Karen, can we start? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, good evening. This is a special meeting of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment being held electronically via
Zoom on September 17, 2025 at 7:30 p.m. 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
Sunshine Notice of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment. Such notice has been placed on the official bulletin board at the at the Princeton municipal complex and by transmitting a copy of same to the Princeton packet town topics
of Times Trantonian and by filing a copy with the clerk of Princeton on September 12th, 2025 and has been posted to the municipal website www.princeton.gov/meings. Pursuant to executive order 107 due to
the state of emergency in New Jersey regarding CO 19 Corona virus notice that during this declared state of state of emergency all regular and special meetings of the Princeton zoning board
of adjustment shall be will be held electronically via Zoom was transmitted to the Princeton packet town topics the times and was filed with the clerk of Princeton on the 24th day of April, 2020.
Such notices have been placed on the official bulletin board at the municipal complex and on the municipal website and ought to be m maintained throughout the year and by transmitting a copy of same to the Princeton packet town topics the
times tranonian Comcast media and by filing a copy thereof with the clerk of Princeton notices have been placed on all window doors of the municipal complex. Next, you can you call the role, please.
>> Miss Chen, >> here. >> Miss Coulson >> here. >> Mr. Floyd >> here. >> Mr. Shrivever >> here. >> Mr. Tannen >> here. >> Mr. Stein >> here. >> Miss Donna, >> yes.
>> Mr. Doppkin. >> Chairman Cohen >> here. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Well, we have one case this to hear this evening. I'm sorry. I don't have the file. No, wait, I have it here.
Have too many papers here. Um, so this is um this is 254 Witherspoon Street, block 8607, lot 17 in the B1T
zone. Um Karen, can you tell me the case number? >> Oh, sure. It's um Z24 uh 518. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. So, this is a continuation of a previous hearings. Um, we got
through a lot of the testimony the last time and I think this time where we left it the last time is we were at a point where we were going to ask our municipal staff
to respond to the presentation of the applicants experts. But I think before we do that, um, I think we should have the applicant or the applicant's attorney sort of sum up
or at least, you know, bring us up to date on any potential changes based on, you know, the last meeting or just sum up where we were and then we can continue on.
>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I have uh a couple of um people that are attendees that should be brought over. Our traffic engineer George Jakamar, our planner, John Mcdana, uh Kelly O Such, our engineer, and then
our landscape architect, Steven Lick. Um, I think yeah, I think that's Did we get everybody? And then George Jakamar
is the last. Okay, great. Um, okay. Thank you, um, members of the board. Uh, for the record, I'm Christopher Deg Gresia, uh, representing the applicant Witherspoon and Lee LLC. And as Mr. Chair indicated, this is
involving 254 Witherspoon. We did go through um our witnesses last uh at the last meeting. Um we uh talked about many of the themes that I discussed at the um the beginning of the meeting such as
preservation, accessibility, sustainability, and addressing community need. Um we since a a good amount of time has uh elapsed since our last meeting uh we put together a short
presentation to kind of uh go through and do for a couple of purposes. One is just to refresh the board you know the recollection of where we are and what we're doing. Um, we also provided some additional slides that were uh focused
on questions that were raised either by municipal staff or by members of the board. And lastly, we added a couple slides uh to show you the thought process that went behind some of the designs. So, you get to peek a little bit under the hood. So, uh Mr. chair. I
I think it would make a lot of sense for us to go through that short presentation and then um cuz that we may answer many of the questions and then um you know then have municipal staff weigh in. >> Mr. Darretzia, you want this then to be
a new exhibit since you >> It will be. Yes. Yes. We would mark it as exhibit A2. >> All right. And do you have an idea how many slides you have? has it it sounds high but it's 80 but it goes by real quickly.
>> Okay. >> Some of them will be there in just like flashes. >> It is high. >> Yeah. >> And one more question. I believe all your experts were sworn at at our last hearing on this except I don't remember
Mr. Letter was present. So if he does provide testimony we will swear him in. >> Yes that is that is correct. Okay. >> Thank you. So, uh, Mr. Chair, if unless you have any questions or direction, I'd
like to pull up our first witness. Okay. All right. Um uh we're going to uh we're going to start with uh Josh Zinder who is the architect of record also the tenant that is currently occupying the
building today uh with his offices and uh Josh was sworn in and uh qualified as an expert uh architect. >> Thank you. I'm going to share my screen. Okay.
Mr. Degretzia, does the board secretary have a copy of this exhibit A2? >> We can send it to you. >> Yeah, we're going to need that. Yeah. >> Yeah, of course. Okay. Uh, thank you for having us back tonight. Uh, as a reminder, the existing
Colonial Revival structure at 254 Witherspoon in the Witherspoon Jackson neighborhood has been occupied by our office since June 2021. Our proposal is for a two two and a half story addition to the existing 2 and a half story structure. We have a
presentation today with some additional information and some clarifications based on your questions last time. Uh we do have the previous presentation as well if he needs to reference back to it for any reason. As a reminder, the focus of this project is to maintain the historic asset,
excuse me, to maintain the historic asset, the Anetta v. Taylor House contribute to the well-being of the neighborhood, provide community support elements, provide universal accessibility to the building uses, create a model for sustainability in Princeton, and create a highly
contextual structure utilizing form, scale, and materiality of the neighborhood. We reviewed this before, but I want to be clear. It is our intent to preserve the legacy of Anetta V. Taylor and her family by doing whatever we can do to restore and preserve this structure.
Which is why we have been so careful and thoughtful with our design and why we have complied with the Secretary of Interior standards for historic places on this project. As mentioned previously and as was requested by HV HPC, we will
be working with the Witherspoon Jackson Historic and Cultural Society to install a historic marker that recognizes a net vyer, her family, and the structure. As we discussed, the site within the Witherspoon Jackson Historic District is
a 28minute walk to the only laundromat in town at the Princeton Shoppy Center. We reviewed our survey results previously which clearly show the need for the laundromat. And if you don't believe the surveys, you need only walk the streets between
Witherspoon Jackson neighborhood and the shopping center to see people walking and riding with their laundry across town every day. Here are other survey results. In response to some of the questions that were raised last time about who
would use a laundromat in this location and the notion that people who have washers and dryers in their apartments would not use a laundromat. Uh we've done some further research. This research shows that 87% of laundromat users are within a mile of their
location. 10% of all laundromats business is bedding, blankets, and sheets, which typically cannot be washed in apartment washing machines. Laundromats wash and fold services represent 30 to 40% of
their overall income. In the Northeast, there has been an increase in demand for wash and fold services, 73% year-over-year the last few years. Finally, a location close to a large apartment complex is a primary factor in laundromat usage. Also, remember there
is an another apartment complex coming to the neighborhood on Franklin Avenue very soon. Here you see the building as it currently exists with a slight yellow stucco hue. Here is the Lee Avenue streetscape with
repeating gables roof line and the large 4 and a half story Avalon Bay apartments on Witherspoon Street. And here you see our project acting as a transitional structure to the larger scale structures on Witherspoon Street.
Here you see the diagram of the property which we showed previously and with the existing building on the site. Over the last four years we have been working on the project. We have studied many design schemes. When we started down this path, we pursued alternative designs, some of
which we showed you last time. And as previously mentioned, we have had them reviewed with Elizabeth Kim historic and other staff during that process. This first diagram series will illustrate one of the earlier designs to
address some of the comments which previously arose and explain why the design as presented represents the best solution. The fire inspector as we previously noted requires us to have a second means of egress off of the attic level of the
existing building. This floor has always been occupied even when Annetta B. Taylor lived in the building and when the previous office users occupied it as well. To not impair the structure, we need to tap the window the existing window for the egress connection. It
must be this side window as the other side of the building has the only driveway access and placing it in front of the building would overly burden the view of the historic structure and if it were placed in the back it would further restrict the parking.
So, we added a two and a half story stair tapping into that window. We wrapped it in in the glass. We wrapped it in glass as a hyphen to separate the old structure from the new building to make the connection. And to get the stair to work, the hyphen needed
to be taller and closer to the front of the existing building than we previously had shown you in the scheme that we previously showed. We added the laundromat. We added the contextual forms and the studio.
Here you see the components together. But in this previous design, we had a lower addition height but a taller hyphen stair. Our concern was that this was a visual intrusion on the historic structure and not a successful hyphen.
It was more of a tower that imposed itself on the existing structure and it would have required a height variance sub substantially taller than the existing building. In addition, we need to have rooftop mechanical and this rooftop mechanical would have had to go
on top of the main roof which would have been taller than the solar panels and most likely viewed from below. Okay, so now back to the existing building and our current design. Here's the the lot we're starting with.
We added the large glass hyphen that we previously had and we shifted it back which meant we no longer could have the stair going up to the attic level. We reduced the height of the hyphen, notably along Willis Street edge.
We made the most minimal connector we could to reduce the impact on the house. We pulled the connector below the existing roof. This still allows us to eress off of the attic level by exiting through our new addition. Also, by not connecting the stairs to the attic
level, it allowed us to conceal any rooftop mechanical if needed behind the hyphen. As noted previously, the gray change along Witherspoon Street allows access from the street to the basement level of our building, which is where the
laundromat will go. We added the contextual forms connecting these elements. We have our studio tying it all together. As mentioned, our discussions with Elizabeth Kim led us to raise up the
solid facade and open it up with more glass, effectively pulling back the curtain of the facade to allow for a clearer view of the historic structure and a lightening up of the facade. Here you see the entire massing of the proposed building.
As we mentioned previously, we looked at many options for the site, including taking advantage of the AHO7 affordable overlay, looking at mixeduse housing, office, retail, laundromat solutions for the site. These did not work with our office and
apartments together. This solution was a 10 unit apartment structure above retail and laundromat space which was compliant with the affordable overlay zoning. In looking at these two solutions in comparison, our design is substantially
smaller than the potential 3 and 1/2tory 45 ft tall housing solution which would be compliant with the AHO7. In addition, there is no front setback in the overlay, which would allow construction to extend all the way to the sidewalk.
>> And and and Josh, the parking requirement would only be uh five spaces. >> Five spaces. Yeah. I'm going to get to that a little bit later as well. Um here you see the existing site plan. And with our proposal for the site, you
can see the open space plaza we are creating. At the corner, you can see our proposed shared parking spot with the combined drive with our neighbor. We have met with our new neighbor and they have signed the parking LOI agreement that we had with the previous neighbor.
Uh we are aware that we will need an easement in place to meet the compliance requirements for this project. This easement is in both of our best interests. You can also see the slope surface which will provide accessible entry to all
tenencies. Remember it is not a ramp which would require handrails. It is a slope surface. One thing to note with regard to the American with Disabilities Act is that it is not just for wheelchair users but also for people who are otherwise impaired. The parking solution that we
are recommending with the ADA spot on the inner corner will provide easier access for those who need access to the stairs to our office as well. We believe this ADA parking solution does meet the intent of the ADA and is an overall
safer solution. Here you see the landscape plan. Our landscape architect is with us tonight. If there are questions, we can address them at the end. However, we will be working with the town arborist and landscape architect to address all the issues that the town's landscape
architect and environmental commission raised. The laundromat will be at the basement level of the building. As mentioned, we currently have an LOI for a tenant to take occupancy and a backup laundromat company um that has expressed interest
in the space. Uh since our July meeting, we have had two additional companies that have expressed interest and would like to rent the space. >> And and Josh, just for the record, that was slide 36 and we're moving on to I'm
sorry, that was 36 and now we're 37. >> Yeah, slide 37. Here you see the first floor with the future tenant and the first floor of our office. Slide 38, the second floor is part of our studio space. Uh Josh, can you go back to the
last slide just real quick? I just want to point out something because I noticed it it it's nice. Uh the slide before that. Um one of the things that we talked about when we were doing the F discussion is the covered porches that wrap around. uh you could see how large
they are and that is also included in the calculation of floor area even though it's not you know otherwise usable space as well as the galleries and the conference room and the many amenities like the chick the the kitchen there and I think the next floor has a
meditation space. So um that was all part of what the planner talked about in terms of the F but I wanted to push point it out here because I thought it was a good visual on that slide. >> Yep. And actually you see them below here the porches as well. Um so now 39
for reference this is where we have the store the excuse me this is where we have the stairs in our current hyphen design. It allows access up to the second floor at which point you would take the stair that's in the studio space up to the the attic level.
This is where the stair and hyphen would have to be if it were continued up to the attic level. It would also be about 5 feet closer to Witherspman Street. As I previously mentioned, on the mezzanine attic level, the connector and the mezzanine ceiling height we expect to be at code minimum
ceiling height of 7 ft clear. This will allow us to keep the new building no taller than the existing structure. So, the ceiling height in here will be most likely 7 feet or at whatever the bare minimum is permitted by code.
We could reduce the square footage of the mezzanine by 304 square f feet which was request questioned last time. However, it would not reduce the height of the building um as we need the ceiling height for egress access to that stair. We believe the full mezzanine as
previously shown works better and is a more functional design with the full floor plate. The benefit of this reduction is minimal as it does not reduce the volume of the building or eliminate the F variance. You can also note that the ceiling of the room below
which we use as the floor of the mezzanine um by having that floor space it provides more flexibility for the office. So you see the ceiling and then this provides additional flexibility for the office. Here you see the roof plan with the
green roofs and the solar panels. In looking at the elevation of Witherspoon Street and Lee Avenue, you can see the green ground cover on the slope between the pitched walkway surfaces. HBC had requested we maintain the height of the existing porch railing
and we have modified the design to do just that. >> We're we're on 44. Moving to 45. >> Right. So now we're on 45. Here you see the rendering with the glass hyphen as recommended by the Secretary of Interior Standards of Historic Places when adding
to a historic structure. 46. As I mentioned, we hope to make this structure net zero and a model for sustainability in Princeton. We have set the solar panels back on the roof so they will not be seen from Lee
Avenue. We have reduced the overhang per HBC's request while still screening the solar panels from across the street on Witherspoon Street. The space between our neighbor and our new building will be much greater than the contextual gaps that exist along Lee
Avenue. All the components of the building, both existing and new, will be significantly set back from the prevailing face of the street facads. In addition, the porches on the existing and new porch are set back from the predominant porch line.
The overhang represented to HBC had aligned with the porch below. As mentioned, we pulled this back. The addition is respectfully set back from the street. Slide 51. The fact that the rock outcropping
occupied the corner of the lot clearly led to the location of the original building. Placing a structure on the corner would have been more contextual, appropriately characteristic for the era and viable for the original use. This would have provided a protected lawn
instead of one out on the corner. It would also have set up the ability to subdivide and to add another structure in the future. If you were not for the rock, the property could have been divided into two lots in the current business zone or three in the adjacent
residential zone. There were questions previously about the um that the fire official had expressed and uh we have talked with him and um these are the resolutions that we've come to. Uh, New Jersey IBC, the
building code does not require a fire sprinkler system for a B occupancy at this size or location, nor does the rehab code require it for the alteration to the existing building area or change of use for the future tenant area. As
the laundromat is the source of the greatest concern, we plan to provide an NFPA13 fire suppression system in the laundromat area. The laundromat area will be separated from the adjacent basement area and the office above by a 1-hour fire protective barrier. The
existing north exterior building wall will have a 1 hour fire rating and new interior stairs will have a complete 1-hour fire enclosure. So those were what we um discussed with the fire official
>> and this complies with current code. Correct. >> And this complies with current code. Correct. >> Thanks. >> Slide 53. Uh, we covered all the variances last time, so I will only touch on the singular parking variance. Please remember, most of our staff parks at the lot across the street already,
which has hundreds of available spaces. The path to make this parking compliant would be to take advantage of the AHO7 affordable housing overlay with 10 apartments, a laundromat, and retail. This would have no F requirement and a
much larger building envelope than we are proposing, but the parking would be compliant. Our office parking is a low impact. We do not park on Witherspoon Streets, nor do our visitors as the laundromat and retail are
permitted uses in the overlay. It is our office which is the differentiator, not the retail or laundromat demand. And we have resolved all the parking for our staff. Here is the overall context from above.
Here you see with the new structure and its relationship to the parking lot a block and a half away. Looking at the site from above the corner as it currently exists and with the new addition.
Here you see the existing site looking down Witherspoon Street and with the new addition. Here is the existing closer on Mic Street. And with the addition, as previously discussed, we have updated the image to
address the HPC concerns, pulling back the the awning and changing the railings. You can also see here the historic plaque we will be installing to acknowledge the history of the Taylor family and building. And also please note that we didn't photoshop out the
air conditioners, but we won't have window air conditioners in the uh final project. Here you see the view down Lee Avenue and with the new addition. Here is a closer view from down Lee
Avenue and with the new addition. So we're on slide 65. Here you see the same view on slide 66 with transparency on the existing trees which are being maintained. Uh you can see the gable roof line we are including
in our design to connect with Lee Avenue context. As a reminder, we are aligning the planter wall with the existing wall that runs down the side of Lee Avenue. We can push this wall back, but we believe it is a better solution than stepping it back and more contextual and
recognize that we will need to have a rightaway agreement with the town if that is approved tonight. >> Yeah. So, so as it's proposed, just Josh, just for a second there, as it's proposed, it lines up with the existing structures down the street. If we do it
with the municipal boundary line and push it back, you'd basically have a sidewalk and then a little strip of grass and then smaller planters, which we think from a visual standpoint would be much worse. >> And it's also, you can also know in the upper left, the existing foliage, even
when it is trimmed back, um, which is what this is, um, overhangs that sidewalk. So, our new condition will provide greater u pedestrian space for walking even when we align it with that wall that continues down the street.
Slide 67. As I mentioned, we engaged Hunter Research to do a historic report on the property and to look at our proposal. In looking at the design approach, it is clear that this project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for historic places.
And I won't get through all of the text here, but slide 68. We believe this proposal will promote community oriented tenants in the laundromat, our office, and a future tenant as well. The addition fits well and is respectful of
the Witherspoon Jackson Historic District and complies with the Secretary of Interior's guidelines for historic places. History does not stop. We are continually making it. The buildings in town reflect that history and are markers for how things change. Our
town's landscape is a quilt of that history. This project is appropriate to the scale and materiality of the context and is respectful of the past while not creating a false sense of history today while enriching the visual land visual
streetscape of tomorrow with uses that the community needs. The project is sensitive to the historic character of the contributing structure. Will support the well-being of the neighborhood and historic district. It promotes the conservation of a contributing structure within the historic district. Engages
sustainability practices and resources. It is appropriately scaled for the property. It incorporates the best features of design to create a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques. We hope you find our proposal and the use to be
compelling and a valuable addition to the fabric of our community. I think and now we're going on to our civil engineer Chris. >> Yes. So, um we're going to bring up Kelly Osuch who was uh sworn in before
and qualified. Um Kelly, are you there? >> I am. >> Okay. I'm gonna turn it over to you so you can go through a few slides that um I I think I just maybe I just should
should say this that um after the first meeting we met uh with uh Dan um to discuss uh the town's engineer to discuss the um some of his comments. And
one of the things he asked us to do was take a look at the ADA parking in the rear and to look at scenarios with a different location. So, one of the things that Kelly is going to go through is some of the analysis that we did uh
based on Dan Weissman's uh suggestions. >> Thank you, Chris. Uh thanks, Josh. Um, so we're on sheet 70 of the uh slide deck here. Um, and what's before the board on this
illustration is just the proposed site plan as it's been filed and presented to the board to date. Um, and namely as part of this conversation today, uh, the focus is on that ADA stall that
Mr. Grazio was referring to and namely that we have the ADA stall in the rear right corner of the parking lot area. Uh specifically our position is that is the correct location. Um, and I'll get into
why we believe it is the correct location and kind of the design process both before we um present it to the board and after we present it to the board and met with Dan and went through some alternative layouts. Uh, Josh, can you go to the next slide? Okay, it's
sheet 71. So th this is illustrating what the current parking layout is proposed as part of the filed set of plans. Uh and from left to right here there are six
physical parking stalls. Um the first four from the left to the right are 9 foot wide and uh all stalls are 18t deep. After the first four 9- foot wide stalls, there's an 8 foot wide
compact stall. That 8 foot wide stall requires a design waiver for the width being substandard. After that 8 foot wide stall, we have an 11 foot wide ADA van accessible stall. And then associated with that is a 5- foot wide
clear space for uh anyone utilizing the ADA stall to allow them to get in and out of the van. um in a clear area. In addition to that, there's the stair coming off of the porch area in the rear
that requires uh a clear space associated with the the egress of the stair. And this five foot wide path in this layout um or five foot wide clear space is uh meeting the the the
clear space for both the ADA stall and the the stairwell. Um in this layout there's only one stall the 8 foot wide stall that is substandard in sizing per the ordinance required.
When we go to the next slide, this is sheet 72. This is an alternative layout that we came up with following our discussion with Mr. Weissman. And the cons the whole context of the conversation was
moving the ADA stall closer to the driveway, which shortens the length to the sloped walkway in the front. Now, in doing this, we still have the same 60 foot wide area from left to
right to work with. However, in doing that, we now have an 8 and 1/2 ft wide stall, an 8 and a/4t wide stall, the 5 foot wide required clear space associated with the ADA stall, the 11t
wide van accessible stall, and then again two 8 and 1/2t wide stalls and a 7 and 1/2t wide stall. and then an additional 2.75 foot wide clear space associated with that um stairwell coming
down which is the minimum required clear space associated with a landing at the end of the stairs. So you can see from this layout, all of the I'll call them conventional parking stalls are now much more narrow
than what is being provided in the proposed plan that we believe is the correct layout. In addition to that, instead of asking for a design waiver on one parking stall, we're asking for it on five parking stalls. Uh because the
width is substandard. The only standard quoteunquote parking stall in this layout would be the ADA stall and that has to meet the federal requirements for width to be uh compliant. Uh so if we go to the next slide, Josh
and just for the record, it's 73. >> Thank you, Chris. So, just kind of going next to each other and and again looking at both of these layouts, it's clear in my mind that the the proposed parking
layout as we have it is the correct layout. It meets the ADA standards and it meets the general intent of the ADA code. the alternate layout would be more narrow for all of
these parking areas in a already narrow and um not a highly maneuverable parking lot. So adding width and Mr. Jackmar is going to be speaking to this in a few minutes, but adding width to the parking
stalls allows for better maneuverability in and out of the parking areas. So when you have substandard drive aisles to back out, the wider you can make the stalls, the better. So again, we think the proposed parking layout that we have
on the plans currently is the right one. But we wanted to show the board this alternate layout so they could understand why we're placing or why we were designing the ADA stall in the location that we were along with the other um parking stalls.
>> Yeah. As part of the analysis, we're allowed to look at undue burden and impracticality. And when we look at the safety and circulation, that all is all part of the analysis. Um, so that's why we believe that this fully complies our our
proposed plan. And before before we go too far, I if there was still concern from the board and their professionals in regards to the path from the ADA stall going down the driveway, we would the applicant would be okay with working
with the board and its professionals on placing some type of mirror or visual u aid to reduce any concern um and add to that safety that Mr. Grazia is noting. In addition, separate of the
parking, there was one comment that Dan had noted that I did not touch on in the last hearing in regards to the lighting. Um, and specifically the timing of the lighting. The applicants proposing to have all the
site lighting uh on a motion detector and not on a physical timer. So they would go off um at night and the only way they would be on is if motion triggered them. Thank you.
Um I think we switch uh Kelly, are you finished? >> I am finished now. >> Okay. And our last um uh our last uh witness for the last couple of slides is Jean Jacamar. George Yakamore. Um he's
our traffic consultant. And uh George, are you here? >> Yes. >> George, you were previously sworn in. You still remain under oath and you were qualified for the record. >> Okay. Thank you very much and good evening. I will show uh in the next few
slides how uh each of the uh layouts uh for the parking arrangement that Kelly just discussed uh does work. how it works in terms of vehicles getting in and out. So here we're looking at the layout that was um kind of suggested as
a result with the meeting with Mr. Weissman where the you can see the uh ADA space is towards the left in the parking lot and here you can see the a vehicle entering um the first parking space that's not a
shared space. Um the blue maneuver, the blue lines show the vehicle going in a forward maneuver and then the red lines it shows the vehicle backing out and then exiting. And you can see that um and this is the the tight space the
eight space and 25 8.25 ft. Um the fact that it's aligned with the driveway and it's adjacent to this access area to the uh ADA space, you know, makes it a little bit easier to get in and out, you know, to overcome that narrowness of
that particular space. So, uh you can see it it's tight, but it works. And I I want to mention in all the um maneuvering uh that we show you, we assume that the maneuvering will happen on our site. It will not happen on the
neighbor site. Uh although that will be allowed once that easement is in place. Uh the vehicles can back out into the neighbor site and the neighbors vehicles can back into our site as well. The next slide shows then the same maneuvers for
the ADA space. Uh and again you can see the red line here how the vehicle can take advantage of this access area to start turning much earlier to get a sharper turn you know to rever in the reverse maneuver the red lines and then
exit according to the blue lines that are shown here. Next space. Then this is then spaced to the third space here. That is an eight 8 and 1/2 wide space for standard vehicle. There you can see the vehicle backing out, you know, the
blue line going in that works and the vehicle blacking backing out the red line and has to do two maneuvers to get out, you know. So that particular space um it's it's workable, but it it would take two maneuvers. Again, that's
assuming that the maneuvering happens all on our side. Um, you know, with obviously the uh easement on the neighbor side that will be uh easier than what's shown here. The next one is a similar maneuver as before. Um, the
vehicle would have if if the maneuvering happens on our side, the vehicle has to do for back and forth uh to get out. And then the last one is the uh that's the compact space. You can see the compact car has a little bit more corner to kind
of pull out of the space and is also using the access area. You can see the blue line, red line on the red kind of taking advantage of that access area uh to to to go up to that staircase. So that one, the compact vehicle works
relatively well, although it's all relatively tight. So what happens here is because these spaces will only be used by the employees of the architecture office and so these people they know the parking spaces they they know how to get in and out. Um I think
the last slide shows the manu maneuvering. So this is the proposed layout where the ADA space is on the right. You can see, you know, the wider access area of five feet which satisfies both the access to the ADA space and the
access to the staircase. And there again, the ADA vehicle can move in and out of that corner area to uh maneuver back to the street. So that's all my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions regarding this parking and
regarding any transportation traffic question that may come up. Thank you. >> So just just to summarize um based on our proposed plan and the plan that uh Dan asked us to Dan Weissman asked us to
take a look at and evaluate, they both physically could work as George uh went through and shown. However, when we shift the ADA space over a little so that it's on the right side, the clear
space serves three purposes. It actually enlarges the stairwell clear space, so it it's nice and wide there. It also allows us not to separate the stairwell space, so we gain a couple of feet
there. And it um it um overall will allow us to um you know utilize that for those three functions for the stair for the for the um I'm sorry the stair for
the clear space for the ADA van and also it pulls the car off of the end of the lot. So when you do your K turn or you back up and go out, it's a lot easier to maneuver because if your car is right on that line or near or closer to the the
edge of the the lot, you're not going to have as much maneuverability. So, we think um it severely decreases the function of the parking lot, more difficult to get in and out, and it um also, as shown through the slides,
reduces the other stalls so that they're all at least 8.5 or smaller and not 9 foot wide as we initially proposed. So, and I think so, like I said, it was a long uh many slides, 80, but it it it
didn't take too long to go through. So, uh Mr. Chair, that's our that's our presentation for tonight. Uh we do have all of our consultants that testified and I know there was a lot more information than last meeting. We went through a lot more detail. This I, like
I said, was just kind of a broad overview, but we do have um the three witnesses you saw tonight. We also have our planner, our landscape architect um and we're here to uh respond to and answer any of your questions.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Board members, do you have any questions of the three presenters or Mr. Degrezia? >> Yes. Uh Michael >> um >> yeah re regarding the um the neighbor at
246 Witherspoon um and the um I guess letter of intent type thing that was signed >> what what are what are the specifics of that letter?
Um, I'm not I'm not sure if we handed in, but I could tell you like real quickly the the key paragraphs. >> We have shared use of parking spot. So during the the weekdays 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. um the office will use the
space. After that, the homeowner will be able to use that shared space. Um, we have maneuvering and access. The parties agree that the cars parked on either property shall have the reasonable right to enter the neighbors portion of the parking lot in order to maneuver in and out of parking spaces. And then we have
accessibility path. Um the public the parties agree that an accessible path from the proposed handicap parking space to the public rightway will be located using the driveways from both properties in order to create an accessible path with the mildest slope. And then it goes
through a couple other terms in terms of maintenance and cost and insurance that you would typically see in a letter of intent. But clearly it it addresses the shared parking maneuverability um accessibility and we believe as we said the additional space and the great
benefit of circulation really is a huge benefit to both the residential property and ours. In our property we have a lot more maneuverability. So, as you as we showed in those diagrams, we could back in and out and kind of turn around, but
the residential lot does not. They basically have to pull in and then pull back up right into the street backwards, which is not really desirable. So, it's a it's a huge benefit to both properties >> unless they use our property to turn around. >> Oh, yeah. Unless they can use our Yeah.
Well, that's I'm saying if they had to stay on their side, um it would be it would be they would just have to pull back out. But with the use of our property, they could turn around and then head out to um the road facing forward.
>> Um followup uh questions. Um, does it also address the basically length of the easement and does it address um rights of termination
>> in the LOI? It it doesn't it doesn't talk about those things, but it would be the intent that the easement would be, you know, um part of both of our deeds. So, it would require it would continue with the length of both properties. Well, unless unless they insist that it
be shorter. >> No, but then that that wouldn't work. It has to be part of the it has to be deed restricted. >> Yeah. And that's Yeah, that's why I was curious about that. Um both those questions because
we're being asked to consider basically the enforcibility um of this particular variance. you know, solution to the variance. That's that's those are kind of standard legal
type things to consider. So, um I I understand you can't answer those right now. >> Well, part of the challenge, the reason why we did the LOI was because we wanted to be able to move forward with this, but we understand that this needs to be
in place for us to move forward with the project. That way, you know, we don't have to hire lawyers to do all that legal work if you guys aren't going to approve it. >> And and the third paragraph does say the definitive agreement is uh intended to be used for perpetual duration. If
deemed appropriate and necessary, the parties will have an easement prepared and recorded to document this agreement, which is what we're going to do. And we've already indicated to this board that um having it as a condition is acceptable to us.
anyone. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Okay. Michael, do you have anything else? >> Um, why don't you let George go? I I have one or two not related. George. >> Yeah. I just wanted to talk about the
two different parking uh arrangements which I found that the original one that the applicant designed to be vastly preferable to the the alternative in terms of the the narrowness of the particular parking slots and the
maneuverability compared with the alternative. So that's just a comment. I had I had a question, Michael. Then I'll give you this the boys again here. Um the distance the spots are 18 feet
deep. What's the distance between the spot to the building behind to your existing building? >> The the the minimum width is 16 1/2 ft. And that would not change in either scenario.
>> So you have an 18 18t space and a 16 and 1/2t space behind it. >> Drive a yes. >> Yeah. What's the minimum? I guess we can ask our engineer, what's the minimum drive aisle required? >> The typical standard for a two-way is 24
feet wide, but this is a existing condition. Actually, it's actually improving the existing condition because we're adding a few more feet to the length of the driveway or the parking area. >> Yeah, there's there's >> and the aisle itself is is expanding by a couple inches, although it's pretty
much what it is today. The aisle is expanding by about a foot and a half. >> A foot and a half. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. It will be closer deeper. There's a a large wisteria bush in that location right now. And the the ballards at the back of the building will be closer to the building than the wisteria
bush. >> So >> yeah, I mean there's a big difference between 16 and a half and 24. I understand I understand the existing condition. I'm just that's just a statement. Do I have my concern and I share
George's opinion. Um it requiring those the first scheme you can drive straight in. The others it looks like the car has to go in in an angle. You're showing us an arrow space and the car going in at an angle and that's going to be a little
tricky. I mean when you have cars next to one another, one guy's required to come in slightly at an angle and the other isn't or whatever. It just seems to be a little bit of a difficult parking situation, but I understand the existing conditions you're dealing with.
So, just a comment. Michael, do you want to continue? >> Um, yeah. A question about the LOI with the interested parties with the uh laundry laundromat. Um and we we talked
about obviously uh the regular laundromat selfservice wash wash and fold you know any other type services the people you're talking to are talking about providing >> um yeah so there are the person we have
the LOI with has talked about putting um drop lockers there so um people could do Amazon pickups and things like that that the community might need. Um, the laundromat will also use those dropboxes for people who might pick up after their staff has left. They'll tell somebody
to, you know, they'll text them to say, "Pick up your laundry in locker number 15." And, um, you know, so there is that sort that there is that ability. Um, and uh, and the, you know, the person who has the LOI with us has talked about it
as a community um, based um, you know, location. So there would be Wi-Fi and other things like that that that would, you know, serve the community that's using the laundromat. >> So Josh, I was fine with everything until you just said Amazon Dropbox.
>> Well, it's not technically I mean it's not technically an Amazon Dropbox. It is a uh drop off locker um that is commonly being used in a lot of apartment buildings these days. Um and it's used by many different delivery services,
drop off services. The laundry uses it because they want to be able to transfer the laundry so that they can provide the service if if their staff leaves, you know, that does the wash and fold for the day. Um that they can make sure that the person gets their um stuff as it
gets after work hours. Um yeah, >> I really wish you hadn't said Amazon Dropbox. Um what do we know about >> if you don't want us to have that, we'll take it out. But that is >> gosh, how many how what information do we have? I mean, this is a tight street. >> What information do we have about Amazon
trucks going up and down the street multiple times a day? Um, increased traffic to the building to pick up Amazon deliveries. Um, do we have any information on that? >> I don't think I don't think there would be any increased traffic. Amazon comes
to our office daily. Um, and uh, and I'm not sure there's any significant impact that anybody's noticed on it. Um, and I don't know that it's going to be accessible to Amazon. It is intended to be a delivery location, so it may be only during working hours. Um, I don't
know. I'd have to talk to the tenant um about that in detail. And certainly if that was something that that this um this board felt was prohibitive, we could eliminate it from their from their scope. It is a very useful tool um for
not just the laundromat but also for the residents in the walkable neighborhood around us. >> I think you know and a concern is will it generate any
automobile traffic or how much it might you know the the traffic is is an issue. though I I can understand why Harlon immediately focused on that. Um so you
know the the number of services being provided where I want the business to be successful and whatnot. Um it's things to take into consideration. Um you know even the washing fold will
generate some drive up business. It will um I don't know how much um and you you say you researched as far as dollar-wise it's it could be 30 to 40% of of of dollar business
um but there's no testimony from your um traffic consultant um how much vehicle traffic it may generate I and I have no idea and our consultant in here so that's That's that
is a a little bit of of of a concern. Um I wasn't quite in and my last question I wasn't quite sure you mentioned um the Franklin the future Franklin Avenue
um development and and your point on that was was what? just that it's an apartment building uh close by this location and even if there are washers and dryers in the apartments, typically linens and bedding and stuff like that
wouldn't work in a a tenants apartment. >> Yeah. >> And um and so we would be just another resource for that apartment building as well. And that you know the most successful laundromats are directly adjacent or near apartment complexes. So
that's what we were talking about. Yeah. So, so, so Michael, um, if I may, um, some of that data that we put in there to try to explain was why we had talked about, um, you know, the the massive number of units across the street at
Avalon and how we think there will be something generated from that. So like the wash and serve service, you know, somebody over there, I don't know who, just, you know, say a young professional drops off their laundry, goes to work,
comes back at 8 at night, goes in, opens up the locker, takes their and walks across the street, that's what it's intended to. So when you have those larger apartment complexes, whether they're using the wash and fold service or doing their bedding and you know
beach towels there, it's it's something that um these laundry mcks look for in terms of location. So that's why we were saying it's having those type of facilities nearby is great. And then we also have all of the people that are walking and riding from the
neighborhood, which is the the the focus of why we thought about putting the laundry back here in the first place. >> Okay. Thanks. >> I have one more question on the on the parking situation. In the agreement you
read, Mr. Degrazia, you said that the tenant, the house tenant has part is allowed to park during the week after hours before hours. And so during the day, if the apartment if the house
tenant is ill, he has no place to park. >> No, they have two spots. This is the third. >> Yeah, they have >> one one at a time. >> Oh, sorry, Steve. So the the residence is the neighbor. They have their own parking spots. >> Okay. >> So, if you go down their driveway, they
stack them. So, they could have one or two parking spots they got to pull in and out >> by having an easement with us instead of, you know, they'll still stack on their side, but after hours, they could pull in and use that additional spot. And they have
>> spots during they have their stack parking during the day. >> Correct. >> To be clear, they have more than stack parking. They have two full parking spots right now on their property. This provides them with a third parking spot. Okay. And so,
>> and so the reality is they have young kids. The previous family had young kids as well. This allowed them to um you know, as as you know, if they had an Opair or if they had something like that, you know, or somebody helping with them during
>> Fine. I I understand. I understand you. You answered my question. >> Great. Okay. Um, I'm trying to move it along. Go ahead, Michael. >> Yeah, I I know you are. Um, something I had dropped jot it down earlier
that parking chart that you put up, which you didn't really walk through and I didn't really focus on what the line for line specifics. So could you put that back up and you know educate us on
>> So I mean I I talked about that last time that's why I didn't go through it again but I will let me pull it up here and I can share my screen. Yep. Sorry. So share screen this this this chart here.
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, so currently there's we're we're in this calculation A. Okay. >> Yes. >> And and um we're providing 10 spaces in a technical term because we're providing
electric charging spaces in the parking lot. So on technicality, we have 10 spots even though there are are physically six. Okay, that's that's what it what's counted in the in the B district. So if we were one property
over, okay, so instead of being in the B, if we were in the um the MMRO or the RB, one property over in any direction, okay, um we would have a requirement of 17 spaces because it's the burrow
calculation versus the township calculation. Now, the township calculation for 53 spots is really a reflection of this B1 zoning, which is really created to be in more of a spot like down on 206 that you have to drive to. Okay. We are we are walkable, you
know, in our location and and that is is the intent. So, in the burrow, we would be required to have 17 spaces. So, it's a really a much lower variance that we're looking at here. Okay. And if we were to take on the overlay and say not
put our office here, but still put a laundromat, still put retail and put 10 apartments here, we would be compliant. And and so that's what we're saying. We're basically saying that it's our office that's the issue, not the other uses because that those are compliant
uses within the overlay that wouldn't require any parking. Okay? or our office is what's what's throwing it off. And we cover all of our staff already, you know, in the five spaces that we will will have. Plus, the vast majority of
our staff parks in the parking garage across the street. Okay. I guess um that helped me because I didn't focus on what actually was your point. Now the maybe this is a question
more for Derek and Justin um but even they weren't around at when B1 was created. I'm not sure it was created for up on 206.
I was under the impression that B1 was actually created for Witherspoon Street from like Henry to to um to Goyat. And also B1 applies to the north side of
Burge Avenue. >> Yeah. >> I I don't think >> Michael, go ahead. >> Just to clarify, you're correct. the B1 district was created >> the the the district was created to create businesses along those areas that you said. >> Yes.
>> But what Josh is referencing is that in the township the parking standard applies to all businesses across regardless of zone. So it's not based on zone. So that if you take your 206 parking arrangement, um the properties
along there, those businesses um have the same requirements as those that are in the walkable areas and are designed to be more walkable. That's what he was saying. His point was >> obviously, not obviously, I don't I don't mean it that way, but
what he said was, you know, it was more for 206. No, it was specifically designed and applied to that section of >> Withersp it it it yes it was >> okay that's all I'm saying >> it is applied to that but the intent of
the number of parking spaces so the way in the 60s and 70s the way you would looked at parking wasn't by what individual area but rather by what the worst case scenario was going to be and the worst case scenario was if you had an office space or a large structure out
on 206 it would require ire that many spaces. It was applied to the rest of the township um consistently. So that's that was my point. But the reality is if we were one property over or or across the street,
we wouldn't have that kind of demand. >> I I also uh would like to comment um unfortunately Dan Weissman is is no longer with the municipality. He's uh gone off to greener pastures, I assume. Um, but he did discuss a couple points
on parking with Victor Anikke, our parking traffic consultant who is here tonight. And I'd just like uh to Dan left me a memo. I'd like to touch on two points that he left and also ask Victor to to chime in on this. And and one is that the calculation of off- streetet
parking spaces that are provided are based on the number approved with the variance. Um the EV doesn't get the the counted um in the way they do it. It's they don't have 10 spaces per the EV ordinance. They
have seven. I'd like Victor to comment on that. And then Dan, it also had asked that the ADA space be the shortest accessible route. So I think you know what I'm not an engineer. I would like Victor to uh you know comment on these
these two items. So, >> and I'll just note for the record that all our professionals uh uh were sworn in at our last meeting. So, they're also uh under oath now. >> So, so Derek, just before he says that, I just want to say one thing. The way we
were looking at it under the state code is you're allowed 5% of your required parking, not what's actually there. 5% of the required, which the required is 53. 5% is five spaces. So, you're allowed to build five
spaces of EV and count it twice for 10. That's how um we've read the code. Just it's all it's all, you know, whatever. But I'm just saying that's how the New Jersey code is written. I just did an application in Plansboro and, you know, it is based on
required spaces and if you take a look at the code, it does say that, not on the number of spaces built. >> I've had similar situations. I think you're right. I mean, I agree with that. >> Okay, so we've board members. Any other
questions? >> Steve, I I thought Victor was going to comment. >> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> I didn't mean to cut him off. Sorry. >> Yeah, that's fine. Uh, can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, uh, the calculations of the,
um, EV spaces, I think they're appropriate. uh based on the uh EV New Jersey EV uh guidelines uh I think you required 4% for non-residential
um so 5% is fine um and it's for the required so I have no uh problem with the calculations that were made uh with regards to uh Dan's comment about uh the
ADA location I I think Kelly uh kind of illustrated with the diagram uh the relocation closer to the driveway and the one closer to the end of it. And
it's clear that the the one that is closer to the end of the building, it's a more accessible route than uh moving it closer to the driveway. So, I I'm I'm okay with that. uh arrangement uh uh
better than the the the one that Dan had suggested for them to move uh to the closer to the driveway. Um, I don't think there's any other thing that I the only the only thing I I I do have just a little concern and and
I think they've said something about it is still the the issue of the uh laundromat parking uh the operation and this issue that was brought up regarding
uh Amazon trucks or whatever. Um there's no provision in the parking calculation for the laundromat. It's assumed that everything is walkable. There is no forgiveness. There's no
redundancy for any drive driving for the laundromat. And so we have a very tight uh site here. So if we're introducing drop offs
and pickups and all that uh I I I wonder if uh George can just you know for the benefit of the board you know to give some kind of insight as to how he
envisages the operation will will occur and not impact traffic. Uh would you like me to address this? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I I I understand uh Mr. Anosika's uh concern. Um I think this
laundromat will be known for not having any parking as compared to the laundromat that's in the shopping center for instance. Um, and I think in that sense, people that want to drive to the laundromat for whatever reason, uh, will
pick the laundromat that's in the shopping center. They may try drive up Witherspoon, see if they get the parking spot that's on street that's available and park it. If they don't find it, uh, they may continue to the shopping center. I think I think we have to look
at this as an extension of the very walkable area in downtown Princeton. The municipality has invested in redesigning Witherspoon over the last few years to make it much more pedestrian friendly, pedestrian safe and and we have an
applicant that's prepared that feels that the laundromat will be successful without any designated parking. And so it's clear that there will be a sign at the building that says uh parking reserved for the architecture office
only so that no no laundromat client is ever you know attracted to that parking lot and and again because the parking is relatively tight in the back. We don't want any kind of uh occasional uh laundromat client to drive back there.
So there will be a sign that says very clearly no parking uh except for the architecture office. And so we I feel it makes sense to reinforce the kind of pedestrian nature of this. And uh you
know and what it probably means um and I think Mr. Anosiki erased it last time. It means probably that there may be fewer people than we have a typical laundromat that's also accessible by automobile. uh and and I think in this case the applicant feels I mean there
seem to be interested parties to operate this longer without parking they know the people that expressed their interest they know that there's no parking and they feel that this neighborhood can generate enough demand for the laundromat without any parking and
that's a good thing in a way it it reinforces the pedestrian activity of this neighborhood and and you know of course imagine if we had or 10 spaces for Laura. Yeah, there would be more traffic. There would be more traffic going in and out in the back and so on. In this case, there's going to be less
traffic um generated by the laundromat. I'm not saying there will be no traffic. There will be some people, you know, especially at the beginning, they may try to park on street and walk to the laundromat. If they don't find the space on street, they'll probably drive to the other laundromat. George, what about the
impact of the the 400 empty spots at the parking garage? >> Well, yeah, they could. Obviously, a laundromat client who drives there could use one of those spots. Um, it's maybe not. I mean, maybe. Yes, it's difficult
to know, but it would probably be easier for that particular laundromat client to drive to the shopping center where they get free parking. Um, yeah. I mean, the the the resource across the street, I think, is an excellent resource for all the employees that work there, including the employees
working at the laundromat, the the the owner of the of that business. They may park over there because it's convenient. Um, so I I think it's uh, you know, it's an extension of downtown uh, Princeton where we have a lot of
pedestrian activity and we want to continue to encourage the pedestrian activity. >> Yeah. >> Just just for clarification, Mr. Degrati, since there's been so much testimony focusing on the laundromat, >> has there been any testimony about the
hours of the laundromat? Um, and if I don't know what hours um, Mr. Zinder's employees keep, but after hours, uh, I suppose it's possible that people may park in the back if they're going to
the laundromat. So, I was just trying to figure out I didn't I don't recall any testimony about hours of operation. >> I mean, we're still going to have signs prohibiting the parking back there. So, it's not intended to be used as a parking area. I don't know if Josh knows
about the hours. >> I can certainly tell you, you know, my staff typically, you know, ranges from 7 a.m. Some of them get here till 6:00 p.m. typically. Regretfully, I'm here many more hours than that. Um but uh um
as far as I know, the laundromat is intended to comply with municipal, you know, requirements for, you know, I I would guess they would probably be open till 10 or 11:00 at night. What time they had open in the morning, I'm not really sure, but they would comply with whatever the standard business hours are
permitted within municipality. And you know, one of the things I just wanted to say from a big picture standpoint, you know, one of our major themes was the preservation of the the building itself, right? It has a great
history, unique history, and we've taken a very sensitive approach to protecting that building. But in doing that, that also takes that also puts us into some constraints, right? So we we're not clearing a lot. we have to work with the building where it is, the parking where
it is. We don't have you know all of this ability to to you know clear the site and start from scratch. So when we came upon this design and this use we've recognized that it's something that's really needed in this neighborhood and
there's not many I I don't know if there's another location out there where there would a laundry mat would come in. Um this has been designed to be a neighborhood laundromat. So, this is for those people that are walking and biking by. And when people have cars, they can
drive to other laundromats. You know, if they they know there's no parking here, that's not what we're intended to pull in. We're intended to pull in, you know, the the service across the street that may want it folded from the big apartment complexes and people in the neighborhood and the surrounding
neighborhoods to kind of walk or bike there. And that's really the design of this laundromat. Okay. >> Question. >> Yes. Um, I
I'm getting the impression and and maybe it's totally incorrect on my part that you're basically implying in the last five minutes that in reality you don't believe the parking lot the the laundromat
will generate a parking demand. And am I misreading you, misering you? What what we're saying is and and George you could you could expand a little more that if there is a demand there is available parking nearby right you have
a parking lot that's underutilized across the street a parking garage rather that on a daily basis has more than 400 spaces and I think that was part of George's analysis and um George you want to you want to
you want to go into a little more detail >> the the other thing we did you know we summarized is the availability of on street parking and there is uh some on street parking uh available that can be used for the laundromat. So when you mention the word demand, you know, for
parking, parking demand. Well, you know, I'm sure yes, there are probably people out there that would like to park there and and go to the laundromat because the they maybe live further away. Uh you know, and that can be considered as the
demand if you want. But the point here is that this particular use is not oriented to that demand. And uh we recognize that people may want to will want to probably drive there and may use
on street lots and then cross the street or wherever they park. There's on street parking on both sides. Um but that the majority of people that want to drive, they will eventually drive to the shopping center where it's easy to park. I guess and I think you answered my
question because you really think that there won't be too many people if anybody that will long-term drive there >> now location >> and you raised the made the statement
you know where this concept of demand not concept but the word I'm taking the word from your report And your report says the laundromat after the 40% reduction
will have 4.6 as far as a parking space demand. Page five. So if if if fellow board members are hearing like I thought I was hearing that you
were kind of downplaying that there would be any real demand. That's not even what your report says. So I I I have to counter with that because that's >> Yeah. Yeah, you're you're right and that's a good point. But let me explain
also when we did this report, you know, we did the traffic impact analysis and and the uh the parking analysis. We we don't have any hard data uh for the people, let's say, that live in this
neighborhood and and go to a laundromat. Um all we know is we have seen you know and and the the this presentation we gave you shows people walking and bicycling and carrying their stuff you know and so the the 40% that we have in
the report is based on the census track information. It's based that's the only hard data that we have and we keep using that in our studies for the traffic in in general in this particular neighborhood. We use that and so it reflects a demand if you want that would
be a typical demand if there was a parking lot for that use and so without a parking lot I would say there's still a demand but you know it would probably not be that 4.6 six or five spaces. Uh
so the demand is also affected by the supply and we know that in our industry it's the same as you know you you probably heard if you were to to double the the width of Nassau Street we would have much more traffic. You generate more traffic. >> So you're arguing against your own
report. >> Yes. In a way that that's what I'm hearing. >> Let's go on. No, let's go on. Yeah. >> That's nonsense. Hey, chairman. Uh Justin Leco's had his hand up for a while. I just I don't know if he wants to make a comment.
>> See you there, Justin. I'm sorry. >> No problem at all. Uh I just wanted to make a comment while we were on the topic of the parking uh lot and the Amazon trucks and potential for that or a question about the parking lot really. Uh we saw the original proposal uh that
may have some ADA issues. Uh we saw the alternative that is obviously a much tighter squeeze near the building. Uh was there is there a third alternative or was there any thought given to taking a couple feet away from the building at from the new uh addition uh the wall
that is closest to the parking lot over there? I see it's 35 ft wide now, but any thought to 32 30 uh to allow for more room? I >> think I you know we have to hear what the applicant has to say about Sorry, I
was muted. So yeah, we did look at at modifying the building. Um it sort of creates a cascade effect um you know across across the the the design um across the uh the relative
location of where we have uh the glass connector and um and so um you know we did look at it. We did look at cutting back the um the landscape area in the back corner behind the building. um you
know to add more asphalt, but none of those really provided uh you know any significant um benefit or impact on on the parking lot. we had the same issues um you know
either way and um and you know we did look at a couple different after the the meeting that we had uh with Dan, we looked at a couple alternate options um putting the um the ADA spot first after
the shared parking spot, but that actually put the um the 5ft aisle another 3 to 4 feet farther away. Um and and at some point we felt that you know we're basically adding three feet to this area for that extra access that's
required into the back stair by having the shared um access. It everything seems to work better and not not just the drive circulation but also the access um when we started to cut back the building it it created other cascade issues you know through the design.
>> Okay understood. Thank you. And just the other comments I had at this time uh on the Amazon trucks, uh I live on Witherspoon Street. I work on Witherspoon Street. I constantly walk on Witherspoon Street. There are Amazon trucks all over the place. They park in the middle of the road. Uh they pull up
uh in the other lane and they park, I guess, because it's closer to the building that way. They park on the raised crosswalks. Um, I don't know how much more they will come because of this drop off versus what's already there. I'm not sure, you know, is it going to
be a major increase or are they just already here, uh, you know, doing what they're doing. Um, I've seen our police officers drive around them when they're doing that. Um, so that's just my two cents on on what's going on on Witherspoon with Amazon trucks. And I should just clarify. So I referred to it
as Amazon because it was the what I was thinking as a pickup location. Um that is what the tenant had said that he uses those for in other properties. Um I don't know if they actually use it for Amazon, like that company per se, but um
they do people do have packages shipped to those locations and they do put them in the storage units for them. um if that's something that um this uh board does not want us to have then if they have lockers they can only be for their own use and can't be for
outside deliveries and that's fine. >> Thank thank you for that Josh that's something that I would want to to put in this. Um, the other question that I had, we focused a great deal on the use of this space as a laundromat
and assuming that you know that that everything works the way that everybody hopes that it does and it's a successful laundromat from here into the future. Wonderful. What happens when it's no longer a laundromat? >> We we parking. What are we thinking about there?
We we indicated that we would have to come before the board to get any other use in there that we would uh you know indicate that we would use it as a laundromat and if we would change it to another use we would have to come back before the board.
>> Okay. >> Did you have a comment? Yes. >> Yeah. I do. It's um terms of parking. I've been thinking of of two places that have similar possible solutions. One, you know, is the back of the library and
the other is the post office um Nassau which has very very limited parking and basically it says, you know, you can do it for 15 minutes. So, I'm wondering, and this is really a question for Mr. Bridger and um Mr. Leco. Is
there a possibility of putting a couple of spaces on Witherspoon that would have like a 10 or 15 minute limit so somebody could sort of dash in, dump their clothes for a wash and fold operation and then come back, you know, when they
get a text that everything's ready. Is is I mean, is that possible? >> Uh, I don't think there's parking on the side of the street that Josh's building is located on. Um, and that would require municipal approval from uh, mayor and council um, and an ordinance.
So, uh, there's a lot of competing interest for those spaces in front of uh, Avalon Bay. So, I'm not sure how how that would work. It's a good suggestion though. Um, >> the parking across the street uh, came out of a 2018 study. I believe it's all
day parking right now. So, it's not set in stone, but I don't think it's uh anything the municipality has looked to change recently. >> Steve, I have a question. >> Go ahead, Steve. >> Josh, you have a tenant who's going to
be on the first floor of the old building. Is that correct? >> Uh, I don't have that tenant yet. Um, if you know somebody, um, you know, we're we're >> My bigger question is where are they going to park? they they it would be expected that that they and their
employees would park in the garage. >> Okay. And >> just like my employees are parking in the garage. I can't remember the term they use in Congress when one member of Congress addresses another one, but our good friend Harlon I I I kind of don't
agree with you on the FedEx because I think it's a terrific service for the neighbors. They have a drop off lock box where the stuff can be dropped off instead of putting it on their porches. And I think that it doesn't add any
extra traffic because it's it's you know they'd either drop it off at the neighbor's house or they drop it off here. But way the other I think the service to the neighbors is outweighs the the potential. But that's my opinion.
So that's all. >> Okay. So are there any other questions? And Oh yeah. Yeah. Well, I I'll just add on that. I I uh can kind of agree with that that it it uh it centralizes a a a
place to have things dropped rather than the truck is making a dozen stops in in the neighborhood. >> Centralizing a place on one of the busiest streets in town. You've got a school there. It's going to increase traffic. I you we keep I mean this is a
topic for I guess another time. we keep jamming more and more apartments, more and more buildings, and more and more cars into this very small space, we're going to have people doing drop offs and other things that will increase traffic. >> It it could decrease traffic because people might walk there and one vehicle
dropped a lot of things off and people walk and pick up their package. So, there's that's another way to look at it. I I can't prove it, but I don't know if you can prove your point either. Really? >> Sure. If you go to Whole Foods for a an Amazon return, at any time there's a
line of, you know, multiple people. >> Yeah. But they don't live in the Whole Foods parking lot. And there's a lot of people who walk in live in walking distance to >> that drop. I I don't share your your faith in people walking the same way.
>> Um my my question was actually about the uh the the driveway. Um so it is it planned that there would be any kind of it gets quite narrow and if everybody is is coming down I I understand it's um
people familiar with the the arrangement here but is there any kind of um uh separation marking or anything down um the edge of the driveway um going towards the um the main entry. Okay.
>> Yeah, I can I can take that. >> Sure. >> Um, just to clarify, Miss Tren, do you mean on the main like the stub the access point going down to Witherspoon Street or are you talking about the drive aisle? >> No, going down. So, um you you need to
travel all the way down the driveway, right, as a pedestrian to get to this um the the main entry and the zigzag switchback. Um >> well, most of the employees will go in the back door. >> Correct.
>> Okay. So, only the um o only the accessible um route is really coming down the driveway and then up the zigzag. somebody was in a wheelchair then they would have to come down the driveway. Yes. >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. >> If they were they were needed that spot
and needed were coming to our office you know say like my mother come up the backs there. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> Steve are are you intending that staff will ask questions now?
>> That's what I'm trying to get to. >> Oh, okay. Great. because I know there was also a question asked about the environmental commission report and I think Derek was going to present some summary of that. So >> I just want to get through make sure there are no board questions of this
last presentation then we'll go on to the staff and and Derek. >> Okay. Any other questions board members? Okay. So now uh we have two issues. One is Mr. Bridge is going to read I guess what
a summary of the environmental report into the record. >> Uh yes sir. >> Why don't if you don't mind why don't you do that? >> Thanks. I'm going to go over their executive summary. Um and they start off by saying the project should be granted the dimminimous height variance which
brings the ridge line of the new construction in line with that of the existing building. The low solar array above the roof height should not pose a visual distraction and provides the benefit of a symbiotic relationship with the green roof, increasing the efficiency of each element. The request
for a rear yard landscape buffer strip variance to allow 4.93 ft where 50 ft is required should be revisited despite the fact that there is an exist that this is an existing nonconformity. Uh given the proposed sizable increase in imperous coverage, finding additional areas to
provide softcaping becomes a priority. It could also help ameliorate air pollution from the parking area. Um they speak about the ADA ramp um that provides access to those approaching from Witherspoon Street, but the ADA parking uh space at the rear of the
building is in their opinion too far from the ramp and requires navigating a slope driveway to access it. An additional ADA entrance should be provided closer to the rear of the building where the ADA parking space is uh located. They suggest a possible uh
live to the back porch entrance should be explored and uh consider relocating the front entrance ramp to Lee Avenue which would give Witherspoon Street a main street a better presence with trees and landscaping. Um they also say that
uh due to the proximity of the the project to the community park school uh they should consider uh you know evaluating the sight lines of the cars exiting the driveway where the spoon is highly traffic by uh elementary students
walking and biking the sidewalk. It should be illustrated that the ramp and the landscaping will not hinder a driver from seeing a bike racing along the sidewalk to CP. Um, the parking requested seems inadequate for the multiple uses proposed even with the
parking allowed at the Henry Street garage as outlined in the application's justification for the parking variance. Future development um such as the proposed future Franklin Street housing could put an even greater burden on Henry Street and the parking garage. Even if you consider the burough parking
requirement in the abuing zones as was presented in the uh applicant's presentation, the proposed spaces um are only 59% of the 17 that would be required. What happens if in the future the outside parties no longer want to accommodate parking from 254? Any shared
parking arrangement should be carefully examined so as not to allow condition that will cause a negative impact on parking in the nearby residential neighborhood. um legal agreements for long-term uh parking should be acquired before um a CO is uh provided while
other proposed bike parking is uh beyond the required amount um that that is they're giving more than required since many of the people using the building will be coming from a bikable distance. The amount of secure and easable access biking parking should be increased. Um,
the massing of the upper floor overhang on the addition is not in keeping with the roof lines of the main structure around it. Given this project's location in the Witherspoon Jackson Historic District, sensitivity should be given to the neighborhood context. Um, solar shading should be could be accomplished
with a less aggressive element like vertical fins or reducing the size of the proposed overhang. There are two m mature trees on the lot. Unfortunately, both will be removed. Um, using only dark sky compliant lighting and uh these
are suggestions consider using motion detectors so that uh exterior lights are on only as needed. And I see they 40 uh agreed to that. Um and then just building an in energy they they ask that the applicant use uh or consider using
bird safe glass, use forward for forest stewardship council certified wood or locally s sourced wood. Use rapidly renewable materials. Um, and where possible within the dictates of the historic preservation rules, the
double hung windows on the new construction should be replaced with casement and or awning windows which are more energy efficient. Um, they considered in the storm water management, they asked that you consider using gray water or stored rainwater for irrigation. Um, and they also talk about
Yoshino cherry trees which are proposed while they're incredibly beautiful and thrive with full sunlight. They are non-native, highly m require high maintenance and are relatively short-lived. The project has them placed along the north side of the building more shade to tolerant native trees and
shrubs with a greater species diversity would be a better choice. They ask that the applicant consult with a municipal arborist and um on uh the health field they say consider replacing the fixed windows on the new construction front facade with operable windows to provide
natural ventilation awning style windows um provide ventilation even during a rainstorm. Okay. Uh justification for the parking variance request. Uh as part of the justification for the parking variance applicant identified that the
subject lot is the first parcel within the township and shares a boundary with the burrow. If instead of using um the general township regulations, the parking calculations were to be prepared using the regulations of the applicable to the nearby RB or MRRO districts in
the burough. Uh the proposed uses would be permitted. um in which the proposed use would be permitted. The parking requirement would be 17 spaces. It's probably a little more long-winded than I hope for, but uh that's a summary of their their comments.
>> Okay. Um just as an aside before we go to our engineering staff, um Mr. Allesco, Elizabeth Kim, uh your memo that you just read on the
environmental commission and the our municipal traffic engineer all cited the same issue with the handicap parking and relative to the ramp location or the slope walkway in the front just as an
aside. All right. So, now we have uh I guess our engineering staff uh comments relative to all the the presentations. So, I guess maybe the best bet, Mr. Leco, would you like to
start? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I have a few comments in no particular order. Um the first uh came up in this meeting, came up in the last meeting, came up in the uh applicants materials. a conversation about the porches counting
towards F. And if they didn't, then the F variance wouldn't be as close to or as expansive as it is, it'd be it would it would still be there, but it wouldn't, you know, the number would be lower. Um, that to me seems like cherry-picking
numbers and not an argument enough for the F variants. Um, it's it's what we count, you know, and there are porches all in the B1 zone. They all would go under it. Um, and one thing we don't count is the basement space here. Um,
and I have that at roughly 2,700 ft. So, I mean, if we want to start cherrypicking what we don't want to count, then maybe, you know, we can start cherrypicking uh other numbers, too. So, just be aware of that as it comes to the F variants. um the uh wall
on Lee Avenue. Um I just wanted to address that because um I know Dan and Dererick's memo and mine slightly disagreed. Um but I think both of us and after speaking with Dan Weissman about it um agree with Josh's approach um to
uh keep the wall lined up with the other walls on the street and require a right-of-way agreement before council. If the council had any sort of issue with that because they expected some sort of expansion of the sidewalk, they would say it at that time. Uh we as staff don't anticipate that. So it seems
like a better design alternative for it to be lined up with the walls that already exist on Lee Avenue. Um moving on to uh the ADA accessibility. I know we talked about this last time and and it seems like we've really uh you
know beat this uh into submission, but I think it's obviously a very important uh topic to to discuss. Um Josh, you your statement last time about having the ADA uh inviting and non-discriminary,
completely agree with that. Um but I guess my question and that was in in uh uh response to if there could be ADA accessibility in the rear alone. Um, so is there any or have you considered
having a secondary lift in the rear um in addition to what you have in the front so that someone could have a choice? Cuz as you said earlier, ADA doesn't just mean a chair, but maybe for someone in a chair, they'd prefer the lift and maybe someone with a different uh level of ability, they would take the
switch back in the front. We did look at at adding a lift in the back and um it is challenging at best. Um and um we also feel that it does not
meet the general intent of the ADA that somebody who is um impaired is supposed to take the the regular pathway that everybody else takes into into the building. And um if we did a lift in the back, it would only provide access for
our firm and our office. It would not provide access for the other locations, certainly not the first floor retail tent we plan on having come in. Um and so from a value proposition, it it felt
like it was an unequal um access point. So that's why I do believe very strongly in my you know my father lived you know eight years before he passed away in a wheelchair and um I have that experience etched in my mind. It's one of the
reasons why this is a priority for me. And um and I think that um I think that where we're putting the wheelchair the accessible parking and the wheelchair access we have is um you know I think
it's the right place for it. I think it's safe and I think it um you know is a complies with the the American with Disabilities Act and we did look at other we just couldn't get it to work honestly. >> Got it. And I understand and I agree
with that. Although I would argue that you could say your current design is unequal because there are two entrances in the rear with stairs that I imagine your employees will walk to from their cars. are the ones that are using them. So, you know, the argument that it's
inequal to make people go around front, well, there are going to be some people going around back anyway. You know, >> most of most of our employees do park in the parking garage and they do come in the front door. That's where most of our um employees come in. Um, and uh, you
know, I would expect the retail tenant to use the door in the back of their space most often for taking out the trash. Um, which will be in the back. Um, we will have um, additional bike storage for our employees and things in
in the back. So, somebody with a bike might be going there, but I think that uh, the vast majority of people coming to our office actually use the front door. >> Understood. Um, and just lastly, we've another thing that we've talked about a few times and you've heard it in the HBC
report, the PEC report right now and other reports um is the uh the the top floor of the new building and the feature that's coming out that you've mentioned you're going to push back. Um, was there any thought to a pitched roof
or stepping back that or has it always been the windows with that roof feature? No, actually it it it was a pitch roof, it was a larger roof, it was a lower roof. I mean, we spent a lot of time working on this and uh you know, when
especially when it's a space that you're going to be occupying um coming to what feels like the right choice is not always an easy one. Um we did look at eliminating that overhang completely. Um but we felt that um architecturally and
aesthetically um you know it actually softens the facade to have that eve coming off the front. And we felt that the side elevation along Lee Avenue by having the uh synthetic siding, excuse
me, the synthetic shingles um on that on that face, it really does make it feel like it's a pitch roof moving back, you know, along the um you know, the the darker transition. Um and I think we do think this is the best solution after
working on it for you know, four plus years. >> Understood. than, you know, notwithstanding my criticisms, if you want to call them that, I think it's pretty apparent that you've spent a lot of time uh and effort, you know, trying to get this right. Those are all the questions I have.
>> Um, let's go on to Elizabeth Kim. Elizabeth, >> working on it. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, so my comments are really to address the uh presentation that was
made from Josh at their July 23rd meeting which was I think today you did a recap but really my comments are really to address them and I think there are a few things that you didn't talk about that I'll include. So um HPC would
be supportive of the six changes presented by Mr. Zinder um which addresses some of the recommendations that were outlined in the HPC chair's memorandum. So one will be installing the historic markers which they had asked for which would be incorporated
with the Wring Jackson Historical and Cultural Society's plaques and tours. Um having the existing front porch rails be reused and repaired and replaced in kind where necessary to maintain the existing
porch railing height. um create distinction between the storehouse and new addition by making the exterior stucco on the new construction white instead of yellow which originally was intended to match the existing house and
again for the zoning board. This is um you know under the criteria of additions under historic preservation it's intended to show a differential between the addition and the historic building. And also you talked about
changing the color of the second floor windows from black to white. That would also be supportive. Uh you spoke about the witherspoon facing new studio roof overhang would be pulled back about 18 in which would be appreciated. Um, we
felt that we feel that probably reducing that visual perception that it's which would still look like it extends beyond the existing house could somehow be achieved by some change in your window design and
that will come up later. I know that they had talked about perhaps putting mullions instead of on the corner where you have actually a glass that goes around the sides which makes it seems like that the roof line projects more than it actually does especially when you're pulling it back 18 in.
Um and they uh would also appreciate that you're investigating reducing the LED Kelvin from 3,00 to 28 2900. Um Josh also states stated that he did not believe that the front corner lawn is a
defining feature of the building on the property. Uh you presented photographs of the geological investigation that revealed a large outcrop on the property corner which you believe prevent the house from being built to that corner. As everyone knows, Princeton is known
for glacial deposits and boulders. The glacial activity included both glacial and paraglacial material. I lived a house on Mount Lucas Road where the basement foundation was built around a boulder. So, I'm not sure that that's a reason that they wouldn't have built it
there. And there is no evidence that the sighting of the house is because of the outcrop that was discovered. And there's no evidence that that outcrop did not exist and was removed when the current foundation sits. It is undeniable that Annette Annetta's
house sits higher above the street and sidewalk than its neighboring properties and that the larger lot affords her an open lawn by the property corner and is previously stated and was recognized in Hunter research summary of historic significance and integrity integrity for
Josh. He states that the larger residence with ample lawn space was likely designated to reflect the aspiration and success of Anetta and her children. But again, at this point, we don't know if Anetta's intention was to build the
house on the corner and was shifted because of the outcrop. However, it is clear that the house is uniquely perched on that property and above the adjacent streets and sidewalks and its presence is amplified by that open lawn on the
corner of the house and that's the way that we've always recognized that property. So, because of that, it has owned its right as far as its setting on that property. Um, there were things that we didn't see that were addressed that were in the chair's memo in the
redesign that was relocating the new addition as proposed in front of the existing house along Lee which currently erases its presence along Lee and that's a big thing because that's erasing the history of that building along that street.
Also about the bunt rock and landscape which there's a lot of conversation that already occurred. um they felt that that was inappropriate with the streetscape. Uh changing the studio windows which I previously talked about to making those designs more relatable to the existing
buildings again by perhaps adding walls. They didn't have a problem with the glass up there. They just felt that that window style was not relatable to the historic building. And um some of the comment one of the comments that was made was also for the
applicant to consider putting an elevator at the corner of the property near the laundromat entrance. Um that would eliminate shifting the center porch entrance, eliminate the need for the switchback sidewalk design and possibly eliminate your front setback
variance. Um so uh the secretary interior standards and guidelines which Josh talks about. So rehabilitation is the only treatment that allows expanding a historic building by enlarging it with an addition. Therefore the standards for
rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitate rehabilitating historic buildings applies for this application. Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair,
alteration, additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural or architectural value. Um Josh concluded at the meeting that the new addition meets the secretary of
interior standards for the treatment of store properties. Um that is true to a point. Uh the hyphen clearly meets that criteria because you can see the distinction between the addition to the
historic building. In addition, they're able to not do any demolition. So if you remove the addition, the existing structure could go back to its existing feature. And that is something that is
identified in the standards. Um, in addition, um, the the roof line was considered by HPC to be distracting and project. Again, we talked about perhaps Josh could look at this as far
as changing some alterations to that window design. Um but um any addition or feature um should not be overwhelming or it should stand subordinate to the historic
building. So when you look at that criteria, the addition that's placed on uh Lee Avenue is not subordinate because it's sitting in front of the historic building and it should always be either set behind or never in front of that front
line. So those are just some of the things that I wanted to bring up um that you know with Josh's new design, but you know HPC did support his application. However, it was conditional because they felt that there were he did such a good
job of working at the Wiitor facade but not enough on the Lee Avenue one. So, um any questions the board has? I'd be happy to answer them. >> Thank you very much, board members.
Okay, let us go to our traffic consultant. Yeah. Um I just have uh I just want to summarize my comments. I just have two comments and or concerns
and I think I already voiced one uh which is uh regarding the parking. Uh I don't believe the uh parking supply I think the parking supply is too assumptious of the
of the parking demand. By that I mean there's too many assumptions that uh there will be no traffic demand at all to the site. At the minimum, I think
even at the opening time, the novelty period of of the site, the first two months of the site where people are learning the uh the location. There's going to be demand. There's going to be uh a lot of
uh people driving in expecting to park. And it's that violation of drivers expectancy that I'm concerned about. Uh there is no uh I know the applicant says there's going to be signing. Uh but I don't know
how effective this signing will be to prohibit people from going in looking for parking or even trying to park on the street. I think that's a concern I have. uh and I I hope they can address
that a little bit further. Uh the other concern I have is uh or comment maybe question two uh is regarding the ADA parking the location of the ADA parking. uh at
the last hearing I believe uh I think it's Josh uh one of one of the professionals for the uh applicant had indicated uh that
uh the accessible route will be signed because of the grade at the driveway for anybody on wheelchair. to go through this part and use the
easement to access the front of the of the building. U I am not sure what how this signing will be and what this part to this easement
will be. Uh if if uh Kelly or George can use their display and just show us or the board how somebody on wheelchair will access the parking lot
to this easement without being uh going through the driveway or in the circulation part. I think that's the only uh question I have and the only concerns I have. The accessible route from that parking uh uh
ADA parking space to the front of the building and then uh the parking supply. Those are the only concerns I have. >> Thank you very much. Okay. I don't believe we have any Does Mr. Doberilski
do you have any questions? Are you here? >> Victor, did you want to see uh the ADA access or? Yeah, if for in the interest of time if they can just show how the invisage this signing will be and what path
they're going to follow from the ads part to the front so that we can you know because it it was never answered how this will happen. >> Sure, we can we can address that and I think >> I thought we would do it later but let's
yeah we can do it now. That's fine. This was on Kelly's drawings. So, this was on the drawings tonight and on what we submitted. It had the accessible route indicated here. And then this is the intent of the the sign. Kelly, I don't know if you want to.
>> Yeah. So, if you zoom out a little bit, Josh, um the intent is to install that sign uh adjacent to the required ADA sty ADA stall sign uh at the end of the 5- foot
wide clear space. So when a driver comes in, their car is going to immediately see the ADA stall and this separate placard sign that illustrates the accessible route which is shown on the right hand side of the sheet with that
red dotted path that traverses the the driveway on the property, goes onto the neighbor's property into the public rightway along the sidewalk, and then uh depending on where the person is going either they can access through that
sloped walk up to the main floor for the retail and Mr. Zinder's office or continue down the rightway the sidewalk into the accessible path at that PA area for the laundromat at the ground floor.
>> It looks like though that that accessible path goes right up the center of the drive aisle. It it crosses over into the neighboring property. >> Well, it goes it crosses at an angle and it goes into the neighboring property.
But doing that takes you right down the center of the uh >> close to the center of the drive aisle. >> Correct. >> George, I'm sorry, Victor. Does that help explain your question?
>> Yeah, but Again, I guess my my my my question is the sign in itself. You're you're saying there's a sign, this drawing of the path, is it going to be on the sign? >> Yes. >> How is how is uh somebody that comes
out, how would they navigate through that sign? How would they know how to follow that sign? You have you have somebody on a wheelchair comes out. How would they see that sign and
follow it and know that they have to go through the drive aisle to get to the easement? It's it's a little tasking. >> Little what? >> A little confusing. >> Uh um
I don't know. I don't think it's confusing at all. I think it's like any map or drawing. You can look at the drawing and see where you would you would go. I mean, >> that's why. >> So, here here's the problem. Here's the problem I have.
>> You we we're putting pedestrians in in the drive aisle as a safe area to walk through or to even well through. Is that is that appropriate? pedestrians walk on that on that
driveway every day. >> Yeah, but we we we're not asking them to do it. We're not signing them to use that. But this is now a sign. You're telling >> No, actually that's that's not technically true because on the back of our office, it says this entrance is for employees only. All visitors enter
through the front. So, anytime a visitor comes to our office, they walk around the front and come in the front. And I could gladly show you those signs, but that is the way it has been since we opened. And I >> So is the ADS sign ADA spot just for
your employees? >> No, the ADA spot would be for visitors as well. But a visitor a visitor walks in the front door does not back the building. The back of the building to walk them into our kitchen, which is a secondary entrance.
>> Okay. So I'm talking about a visitor who is on a wheelchair. >> Yeah. We're asking that visitor to use the driver to get to the easement. That's what the sign is saying. That's my concern.
>> Asking Yes, we're asking them. >> Go ahead, Kelly. >> Yeah. And I think in our in my direct testimony, I brought up that if there was still concern over the access path and the lack of safety, we can add in
additional like mirrors and stuff to provide additional visibility for that ADA path. The sign is going to be at the end of the parking stall as we just showed. So, as somebody pulls in, they're going to see the sign, and the
sign clearly says, "Here's the ADA path, and it's in a bright red color noting how to traverse that path in a accessible way." So, I think it's very clear that how to get there in an
accessible manner, and we're still willing to work and add additional safety devices on the property if there's concern over utilizing that drive aisle. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I I think there's I think
there's uh there's a little bit more work to do there. I I'm I'm a little concerned because if a scenario where somebody is using that drive aisle and there's a another vehicle coming in from with that spoon,
there's a blind sight. They don't see there's a wheelchair person coming through that drive aisle. >> So I I don't know. >> I really disagree with >> how that is a safe >> this parking lot on a daily basis. Okay. You are going very very very very very
slowly when you come into that parking lot. You are not speeding. You are not, you know, and if somebody was in that lot, which I have come into this driveway numerous times when my employees are coming out of there, visitors are coming out of there and you're you're not it's a dead end.
You're driving very slow. you know, when you pull into this lot. If you drove faster, you would have big problems forgetting having a pedestrian there, just getting in and maneuvering, you know, so you're driving very slow when you're coming into this parking lot, you
know, it it you're going to see everybody there. And as Kelly mentioned, we could certainly add mirrors or things like that to to aid in visibility, but you you see everybody coming. I mean, I stop like there's a black cat that comes back there on a daily basis and I stop
for that black cat, you know. >> Yeah. If you could add a little bit more uh safety uh treatment there, I think it will help. >> It will. >> Okay. Um Victor, is that are you
comfortable with where we're at? Yeah, I'm I'm okay. I'm okay with my comments. Uh, as long as uh Kelly indicated they they're willing to >> Yes. >> to enhance safety there. That's fine. >> All right. Um All right. So, we've heard
from our staff and um now we should have completed all the testimony and the questions. Um, I assume we should open this up to the public
uh right after Mr. Degreesia gives us a very brief summary. >> If you don't mind, uh, Mr. Chair, I I would like the public to comment because I may have something that I would like to add, you know, based on that,
>> you know, do >> you get to you'll get the chance. You want to say anything before I open it up to the public? >> No, no. I I you know I think that you know overall we have an applicant here that's has a very sensitive approach and like I said we've had a lot of different
elements from preservation to you know the accessibility issue where there's no accessibility today to the sustainability elements and I know Josh just touched upon them but it's pretty much everything under the sun from you know proposing looking at green roofs
solar panels geothermal EV charging ing uh porest pavement. Um and of course the driving force behind this are the community needs which are you know one allowing an architect firm that has been in Princeton to can remain in Princeton
and grow healthy there. Um two a another retail small retail operation that will help the B1 zone. Remember, this is a business zone and it really never really fulfilled its purpose under the ordinance of creating these small
businesses. This goes a long way with the laundromat and the the retail, the small retail to do that. And of course, the laundry mat, the neighbor neighborhood laundromat, which is is a huge huge benefit and it's been recognized across the reports. Um it's
one of the things I know um we heard from the HPC, you know, I I was at that meeting and that was a really positive meeting with HPC. They really loved protecting the house. They really loved the elements of um providing the the the
laundromat in the neighborhood. One of one of them mentioned that there was one there on Lee Street in in past. I don't know if that's true or not, but you know, sometimes they know a lot more about the history than I do. So in my mind they were very supportive of the application and indicated that they were
supportive of all the variance as well. Um and they asked us to look at a couple things and I think we respectfully went through a lot of those with our last two presentations. So with that being said, I think this is a real opportunity for us to to work on something um that would
really help um the neighborhood and the community in a number of different ways. And with that, I you know, if you can open it up to the public, that would be great. >> Mr. Chairman, could I just address the comment that Mr. Degresio said? Um, we actually, the HPC actually did not
support the variances because we did not have staff report for them to be able to evaluate it. Um, they were aware of what was in the application for variances, but there was actually no no uh support form because they felt that they weren't in a position to talk about it without
those reports. I recommend I I I think that at um if you look at the tape at hour 2098 it's very clear that the um resolution that Ed Shmere offered says recommend
approval of the variances. So I think it was very clear and it also came up two other times in that. So, if you do look at the video, it is in there a couple of times. >> Okay. >> Very clear about that. >> I don't
>> Go ahead, Elizabeth. >> You're muted. Elizabeth, >> yeah, I don't see the variance in the in the chair memo. Chris, could you tell me where that is? >> No, no. I'm talking about at the speed at the actual hearing where it was discussed.
They we talked about the variance a few times. It's all on uh YouTube. It's great. You can watch it again. And >> tell you about the the recording. >> Yeah. And it specifically said in a few um areas, including Ed Shmear's summary,
that they recommend uh endorse and recommend approval of the variances to implement the plan, I think, was his exact language. >> Yeah. And I think unfortunately maybe that was a comment that was made by him but not necessarily by the HPC and that's probably why it wasn't carried
into the to the uh memo. I think that maybe he was summarizing it that way because I think if you also recall within there I said since we don't have the report uh we I can't really talk about the variances accurately and although you did present
part of it again I do not recall HPC specifically supporting any of the variances that's my recollection but happy to go back >> people could people could witness the same event and have two different recollections >> I know Okay,
>> Mr. Degresia, we can go back and forth. >> This is Wait, please let me talk. >> Miss Kim, summarize the findings of the HPC. We're going to leave it at that right now and try to move on.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. So, at this point, I'd like to open the meeting up to the public. Um, Claudia, has there anyone indicated they would like to speak on behalf of this applica application? >> Yes, Miss um I'm going to Leon. One
second. >> Okay. He's on. >> Hi. >> Here you are, ma'am. We just need uh if you're comfortable giving us your address >> and uh >> please go on.
>> Okay. It's 1 198 Lynden Lane. >> All righty. And I'm going to swear you in. Do you swear or affirm any testimony you give this evening will be truthful? >> Yes, I do. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hello everybody. My name is Lyanna Jonkey. I live on Lynen Lane. I've been
a resident here in Princeton for two and a half years. Um I serve as executive director of Princeton Nursery School, which is on Leav. So I'm very familiar with this corner as a walker, a biker, and riding my in my car as well. I also serve as the chair of the cares
committee for the municipality. Um but tonight I'm really speaking just as a resident here and so I wanted to clarify that um I have attended several zoning meetings over the past few months and just want to share appreciation so much thoughtfulness so much care attention to
detail that I've really appreciated and I can see everyone is a night owl which is new for me and I appreciate that as well. I am the proud daughter of a Nigerian immigrant who was an entrepreneur and I shared my story at the HPC meeting and really wanted to
come tonight to make sure I shared it with the with the zoning board as well. Um my dad took on a number of businesses and one actually included a laundromat. So my four siblings and I worked at the laundromat. We folded laundry. We emptied the coin machine which we all
always fought over and we got to really see how the laundromat supported the DC community that we lived in. Um and there were a number of backgrounds. I think that is the surprising thing about a laundromat. It's not just maybe for the communities that we um assume might use
it. Um my family quickly went from the owners of the laundromat to um to visitors and clients of the laundromat when we began to struggle financially. We lost the business and several other businesses that my dad had and we were really um challenged. We moved from
Washington DC to rural coal mining Pennsylvania where we were an intergenerational family with um my grandparents lived with us Nigerian and Polish um grandparents that lived there. My four siblings, myself and my parents. So we were nine adults in one home. We
had one washing machine. Um when that washing machine grew old and we weren't able to maintain it, we then relied on the laundromat. Um the laundromat was driving distance, imagine rolling hills of West Virginia. That's basically where we lived. We did not have access to
getting to the laundromat um often. So imagine four teenage girls, one a lonely brother um and a lot of dirty clothes. It dramatically impacted us as young adults, as children. Um, we were still low income and so we ourselves had jobs.
We worked at Wendy's. We worked at the bingo hall where it was still allowed to smoke indoors. So, it was very important that we washed our clothes, but we were unfortunately not able to do that. Um, it impacted our entire family. Um,
distance was the challenge that we had and it's still the case for the community here. And so even though I'm not part of the community that would likely be using the laundromat now, I do do really think that the perspective of that community, I hope that there's
another um community member here that might share this perspective, really has to stay as the priority. Um I can see how much this application has gone over hoops and barriers beyond um beyond what I had even imagined. And
what I really ask for the zoning board to do is to remove any barriers you can. There's so much thought going into every aspect of the project. And some barriers um might be priority. Um but the biggest priority is what the goal would be for
having launch so accessible to our families um who live in Witherspoon Jackson in and around Withers Jackson as well. um their needs were expressed through the survey. And again, my uh attendance tonight is just to really share that perspective of a low-income community member who would have
benefited from having a laundromat within walking distance. Um I'm also very aware of businesses and traffic on Lee. We have gone to the town several times to support with that. Um, I love the idea of a 15minute parking spot
which would allow for young preschoolers maybe down the street to cross um and then be dropped off easily. And the the comments that have been made about um Amazon FedEx drop off service. To me, as a nonprofit individual who works with
communities who have a number of barriers and access and transportation is typically one, it really seems like just another avenue for them to be able to get their packages in a one-stop place. And I really appreciate your time tonight and um and would be happy to
connect afterward if anyone has questions, but >> comments. Okay. Um Claudia, anyone else? Mr. Samuel Bunting. >> Mr. Bunting, you're mute. There you go.
>> Good evening. >> Good evening, Mr. Bunting. If you're comfortable, can you give us your address or at least tell us you live in Princeton? >> Yes, absolutely. I'm a resident of Princeton at 99 Dempsey Avenue. Also,
>> I'm also >> I'm gonna swear you in. Do you swear affirm any testimony you give this evening will be truthful? >> Yes, I I so swear. >> Thank you. >> Yes. So, my name is Sam Bunting. I'm a resident at 99 Dempsey Avenue. I'm also
the proprietor of a property at 242 John Street, which is just around the block from the subject property around on around Lelay Avenue. Um, so I wanted to comment on the application tonight and uh again I would um credit the board for
the commitment and dedication that you've given to reviewing this application. Um, personally I I I think that this neighborhood really deserves thoughtful investment
and that's what I see with this application here tonight. Um, and in particular, and without wanting to, um, I couldn't say it more nicely than what Miss Janko already said,
uh, although I heard a lot of testimony and discussion tonight, I I don't think we really talked about what an incredibly positive community benefit it would be to have a laundromat at this site. Um, when I look out there tonight,
it's really dark. It was pouring with rain. Um, but I know that there will have been people going out in that to cycle across town or haul wagons full of dirty
laundry across town. No matter what the weather, freezing cold, burning hot in the summer, they are going out across the town because Princeton, a welcoming community, has
not made this essential amenity available in their neighborhood. And these are in many cases some of the most unprivileged people in our community. and we haven't
made that accommodation for them. And you know, in the entire time I've been living in Princeton, people have been talking about, oh, there's going to be a laundromat. There's going to be a laundromat. Never comes. And Mr. Zinder has brought an application now that provides something
which will be incredibly valuable to some of the least privileged members of our community. And I think that um we really need to put it on the record what an incredibly positive amenity that will be. And I hope that you and I'm sure that you're
all empathetic people and will consider that strongly in your deliberations. Um I have two children who attend Community Park School. One of them is 5 years old and the other is 8 years old.
Every day either my wife or I ride bicycles from our home on Dempsey Avenue to Community Park School. So I really respect the attention of the board to the question of traffic safety on Motor
Spin Street and the possibility of increased traffic which may accompany uh new commercial development. Um, I'm also old enough to remember that there was a full service hospital across the street from this site with uh 1,600
employees, regular ambulance traffic going up and down. And you know, I I don't think we want to go back to that. But when I consider the sum total of traffic um which is going around town, I just
find it, you know, I just do not have a great deal of fear that this one additional building is going to significantly move the needle on what we already see on Witherspoon Street. And I say that as somebody like I say, I have
my children, my wife are riding up and down the street on a daily basis. I just don't really have the same um fear about the potential traffic impact that's likely to arise from this site.
Now, um the I was very interested in the the possibility of a a 45 foot 10 unit um apartment building. I think that could also be a very um valuable addition to the street. There's a there's a great need for housing in Princeton. So, you know, if you if you
were to set this application aside, you know, I I would be very interested to to see where that goes and and what concepts we could come up with. and uh you know that being a compliant design you know hopefully that that could be something that could go through quickly and without the same um same concerns
about uh you know parking because of course then the parking would not be an issue because of the a7 zoning but on the other hand I have to say that um I think it's really great that Mr. Zinder has uh chosen to make his practice at this location to invest in this historic
neighborhood and to bring this creative and responsive application to the board. Uh so in general I have to say I'm supportive. Thanks for your time >> very much Claudia. Anyone else?
>> I don't see any more hands. Okay. All right. Um, we will close the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Degresia, would you like to sum up before we go into executive session?
Yeah, I I mean I would just sort of echo the the comments that you've heard from the two members of the public that spoke tonight that this is really an opportunity to provide something to the
community on a multi-level approach. Um, I think through the materials, through our responses, um, you could see that this design has been studied very carefully from somebody within the community that
understands the community. um to to to go through the extra steps with this very careful approach that does many things from preserving a very unique building to you know pushing the
envelope on sustainability um to you know addressing those community needs by allowing an architect to continue to grow by creating a community laundromat and buy um you know
that small retail space as well. And I think I'm not going to go through the the the the proofs but because our planner went through and talked about how the site can accommodate the F and many of the variances that are listed are very technical in nature. You know
the setback is not the building it's to allow ADA and bike storage. You know the the the height is the existing height of the existing structure. There's so even though we're triggering a few of these bulk variances, um they're there some's
there because we're putting a residential um driveway next to commercial driveway to improve safety and circulation, but that triggers a variance, right? The shared parking space gives us an additional parking space, but you know, we have to create a
um uh that was not a variance. What is that? Conditional Yeah, conditional use authorization. So when it really breaks down, it's not much there in terms of deviations. You have a very appropriate
use that will activate the B1 zone. So it's an appropriate location and something that will help to preserve the integrity of a special building while addressing clear community needs.
Thank you. >> You're welcome. Okay. Um board members, we'll go into executive session now. Um comments, questions, I guess. Do we want to one just comment,
do we want to take the var I believe we almost have to take the variances individually. Um Karen, that makes sense. >> Yeah, I was going to say you have Derek's memo. It's the memo he prepared with Dan Weissman. and beginning on page
two of the memo uh he goes through the variances that the applicant requires for this project. So I would say that's the best way because although there's been a lot of discussion about one
aspect which is the laundromat um uh they they do need uh variety of variances for the entire project and as Derek points out two of those variances require
uh at least five affirmative votes because they fall into the category of um devariances which I know the board has dealt with many times before. Um so I agree that that's the best way to to
go through this. And if you want Derek to walk you through it, I'm sure he can do that. Or if you want to um >> just just a point of clarity, Karen, I I I believe that the F is only the only Dvariance. Uh, no. Don't you need a conditional
use? Because I think Derek Oh, >> you're talking. Yeah, they need relief from that too, right? >> That's a different standard though. >> Yes, it is. >> But I'm saying they still they still require >> five affirmative votes. So,
>> yeah. Yeah. The conditional use authorization. >> Yes. >> And that's needed to have the shared parking spot. >> Correct. So that's up to the to our chair and the board whether you want Derek to go through and call them out
for you or how you'd like to handle it. >> You're muted. I lost the connection there for a second. Um I think it'd be a good idea to have Derek go through those. Um, but I think do we Let's just start the conversation
on this and then we'll go into Derek's memo and and uh getting to the vote. So, what's the feeling of the board? What comments or questions do you have on this application?
And what's your feeling? I'm very I'm very much in favor of supporting this and I know that we need to go through point by point and there might be some modifications that we'd want to agree to but I I couldn't I I
feel that while we're all being thoughtful about a lot of different things, it's kind I don't know if it's not seeing the forest for the trees. There might be a better metaphor, but I just think there's there what was stated by the two people who
recently spoke about it in favor of it. I think really gets for me to the heart of the matter that it's what's being provided outweighs the where the where the roof whether the
roof is overwhelming or you know various things that people have said. I just I feel like design the design of it is does not seem inappropriate to me. and the I feel like the outcome of having
I'm not going to say it as well as the others, but the the laundromat, the attention to the historic nature of that um building, and I forget I wrote it down, the third thing, but um I just think it's I'm just
in I'm in favor of it, but I understand we would need to go through perhaps through some of the things to make some modifications. Yeah, I'll say I'm of the same mind. I'm I'm uh >> yeah, the details of it um I I'm sure
are need some discussion, but overall I'm in support. >> I I agree with with the other board members that have spoken. I support this. I think Josh did a yman's job like usual. Um, he put a lot of heart into
this and a lot of effort and I think the benefits outweigh the negatives. Um, I was 100% on board until that damn Amazon thing came up. Still not sold on that, guys. But, um, you know, if if everyone else says
Harlon, um, you know, there's an old expression my grandmother said that uh, when three people tell you you're drunk, you should lay down. So, if um I've been on this board for a million years, and I respect you guys. Hope you're all telling me that I'm drunk. I will lay down on this one. So, um I do have a
concern uh that we are almost becoming overpop populated and traffic is becoming a nightmare and we don't have the infrastructure to support all the massive development that's going on. Um
and it's it's just a a concern. Um, you know, I'll get off of that soap box for the time being and hopefully people are right and that this will reduce the amount of traffic on Witherspoon. Um, and I hope that in 10 years time I'm not
wagging a fat finger saying I told you so. >> I'd like to say in general I I do support this to a certain extent. I sort of feel it's like one of those cubic puzzles of wood that you put together
and it's hard to put it all together but you see the whole thing and it is a cube. Um and you know so I'm the individual parts I think we should go over piece by piece but not lose lose sight of the fact that this is an
entire project which has a coherence and a logic to it. I think the fact that it um brings investment in an appropriate way to this this corridor is is very useful for the for our town.
>> Okay. Um board members at this time do you go ahead Michael? >> Um I I support it and support the laundromat. I understand
that. I think a a big or a hurdle which we will get to um soon of course and we've discussed it a lot is parking and I don't know I guess the start
number is whatever the code asks for. Um hopefully all the board members know what that number is. I think Derek it's it's 53. Obviously the parking variance for onsite
the applicant has asked for I think it comes out to seven really. Okay. Now, some board members may be like me that thinks a bigger number should be required in in
approving this. Now, a lot of time was spent today and on the 23rd of July talking about the parking garage. And yes, I believe that is an obvious,
you know, don't dispute re, you know, resource. But one thing I have, and it's really a question for Derek and Karen, do we have the right? Okay, they
proposed seven on site if but if we think the project in general should have including onsite I'll make up a number 32.
Do we have a mechanism or a right to condition it on that? And how do we do it? And I just made up the numbers. >> Understood. Well, let's let's
the applicant's position is that while Mr. Zinder indicates, yeah, he's providing some parking for his employees and it may be at the Avalon Bay garage or could be another garage in town. Um, I believe the applicant would say they
are looking for a variance from all obligation to provide onsite off-site parking, no parking. Um, in terms of if the board were to say, "No, I'm afraid we can't agree with
that." I think we would have to look to our traffic engineer to help us calculate then what is a reasonable amount of parking and if it's going to be provided off site where is that
because I know uh the planning board approval for Avalon Bay and the garage did indicate that the garage could not be used by a develop veloper to satisfy
another developer I mean for their off-site or their required parking and I I I believe that's because the concern was they didn't want to fill up the Avalon Bay garage that there might be
additional demands or requirements. So that was not something that would be available to a developer unless they went to the planning board and said, "No, no, I I I would like to use some of it. Here's why. There's not much demand, etc." So, it's
not that the applicant wouldn't have some relief. Um, it's just that if the board's position is additional parking is needed and since it can't fit on site,
I guess even if you make the building smaller, uh, less square footage, less floor area, I'm not sure where the parking could go. So, this would have to be an off-site requirement that's imposed on the
developer. If it's the Avalon Bay garage, then there's another piece to that, which means the applicant has to go to the planning board and say, "Look, this is what we want to do and this is what uh the zoning board has advised us
uh that they feel is necessary. But in terms of the number, yeah, we we need some calculation for that." And I think we'd have to look to our traffic engineer to uh help the board calculate that.
>> Derek, do you have anything to add on my question? >> You're muted. >> You're muted. >> Sorry. Thank you. Um I mean I part of it common sense, you know. Um, I think
by the nature of the laundromat, people are not going to drive to that laundromat. Um, there may be a few people that do and they'll they'll park at the garage across the street. Um, so that that the laundromat will either work with the parking that is not there
or it won't work and then they'll have to return to this board for some other use. Um, the variances run with the land. I think Josh is, you know, he's given us a good, he could have 20 employees, he could have 20 parking spaces. Um, if the
parking spaces disappear in the the Avalon Bay garage, then they'll have to go somewhere else. And and that could happen. I mean, we can't tell the future. There's plans for the affordable housing project on Franklin Avenue, um, which who knows where their parking will be. Um, then they would be forced to
park downtown, um, and have to walk, which is about a 15minute walk. So variances are tough. It's there is no ability to really create parking on the site or they would have done it already. Um >> right >> and there is no place that I can see
that is really sometimes boards feel better like we used to say oh you can park on the front yard of the guy on Hodge Road who owns the Panera Bread store, you know, and that's just unrealistic. I mean it doesn't happen. It's impossible to enforce. So, I think you have to look at this and take the
totality of all the testimony and and you got to either grant a variance or or not grant it. Um, or you know, the building gets smaller. It's it's that simple. Um, and I think you've heard extensive testimony. Um,
it's just a tough call at the end of the day. It's it's a variance. I don't see any other way. Uh, >> yeah. Yeah, the only way you could ameliorate it is if there was somebody that would deed restrict parking spaces for them that's within 400 ft of the
site and there there aren't any. So, uh it it's a tough call. I wish I could give you more guidance. I'm throwing a lifeline out to Justin if he has anything to offer, but it's just a it's a tough call and uh you know, you have to it's like all these things with the
use variance or all any variants you have a to balance the good with the bad. And at the end of the day, does it tip one way or the other? And I think you have the investment in the neighborhood, you have the uh laundromat, which I think you've heard testimony from. Um
that it'll be hopefully a success. Um the architectural design I find, you know, I like it. Um so the rest of the variances are, as they said, technical in nature. The big one is the F and the parking. um and they're
kind of related. Um so it's a tough call and uh there's no magic bullet, you know, you just have to reach some kind of consensus with the board. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> I guess >> if I could jump in for a minute, I I I
think the design is intriguing. I really kind of like it. I like the way it fits into the neighborhood. I'm very troubled about the parking because I don't not the on-site parking because I think people who park there will figure out how to get in out of those
spots that people do that all over town. The lack of parking is very problematic like Michael said. But I think Derek's also correct. Either we think it's a good project for the neighborhood and the community or we don't. People who
going to have to find places to park are just going to have to find places to park. if we believe that. I happen to have my doctors across the street from him and I usually have appointments in the afternoon and I've never ever not found a spot on the street uh directly
across the late afternoon. So, who knows? But, but I like the project and I think I'm going to support it and I think we we just have to bite the bullet on the parking even though I don't like it. So,
Well, I hear you. You know, my concern and I can say I I did come up with some kind of, you know, pencil methodology on how many spaces should be needed in the
garage. Um, but you know, it's it's real sub it's not real subjective. I think it's a good methodology, but I I come up with with 15 to 18 factoring in his employees
going up to the 20 or so. Um, but that's that's my thought on that. And so much has been made about the garage being the lifeline, the the the the life buoy and and and we should,
you know, part of our approval should be based on the fact that it's there and it's highly, you know, high percentage empty, you know. Um, it then gets to besides what is the number and maybe we
never cross that bridge based on what some people have said, you know, including Derek, and we bite the bullet. Um, but it would be nice to lock it in and cuz once the building's built, the need's
not going to go away. And if it needs 18 in the garage, it's going to need it. That's it. And uh >> it it does seem to me that the that we're that to come up with numbers
could just be a deal breakaker because I don't know where the new parking spaces could be put. And also the main new use is it seems to be people who don't have cars. So
>> the applicant has told you where the parking spaces. will will be found. It's in the garage, >> right? >> We we've been told that over and over again. >> But Eve, you've said that the main use
the board is viewing this as the main use is the laundromat >> and that may be the >> That's not what I said. That's not what I said. The new the main new people coming to it, it seems to me, will be those people who've been who
haven't been coming who haven't been going elsewhere with cars. They've been going there by bike or on foot or with, you know, the the laundromat. They're not going to suddenly start showing up in cars. I think but I I I mean to to
>> I mean I know by the regulation by the ordinances there are supposed to be a a set number of of parking spots but I don't this is kind of a unique this is a different situation. It's also kind of
looking at a area, you know, like the this is not a suburban. This is kind of it seems, if I understand it right, because it's in the zone that it's in. It's it's being uh treated as though it's like a
suburban area rather than a walkable area. So So it's not being um assessed properly in my opinion. we we're trying to meet a standard that doesn't actually need to be met by the probable use. And
of course, we can't any of us predict the future. But I think that um there are a couple of factors here. Number one, the people who are going to be drawn there are the ones who've been going elsewhere on foot or on bicycles,
pulling wagons. They're not going to suddenly start driving there. I think we're very so oriented to everybody having a car that we just keep sort of thinking defaulting to we have to provide space for cars and maybe we'll cut it back a
little bit but we have to provide space for cars. I I I just think we this is a situation where, you know, I could be proven wrong, but it seems to me that there are several variables here that that just would
argue against doing that and just I I I don't I don't think the need's going to be as high as everyone might think or that the ordinance would require. I think Michael's saying there isn't, you know, if you look at the strictly the ordinance requirement of 53
spaces, that's that's not the the true variance number. The variance number may be less. Like George said, the laundromat would probably be like five spaces with a it, but based on the location, it'll be less. And I think
there's an element of truth in that. I mean, I think Josh is a businessman. He's architect. He's been doing this quite a while. He's willing to in invest millions of dollars into this site and it's got to work. So, I mean, I don't
think that his office requires 37 spaces and that's what's in the ordinance as we have it now. So, I think the same with a laundromat, it doesn't require the 10 spaces. They're both going to be kind of affected by the market. Um, I think Josh can manage his
parking. His staff will have to deal with that and that's something he's going to have to deal with. But if you're going to come to that site, I don't think your visitors, how many visitors do you typically have in a week, Josh? >> One, most two. I mean, >> are they groups of people like a, you
know, couple investors or >> more often than not, it might be a couple, you know, who have a house or or one person who's doing a a project. you know, on occasion, maybe once a month, we'll have like three or four people come for a meeting
kind of thing. Um, but often that might be in the evening when nobody else is in the parking lot, too. >> So, I I think as I said earlier, the laundromat's either going to sink or swim based on the neighborhood that you know, those people that use it. If you
have a car, it might be easier to go to the shopping center and park much closer than you can park to that laundromat than you can at at this site. So, I think the board has to just kind of consider all the testimony. We've heard extensive amounts of testimony. We've
we've heard studies and um you know, I don't think it's 57 spaces. There's a variance obviously, but uh I don't think it's that that number. It's probably less than half of that I would I would guess. But >> Steve, are we in a position somebody
could make a motion? >> Once again, >> we've been talking about this for >> So, we agreed to go go through the variances one by one and get them knocked out. >> You're jumping to the end again,
>> Stephen. as as the person who drafts the resolution for your consideration. >> Yes. >> If you don't go through these variances then >> okay that's fine. I asked the question I asked the question are we in a position
to make a motion. Evidently we're not. So let's go through the variances one at a time but >> okay let's do that now. I wanted to have a little discussion first which we've had. Derek let's start going through them.
You're muted, Derek. >> Thank you. Sorry. Um floor area ratio, uh the requirement is 6 and the proposed is 736. Um the existing building is 2515 square ft. Um
the proposed building is 7,213 and that's a DV variance requires five affirmative votes and as we've discussed many times it's not that the site is uniquely suited for the development but that it can handle the added intensity of development
and I think Michael but up parking is they're kind of related. Now >> want to just go through these and then we'll discuss each one when we're about to vote on it. >> Okay. Um >> Okay. The second one >> uh conditional use authorization in
accordance with section 10 T10B287. All the required parking off streetet parking areas shall be located on the same lot as the building which they are intended to serve and shall be readily accessible to it. Where it is impractical to locate all the required
parking areas on the same lot. They may be located in whole or in part on a nearby lot, provided that a conditional use approval is obtained in accordance with the provisions of division 4 of this article, except that a conditional use approval need not be obtained for parking a pertinent to a single family
house. Such parking area shall be located within reasonable distance of and shall afford safe access to the buildings they are intended to serve. No parking area shall be situated as to create a traffic hazard for either pedestrians or vehicles. Legal assurance acceptance to the township attorney and
except for single family homes to the planning board or in this case the zoning board shall be provided by the applicant that the required parking areas will be continuously available as the applicant is proposing the oneoff street parking space to be shared with the adjacent residential lot conditional
use authorization is required um the applicant uh you know should if it's approved they would follow up with the deed and uh the access agreement easement agreement Okay, next >> uh minimum front yard setback. The
requirement is 10 ft. The uh proposed is 7'5 in and that's to a retaining wall that provides access to the front of the building. The retaining wall is greater than 6'6 in height is considered a structure and must meet the setback of the zoning um section. The next one is
10B 246. Maximum building height requirement is 30 ft. Proposed is 31 ft. 10 inches. How the proposed addition matches the roof elevation of the existing building. However, as the proposed addition is located at a slightly lower elevation than the existing building, the average height of
the proposed building is lowered for the purposes of calculating building height. And as such, the height of the existing building prior to construction is calculated at 30t 7 in. So there's a 1T 10 in variance for height. It's not a D
variance. It's just a C variance. Um 10B 307 the required landscaper buffer strip at the back where the parking spaces are. The requirements 50 feet a proposal is 4T along the western lot line where seven exists currently and zero exists
on the southern lot line where no buffer currently exists. Um the next variance is T10B 255.2. Maximum width of a driveway um requirement is 10 feet and the coupling of the two driveways with the adjacent
property owner excuse me creates a lot width of or a driveway width of 23.52 ft and then we have the parking variance uh 10B 282
uh 53 spaces are required per the ordinance and uh seven actual spaces are required but 10 spaces are counted with the EV V charging that's counted twice per municipal land use law. Um the last one is the facade sign. S
signages for basement level businesses are not contemplated in the zoning ordinance and the applicant is proposing an 8 square foot sign for the basement level uh laundromat. >> All right let's uh let's >> sorry there's two design waivers >> wait the the design waivers as well.
>> Yeah. Sorry, I was just getting to that. Uh 10B 203A4 parking space dimensions. Uh requirement is 9 ft by 18 ft. Proposed was 8 by 18 at one parking space. This may change a little bit if
the board agrees with their revised uh didn't you make a few changes to the geometry of the parking widths back there? So that may change um based on their proposed design for the relocated ADA space to improve ingress egress out of that back parking area. Um and the
parking aisle width which would be the area between the edge of the parking stall and the next impediment to getting out of that space is 24 ft and it's proposed here to be 16 and 1/2 ft. Those are the the waiverss. Um
and that's that those are the variances. >> Okay. So let's um let's discuss each one. Do we need Karen? Should we how do we do this? Do we does someone
make a motion and then we go through each of these individually or do we discuss them? And we really need a motion to discuss them, right? >> Since there are different vote
requirements on these and two of these variances require at least five affirmative votes. Um, one way to do this might be to consider the two uh
>> the two variances which are F and the variance for conditional use authorization and then move on to the bulk variances and you could probably do all those you know in one vote as well. Um, but I do have one question before we start with
motions. Um, there are recommendations in Derek Dan Weissman's uh review memo. Uh we have HPC recommendations. There's PEC
memo recommendations. So I'm we it's al also been proposed by the applicant that if they want to change the laundry grant use to another use, they can't do that
without further board approval. Um the applicant has indicated that they will review uh some further uh safety improvements in connection with uh making the
accessibility route uh what should we say understandable and obvious to someone who's in a wheelchair. I'm assuming that has to be reviewed with board staff and professionals. So, they need to sign off on that. So, we've got some other
conditions. So, if someone's going to make a motion, um I'd like to know, are we building that into the motion? >> A couple of other uh just to enter into the record, the applicant didn't state that the lights would be on motion detectors.
>> Correct. I've got that. Yep. I've already made a note of that. Yeah. Then the same section um 10B 3171 requires a minimum illum illuminance of two foot candles for parking lots with low level of activities. The plan indicates the minimum illuminance level is 0.1 ft
candles within the parking lot. The applicant shall revise the parking lot lighting plan to meet this requirement. I don't know if they have an issue with that. Um >> fine. >> No. and the surface water runoff uh per NJ best management practices manual.
Roof runoff that directly discharges into the storage bed for pvious pavement must be penetr pre-treated by leaf screens, first flush diverters or roof washers. The applicant shall update the plans to include this pre-treatment. And along the same lines, they should
offer a storm water management maintenance manual uh for the staff to review. >> No, no objection. And then we get to the retaining wall. Um the 2 foot4 retaining wall. It protrudes
approximately 18 in into the public rightway along Lee Avenue and will abut the existing sidewalk. The construction of this wall within the right of way will require approval from Mercer County. Staff recommends that the wall be relocated within the property to the lot line and that the sidewalk be
widened to meet the proposed wall to improve pedestrian circulation in the rightway. Um, so I think the board needs to think about that. >> You have the same situation on Witherspoon. >> No, no, >> the the
>> I I I thought um >> Excuse me, >> it's Lee Avenue. >> I know, but the slope walkways that whole develop that whole handicap access per se projects out over the property
line. Uh a a slight part of it does I I think. Right. >> Yeah. >> Planter and the uh >> Yeah. >> wall. Yeah. >> Yep. That's all. >> Yeah. Good. Good catch, Steve. >> Sorry, Mr. Degresi. What were you going
to say? >> Oh, no. I I was just asking for clarification like you just did. So, um um my only other comment was I don't know if he said it, but we did say we would enter into an easement with the neighbor. I don't know if >> that would be d-restricted for perpetual
easement. Is that acceptable? >> Yeah, that's what we're >> good. That's what you said. Thank you. Um, and then, um, the only other question I had, Karen, I think it does make sense to talk about the devariances, but I'm not sure if the,
um, the second one is actually a Dvariance. It's conditional use authorization, I don't think it's conditional use um, variance. So Eric, if it's if it's in front of this board, the reason it's in front of this board
is because they cannot meet the conditional use standards. That's why it's >> not how I read it. But if Derek agrees, then that's fine. >> Well, I have to ask. That's that was my understanding. They simply needed it's the planning board that grants
conditional use approvals. However, if the applicant can't can't meet all those standards, then they come to the zoning board for relief. So, I was just thinking the zoning board has the authority to grant it because all the jurisdictions together it's a single
application. So the jurisdiction is because of the F variance, you have a Dvariance and then site plan approval including the ability to grant um the authorization will also be there.
>> Derek, we can't hear you. You're muted. >> Sorry. I I kind of uh thought along the same lines as Christopher that it was here for the F and there was the board of jurisdiction and um the >> that was the way I I looked at it.
>> All right. Well then, um >> I'm not really sure what kind of variance that is. So I guess we'll uh >> I I think >> Yeah, you muted. I don't really know what we would call it. So >> yeah, I think it's just called conditional use authorization to allow
us to utilize that one space on two properties. All right. Well, let's so let's just continue. Okay. So, right. So, we don't know yet what what is the board doing with your comment on
H staff. thinks the wall should be relocated within the property of the lot line. I I thought this had been discussed >> and I thought that >> I thought the board wanted this to line up with everything else on the avenue,
but >> yeah, >> that's correct. This is the one that uh Dan and Dererick's report and mine conflicted, but we discussed uh essentially punting it to council or allowing for it to line up uh now, which is the opposite of what that comment is.
And then if count, you know, they'll need the rightway agreement. >> All right. So, that's that second sentence there comes out then because the board doesn't want that. Okay. And then the pedestrian ramps need approval from municipal council.
Applicant should consider striping along the driveway for pedestrian and cyclist safety to the rear of the lot. >> Testified that they have diagonal access across the parking lot. So it's not
one-sided. I believe goes from the handicap spot around the back of the building then comes across and to the side public sidewalk. And I believe the applicant also agreed to work with our uh traffic consultant
to add enhanced safety measures. And that's kind of similar to that one. Okay. And then we're moving on. So this staff comment proposed moving the ADA space to the southernmost parking space because that would make the shortest
accessible route, but I understand the board has said no, they don't want that. So that condition recommendation is off. Okay. And I think you've discussed the
next comment about the accessible route. It's partially located on the adjacent lot. Applicant has to demonstrate this accessible route on a grading plan. So Derek, they still need a grading plan. Is that correct?
um submit. >> They have a grading plan in there. I would just ask that they uh make sure it complies with the ADA slopes before it's submitted. Um it appears to, but uh that's on page uh
seven of 21, the grading plan that shows a hatched walkway across the the dual driveway. And they they we've already discussed that they need an easement from the adjacent lot owner. >> Mhm.
>> Then the design okay they want a design waiver for the D drive all with applicant will provide turning templates. Has that been done? >> They did that earlier in the meeting. George did uh he showed both examples of what >> Okay. So that's done. So that's no
longer a condition. And then of course any other required approvals I think that would remain and construction cost estimate for anything that's applicable and then
uh HPC has a variety of recommendations not all of which were um accepted by the applicant. So, I don't know what the board's thought is on that. I know Elizabeth went through it
with you. Um, there's the overhang and I'm I'm kind of summarizing what's in HPC at the very end of the memo, but there's one, two, three, four, five, well,
six. I'm not sure that's really a condition. 7 8 and nine. So nine is new util no utility should be underground >> a problem. >> Not with that. No. >> Okay.
>> Your LD LED lighting should be in the warm spectrum. >> I'm sorry. >> Josh, you had a question. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. Um we've had some projects recently that that the utilities PSNG refused to um allow our projects to put the utilities underground. So we would
love them to be underground. Um but but it is a challenge with the utilities. Just want >> So utilities would be underground if uh allowed by a PSG. Correct. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay.
>> Okay. And then we've got this exterior LED lighting. Warm spectrum not greater than 2700K. >> Typically do 300, but we'll look at it in a moment. >> Well, so that's not really a condition. Okay.
Uh, I I think the discussion was had about the Lee Avenue facade and since the board likes the project the way it is, that's I guess not a consideration now.
Um, I think paragraph six is just a comment about the HBC feeling that the lawn was a significant portion of the facade of the house. Um,
same thing again, concerns about the facade on Lee Avenue and that it should be pulled back. But again, since the board is happy with the project, assuming that's out,
same thing with paragraph 4. Again, this is a concern about the view and that there should be an entrance the northeast corner of the building. And I think that again, these are all items that the applicant
doesn't find acceptable and apparently the whites proposes okay with the board. Uh relocation of the front porch stairs. Um I think that's been resolved. I believe I thought Elizabeth commented that
that's been resolved or am I wrong about that? >> The railings were resolved. The the alignment of the front porch stairs was not physically possible >> because of the ADA slope requirements. So, we're able to work and address the comments related to the railing.
>> Okay. but not to the location of um this the the porch the front porch stairwell because of the ramp requirements. >> Okay. And then the upper floor picture windows. This is HBC recommendation
number two. >> Uh >> I think that's like Josh. Did you do the black black trim? We we changed the the trim on the um double home windows from black to to
white. Um >> yeah, >> the uh the upper picture windows um honestly we haven't determined what the color is. I think we have it represented as a a darker color to help it disappear. >> Okay. So the upper picture but but the
the style of the window is is going to remain. So the HPC recommendation about mullions, okay, the board doesn't feel that's necessary. >> And then the uh the whole issue of the
overhang and that it's too aggressive, etc. So again, since the board is happy with the design, that's out. Okay, we've already talked the laundromat. That's a condition. >> We did pull it in. We did pull the roof in a little bit though in in response.
We brought in I think it was 18 in, right? the roof line. So, we did do that >> based on that comment. >> Okay. Okay. And uh I'm going to assume the PEC comments. Yeah, they were read in the record. I didn't hear any response from
the board. So the board want to make that is anything in that that you want to be a condition of approval or >> I would just note that we will we will work with the landscape architect and the arborist to address any issues in there which I mentioned during my
presentation. >> Okay. All right. Well, since since we don't hear any comment from the board, we're going to assume that um they don't feel that those comments are
>> my my view on that is, you know, they they put the comments in writing. Josh, the applicant considered it, the applicant decided he did not want to make those changes. And you know, he
obviously believes in his design and fine. I'm not sure it's up to us to try to force them into a design. >> Not even a variance request. So,
if someone now wants to make a motion since it's the F that requires those five votes, if somebody wants to move approval of the F that we would say no, that >> uh Karen, I had I had two notes that I'm
not sure were covered or not. Um, one we had discussed there was a tree in the northwest corner of the site uh that was just erroneously not included and the applicant said they're going to keep it there. Correct, Josh? >> Right. >> Yeah. And then I had another comment that's not Sorry.
>> Another one that's not really a zoning comment. Um it's but it is an ordinance requirement. Um that single stall bathrooms are labeled as unisex. Obviously that's inside. Um, but just wanted to note that cuz I don't think they were on the plans.
>> No problem. >> Okay. All right. So, if somebody wants to make a motion now uh for approval of the F and I'm going to suggest that since
if that's approved, it will be followed by additional motions for the bulk variances and conditional use authorization. Um that they'll all be subject to the conditions that we've just gone through in some
detail. without reciting them all again. >> And it would include two uh design waiverss and the preliminary and final site plan as well. >> Yeah. But but let's So we've got a motion if somebody wants to make that motion
now. Um but >> nobody make a motion for the F. >> I'll I'll move to approve the F. Um, okay. It's it's uh >> well suited, particularly suited to the proposed use and uh I think it can
support the um increased uh area. >> I'll second it. >> All righty. So, Claudia, do you want to take a roll call so that we know we've got five votes for this? >> Miss Ten, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes.
>> Mr. Floyd, >> yes. >> Mrs. Striber, >> yes. Mr. Tenbo, >> yes. >> Mr. Stein, >> yes. >> Chairman Cohen, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. So then we now need a motion
for the conditional use authorization >> um >> preliminary and final site plan approval the bulk variances which Derek has um gone through and the design waiverss >> uh for the parking space dimensions and
the parking aisle width >> we want to do that as one >> I think so because that that does not require the five um uh affirmative votes unless unless there is a board member that well
>> let's see let's does someone >> let's see if that if that flies if not a board member can indicate why they you know can't vote for that because they've got an issue with some particular bulk variance >> members somebody want to make a motion
Eve you want to make a motion for the group the whole >> you're mute. >> You're muted, by the way. >> Okay. And does someone want to second that? >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Thank you. Claudia, can you call
the role on that? >> Well, first of all, wait, excuse me. Any discussion on that motion? Okay, Claudia, call the role, please. >> Who moved it? >> Eve. >> Eve moved it. And >> Bernice seconded it. Bernie seconded.
Yes, >> Miss Chen. >> Yes, >> Miss Coulson. >> Yes, >> Mr. Floyd. >> Yes, >> Mr. Shrivever. >> Yes, >> Mr. Tenbo. >> Yes, >> Mr. Stein. >> Yes, >> Chairman Cohen. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Now, what do we have? We have the design waiverss. >> We're all done together. >> You're done. >> Okay. that that thank you very much for your time this evening. We really appreciate it. I know it was a long path,
>> but we do really appreciate it. Thank you. >> Okay. You're welcome. It's a nice project. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. We're excited, right, Josh? >> All right. >> Are we really done? I mean, didn't we
have don't we have to vote on the motion for the whole project? >> Well, you've done it, Steve, in two portions here. What do you >> think we The first motion? No, Michael, you're looking like No. >> No, you're right. It's all done. >> It's done.
>> It's It's all done. >> The The first motion was for the FD variance >> with the conditions that we all went through. >> Yeah. And the second one was for all the other relief plus uh the conditions um you know were incorporated in
>> and we voted on all the pieces. Yeah. Yep. Thank you again. Really appreciate it >> everyone. Next week >> message. >> Thank you guys. It's been a rough summer.
>> Yeah. >> Do you want to close the meeting? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> What's next week? What's coming next week, Derek? >> Uh 728 Bun Drive and two uh F variance residential. >> All right.
>> Didn't take more than a month. Okay. Okay. Well, thank you all. We got through it and it's going to be a nice project. >> Okay. >> Really? >> All right. We'll adjourn we'll adjourn the meeting now. >> Great. >> Have a good night. He might then.