Browsing this Thread:
2 Anonymous Users
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
 
Joined:
2014/11/24 21:43 Last Login : 2016/5/2 18:18 From The Village
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
34
 |
here is the latest:
the proposed zoning changes will be presented to the Planning Committee on this coming Tuesday, February 23. Instead of R-1 will be changed to R-5 - same as the R-E mentioned below (ie 4-family, 4 stories instead of 2-family, 3 stories), with these tweaks: - Parking is prohibited on lots less than 40 ft wide, unless they have access to a rear alley, and they can park in the back. - Parking standards are min of .5 and max of 1 - The height is limited to 45 ft - Anything that goes over 45 ft has to setback or change materials I do wonder about restricting height to 45 feet, except for change of materials or a setback - doesn't sound like anyone who hires an even barely competent architect needs to worry about the 45 feet restriction at all. the Planning Board meets at 5:30pm on Tuesday in the City Council chambers on the second floor of City Hall. the re-zoning is no.10 on the agenda - pretty early http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/uploa ... a%20Feb%2023rd%202016.pdf
Posted on: 2016/2/20 20:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
Joined:
2010/5/26 20:32 Last Login : 2023/9/14 15:34 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
214
|
Any update on the proposed zoning changes in the Village?
Quote:
Posted on: 2016/2/19 17:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Congratulations and thanks for the update.
Posted on: 2015/12/3 0:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I am happy to see that it seems that some people on the board actually understand what the people are saying and voted this project down. While I can't speak for everyone, I am not again nice new modern building, even ones slightly larger than what is here. To have a bunch of shills come out last night and say how this building will help all the families of Jersey City and save all the struggling businesses and that the people against this development are just scared of change and if everyone was like us we would still think the world was flat. This was just an insult to every one in the room.
This building is/was almost all tiny one bedrooms - it isn't going to help jersey city families and given the state of the current property I think its fair to say that it would be a run down slum within a few years. Not really the cornerstone of the jersey city revitalization that the developer would like to have you think. I think that we should have new development and I think that we should tear down old crappy houses that are bringing down the look of the area but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Why aren't developers being made to donate to citibike or host zipcars or have a beautiful public atrium or a play structure or a cute little store in the ground floor? When we compare our zoning to NYC or brooklyn we are actually much more permissive - we should have just as high of a standard if that is what we are trying to become. We should be "dressing" for the job we want not the one we have. I am not anti-development or anti-developer I am anti- setting the bar so low that this city and the people who already live here get screwed at every turn in order to make another buck for some already rich person who has shown they don't give 2 cares about anyone but their bottom line. Let's have some standards people..... this isn't a slum or a ghetto - people want to live here and buy here - we can actually make developers do things to make the whole area better rather than just giving them everything they want and more just so they will grace us with some new shoddily constructed building with some metal and glass on the front. Are we a bunch of toddlers who are so distracted by shiny things that we can't see what is really happening here?
Posted on: 2015/12/1 15:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Thanks for the updates. If interested in the proposed zoning change, I'd echo Erobinsonh and encourage attendance at the meeting.
Posted on: 2015/11/30 18:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
Joined:
2014/11/24 21:43 Last Login : 2016/5/2 18:18 From The Village
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
34
|
Quote:
At the moment the proposed changes are just for the Village - and details are still being discussed. R-1 would become R-E, which would change the 1 or 2 family, 3-story with parking R1 into a 4-family, 4-story, no parking RE. Also, on certain streets the former R1s would be allowed to have retail on the ground floor.
Posted on: 2015/11/30 16:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2010/5/26 20:32 Last Login : 2023/9/14 15:34 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
214
|
Quote:
Can you go into the details on the zoning changes? Will all current R-1's be rezoned? I'm curious if my current R-1 will then allow me to build more/higher then is already existing.
Posted on: 2015/11/30 16:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
Joined:
2014/11/24 21:43 Last Login : 2016/5/2 18:18 From The Village
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
34
|
for the third time in 2015, 375 Fifth Street is on the agenda for the Board of Adjustment - which is having a special meeting tonight (Mon, Nov 30) at City Hall at 6:30.
Earlier this year they proposed a 7-story, 19 unit, no parking building on an R1 lot (3-story, 1 or 2 family allowed). After much community opposition, they withdrew their proposal. A revised building was proposed last month - still requiring multiple variances. This time they want 5-stories and 14 units (again, no parking). Based on the presentation of the architect to the VNA, the justification for ignoring the zoning designation is that the proposed building is more aesthetically pleasing than the current one (a low bar), and that since the buildings behind it on Newark Avenue are NC, then it should be allowed to transform into the zoning designation of the structures that are behind the back yard. There are proposed zoning changes coming to the Village - no more R-1s, but what would be replacing the R1s in this case would allow 375 Fifth Street to be 8 units, with 4 parking spaces, instead of the 14 units, 0 parking requested. (Under current zoning it would be 4 units, 4 parking) One of the reasons to re-zone the Village is to stop this game of escalating variances, but I don't know whether 375 Fifth Street would scale back if the City Council had already voted on this - asking for variances for height and density has historically been a successful strategy. Last month this project was adjourned, because the developer had brought out so many people to support it that the Board was concerned that the presentation would stretch after midnight. It is possible that some of the supporters were actual community members who felt so strongly about adding 14 new neighbors to the area that they independently showed up - but I sat next to a woman during that meeting who described herself as "a friend of a friend" of the developer, and she had been given a helpful "fact sheet" to clarify the reasons for supporting the project. There were also a number of people in the audience who were there to ask that the project be scaled back - and, I know, it is exhausting to be asked to come out to these meetings every other week, but if you feel that development in the Village needs to be more closely checked, please show up tonight!
Posted on: 2015/11/30 12:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
Joined:
2014/11/24 21:43 Last Login : 2016/5/2 18:18 From The Village
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
34
|
For the 3rd Thursday in the last 5 weeks - there's a Board of Adjustment meeting!
And, again, there are properties in the Village seeking height, density and parking variances - because building within the existing zoning rules is for chumps. There are 3 Village buildings requesting variances on the agenda (no link to the agenda, as of this posting, on the official site - http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/zoningboardagenda/). The one case that is going to bring out people to speak against the request for variances is at 416 1st Street - an R1 (1 or 2 family home, 3 stories) which the developer wants, according to the agenda, to turn into a 5-story, 6 unit building with 2 parking spaces. If you want to voice your opposition (or approval) for another building that basically wants to turn an R1 into and R3 by using variances, then please come out to City Hall, City Council chamber, 280 Grove Street at 6:30pm on Thursday. If you can't make it this time - I am sure there will be plenty more opportunities to oppose (or support) similar projects in the coming months.
Posted on: 2015/11/11 19:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
bodhipooh and other like minded folks, let's mobilize and speak out in support for development in The Village. I hope these developments win approval tonight. Can't wait to see the empty lots and underutilized space gone and replaced with attractive development.
Quote:
Posted on: 2015/10/29 21:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
Joined:
2014/11/24 21:43 Last Login : 2016/5/2 18:18 From The Village
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
34
|
Here is tonight's Board of Adjustment agenda (6:30pm at City Council chambers in City Hall)
http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/uploa ... d_Agenda/zb102915.agn.pdf The second and third buildings on the agenda are in the Village and are asking for variances - 2 extra stories each. 20 parking spaces for 45 units at 380 Newark (NC zoning), 0 parking spaces for 14 units at 375 Fifth Street (R1 zoning)
Posted on: 2015/10/29 21:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Where were all you people who are complaining 10 years ago when both 361 Newark and 380 Newark were approved for 12 story structures (actually a 12-story 361 Newark had even started construction back in 2007, but that was put on hold because of the recession). You should be glad that the heights of both projects were halved from what was originally approved!
Posted on: 2015/10/25 2:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Traffic is quite audible late nights and early mornings - particularly trucks hitting the uneven ramps on the Turnpike. Worse than that - is the screeching 24x7 from trains rolling under the Turnpike. At night you can hear that all the way to HP. And loud road maintenance is generally done overnight. The area around the Turnpike acts as an echo chamber. Ever wonder why you can hear fireworks and fog horns from cruise ships so clearly downtown?
Posted on: 2015/10/23 15:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Any developer who says he needs a variance to make any money paid too much for the land (or has a pending deal based on the variance.)
Posted on: 2015/10/22 21:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I don't know if the variance has been granted yet, or if those opposed to the development still hold out hope it can be stopped or down-sized, but here is a website created to fight a proposed development in the Gansevoort Market Historic District in NYC, complete with renderings, a petition, etc. - makes it's case pretty effectively http://savegansevoort.org/proposed-gansevoort-development/
Posted on: 2015/10/22 14:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Thanks for the information.
[quote] sillyscorp wrote: cocopele -- yes this is actually the zoning requirements per JC code - they are asking for a variance for this sorry my link didn't work and it was messing with the format but if you google ? 345-36. - Interpretation of boundaries and scroll down to section E 8 you can find it this project is asking for the following variances based on "economic hardship" 1) 6 units vs the allowed 2 in R1 2) no set backs at rear (should be 20-35ft depending on the front yard) 3) 2+ additional floors (5+ stories vs 3) - not to mention additional height for the roof deck etc that will make it double height of allowed 4) to the lot line on one side and only a 1 ft set back on the other side - vs the required 2 ft on one side/ 5 ft total on both sides 5) building coverage (97.67 vs 60%) 6) lot coverage (100% vs allowed 85%) 7) small parking spots (to be honest I don't really care about this one though I think that this does make it a little tricky as those tiny little spots end up being useless once one person gets an SUV - but that is an issue for the owners to deal with)
Posted on: 2015/10/16 15:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
i was there last evening too & i agree that we should not sell our property resources short in jc, but much reform is required in this process.
we [the public] had to sit through several hours of 'presentation' where the drawings/renderings could not be seen, the witnesses could not be heard & the public was merely 'tolerated'. and then there was a commissioner who packed up her belongings & left out mid-meeting......
Posted on: 2015/10/16 15:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
cocopele -- yes this is actually the zoning requirements per JC code - they are asking for a variance for this
sorry my link didn't work and it was messing with the format but if you google ? 345-36. - Interpretation of boundaries and scroll down to section E 8 you can find it this project is asking for the following variances based on "economic hardship" 1) 6 units vs the allowed 2 in R1 2) no set backs at rear (should be 20-35ft depending on the front yard) 3) 2+ additional floors (5+ stories vs 3) - not to mention additional height for the roof deck etc that will make it double height of allowed 4) to the lot line on one side and only a 1 ft set back on the other side - vs the required 2 ft on one side/ 5 ft total on both sides 5) building coverage (97.67 vs 60%) 6) lot coverage (100% vs allowed 85%) 7) small parking spots (to be honest I don't really care about this one though I think that this does make it a little tricky as those tiny little spots end up being useless once one person gets an SUV - but that is an issue for the owners to deal with) Quote:
Posted on: 2015/10/16 15:32
Edited by sillyscorp on 2015/10/16 15:47:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
The zoning complaint I can understand, but don't agree with. CC is 3 doors away from the current proposal on 1st st. So the idea of a 4 story building 3 doors away from another 4 story building isn't a big deal to me, but I at least understand the complaint.
"crescent court is not actually in the same zoning area as the rest of the village - it was a special redevelopment zone that is not R1 like the rest of the area. Crescent court is 4 stories but since that is how it is zoned - this building is considered "in-fill" between existing R1 building (1-2 family homes that are up to 3 stories/30ft tall) and therefore should have to build to that code (they are trying to get an exception for no real reason except they want a bigger building to get more money)" Is this something that is also a zoning issue? Meaning do they need to request to use more of the lot (97% vs 60% normally) to build on or is it that typical developments only use 60%? Trying to gauge what is a complaint about actual zoning (as in R1 vs. CCs redevelopment zone above) and people's personal preferences on lot coverage. "This building is looking to have almost 100% lot coverage (97.67% - basically to the line except on one side where they have to set back 1 ft due to windows on an adjacent lot) instead of the normal which is around 60% "
Posted on: 2015/10/16 15:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
as some one who was at the meeting last night I can relay that on the only project we were actually able to get to a vote actually had almost no comments on it - it was a 2 family that was going from 2 parking spots to only one and to be honest it was pretty smooth case with only one question about it.
I don't know that parking is really the major issue for all of these project but more the fact that there is no consideration of existing density, existing homeowners, scale and look of neighborhoods, pressure on the school, pressure on the utilities, additional traffic etc. Please stop painting everyone who isn't happy with city hall bending to every developer demand as a crazy parking 'birther' or something (for the record I bought a home with parking cause I know I need a car for my job and I couldn't rely on street parking so not everyone who is against some of these projects is trying to "scam" the city for free parking and to be honest if they never build another place with parking in DTJC I would be more than happy cause it makes my house that much more valuable) In sitting there for over 3 hours last night, I didn't see one actual study or piece of concrete evidence submitted with these projects (ie 3rd party air, light, traffic, run off water, etc) .... just a lot of "expert" testimony (paid for by the developer) saying oh yeah we really tried to do it right but its just soooooo expensive so we are just going to do this other sort of crappy but hey look we are going to use red bricks so it matches! don't we deserve a little bit better than that? this town is not hurting for development - we don't need to beg people to build here. Why shouldn't the city be demanding that builders put forth the best plans for the whole city not the cheapest option they can get away with
Posted on: 2015/10/16 12:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Agreed. Something tells me that if they were proposing 5 stories, people would be complaining about the extra floor. And, of course, PARKING! The Village is LOSING ITS CHARACTER... where will the OG park their wheels!?
Posted on: 2015/10/16 11:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Typical NIMBY fear tactics... Yawn. This is a great location for a 5 to 7 story building.
Posted on: 2015/10/15 20:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
Joined:
2014/11/24 21:43 Last Login : 2016/5/2 18:18 From The Village
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
34
|
Quote:
Anything? A nuclear power plant? A 24-hour beer garden/disco/casino? Another Goldman Sachs tower? Why not a 5-story building? Given the current real estate boom, I doubt it's really a choice of 7 stories or nothing at all. Should we even have zoning? Should we try to preserve the character of the Village, or just let the developers do whatever they want and just let this place turn into Houston?
Posted on: 2015/10/15 19:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I'd be interested in taking a tally of JCListers that would be willing to show up at the planning commission and speak in support of this development.
I hate the vacant lots and the butt ugly turnpike. Anything that can block the view and noise from the overpass is a positive in my books.
Posted on: 2015/10/15 18:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
crescent court is not actually in the same zoning area as the rest of the village - it was a special redevelopment zone that is not R1 like the rest of the area. Crescent court is 4 stories but since that is how it is zoned - this building is considered "in-fill" between existing R1 building (1-2 family homes that are up to 3 stories/30ft tall) and therefore should have to build to that code (they are trying to get an exception for no real reason except they want a bigger building to get more money) This building is looking to have almost 100% lot coverage (97.67% - basically to the line except on one side where they have to set back 1 ft due to windows on an adjacent lot) instead of the normal which is around 60% currently the plans show it as 56' tall with a bulkhead on top that will be another 10' so in some spots this building will be OVER 60ft tall which is TWICE what this are is zoned for....
Posted on: 2015/10/15 17:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
Joined:
2014/11/24 21:43 Last Login : 2016/5/2 18:18 From The Village
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
34
|
Quote:
You may be closer to the overpass than I am - I am two blocks away from it and can see it clearly from my bedroom window. Although it's not exactly a Roman Aqueduct, I don't find it to be that ugly. It's relatively low profile, so what I mostly see are the trees and foliage behind on on the hill and palisade, as well as Dickinson HS, which is a good-looking building. As for the noise, I can hear it, but the traffic heading toward the Holland Tunnel is usually so slow that it makes very little noise, and even when traffic is moving, it's not that bad. Just me, but I'd rather look at the school and the green hillside than another generic building. Also - I don't have a problem with an empty lot having a building, but why do there need to be more than the 5 stories allowed in the NC zoning? And under the new regulations, the "community center" on top makes it technically a 7-story building. It's not just this specific building - almost every new development in the Village seems to take for granted now that zoning means almost nothing - extra floors are available for the asking, and with sales at $600 and $700 a square foot, I guess it doesn't hurt to ask. Why not grab as much money as the community will tolerate. In this case, with a foot print of 15,000 square feet - an extra floor is a LOT of money.
Posted on: 2015/10/15 16:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Buildings that hide the ugly overpass and insulate the sound are a plus imo.
Posted on: 2015/10/14 14:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Posted on: 2015/10/14 12:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
How many stories is Crescent Court. I thought it was 4, but it might not be. What is the lot coverage issue?
"Reportedly it has decided to shrink from 5 stories to 4 stories, but that's still more than allowed by current zoning, not to mention the lot coverage. There are a number of us planning to show up at the Zoning meeting on Thursday to voice our opposition to their plan"
Posted on: 2015/10/14 4:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: fighting to keep existing height and density zoning in The Village
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The current proposal (I'm assuming that is what is on JCVillage's website) is a huge improvement over the first scheme http://cecengineers.com/ourproject.aspx?typeid=19 which may not have been serious to begin with, although the design of the facade and windows need work to make it either relate to typical surrounding buildings, or manage the scale transition.
I work for the NYC Landmark's Commission, and have listened to my Commissioners vote to approve larger structures in historic neighborhoods and I can see one thing which suggests this proposal might be found appropriate - the presence of the highway overpass, which breaks up the continuity of the streetscape and and creates an "edge" condition which often suggests a different building type can be acceptable. Another thing that stands out, from my perspective having done design review in historic neighborhoods, is the preponderance of empty lots. That really diminishes the sense of place that the smaller scale, older buildings would normally contribute to. I'm having a hard time seeing why the current proposal would be so out of place.
Posted on: 2015/10/13 17:56
|
|||
|
||||