City of Trenton

Planning Board

Conference and Public Hearing

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Trenton City Hall

Members in Attendance:

Joe Cooley, Chairperson

Stephen Doyle

Jeff Halpern

Peter Yull

Ronald Zilinski

Staff in Attendance:

Andrew Carten, Director Division of Planning

Bill 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 7:24 pm.

Mr. Halpern made a motion to adopt the minutes of the last meeting and public hearing and Mr. Yull seconded the motion. All were in favor.

Mr. Doyle made a motion to memorialize resolution # 108XX approving a final site plan application for Barry O’Hagan for development on Brown Street. Mr. Zilinski seconded the motion and all were in favor.

Mr. Yull indicated that he had a question posed to him about the Central Jersey Waste Management project, which was highlighted in the newspaper today. The Board approved the project previously as a storage facility, but now Mercer County is looking to amend the land use laws to allow a recycling facility.

John Semple, Esq. for the K. Hovnanian Central Acquisition, LLC as well as John Wood & Paul Winters came to show the Board minor changes to their approved plan that they were proposing. They needed to make changes to the fire suppression lateral lines. Previously they would have these lines running into each unit and housed in the garages, but there is concern that they could be tampered with so instead they want to have them as common elements for each individual unit which means the Association will inspect and maintain them instead of each individual homeowner being required to do so. It will cost each Association member $4 per month to have them maintained. Referencing renderings of the side and rear elevations they described where they would be located. They are insulated so they won’t freeze and they are an integral part of the construction and framing of the building, rather than an add-on. There is no variance or waiver required for this change.

Approval of the Deminimus Change to an approved site plan and subdivision plan

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

X

Stephen Doyle / X
Jeff Halpern / X / X
Peter Yull / X / X
Ronald Zilinski / X

PUBLIC HEARING

Chairperson Cooley called to order at 8:05pm.

Mr. Leventhal made an announcement that the first case scheduled for tonight was cancelled because the applicant did not advertise as per requirement. There is no set date for the return on that case at this time.

Item #1- CANCELLED 1-09-OH – Preliminary Subdivision and Preliminary Site Plan Application with a side yard variance. The applicant proposes to consolidate four lots and re-subdivide into three conforming lots and construct a duplex (2 semi-detached units) on two of the lots- existing home on the third lot. Location of Development: 2211 Ohio Avenue: City Tax Map: Block 24304, Lots 11-14: Applicant: Krzyst of Jakacki, 2109 Pennington Rd. West Trenton, NJ 08638.

The next case was called before the Board.

Item #2 -- O2008A- Amended Preliminary Site Plan Application, Amended Final Site Plan Application, Amended Preliminary Subdivision Application, Amended Final Subdivision Application, Rear yard setback variance, minimum lot size variance. The applicant intends to construct a new 26,441 square foot office building with associated site improvements: Location of Development: Lafayette Street: City Tax: Block 107, Lots 3, 4, 5, 11: Applicant: New Jersey Business and Industrial Association.

Frank J. Petrino, Esq. of Sterns & Weinroth of Trenton, NJ introduced the application being presented tonight. Explaining the reasoning for the request for the minimum lot size variance, he noted that the standard for the lot size for the project is 2,000 sq ft. and they are proposing 1,620 sq. ft.. For the rear lot set back is 10 ft and they are proposing 5 ft., thus the request for the rear lot setback variance. An additional variance is being requested to provide 7 off-street parking spaces where 40 are required. They also need a waiver for the off-street loading requirements to eliminate the need for an off-street loading area. They are not sure if they need a side yard variance because they do not know if Howls Alley is considered a public street. If it is, then they would have 2 front yards and thus would need this additional variance. Julia Stoller, is part of the applicant’s Senior Management and was available for any questions the Board may have. The applicant’s architect, John Hatch, was sworn in as the primary architect on this project. Referencing Site Plan of 6-12 Lafayette Street and 112 Warren Street, marked as Exhibit A-2 Lot A fronts onto W. Lafayette Street he demonstrated where the 7 parking spaces would be located and the impact on the lot size that results in the need for a variance. There are other lots that are under the required size in this area.

Mr. Hatch presented to the Landmarks Commission and although they did not have a quorum during that meeting, he received unanimous approval from those members who were present. The Commission is seeking another affirmative vote from a member that wasn’t there so that official approval can be granted by a quorum of that Commission. Mr. Carten, the City’s Director of the Planning Department, was present at that meeting and was available to answer any of the Board’s questions.

Referencing a rendering of each Floor Plan, Mr. Hatch talked about what is located on each floor and each room’s intended use. They noted that they plan to ask the City Council for a public easement for the Building so that they do not encroach on a public right of way. There is a lot of glass on the ground floor and the 2nd and 3rd floor is primarily brick with some glass. Marked as Exhibit A-5 and A-6 Mr. Hatch showed 2 perspective renderings so that it can be seen how the buildings fit into the street with the surrounding buildings.

Mr. Hatch passed to the Board members examples of the exterior materials that will be used on the building and the lettering. These same materials were presented and approved by the Landmarks Commission.

Mr. Hatch indicated that the 7 on-site parking spaces will be reserved for the building’s neighboring shoe store owner, who has accessibility needs. There exists currently a tentative approval for this applicant from the Trenton Parking Authority for the additional parking spaces needed. Mr. Hatch described how deliveries will be made to the NJBIA via Howell Alley. There will only need to be a delivery in the front of the building 1-2x per year.

Mr. Hatch talked about the pedestrian access of Akron Alley that was formerly a delivery point for businesses in that vicinity. The Alley is in bad shape, but there is thinking that this might help NJBIA meet their open space requirement by improving the pavement there and do some plantings there if the budget allows. City Council would have to approve any work on this open space because it is City owned land.

Capital City Development Corporation provided a letter advising the Board on their planned use of “green” materials, although the project is not designed to meet LEED certification. The applicant noted that there is a 1ft. gap between the back of the property and the adjoining lot. The applicant would like to close that area with fencing to avoid the garbage that is likely to accumulate occur there from coming onto their lot.

Chairperson Cooley asked if there was anyone in the audience who wanted to speak for or against this project. Roland Pott, of Trenton, was sworn in and he asked for clarification of the lighting planned for the alleyways. Mr. Pott indicated that people could cut through or hide in that alleyway and this is a potential safety issue. Mr. Pott indicated that he received public notices about this new development. He noted that he is one of the few people who come out when he receives the notices about new development, because as a Trenton business owner and a Trenton resident he sees new development as a benefit. He indicated that in terms of the redevelopment plan there is an issue of parking that arises over and over again with projects and he indicated that there is a need to eliminate the requirement for a variance for parking, especially when the project is within close proximity to a structured parking garage. Keeping this requirement in place makes the applicant put together a legal team to create the variance, thus using resources that could be better applied to another aspect of the planning for that applicant’s new development. He also indicated that there should be a consideration for amending the redevelopment plan to include higher buildings and increased density instead of requiring a variance for the same reasons as previously stated.

Chairperson Cooley asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wanted to speak for or against this project. Bruce LaFroscia, of Staten Island, NY was sworn and indicated that he would like to know where his reserved parking will be, as previously discussed with Mr. Hatch. Mr. Petrino indicated that they only have plans to provide a parking space to the shoe storeowner and no one else. Mr. LaFroscia asked when the actual ground breaking will be so that he can plan for his own business development. He has a tenant that is going to rent the end unit on Akron Alley and he needs to assure that they have continued access to and from their business from that alley. Mr. Hatch indicated that they will make every effort to work with the tenant to make it as unobtrusive as possible, however, there will likely be some point that access will be impeded.

Mr. Leventhal confirmed that in this project there is no side yard variance required.

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

Approval of Amended Preliminary Site Plan application

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

X

Stephen Doyle / X / X
Jeff Halpern / X
Peter Yull / X
Ronald Zilinski / X / X

Final Approval of the Final Site Plan Application

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

X

Stephen Doyle / X / X
Jeff Halpern / X
Peter Yull / X / X
Ronald Zilinski / X

Approval of Amended Preliminary Subdivision Application

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

X

Stephen Doyle / X
Jeff Halpern / X
Peter Yull / X / X
Ronald Zilinski / X / X

Final Approval of Final Subdivision Application

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

X

Stephen Doyle / X
Jeff Halpern / X
Peter Yull / X / X
Ronald Zilinski / X / X

Approval Bulk Variances- Lot B rear yard setback variance, Lot B minimum lot size, and Lot A Off Street Parking Requirement, and Waiver for Lot A off-street loading requirement

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

X

Stephen Doyle / X
Jeff Halpern / X
Peter Yull / X / X
Ronald Zilinski / X / X

The next case was called before the Board.

Item #3-Presentation to the Planning Board on proposed amendments to the City’s Land Development Ordinance: The Department of Housing and Development is proposing amendments to the Land Development Ordinance, to include green building standards, cell tower regulations, changes to the land use map, plus other organizational changes as well as changes as required under the Municipal Land Use Law. The Planning Board is required to review said amendments prior to formal action by Trenton City Council.

Mr. Valocchi was sworn in and provided testimony for the proposed changes to the Land Development Ordinance. He listed the attachments that were provided to the Board for their consideration in the context of tonight’s testimony. Referencing his PowerPoint presentation he highlighted the following:

§  Reasons for the change

§  Making it more user friendly given the creation of the new land use handbook

§  Wanted to “green” the zoning ordinance so that it is on the cutting edge of the industry

§  There was the creation of a steering committee with professionals who have expertise in “greening plans”

§  Conducted community workshops on the proposed changes

§  Established a community review period and set up a web page for comments

§  The incentives that were created for people who follow the sustainable design (there’s a 15% density bonus)

§  Updated the escrow fee schedule, as they have been woefully low

§  New performance standards for cell tower applications that will allow the Council to evaluate applications. Those application will then come to the Planning Board as conditional use

§  New off-street parking standards, reflective of modern needs since occupiers of units usually have more than 1 car in parts of the City that is not the downtown sector.

§  Also new downtown parking standards to create more on-street parking eliminating some of the curb cuts

§  The only addressed areas outside of redevelopment areas

§  Returning zoning to the existing character of the neighborhoods such as:

1)  Island neighborhood changed from a Residential B to Residential RB2 (only single family & detached single family allowed now)