Conference and Public Hearing

City of Trenton

Planning Board

Conference and Public Hearing

Thursday, March 9, 2006

Trenton City Hall

Members in Attendance:

Joe Cooley, Chairperson

Sasa Montano

Richard Potts

Tywana Smith

Gregory Williams

Staff in Attendance:

Andrew Carten, Director Division of Planning

William Valocchi, Supervising Planner

Robert Leventhal, Planning Board Attorney (available by telephone)

Cherry Oakley, Planning Board Secretary

CONFERENCE SESSION

A quorum was verified and Chairperson Cooley called the meeting to order at 7: 55pm.

Mr. Potts moved to adopt the minutes from the last meeting. Ms. Montano seconded the motion. All were in favor.

Mr. Williams moved that the Board memorialize the Resolution # 42715 approving an amended preliminary site plan application and final site plan application for Full Spectrum of NY to renovate and expand the former Bell Building, preserve the front portions of the Arts building and Felcone Building and construct mixed-use units/ buildings on East State and North Montgomery Streets. Ms. Montano seconded the motion and all were in favor.

Mr. Potts moved that the Board memorialize the Resolution #42670 approving a preliminary major subdivision application, a preliminary site plan application, and a side yard variance for Habitat for Humanity to construct five new town homes on North Clinton Avenue. Ms. Montano seconded the motion and all were in favor.

The first case to be reviewed tonight was for the Lamberton Street Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Carten discussed the amendments to the recommendations that the Division made by the consultant such as requiring the developer to pay for an expanded greenway; when selling each parcel of City land in that area $10,000 of each sale be deposited into a fund that will help the local property owners to improve their area, etc.

This is an existing Redevelopment Plan with no boundary changes. What is being proposed tonight will replace what was there before. The primary issues of those that will be present tonight are focused on no demolition, no ‘drive-thrus’ and averting the Eminent Domain issue.

The next case, about the construction of 40 condos, will address the connection of Mill Hill to Conover’s Alley as a cut through versus a pedestrian connector to the center of town and the parking arrangements. There will be a review of the circulation pattern and the other safety issues that are presented by allowing garages to open up onto this alley will be done with the Division’s consultant. This is a City issue, rather than a developer’s issue. The developer is energizing Market Street and doing other things that the Division is asking them to do. This is governed by the New Jersey Site Improvement Standards which have onerous parking standards, because those standards were developed for suburban development. Parking is considered a de minimus exception and Planning Boards can grant those types of exceptions.

The Interstate case is pretty straight forward. They have been negotiating with the City for some swaps of the location of some billboards for the erection of others. The Division is being asked to evaluate if there are any in-fill development opportunities on that site or should it be tied into the canal. They are being asked to give more detail on their plans in their pursuit of final site plan approval.

Item #4 is returning for final site plan approval. The applicant over advertised and they do not need to receive 2 of the 3 approvals they are seeking tonight. The Board should pursue the reasoning for this over advertising.

The Logan Properties is a straightforward case. They received a variance for their minimum set-back and will receive support for this if they add landscaping with a line of trees. They have agreed.

Next meeting: The Champale Site returns along with 3 other cases.

Mr. Potts made a motion to adjourn. All were in favor and the conference session was adjourned at 8:16pm

PUBLIC HEARING

The meeting was called to order at 8:29 pm. Chairperson Cooley opened the meeting. A quorum was verified.

Announcements: Chairperson Cooley announced that Item #1 has been cancelled for this evening and moved to the next meeting. There will be no further notice of this matter.

CANCELLED Item #1- 42666- Preliminary Site Plan Application: The applicant proposes to upgrade his industrial storage operations to become a scrap metal recycling facility. City Tax Map: Block 215A Lots 1,20,6 and 9. Project Location: 1300-1350 New York Avenue. Applicant: John Scarpati, Scarpati, Inc. 10 Nottingham Way, Trenton, NJ

The next case was called before the Board.

Item #2-Amendments to the Lamberton Street Redevelopment Area Plan: Generalized boundaries are: South Broad Street, Federal Street, Warren Street and Ferry Street. The amendments constitute a significant re-write of the plan for this area to allow a diversity of development and redevelopment opportunities. Area map advertised in the Trenton Times on 2/8/06 and 2/13/06.

Mr. Carten was sworn in and made the presentation of the amendments to the Redevelopment Plan. He noted that a reassessment of the Redevelopment Area that embraced and reflected the long-term vision of the stakeholders in that area. A consultant was hired to complete the assessment and make recommendations of what to do in this Redevelopment Area. Those recommendations with some modifications were presented.

First the Kearny Homes, previously owned by the Trenton Housing Authority, has been conveyed over to the City of Trenton and will be replaced with new housing in a town homes type development. Additionally, the issues that are outside the scope of the Redevelopment Plan the Division amended such as requesting the Developer to pay for an expansive greenspace that exceeds the boundaries of the Redevelopment Area. The Division can ask that the open space requirement be provided either on this location or in another location, but cannot require a developer to pay for something outside the scope of their project. The Land Use was not detailed enough, so an element such as the Land Use space information was added to the table. The Historic character of the neighborhood will be maintained but not required because it is not actually a Historic district. There is a list of prohibited signs and makes recommendations on the size of signs. Regarding acquisitions, the plan does not contemplate the City using its power of Eminent Domain, and this shall remain in tact because there is a significant amount of vacant City owned property. The implementation establishes guidelines on how things will be implemented over time. The requirement that $10,000 of each parcel of land sold by the City be placed in a fund for the improvement of the area by the stakeholders in that area, won’t be able to be implemented, however, the City will use designated monies to address any needs.

Mr. Carten noted that the Higher-Gruel study did not include the entire Redevelopment boundary area so the Division included all of the area when making their revisions. Mr. Carten highlighted points within the plan reading from pages 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38 of the Lamberton Street Redevelopment Area Plan. While doing so he expounded on the intentions of the City to improve the integrity of the area and support the stakeholders’ vision for the improvement of their neighborhood.

Mr. Carten read the ordinance that grants the Planning Board jurisdiction over amendments to the Redevelopment Plans and site plans being used to address the integrity improvements in this area through Site plans, etc.

He noted that neither drive-thru uses are permitted, nor small industrial uses. He highlighted the conceptual site plans for the redevelopment of this area. This will be a residential and commercial corridor only. The City wants to develop connections to other streets that are for use exclusively for pedestrians and cyclists.

Board Questions:

Ms. Montano: How does the Open Space compare to the previous plan?

Mr. Carten: The open space will be enlarged and it has a much more sensible approach to the improvement and use of the open space in this area. Such as avoiding hidden parks which are not safe, and creating a lengthy greenway instead.

Mr. Williams: Can you please re-explain the plan in respect to Eminent Domain?

Mr. Carten: It does not use the power of Eminent Domain. If it is needed we will need to return to this Board for that power.

Mr. Cooley: There are several businesses in this area. What is our position to leaving them as they are?

Mr. Carten: The plan says there are sufficient amount of vacant lots so it specifically does not indicate that there’s a need to acquire any businesses in order to redevelop.

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 votes were set forth:

Approval of Amendments to the Lamberton Street Redevelopment Area Plan

Member / Aye / Nay / Ab-stain / Motioned / Seconded
Joe Cooley, Chairperson /

X

Sasa Montano /

X

Richard Potts / X / X
Tywana Smith / X
Gregory Williams / X / X

The next case was called before the Board.

Item #3-42721- Preliminary Site Plan Application with Bulk Variances for lot coverage, Open space waiver, waiver from the provision to provide a loading dock: The application proposes to construct two buildings containing forty condominiums with a central court yard and one off-street parking space per unit: City Tax Map: Block 50, Lots 6 and 7. Project Location: South Broad Street (former Mill Hill Hotel site). Application: Leewood Real Estate Group/NJ LLC, 128 South Warren Street, Trenton, NJ.

Mr. Arnold Lakind, Attorney at Law of Szaferman & Lakind of Lawrenceville, NJ introduced himself and the project. He described the dimensions of the project and the lot coverage differences that require a lot variance.

Mr. Frank Moya, Director of Architecture & Planning of Leewood Real Estate Group/NJ LLC of Trenton, NJ was introduced and sworn in. His credentials were accepted and he was accepted as an expert before this Board. He described the configuration of what is proposed to be built on the site. The following Exhibits were entered in as evidence:

·  A-1 Site Plan Elevation and Details

·  A-2 Building Floor Plan and Elevation

·  A-3 South Broad Street Elevation

·  A-4 Alleyway elevation

·  A-5 Material Sample Board

·  A-6 Photos of Surrounding Neighborhood

Referencing these Exhibits he described the units, their location, their construction, and their layout. The building he referenced as Trenton’s Dakota building which is an allusion to a similar building in New York. He talked about the parking and where it would be located within the home plans. There will be 12 garage units and 29 surface parking including 1 ADA compliant spot. There is a loading spot next to the ADA space, but it will not fit a tractor trailer.

Board Questions:

Mr. Williams: You said that you will be able to see the courtyard from the front?

Mr. Moya: Yes. You’ll be able to see the landscaping of the courtyard. There will be flowering trees in a cluster in the courtyard similar to what occurs in Society Hill in Philadelphia. As you walk by you get a glimpse of part of the courtyard. We’ll arrange for cars to park between those trees in order to reduce the number of cars that will park in that area.

Tywana Smith: There are 12 units with garage parking?

Mr. Moya: There are 12 garage spots available to whomever purchases first. The ADA space is not assigned, it cannot be.

Ms. Montano: How will people get around to the front from parking in the rear?

Mr. Moya demonstrated the path that the residents will walk to get into the front of the units.

Ms. Montano: What is the anticipated price range of the units?

Mr. Moya: Between $200,000 to the mid-$300,000.

Mr. Moya continued to testify that the applicant will replace the brick face sidewalk. Referencing A-6 he showed some of the patterns and materials currently used in that area that will be repaired, replaced, or duplicated. He noted that there is almost 100% coverage of the lots in that area and there are no set-backs.

The elevations have been reviewed by the Landmarks Commission. There have also been discussions with the Old Mill Hill Society and other neighborhood groups and these conversations will continue as the project moves forward. There are paintable fiberglass windows proposed to be used as they are more durable than wood windows. He described the back area, how the doors will open, the coloring of the exterior materials, the plans for trash storage and pick-up, the siding treatment,

Board Questions:

Ms. Montano: Will people have to bring their trash to the trash room?

Mr. Moya: There are chutes on each floor and the crew will actually take it out for pick-up on trash days from the basement level where the trash collection bins are.

Mr. Lakind asked Mr. Moya to address the letter that was constructed to respond to the extensive staff comments,; this letter was entered as Exhibit A-7, Mr. Moya highlighted the following:

·  Item 2- we don’t want the open space due to security so we’ll make a contribution;

·  Item 3-We are requesting this waiver because of the size of the area and the maneuverable space.

·  Item 4- the RSIS standards are mute for tight urban area. We exceed the ordinance requires.