CITY OF HOBOKEN LANNING BOARD RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL MAJOR SITE PLAN FOR 800 JACKSON STREET, SUBMITTED BY METRO STOP ENTERPRISES URBAN RENEWAL, LLC WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Planning Board of the City of Hoboken by Metro Stop Enterprises Urban Renewal, LLC, (“Applicant”), whose address is P.O, Box 271 Hoboken, New Jersey 07030, by and through its attorney, James J. Burke, Esq., of James J Burke & Associates, LLC, Attomeys at Lew, 70 Adams Street, 2° Floot Commercial Unit, Hoboken, New Jersey 07030, for Final Site Plan Approval relating to the premises known as Block 86, Lots 1-16 on the Tax Map of the, City of Hoboken, County of Hudson, State of New Jersey; and WHEREAS, the property is located at 800 Jackson Street, City of Hoboken, State of New Jersey, in the Northwestem Redevelopment District Zone 2, and is depicted on the architectural plans, thirty (30) sheets, prepared by Dean Marchetto Architects, P.C., last revised June 22, 2006; and the engineers report, entitled “Engineer 's Report for Metrostop Block 86 Hoboken, New Jersey,” prepared by Fredrick W. Worstell, E., of Dresdner Robin, dated January 10, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the project received preliminary site plan approval with c-variances by resolution dated September 6, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Applicant, as developer of this property, submitted a request for Final Site Plan Approval on March 21, 2006; and, WHEREAS, Eileen F. Banyra, P.P., A.C.P., of EFB Associates, LLC, the Board's 1Planner, submitted a review report dated May 10, 2006, and WHEREAS, Ann Brown, PE, CME, of Birdsall Engineering, Inc., the Board’s Engineer, submitted a review report dated April 7, 2006, which was revised on May 10, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Board considered the application at a hearing held on July 5, 2006; end WHEREAS, the Applicant's Attomey, James J. Burke, Esq,, presented testimony from Dean Marchetto of Dean Marchetto Architects, P.C., the Applicant's Architect; Mark A. Vizzini of Dresdner Robin, the Applicant's landscape architect; and Scott Parker of Edwards & Kelsey, the Applicant's traffic engineer; and WHEREAS, the public having been afforded an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Bosrd having considered the advice and comments of its consultants, hereby finds the following: A. FINDINGS OF FACT NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the City of Hoboken thatthe following facts are hereby made and determined: 1. The Applicant provided adequate notice of the application and the hearing, in accordance with the statute. 2. ‘The Applicant submitted an application for Final Site Plan Approval for it project at 800 Jackson Street on March 21, 2006. 5, The project received preliminary site plan approval with e-variances by resolution in September 2005. Subsequently, certain aspects ofthe plans were amended. 4 The Applicant has met the requests ofthe Subdivision and Site Plan Review Committee and Board's Consultants 5. Based upon the sworn and qualified testimony ofthe Applicant's arc tect, Dean Marchetto, the Board made the following findings of fact. & This project is located directly atthe rail station at 800 Jackson Street . ‘The plans received preliminary approval from the Board in September 2005. Some of the key issues in preliminary approval were that1, The project contained 113 residential units with on-site parking; 2. ‘The project had a ground floor public park area 3. The height of the project did not exceed the palisades - the building is mainly ten (10) stories with a small portion that is eleven (11) stories; and, 4, The ground floor of the project was transparent so that the building does not look like a back wall on the train station. bb. Subsequent to the approval, the Applicant has engineered the entire project, finalizing the structure of the building as well as the mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems for the project. As a result of that engineering there were some minor modifications to the plans. These modifications are fundamentally the difference between the approved preliminary site plan and the proposed final site plan, ©. There are no changes to the height or size of the building, nor to the materials used to construct the building. ‘The amendments are mostly intemal 4. Two less parking spaces are required because of a reduction in the commercial space on the ground floor. 1. Asa result of the square footage of the building the Applicant's parking requirement is 165 spaces. 2. Parking is available in the building for residents and for employees of the commercial tenants. 3. The variance received with the preliminary site plan approval was a deviation from the reteil parking requirement and allows the Applicant to provide only ninety-six (96) parking spaces. 4, The parking spaces will be offered to the residential and commercial units owners first €, The building is situated so that the parking deck begins in the basement floor, This floor is approximately six (6) feet below grade. There are four amendments to the basement floor plan: