City of Trenton

Planning Board

Conference and Public Hearing

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Trenton City Hall

1

Members in Attendance:

Richard Potts, Chairperson

Joe Cooley, Vice Chairperson

Ronald Zilinski

Jeff Halpern

Peter Yull

Stephen Doyle

Jerome Harris

Staff in Attendance:

Andrew Carten, Director, Division of Planning

William Valocchi, Supervising Planner

Stephani Register, Senior Planner

Trish Long, Senior Planner

Robert Leventhal, Planning Board Attorney

Donna Maywar, Interim Planning Board Secretary

1

CONFERENCE SESSION

A quorum was verified and Chairman Potts called the meeting to order at 7:18 pm. Chairman Potts moved to adopt the minutes from the last meeting and Mr. Zilinski seconded the motion. All were in favor.

Resolutions

Richard Potts moved for the Board to memorialize the Resolution # Q09-1 approving a final minor site plan and waver of public hearing. Mr. Zilinski seconded the motion. All were in favor.

Review of Cases and Other Business

Affirmation of Action – Vista Center Development LLC

The Amendments would be presented by Trish Long. The collaborative has worked with Homefront to get a 1 mil dollar grant.

Continuation on item #2 from the last Planning Board Meeting - The applicant has had a chance to respond to the comments from the consultants. The applicant also met with the objector from the last meeting. Gas station operator is willing to sell the property and would not attend the Public hearing.

NJ Manufactures will need to convey over a portion of their property and pedestrian walkway will have to be developed before that happened.

Height requirement issues had already been approved by City Council.

Next Meeting: December 11, 2008.

The conference meeting adjourned at 7:25pm.

PUBLIC HEARING

The meeting was called to order at 7:45pm by Chairman Potts.

The first case was called before the Board.

Item #1 – Public hearing on the proposed amendments to the North Clinton Redevelopment Plan: Boundary maps were advertised in the Trenton Times newspaper on 11/10/08 and 11/14/08 Proposed Language Amendments to the North Clinton Redevelopment Area Plan include: Amending the redevelopment plan objectives to encourage new mixed uses and permit the conversion of vacant and underutilized industrial land for use as residential housing or open space. Also, language has been added to proceed with development in a phased approach with an initial focus on a six-block area. Additionally, the City of Trenton’s Sustainable Design guidelines and rating system has been inserted into the plan and will be applied towards residential developments over 15 units. Language has also been added to establish guidelines pertaining to parks and open space, streets and sidewalks, civic facilities and parking. Statements regarding the plans relationship to the City’s master plan and other governmental land use plans have also been proposed for inclusion. Language was also added as related to the implementation of the redevelopment plan and the selection of redevelopers.

Trish Long was sworn in by Mr. Leventhall and discussed the language amendment and changes to the land use map.

Highlights, Key Changes and additions

-  Page 2, Phased approach to redevelopment. City has been working with the East Trenton Collaborative. They received a grant from the Wachovia foundation for a planned development.

-  They wanted focus on Clinton to North Olden is a new portion of the plan. The collaborative felt it made a lot of sense.

-  #8 Sustainable design guidelines and residential development over 15 units.

-  Land use changes, added statement about parking

-  Added a statement about open space but it existed before

-  New zone ob zone, preservation of open space for the Assunpink greenway.

City is looking to acquire properties and remediate them

May convert some to residential to keep eyes on the park.

-  Added sections required by redevelopment, laws that explain relation of plan to City’s master plan.

-  $75,000 planning grant from Wachovia and $700,000 planning grant.

-  They have also received a neighborhood revitalization grant.

Mr. Potts asked if there were any question from the board. There were none.

Comments from the public.

Vera Gee of Greenwood Avenue in Trenton was sworn in. Ms. Gee explained the East Trenton Collaborative and the approval of the grant process. She stated that it was a total of 8.8 Million dollars involved in the project and that she approved of the plan.

Chairman Potts asked if there were any additional people from the audience that wanted to speak for or against this project.

With no answer from the Public…

The following vote was set forth:

Approval of Amendments to the North Clinton Redevelopment Plan

Member / Aye / Nay / Ab-stain / Motioned / Seconded
Joe Cooley / / X
Ronald Zilinski /

X

Jeff Halpern / X
Richard Potts / X
Stephen Doyle / X
Peter Yull / X
Jerome Harris / X

All were in favor

Item #2-09R –Preliminary Major Site Plan Application: The applicant proposes to construct a 25 story building to include approximately 700,000 square feet of office space and 15,000 +/- square feet of service retail space. In addition, a 7 level parking structure providing approximately 1,175 parking spaces will be constructed. Location of Development: Properties within the area bounded by South Clinton Avenue, Greenwood Avenue, Walnut Avenue Extension and the Amtrak U.N.J.R.R. & C Co. main line, (more accurately described by Block and Lot): City Tax Map: Block 13301, Lots 8 through 21: Applicant: Vista Center Development, LLC 425 Greenwood Avenue, Trenton, NJ 08609.

Mr. Kenneth Miser of Hill Wallach addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the applicant was back before the Board because there was a jurisdiction issue from the previous hearing. According to Mr. Miser, the applicant met with the objector and there will be subsequent meetings. Mr. Miser stated that notice had been determined complete. The applicant was before the Board seeking preliminary approval and will work with planning staff and the tenant.

The applicant received comments from the planning consultants and responded and planning staff was satisfied, with the plan.

Daniel Brenna on behalf of Vista Center Development was sworn in by Mr. Leventhal. Mr. Brenna gave background on the project via use of a presentation to the Board.

Mr. Brenna stated that the goal was that the building be a premier office building and bring an employer to the City. There were looking to bring green elements to the building and the tax credit would enable an employer to have an economic boost. Mr. Brenna stated that local people would be hired during construction. According to Mr. Brenna, studies show that every office worker spends about $134 a week which would add another economic boost to the City.

8 Exhibits were to be reviewed.

A-1 2006 site aerial photo

A-2 2002 aerial photo w/ site plan overlayed

A-3 20.0

A-4 20.01

A-5 Grading and drainage

A-6 Utility Plan 22.01

A-7 Landscape 24.01

A-8 Lighting 25.01

Exhibits were to be entered as they were reviewed.

Sergio Coscia, Architect of 1 S. Penn Square in Philadelphia, PA was sworn in and accepted as qualified by Mr. Leventhall. Mr. Coscia explained exhibit A-1. They did a site analysis on where the sun hits the building in all seasons. He explained that south exposure was critical for the building, He stated that there was an advantage that the site dropped to the train tracks due to the parking and that access to the train station was key and the existing bridge helped with the plan.

Mr. Coscia stated that they also did shadow studies of two times of the year where the sun is on the tracks most of the day as not to cast a shadow on anything else during the day. They tried to minimize expose to the east/ west sun to minimize heat buildup.

The lower floor and upper floor were shown in the presentation. The narrowness of the building was discussed as it would be used to keep dependence on natural lighting. Energy effiecient lighting and HVAC system would be part of the green elements. Different glass types, depending on the side of the building, including sunshades would be used to keep the efficiency of the building. Low VOC paints and materials would be used.

There was a virtual tour of the building at the conclusion of the presentation.

Chairman Potts asked if there were any questions from the Board.

Mr. Cooley asked if the building would have a platinum gold rating. Mr. Coscia responded that was the goal. The current score was 44. Mr. Brenna responded that that rating was due to the “maybe” column of the scorecard which they did not count but would most possibly receive some of those points once the building was built or after they got more detailed into the construction design.

Mr. Halpern wanted to know to what extent, in reference to the virtual tour, did it represent what the building would look like. Mr. Halpern’s expressed concern about the open space in the plaza connecting to the train station and the neighborhood. He said he was looking for something more visually impacting. Mr. Coscia stated that the building would be further detailed. Mr. Miser responded that many of the details would be addressed at final with the tenant. Mr. Halpern stated that it would be the tallest building in the city and the most impacting since the State House. He expressed that the City was looking to get a building that was not just functional but visually “iconic.”

Bill Valocchi was sworn in by Mr. Leventhall. Mr. Valocchi stated that a review memo was distributed but the board had not had a chance see the responses to the review. Some of the things were addressed there but the Urban Plaza plans were not yet finalized.

Mr. Brenna responded and re-showed the virtual tour stating that when it was designed they had read every study in reference to the area. A portico would allow for an openness to see the train station entrance. It was one of the points that brought the building out into the neighborhood. The main entrance to the building was purposefully put on Greenwood Avenue with the portico to link the train station. Retail would be set on the ground level to activate the street. Mr. Brenna stated that twenty five stories was short by most standards but the architectural design actually made the building look taller.

Ryan Linthicum, Engineer of 50 West State Street in Trenton was sworn in and accepted as qualified by Mr. Leventhall.

Exhibit A-1 SA -1 dated 11/25/2008 was accepted. Mr. Linthicum explained the aerial view of the exhibit which included Lots 8-21, 3.4 acres.

A-2 was presented and accepted. Mr. Linthicum explained where the office space would sit and where the parking garage would be.

Site plan, dated September 17, 2008 was explained by Mr. Linthicum. The footprint of the building would be almost 30,000 feet. Parking requirements would be sufficed for the parking of the building. In reference to handicapped parking, 2% would be sufficed in the parking deck. There would be two entrances to the parking deck, one on Walnut Avenue and the other on S. Clinton. Walnut Avenue would have patrons enter the parking deck on the 3rd floor. Clinton Avenue would enter on the second level. They have provided a space for public art but are not sure what that public art will be. The loading dock on S. Clinton would service smaller deliver trucks, like food and office supplies. It can accommodate a 65 foot truck and allow for pedestrian traffic. The water on the top of the parking deck would have to be remediated. A bio-detention basin would be left open but it would be shallow. The applicant will work with the landscape architect to come of with something amenable that would include a protection device.

Exhibt A-5, dated Sept 25, 2008, was explained by Mr. Linthicum. The focus of the drainage was the storm waste. They will keep the existing flow but take and exemption on groundwater recharge. The bio-retention basin would be the focus of the storm water. The recommendations would be to use Black-eyed Susans.

In reference to grading and drainage, they did not object to any of the recommendations from the City. An existing pipe was there and they met with staff and came up with 4 different options. The applicant will have a final solution to be presented to the board during final.

Exhibit A-6, The Utility Plan 22.01 was entered and explained. It displayed all connections on Greenwood Avenue, the Restaurant grease trap and one for the building. The applicant is working with PSEG.

Landscape Plan A-7 24.01 was entered and accepted. The applicant explained that the plan was the first pass and a lot of detail needs to go into the plan. They have to address the bio-retention area at the intersection of Walnut and Greenwood.

Mr. Cooley stated that he was concerned about the connection with the intersection on Greenwood because a lot of families and older people live in the area.

Exhibit A-8, The Lighting Plan 25.01 was entered and explained. The applicant stated that the lighting was still in early stages.

Site plan rendering 20.01 was entered and left up to discuss.

Mr. Halpern asked about the mass of the garage. Has there been any thought to the exterior of the garage? Also, In reference to the spaces in the garage will there be facilities for bikes to be secure? Nr. Linthicun responded yes, bike racks were linked into the plan and Mr. Halpern’s comments would be taken into consideration. Mr. Halpern responded that a decorative rack in the plaza would be an invitation to take a bicycle and that the applicant should come up with different options.