parking spaces we are asking for three deviations tonight uh one is with respect to height the other with respect to the street widening and the final one with respect to the uh Street trees um like I said the height uh in the previous application was 14 stories 160 ft this application 17 stories at 169.99 but in the Redevelopment plan there is a stipulation for Marin Boulevard to be widened by 9 ft from 40t to 49 ft and we tried to accommodate that as best as possible we tried to do that also on the prior application uh but in our conversations with planning and uh transportation in Jersey City uh the the um recommendation is not to provide that 49 ft widening widening of 49 ft of 9 ft of uh additional widening and finally with respect to the street trees the prior application also had the same deviation or or variance if you will for Street trees where we could not accommodate the number of Street trees and the and the maximum separation distance for Street trees and that's because of the hardship of accommodating Street fixtures light fixtures and driveways so when you have light fixtures or certain separation distances for the driveways and the light fixtures as well so um in order to provide uh accommodate those requirements it actually adds to the separation for the street trees now just get into the site metrics if I'll flip to the site plan this is a touch screen oh the mouse use the mouse so here you see the uh site layout it's a sheet uh C 3.01 of a site plan set this was also submitted as part of the site plan application um you could see that uh the building setbacks comply the building setbacks are dictated by Sidewalk width for this Redevelopment plan on the Marin Boulevard side the required sidewalk width is 10 ft and we're proposing 18 ft um as it stands on our on our site plan it does widen if we re if we eliminate that um bike lane that's currently shown on our plans on the 16th Street side the sidewalk requirement is 15 ft and we're complying with that by providing 15 ft and on the 15th Street side same situation 15 ft is what we're providing and that meets the requirement there is no sidey yard set back so uh as was stated earlier the prior application had the Tower actually extending all the way to that uh adjacent lot and on this application although the podium uh extends up to that lot the tower itself is pulled back uh 25 ft to provide better light and air for this development the maximum permitted um law coverage is 75% plus 1% for every 300 ft of green roof and we're providing 5700 squ ft of green roof which allows us to go to uh a lock coverage of 94% and we comply with that requirement uh the tower building coverage on the previous application we basically complied exactly with the requirement of 70% and on this application since we were able to narrow the towers we're actually at 66.6% so so we're we're below that that requirement by um trimming down the towers for for both buildings other uh notable requirements you know obviously we meet the lot area requirements the the minimum parking space requirements the maximum parking space requirements EV parking spaces we will comply with that 15% requirement from the New Jersey model uh EV ordinance so we're providing 36 EV spaces which uh provides a 15 %. uh we comply with all the building design criteria in terms of materials appearances Fe U features that are shown on uh um page three to five of the Redevelopment plan uh we comply with the signage requirements parking and loading requirements wrapping of the parking structure requirements as I said the sidewalk requirements are complied with and we do comply with the Jersey City forestry standards with the exception of the um Street tree separation maximum uh you could see on 16th Street we have 300 ft of Frontage um 30 ft curb to curb there are six and 7t wide sidewalks along that edge there are four aprons along 16th Street one is 48 ft wide so we're we're actually improving that situation quite dramatically uh we only have two aprons into this development one is a 20ft wide and one is a 10ft wide apron and on the 15th Street side uh pretty similar situation where we have uh two very wide aprons one apron on 15th street is 100t wide the other one is 50 ft wide we're providing two aprons one 20 ft and the other 10 ft wide one is obviously access for the parking garage and the other is the um loading door uh apron and again we have the 15t wide concrete sidewalks for that Frontage on the Marin Boulevard side we have 300 ft of Street Frontage uh the RightWay is 60 ft cartway is currently 40 ft two lanes going north one lane going south um the proposed condition what we're presenting on the plan shows a protected bike lane on the Northbound side uh a through Lane and one uh it's supposed to be a dedicated left turn lane going north uh on the Northbound side of Marin and on the southbound side is a Sherl Lane which is a shared bike lane and and drive lane and we also uh tried to accommodate with the Frontage that we have uh control over a protected bike lane which almost looks like a drop off area across the front of our building so the um the transportation letter actually suggested to not widen excuse me what that talking too fast well while you're taking a siep there why don't I just say uh Mr melee you you have received uh from Transportation a memorandum reviewing our plans dated August 5th correct that's correct okay and in that um in that memo uh there was a recommendation uh that mirrored what we received during the last project which is that they don't want to see the transportation feels that it is not prudent to follow the Redevelopment plan and widen Maron Boulevard from 40 feet to 49 feet correct that's correct okay and when we uh our original proposal was as you mentioned a bike lane SL dropof area and the memo is instead requesting that we simply widen the sidewalk and uh bring the curb to where the existing Maron Boulevard is and maintain the 40 ft correct that's correct so what we plan to do is maintain where we show the D the um curb at the corner of 16th and Marin would would simply be extended across our Frontage which would provide a larger side walk more opportunity for landscaping and um meet the uh suggestions of of Transportation so that little drop off protected bike lane is eliminated that was the suggestion of uh Transportation correct okay is that your intent yes it is okay so chairman I think maybe what's proper is the transportation memo is dated yesterday came out yesterday obviously uh there are some comments in there I think Council was pretty accurate in the majority of his statements as to what the memo contains but there's grave concern down in that area it appears based on the memo as I read it uh and I think Transportation should probably be be involved in in work working on these issues with the applicant which it sounds like the applicant is more than willing to do so uh based on that I think a condition that they can apply and work with Transportation if the matter were to be approved is probably the most prudent way to proceed uh given given the comments in the memo and Council you're okay with that yes we are going to comply with the comments in the memo and we've also agreed to work with Transportation going forward and we will schedule a meeting with that okay one last question I would bring up um because there is a requirement in the Redevelopment plan that Marin Boulevard be widened this will be a deviation if we comply with the requirements of the memorandum prepared by Transportation correct that's correct yes so finally I'll touch on utilities um Street and sidewalk and and Grading obviously Street and sidewalk grades will remain essentially the same we provided an engineering report dated April 22nd 2024 which outlines the storm water sanitary sewer and water infrastructure improvements and and uh services for this development obviously we have to comply with the with the 210 and 100-year storm for the current site the rainfall data and the uh future um 20 2100 rainfall data um we provide storm water facilities on our site by means of a concrete vault underneath the uh parking ramp and uh have one 8 inch sanitary sewer connection on 16th Street one of the comments from the jcmua letter was uh asking about the sanitary sewer connection on 15th Street these two buildings although their separate towers are integrated together the way the architecture and the engineering works we could we could service both Towers from one connection so we intend to do that if if jcmua uh requires a second connection will obviously follow that their Direction uh finally we we we could touch on the comment letters at this point uh before you do that I would just ask you you quickly walk the board through the justifications for the height deviation sure okay put on my planner's hat now uh in summary this is a permitted use as an application and Redevelopment area with three deviations the first is height the height de deviation this is a ctype variant uh page 13 of the Redevelopment plan allows for 13 stories at 160 ft this application provides 17 stories at 169.99 point9 FT and that amounts to 6.2% of a height deviation the requested height deviation is as a result of our intent to provide a more desirable View for the towers improved light and air for the residents uh in the prior approval the building Towers maximized the allowable Tower coverage of 70% this current application provides a reduction of of tower coverage of 66.6% primarily by pulling back the northern Tower 25 ft from that property line uh which provides better visual corridors better better views towards the Hudson the revised Tower ALS also allows as shown was shown on the architectural plans the opportunity to provide Windows along this building Frontage facing south uh and eliminates the blank wall since the building wall uh no longer extends to the property line this separation also provides a benefit to the adjacent owner in summary the North Tower footprint was 24262 ft the current the prior application is 25,000 the prior application was 25,400 ft the South Tower is 12559 ft and the prior application was 12,900 ft so as I said both Towers were were bigger than uh uh are smaller now than the prior application so the overall the towers were decreased by, 1500 square ft across 13 stories and that's what prompted the need to uh move that volume of residential square footage to the upper floors that was added to the three floors above secondly the building had previously proposed 200 parking spaces and quadruple St stackers for the parking garage the current plan while more costlier and requires additional space provides 239 self-parking spaces on three floors of parking this is obviously a much more desirable amenity for the residents in addition this would eliminate the need for a full-time attendant however this change from the parking garage actually caused an increase in Building height by 1 fo4 in in summary the granting of this deviation is not a detriment to the site or the surrounding Community as the building height is consistent with the height of buildings expected in this area and under construction currently with the St louy development in summary the granting of this deviation is not uh sorry I'm repeating the same thing in fact the granting of this deviation will provide a benefit for maintaining the number of units as previously proposed uh with a layout that improves light and air by slenderizing the building and providing a self-served parking spaces rather than stackers uh with an attendant uh this change also promotes objective K of the Redevelopment plan objective K says uh preservation and promotion of view corridors created by public streets and accentuate views of New York and the Palisades I'll touch on the uh Street tree planting uh justification as well uh the Jersey City forestry standards has certain spacing requirements for trees prior application was also the efficient in this requirement previously we had 16 trees proposed this current current application has 14 trees proposed the reduction from the 16 to the 14 is due to the one additional driveway ramp that we were proposing we are proposing on this application there are four areas where this development exceeds the S the 30 square ft and the prior plan had three areas where it was exceeding the 30 um 30 foot separation requirement um this clearly a hardship condition where the uh needs for this development such as the driveways and the light fixtures trigger the need to exceed that 30 foot maximum um requirement and the applicant obviously agrees to pay for any deficiency in the uh number of Street trees finally with respect to uh the the street widening um the Redevelopment plans uh traffic and circulation guidelines require the widening of Maron Boulevard from its current width of 40 ft to 49 ft in order to accommodate protected bike Lanes in both directions and a uh three 11t Trav travel Lanes two going north one going south based on feedback from Jersey City's planning Division and ongoing uh transportation planning for the area the city now prefers a change to the Redevelopment pl's approach the traffic division recommends one protected bike lane in the Northbound Direction one through Lane in the Northbound Direction one dedicated left turn in the Northbound Direction and one shower Lane in the southbound direction we understand the city is planning an Allway stop at 16th in Marin and possibly a traffic signal at 15th in Marin and obviously will'll work with uh transportation in uh in in their improvements for this velop for this area uh this site attempted to accommodate the Redevelopment plan objectives by widening the road along the s's building Frontage however we agree with the tra with tra transportation's uh requests to deviate from the Redevelopment plan requirements we have no objection to satisfying the city's request for Street improvements in accordance with their August 5th letter from the division of traffic the granting of this deviation would promote the objectives of the Redevelopment plan by satisfying the the recommendations of the Jersey City division of traffic the new design will provide adequate sidewalk space and clearly Define Crossings at the intersection the design also focuses on streetscape improvements along Along The Pedestrian corridors by allowing this deviation item D of the Redevelopment plan objectives will be Advanced the overall Improvement of the traffic flow through the development of new and improved vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems will provide for separations of two movements and maximize use of public transportation accordingly the benefits of the board's granting of this deviation substantially outweigh the detriment I submit to the board in my professional opinion the granting of this hearing described deviation will not cause a substantial detriment to the public good nor impairment to the intent and the purposes of the Jersey City re development plan Zone plan and zoning ordinance if that is the conclusion of your testimony I have no further questions chairman sure go ahead Steve so on the letter from the MUA in response to your packet that you submitted on 426 of this year their letter dated July 22nd is that the letter you referenced earlier about the 8 inch pipe com out of 16 so all good with the sanitary and the 8 inch pipe on 16th but on 15th it it had that you in your packet had two connections coming out at 6 in they're suggesting there's only one connection at 12 in the other thing was is that the um RCP the uh reinforced the concrete pipe into the manhole I think you're proposing a do house next to it and they're saying go directly so it wouldn't impact so could you just talk to those two issues yeah we we'll agree with all the comments of the jcmua letter the the only reason I called out the one comment with respect to sanitary is because they were asking for an additional connection which uh I would suggest just having the one connection that accommodates the entire building but with with the exception of that we plan to accommodate all their other suggestions thank you okay so I I do want to talk about traffic circulation being that the garage is now split between a first floor only and a second to third floor so what is the signage how will tenants of the building know which way to go uh I do have Mr Klein here who is our traffic expert I think you might be best suited to answer that sure okay um let's just finish up um engineering and planning comments anybody else any questions okay thank you thank you very [Music] much truth theuth I do Lee middle initial D is and Daniel Klein kle i n my license is current and in good standing thank you sorry you're qualified okay thank you so the question was about circulation um I'm pretty sure we'll probably be assigning parking spaces to the tenant so they'll know whether their entrance is on the 16th side or the 15th Street side okay so as far as the garage goes the first floor covers which units I don't know that's the how they're going to be assigned but there's a certain number of them okay are there the first the one level on the 15th Street side and then the three levels on the 16th Street side so roughly a quarter and three quarters is it solely tenant parking is the retail parking included or visitor parking at all this is solely tenant parking okay yeah it's going to be secure it's going to be controlled gated are there beeps and lights and everything for pedestrian traffic there'll be Gates we need convex mirrors things like that we'll be able to put that in is any of that proposed at this point or got a pretty wide sidewalk so I'm not sure if it's the board suggestion that we accommodate safety features do both then we will R to that as a condition absolutely so we're agreeing to assign parking spaces tenant only parking and necessary and appropriate safety measures including audio visual for pedestrian safety along the sidewalk and obviously access in and from the garages correct yes okay good enough thank you Mr Klein anybody else any questions on traffic okay thank you sir you're welcome good to hear from you finally I know you're here every night I was here at zon board uh with that I have no further Witnesses okay thank you Council uh is anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application anyone here from public CH see no one from public I would like to close the public portion second okay motion is made and seconded public is closed Sophia anything yes one comment on the uh traffic comment stated August 5th states that they would like the applicant to provide testimony about the site's compliance with the new jerseys model Statewide municipality electric vehicle ordinance published by DCA on September 1st 2021 in regards to electric vehicle and make ready parking spaces is there any comments on that I I did believe Mr M did answer that during his testimony but if you'd like him to get up and reiterate it I can have them unless the board is comfortable that he addressed it I'm comfortable I don't know what else was just making sure it was touched upon yeah no I'm comfortable we will comply is the answer um um other than that staff agrees with the applicant's testimony and asks that the applicant's attorney agreed to the conditions outlined in the staff memo dated August 1st yes we reviewed and agree planning staff recommends approval okay thank you chair like to make a motion to approve case p2024 d85 has presented to the board this evening for approval together with the additional conditions added as um one is to work with Transportation based upon the memo from transportation and I believe the second is regarding the safety for the parking correct safety controls for parant agreed to uh Implement second okay we have a motion made and seconded for approval all right acting Vice chair gangadin so I uh based upon the presid presentation um I do not see any substantial detriment to the public um based upon the variance requested so my vote is I councilwoman Prince I commissioner Stato hi commissioner lipsky than you me to all conditions nice design and I wish you best of luck I and chairman Langston yeah I think all the the variances from the Redevelopment plan are well within reason uh I think the the extra height is more than mitigated by by the opening of the building to uh provide light and air to the interior and uh I appreciate the applicant complying with our safety concerns so my vote is I motion carries all in favor with conditions okay thank you than you very Mr lean if you could give us one second we're going to come back to your dispensary uh let's call Item 13 on the agenda is case p2024 d17 is a minor subdivision with C variances for 77 to 79 Grand Street are we ready okay sure good evening chairman and board and councel uh Jim Burke representing the applicant um a few statements before I turn it over to we have two Witnesses first will be u a our surveyor Mr cawfield and then we have a professional planner as well since there are uh at least one variance that we know of for for the application so the intent here is to take this L-shaped lot and turn it into two uh individual Lots um Council I did turn over our um notice so I'll let you comment on that I hope hopefully it's acceptable thank you Mr Burke I am a rece of your Affidavit of publication proof of mailing had the opportunity to review it it does appear to be in order chairman we're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record okay thank you Council right thank you so by way of background I'm going to mention two things my clients own this property since about 1981 so they they were living there for over 50 years long before the neighborhood became fashionable uh the intent now um because I don't know what the value is but I can assure you it's a lot more than what they paid in 1981 but unfortunately uh the property taxes have also risen so the intent is to create the a two lot subdivision and then sell one of the lots and uh you know the applicant will hopefully retain that and uh live out uh many years at this location um so um uh also I'll just mention we did make an application to the uh historic commission and that was approved uh and there's a letter of recommendation in the file um so with that I'm going to turn this over to uh Mr corfield our professional surveyor oh there we go uh Joseph Coffield c a u l f i e l d Mr corfield good evening I believe we've qualified you in the past correct you have Mr chairman uh last one if you remember was a subdivision we did for 115 Wayne Street it was the sure carriage house that we did was great yes um okay that license my license is still in good standing okay thank you you're qualified um good evening everyone Thanks for hearing us um as you can see from the um Subdivision plat that we prepared we have a um a flag lot which runs from Sussex down through Grand Street on the Grand Street portion I'll just blow that up a little bit you'll see two uh three-story and basement brick structures uh which is currently being um occupied by uh the client right now uh this their home and artist space actually uh this uh the PO the other portion that creates the through aspect is on Sussex Street that is vacant land presently historically I don't want to go into too much detail on the historic aspect of it but historic it was a a continuation of those three-story and basement bricks along Sussex they were all a series of tow houses uh Brownstone and Bricks actually in that neighborhood at one point probably in the 60s or 70s Colgate pal mive brought a bought a whole bunch of those with the intention of moving their headquarters there and started tearing them down um they stopped at one point thank goodness um and the neighborhood still retains its nice historic character in that paulus hook section um I believe what happened was our client had accumulated these Lots not all at once uh I think they accumulated the ones that were along gr Street first and Sussex afterwards but I think at some point during a reevaluation I think they were merged by the assessment uh which is creating that whole situation where this entire configuration is known as lot three now as I move over you'll see our area calculations lot three together total 73,0 56.3 square ft uh 17 uh hundredth of an what we're looking to do is essentially put back I'm sorry I'm going too fast there on the back to essentially put back the Sussex um Street scenario if you will uh to create that uh 100 foot deep lot along Sussex which would match all the other lots that front along Sussex Street um our area calculations show that that Sussex Street portion will Top out at 2 ,28 ft leaving 5148 point3 Square ft for what we're calling lot 3.01 which is what fronts on Grand Street um the creating that I think the planner will speak to that we we did note the um some of the zoning aspects uh on this as well um I think there's a lot coverage situation with the split on the Grand Street piece um where if you'll see my zoning table again I'll let planner go into that we have a planner here tonight but um zoning coverage we have a situation where 60% is required the proposed lot 3.01 which is the Grand Street portion will be at 63% but it is um it is uh um a single occupied U residence both those two three-story bricks so um again I'll let planner speak to that effect as far as the lot on Sussex Street that is vacant uh at one point again it was part of that whole series of brick um tow houses there are party walls that still exist for the neighboring pieces to the east and west um thought that that does show up on my work as well so that's a nice interesting figuration gives the the back background the history of it as well so the Lots though are both conforming as they would be yes Lots both conforming in width and depth um that's that does come through um there was that actually I mean I would think that the the zoning at that point for the especially for the Sussex Street was uh envisioned with all those lots up and down Sussex Street and those are all conforming for that that zone so Council just to simplify it for us L folk we're seeking to cut off the sussek street lot and create a vacant building lot that's correct the residual which will remain on Grand is actually two structures that have somehow over the years been converted into one structure correct yes uh my client occupies both sides of that of of those structures so the uh and I've been to the building there's actually a cut through you know in the in the wall and they use both buildings okay and then obviously as a result of the subdivision we wind up with a coverage variance on the Grand Street exceeding coverage by 3% you can see that little piece in the back structure and that's it just that little piece of uh on the right side right here here that little extension that little bump yeah the little extension is the is what creates and no physical change no physical change to the structures and I got to tell you I said it when we did the carriage house I'm fascinated by the way this stuff develops over the years personally but uh I got I got a ton of questions but not that are appropriate for Mr corfield did a very nice job in front of historic he went through the whole history it was very interesting actually this a I mean not to waste your time there's a lot of things going on here but the Paul's hook section is the history there obviously as you all know is just outstanding yeah and and the carage house I hope you got a chance to take a look at it that was excellent too yes it's we're lucky to have that situation in Hudson County um for for all of us okay uh any questions Mr corfield anyone all right thank you sir we appreciate it all right thank you so the next witness and final is um our our planner Charles hey hi good evening good evening the truth the truth and I do yes Charles height last name is spelled h y DT Mr height good evening your license is current tonight it is okay thank you you're qualified all right all right so Charles um as as you heard uh two lots are going to be created uh but in doing that the lots are conforming but there's a a a building coverage issue right 3% or 63% versus 60 and anything else you know cover the basis just go through I mean there's a good reason to do this but we also have to meet the uh criteria for justifying it yes so uh we are in the paulok historic district um the bulk table I can zoom in on it it's straightforward uh there are minimum lot dimensions um minimum with lot area the the two proposed Lots comply with those main factors so that's obviously part of the planning rationale is to the justification um this is the zoning table so uh I do want to make it clear that the the building coverage the existing building that's not being proposed to be modified enlarged in any way is uh is is 63% on proposed lot 301 uh that's the request the variance tonight so part of the rationale is to take this irregular through lot Rectify it with a subdivision creating actually two substantially conforming Lots uh in the historic district uh there are no physical improvements to with this application that might come at a later point in time for the uh one proposed lot that's vacant um but being that it's May uh being that uh we are proposing this it is a Devi a variance U from the uh historic district for building coverage uh again just some Dimensions the existing building um and I wanted to pull over uh the survey um will still remain at approximately 33 ft from the existing rear line here and portion of the proposed rear line that still provides ample separation into the rear of the interior of the block um and also you can uh note the two adjacent structures uh on on on the flanks of the subject property on on grand um the one is these are all attached structures um in terms of side Lot line the one to the east so the side of the left uh is roughly the same depth of the building that the current structures exist today uh the one to the right or the West uh is an old older structure that fronts on um one of the four corners Parks um so that's kind of like the end of the block if you will that's why it kind of goes a little further to complete that end of the block um but the point here is that the existing structures are very consistent in terms of zero sidey setbacks and the same lot depth so this this is in a substantially larger structure than anything else on Grand Street um so there's consistency with respect to that in terms of uh purposes of the land use law um this won't I do believe that we are guiding appropriate development and creating the two conforming Lots that's consistent with the lot pattern on the Block um and I do believe that we will be maintaining light and air given that we're not increasing the existing physical conditions on the property um in terms of any substantial detriment to the zoning ordinance or Zone plan again we meet the minimum lot requirements we meet the minimum lot wi in terms of subdivisions it complies um with respect to uh uh the um master plan um we are still providing a variety of um uh of housing uh especially in a historic district where it's varied and welle well preserved historic character that being the property on Grand streets being preserved by way of this application as well um that's my testimony I think the benefits of the subdivision outweigh the detriments it's a straightforward application all right thank you Mr h I have no questions anybody else okay includ it no other Witnesses okay thank you is anybody here from the public that wants to comment on this application anybody from public chair see no one from the public I wish to close the public portion second okay motion is made and seconded public is closed cam anything you want to add um well firstly I'm just going to put on the record that I asked the applicant agree to the conditions stated in the planning staff memo uh dated July 1st of this year applicant will agree okay um and I'm just going to reiterate um that planning staff agrees with the professional planner's testimony regarding the C variants here and that we do not find it to have a detriment to the Zone plan or the master plan um and it wouldn't have a detriment to the public good or any of the intent of the ordinance um also just wanted to mention that the applicant worked closely with the historic preservation commission and was amenable to their conditions um planning staff would just conclude comments and recommend approval okay thank you cim all right I'll entertain a motion chair I like to make a motion to approve case p2024 d17 as presented to the board this evening for approval second second okay motion is made and seconded for approval okay one second their laptop disconnected I just want to fix this okay sorry for the anticipation um acting chair uh acting Vice chair Gaden I councilwoman priner hi commissioner stamato hi commissioner lipsky hi and chairman Langston yeah I agree with uh Mr Height's testimony I think the uh the deviations are well within reason and my vote is I motion carries all in favor with conditions okay thank you everybody let's uh thank you Council let's uh take a 10-minute break everybody everybody it's 7eleven we'll be back in 10 thank you [Music] did you bring pass around gummies he's up e okay yeah I'm going to start okay can we come to order again please everybody and let's bring up um case p2024 d42 conditional use for 415 Monmouth Street c good evening again good evening Mr chairman uh David Wallace monu New Jersey for the applicant um the uh The Firm indicates that the notice was not sent so we'd like to carry to the 20th they'll try to expedite that notice and see if they can't get it uh published by Saturday all right yeah Mr Wallace obviously it's got to be noticed and uh we'll put it down on the August 20th agenda and if you could just let staff know obviously as soon as as possible if you were able to to get it notice since we're going to have to do it tomorrow okay thank you Council so carry to the 20th for uh 415 MMA Street let's go back to item 11 is the conditional use uh for 497 communa Avenue case p2024 d10 uh good evening Commissioners again uh Tom lean from conell Foley on behalf of the applicant I did provide notice previously I don't believe we confirmed on the record we did not thank you Council we did not uh chairman uh board I am and received the Affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application 497 Communipaw it was set for the July hearing and carried through to today with preservation of that notice I've had the opportunity during the break to review the notice it does appear to be in order we're going to mark it Z one for the record thank you Council uh the application before you is a conditional use for a retail cannabis store um it will be located in an existing retail building that is at the corner of Grand Street and Communipaw just a little down the road from here uh just a couple things before I bring up my sole witness uh we did uh receive approval from the uh the Cannabis Control Board of the city of Jersey City um it is a micro business um one thing I would point out um that Mr Espinosa uh uh discussed with me prior to um uh the hearing there is another approval for a cannabis uh facility within 600 ft of here it has been before this board uh they have not pulled permits uh so they have not put a pin in the map as uh we've been terming it uh so I believe uh due to the time of application Rule and the uh normal course for this board we can uh move forward uh this evening with the application agreed Council okay with that I have one witness it is Jeremy Fel who is our architect yes Jeremy finel f i n n l l Mr finel good evening I believe we've qualified you in the past right uh no I really okay we I we might have done something online back in Co but for that's still counted that's still counted um so is is would you mind providing your yeah uh yeah I'm I'm licensed in New Jersey uh masters of architecture from Columbia University okay that's fine s you're qualified thank you thank you uh yeah so um the property is an existing building located at 497 Communipaw uh it's approximately 900 square ft uh interior space within a two tenant building uh located on the corner of Communipaw and Grand Street the uh the space fronts along Communipaw uh which is what I'll call the the front face and then uh Grand along Grand Street uh which is sort of the the rear um the uh the existing so I'll just I I'll jump to the exterior elevation um just start on the outside here so um we're proposing um to keep the existing entrance location in the same uh spot but uh replacing the existing door with new uh a new glass store front system so glass door sidelight transom uh and then a metal canopy over that uh there will be a light in the canopy and um the remaining portion of the facade will be a kind of a faux wood um material um and then there will be a metal sign uh we're infilling there's an existing window uh which we be infilling and there will be a metal sign uh zoning compliant and um three goose neck lights uh mounted to the to the building that will illuminate the the signage as well as the U the other part of the facade uh the sign is not internally illuminated um and then the the rear elevation along uh Grand uh is uh existing to remain we we'll put a new coat of paint on that um some new lights and we are infilling the existing window uh which will be in like in the layout it'll be uh where there's a utility closet um and then there's a a roll down gate um an existing roll down gate that will remain in place we'll replace the uh the door uh with a new metal door and uh just to go back to the front elevation uh there will be a roll down Grill incorporated into that canopy um that will come down at night when the store is closed uh and then jumping to the uh interior layout uh we are proposing to uh remove all of the Interior partitions and uh so the new layout with the new layout customers will enter uh from the door long Communipaw uh the the first space that they um enter to will be the the vestibule space um where customers will check in with the receptionist and um you know after they provide valid ID will be buzzed through to the sales floor um the sales floor from the sales floor customers will be allowed to browse uh product displays and order product um either from the POS St stations uh or um some self-order kiosks that will be located on the sales floor uh orders will be fulfilled um From the Vault fulfillment room um and then passed through a u pass through window to the POS area where sales associates will give the customers their orders and then um customers will will exit back through that door along Communipaw uh in terms of deliveries those um will take place uh from the the door along Grand Street um and a product will come in and uh be all of the product will be stored securely within the The Vault fulfillment room um also in the back of the house there's a small office which is also where security and it will be located um and um the garbage um and recycling will also be located in the office there's also a janitor closet uh one accessible rest room is in the back of the house and then there's a utility closet um so I believe that concludes my testimony unless you have any questions uh if we could let's just go through odor mitigation please um yeah I would are you not best suited to speak to well yeah I would imag can I can speak to my previous experience I'm not an engineer sure um can you provide anything to the board in the way of um anything on site that's being provided as far as filtration or um uh the air system if not uh I can ask uh the the owner who is here to just give a brief overview but uh I can just say that on previous uh previous projects uh the mechanical engineer has provided carbon filters um as part of the mechanical design um maybe we'll finish with him and I I will bring the the owner up then sure that's fine okay any questions anybody all right thank you sir thank you name it's flet Rose p l e s h e tte and last name is Rose r o s e m Rose good evening um I'm sure you heard our question the the only thing we want to hear about is uh just the filtration system so olders don't escape the the property so we plan on mitigating our um older our older negation through the UV a treatment system um so we're going to have that carbon filters throughout the the whole store changing the filters regularly making sure that we have um data so we can change them on a regular basis okay so they're carbon filter and UV yes carbon fil UV okay impressive all right anybody any questions on filtration all right thank you thank you Mr Rose we appreciate it Council anything else I have nothing further okay uh if there's no other questions let's open it up for public comment anybody here from public want to comment on this application please come on up anybody from public chair see no one from public I would like to close the public portion second okay motion is made and seconded public is closed Francisco do you have anything you want to talk about uh yes so I will be very brief sure the applicant has received CCB approval on August 14th 2023 the applicant does comply with the Zone it is in the nc1 it complies with uh the separation distance from schools it is not within 200 ft of a SCH school um the only other thing it does comply with the separation distance from other class 5 retailers um the application p23 d039 uh the address is 746 Grand they were before this board and approved on February 6th of 2024 that application is within 600 ft of this application however they have not pulled permits for construction uh for the class 5 retail space and just to add to that this application uh was submitted in January of 2022 of sorry January 20 January 22nd 2024 okay um so it does meet uh time of application okay uh with that said staff does recommend the approval with conditions outlined in my staff memo okay counil you're okay with those conditions we are in receipt of the July 26 memo and we will agree to the conditions there okay great thank you so I'll entertain a motion CH like to make a motion to approve case p 2024 d001 0 is presented to the board for approval second second okay motion is made and seconded for approval okay on a motion to approve acting Vice chair Gan I good luck uh councilwoman Prince Ary I commissioner lipsky I think it's a good location for one of these I vote I commissioner Stato I and chairman lson I good luck guys motion carries all in favor good luck all right thank you all right let's move on to item 14 is um case p2024 d58 is an interim use for 780 to 782 Newark Avenue I think that's good evening commissioner uh chairman Commissioners uh for the record Charles Harrington on behalf of the applicant um if Veronica uh my associate Veronica schme is going to hand out uh copies of the signage that's part of this application um I'll just get it's pretty straightforward um but a background probably helps with the review uh my client obtained site plan approval in June of 2021 uh for the uh reconstruction and development of a grocery store on on norc Avenue uh right there in Little India if you will and what we did during that uh development approval was we phased it into two two halves the the reason being so that he could continue to operate it during the construction so uh during the when the first half was done uh we needed a signage on the property to obtain a a TCO uh and in order to do that we were granted uh my client was granted temporary approval from the zoning office which is permitted under the Land Development ordinance but we were required to come to the board to seek approval for an interm use for the temporary signage um and while while um while we continue to complete phase two so we're asking for approval for the signage that is before you um on those sheets which we can Mark as A1 uh for the record uh it is also within the portal um but uh we are uh that signage would stay in place um until phase two is substantially complete so we are requesting approval for 18 months or until final uh certificate of occupancy is issued whichever occurs first uh and again this is we've been working in coordination with the planning uh staff um to provide for the signage before you I H I have uh my client's representative here tonight if you have any questions so Mr Harrington I don't think we need to mark them because they were uploaded to the portal I appreciate the large color renderings uh so that deals with whether or not we need to mark them chairman I me it couldn't be more straightforward as to the application so uh I don't know that we need to hear from anybody but if you'd like of course you may I I think the the signage and what you're looking at stands on its own absolutely any questions anybody any concerns no okay thank you okay thank you all right so at this point let's open it up for a public comment if anybody's here from the public that wants to comment on this application come on up Cher see no one from the public I would like to close the public portion second okay motion is made and seconded public is closed Eric any problems uh this is a straightforward application staff has determined that the proposed signage does comply with the signage standards in the Jersey City Land Development ordinance uh staff just uh asked the or request that the applicant agrees to the conditions um conditions of approval enumerated in the staff memo um other than that staff recommends approval okay yes the applicant does uh would comply uh with those conditions great thank you Council so uh I'll entertain a motion so I'd like to make a motion to approve case p2024 d58 this presented to the board for approval second okay motion made and seconded for approval acting Vice chair gangan I councilwoman Prince AR I commissioner lipsky yeah let me just say that this is one of those sensible project that is sensitive to the neighborhood it it buts a wood shiver Temple and uh they've had no complaints I think the phasing of it has gone through smoothly I think the um signage is tasteful and it looks even though it's temporary for that area it looks pretty uh stunning so I vote I commissioner Stato I chairman Langston I for a temporary Banner motion carries all in favor okay thank you thank you thank you everybody all right let's move on to item 15 is case p2023 z56 is a preliminary major site plan with sea variances for 44 Parklane North good evening Council uh good evening everybody uh James mccan from the law firm of conell Foley appearing on behalf of the applicant um and uh Council alamp this is a notice case and get rid of the housekeeping quickly I have my hard copy of my Affidavit of service to offer you thank you Council council is this the same one that we've carried and was on the portal yes and and for the record um Council we did Reen notice on I believe the affidavit will say July uh June 26th so we noticed twice just to be safe chairman members of the board uh Mr mccan is absolutely correct the applicant had noticed twice and we had carried from the June meeting uh up and through today with the preservation of that notice I have reviewed it in the past this does appear to be the original of that notice it does appear to be in order we're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record okay thank you Council thank you and just one other um housekeeping item we do have a presentation with slides but all of the slides that you are going to see are plans that have been posted on the planning portal for some time now so uh I do have a packet Council if you would like me to offer it is A2 but I'm not sure that it's necessary Council only because perhaps some of those slides are a combination of various sheets from various professionals uh let's mark it as A2 okay we'll today and I'll have Abby come up and identify that Gabby um all right so this is a application um for a preliminary site plan approval with C variances as the agenda noted um we'll try to be brief with our presentation since it is a preliminary approval the varant Es are very minor um there's a variance from the foot candle standard in the ldo um which requires one foot candle for an entire sidewalk we have some limited places where it only makes it to 7 because of the kind of fixture that is used on uh in that neighborhood um we also have a uh two variances from um the ldo regarding tree spacing and uh tree distance to poles um and aside from that I will call my first witness I have four Witnesses civil engineer um landscape uh architect and then um Charles height planning so Mr K in light of the fact that we're talking about some minimal type of variances in relation to sidewalk streets foot candles and that it's preliminary uh more condensed the did you guys all hear that I did all right we need condensed testimony all right having said that we will proceed let me [Music] just I do Gabrielle gelli uh gab r i e l l e cornelli g o r Andis and Nancy e l l i miss gelli good evening we've qualified you in the past uh your license is current tonight yes okay thank you you're qualified thank you um can I just connect this oh of [Music] course is there a trick to make it show okay there you go so Gabby just one quick question you you prepared the slide package for tonight yes for both architectural planning and Landscaping yes and what you're going to present to the board right now and what we're going to use for the whole presentation is in fact that slide packet correct everything was was from the portal correct yes okay thank you UMC that would be A2 A2 19 Sheets if I am reading it correctly and if we could just zoom in just to make it full screen that would be great sure thank make sure how to scroll if it's full screen okay um oh what's going on I apologize it closed out by full screen I just meant large yeah fine okay that's good that helps um okay so are you're done I can start testifying yeah okay so uh around the site like uh Jim mccan has said you know we are here for preliminary site plan it's 44 Park Lane North it's also known as site 5 uh for Newport we are on lot uh 3.15 of block uh 7302 the the property is um the property is um east of Washington Boulevard Washington Boulevard is located to our West um to this to the north of of us is um lot 3.16 that's a private road parcel um which will be built out with this lot which which I'll get into when I do the Civil testimony to the east is lot 3.14 that's also a private road parcel on North Boulevard that road is built and then to the South is lot 3.07 um it's shown on our plan plan is 16th Street it's also known as parkl North that's site is all that um road is also fully built um we're in the Newport Redevelopment plan the residential district um as uh Mr mccan mentioned we generally comply with the Redevelopment plan in the ordinance aside from a couple minor variances for for lighting and um some Street trees um how do I go to the next okay so um what's on the screen now is our C300 sheet from our civil plan um this is an overall site plan and and the site here is um the site 5 site it's lot 3.15 it's a regular irregularly shaped the property is roughly 1.44 Acres um you you can see here that the building is situated on the east side of the site um the building is a five-story base with a 41 Story Tower on top it's uh residential building with 355 units um and and integrated parking um the next page why is this not switching I apologize I should know how to operate this yeah there we go okay um this is our c301 sheet from the Civil site plans it's a more zoomed in version of just the site of of what was on the previous uh slide um the way you access the site um you there there is a parking garage entrance on the west side of the site that that is entered via a driveway which is on our site so there there's no parking garage entry that's going right out to the street um the the driveway from the site is a one-way driveway it goes north to south um where you enter off of what's called 18th Street on our plan that's also known as long slip um you enter from the north you enter the garage and then to exit the site in a vehicle you would exit to the South onto um 16th Street which is also parkl North the the lobby of the building is situated to the South there's also a drop off uh layby Lane next to the lobby on the south um there's a bike storage room which you can access from the lobby that holds storage for 178 bikes which is the requirement half a space per unit um the the utility rooms are primarily along the Eastern side of the site um and as I mentioned the roadways on the south side of the site and the east side of the site are fully built um the the streetscape in those areas are fully built there will be some minor adjustments near the lobby where we're putting in that that drop off Zone and on the north side of the site is the portion of of the street that we are building out with this development um the last slide I have is our sheet 401 from the Civil plan set this is the grading and drainage plan I'll also speak to utilities on this um the site is located in a flood zone so we are raising the site um the first floor of the building will be 14.5 that's raised out of the flood zone as is required of residential buildings some of the utility rooms along the east are are a little bit lower those rooms will be flood proofed in accordance with the flood Hazard rules um the site complies with the Jersey City storm water Control Ordinance because we're in a flood zone we do need to meet the green area ratio which requires certain um green elements on the site uh Lauren our landscape architect will speak more to that um during her testimony and um just to touch briefly on utilities as I mentioned for the most part the the roads are fully built out around the site these roads do contain utility Mains um so we do have a few service connections from our building um to existing Mains in in those existing streets um that concludes my engineering testimony thank you all right thank you any questions anyone all right thank you very much hello I do Lauren l a r n venon v as and Victor E NS and Nancy i n as and Nancy miss venon good evening we've qualified you in the past as well your license is current tonight yes okay thanks you're qualified or you've prepared the Landscaping worked on with drar Robin to prepare are the Landscaping plans for this project yes okay you're familiar with those plans yes you going to walk us through them yes quickly quickly yes quickly and briefly okay so we are going to start um streetscape we are overall compliant with the forestry standards Jersey City forestry standards we have two variances one for the spacing of Street trees and that occurs along lawn slip where we have the driveway which forces a wider spacing between the uh two Street trees and we have a second variant for the spacing from the street trees to the lights and this is occurs along lawn slip and also occurs in the existing um streetcape previously installed along North Boulevard the tightest spacing we have is 11.18 ft from the tree to the light pole we have adjusted and accommodated the um tighter spacing by going with a smaller tree species we have Red Buds uh cus canadensis and service berries uh and malania which are both um smaller flowering trees they are on the approved Street tree list and they have a tighter canopy so we should not have any conflict between tree and light pole with the tree's natural habit our overall design oh just want to we're providing 25 of the 26 required trees and will provide the um monetary contribution for the tree that could not be accommodated for the overall design we have more open landscape on the western portion of the site and we are accommodating some larger trees where we can fit the larger species in along the western part of the site to have more Street trees and adjacent to the building we have more heavy landscaping in the way of foundation plantings along uh Park Lane North and at the building entry to pull the um rampant stairs up to the building entry into the landscape so we are meeting the green area ratio and our green area ratio for the site is 0.5 so enter enter okay Enter to advance here um all right I was going to go through rooftops but I think we can go right to the lighting and cover the area with good idea yeah um the only perent area on the rooftop is that it is contributing to the green area ratio so for our lighting the street lighting selection is the Imperial decorative fixture which is in keeping with the Newport standard throughout the rest of the neighborhood uh we do have our sidewalk levels dipping below the uh 1.0 foot candle minimum sorry um back does backspace take take me back on this I'm sorry I'm going to exit the presentation for a sec and get this back but I will tell you what's going on in the meantime can you reset this real quick for me thank you I'm sorry um so for the street lights the areas where where we are dipping below is where you are in the shadow of the fixture itself so the um the Imperial just like the Jersey City signature casts its own shadow and our light levels are um are lowered directly adjacent to the pole back to where you thank you okay if I'm correct it's only in a very limited number of places there are sporadic locations limited sporadic locations directly adjacent to the pole where you uh go down to um a minimum of 7 foot candles so overall there's there's sufficient and plenty of lighting on the sidewalks yes okay yes um so we can just very briefly we are providing an amenity deck and we are providing extensive areas of green roof on the second floor as well as a small amenity area on the 41st floor and thank you I think this is my testimony questions okay any questions anyone on Landscaping all right thank you Miss V architecture good evening truu I do Juan Rodriguez j u n r o d r i gu easy Mr Rodriguez we've qualified you in the past also your licens current tonight yes sir okay thanks qualified one your firm prepared the plans that you're going to present this evening and the and the slideshow correct um and with the exception of this aerial image all the other images that you'll see tonight have been have been included um within the architectural materials uh so Gabby already went through and kind of oriented everybody uh but this is an aerial view of the site uh we are sitting at the intersection of Washington Boulevard in Park Lane uh to the right of the site you'll see here Newport Green Park look a little distorted sorry this this image looks a little distorted uh but what you're seeing here is a is a rendering of the building uh the the building is conceived as two primary components there's a 41 story residential Tower containing 355 residential units um the unit mix is preliminary but at the moment we have four studio apartments 178 one bedrooms 14 49 two bedrooms and 24 3bedrooms uh this is supported by 5,716 ft of indoor Amity space uh AB budding the 41 Story Tower there's also a five-story parking garage containing 336 parking spaces uh we also have 182 bike parking spaces within the podium of the building as well this is a ground floor uh ground floor plan uh which again Gabby already kind of went through but I'll run through it uh rather quickly uh starting from the left we have Washington Boulevard uh the building has been pulled back from Washington Boulevard for good portion of the site uh the kind of Western third of the site where I'm highlighting is again consisting of an open space and a driveway giving through block access connecting Park Lane to 18th Street uh this driveway also gives access into the parking garage and allows for some pullover and drop off uh activity uh care was given to to orient the building building Lobby and and leasing areas along Park Lane we thought that you know that's an important feature to maintain a more pedestrian friendly Frontage and active uh uh you know pedestrian environment along Park Lane uh as the building turns the corner um you know North North Boulevard becomes more of a service side with building utility rooms including Electric Service uh Transformers uh water meter rooms all being located along North Boulevard uh building loading is also mid block on North Boulevard uh we we envision uh building loading to have been internal to the building including trash removal which is all going to happen uh on the inside of the building and won't require anything to be taken to the right of way uh you also see here uh the Bike Room again providing the required bike spaces at the second floor the building starts to step back away from Park Lane um we have a single loaded residential Tower uh which is visible here in the yellow uh there's a handful of units that start to buffer off the parking garage uh on Floors 2 to 5 uh and the parking garage is a is a standard uh pretty standard self-park garage with ramped aisles all meeting the size requirements for the Stalls and for the the drive ISS and Juan does the parking garage comply with the EV requirements yes we we yeah thank you at the sixth floor of the building building starts to step up over the five-story podium uh this becomes an indoor Amity space uh which has again expansive views of the amenity deck which Lauren covered in her testimony uh and Views East uh the upper portions of the tower uh starting from floor 7 to 40 uh as a we have a series of different floor plans uh with the you know with the mix that we covered before uh you'll also see here in the plan on the East uh sorry on the North and South frontages we have a series of un balconies um to give outdoor space to each floor um for each unit you'll notice um Commissioners that there are no layouts for the units that's because it's a preliminary site plan and we will agree that any final site plan will include layouts for all the units we'll put that in our resolution at the 41st floor uh as Lauren covered again there's a the northeast corner of the building has an outdoor space uh there's also an indoor Medi room on this floor and a handful of other uh units uh the upper uh mechanical penth houses of the tower uh contain uh space for rooftop Mechanicals which will all be screened from view from the public uh there's also a rooftop boiler room here uh which is going to be visible in the elevation which I'm going to next I apologize this this image seems to be a little distorted but U the so this rendering is cropped in this image the full rendering has been submitted as part of the architectural materials uh but you'll see here the building uh again how it sits at the corner of Washington Boulevard in Park Lane Washington Boulevard is running left to right in this image uh the tower is conceived to be uh a kind of Slender bar-shaped Tower that's oriented perpendicular to the water so as to not have a be views being blocked um you know to the Manhattan skyline for any future developments that could be coming on um you know on line of the future and this is just a closeup of the of the kind of street view uh again showing the lobby and some of the leasing areas here along the street and how the building kind of pulls away to have uh this kind of drop off entry sequence at grade and I think the last thing is we're just uh talking about the little bit the height that we have proposed uh we're at at the top of the uppermost residential story are 421 ft and this thing is screwy sorry about that so we're 421 feet or so to the top of the uppermost residential story and we envision to be about 407 ft uh to the top of the mechanical Penthouse and with that that concludes my testimony I'd be happy to answer any questions okay okay thank you sir any questions anyone okay thank you thank you Council anything else oh Mr height Mr height apologize can't forget about Mr height I yes and you are still under oath and qualified thank you very much thank you go Ahad I'll just jump right into it just to reiterate um this application before you is for preliminary site plan it's in the uh North residential district of the Newport Redevelopment plan the building massing the uses all comply with the main use and bulk requirements of the plan um we are identifying some streetscape uh design elements that we're requesting relief from tonight um just to reiterate what uh Miss fenon had stated in her testimony with respect to the foot candles uh one foot candle minimum is required 7 in specific locations um based on the lighting design is proposed um there is sufficient light as she pointed out and um it's in only specific instances uh there's a substantial amount of ambient light that will be along Washington Boulevard and other streets um with respect to the street trees there's two elements here um to the utility pole in one location 15 ft is required as a minimum and we are proposing the 11.18 um that's in one location the design of the street tree has been selected or the selection of the street tree has been selected to minimize the canopy and uh in recognition of the utility pole and then uh at the driveway on 18th Street to accommodate the driveway the proposed distance between two Street trees is 50 feet where a maximum of 30 ft is permitted so that's really an effort to create the sidewalks and driveways uh to accommodate the sidewalks and driveways um with respect to other aspects of the planning justifications uh this will would Advance the objectives of the Redevelopment plan and guide appropriate development in the state of New Jersey that's purpose a it does also offer uh desirable visual environment the proposed streetscape design is consistent along all frontages here um and with respect to the negative criteria um I don't believe there's any uh substantial impairment to the general welfare there will be suff sufficient lighting the location and design of the street trees is still with the intent of the forry standards and with respect to the zoning ordinance or Redevelopment plan or or master plan um this really just completes another uh Redevelopment of an underutilized Block in the Newport area that's consistent with the goals and objectives of that Redevelopment plan that's my testimony I have to say that was probably two two minutes shortest one ever I'm writing that down right now um I I have no question questions Mr hey anybody else okay thank you anything that's our presentation thank you uh is anybody here from the public that wants to comment on this application CH see no one from the public I would like to close the public portion second okay motion is made and second it public is closed uh cam um okay so planning staff would just ask that um attorney mccan agree to the conditions in the staff memo dated June of this year agree to the conditions um just to to moderate just one we will agree to work with the review agencies to address their comments okay understood um yes planning staff is satisfied with the testimony regarding the C variances planning staff agrees and um planning staff finds that the project meets the objectives and goals of the Zone plan and our master plan and um planning staff recommends approval okay thanks cam uh before we make a motion what's our you know I'm not going to hold you to it but what's the time frame here are we talking five years out on this project um I I don't know um since I'm not asking you for any additional relief so underst standard preliminary approval would be three years okay okay is there anything else I I don't think there's anything under construction there right now is there on this particular site on the general enal Newport area that that Northeast part of Newport um I think the board approved the project very recently yes um on the North in the Northeast quadrant there is a building it's called the Bisby that um I was here about two weeks ago to get an in to get an extension of an interim parking approval um that building is nearly substantially complete or substantially complete okay and then there's the um the concrete batching plant is still in use across the street from this project um and I believe will continue to be used because it can be used when this project is being built and the other project that was approved recently okay there's no overlap between this and the concrete batching PL correct overlap uh they they can for the time being function separately certainly okay yeah the concrete batching Clan can continue to function on its site it's across the street from this site so there wouldn't be of any imp gotcha all right thank you okay I'll entertain a motion CH I like to make a motion to approve case p2023 d56 as presented to the board this evening together with staff recommendation and condition second okay motion is made and second for approval okay acting Vice chair gangen I councilwoman priner I commissioner stamato I commissioner lipsky yeah I just want to say is the your letter June 25th addressing all the agency's concerns was very succinct almost as succinct as your team's response today and I think it's a great project so I vote I and chairman Langston I for preliminary okay motion carries all in favor with conditions okay thank you Council thank you everybody good night appreciate your timebody apologies for the te issues worries all right move on toe Jim mcan's pressure last item item 16 case p2024 d32 is a site plan Amendment with deviations for 632 Newark Avenue good evening uh chairman Commissioners uh for the record Charles Harrington on behalf of the applicant uh I do have the original notice package that I can give the council for his review perfect also just to make a floor announce this is the last application of tonight um uh do you mind if I reiterate the items that were carried sure so if you're here for the case on Liberty Avenue that was carried also 150 vom was carried why don't we just do it this way Cameron Mr height what are they here for 192 192 Cambridge that's yeah that's item can you guys come up come on up yeah come on up guys we don't bite at least not yet we haven't gotten to that point of the hour Mr Harington we're going to use some of your time I want you to note that Mr mccan was in and out in 25 minutes yes hello sir good evening sir can I just see what paper did you get some kind of notice 192 Cambridge that's item I think that was original it's on adjournments yeah oh God where did I say it h that's going to be heard on August 20th so August 20th right back here that's when that will be heard uh possibly it is possible that you come down here on August 20th and it's not heard that night and carried again but uh I would recommend that you look at the agenda online okay uh but August 20th it is scheduled to be heard you're not going to get any more notice in in the mail or anything okay all right thank you all right thank you sir off yeah you just write it down on his his letter and sir just so you know when we started 5:30 we announced things that we know that aren't going to be heard so if you came in at 540 and we already announced it unfortunately but you unfortunately I wound up sitting here unnecessarily is what I'm trying to apologize for yeah apologize sir sorry about that thank you okay go ahead Council okay thank you so uh the application before you tonight is for a site plan Amendment which is a very straightforward this is uh a project that is actually under construction it's at the corner of C the extended Central Avenue and norc Avenue uh directly to the west of the new courthouse um and it's it's moving moving along uh it's part of the journal Square uh Redevelopment plan area that that um use the Central Avenue bonus uh Provisions uh to uh develop it so what we're here tonight uh for is is um just to seek approval to modify the rooftop amenity space and to increase the height of the rooftop amenity space uh and we have some minor uh interior changes that that are go along with that uh that are you know not before this board but they they are being changed changed um we we do need a deviation with regard to the increase in the height of the the rooftop amenity space because we are increasing it uh beyond the 10 foot limit to uh uh a requested 15 ft um this is uh as the board may recall this is a common deviation that that is requested for many projects in the Journal Square Redevelopment plan and I note that uh it is also uh a regulation that was before this planning board recently and is now before the city council as part of the Journal Square amendments to remove this height restriction and and just have the the typical or the the Jersey City uh Land Development ordinance regulations apply to Rooftop amenity space so um I do have two witnesses tonight I have uh my architect to walk you through uh the proposed changes and Mr height is here to address the uh requested deviation in the event uh the the board uh needs that additional testimony M Council just before we swear anyone in let's mark your uh Affidavit of publication proof of mailing chairman I am a receipt of both the Affidavit of publication proof of mailing the matter was carried from a prior meeting to tonight's meeting with preservation of that notice have had the opportunity to review that notice it does appear to be in order we're going to mark it as A1 for the record all right thank you councel I do Paul frus F REI T is in Thomas a s Mr frus good evening good to see you your licens is current tonight yes sir okay thank you you're qualified thank you um I'm going to try to make this as painless as possible and as quick as possible uh we keep on running into these issues with respect to the rooftop amenity space not being able to fit all of the Mechanical plumbing electrical stuff that ends up on the bulkhead of the roof and what it does is it ends up comprom iing the uh the the Aesthetics and the usability of the amates floor below it so uh in keeping with trying to make the space as good as possible we've uh suggested increasing our height of the bulkhead this is the original height which was 303 feet to 308 ft so we're adding five additional feet to the Ames floor with the bulkhead kind of following suit everything else uh with respect to the mass of the building and the bulk is all the same it's just basically increasing the height and uh these drawings basically just kind of Express that idea uh you can see this is the um probably the most predominant elevation the East Elevation uh originally uh we were at 303 ft and then we added a clear story to the space and and now we at 308 ft elevations uh on the west same kind of thing and Mr frus these these drawings you're showing are all part of what was submitted on the portal correct that's correct that's correct um and then part of it also just a kind of a propo you know what was approved and then uh what are the proposed changes on on other floors just so uh we can kind of document and kind of put memorialize these changes uh so you know again these are interior Chang this is an exterior change where we have a mechanical room we kind of change the orientation this was the original layout and now it's outside uh within some screened areas with the access being a little different and that's on the second floor on the third floor plan same thing holds true basically there's a a setback on the roof and then the rooftop amenities uh the original planning board approval uh we added a a a private room uh boardroom on the amenity space in addition to uh changing the um layout of the green spaces on the roof uh that we're kind of all along the perimeter we've created One Singular green space in the in the back of the building um so we kind of combined all that square square footages and kind of put in one one one location versus having it run along the entire perimeter so that's the original plan and that's the change and these are just enlarged uh elevations to kind of give you a sense of the change in the elevation and again this is really mostly just to kind of address the mechanical pieces uh getting all the generator wiring the plumbing the sprinkler lines the you know there's just a lot of stuff up there so it really compromises the height and with that I I'm I'm done with my present ation and my testimony okay thank you Mr frus any uh any questions anyone no okay thank you okay I have Mr Mr height here to address the requested deviation if the board would like to hear from them or I know you're familiar with this issue if uh I'll defer to the board um is Tanya still here or no so I I don't think I need testimony from Mr height um but from staff half it you know we're seeing this come up over and over and over and over and over again and it's not going to it's obviously not going to stop have we looked into changing the Redevelopment plan to address it I know there was talk of it it I if I could jump in it is part of the Amendments that this board reviewed within the last month or so okay and that is that is before the city council now this specific uh regulation okay perfect to adjust the bul yes yeah what was that last meeting when I was in here I don't want to talk about manys Miss not bad not bad all right um anybody else any questions you to say any questions at all all right is there anybody here from the public that wants to comment on this application anybody from public see no one from the public I would like to close the public portion okay motion is made and seconded uh anything you want to add yeah I'd like to request for the staff memo dated August 5th 2024 um to be marked as A2 um also to speak to the deviation request um it's a rather minimal request um won't really change the overall presence of the building um on the Block front and from street view um staff staff supports the variance and uh supports the The Proposal um with that being said um staff recommends approval um uh with conditions enumerated in the staff memo and also request that the conditions from all prior approvals carry over uh to this one here and the conditions of approval would be acceptable okay thank you Council and thank you Eric I'd like to make a motion to approve case p2024 d32 was presented to the board this evening for approval together with staff recommendation and conditions second second okay motion is made and seconded for approval acting Vice chair gadan I councilwoman Prince r i commissioner lipsky I commissioner Stato hi and chairman Langston hi motion carries all in favor okay thank you thank you Council all right let's move on to memorialization of resolutions please um chairman actually would we be able to revisit the uh withdrawal submission from gonnell that was not present could we carry them to a date certain sorry sure I was going to say did I miss Jean can we make that our next meeting sure okay yeah nothing I mean can we carry notice we're going to carry it but I suspect that perhaps Mr he emailed um staff earlier this week with documents and was prepared to come so I hope everything's okay yeah okay so uh we'll call up uh case P1 9-1 194 termination withdrawal of a preliminary and final major site plan with deviations for 632 to 652 Grand Street and we'll carry that to a date certain to be August 20th with preservation of notice okay thank you chairman okay thank you so uh let's move on to memorialization of resolutions please sure would be a long one because we have 15 resolutions yeah two pages yeah city of city of Jersey City planning board in a matter of approving an amendment to preliminary and final major site plan with deviation and conditions applicant 14-16 buram Road industrial LLC for Amendment to the preliminary and final major site plan with deviation property address is 14-16 bman Road block 24304 Lots 8 case number is p2024 d80 resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City approving a corrected resolution for the preliminary and major site plan with deviations and conditions applicant is 290 Co Street owner LLC for preliminary and final major site plan approval with deviation per address is 286 Gold Street 28- 28216 street block 6 is 003 Lots 1 and 2.01 case number is P1 19184 case number p2- 031 P22 d101 and p23 100 resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City approving major site plan approval applicant NE Q8 a LLC for final major site plan properties 20 long slip two long slip and River Drive block number 7302 Lots 3.05 3.16 3.19 and 3.18 to become 3.05 3.16 3.19 3.20 3.2 21 case number is p2023 d102 resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City approving major site plan approval applicant any Q8 a LLC for major for fi for minor subd division approval property 20 long slip two long slip and River Drive block 7302 lot 3.18 to become lot 3.20 and 3.21 case number is p 2023 d103 resolution of the planning board for the city of Jersey City applicant Newport Association development company and neq 8 a LLC for extension of interm use approval 20 long slip Jersey City New Jersey BL 7302 Lots 3.18 also known as lot 3.04 and proposed lot 3.2 case number is p202 4 d108 resolution of the city of the city of Jersey City planning board case number is p2023 d85 applicant is 155 nework Avenue LLC 155 nework Avenue Jersey City New Jersey block 11405 lot 6 decided on Tuesday July 9th 2024 memorialized on August 6 2024 application for preliminary and major major fight major site plan with C variances resolution of a planning board of the city of Jersey City applicant is Plaza v11 and 1X Associates LLC for preliminary and final site plan approval with C deviation and extension of statutary approval period 3 2 Street Jersey City New Jersey block 11603 Lots 18.02 18.03 27 and 22 that case number speed 2023 D12 resolution of the city of Jersey City planning board case number p2023 d001 5485 Palisade Avenue Jersey City New Jersey block 30001 Lot 10 decided on Tuesday June 25th 2024 memorized on August 6th 2024 application for minor site plan approval resolution of the city of Jersey City planning board resolution for memorialization Hudson County New Jersey conditional use 912 Bergen Avenue case spe 2024-25 approved June 25th 2024 memorialized on August 6 2024 in a matter of the Cannabis LLC resolution of the plan planning board of the city of Jersey City applicant 2011 Grove Street LLC for preliminary and major site plan approval with deviations and a conditional use approval 100 Tide Water Street and 250 Morris Boulevard block 15801 Lots 22 and 24 approv lot 24.01 and 25 case number is p2024 d221 resolution of the city of Jersey City planning board case number is p2023 D60 applicant is 269 MLK LLC 269 MLK Drive Jersey City New Jersey block 2345 Lot 25 decided on Tuesday July 9th 2024 memorized on August 6 2024 application for minor site plan approval resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City adoption of the fet Broadway Redevelopment plan resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City applicant is vasant property LLC for extension and final major site plan approval with deviation 165 169 that's Academy Street got to hold off one Mee okay so we're going to dis regard number 13 that was the one subject to's email 14 resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City applicant is 2011 Grove Street LLC for preliminary and final Maj major subdivision approval block 15801 Lots 2 3.02 and 24 block 15801 proposed Lots 23.7 24.01 and 24.02 100 Tidewater Street and 250 Morris Boulevard case number is p2024 d22 final resolution resolution of the planning board for the city of Jersey City approving preliminary and major site plan with conditions applicant is General Square Improvement LLC for preliminary and final major site plan approval 549-554 Pavonia Avenue block 9606 Lots 38 and 39 case number is p23 085 okay so that's I apologize that's uh a motion for uh every resolution except for number 13 on the list second okay we have a motion in a second could we have a roll call please cam uh acting Vice chair gangadin hi councilwoman priner hi commissioner Stato hi commissioner lipsky hi and chairman langon hi motion carries all in favor to memorialized resolutions except 13 okay thank you uh does anybody need a executive session and executive session all good all right motion for adjournment I'll entertain motion tojn second all right Motion in second we're adjourned thank you everybody have a good night get home