Conference and Public Hearing

City of Trenton Planning Board

Conference and Public Hearing Thursday, January 26, 2006 Trenton City Hall

Members in Attendance: Joe Cooley, Chairperson Barbara Haynes, Vice Chairperson Jeff Halpern Charles Hill Dennis Keenan Gregory Williams

Staff in Attendance: Andrew Carten, Director Division of Planning William Valocchi, Supervising Planner Robert Leventhal, Planning Board Attorney Cherry Oakley, Planning Board Secretary

CONFERENCE SESSION

A quorum was verified and Chairperson Cooley called the meeting to order at 7:15 pm. Mr. Hill asked for an update on the Foundry project and Mr. Carten indicated that there wasn’t any further update from what was mentioned in the minutes. Chairperson Cooley moved to adopt the minutes from the last meeting. Vice Chairperson Haynes seconded the motion. All were in favor.

Mr. Valocchi indicated that Tuesday night the City Council moved to allow the Planning Board to set the date for re-hearing the previously mentioned Redevelopment matter that was struck down by the judge when a resident challenged the decision in court. Mr. Hill made a motion to set the date for March 23, 2006. Vice Chairperson Haynes seconded the motion all were in favor. Mr. Valocchi reviewed the need for re-hearing this matter and re-designating it as an area in need of Redevelopment. Mr. Leventhal indicated that in the past Redevelopment Areas were not so heavily reviewed. This is not the only case that has come to this finding and more emphasis is being placed on the factual findings used to make a determination. In the future, the Board will need to be more exact and more careful in considering these matters. Mr. Valocchi indicated that the Board will start to see the Division change what they will do when making such a presentation.

1 Mr. Leventhal indicated that during the Board training he would like to present to the Board what sort of questions Boards should be asking and considering because in the review of this case, there was concern that there were no Board questions or challenging of the information, when the judge was expecting to see that. Mr. Carten presented some ideas on how Mr. Leventhal can provide that training to the Board. Mr. Hill made a motion that on February 9, 2006 Mr. Leventhal will provide training to the Board for 30 minutes prior to the regular convening of the Board. Vice Chairperson Haynes seconded the motion and all were in favor. Mr. Valocchi will advertise that the 2/9/2006 conference session will begin at 6:30pm.

There were no resolutions to memorialize.

Mr. Carten reviewed the requirements for the formal training that the Board will be required to complete in order to serve on the Planning Board. He indicated that each Board member should select a training session and complete the registration form distributed during the meeting and return it to the Division, who will then submit the required payment and registration form.

For the trip into New York the Board should look to take a train around 9:00am with a return trip planned for 3:00pm. Ms. Wegner will be joining us. The Division will arrange for the roundtrip tickets for the train ride and subway. Lunch will occur during this trip to visit Full Spectrum’s building that was erected in New York.

Minor Subdivision (Land already subdivided, subdivided not needed) and Minor Site Plan Application: The applicant intends to consolidate three lots and re-subdivide into two and construct two semi-detached residential units with off street parking on legal size lots: Location: 342 Rusling Street, Block 174B, Lots 49, 50, and 51; Applicant: Alejandro Cuadros. Waiver of Public Hearing.

Mr. Valocchi indicated that under the MLUL if the applicant meets the conditions the Board can waive a public hearing. The Division recommends that this be waived. They are considered a minor application. The applicant, who was present in the room, indicated that they have no objections to meeting any of the staff conditions.

Waiver of the requirement for public hearing Member Aye Nay Ab- Motioned Seconded stain Joe Cooley, Chairperson X Barbara Haynes, Vice X X Chairperson Jeff Halpern X X Charles Hill X Dennis Keenan X Gregory Williams X

2 Approval of Minor Site Plan Application Member Aye Nay Ab- Motioned Seconded stain Joe Cooley, Chairperson X Barbara Haynes, Vice X X Chairperson Jeff Halpern X Charles Hill X X Dennis Keenan X Gregory Williams X

Mr. Valocchi indicated that the first case tonight is that the applicant is trying to consolidate a lot they are coming before the Board tonight because the Planning Board has jurisdiction over isolated undersized lots. Because it’s only one home they do not need site plan approval. Under State law when there are a series of undersized lots you have an issue of density and then need a “d” variance. The applicant will have to prove to the Board that they meet the criteria under the ‘C’ Variance which is required when you have an isolated undersized lot. They will also need to prove that they will not be a detriment to the area. It is unknown whether anyone from the community will come out for this matter.

Mr. Carten indicated that the Broad Street Bank will be coming before the Board tonight. The project involves 2 sites, and there are a few more conditions put forth. They will put some residential units on the mezzanine level rather than the previously proposed office suites. The minimum square footage is different because of what we allow in the downtown area because of the residential component. There are samples of the floor plans included in the packets. The Division would like the retailers to be open after 5:00pm, but there has not been an answer as to whether that will occur. There is rumor that there have been at least one tenant secured, who is a bank.

The CCRC reviewed the parking and made a number of suggestions of changes to the building related to the parking garage that addresses the parking needs. The garage proposes 2 entrances and exit, but the CCRC suggests one. This would have caused an entire re-tooling of the project and made the garage be higher, etc. The applicant can explain why they won’t respond to this suggestion. The code does not require the applicant to follow CCRC’s suggestion to get approval, but the Board could consider their response in its determination of what they will require the applicant to do.

Next meeting: No information shared.

3 Mr. Potts made a motion to adjourn. All were in favor and the conference session was adjourned at 7:55 pm

PUBLIC HEARING

The meeting was called to order at 8:00 pm. Chairperson Cooley opened the meeting. A quorum was verified.

Item #1- 42716- Minor Subdivision with a variance for lot size, lot width and parking. The applicant intends to consolidate three lots and re-subdivide into two lots; build a detached residential unit on one lot (lot size 3,600 square feet, 4,000 required); remaining lot to contain an existing semi-detached unit (2,400 square foot lot, 2,500 square foot lot required: Location of Development: 114-120 Liberty Street; City Tax Map: Block 165 C, Lots 83, 84, and 85: Applicant: JDM Management Groups, 1135 Richford Terrace, Elizabeth, NJ

Mr. Arnold C. Lakind, Attorney at Law from Szaferman Lakind of Lawrenceville, NJ introduced himself and the application and what variances the applicant was seeking tonight.

Mr. Marc A. Remo, Engineer from Remo Engineering, LLC of Freehold and Newark, NJ was introduced and sworn in. He presented his credential and was accepted as an expert in this area. The site plan created by him was marked as Exhibit A-1. He described the project site and the dimension of the area of the lots. Referencing Exhibit A-1 he described for the Board the proposed plan. When all of the lots are combined the lots will sum to 6,000 sq. ft. whereas the other lots in the area range from 1,600 sq. ft. to 1,800 sq. ft. There will be a 40ft long driveway that will accommodate 2 parking spaces. All of the utilities will be located on Liberty Street. There is a proposed street tree located in front of the dwelling. More can be added at the Board’s discretion. Mr. Remo reviewed the minimum lot requirements and what is proposed that is less than that in each lot of this subdivided area. Mr. Remo read the conditions in the Municipal Land Use Law that would allow for relief from the requirements of meeting the lot size for the area. He noted that the project will conform to other dwellings in the neighborhood and add to the proposed effects and values of the other homes in the area. The aesthetics of the home will add to the neighborhood. Thus it will not be a detriment to the neighborhood.

He noted there are no other permits required for this project. Mr. Remo indicated that the applicant plans to satisfy all of the comments from the Division. They would like clarification if a 2nd tree is required in that area.

Mr. Jose Torres, the President of J.D. Management of Elizabeth, NJ was sworn in. He indicated that one block to the left and one block to the right there are 35 homes on similarly undersized lots referenced in the testimony.

4 Mr. Todd Geter, Architect of Todd Geter Architects of Trenton, NJ was sworn in and was accepted as an expert qualified to testify before this Board. The document titles Subdivision Plan Lots 83, 84, and 85 in block 165C situated in City of Trenton Mercer County New Jersey was marked as Exhibit A-2. He detailed what each floor of the home to be constructed will look like.

Referencing Exhibit A-3 a rendering of the front and rear elevations of the project he showed the board what is planned for the lot. He described the flow through the building.

Board Questions: None.

Chairperson Cooley asked if there was anyone from the audience that wanted to speak for or against this project. With no answer from the Gallery the following votes were set forth:

Approval of Minor Subdivision Application Member Aye Nay Ab- Motioned Seconded stain Joe Cooley, Chairperson X Barbara Haynes, Vice X X Chairperson Jeff Halpern X Charles Hill X X Dennis Keenan X Gregory Williams X

Approval of Variance for lot size and width Member Aye Nay Ab- Motioned Seconded stain Joe Cooley, Chairperson X Barbara Haynes, Vice X X Chairperson Jeff Halpern X Charles Hill X Dennis Keenan X Gregory Williams X X

The Next Case was called before the Board.

5 Item #2- 42655A—Final Site Plan Application: The applicant proposes to renovate and convert an existing building to include 11, 799 square feet of retail space (First floor) and 124 residential apartments on the upper floors. The applicant also proposes to construct a seven story, 171 stall-parking garage with 1,346 square feet of retail space City Tax Map: Block 2A, Lots 12, 13, and 18: Project Location: South Montgomery, East State and East Front Streets: Applicant: Bayville Holdings, LLC, 2050 Lakeville Road, New Hyde Park, NY 11040.

Mr. Lakind re- introduced himself and the introduced the project. He had his 3 witnesses sworn in Mr. Richard Libbey of PKRML & Associates; Mr. Steve Hackman, Chief Structural Engineer of O&S Associates of Hackensack, NJ; and Mr. Frank Sabouri, Principal Director of Design for P S & S of Warren, NJ.

Mr. Hill indicated to the applicant that it will be important to have retailers that will remain open past 5:00 pm renting in their retail space so please make finding such retailers a priority in their planning. Mr. Libbey indicated that the applicant is interested in that also.

Board Questions: Vice Chairperson Haynes: Will there be any restaurants? Mr. Libbey: It is my experience that when there are restaurants in a project like this there’s a problem with the ventilation ducts needing to run all the way through to the top of the building and with a 9 story building this is difficult.

He also noted that the building is trying to get a national historic landmark designation and the Landmarks Commission will be getting involved with the determination of their signage because they will have to conform to their rules in order to get the designation. Mr. Sabouri indicated that in order to keep in concert with the historic flavor the signage shouldn’t precede the building. It will be cut out letters that can be affixed to the windows or side of the building unobtrusively.

Mr. Lakind reviewed the applicant’s reponses the Staff recommendations as follows: Section A: 1. OK 2. OK 3. He described the coverage materials 4. Will flow by original (historic) design of the building 5. OK 6. OK 7. OK 8. Presently talking to banks, office suppliers like Kinkos, mens clothing store for men’s suits. There are no commitments at this time 9. OK 10. People will recognize it as the Broad Street Bank locally, but the new Bank will want to have signage that is recognizable as their own corporate name. 11. OK

6 12. OK 13. a- OK b.- The goal is as was detailed during preliminary site plan approval c.- Will use the artisan that did the replacement windows for the White House and will have special glass to attain LEED status. We ma be the 1st Historic LEED building in New Jersey and possibly the country. Mr. Libbey indicated that the cornice will be restored to almost the exact detail except for those parts that we can’t get. The person who restored Grand Central Station and other such architecture will be doing this building also. d.- Have exterior sconce on the garage. e.- All have been rebuilt f.- No change because of need to conform with Historic requirements of the building. Returns it to its original design g.- as previously stated, the signage will melt into the façade. h.- OK

Section B: 1. Has been completed 2. Done. 3. Have submitted it already and are available for more information 4. Can’t do this at this time 5. Only for building tenants. Mill Hill Playhouse can use the bottom level for parking for their shows and there will be a transponder for the residents. 6. Referencing the Exhibit he should why they are unable to do but they will work with the City to reach an agreeable solution. Color renderings of the side elevation of the parking garage and the front of the parking garage were marked as Exhibits A-2 and A-3. Mr. Sabouri described how it will be anchor to the corner and will allow for a large clock face to be placed there. There will be street like façade there that will mimic shops because of the glass face of the bottom level. It was an error in the report referencing chain link fencing. There won’t be any such fencing and this reference will be removed from the report. 7. OK 8. Mr. Hackman demonstrated 9. Another will be provided if the application is approved tonight 10. OK 11. OK 12. OK 13. Have done so and satisfied all of those comments.

Chairperson Cooley asked if there was anyone from the audience that wanted to speak for or against this project.

7 Mr. Phillip A. Dixon, Jr. was sworn in. He asked what the parking garage would look like because it’s directly diagonal to their home. He believes this is what downtown needs to revitalize this area. His home is on Front Street.

He indicate that he would like to see restaurants and a gym located there or any business that would encourage interaction downtown. He asked what income bracket was targeted to live in the residential units, as he believes the applicant should target young professionals.

Mr. Libbey indicated that they are, indeed, targeting that segment of society. There are 26 units set aside for lower income but the remainder is for income levels that are above Trenton’s current median income. There have been healthcare professionals from Philadelphia that have been inquiring about the units already.

Board Questions: Mr. Hill: Are you using any RCA credits? Mr. Sabouri: Yes.

Chairperson Cooley asked if there was anyone else from the audience that wanted to speak for or against this project. With no answer from the Gallery the following vote was set forth:

Approval of Final Site Plan Application Member Aye Nay Ab- Motioned Seconded stain Joe Cooley, Chairperson X Barbara Haynes, Vice X X Chairperson Jeff Halpern X Charles Hill X X Dennis Keenan X Gregory Williams X

With no other business before the Board Mr. Hill made a motion to adjourn the public hearing. All were in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 pm.

Respectfully submitted by Cherry Oakley