good evening and welcome this is a regular meeting of the Princeton planning board on Thursday February 20th 2025 pursuant to section 13 of the open public meetings act adequate notice of the time and place of this meeting has been given by prominently posting the resolution of regularly scheduled
meetings of the planning board of Princeton for February 2025 through January 20126 a copy was filed with the clerk of Princeton on January 8th 2024 legal notice of the adoption of said resolution was published in the January
17 2025 edition of the Princeton packet notice of this meeting has also been posted up to the municipal website www.princeton nj.gov calendar notice that all regular and special meetings of the prin of the Princeton planning board will be held
electronically via Zoom was transmitted to the Princeton packet and the times and was filed with the clerk of Princeton on Tuesday January 17th 2023 please note that this meeting is being recorded during hearings on applications for development members of the public
will have an opportunity to comment and ask questions questions may be asked after an applicant's Witnesses have testified public comment is heard by the board after the applicants Representatives have finished their pres presentations and have been questioned by the planning board members and staff
those wishing to comment orally should virtually raise your hand by clicking on the reactions or raise hand icon at the bottom of your Zoom screen or if participating by phone by pressing star n oral comments will be taken in the order in which hands were raised we ask
with respect that members of the public express your views in three minutes or less we will have a countdown clock to help speakers keep track of their time please note that speakers who exceed three minutes will be interrupted inappropriate public comment containing obscenity hate speech or
relating to matters not before the board will will be muted Miss philli will you please take the role certainly Mr bimer here miss capoli here Mr Cohen
here mayor Freda here Mr mallan here miss Nuka miss pearlmutter here Mr Taylor Miss Wilson Anderson here Mrs Wilson
Mr odonnell here we have a quorum thank you uh just uh for the record we have a number of 10 members of the public joining us tonight and uh we're going to start off with a swearing in of a member of the planning board so Jerry would you
take it away yes Claud if you could raise your right hand now claudy was sworn in previously which I think was probably sufficient but she was sworn in as a class 4 member and she's in alternate to so we're going to just to be cautious we're going to we rewear her
in so Claud if you can raise your right hand and you have the form yes okay if you can read that and and when you when you get the the princi and planning board you know what to say I Claudia Wilson Anderson sincerely profess and swear that I do and will
bear true faith and allegiance to the government established in the state under the authority of the people I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the constitution of state of New Jersey and that I will faithfully impartially and justly perform all the
duties of the office of alternate to Princeton planning board according to the best of my ability and understanding thank you sworn in congratulations again thank you Claudia thank you for going through that again appreciate it uh
announcements uh Justin would you like to start us off yes thank you chairman and good evening members of the board members of the public um I've kept the board updated about the uh State development and Redevelopment plan that's underway uh so I just wanted
to give another update on that I attended the uh County the meeting in our County on Tuesday night um or Wednesday night I honestly can't remember this week um the state is holding a meeting in every County
between last week and April 16th um if you're interested in finding out more about the plan uh the meeting I attended um includ included about a 30-minute presentation about the plan um of which the document is online uh followed by a time just for public comment uh to go
into the record um but also you can comment on the plan either uh by emailing or uh there's a website set up as well U but if you're interested in finding out more about the plan uh you know by having it presented rather than necessarily reading the whole thing um
you can certainly attend one of those other meetings I think there's probably 16 left uh by that April 16th date um there's a schedule online and although they are one in each County it really was not super County specific so if you wanted to go up to hun in um or over to
ocean county or wherever you still can do that um there's no action needed from the board either as a a group or individually on the state development and Redevelopment plan um but they are accepting those comments at this
time okay okay thank you Justin y Jerry I believe you have a brief uh legal update for us yes um as the board knows and I expect certainly some members of the public know there's been a suit which has been going on for a while where there's been a challenge by
Princeton Coalition for responsible development um challenging the master plan that was adopted by the uh by the board in 2023 there was a second suit also brought by princ and Coalition for responsible development challenging the Redevelopment plan which
came out of um proceedings before Council but it came it did come before the planning board for a decision as to whether it was consistent with the master plan and the board gave some review on that and advise Council that
they thought it was um so that's out there um quite recently the um Prince Coalition for responsible development uh filed a asking that the two cases be Consolidated as well as re requesting
the right to undertake Discovery in the Redevelopment plan suit um the attorneys for um the municipality Steve melck uh and for the planning board that's Joe um maraziti in the Redevelopment suit and
me in the um master plan suit uh basically opposed the motion arguing that certainly with respect to the planning board consolidating the two cases would just would would not accomplish nothing it would be lead to a
chaotic situation where there would be much more um uh expenditure of resources uh by the municipality through the planning board without any advantage and the court a couple of days ago granted um denied that motion and issued an
opinion doing so so that that was a a nice victory that we had there but the suit is still there but at least we're not stuck in a Consolidated case um where we would have undoubtedly been required to do a lot more than than we have to do now okay
thank you Jerry that's uh that's good news uh so we'll we'll keep the rest of the board updated as as further matters transpire yep okay uh are there any other announcements from any board members or
staff not seeing any Let's uh go on to subcommittee reports so the uh roster of subcommittees was distributed on February 7th and we have one report for the site plan committee from Mr Cohen yes thanks uh Owen so the site plan
committee uh met uh yesterday to consider an application at 805 Bund Drive um it was in addition to an office research building about 85 00 Square fet
addition um and uh we had a fair bit of conversation about it discussion about it but wound up uh agreeing that it does qualify as a minor subdivision and it had no variances so
we recommended to the chair that the um application be approved as a minor sub uh minor site plan great thank you um not sure if I'm supposed to say so be it
or I think uh Johan Luke Bard would say make it so make it so that's good well thank you very much uh are there any other committee reports I don't believe that we've had any other meetings so far so uh again not seeing any uh we'll move on to our application
for tonight uh the application tonight is from King interests LLC this is a preliminary and final major site plan with variances located at 338 and 342 Nassau Street block number 34.010659
on this uh Mr F ship yes publication and service are in order the board has jurisdiction thank you very much Jerry uh Alvin I see your hand up yeah um I have a question before we start it's sort of a procedural question uh again
reading through the materials for tonight there is an an objection from the historic the historic commission and it's a rather strong objection from them so I just want to
know how are we how are we proceeding are we going to hear this then maybe send it back to the historic commission and then if you do that does it come back here does it come back here here again um there there was some indication I
know that that somehow they were there was someone that was thinking that maybe this was also a concept review that we're going to have tonight and and it's not so so how how are we how are we Pro ceing
should it or should it just be thank you very much for that question that's an excellent question and I'm sure Justin will have more to say on this in his opening statement but uh we are treating this as an application at this point um and uh Mr Kennedy and and Justin will uh
elaborate on that further so um with no other questions I'll I'll throw the ball over to Justin uh for a swearing in and uh and his comments thank you Mr would you raise your right hand do we have other staff
members here also you yes we should who who else we have Dan Derek Elizabeth Victor and Dan Dober milski okay if you all raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that testimony you're about to give would be the truth just want to affirm if you could
just state your name for the record Justin leco Dan Weisman vicos danski Derek Derek Bridger and Elizabeth Elizabeth Kim thank you
all uh and uh thank you uh Mr Vice chair and and Alvin um I will definitely touch upon that um towards the end of my brief introduction um but this is a this was filed as a major site plan application so we're going to review it as that um
and then get into what it means that the HPC did not recommend uh approval of the application and and in very in their own terms and in your terms and in a very strong way they did not recommend uh approval of the application um but to begin I will start by
showing uh the uh NJ map publicly available from Rowan University um NJ map partial Explorer and Jared we could call this pb1 yes this is showing the uh two parcels in blue are the subject
Parcels um as the chair said at 338 and 342 Nassau Street both Parcels are in the RO residence office zone of the former burrow um they are also in the affordable housing overlay 2 aho2 um though that is not being used for this
application uh both Parcels are also in the jugtown historic district which is a locally designated historic district as well as on the state and National registers of historic places the buildings uh on each parcel are also identified as contributing to the
jugtown historic district uh the front portions of each property are also located in the Kings Highway historic district on the state and National reg register uh the NJ Transit 606 bus runs in front of the subject properties and turns up Nassau Street and the free
Princeton mun bus follows a similar route uh there's no on street parking in the vicinity of the properties um so then uh speaking about each of them uh 342 Nassau is on the corner of North Harrison Street and Nassau Street uh there's a two-story building on site
that most recently housed an interior design firm the building dates to 1730 um a one-story addition is on the west side of the building and previously was on the east side of the building but was moved in the 1940s when Harrison Street was widened the lot is 0.136
acres in area and contains a seven space gravel parking area in the rear the building was renovated in 2015 or as a result of a 2015 approval uh which included the change to its present day look of a dark gray uh facad with
black elements from the white paint red shutters and green roof that were previously on the building uh there are small green areas that are heavily landscaped and two flowering dogwood trees in the rear around a brick pathway and 35 European hornbeams were planted
after the 2015 approval as a buffer between the gravel parking area and the adjacent proper property at 338 nasau so moving on to that 338 NASA it is the white building to the west of 342 nasau there's a two-story building on it
dating to the 1800s and it's accessed by a driveway off Nassau Street that leads into a 13 space gravel parking lot behind the building in 2018 the zoning board granted approvals for a rear addition partial Demolition and restoration on the uh 338 nasau building
um the application before you tonight does not mention any changes to that building however uh it contain the application would connect the parking lots between 338 and 342 NASA and creates something of a courtyard between them uh really designed around a new
fountain that would be put in there um the 35 European horn beams would be removed the Lots would remain gravel and there would be a net loss of one parking space between the sites the driveway on North Harrison Street would be moved 27
ft away from the intersection so to the north essentially um and that would be a two-way driveway as it is now but the only Ingress for both of the Lots the the existing driveway on Nassau Street would go from two-way as it is now to
one way uh and that would be out only uh so the building going back to the the corner uh building uh the building at 342 nasau Street would be renovated and repainted back to White um the roof would be replaced in kind and repainted
gray the porch would be replaced and the shutters Door and Trim would be repainted green um air conditioning units will be moved to the west of the existing wing with an enclosure around them and a 518 foot addition is proposed
to the rear of the 342 Nassau building um it would not be visible from Nassau Street but it would be very visible from North Harrison Street being on the corner the proposed addition includes faux historic features like faux Carriage doors and roof brackets and it
would blend in with the historic building uh by using the same white paint and gray roof um there are other details like bike parking pavers and trash locations that I won't get into at this time um but just to cut to the chase um as as we heard previously um I
would recommend that this application be denied by the board or redesigned by the applicant to better align with the municipality's historic preservation requirements and the zoning ordinance um as there are several variances being requested um that seem like they could be eliminated or minimized while also
resulting in a a better building um there are also safety concerns regarding the Ingress and egress and how they affect the North Harrison and Nassau intersection um I have other smaller comments in my report but I'll hold them for now based on that kind of you know
bigger one right there um but before I get to that I do want to address Alvin's uh question um and and uh just note that the HBC reviewed the application at their December meeting they did not support the application and strongly recommended that the board deny it uh
per the municipal historic preservation ordinance if the board chose to approve this application tonight uh you would need to State on the record the reasons that you were uh disregarding the hpc's recommendations so it would be a a full
application um as it always is and just with that caveat that if you did want to approve it uh you would uh have to State uh those reasons all that being said um Mr BR yes just jump in for a second with respect
to Alvin's question um if the advice of um Justin is taken the board denies the application nothing would happen at that point and it would be up up to the applicant to decide whether they want to make revisions and come back to the
board and the HBC they will always have the right of appealing um if it's uh uh if it's granted and the board is uh as uh Justin said they'd have to State their reasons for the record on the record as to why and that would be the
end of that um because it would be an approval thank you Jerry um that is basically all I have for this intro I'm happy to go into any of those uh you know other items if you want to talk about the bike parking or if you want to
talk about uh there are some other things I glossed over like trash and and things like that um but uh I think the applicant will cover them um Mr Bridger and Mr Weisman are here to speak to their engineering and Zoning report Mr Ana is here with his traffic engineering
report uh Mr Dober milsky has his landscape architecture report um and all of these and the Princeton environmental commission's report were in your packet that was sent out last week um since then we've also received reports from the shade tree commission and the HPC uh member capoli I think can provide uh her
report from the HPC um you know based on her other role as the chair of of the commission um and Miss Kim is also here to answer any questions uh on that report uh so at this time I will turn it back to you Mr Vice chair um thank you thank you thank you Justin uh Julie
would you like to uh provide an overview of the HPC report since this is so uh vital to to this hearing sure um well if you go to the report it's pretty much the comments start on page
five and um so uh we um and I would definitely um also want to hear uh Elizabeth's comments as well but um you know we're concerned
about the significance of the building um being from 7 1730 being preserved as well as it is um having a significant role in the town um that we
would not want alterations that would obscure the original significance of the building um we uh did not like the idea of the front steps
being reclad and rework worked um we were definitely concerned about the location of the new structure being so close to the street um and felt
that it it should be set back further um we were um looking at the Secretary of the Interior standards regarding historic looking um items on
the building and you know the concern is that we we don't want to try to you know fool anyone that this is a historic building and it should stand separately from the original building and not
detract from it um so there that's in point four um point five is that um the uh features on the building were
not relating well to the original structure um we are definitely number six is were concerned about the demolition of the uh re the exterior rear wall of the building um for various
reasons and Elizabeth can get into that um seven is about the porch work and um how that is also compromising the Integrity of the
building um and so uh let's see eight is that um again the being so close to the right of way we felt was inappropriate and um kind of obscured
the the significance of the um 1730s building um we did not feel the the new Plaza with the fountain um was really um appropriate with this structure and that it was more
of a commercial um appearance and that um the pavers were quite large and out of scale um then there were also questions about
the M especially the fenestration there were um concerns that it didn't really relate to anything and that um uh let's see I think 12 is that the
foundation planting um looks more suburban and isn't really um appropriate uh the um let's see the hornbeam trees we were sad to see those go because they're
fairly well developed veled and um you know add add Greenery to the site and then um 14 was that uh we really encouraged uh a concept review because concept reviews are free and they're
available and um a lot of information can be exchanged and advice and guidance and so we still stand by that that a concept review would be a fantastic um next move um Elizabeth did you want to add
anything she is she there yeah oh I think you're on mute okay can you hear me yes you're fine right um so just to add to what Julie had said um I think the first thing is that
HPC felt that the applicant did not actually understand the history of the building which was very important to how they approached the design of the project um and they felt that if there had been some knowledge of the history
they had done the research and were was familiar and why it was so important that they might have approached it differently but they didn't see any effort or um accommodation to the Princeton history or the validation of
the original building or anything related to the context of the streetcape so because they didn't see that they felt that their approach to the design was not sympathetic to the history of the building um so that they had
concerns with um appropriate scale proportions the placement of the addition um some of the um site amenities uh the features the material all the things that Julie touched on in addition to landscape and
streets skape um again the the placement of the building they felt that it should be set back because it's important for the store building to be prominent on the street skate and they felt that it was really too close to the sidewalk and even though it didn't have a high
profile and they had no problem with the size or footprint of it just because it was so close to the street that it took away from the significance of the building and there was an opportunity there was room and they felt that that the applicant should revisit that um and
just the approach of the way they um designed um they did not meet the Princeton historic preservation ordinance just even by the approach of the front porch you you start with repair if you need to replace it's replacement in kind but they took a wood
porch and they made it a masonry porch with um metal railings so but to that end I would say that the applicant did agree that they would replace the porch
um by repairing and then in kind in addition they did say that they were willing to um keep as many of the horn beam as possible that weren't in the connecting access drive or within The
Hardscape which was their crosswalk so uh that was good to hear they also had talked about that they would like to um consider consider moving the AC unit which is facing North Harrison Street so it's out of the view shed and they would
put it on the West Side um so there were concessions that were done um which HPC did appreciate but overall they felt that it was really not sympathetically done to a very important building within a very important intersection of
jugtown thank you very much Miss Kim uh before we move on to to the applicant uh do any of the yes David I'm sorry yeah sorry I just um you know I I totally support the conclusions of HPC but I
wanted to ask a little clarifying question because the use of the term faux historic as part of the criticism of the addition um I know that our local uh our as
opposed to the Secretary of interior standards I think our local local uh historic preservation ordinance tries to pretty strongly say that we don't want to prescribe stylistic
um uh choices to an owner and so you know if an applicant wants to do something in a historical style I think I I think we're open to that it's just this particular you know some of
the decisions they made like fake Carriage H you know Carriage House does where there were where where there weren't doors or adding brackets to this addition which you know should if anything be sort of hierarchically less
important than the main building but the the main building doesn't have brackets and so you know putting the brackets on so there were there were a lot of decisions that I disagreed with but I just wanted to to clarify um if an applicant wants to come
with a traditional style of architecture as an addition to an historic building we don't have an objection to that that's correct I mean obviously you can't separate any of the historic styles from what people are constructing today however I think what Julie was
trying to say is that there shouldn't be um it shouldn't mimic it as much to make it make someone question oh is this part of the original building not that it would happen in this case but that if
you mimic something so much that it's almost creating false history it some people would want it to look exactly like they're building the same um stucco the same roof material the same uh fenestrations and that's what they don't
like uh the foe that we see on this is as you talk about those carriage doors they're very fo you know so there's no question of that but so those are kind of two separate things but but absolutely I mean obviously if someone wants to come with a colonial style
someone wants to have something that has some federal detailing you know those are all things that are also relatable but you wouldn't want to completely mimic it right and that applies to um additions new structures it doesn't
apply to the existing structure where the criteria quite different do you want to get in into that at all Emily uh Elizabeth um so when we're talking that would that would probably Jerry be like when you're repairing something like the front porch um
obviously the the HPC ordinance and the secretary Interiors talks about um repairing or replacing the material in kind so you want it to go back to the way uh that was original but not and
that's the key what you just said yes respect to the existing structure yeah because you're replacing what's there not that you're creating something new that wasn't there to make it look like it was there yeah okay I just wanted to clarify that so the board had a complete understanding okay Julie and then
n all right just to um David's Point yeah I mean act obviously applicants have the freedom to design whatever um they choose I think uh fundamentally though in historic districts when it
detracts from an historic structure then that's where we have an issue but it isn't anything specific um so and then Elizabeth outlined why specifically uh there were issues with
this application but I to David's Point yeah every applicant has the freedom to do whatever they want you know and then uh if it doesn't detract from the original structure sure thanks thank you Natt did you have
a comment uh thank you I I'm gonna hold my comments for the moment thank you okay thank you uh before we move on to the applicant I just want to know from the rest of the staff if there's anything in particular that you want the uh the board to know um or if not we'll
move on to Mr Kennedy uh Dan or Derek or Dan dulski uh Dan Weissman I see you activated your camera yeah I just wanted to say at this time I think there's plenty to go off of uh at this moment and um as the applicant presents uh I
can question uh some of the items brought up in my memo great thank you very much thank you so with that we'll uh welcome Mr Ryan Kennedy uh attorney on behalf of the applicant and uh who will introduce his
team uh thank you Mr chairman uh as you said Ryan Kennedy from Stevens and Lee uh on behalf of the applicant King interest uh who controls both of the two lots that are part of this site plan application um as uh Mr Lesco and um
chairwoman capoli from the HBC and and your HPC officer said I think you did a good job of explaining the nature of the application I'll go to that in a second but just uh I'll kind of want to explain why we're here not to go directly to um
Mr mcan's Question uh but uh ultimately um in the land use process here uh we we had the HPC hearing uh we ended up getting scheduled here tonight um between noticing for that meeting and being here tonight we got a lot of feedback including some today and I'll
tell you just quite honestly um it's the intention of the applicant if uh as Mr leco put in his memo you know the options really seem to be deny this or there should be a significant redesign it's the applicant's intention to redesign sign the project uh in a way uh
that we think matches what hpc's comments that we received today um do um and because we noticed for this meeting uh we're here um and we would like to take the board through um particularly the site plan parts of the application um because there are two components one
uh which did not strike the right chord initially with HPC but in addition uh to a building that's frankly uh uh to create a conference room uh in an existing real estate office to that is at a lower level literally uh to you know for Ada
accessibility for the clients uh that are that are visiting that building um and a uh a change that actually came up from discussions with staff uh uh Mr Lasco did a nice job of of the long history of of these two buildings um both uh when they were under control of
the current owner and applicant and before then um my role started I guess in 2018 with the addition to 338 uh and then you'll many of you remember uh a protracted trip back here for the garbage and uh generator
enclosure design um after that um and it's part of those discussion with staff the idea of getting control of this the corner property to connect the parking lots to be better address where the curb cuts are at uh 342 uh to to create a safer situation or
to be kind of use them um together uh which kind of drove this and then as part of that we've got the kind of the small addition to the back of 3 uh 42 uh and the the site plan considerations and what our uh intention is not to ask you
to uh to override HPC uh not to go against their recommendations um uh but but for us to because we're here uh take you through what we had proposed um and and talk through briefly what we uh now that we know the comments what we kind
of intend to do a as as a redesign to come back um you know with either full plans or when discuss with staff afterwards perhaps if if a concept makes sense or if we can go right to full plans you know we're happy to work that out with staff but the intention is 100%
to um respond to and and we you know quickly went through and think we can uh the comments um that HPC gave us and you know now have in their their memo uh today um uh we do um appreciate all of the the thoughts of of all the town's
professionals uh the volunteers on HPC you know technically they advisory to this board uh we are not going to ask this board to be in the position to override their advice um on on the design of uh 342 but ultimately is this board's uh
decision uh we think you'll have a better time making decision once this is redesigned along the lines that HPC has has laid out again that is our intent uh a couple of other just kind of high notes um there were some on from the site plan side of things there were
excuse me were some concerns raised about this being a a cut through potentially um or uh the one way out on to NASA uh which ultimately we kind of agree with so our we we'll show you that we propos to have to maintain both
Ingress egress on both sites and talk through what we think um will will help with the um uh concern which we're not as worried about but we want to make sure everyone's comfortable particularly professionals and the redesign that this is not going to be a cut through opport
and I think ironically that um that motion um that you would be cutting off is probably the the not say the easiest one but you'd be uh making that right hand turn onto nassal is one that functions quite well for those who are used to it it's it's going across or making a left uh so you you ultimately
you'd be cutting off a fairly easy movement with lots of internal movements and but we we'll talk through that um on on the site plan side again and as we told HPC um we are you know very comfortable with um redesigning the front porch in a way that that meets
their expectations to try to um uh utilize as many of the existing hornbeam um uh shrubs or or trees um that are there um and in a way particularly um that meshes with some of the uh other professionals concerns with it being a
cut through the more we can use the less um you know we want the site to continue to be navigable U by users but the more things that are there and that's one of the reasons we wanted to stick with gravel the less it seemed like some kind of through Speedway um to cut around the corner we don't think that would be the
case but the more of those trees we we keep um the gravel um positioning the Ada space uh where we might put some electric Chargers all things that really will message to the world you know this is not a place to driveth through even if it made sense to cut that off and we
don't think it did um but having said that again I just want to you know be absolutely clear and and and thank you know the comments that we've now received from from everyone and and that you know that's our our goal just just to to uh briefly show you the the site area what we were going to do um and and
then talk through um some basic ideas how we can address it to come back um with a um excuse me a redesign um of the project um I well apologies Mr chairman I do see a hand up I'm I'm happy to to yield if uh if uh this board members
have questions about this part or or want to make a yes thank you uh Alvin um essentially what you're asking for tonight is a concept review
correct um have we are we going to not F we're going to withdraw an application and and seek a separate uh application for concept um no um would we be showing um what we've proposed and and seeking input on it yes you know the difference
with the concept is that it doesn't have to be engineered uh you know usually and and it's a different fee structure um we would very much like the opportunity to have feedback um as HBC gave on um what we had proposed particularly the part that likely won't change uh which is the
the site that's been fully ined and submitted uh for approval but if that also answers your question I'm we will not be putting the board in position um that we will be asking for uh you to approve the existing drawings we recognize that they should be
revised so our plan for tonight is to see your revised plans based on HPC and the other comments that you've received from the report and then uh we'll resched we'll schedule a meeting for further down the road in order to continue this
application correct and and and the the only caveat is that while I wish for the um particularly with the uncertainty with newspapers and and notices that I we could pick a date certain I think that's probably unrealistic that we would uh you know essentially extend the mlul clock and then once we've
resubmitted pick a new date and R notice at that point sure miss Philip is already checking her calendar okay thank you very much uh with that I think we can go along to uh swearing in your team thank you um I we have um Jim calik and I do see Tom as
well our uh architect and engineer planner this evening you if you could raise your right hand you swear or affirm it testimony about to give would be the truth I do so SW to affirm please uh State your full name and spell your last name Jim why
don't we start with you sure James calac c h m i l a k thank you Thomas fantacone F is in Frank a n t a c o NE e than you so much um M chairman we we
do have a set of exhibits careful not to call them plans but uh uh exhibits um you know to show the existing project and some ideas about how we might address the the comments um I believe it is 21 slides if I could have that um um accepted and marked as
as our one exhibit tonight yeah that'll be A1 thank you so much and as usual as you're going through the the exhibit this the slides can you please identify the slide number absolutely um and uh before we start with the first
one um I prob should have done this before I took over your screens but uh uh Jim if you could I know you've been uh qualified before this board many times but very briefly give the board the benefit of your uh credentials and Licensing so I can have you accept it as
an expert in engineering and planning sure um again James kamalak licensed professional engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey um degree in the field of civil and environmental engineering record University and have
been practicing uh civil site planning for over uh 25 years and have been before this board on many other applications uh similar to this here in Princeton we accept your qualifications thank you very much thank you thank you
Mr chairman um so Jim I I'll I'll move on to slide uh two uh this is uh Princeton's zoning map showing and that that blue arrow point to the uh the two properties that we're talking about here tonight yes this just shows that we are
in the RO uh residential office zone for these two particular Lots slide three this is a clip of a Princeton's HPC or historic map I guess that um purple Swiss cheese shading uh
shows the the jugtown historic district yes and this shows that the the lot is located within that District um you know essentially uh fully enclosing both Lots next to to
slide apologies slide four this is a um an aerial photo generally sewing the sites but actually um uh dated prior to the existing work this is the newest one that's available by satellite but maybe we just take the the board through the the two uh the two properties generally
um just so they can understand all right let's start with um the subject property 342 which is located on the corner as you can see the building fronts on Nassau Street with the side Gable end on Harrison Street and that
specific lot is access with an existing driveway apron that Ryan perhaps you can highlight on the screen um in this particular location which serves access to the gravel parking lot um as you can see from that conf
configuration the vehicle maneuverability is extremely Limited in terms of Drive ISS to exit um all of those parking stalls that basically line up along the the common property line there you can see two
vehicles um but I think there are seven total stalls that would uh be in alignment there which you know there's a there's an issue there with proximity of vehicles backing um to that pedestrian sidewalk and with the PO potential of um
really getting too close or going over the sidewalk for example so um one of the the main thrust of reconfiguring and connecting the parking lots is to solve to help solve this problem and Shifting
the driveway apron further to the north by approximately 25 ft would enable reorienting those parking stalls 90° to the main entry Drive um and eliminating the you know particular movement situation that we have in this
existing condition and I do know that um Mr King was approached uh several many years ago when this 338 project was initiated uh and he did not yet own 342 and there was
a a request to inquire with the owner of 34 uh 342 if she would entertain connecting the parking lots in order to achieve you know a better um vehicle maneuvering Arrangement connecting the two sites here uh that was imp possible
but he has since obviously purchased this property and now owns both and the idea was to um to connect the parking lots um address some of these these issues with with access and then also construct the conference room which
would add some um open open meeting space that the current building does not yet have uh on 338 in this view you can see that it's accessed by um the entry drive there on the right and it proceeds to the rear and pretty much in the
existing condition um since those Renovations were uh performed we have the access driveway in the middle of that rear parking area with perpendicular parking as you can see with those vehicles at the rear as well so it's somewhat similar uh with that
new addition since it's been constructed and then this gives you um a better Vantage Point uh from this looking West at at both rear parking lots and the configuration of the buildings again the 338 building here this is the old
Edition which was demolished and reconstructed so this doesn't show the exact existing condition there but you can see um the parking Arrangement at the rear of 338 and then also notably we have a three-story building um 14 North
Harrison which is um directly to the right uh in the immediate vicinity of the two subject properties so this is a basically what we had just discussed um a picture of the existing survey with uh existing
342 and then and then looking at the accesses and um that single the two-way Ingress and egress both on North Harrison as well as on Nassau Street you know for which ultimately at this point
um the owner and the applicant would be looking to maintain um as much access as possible in a bidirectional manner as we go through these if you could identify what slide that is okay apologies slide six here
yep Jim you want to go to the the proposed yeah all slide seven sure so here on slide seven um as you can see we have that one story addition for the conference room space for the the office space inside of
342 it's located uh along that rear wall additionally um this also shows the reconfiguration of the parking with six stalls um at the rear of the property with that uh new curb cut there on North
Harrison um also uh the idea here with the the owner and applicant was to provide some outdoor space uh with that Fountain element that was discussed so that there could be some um
pedestrian uh shared space uh outside of 338 and 342 uh currently there is a stair going down 338 towards that entry Drive um that could lead across and provide some um some open space uh in
that particular area we did include on this um the sharing of the accessible parking space between both Lots because the parking demand is uh rather low um we felt that that could be uh shared you know with with easement precautions um
If This Were to be approved uh and we do show that on our plan and uh also we show the you maintaining that drive that driveway that exists going out to Nassau um which you know at this point we'd like to see
that um provide uh continue in existing condition um with traffic in and out at that location we did highlight on here in green a a proposed historic preservation uh area that would Encompass the front yard the two side
yards and uh the existing building uh of 342 as highlighted here on slide seven I see Mr Cohen has his hand up would you like to do you have a question on this slide David yeah um
Jim I know that the report indicated that the existing driveway is 14 feet wide um for the 338 property and that seems narrow for two-way traffic uh have you given any thought and it looks like
you have some room to possibly WI that drive by a little bit have you given that any consideration with this new uh direction of of keeping it by directional it is a possibility to to
widen that I would note that um really at this point in time in the past prior to the um those Renovations when this property was rather um intensely used by the
graves uh business and occupants that it it functioned in that same way um and that curb that was installed followed the delineation of the existing Pavement in that location um and we haven't seen any issues you know it did function that
way up until this point and um it hasn't been an issue you know in the recent past so um the the volume of traffic is relatively low um and then you know we have that existing curb cut that was maintained at the street so you know
there is certainly uh a little bit of room if that were to be widened slightly but then you would have to address that within the the right of way at the street yeah well I'll I don't have strong feelings about it based on your testimony but let staff weigh in
obviously Jim going to slide eight this I guess has a the before and after of 342 showing the kind of changes to the site plane there on the with the proposed Edition uh right located at the rear and I guess really the thrust of
this is that addition is pretty much overlaid over that existing porch egress stair and um you know P sidewalk area uh that currently exists I believe in this
drawing gym we were showing uh a a condenser unit for the for the HVAC obviously with the redesign that would change anyway but regardless that that would be moved to the inter internal uh part of the site and that was even a commitment we made to to hbc's right right yeah I think that can be moved
over um and then also if you look at this orientation that that addition is stepped back um if you compare the the edge of the rear facade of the existing building and the proposed um you know certainly there may be accommodations to
make that step back um greater I think right now the existing building is a foot and a half off the property line and what was proposed was almost 4 feet or 3.8 ft um but I think we hear that a greater setback from that RightWay line
um would be desired and it is going on an angle so uh which is not orthogonal to the building so it's a little deceiving I just wanted to point out that you know it is stepped back it's just that that right of way line there is on an angle which is a bit
atypical um this might might be a good place to to show it but um even in the current proposed configuration um the parking spaces that above but the new addition would likely be the best candidates for a uh EV charger or make
ready situation because of the proximity to uh um to the building yeah that was I thought maybe where that number 10 is the five and the 10 that particular stall um there might be the best spot for it is that the handicaps parking
space I would be right next to it okay thank you yep know that there always tricky to figure out which whether the Ada spaces should be EV only or accessible to them that would probably give us the the most opportunity for a unofficial EV Ada
space that you know the charger could reach the space um but not keep a Ada user from the space if they didn't have an electric vehicle and again just to slide nine this just shows you know that the addition was was
over the uh patio that the Jim described um slide 10 I guess has a bit of a blow up we can talk a little bit um uh though based on the comments we expect to hear already heard that the the internal sidewalk and and kind of
Plaza between the two buildings is perhaps uh not a not a warm reception but you maybe talk a little bit about what the intent was um particularly um it was hard to see on the plans but the idea for the fountain was actually a a
flush installation and and not a not a raised yeah I think the thought was that it would be you know for occasional use and flush mounted to the ground and the owner thought that you know having an outdoor space perhaps with several benches Etc in that location um you know
could provide some amenities for the occupants of 342 and 348 um but you know I think probably in the light of what was discussed um we'll we'll take another look at that and and see how it might fit in with maybe some
modifications to the uh to the proposed building before we uh before we get to the architectural plans Jim um few other perhaps um just things to to touch on from the um uh from some of the professionals reports before we leave
the you know kind of General engineering testimony um yeah I guess I guess I would just say that um in Mr weissman's report there were SE several comments I mean certainly we want um to maintain the gravel surface which was a theme and
a design parameter for 338 um suited to the historic context but also from a storm water management perspective um sort of more green element as opposed to uh a Paving surface um there was some
comments for providing concrete um parking bumpers on 338 uh in discussions with staff and what was ultimately approved as we provided striping on the on the uh on the curb line to denote each of those parking stalls and that's apparent and
evident in the field um and we would look at doing that as well just from a main perspective with that gravel surface and to eliminate tripping hazards we think that that's you know a better solution to um to locate those particular parking
stalls let me just see I'm gon to go back to slide six while you're talking just that shows the full site plan up I'm sorry slide um sorry made slide seven that shows the revised um site plan while year and we
discussed um adding EV to one of the Stalls which we would do that as part of the um modifying maybe that hardscaping area and the new addition we'll look at
integrating the bike copy for which we did provide um here at the rear of the building and we'll also include that as well um there was some discussion as to um storage of the trash containers with in the
um Chiller and the generator enclosure um we will we'll provide some additional uh when we're back uh information and followup on that relative to you know proximity to the equipment in their discussions um with the equipment
provider um as part of a modified plan uh there was a comment from Mr Weissman about uh instead of having a a drive well type uh storm water management BMP of doing a pervious pav arrangement in the Ada parking stall
area and I think we'd be agreeable to that um to satisfy uh the drainage requirements for that um two two others in in my mind maybe you could talk a little bit I think I hinted about it in the introduction but
some concern about the um uh people cutting off I guess this what would normally be a right turn movement from Harrison onto nassal here around the building but you know wanting to cut through the parking lot and perhaps with the the stone and the
interior elements and turns that would be needed maybe talk a little bit about what your thoughts are how how often or what what what a level of Interest be yeah I mean I guess I would say that um one of the concerns was the the hornbeam
uh hedge that we have uh with those trees that were put in there um to function as a hedge with the if we retake a look at that patio area and we can maintain some of those um they'll they'll sort of um provide some visual
extended privacy between the two properties that I think would um you know disturb a visual cue of uh possible cut through in that location um so that's one thing that we can do also too
I'm not necessarily uh convinced that Vehicles would have the maneuverability in terms of queuing and waiting um at the traffic light in order to have access to that um driveway apron to cut
through and it's really not going to save them much if you go out to the site and you stand there um yeah at least from my view I I don't really see it as a significant um you know time saber when you're five or six vehicles from the
traffic light uh of a need of a need to cut through in that location um and it's and it's pretty tight quarters so if we can minimize the the visual expanse I think that that would um serve to help that but at least from our view we don't see that as something you know
significant that we have to be uh that concerned of at this point one other one from my list Jim there were a few variances called out and I say they were technical um but um for this um parking area in in in the back property line um
one could you maybe just talk a little bit about you know the parts from a from a setback and the landscaped area perspective it was really only this tiny and if I see if I can zoom in tiny Corner that actually didn't satisfy the requirement but that the rest of it
actually did but that perhaps we there's a solution to actually satisfy that is that well I think I think we we're still providing um a few feet for planting between the curb line and the rear property line where you're highlighting
there on this what slide is this uh six seven um but that is consistent with what was installed on 338 and what was approved on 338 if you move your hand down there you can see that we're
basically extrapolating that and being consistent um where this the parking setback is here where the the aggregated um width of the three 9 foot wide stalls actually uh touch the RightWay line in
that location and that's why the relief was um zero at that spot though there is about 3 feet of clearance to the sidewalk between the vehicle or the edge of the parking area or the curb line in the back of the sidewalk at the side of
that vehicle that could be planted um we could probably you know minimize this deviation by putting 8ft stalls for example in that location which would be consistent with what was approved for 338 um with slightly narrower stalls and
that would you know give a few more feet uh of buffer at that location but still be able to get those three parking stalls in so we could minimize that a little bit there thank you Jim um unless there was anything um that you had
from from your your notes of the pl we wanted to highlight um I'd like certainly have our uh engineer available for questions from the board or your professionals at this point yeah okay are there any questions David I see your hand yeah just to make sure I understood
what uh what Jim was saying about the um setback from the sidewalk so it sounds like there's space that's currently paved because it's part of the it's all it's all gravel David right up to the
sidewalk okay but the sidewalk is about 3 feet from the property line yeah it's under that z.0 text if Ryan highlights it there that's okay so given that
um if the municipality would Grant permission to be planting in the right of way uh can I assume the appli would be amenable to planting to doing some buffer planting between the sidewalk and the parking lot in that 3-foot area
that's yeah that's why I highlighted that that little strip there yeah yeah I just that's what I thought you said I just wanted to make sure I understood it yeah yeah okay thank you uh any other questions from Mr schik from either
board members or staff no not seeing any okay uh thank you Mr chairman um I'd like to uh uh Tom if you could uh turn your camera on I'm going to advance the slides so till we get to the architecture but if you could briefly uh
give the board the benefit of your credentials so I can have you uh accepted as an expert here tonight sure it's Tom fantacone I'm a registered architect in the state of New Jersey since 1981 I have a bachelor of architecture degree from Syracuse University and I've
um testified at numerous boards up and down the state of New Jersey okay thank you very much we we uh accept your qualifications sure thank you thank you Thomas so stting here on slide 11 and I'll do my best to remember to to call out the numbers as we go
through them um uh could just briefly take the board through just from a from a physical use of this building um you know what goes on here and and what the idea was with this uh addition sure well I think as
everyone's familiar the the addition is to the rear of the of the main house it's 518 square feet it's comprised predominantly of a conference room a connecting link to the existing building and a Ada accessible toilet room the
idea is that this part of the building is accessible and we provided a toilet room there so that anyone accessing the site in a wheelchair or is uh disabled in any way at least could use this portion of the building it would be barrier free and
accessible um the so this part of the building is at the grade level the house sits up about three feet from there so in that foure connection would be a set of stairs that would lead to the main house but again that's not barrier-free so at least the conference room and the
toilet room that's there is barrier free and accessible as Jim mentioned before the building is set back but because the property line is on an angle it does come fairly close to the sidewalk at the Northern end but it's still three to
four feet away from the sidewalk there where the main house is only I think you said between a one foot and two feet from the sidewalk so there's there's a bit of a setback along that that way and then to the western side of the building is that connecting plaz
the idea was to create sort of a community of buildings between 338 and 342 so there'd be a sense of place here um and some kind of a an element that would bring people together and create sort of a unified appearance across both
sites so that's the reason for the Fountain and the Plaza on that side and Tom as as previously designed while these look like um perhaps different layers or or or elements these were just different types of materials to visually on the
same plane create some interest there was not different uh terrorist or or raised parts of this was all the same level it's all on one level yes so that moving to slot I apologies
um excuse me slide 12 we can start talking going through the um elevations of the original proposal yeah if you look at the bottom left there you'll see the main house and then the addition to the right of it with a connecting link kind of between the two separating the
two the two structures um The Ridge line of this of this concept is it about the um Eve line of the main house so so that's kind of the way they relate to each other um and then it's just blown up on the right hand side you can see
the window treatment because it's a taller first floor um that's why we have the transom Windows above the main 6 over six Windows um and you can see the brackets on the one side which um I guess we would no longer be
using but kind of just shows a little bit of detail on that side of the building where those faux Carriage doors were into slide 13 this is the rear-facing elevation right so you can see the faux Carriage doors you can see
the the fact that the The Ridge of the addition is at about the level of the eve of the main house you can see the main house sort of ghosted behind it um and the majority of the of the building the majority of the main house from this view is obstructed by the
addition um you see some of it to the left there one window and then the other part over there um and then to the right you can see the the residence piece uh which is just a one-story piece with a small um second floor this is the view from
338 you again you can see the the structure itself um and then the connecting element that connects it back to the to the main uh the main house so this this door and entrance area to the addition uh lines up with
that sidewalk kind of Plaza area and then the rear entrance to the uh back portion of the 338 building that's correct well um so next on slide 15 uh we put a little bit of thought into to to perhaps how this could be done a
little differently to to start to think about accommodating some of the comments that we heard you know namely the um the addition being uh perhaps not the right scale not the the right type of design treatment um uh you know with perhaps mimicking rather than being it uh
mimicking a style rather than being its own um item uh proximity to the street um and uh so tell may we can start talking through what what possible redesign we could we could do here sure sure so in this scheme on the right
we've relocated the conver room dramatically to the to the left so it's set back quite a bit now from the street the connecting uh element the Breezeway I'll call it is in that location between the building and you'll see in some elevations that we've treated that very
open and and with a lot of glazing so that it it just touches the main building it doesn't it doesn't detract from it in any way um so the the elements are still there the connecting Breezeway uh in this case accessible
from the 338 side as the original scheme was and then there's a toilet room sortage to the back of the Breezeway and then the conference room itself which is the same size as the previous scheme has been moved over um so it's much further away from uh Harrison
Street slide 16 now if you look at the slide on the left that's the existing concept that we have it's kind of a little hard to tell you can see the main house kind of ghosted behind it the on the right is this is the New Concept and here you can see that I
would say a good portion of the main house maybe three qus of it are now visible from Harrison so the addition is now reverential I think to the to the main building um you can see the sort of the connecting glass element to the left
and then the conference room itself is another Pavilion so to speak but because it's a smaller footprint now the ridge of that piece is about the um sill line of the second floor windows so that roof line has been brought down significantly
maybe six or seven feet from what is shown what has originally been shown the windows themselves in the new addition would be 6 over six the way they are in the main house um we've treated the addition in a more simp Le F fashion sort of an early colonial
fashion which is what the main house is so there isn't a lot of adornment it's very simple um we think that'll tie in much better with the with the main structure the view um from the uh 338 side you can see
again the left is a much larger element because the footprint is larger the ridge going much taller and you can see on the right hand inside the New Concept where the conference room is a smaller footprint with with a shallower roof line and it gives much more breathing
space to the main house for sure and then the connecting element is predominantly glazed so again it's lightweight it's it's um it's a little bit more contemporary in feeling to sort of serve as a connection a Breezeway uh to the new conference
room and then this is view off Harrison and you can see pretty significantly here that the scheme on the right is a much more reduced Mass um it it pays homage to the main house if you will
it's reverential to the main house and then the connecting element is light and glassy just touching the facade not slamming against it in any way being respectful of it um so we think it's it's in many respects this New Concept when it's just a concept at this point
it needs to be worked out in detail but we think that IT addresses you know many if not all the concepts all of the concerns that the HPC had for the the original design all right I guess
with with with that um uh Tom thank you um happy to to open up for questions or additional um uh feedback from the the the board to our architect um I I do
have two other slides but they're really about the variances and um um we if it makes sense for us to list through what the variances we thought we needed I don't know that it much will since we're not really going to be asking the board for them uh this evening um and perhaps
we could end here with our architect and use this as the the time to you know again have him available for any questions about the the type of response that um um and guidance we be able to take into a a
redesign David yeah um I wanted to ask a question I think in the HPC report there was a fair amount of focus on demolition of an existing wall of the structure and to be honest I didn't see where that was
happening even in the original plan but Tom could you talk a little bit about where that was and if it's gone away with the new approach or or if it's still being part of that back wall is being demolished well it is where where
the uh Breezeway I'll call it connects to the main building there was some demolition of that wall that would have to occur but what I'm hoping is that with this new scheme we can use the openings that currently exist there the back door and that window to the right
of it as openings now into this um new facility so that we wouldn't have to demolish much if any of that wall the back wall of the building okay and and I also just want to say I I really think the choice of siding as the
material for the conference room is is a good decision you know to not be going with the stucco but to be going with something that is consistent with the other addition yeah thank you for bringing that up I meant to say that that's exactly what I think HBC was
looking for something that was was different than the main house again to be reverential to the main house apologize just follow for to before we leave that concept I think the the slide 15 uh shows the floor plan side by side I guess you could probably see from here which you know the reduced
part of the building that kind of touches and where the where the connections would be that would result I guess in less partial demolition yes that's correct okay thank you Elizabeth yes thank you um I really appreciate the
applicant coming through with a um a revised design and I think that it was more thoughtfully done um I appreciate the fact that the building actually is lowered so they don't have that conflict with the height wall to make a larger
fenestration to compensate for that space that they they had that multipl pain transm so I think that that really works out um I was wondering if you could show on this drawing on the right where actually that door opening is and
I'm just wondering why in this one you have two stair systems versus just the one because even though the conference room is remaining the same it seems like the foyer area is getting much larger
and and I'm just wondering do you need that just wondering what that space might be used for that you didn't have before well there is another set of stairs there um Mr King wanted us to look into the possibility of possibly bringing steps down to the basement
level so that's why there's that other set of stairs there yeah so I mean that that foyer area could be reduced potentially um maybe a foot or two feet or something and you know those are things we'll look at when we really get into more of a detail
design and can you tell me where the existing door is that that accesses that porch right now I think it's um about where that's one of those sets of stairs are coming down okay yeah right about there I mean we would locate it in such
a way that it could it would hit where that door is right and I think that that's a great that's what I was thinking also that if you could use that then you don't have to worry about demolition um because if you look at this drawing you can see how thick that it's like probably like a foot I'd say
at least at least I mean look at that versus the the build you know the wing on the left side so the demolition that HPC was concerned about is how was that going to be done through that wall it's a timber frame building um you know they
didn't want that to be opened up and then find out later oh you know we've got some structural issues that's why they were very concerned about having drawings and having that reviewed so before anything happened that it would be um you know uh any type of calculations and compensation would be
done but um obviously this is concept I'm not sure how it impacts the the resident unit on the left side but I believe that pulling it back um giving more space between the addition and the right of way is a great idea HBC had
talked about that additional space between the new addition and the street was an excellent area to landscape without it just going around the building again they felt that that's really not um historic landscape to do that that's really kind of like um
residential development landscaping and that's you know not really what they would like to see on this property um and as far as the style goes just so you know that the original house is actually a Georgian style it's not
Colonial but if you wanted to I think that HPC would be open to your fenestration which I think you have 6 over six again being a little bit different because they want to make sure it's not mimicking even the wing on the left you know that that it is a new
addition to everything that's being added to this building but we appreciate you looking at this and and making these changes I think that this is an improvement great thank you okay any other questions or comments
uh Justin yes thank thank you Mr Vice chair just a question for clarification um because I I wasn't 100% sure when when reading the plans is the intention to repaint the wing white to match the rest of the building or would that stay the kind of gray uh on the clap bir
siding as it is now the the main house would be repainted back to kind of a soft yellow off white kind of a color and I would assume that we would if if the addition is clapboard sding we would we would
match 338 which is also sort of a soft yellow and was that your question sorry kind of uh basically all of the existing building would be repainted that's correct okay got it thanks is uh
Elizabeth yes thank you um just to kind of um touch on the color um again one of the comments that HPC had made is that 338 is about 100 years younger and of a
different style and they would think that you would want to give that building its own identity that it didn't need to be clustered in the same color because they were owned by the same um property owner um and they understand
why and they appreciate that 342 is going to change back to the color it was because you know for for a long time it United that nule um but as far as 338 goes they would be interested in seeing if they want if the
applicant would want to paint that a different color you know which was more in keeping with that period sorry Ju Just 338 the the to repay 338 um I isn't that we were talking
about that that both buildings were going to be painted the same color well the new building is going to be painted to match 338 right so both those buildings are going to be the same color that's correct it would be 342 that would be
painted and 338 would would not be changed oh I see I I think Elizabeth's question may have been is there an overriding need for both buildings to be the same color right you know can can we
consider uh repainting since uh 342 is going to be repainted can we consider doing it in a color that will make it stand out a little more got it understood okay board members or staff any other
comments questions no all right well um I hope you have enough to to go on Mr Kennedy and team uh David so
I know Ryan said they weren't gonna ask us to approve this but I sort of feel like we need to take action or I mean and now so I'm I'm happy to move
that we deny the application if that's the appropriate thing but well let me maybe two comments one um are some members of the public here and I don't know if it would be appropriate to since they came out to U get their comments and feedback this evening so the board
could hear and we can take back in order to resign um and then I I'll say to from our perspective I I would uh if if the inclination were to do that I I guess I would I would prefer that we just ask to adjourn to a future time so that we can
resubmit documents and rather than um go through an entire compliance review uh you know it's often that uh um feedback results in revised plans as long and then those plans are submitted with enough time for staff to to review
them uh for in this case you know we would work out with staff where they would come back first but ultimately uh with the goal of coming back here with revised plans as part of the same application um but with uh revised um
elements of it well that's a that's a lot of changes and Ryan I thought you you you said earlier where you said that was probably not a good idea and you I did not say well all right I I didn't if I said that I did not mean to um and I
100% do not want you to deny and uh uh if if that were going to be the the plan for tonight we would not have come here I mean certainly an option an option other than denying would be withdrawing um the second option is just continuing it but it's a
lot of changes um for continuing with the same application I think withdrawing the application would be the the better option I I I don't know that I understand that it would be or and um to
repay the fees and re go through compliance review uh again with something that is uh architecturally different is is um happens quite a bit with uh L use applications ultimately this is a site
plan um that happens to have a a a an addition to it and we would be revising the addition based on comments uh with almost no changes substantively to the site plan application what about the what what's
your intention with respect to the Fountain to would you keep the fountain or is that going to be changed that would be changed we would not that's sound like no one wants to have the the fountain right
uh um mayor Freda is there any reason why we could not just let them come back with updated plans I mean unless there's a reason to absolutely not allow it I don't know why we wouldn't if in good faith an applicant comes in front of the
board says I've heard all the staff concerns I've heard the HPC concerns and we're going to react to them and try to work with you I don't know why we would make it more onerous than it needs to be but I'm not the I'm not the expert on the on the law
here but I and if somebody's trying to work with us I think we would try to accept that what's the feeling I'm Justin what's your feeling uh I would agree with that I think we can uh set a date certain
um receive plans before then get any reports that we need out as staff um I mean at the end of the day this is uh an addition that they're looking to put on an existing building and parking lot changes if it was a you know 100 lot subdivision and they were changing
everything or if it was a you know they're building a mall and and had to change everything um then I might not feel this way but I think for something like this we could with some time both for them to get the the redesign in which it looks like they've done a
significant amount of work I'm actually very impressed by how much they've already done um and then for staff to review it I think we would be able to do that okay but in terms of them going back to HPC I think that was intended as part of
the process correct or I understood that also I just don't know how exactly how that happens with continuing this application giving them a date certain I don't know if we know when HPC has time
on their calendar I I'm not trying to make trouble I'm just trying to work at the Kings I next I'll just say the zoning board next week will be seeing a very similar uh not type of application but uh Cadence of
HPC uh significant much more significant redesign frankly um uh and and returned to the Zoning Board of adjustment with the mlul extension that allowed for the redesign um uh as I I I
prefer to to leave it to to staff how we would do it and we would certainly consent to the longest period of time um um necessary and and if if we did not submit time plans in time for uh staff to review them uh without further
extensions that would be on us and obviously that would result in a in a denial from our lack of uh um either you know pursuit of it or or further extension um and and I do I appreciate the the um offer of a date certain and
if we could do that would be great um at the end of the day if we have to re notice for this um I I certainly understand and kind of expect that that would probably be necessary once the other schedules are are figured out rather than uh putting your your your
staff through the effort of figuring out a date that might work for for everyone that far in in advance so um we would certainly consent to um an extension of the ml time period to review so that we could resubmit and then have
um U scheduled with with new notice I think this I think this must under our ordinances go back to the HBC um otherwise you've had an amended application significantly amended and uh
under ordinances you have to we have to refer back to the HBC otherwise we have a uh um B basically recommendation by them to deny this uh application which is isn't even meaningful I don't I think it's unavoidable going back to
HBC Elizabeth do you have a calendar to yes so our next meeting is March 17th and do you have time available um I think that we could bit it on we have a concept we have a um a eating Club
application and we might have the Princeton Nursery but since this is a um an application where the report is done it would just have to be amended and they're familiar with it I'm going to defer to jewelist and she approves the agenda and see what she thinks yeah I
mean I don't know how that works with your time time frame but I'll just I believe that the plans would have to be submitted 10 days prior to that which would put us about a week and a half so I I I don't uh I mean we we've done a lot of work towards this but I I don't know that we would have a
full revised site plan and and application back uh you know and and plans back in a you know a week and a half to be honest with you well I think we definitely have room in Octo uh sorry April um and April's is um yeah 21st
this is the third Monday so it's the 14th is that right 21st 21st April 21st thank you that that certainly would give us and ultimately if it um if that wasn't you know we didn't have the
things in time for you to review them we understand that okay um that would be delayed we do have uh 10 attendees and two people have their hands up so but before I go to public comment krie philli has her and raised thank you very much uh Vice chair um I just wanted to
ask about the 45 day clock if we get new plans we should be given staff should be given adequate time for them to be able to go through the additional uh engineering drawings to determine if anything's triggered like variances uh I
think that should also come into play when we're considering the date again no no no real disagreement here here to be honest with you and I I we appreciate the the effort to pick specific dates but we would
be you know understood that if if you know they could be based on after our submission and and and review time that that that staff de feels is necessary and then Ren noticing once that has occurred wonderful okay thank you very
much um like to open the meeting for public comment at this time uh we have two people with their hands raised Don Denny and Julia Alaya uh krie if you can bring them over I see Mr Denny is here
Mr Denny can you activate your camera and uh take yourself off mute please there you go and Jerry will if you could raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that testimony about to give would be the truth I do so
T um if you could uh State your full name and spell your last name for the record Donald Denny dny and I live at 335 Nassau Street um just across the street uh from 338 um number 342 the subject uh property at the corner is uh
kitty corner from me um first of all I'd like to thank uh the planning board for its careful consideration I'd especially like to thank the historic preservation commission for its careful consideration I found the uh notes uh and recommendations from Mr Esco and Miss
Kim uh to be very revealing um I appreciated the summary report from the historic preservation commission um I've also reviewed the various documents submitted as part of the historic preservation commission as well as the uh planning board application um I
appreciate and I'm using this word too many times tonight I appreciate Mr Kennedy's uh lead of the proposed changes to the addition uh but I do want to emphasize a few points that I don't think have gotten enough coverage tonight there are a lot of requests for
setback variances with this and I'd like to see in any future project um the elimination of those requests for setback Varian is to the greatest extent possible um the second point that I'd make is we didn't discuss the redesign
of the uh front entrance um at all um which was one of the uh areas of recommendation against by historic preservation Commission um I would like to uh understand that that's being withdrawn and that the entrance is being left as is um and the final point is the
movement of the entrance to the property at 342 off of North Harrison Street uh which uh as mentioned is being moved 28 27 feet North I think on Harrison Street um we didn't hear tonight from the traffic consultant or or I'm sorry
traffic engineering report um but I I would reference was made to the potential negative effect of changes in Direction um and access um with the changes on the driveway on Nassau Street as well as the moved entrance off of Harrison Street um I and many of my
neighbors are very very concerned uh with traffic congestion um at the corner of Nassau and Harrison uh and the uh the huge violation of uh traffic ordinances with routine running of red lights uh and the danger that that um poses to uh
pedestrians especially children on their way to and from school thank you all for your consideration tonight thank you very much if I can uh address one issue that you brought up I believe that uh the applicant has already agreed to uh
replace the front the front steps and and stoop with in kind rather than using the uh the flag the the Blue Stone from the the existing patio in the back uh and uh aluminum railings so I think
that's one one answer for for you and uh Mr nsak we have not heard from you on the uh the proposed traffic uh changes with the uh Ingress uh dual Ingress egress at both Corners do you have
anything to add to that um not really um I think the the applicant has agreed to reverse uh the movements by to tway Theon sign and I think uh David brought
it up is uh the we of the of the driveway and uh I think Jim also said they were going to look at it uh 14 feet might be uh a little problematic so maybe if
they can get it to about 16 18 ft you know at least to the throat of it other than that I think that has addressed that concern the main concern was limiting uh the naso driveway to only
ESS um so now it's two-way uh I think that's a lot better traffic is going to be distributed between the two driveways instead of having everybody going to harison I think that's going to elate the concern that the resident
has great okay thank you very much that uh next we had up we had uh there's another Don Denny so I'm not sure if it's uh I'm gonna go to Mr Clifford zinc first if that's okay okay we also had
somebody else who was yeah Julia and then she popped off so I'm not sure how that happened we'll put her in in the queue uh okay um Mr zinc okay let me move him over okay you raise your right hand think if you
can uh activate your camera and unmute yourself oh yeah see camera start video there we go can you see me now yes we can you can raise your right hand do s isn't that your left hand uh that is my left hand
yes I was doing something else with my mouse go ahead you swear orir that testimony about to givee the truth I do thank you say your full name and please spell your last name uh my name is Clifford uh zinc Z K I live on uh Aken
Avenue just a few hundred feet from where this uh site is I'd like to um say I fully support and I congratulate the staff and HPC in their
very um very good and astute uh review of this application I should say that I have a u master's degree in historic preservation just to um qualify uh my
testimony um and uh I also want to congratulate the applicant Mr Kennedy representing the applicant for being very flexible and hearing concerns from the HPC from the planning board and showing tonight um
uh some potential uh solutions to that so it sounds to me like this is heading towards um a good um resolution where um the provisions of the historic preservation commission will
be um addressed and also um some concerns about the ESS Etc and the setback will also be concern uh addressed if I could uh share my screen I just want to show something quickly is that
possible yeah and yes is that we'll mark that as exhibit 01 okay so now it's not showing my screen let's see the permissions are set up
appropriately Mr zinc okay so we can't see it yet right yeah no let's try it again no it's not showing it so what I wanted to show was uh some detail regarding um the rear wall the
north wall on the property and um it sounds from uh Mr Fanta con if I pronounced that correctly that um the applicant is going to try and work with the existing uh opening the door opening to the steps so that part of that wall does
not have to be demolished uh that's a stone wall this old portion of the house not the little section but the big section is uh built of stone the walls are 18 in thick and
they're basically rubble stone so they're not like uh rectangular Stone that's easy to pull apart but rather it's very difficult to uh cut a big opening in the stone and it would have uh the potential to really be damaging
to the building so that's what the HPC was concerned about and I just wanted to reiterate that so um thank I'd like to thank everybody for um for paying attention to all the details and to the flexibility of uh the applicant
to to do what looks like going to be a good resolution of this oh and by the way the glass Edition well I I think that that can be addressed over your three minutes yeah we'll do that at HPC okay thank you very
thank you very much okay we have two people still with hands up Katherine Knight and Maggie Deen Brock I'm moving Katherine over now thank you Mr odono yes yeah I reached out to
Julia mast mastnak to see if we could help but it looked like her screen might have you know who knows we can't help if her computer died we can help if we could send her a new Zoom link or something like that so um I will let you know if she emails us back okay thank you very much y you're welcome okay is
night you welcome yes thank you if you could raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that testimony you're about to give be the truth I do just want to airm please take your full name and spell your last name Katherine Knight last name KNN
ght thank you so I um live at 335 NASA street so across from the project I'm a neighbor and I'm an arch also an architect in town and I want to first of all thank um
the Justin Le Lesco and Elizabeth Kim for their excellent reports thorough reports and careful review of the project um we would like to welcome Bill King uh for upgrading his properties in the neighborhood I appreciate it he did a
beautiful job at 338 um nasau Street and looking forward to what he's going to do at this corner property but it is a very critical historic building in town and it has to be done carefully it has to be done right and I'm feel like we're in
good hands with the committee members in our town and the department members who are doing a careful job reviewing this um and so I want to just mention for save jugtown that we all do feel it's very important for this site and again
we appreciate the careful review and the fact that the applicant is taking the comments seriously and going back to the drawing board and making the uh the adjustments that they're proposing so that's all thank you very much for your time thank you very
much and miss deepen B Brock is being uh she's joining us now thank you thank you very much Miss stepen Brock if you can activate your camera please she's off mute if could you if you could take yourself
off mute uh you're Frozen can oh here we go where is she no picture yet okay it's coming sorry about that it's all right
took a while to promote me there sorry um right hand do you swear or affirm that testimony about to give be the truth yes I do so want to affirm please State your full name and spell your last name uh my full name is Margaret Deen Brock d p n b r o c k thank you and I
live at uh 333 Nassau Street uh which is um across the street from 338 um next to 3:35 so right in the um the corner area there um I really just want to join to Echo many of my neighbors comments um
around um the great job by HPC as well as our uh our planner Justin on their thorough report I also Echo Kathy Knight's comments that um Mr King did a excellent job in my opinion on 338 um
and um I'm uh very much appreciative of their willingness to consider the comments made by the HPC and the planning uh the planning um department on uh relooking at their designs but I did also just want to highlight um what
Mr Denny mentioned and that is the traffic congestion in that um area um I've been um you know reading up on recent uh news articles around the um monthly Princeton traffic um accidents
and um instances with pedestrians and bikers alike that is a um uh treacherous intersection all you have to do is drive by the area and look at the tracks in the mud next to the Michael Graves
architecture of um building um as trucks and cars regularly cannot make the turns Etc so I would ask that when the new proposal gets presented we just really pay attention to the traffic concerns I'm not 100% following what was shared
but uh I'll try to pay more attention when the new uh plan comes into fruition here a little bit and I would also ask the planning board to consider other development that is you know H will be proposed or has been proposed or is um
in that exact same area and how um this is just additional flow into an already treacherous intersection as a mom of three element kids to who which are um really wanting to walk to the middle
school next year um with their friends it's a it's a big deal for me and I and I ask that you pay attention to the safety and the traffic congestion components that's really all I said but thank you great job thank you very much
okay seeing no other hands up I'm going to close public comment at this time and uh to sum up I think that we've agreed that
um the applicant will come back to HPC in April uh with a new with a an updated plan uh which will then be forwarded onto the planning board and we will uh
Justin yes I I don't think we settled uh Mr Kennedy correct me if I'm wrong I don't think we settled on a month or a date um but more of when they can submit their plans we'll then schedule them and they will have to Ren notice okay correct and that sound correct Ryan
it does and just again for the record we um I believe the ml times out Monday on this and we are cons sending on the record to an extension uh beyond the April date so that this can be scheduled uh for um for planning after that and
following review if you need a date certain I could make up one uh but uh happy to extend beyond that um you know through the end of May say I know that the date of April 21st was mentioned for HPC do you want to
pick a date after that for consideration for placement for hearing date or for ML for um a hearing date and that would also be the extension date um certainly if if there's things available that we'll
happy to the people that um from our end who would need to be there are on this call so if if that's possible U we'll we'll certainly take it well I'm just looking at the calendar I'm just throwing things out there um is that the direction you would like me to
go at this time Mr leco uh the meetings in May or May 1st and May 15 Ryan do you think you would be able to get things in for uh April on the HPC April 1st and then
May 1st or May 15th um I do though I think May 15th would be just at least to give us a few minutes to react to hbc's comments okay I'm sorry another thing to keep in mind is Hillier which times out at the end of
May we could carry the meeting to May 15th or the application to the May 15th meeting with extension to May 31st Ryan um certainly extend to the I'm I'm I'm following text about the availability of one of our professionals that the 15th
may may we may not be uh be traveling out of state so uh with again I I appreciate the attempt to save us a notice um and and we will consent to May 31st for the ml but perhaps um it may be Beyond us to actually set a date this
evening okay that that's perfect uh may we very much appreciate the I think we we were available May 1 but I think it's unlikely that we would have the it's a quick turnaround between HPC and and uh and Planet yep so for the Neighbors here
tonight they will be Ren noticed keep an eye out for that and keep an eye out for the municipal calendar if you're interested um both for the HPC and for the eventual planning Board review of this yes right and this this application is being carried without date for the
reasons we've given right thank you very much everybody thank you everyone David move to aour is there a second second second that thank you very
much all those in favor say I hi hi thank you all very much appreciate it night