Applicant and Owner 20 Nassau Street, Block 19.02, Lots 17, 18, 19 and 20 File No

PRINCETON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT COUNTY OF MERCER

GPNJ Owner LLC -Applicant and Owner 20 Nassau Street, Block 19.02, Lots 17, 18, 19 and 20 File No. Z2020-828

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL MAJOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES

WHEREAS, the Applicant, GPNJ Owner LLC ( operating as Graduate Hotels) has submitted an application seeking preliminary and final major site plan approval with use variance and bulk variances pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A: 55D-70 (c) and (d) and Section , 10B21 &221 of the former Princeton Borough land use ordinances for conversion and reconstruction of an existing office building with street level retail to a hotel with retail uses on property located at 20 Nassau Street, Princeton, New Jersey (being Block 19.02, Lots 17,18,19 and 20 on the Princeton Tax Map), in the central business (CBD ) zoning district , and the central historic district of the former Princeton Borough; and

WHEREAS, the Board held public hearings on the application on December 16, 2020, January 6, 2021, January 20, 2021, and February 8, 2021; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant has complied with the notification and publication requirements of the Municipal Land Use Law. All property taxes due and owing for the subject property are paid in full as are the current professional fees/escrow account in connection with the within application; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant was represented by Christopher DeGrezia, Esq., Faegre, Drinker Biddle and Reath, LLP and

WHEREAS, the Board reviewed and considered the testimony of the following witnesses, the application and plans and exhibits presented at the hearings:

Applicant’s Testimony and Exhibits.

Testimony was provided by Pablo David, Vice-President, Graduate Hotels, Tim Ryan, Chief Investment Officer, Graduate Hotels, Steven Oakley and Brook Core, Stonehill & Taylor Architects, Joshua Zinder, AIA, John McDonough, PP, AICP, PLA, George Jacquemart, PE, AICP, Ryan Glotzbecker, Thomas O’Shea, PE, Van Note Harvey Associates, Michael J. Mills, FAIA and Meredith Arms Bzdak, PhD, Mills +Schnoring Architects, LLC.

REVISED31821 1

The Applicant placed the following exhibits into evidence:

A-1 – PowerPoint slide presentation consisting of 81 slides containing general information regarding Graduate Hotels, photos and plans of the proposed site layout, project design, floor plans, elevations, parking garage and circulation, traffic pattern, landscaping, environmental design, acoustical analysis and signage.

A-2 (a)- PowerPoint slide presentation of 76 slides entitled “Graduate Princeton Hotel Design Evolution” containing a description of the evolution of the project design in response to community and advisory board comments.

A-2 (b)- PowerPoint slide presentation of 27 slides entitled “Graduate Princeton Hotel Site Context” containing photos of Bank Street, photos of the current building at 20 Nassau Street and comparison to the proposed hotel, drawings of existing and proposed streetscape elevations.

Summary-Applicant Witnesses

Testimony of Pablo David, VP, Graduate Hotels

Mr. David testified on behalf of the Applicant at the hearings. He advised that he serves as Vice President of the Applicant entity. Mr. David provided testimony regarding the proposed application and the Applicant’s exhibits. Mr. David noted that the Applicant is an experienced operator of hotels in various college towns and described the Applicant’s development philosophy. In response to Board questions and public comments, he advised that the Applicant proposes a “grab and go” café on the hotel’s first floor primarily for the convenience of its guests, which will provide coffee, nonalcoholic drinks, and snacks. In addition, Mr. David noted that the Applicant also proposes a bar and restaurant on the basement floor which the Applicant anticipates will be used primarily by its guests. Mr. David further testified that he believes the project will revitalize the Princeton downtown area and will provide increased tax revenue for the town. In addition, Mr. David testified that the address of the hotel will be “2-4 Chambers Street” which will be the main entrance rather than 20 Nassau Street to limit the possibility that guests will mistakenly turn down Bank Street. Mr. David further advised that he has informed the municipal administration that the Applicant would fully support issuing 24-hour parking permits to Bank Street residents limiting parking to only residents.

Testimony of Thomas O’Shea, PE Van Note Harvey

Thomas O’Shea testified on behalf of the Applicant. He advised that he is a licensed professional engineer in the State of New Jersey and serves as project civil engineer. Mr. O’Shea testified that he has been accepted as an expert witness in civil engineering by numerous land use boards in

REVISED31821 2 New Jersey and the Board agreed to so accept him. Mr. O’Shea testified regarding the Applicant’s exhibits, particularly with respect to site layout and stormwater management and drainage.

Testimony of Steven Oakley, Architect, Stonehill Taylor Architects

Steven Oakley testified on behalf of the Applicant. He advised that he is a licensed architect in the State of New Jersey with over 34 years of experience and serves as project architect. Mr. Oakely further testified that he has been accepted as an expert witness by numerous land use boards in New Jersey. The Board agreed to accept Mr. Oakley as an expert witness in architecture.

Mr. Oakely provided testimony regarding the Applicant’s exhibits, project design concepts, site- layout, floor plans, elevations, lighting, and environmental design standards. Mr. Oakley testified that the Applicant will design the project to a LEED Silver standard, including electric vehicle chargers, a green roof, and zero percent up lighting. In addition, the Applicant will provide free bicycle rental and storage for guests.

Mr. Oakely further testified that the Nassau Street façade has a high historic value and a prominent location on Nassau Street and accordingly, the Applicant is preserving that building. In contrast, he advised that the Chambers Street façade has low historic value and the Applicant proposes to replace the existing structure with a five-story building which will contain the main hotel entrance along with an enclosed auto-court for the purpose of staging access for guests’ vehicles and taxis to facilitate valet parking. The Chambers Street structure will also include underground stacked parking which will be accessed by hotel valet parking staff. He confirmed that the existing pedestrian entrance and connection from Nassau Street into the hotel will be maintained. In response to public comment, Mr. Oakely confirmed that the height of the proposed new Chambers Street building will be under the zone maximum of 65 feet.

Mr. Oakley testified that he believes the proposed Chambers Street structure is consistent with the mass of other buildings on that street, particularly the 22 Chambers Street building and the Nassau Christian Center. Mr. Oakley reviewed existing conditions at the Property and photos of the view from Bank Street to the rear of the proposed Chambers Street structure.

Mr. Oakley reviewed the zoning bulk requirements and existing site nonconformities. He advised that the Chambers Street façade is considered the front of the building. Mr. Oakley testified that the proposed project will provide a ten-foot side yard setback on the __north______side of the Chambers Street building, an eight-foot side yard setback along the Nassau Street façade (which is the setback of the existing building) and no front yard setback, all of which are consistent with the zone standards which do not require front yard or side yard setbacks in the central business district. He acknowledged that the zone standards require a ten-foot rear yard setback where a project abuts a residential district. He initially advised that the Applicant proposed no setback along the first-floor auto court façade with a ten-foot setback for the second through the fifth floors of the hotel. Mr. Oakley confirmed that the height of the proposed rear wall is a function of the height required for the proposed auto-court and its purpose is to encapsulate the proposed auto-court area to minimize noise and light impacts on the neighboring residents.

REVISED31821 3

Mr. Oakely noted that the existing six-foot wall could be retained as of right under the municipal zoning ordinance without providing a ten-foot rear yard setback. He also presented the design options considered by the Applicant for the rear façade adjacent to Bank Street, noting the changes which were made in response to comments from Bank Street residents including adding green elements, recessing the inner court area to break up the rear wall façade and reduce degree of shade cast on Bank Street properties.

Testimony of Brooke Core, Stonehill & Taylor Architects

Brooke Core testified on behalf of the Applicant. She advised that she is a licensed architect in the State of New York and has worked on the project under the direction of Steven Oakley. Ms. Core was accepted by the Board as an expert witness in architecture. Ms. Core testified regarding an analysis she prepared using sun path diagrams to compare the shade cast on Bank Street properties by the existing building and the anticipated shade to be cast by the new proposed structure on Chambers Street. Ms. Core advised that the analysis covered the winter, spring, and summer solstice. She further testified that during the summer months, the new building will allow additional light onto Bank Street and that during the winter and spring months, there will not be a significant difference in shading as a result of the new Chambers Street building.

Ms. Core also provided testimony highlighting the project design changes which were made in response to comments received from Bank Street residents and advisory boards, referencing Exhibit A-2 (a). Ms. Core advised that in a further effort to address objections raised by Bank Street residents, the Applicant now proposes shifting the core of the building 3.7 feet to the east which would allow the 20 ft. wall to be set back 8 feet at the northwest corner, thereby increasing the area in front of the wall on the Bank Street side by 206 sf. The Applicant also proposes adding a tree and a 6-foot wooden privacy fence in that location. The proposed 20 ft. wall façade would continue along the remainder of the boundary with Bank Street properties at a zero rear yard setback. Ms. Core further testified that as a result of this design change, the Applicant would lose 4 parking spaces, reducing the provided stacked parking to 76 spaces.

Testimony of Meredith Bzdak, PhD, Mills + Schnoering Architects

Meredith Bzdak testified on behalf of the Applicant. Ms. Bzdak advised that she is an architectural historian with extensive experience in historic preservation. The Board accepted Ms. Bzdak as an expert witness in architectural history. She reviewed the history of the Property, advising that the structures were built in three sections in 1925-26, consisting of the current five story building on Nassau Street plus a two- story warehouse and a two- story garage on Chambers Street. The garage section also contained three storefronts along with the entrance to the garage. Ms. Bzdak noted that in 1932 the Property was purchased by Princeton University and was subsequently used for the Institute for Advanced Study. In later years, the University sold the building and was ultimately acquired by private owners. The Chambers Street section of the building is now used as a five-story office building.

REVISED31821 4

Testimony of Michael Mills, FAIA, Mills + Schnoering Architects Michael Mills testified on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. Mills advised that he is a licensed architect in the State of New Jersey with approximately 40 years of architectural experience and a fellow of the American Institute of Architects and has provided expert testimony in various land use board proceedings. The Board agreed to accept Mr. Mills as an expert witness in architecture. Mr. Mills advised that he specializes in the preservation and rehabilitation of historic structures. He testified that he provided heritage consulting and preparation of an historic preservation plan for the Property in connection with the current project. Mr. Mills further testified that the Nassau Street main building will be preserved and renovated for use as a hotel. He advised that the architectural integrity of that building will be maintained through preserving its essential form, materials, and fenestration. Mr. Mills noted that preservation efforts will focus on the exterior as the interior space of the Nassau Street building is not historically significant. He further testified that the window air conditioning units will be removed and a central HVAC system will be located on the roof. The HVAC equipment will be well-screened and will not be visible from the sidewalk. Mr. Mills confirmed that the existing windows will be replaced due to their deteriorating condition with windows which match the original historical design. In addition, he noted that the exterior brick masonry of the Nassau Street building is in good condition. Any required new brick will match the existing bricks. The existing decorative copper frames will be retained and restored including the removal of any white painted areas.

Testimony of George Jacquemart, PE, AICP

George Jacquemart testified on behalf of the Applicant. He testified that he is a licensed professional engineer in the State of New Jersey and a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. Mr. Jacquemart advised that he has previously been accepted as an expert witness in traffic planning and engineering by numerous land use boards in New Jersey, including the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment. The Board agreed to accept Mr. Jacquemart as an expert witness in traffic planning and engineering.

Mr. Jaquemart addressed the change in parking demand and supply as a result of the proposed project, the design and operation of the proposed auto-court and the traffic generation and impact of the proposed project. He testified that the parking demand for the site will be reduced from the existing office/retail use as a result of the new hotel/retail use. He advised that the municipal zoning ordinances required 190 parking spaces under the existing use (assuming pre-pandemic conditions with nearly full occupancy of the building) and the existing site has no on-site parking. The zoning ordinances would require 165 parking spaces for the new use. Mr. Jaquemart opined that it is significant that the parking demand for the hotel will peak during the evening hours, leaving a reduced demand during the day of only 91 parking spaces. He testified that the reduction in daytime parking demand coupled with the added on-site parking of 80 spaces would result in an actual daytime demand shortage of only 11 parking spaces during the hours of 9 am -5 pm. He further testified that if that shortage is compared to the existing 190 parking space demand, he believes the project results in a positive parking improvement in the central business district of 179 parking spaces.

REVISED31821 5 Mr. Jacquemart further testified regarding the expected parking utilization in Princeton at the proposed hotel as compared with that of other Graduate Hotels across the country, noting that the proposed Princeton hotel will have a much better parking ratio than other Graduate hotel locations.

Mr. Jacquemart testified regarding the vehicular circulation within the auto-court. He reviewed the Applicant’s preferred option which would provide for counter-clockwise traffic circulation, advising that such a traffic pattern is the safest for a confined area because the driver sits closest to the critical traffic path. Mr. Jacquemart advised that the preferred option would allow up to nine queuing spaces for vehicles and reviewed the anticipated circulation pattern in and out of the entrance on Chambers Street. He confirmed that access to the stacked parking area would be limited to the hotel valet drivers. He advised that there is sufficient turning access to allow a taxi to enter, drop off guests and exit without needing to back-up. Mr. Jacquemart further testified that the Applicant tested various other circulation options which would allow the proposed 20- foot buffer wall to be located with ten-foot rear yard setback. He advised that these other options created unsafe circulation patterns which would require drivers to complete a number of maneuvers, either K-turns or backing up, to use the queued spaces and to travel in and out of the auto-court. Mr. Jacquemart further opined that by making the auto-court access safe and accessible, the likelihood of guests or visitors parking on Bank Street will be greatly reduced.

Mr. Jacquemart noted that written responses were provided to the Board engineering staff regarding traffic counts and circulation information provided by the Applicant. Mr. Jacquemart noted, based upon data he collected as well as data from the Institute for Traffic Engineers, that that the level of performance at the intersection of Chambers and Nassau Streets for drivers seeking to turn left or right from Chambers Street onto Nassau Street was currently at “C” level and that with the addition of the hotel, it would be at “D” level. He noted that the data used from the Institute for Traffic Engineers was based upon that for the category of business hotels which best fit the current project, based upon number of rooms, lack of event spaces and limited food service.

In response to Board questions, and public comments, Mr. Jacquemart advised that there will be 100% valet parking for guests, meaning no guests can drive into the basement area. He anticipates the on-site parking will be sufficient to accommodate hotel employees through valet parking. He noted that the 116-seat count for the proposed restaurant/ bar is based on fire safety code standards and that there is no reason to assume that it will operate at maximum capacity. Mr. Jacquemart further testified that while there could be surges in parking demand several days a year due to Princeton University events, these surges which would be best handled through the valet/stacked parking arrangement.

Testimony of Joshua Zinder AIA

Joshua Zinder provided testimony on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. Zinder testified that he is a licensed architect in the State of New Jersey and a member of the American Institute of Architects. He advised that he has previously been accepted as an expert witness in architecture by this Board and the Board agreed to again so accept him. Mr. Zinder advised that he serves as

REVISED31821 6 local project architect.

Mr. Zinder provided testimony regarding the Applicant’s exhibits. In particular, he described the Applicant’s justification for demolishing the existing Chambers Street building, testifying that the Chambers Street building was originally designed as warehouse and garage space and not intended as habitable space. Accordingly, he explained the Chambers Street building contains eight distinct elevations and the floor levels do not align with the Nassau Street Building floor levels, resulting in multiple interior steps and ramp. Mr. Zinder further testified that most areas in the Chambers Street building are not ADA accessible. He advised that adaptation of the existing flat plate concrete and mushroom column construction in the Chambers Street building to unify levels with the Nassau Street building will not be feasible. In addition, Mr. Zinder testified that the windows from story to story in the Chambers Street building are not consistent with respect to size and style. He further noted that there is very little design of architectural interest or historic significance in the Chambers Street building.

Mr. Zinder testified regarding his analysis of floor area ratios (FAR) of the Palmer Square commercial buildings in central business district, asserting that the proposed project’s FAR of 3.62 is not out of scale with other buildings. He advised that nearly all the Palmer Square buildings are FAR- noncompliant reflecting a floor area ratio of 3.0 to 4.0. In response to public comments, he advised that he reached his conclusion by comparing the square footage of each plot of land containing Palmer Square buildings with the square footage of each building area. Mr. Zinder provided testimony regarding the proposed signage. He reviewed the originally proposed signage and presented the Applicant’s revised signage which was altered in response to comments from the public and advisory boards as follows:

Chambers Street entrance sign: 56.91 sf proposed with no illuminated boxes but letters will be halo lit; Nassau Street entrance sign:10.89 sf proposed; Nassau Street blade sign:43.65 sf proposed (reduced from 44.65 sf); Chambers Street blade sign:11 sf. proposed (reduced from 44.65 sf); Elimination of the Chambers Street parking garage sign.

Mr. Zinder further noted that the signs will have a black background with white lettering instead of the original design which used the Princeton University colors of orange and black.

Mr. Zinder further testified regarding the hotel site context referencing Exhibit A-2(b) to compare “before and after” views from Bank Street and Chambers Street using current photos and visualizations of the proposed project. Mr. Zinder advised that the design of the proposed Chambers Street building will provide an improved visual appearance from the current building as a result of removing numerous exterior wires and cables, bad windows, stepping back the façade from the second to the fifth floors, and providing a green area and flowering trees. Accordingly, although the new building will be higher than the existing Chambers Street building, Mr. Zinder noted that the new building will be similar in scale to the existing structure at 22 Chambers Street.

Testimony of John McDonough, PP, AICP, PLA

REVISED31821 7 John McDonough testified on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. McDonough testified that he is a licensed planner in the State of New Jersey and a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. He further testified that he is a licensed professional landscape architect in the State of New Jersey. Mr. McDonough advised that he has been accepted as an expert witness in land use planning and landscape architecture by numerous municipal boards. The Board agreed to accept Mr. McDonough as an expert witness in land use planning and landscape architecture.

Mr. McDonough testified regarding the Applicant’s exhibits with respect to landscaping and lighting. He advised that the Applicant intends to provide a green roof which will be result in a more attractive appearance for the adjacent Bank Street residents. In addition, the Applicant proposes to transform a finger-shaped flag lot it owns adjacent to 11-13 Bank Street from a paved area to a green area with mixed plantings. He noted that the Applicant will use different lighting types consisting of sconces, recessed lighting and wall lightings which will be consistent with the municipal site plan standards regarding illumination levels.

Mr. McDonough provided testimony that the requested variances meet the criteria for approval. He noted that the proposed project will provide permitted uses on the site which will benefit the municipality by spurring economic development and revitalizing the downtown area. In addition, Mr. McDonough testified that the project will allow for preservation of the façade of prominent historic building use on Nassau Street while creatively readapting the remainder of the Property.

With respect to the requested D (4) variance for the increased floor area, Mr. McDonough testified that the existing buildings on the Property are noncompliant with respect to FAR and that the existing Chambers Street building has a zero rear yard setback. He opined that based upon the entirety of the testimony, the Applicant has demonstrated that the site can accommodate the increased FAR because the Applicant is preserving the façade of an historically significant structure and is readapting the existing Property for permitted uses which will cause less parking demand on the site than the prior office/retail use. He also noted that the project will provide on- site valet parking which will further lessen demand on downtown parking availability, He testified that the increase in floor area is not inconsistent with the floor area ratio of commercial buildings on Palmer Square in the central business district .In addition, Mr. McDonough testified that the project will be designed to obtain LEED Silver certification and will address greatly improved sustainability through new wiring, new HVAC systems, green roof and ADA compliance. Based on the foregoing, Mr. McDonough opined that the project will satisfy the purposes of zoning as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2 (a), (g), (h) (i), and (m) because it will promote the general welfare by providing an appropriate site for a permitted use which will revitalize the downtown, promote a desirable visual environment by readapting the existing structure and the site, conserve an historic building and promote efficient use of the property. Mr. McDonough further testified that, as testified by the Applicant’s consultants, the project will not cause any substantial negative impact on the zone plan or surrounding neighborhood as a result of the design modifications made to accommodate the Bank Street residents.

Mr. McDonough further testified that the Applicant has met the standard for approval of the bulk variances as c (2) variances. He advised that the variances are largely the result of the conversion of an existing site with dimensions which predate the current zoning requirements and that, as

REVISED31821 8 with the use variances, the adaptive reuse promotes the purposes of zoning and that there are no substantial negative impacts on the zone plan or surrounding neighborhood.

Testimony of Ryan Glotzbecker, Eremos Consultants

Ryan Glotzbecker testified on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. Glotzbecker testified that he has extensive experience as an acoustical consultant. He advised that although there is no specific license for such work, he has been accepted as an expert witness in acoustical impacts in numerous proceedings. The Board agreed to accept Mr. Glotzbecker as an expert in acoustical analysis. Mr. Glotzbecker testified regarding the Applicant’s exhibits with respect to the potential noise impact of the project on the surrounding community. He advised that he obtained base level noise readings over a 24-hour period by installing a monitoring receiver on site. These readings reflected separate measurements based on consistent background noise and transient noise during the daytime and evening hours. Mr. Glotzbecker also measured certain sounds in 15-minute increments during the 24-hour period consisting of car alarm chirps, car doors opening and closing and garage collection related sounds (glass breaking, etc.). He determined that the noise levels ranged from 44 dBA during the evening to 85 dBA during daytime hours. Mr. Glotzbecker measured this data with the receiver located at two heights, i.e. 5.5 feet high and 15 feet high. He analyzed the resulting data under two design scenarios, namely installation of a six-foot-high fence which would be allowed as of right and installation of a 20-foot-high wall which would require a variance but would allow the auto-court to be fully enclosed. He determined that the decibel levels in each scenario would be below New Jersey state administrative code noise standards, fully enclosing the auto-court with the 20 foot high façade would significantly reduce noise impacts. In response to public comments, Mr. Glotzbecker advised that he was not aware of any municipal ordinance noise standards and that the Applicant would comply with NJ State standards.

Testimony of Timothy Ryan, Chief Financial Officer, Graduate Hotels

Timothy Ryan testified on behalf of the Applicant in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the applicant entity. He responded to questions from the Board and the public regarding the hotel demand market in Princeton. Mr. Ryan testified that he believes the hotel demand in Princeton could support a much larger room count at the site and that the Applicant agreed to reduce the room count to 178 rooms only as a result of design changes to accommodate the Bank Street residents. He advised that the Applicant reviewed various information and data which it considers proprietary as part of its decision to locate the proposed hotel in Princeton along with the requested room count. He noted generally that because downtown Princeton has only one hotel, many visitors are obligated to stay in hotels in the Route 1 area. Mr. Ryan testified he believes that the proposed hotel will generate not only property and hotel tax for the municipality but will also generate over $7 million dollars annually in revenue for downtown businesses as a result of spending by the hotel’s guests. In response to Board questions, Mr. Ryan advised that Graduate Hotels has significant experience in developing and managing hotels, with 28 operating hotels and ten more hotels in development. He testified that comparing the room counts in other Graduate Hotels to the proposed project room count is misleading as different cities present

REVISED31821 9 different markets. Mr. Ryan also advised that Graduate Hotels has, in fact, constructed hotels in other markets adjacent to residential areas, contrary to the objectors’ testimony.

Testimony of Alexander Craig, Hunter Roberts Construction Group

Alexander Craig testified on behalf of the Applicant. He advised that he is the Senior Vice President of Hunter Roberts Construction Group which serves as the construction manager for the proposed project. In response to public comments, he advised that the anticipated construction period for the project is 24-26 months. Mr. Craig further testified that the Applicant would monitor dust and noise impacts through a third-party monitoring system. He advised that dust monitors will be located at the Property boundaries which will be programmed to give out alarms if the municipal or state standards are violated. He advised that during the course of construction he anticipated partial closures of Chambers Street but that one lane would remain open at all times. Mr. Craig also advised that the construction work would remain within the confines of the building footprint.

Comments by Applicant’s Attorney

Mr. DeGrezia argued that the Applicant had met the criteria for the requested variances and the standards for preliminary and final major site plan approval. He noted that pursuant to the land use ordinances of the former Princeton Borough, a noncomplying building legally existing on November 19, 1968, may be reconstructed as of right to the same floor area ratio as existed on such date, provided, that such reconstruction shall not create a new noncompliance. In such instances, only that amount of accessory off-street parking will be required for the new building as existed prior to reconstruction. Mr. DeGrezia further argued that since the current buildings on the Property were built in the mid 1920’s, they predate the existing zoning ordinance and could be legally reconstructed to current floor area ratio with no variances and no off-street parking.

He argued that the proposed 20-foot wall façade was designed in order to provide a further buffer for the Bank Street residents from the proposed auto-court and parking garage.

Mr. DeGrezia also confirmed that the Applicant would comply with all recommendations and comments in the Bridger/Purcell Joint Memorandum. He noted that the Applicant would comply with the signage recommendations (Paragraphs 8-11) and other recommendations (Paragraphs 17- 19) set forth in the Site Plan Review Advisory Board memorandum dated August 31, 2020. He advised that the Applicant had made certain design revisions in response to the HPC comment memo but declines to accept the remainder of the comments. With respect to the Princeton Environmental Commission memorandum dated July 27, 2020, Mr. DeGrezia advised that the Applicant believes addressing the LEED Silver certification standards will fulfill the majority of the Commission recommendations. He advised that the Applicant will electrify all equipment selections to the greatest extent possible and will investigate setting performance target for energy, water and waste. The Applicant anticipated providing two EV charging stations and feels it is not feasible to provide the eight stations recommended by the Commission.

REVISED31821 10

Summary- Board Witnesses

(A.) Michael La Place, PP, AICP, Princeton Director of Planning testified referencing his memo of August 3, 2020. Mr. La Place testified he believes the project will allow for preservation and restoration of a landmark building on Nassau Street with new construction along Chambers Street for the hotel. He further advised that to date, Princeton has only one hotel in the downtown area which results in many visitors finding accommodation along Route 1 and elsewhere in the area. Mr, La Place advised that the proposed hotel will revitalize the downtown business district by allowing more visitors to stay in Princeton, thereby generating foot traffic for downtown businesses, restaurants, and services. He also advised that the proposed project is consistent with the goals of the Princeton Community Master Plan because it will attract new investment to the downtown area and will promote preservation of a building of historical and architectural significance. In response to Board questions, he advised that was in accord with the Applicant’s planning testimony as he believes that the positive aspects of the proposed project outweigh any potential negative impacts. Mr. La Place further testified that the current use of the site for office/retail has a higher parking requirement under the former Princeton Borough land use ordinance and provides no on-site parking. In contrast, he noted that the proposed use for hotel and retail will generate a lower parking requirement and the Applicant will provide on-site parking. Mr. La Place advised that the municipality will be reviewing current ordinance standards for parking and floor area ratio in the central business district as part of Master Plan review as he believes these requirements are too stringent and do not reflect current needs.

(B.) Derek Bridger, Princeton Zoning Officer, provided testimony regarding his joint memorandum prepared by Mr. Bridger and James J. Purcell, P.E., P.M.P., Princeton Land Use Engineer, dated July 31, 2020, revised October 7, 2020, further revised October 30, 2020 (“Bridger/Purcell Joint Memorandum”). Mr. Bridger reviewed the Applicant’s application, advising that the Applicant sought preliminary and final major site plan approval with floor area ratio variance and bulk variances to allow construction of a 178- room hotel at 20 Nassau Street. He noted that his review memorandum was based upon the Applicant’s initial application and that he anticipated the Applicant would review with the Board plan revisions which could affect the degree of required variance relief.

Mr. Bridger testified that the subject site is zoned Central Business and is subject to the use and bulk regulations in accordance with Sections 17A-304, and 309 of the former Princeton Borough Land Use Ordinance. The proposed hotel/retail use is a permitted use. He advised that the site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Nassau Street and Chambers Street. The site contains 27,129 sf. (0.62 acres) and is currently used as a 72,651 square foot mixed use building containing office and retail space. The site is bound to the northwest by residential properties fronting on Bank Street; commercial properties to the north and west; the Nassau Christian Center across Chambers Street to the east; and Princeton University across Nassau Street to the south.

Mr. Bridger further testified that Applicant is proposing to demolish the rear portion of the building consisting of a 3 story, 44,702 square foot structure, on Chambers Street and construct a 6 story, 75,865 square foot building. The existing 6 story, 27,949 square foot front portion of the

REVISED31821 11 building fronting on Nassau Street would remain, with a reduction in floor area due to some additional demolition. The remaining floor area of the Nassau Street building will be 27,759 square feet. He advised that the existing retail located on the first floor of the Nassau Street facade will remain, while the upper stories will be converted to 48 hotel rooms. The reconstructed rear portion of the building on Chambers Street will contain 130 guest rooms, a restaurant and bar, and an 80-space valet parking lot located in the basement.

During the hearings, Mr. Bridger clarified that following submission of the application, the Applicant provided him with field measurements which confirmed that mezzanine space in the portion of the building fronting Nassau Street had a ceiling height of less than seven feet. In addition, the Applicant confirmed that the proposed mezzanine space in the new building on Chambers Street also had a ceiling height of less than seven feet. Accordingly, Mr. Bridger determined that both structures should be considered to have five, not six stories, based on the municipal zoning ordinances.

Mr. Bridger advised that in 2018 a parking variance was granted by the Princeton Planning Board to permit a change of use from retail to allow two food and drink establishments.

Mr. Bridger described the required variances for the project, as initially presented by the Applicant, as follows:

D4 Variance

The proposed floor area ratio of 3.82 exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ratio of 1.5 for the CB district. A “D” variance pursuant to NJSA 40:55D-70 (4) is required. The existing building has a floor area ratio of 2.67 which exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ratio.

Bulk Variances

1. Section 17A-311.1: Side or rear setback, adjacent to a residential zone:

Minimum required – 10 feet Proposed – 0 feet

Mr. Bridger explained that the R4 zoning ordinance requires a 10- foot setback as a buffer between a commercial and residential area. Bank Street is located in the R4 zone. The Applicant’s proposed demolishing of the existing three-story portion of the building and construction of a new building on Chambers Street triggers this variance.

2. Section 17A- 377 (e): Fence/Wall height

Maximum Permitted – 6 feet Proposed – 20 feet

Mr. Bridger advised that the Applicant is now proposing a 20-foot masonry wall along the vehicular entrance to the building. The wall is proposed to run along the property line at the rear of the Bank Street homes and between the adjoining building at 16 Chambers Street and the ramp to the valet parking area.

REVISED31821 12

3. Section 17A-318: Loading Zone

Required – 3 spaces Proposed - 1 space

Mr. Bridger testified that the ordinance requires one loading space for floor area between 10,000 and 25,000 sf. and one additional for each 75,000 sf. of floor area.

4. Section 17A-368: Signage

a. Chamber Street entrance sign- 56.91 sf proposed; maximum 10 sf allowed. b. Nassau Street entrance sign- 10.89 sf proposed; maximum 10 sf allowed. c. Nassau Street blade sign- 44.65 sf proposed; maximum 8 sf allowed. d. Chamber Street blade sign- 44.65 sf proposed; 8 sf allowed. e. Chamber Street parking garage sign- 16 sf proposed; 10 sf allowed. Mr. Bridger noted that an additional 6-foot sign for the basement food and beverage venue is proposed which complies with the ordinance.

5. Section 17A-390: Stacked Parking

Minimum number of spaces required to allow stacked parking Required – 100 spaces Proposed – 76 spaces

The Applicant initially advised that it would provide 80 parking spaces. However, as a result of project revisions in response to public comments, the Applicant ultimately testified that it would provide 76 parking spaces.

6. Section 17A-316: Required Parking

The existing section of the building fronting on Nassau Street will remain. The existing uses are comprised of eating and drinking, retail and office uses. The first-floor eating/drinking and retail uses will remain. The upper floors will be converted to hotel rooms. The breakdown of the parking demand for the proposed and existing uses are illustrated below:

Existing Nassau Building Parking Analysis Office 1 space/370 sf. 19,969 sf. 53.97 spaces Eating/Drink 1 space/400 sf. 5,692 sf. 14.23 spaces Retail 1 space/475 sf 2,287 sf. 4.82 spaces Total Parking Requirement 27,949 sf. 73.02 spaces Proposed Nassau Street Parking Analysis Hotel 1 space/570 sf. 19,873 sf 34.26 spaces Eating/Drink 1 space/400 sf. 5,692 sf. 14.23 spaces Retail 1 space/475 sf 2,287 sf. 4.82 spaces Total Parking Requirement 27,759 sf. 53.31 spaces

REVISED31821 13 The change of use of the portion of the building that will remain reduces the parking demand by 19.71 spaces. There is no parking variance required for the existing building. Mr. Bridger advised, as noted earlier, the building was granted a parking variance in 2018 to allow restaurant uses in exception to the required parking.

Section 17A-314 requires that parking be provided for all construction. Mr. Bridger advised that his parking analysis of the new construction is as follows:

Chambers Building- New Construction Hotel 1 space/580 sf. 71,035 sf. 122.47 Parking access 5,210 sf. None 122.27 spaces

Based on the new construction parking requirement of 122.27 spaces and subtracting the 80 valet parking spaces, Mr. Bridger initially advised that a parking variance of 42.27 spaces was required. As a result of the Applicant’s testimony during the hearings and related project revisions that resulted in a reduction of FAR (due to the identification areas with structural ceiling heights of less than 7 ft. which are not counted as FAR and the removal of the parking area on the first floor and the drive to the basement that do not require parking), Mr. Bridger confirmed that the required parking variance would be reduced to 32 spaces. Mr. Bridger reviewed the variance criteria to be addressed by the Board. In addition, he also referenced the site plan review of the application pursuant to Section 17A-178 of the former Princeton Borough land use ordinance, as set forth in the Bridger/Purcell Joint Memorandum and the staff recommendations with respect to approval conditions. In response to public comments, Mr. Bridger confirmed that the correct methodology for analyzing floor area ratio is to compare the square footage of the land area to the square footage of the building area. In response to the Applicant’s request for a room count increase to 180 rooms, Mr. Bridger confirmed that this change would not affect the required variances as the increase was due to a reconfiguration of certain walls.

(C.) James Purcell, PE, P.M.P., Princeton Land Use Engineer referenced the Bridger/Purcell Joint Memorandum and responded to Board questions. He advised that he and the Board staff have reviewed the application, the Applicant’s professional reports and responses to staff questions and had conducted multiple discussions with the Applicant with respect to parking, traffic circulation and engineering aspects. Mr. Purcell advised based on the foregoing, he takes no exception to the Applicant’s testimony.

(D.) Elizabeth Kim, P.L.A., Historic Preservation Officer, presented the memorandum dated November 11, 2020 from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to the Zoning Board. She advised that the majority of the HPC’s concerns focused on the mass, height, and proximity of the project to Bank Street and their desire that the project be made more compatible with the Central Historic District which contains both the Property and Bank Street. Ms. Kim noted that HPC does not support the requested rear yard variance and

REVISED31821 14 recommends that the Applicant re-evaluate its plan to reduce the height and provide the required setback. If a setback is provided, the HPC believes adequate buffering should also be added to protect the Bank Street residents and a larger green roof area should be added to the rear of the Chambers Street building.

Ms. Kim further testified that while the HPC appreciated certain project changes made by the Applicant in response to their comments, the HPC recommends that further revisions be made to soften the rear view of the structure from Bank Street. She advised that the HPC believes the proposed rear wall is too solid and monolithic and is very unattractive. In addition, HPC does not support the proposed signage, finding the signs inappropriate for an historic building, including the size and illumination of the signs. Ms. Kim noted that certain HPC members found the proposed Chambers Street façade to be too linear and recommended that the glass exterior be reconsidered and the entrance be moved back further from the sidewalk. She further testified that the HPC recommended that the new mansard roof of the Chambers Street structure be made more similar to that of the Nassau Street building. Ms. Kim also advised that the HPC raised concerns regarding potential noise and security issues with respect to a rear service door for the Chambers Street structure which will face the rear of Bank Street residences and recommended that it be removed if the door is not needed.

(E) Heather Balgowan, PE, PTOE, the municipal traffic engineering consultant, referenced her memorandum to the Board staff dated June 24, 2020 and responded to Board questions.

Summary of Public Comment. The application was opened to the public for comment on all hearing dates and the following members of the public provided comment which was considered by the Board:

David Newton, 16 Chambers Street, testified in support of the application. Mr. Newton advised that since 1983, he has lived in Princeton and owned commercial real estate. He believes the proposed project will revitalize the downtown business area by increasing the opportunity for more visitors to stay in Princeton and use local businesses and services.

Harriet Flower, 32 Bank Street, testified in opposition to the project. She expressed her concern regarding the mass of the proposed Chambers Street building which she feels is too large and that the Applicant has made no real substantive change to the project in response to the objections raised by the Bank Street residents. Ms. Flower further testified regarding her concern that visitors and guests of the hotel will park on Bank Street thereby increasing impacts on the residents.

Francoise Nelessen, 11-13 Bank Street, testified in opposition to the project. She believes the scale of the proposed Chambers Street building is massive and should be reduced with respect to mass and height and that the Applicant should respect the zoning requirement of a ten-foot rear yard setback to reduce the impacts on Bank Street.

David Keddie, 24 Moore Street, testified in support of the application. He advised that he is the President of the Friends of Walkable Princeton and that the hotel will encourage more guests in

REVISED31821 15 Princeton who will walk in town as opposed to driving from hotels in the Route 1 area which will be environmentally beneficial.

Kirk Huckel, DMD, Chamber Street, advised that he owns a three-dentist dental office on Chambers Street. He raised concerns regarding the potential closure of Chambers Street and the impact of vehicular and pedestrian access for his patients.

Jonathan Haley,20 Nassau Street, testified that he owns a business at 20 Nassau Street and supports the project.

Ann Marie and Diego Slamon, 19 Bank Street, testified in opposition to the project. Mr. Slamon testified that the construction period will be a terrible imposition on Bank Street residents who should have the right of enjoyment of their homes. He noted that as the municipality has no specific decibel levels with respect to its noise ordinance, the Applicant has relied on the NJ State administrative code regulations. He believes that the Applicant should be obligated to inform the Bank Street residents when the construction noise level exceeds the state standards. Mr. Slamon also objected to the windows on the north façade of the Chambers Street building which will overlook their garden and residence. He supports the HPC recommendation regarding terracing the rear wall. He further testified that the project would cause noise, dust, loss of privacy and parking of guests and visitors on Bank Street. Mrs. Slamon raised concerns regarding concerns regarding negative impacts on their property as a result of the hotel construction. In response to her questions, Mr. DeGrezia advised that the Applicant will conduct a pre-construction survey of Bank Street properties, if allowed access by the residents, to document structural condition of the homes.

Lori Rabon, Manager, Nassau Inn, testified in support of the application. She advised that she believes that the project will help to recapture the hotel market share which goes to Route 1 hotels by adding another hotel to the downtown area.

Sam Bunting, Princeton, NJ, testified in support of the application which he believes will revitalize the central business district.

Lauren Arive Gellman, 20 Nassau Street, testified that she owns the “Milk and Cookies” store on Nassau Street. Her business is a tenant of the Applicant and she supports the application.

Homer Wang, 15 Bank Street, testified in opposition to the application. He expressed concerns regarding the Applicant’s plan to remove a large tree located at the rear of the Applicant’s property. He advised that the majority of the tree canopy is over his property providing shade. He questioned the Applicant’s assertion that the tree is not healthy and asserted that the tree is located on the boundary line between the properties. Mr. Wang also questioned the accuracy of the Applicant’s shade study. He advised that he understood the shade study to indicate that early morning sun on his property will be permanently blocked and he objects to this impact. Mr. Wang also questioned the Applicant’s acoustical expert with respect to the methodology used for the noise impact study. Mr. Wang asked that supporters of the project consider the impacts to the residents of Bank Street.

REVISED31821 16 Jean and Chip Crider, 22 Bank Street, testified in opposition to the application. They noted that the proposed restaurant and bar was not discussed by the Applicant at neighborhood meetings. In addition, they questioned that Applicant’s characterization regarding the parking demand when the existing structure was used for offices. The Criders expressed concern that their home will suffer vibration damage from the hotel construction, noting that the foundation of many homes on Bank Street are on rubble. They advised that they support a rear service door to provide emergency fire access.

Mimi Omiecinski, 98 Nassau Street, testified in support of the project. She advised that she owns Princeton Tour Company and believes having another hotel in town will encourage more visitors.

Jack Morrison, 256 Nassau Street, testified in support of the project. Mr. Morrison owns several restaurants and businesses in the Princeton central business district. He believes the project is an attractive re-adaption of the existing building and that the hotel will encourage more visitors for local business, create more local jobs and increase tax revenues for the municipality.

Kimberly Rizk, 954 Princeton-Kingston Road, and Kathleen Klockenbrink, Princeton, NJ testified in support of the project. They are the co-owners of “Jammin’ Crepes” which will continue to be located on Nassau Street as a tenant of the Applicant.

Monica Smith, 27 Bank Street, asked that the Board impose conditions on any approval making the Applicant responsible for property damage caused by the construction of the project and obligating it to power wash and remove dust from the Bank Street homes following construction.

Melina Bilic, 28 Bank Street, testified in opposition to the project. She believes the mass of the building is inappropriate for an historic district and is concerned about noise from the proposed bar.

Olaf Honerkampf, 21 Bank Street, testified regarding the negative impacts on Bank Street residents. He supports the conditions of approval proposed by other Bank Street residents particularly with respect to the northwest corner of the project, less building mass and a partially covered driveway access.

Bill Gray, 14 Bank Street, testified in opposition to the application. Mr. Gray advised that he supports the concept of a hotel but objects to the height and mass of the proposed project. He advised that he believes the Applicant’s reference to the floor area ratio of Palmer Square is inappropriate because Palmer Square was completed in 1939 when there were no zoning standards. He also questioned the accuracy of the Applicant’s calculations regarding the average floor area of the Palmer Square buildings in the central business district. Mr. Gray noted that there is at least a ten-foot setback between the Spring Street Parking Garage and the North Tulane Street residences and believes a similar setback should be provided by the Applicant in this project. He questioned the accuracy of the Applicant’s shadow study and raised concerns that the mass of the building will reduce the direct sunlight on Bank Street residences. Mr. Gray also testified he believes that no other Graduate Hotels have been located adjacent to residential areas and that the proposed Princeton location will have a much higher room count than other locations.

REVISED31821 17

Thomas Letizia, Esq., Troutman Pepper, spoke on behalf of Gund Investment Corporation (“Gund”) which owns an adjacent property at 14 Nassau Street and shares a party wall with the Nassau Street structure. Mr. Letizia further advised that his client’s property has a parking lot which directly abuts the Nassau Street building. Mr. Letizia explained that his client supports the project subject to the imposition of certain conditions on any approvals issued by the Board.

Specifically, Mr. Letizia advised that he has informed Mr. DeGrezia that Gund is willing to provide a temporary construction easement to the Applicant subject to certain conditions being made a condition of any Board approvals. Mr. Letizia advised Gund seeks the following conditions of approval: (1) The Applicant will meet with Gund to review the proposed construction sequence and will provide weekly updates regarding status; (2) The Applicant will, at its cost, conduct a pre-construction inspection of the Gund building and provide a photographic record of its condition; (3) Gund shall have the right to review and approve the construction logistics plan before Applicant provides it to the municipality and/or any other agencies; (4) Should parking become unavailable to Gund employees and/or tenants due the Applicant’s construction activities, the Applicant will provide parking for the Gund employees and tenants at a nearby site at the Applicant’s cost; and (4) The Applicant shall be responsible, at its cost, for keeping the Gund property free of construction debris and for the repair and restoration of any property damage caused by its construction activities.

The Applicant’s counsel, Mr. DeGrezia, advised that the Applicant agrees to the imposition of these conditions on any Board approval.

Liz Lempert, Princeton, NJ, testified in support of the application. She believes the project will be beneficial to the entire town as it will encourage visitors to Princeton who will use local businesses and services. Ms. Lempert noted that as former mayor, she had long believed that another hotel would be very beneficial for the downtown area. She believes that given the location of the proposed hotel, guests will be encouraged to walk to services rather than drive, which will reduce traffic. She also noted that the hotel will generate a hotel tax in addition to property tax which will be beneficial for the town.

Tony Nelessen, 11-13 Bank Street, testified in opposition to the application. Mr. Nelessen is a licensed planner in the State of New Jersey and presented testimony, both as a resident and as a professional planner. He questioned the Applicant’s professionals regarding various aspects of the project, including setbacks, historical accuracy of renovation and construction, the limited sidewalk access on Chambers Street, the lack of the ten-foot rear yard setback and impact on his property as well as other Bank Street residents, the accuracy of the Applicant’s testimony regarding the floor area ratio of other downtown commercial buildings and the accuracy of the acoustical study. He expressed concern that no geotechnical testing testimony has been provided regarding potential vibrations and property damage as a result of the construction of the underground parking garage. Mr. Nelessen inquired as to the anticipated total number of hotel employees. In response, Mr. David advised that Applicant was not yet sure of that number. Mr. Nelessen questioned the accuracy of the prediction of parking capacity for the underground garage without having that information.

REVISED31821 18

Mr. Nelessen questioned the percentage of plantings on the proposed green roof and testified he believes the amount of plantings represents only 15% of the area. He also expressed concern that no images were presented by the Applicant addressing night- time illumination.

Mr. Nelessen placed the following exhibit into evidence:

Exhibit Objector-1: PowerPoint slide presentation consisting of 82 including photos of 13 Bank Street, adjacent properties, the subject site, an analysis of the existing setbacks on the subject site and setbacks of adjacent properties on Chambers Street, recommendations regarding potential options regarding setbacks to add more green areas and lessen impacts on 13 Bank Street and other Bank Street properties, analysis of potential impacts from auto headlights from the ramp in the auto-court, recommendations regarding window placement and changes in elevation, recommendations regarding changes in the rear wall façade to reduce bulk, analysis for floor area ratio and proposed height and mass, recommendations to widen sidewalk and add new crosswalk on Chambers Street at hotel entrance, recommendations for the removal of the rear service door and leasing the flag lot “ finger area” adjacent to 13 Bank Street to him for beautification and use as a parking space, the elimination of hotel rooms and the addition of green terraced areas, addition of green plantings on the roof, proposed conditions of approval to improve the project and lessen impacts on his property and Bank Street residents generally.

Mr. Nelessen also provided testimony in his capacity as a licensed planner in the State of New Jersey. Mr. Nelessen advised that he accepts that there is a need for another hotel in downtown Princeton but believes the mass of the proposed hotel is excessive. He testified that the project does not address the purposes of zoning as presented by the Applicant’s planner and that the project will cause substantial detriment to the Bank Street residents. Mr. Nelessen reviewed conditions of approval which would be acceptable to the Bank Street residents including a ten foot rear yard setback tapering down to a two foot setback, providing a more articulated western wall façade, requiring a certified landscape plan, appropriate signage to discourage hotel guests and deliveries from going down Bank Street, adding a green roof over the auto-court entrance, compensation to the Bank Street residents for health issues arising out of the construction, removal of the rear service door, property damage compensation, and cleaning of homes from construction dirt and debris.

AND WHEREAS, based upon review of the foregoing testimony, exhibits, application, supporting documents and plans, the Board of Adjustment makes the following findings and conclusions:

(1) GPNJ Owner LLC is the owner of the subject site, which is located at 20 Nassau Street, being Block 19.02, Lots 17-20 on the tax map of Princeton (“the Property”) and the Applicant.

(2) The Applicant seeks preliminary and final major site plan approval with floor area ratio variance and bulk variances to allow construction of a 180- room hotel with underground parking

REVISED31821 19 and retail use on the first floor of the Nassau Street façade.

(3) The Property is zoned Central Business and is subject to the use and bulk regulations in accordance with Sections 17A-304, and 309 of the former Princeton Borough Land Use Ordinance. The proposed hotel/retail use is a permitted use. The subject site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Nassau Street and Chambers Street. The site contains 27,129 sf. (0.62 acres) and is currently used as a 72,651 square foot mixed use building containing office and retail space. The site is bound to the northwest by residential properties fronting on Bank Street; commercial properties to the north and west; the Nassau Christian Center across Chambers Street to the east; and Princeton University across Nassau Street to the south.

(4) The existing structures on the Property were built in three sections in 1925-26, consisting of the current five story building on Nassau Street plus a two-story warehouse and a two-story garage on Chambers Street. The garage section also contained three storefronts along with the entrance to the garage. In 1932 the Property was purchased by Princeton University and was subsequently used for the Institute for Advanced Study. In later years, the University sold the building which was ultimately acquired by private owners. The Chambers Street section of the building is now used as a five-story office building. The Nassau Street section has retail use on the first floor with office use on the remaining four floors.

(5) The Applicant proposes to preserve the façade of the wing of the building fronting on Nassau Street with a floor area of 27,759 square feet. The existing retail located on the first floor of the Nassau Street facade will remain, while the upper stories will be converted to 48 hotel rooms. The Applicant is proposing to demolish the rear portion of the building consisting of a 3 story, 44,702 square foot structure, on Chambers Street and wishes to replace it with a 5 story, 75,865 square foot building which will contain 132 guest rooms, a restaurant and bar, and a 76-space valet parking lot located in the basement.

(6) The Zoning Officer has testified that field measurements confirm that mezzanine space in the portion of the building fronting Nassau Street has a ceiling height of less than seven feet and the proposed mezzanine space in the new building on Chambers Street also will have a ceiling height of less than seven feet. Accordingly, both structures should properly be considered to have five stories based on the municipal zoning ordinances.

(7) The proposed project proposes a hotel/retail use with a parking garage, all of which are permitted uses in the CBD zone. In addition, the project will accomplish the preservation and restoration of a landmark building on Nassau Street which has a high historic value.

(8) The land use ordinances of the former Princeton Borough provides that: “A noncomplying building legally existing on November 19, 1968, may be reconstructed to the same floor area ratio as existed on such date, provided, that such reconstruction shall not create a new noncompliance. When such reconstruction occurs, only that amount of accessory off-street parking will be required for the new building as existed prior to reconstruction” Section 17 A-312. The existing structures on the Property legally existed on November 19, 1968 with a noncompliant floor area ratio of 2.67 and could be legally reconstructed to the same floor area ratio as of right.

REVISED31821 20

(9) The proposed project requires the following variances:

Zoning Standard Existing Proposed Variances Required Section 17A-311-Rear yard setback-10 Feet None 8 feet for northwest corner/ remainder of minimum Bank Street residence boundaries at zero (proposed Chambers setback for first floor, 10 feet for floors 2- Yes Street building) 5 Section 17A-377 (e)- Fence/Wall Height N/A 20-foot wall façade for Chambers Street Maximum Permitted-6 building along rear of Bank Street ft. residence, between the adjoining building Yes at 16 Chambers Street and the ramp to the valet parking area Section 17A-318- Loading zone-3 spaces None 1 space Yes required Section 17A-368- Signage N/A Chamber Street Entrance sign-56.91 sf Yes Entrance signs- with halo lit letters maximum 10 sf Blade signs-Maximum Nassau Street Entrance sign- allowed 8 sf 10.89 sf

Nassau Street blade sign-43.65 sf

Chambers Street blade sign-11 sf. Section 17A-390- Stacked Parking None on site 76 on-site parking spaces Yes Section 17A-316- Required Parking 122.27 76 on-site parking spaces Yes spaces for new construction Section 17A-311 2.67 (all Floor Area ratio structures) 3.67 Yes Maximum Permitted-1.5

REVISED31821 21

(10) The existing structure on Chambers Street is low in architectural and historic significance. The Applicant provided justification for demolishing the existing Chambers Street building, demonstrating that the Chambers Street building was originally designed as warehouse and garage space and not intended as habitable space. The Chambers Street building contains numerous elevations and the floor levels do not align with the Nassau Street Building floor levels, resulting in multiple interior steps and ramp. In addition, most areas in the Chambers Street building are not ADA accessible. In addition, adaptation of the existing flat plate concrete and mushroom column construction in the Chambers Street building to unify levels with the Nassau Street building will not be feasible. The windows from story to story in the Chambers Street building are not consistent with respect to size and style.

(11) The proposed floor area ratio of 3.67, while noncompliant with the municipal land use ordinance, is not inconsistent with floor area ratios (FAR) of the Palmer Square commercial buildings in central business district. The Applicant demonstrated that nearly all the Palmer Square buildings are FAR- noncompliant reflecting a floor area ratio of 3.0 to 4.0, due either to the date of construction (predating the zoning ordinances) or by variance.

(12) The current use of the site for office/retail has a parking requirement under the former Princeton Borough land use ordinance of 190 parking spaces. The site currently provides no on- site parking. The parking requirement under the municipal land use ordinance for the hotel/retail use is 165 parking spaces. The site currently provides no on-site parking. The Applicant has demonstrated that the parking demand for the hotel will peak during the evening hours, leaving a reduced demand during the day of approximately 91 parking spaces. This reduction in daytime parking demand coupled with the added on-site parking of 76 spaces would result in an actual daytime demand shortage of only 15 parking spaces during the hours of 9 am -5 pm. The Board finds that when this shortage is compared to the existing 190 parking space demand, the project results in a positive parking improvement in the central business district of approximately 175 parking spaces.

(13) The Applicant has made various positive design changes in response to concerns raised by the Bank Street neighbors including increasing the height of the wall façade to better encapsulate the auto-court, pulling the wall façade back to allow a ten-foot rear yard setback for the second through fifth floors of the hotel, providing additional green areas and flowering trees and adding articulation to the wall façade to lessen a monolithic appearance. In addition, the Applicant will provide an eight-foot setback of the wall façade at the northwest corner at the rear of 11-13 Bank Street and will provide a six-foot privacy fence and flowering tree in that location.

(14) The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed design for the auto-court will provide a safer and more efficient circulation path for vehicles than other design options which would allow a lower wall façade. The Applicant has further demonstrated through acoustical studies that the encapsulation of the auto-court with the 20-foot wall façade will best reduce the noise emission and that noise emissions will be below the New Jersey state standards.

(15) The Applicant has demonstrated that Princeton has only one hotel in the downtown area

REVISED31821 22 which the Board finds results in many visitors finding accommodation along Route 1 and elsewhere in the area. The Board further finds that the proposed hotel will help to revitalize the downtown business district by allowing more visitors to stay in Princeton, thereby generating foot traffic for downtown businesses, restaurants, and services along with property and hotel tax revenue for the municipality.

(16) The Applicant has demonstrated through their analysis of applicable traffic and parking data including traffic counts, that it has adequately responded to the comments provided by the Board staff and consulting professionals regarding potential traffic impacts and the Board staff have confirmed the same to the Board. In addition, the Applicant has agreed, following completion of the hotel construction, to study the need for an additional pedestrian crossing on Nassau Street over a six-month period and to share the results of the study with the Board staff. Should the study results indicate the need for an additional pedestrian crossing, the Applicant will contact the New Jersey Department of Transportation to request the installation of a crossing at the Applicant’s cost.

(17) The Board further finds that the project will be designed to obtain LEED Silver certification and will address greatly improved sustainability through new wiring, new HVAC systems, green roof, and ADA compliance.

(18) Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the Applicant has demonstrated that the site can accommodate the increased FAR because the Applicant is preserving the façade of an historically significant structure and is readapting the existing Property for permitted uses which will cause less parking demand on the site than the prior office/retail use. In addition, the project will provide on-site valet parking which will further lessen demand on downtown parking availability. The Board also finds that the increase in floor area is not inconsistent with the floor area ratio of a majority of the commercial buildings on Palmer Square in the central business district. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that project will satisfy the purposes of zoning as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2 ( a), (g),( h), (i), and (m) because it will promote the general welfare by providing an appropriate site for a permitted use which will revitalize the downtown, promote a desirable visual environment by readapting the existing structure and the site, conserve an historic building and promote efficient and sustainable use of the property. The Board further finds that the proposed project is consistent with the goals of the Princeton Community Master Plan because it will attract new investment to the downtown area and will promote preservation of a building of historical and architectural significance.

The Board further concludes that the project will not cause any substantial negative impact on the zone plan or surrounding neighborhood as a result of the design modifications made to accommodate the Bank Street residents and will provide more positive benefit and less negative impact than the project which would be built as of right.

The Board also concludes, based on the foregoing, that the Applicant has met the standard for approval of the bulk variances as c (2) variances which finds arise in large part from the conversion of an existing site with dimensions which predate the current zoning requirements and that, as with the use variances, the adaptive reuse promotes the purposes of zoning and that there are no substantial negative impacts on the zone plan or surrounding neighborhood.

REVISED31821 23

(19) In addition, the Board has reviewed and accepts the comments and recommendations of Messrs. Bridger and Purcell as set forth in their review memo of dated July 31, 2020, revised October 7, 2020, further revised October 30, 2020 (“Bridger/Purcell Joint Memorandum”) with respect to the application for preliminary and final major site plan approval. The Board finds that the application meets the criteria for site plan approval as set forth in Section 17A-178 of the former Borough Land Use Code subject to compliance with the comments and recommendations in the Bridger/Purcell Joint Memorandum.

(20) The Board has not adopted the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Commission which it finds are inconsistent with the Board’s own findings and conclusions.

(21) Board members Davidge, Schreiber and Tenenbaum confirmed by oath on the meeting record that they had listened to the video tape recordings of any prior hearings of the subject application which they had missed and therefore are eligible to vote on the application.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions that the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment does hereby grant preliminary and final major site plan approval with a d (4) variance to permit a floor area ratio of 3.67 and c (2) bulk variances to permit exceptions to signage, loading zones, stacked parking and required parking and rear yard setback, as set forth in the findings and conclusions, to allow the construction of a 180 room hotel with an underground valet parking garage, subject to the Applicant’s compliance with the following conditions:

(1) Compliance with the comments and recommendations of Messrs. Bridger and Purcell as set forth in their review memo of dated July 31, 2020, revised October 7, 2020, further revised October 30, 2020 (“Bridger/Purcell Joint Memorandum”).

(2) Compliance with the signage recommendations (Paragraphs 8-11) and other recommendations (Paragraphs 17-19) set forth in the Site Plan Review Advisory Board memorandum dated August 31, 2020;

(3) The project shall be designed to the LEED Silver certification standards and receive LEED certification;

(4) Following completion of hotel construction and the opening of the hotel, the Applicant shall conduct a six-month study regarding the need for an additional crosswalk on Nassau Street and share the study results with the Board staff. Should the study indicate the need for an additional crosswalk, the Applicant shall request that the New Jersey Department of Transportation install the crosswalk at the Applicant’s cost;

(5) In the event that the Gund Investment Company provides the Applicant with a temporary

REVISED31821 24 construction easement, the Application shall comply with the following conditions: (a.) The Applicant will meet with Gund to review the proposed construction sequence and will provide weekly updates regarding status; (b) The Applicant will, at its cost, conduct a pre-construction inspection of the Gund building and provide a photographic record of its condition; (c) Gund shall have the right to review and approve the construction logistics plan before Applicant provides it to the municipality and/or any other agencies; (d) Should parking become unavailable to Gund employees and/or tenants due the Applicant’s construction activities, the Applicant will provide parking for the Gund employees and tenants at a nearby site at the Applicant’s cost; and (e) The Applicant shall be responsible, at its cost, for keeping the Gund property free of construction debris and for the repair and restoration of any property damage caused by its construction activities;

(6) The Applicant shall conduct pre-construction inspections of the Bank Street properties, subject to the consent of each resident and shall document the structural condition of each residence, at the Applicant’s cost. The Applicant shall be responsible, at its cost, for any damage caused to the residences on Bank Street as a result of the construction of the proposed project.

(7) The Applicant shall create a safety and construction protocol which shall be provided to the Land Use Engineer for prior review and approval. A copy of the protocol shall also be provided to all Bank Street residents;

(8) The light source of any new exterior light fixtures may not be visible and such fixtures must be shielded to prevent light spillage onto surrounding properties;

(9) Confirmation of payment by Applicant of current outstanding taxes and outstanding professional review fees including supplementation of escrow account if necessary.

ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO GRANT PRELIMINARY AND FINAL MAJOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES (February 8, 2021)

Moved by:

Seconded by:

Those in Favor:

Those Absent:

REVISED31821 25

ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION OF MEMORIALIZATION (______)

Moved by:

Seconded by:

Those in Favor:

Those Absent:

REVISED31821 26