Plannng Board

City of Trenton Planning Board Conference and Public Hearing Thursday, May 12, 2022 Via Microsoft Teams or phone: 609-436-9298 The Conference ID is 412 046 968# Members in Attendance: Dan Fatton, Chair Randy Baum Jamie Carpenter Joe Harrison Patricia Ni’ma-Mohammed Charles Romanow Anthony Santora Members Not in Attendance: John McBride, Vice Chair Markus Green Jeff Halpern Wanda Swiggett Staff in Attendance: Jeffrey Wilkerson, Supervising Planner Stephani Register, Principal Planner Tom Hall, Planning Board Attorney Cherry Oakley, Planning Board Secretary PUBLIC HEARING Current Planning Board Membership (as of 5/12/22) Class Term Ending Date Board Member I (Mayor’s Representative) Mayor’s Term Markus Green II (City Employee) 12/31/22 Anthony Santora III (City Council 12/31/22 Joe Harrison Representative) IV (City Resident) 12/31/22 Patricia Ni’ma- Mohammed IV (City Resident) 12/31/23 Randy Baum IV (City Resident) 12/31/25 Jeff Halpern IV (City Resident) 12/31/23 Dan Fatton IV (City Resident) 12/31/25 Jamie Carpenter IV (City Resident) 12/31/22 John McBride ALTERNATES IV (City Resident) 12/31/23 Wanda Swiggett IV (City Resident) 12/31/22 Charles Romanow 1 A quorum was verified and the meeting was called to order at 6:05pm by Mr. Fatton. Approval of the Minutes from 4/28/22 Member Aye Nay Ab-stain Motioned Seconded Dan Fatton, Chair X Jamie Carpenter X Patricia Ni’ma-Mohammed X Charles Romanow X X Anthony Santora X X Mr. Kolber announced that any members of the public who were here tonight to listen to the presentation should consider applying to be part of the Zoning Board of Adjustments by sending a resume and a letter of interest to Ray Bucchi at the City. Several members of the Zoning Board will rotate off in June and new members are needed. case was called at 6:11pm Item #1 Presentation: Trenton Land Development Ordinance In September of 2021, The Division of Planning released a draft of a new Land Development Ordinance for the City of Trenton for public comment. This draft Land Development Ordinance proposes to modernize the City’s zoning regulations and align them with the Trenton250 Master Plan. In order to ensure sufficient time for review, the public comment period was extended to February 28, 2022. This presentation will review the comments that were received about the draft Land Development Ordinance. The Planning Department will discuss potential changes to the draft ordinance. The public will have an opportunity to comment in this meeting. The consultants that managed the overhaul of the LDO were introduced. They introduced the presentation planned for tonight. Ms. Strungys indicated that in the feedback collected there were items outside the purview of the LDO so that info will not be reviewed tonight. Ms. Arista Strungys led the presentation and referencing a PowerPoint she summarized the comments that came in around things such as updating the uses for drive-through uses, community gardens, and things affected by the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). There is an increased range and diversity of housing types, including the increase in the creation of affordable housing. There were comments on the elimination of parking minimums and addressing the transportation demand in the City. There is a section revised to reflect NJ’s requirements to support electric vehicles. References to the Complete Streets checklist and the State requirements specific to riparian buffers. Ms. Strungys also reviewed the kinds of comments that were not included in the summary but the consultants advised are things that should be addressed in the updated LDO such as the overabundant usage of Trenton’s land for storage facilities. 2 Mr. Kolber indicated that he has been in conversation with the owner of the building on Sanhican Drive noted in Section 3 about addressing the property needs noted in the public comments. Regarding the comment about the restriction of vinyl siding, it is related only to multifamily or rowhome housing. Specific to Greenspace Requirements and Civic Space in multifamily buildings there is a specification for how much of that space must be provided and a variety of options for the provision of that space. However, the public comment thought what is proposed is too high. The consultants are looking at how to find a balance between not inhibiting development but providing enough green and community space needed for the City. Green space compared to Open space is to consider the intentionality of the design of that space and having a requirement that the space be open to the public. In specifically considering Open Space, that kind of space does not require public access. There will be a second draft completed once the comments are considered and incorporated into the updating of the current draft of the LDO, therefore there will not be any adoption of a new LDO tonight. The Board indicated that they do not want to lessen the Open space requirement that currently exists and that stormwater management should be considered in the design of this Open Space requirement. The Board indicated that regarding the parking requirements one consideration is to reduce the threshold of when a parking requirement would be required. Currently it indicates 10 units and the Board suggested consider reducing that to a 6-unit development. Mr. Fatton asked if anyone from the public wanted to speak on the presentation: Ms. Caitlin Fair, City Resident, indicated that she would like to reinforce the idea of not eliminating the parking minimum. She noted that she made a public comment related to the area she is related to not eliminating parking minimums but she did not see that comment in the list so she wanted to restate the importance of not causing the area that she lives in to be made worse by the elimination of parking minimums. Additionally, she noted that congruent consideration needs to be applied to the high density housing in that same area where there are single family homes, with some historic homes also positioned there. There is concern about maintaining the fabric of the neighborhood because several homes in the area have been converted to illegal boarding homes and other multi-family homes are poorly maintained. Allowing high density can enable more of these types of homes to develop and negatively impact the fabric of the neighborhood. Christopher Jennette recommended that the consultants provide a review of the map and show how her comment was used to adjust the LDO in her area. Mr. Kolber indicated that ‘high density’ does not mean large high towers as there are height limits to the buildings. RH1 is 40 ft. and RH 2 is 65ft. Best practice across the nation is that City’s position their high density housing near transit stations to take advantage of that City asset. He noted 3 that It will help the City move away from a car culture so that the City returns to what the City is built for; a culture that does not rely on car-centric transportation. The City believes if this does not happen it can be ‘the death of the City’. Ms. Fair indicated that increasing the number of units and discouraging the number of vehicles per unit still increases the number of vehicles in that area overall. The historic standards in that area are not being enforced even with her following up regularly. Additionally, it is possible that the increase in density could force current homeowners out of their homes if the fabric of the neighborhood is negatively altered and the parking becomes untenable. Mr. Joe Bair, owner of a property on Sanhican Drive, indicated that he liked how his property is handled in the draft LDO. He indicated that his property, like other neighbors’ properties, is built on the property line. He is concerned about what would be required to handle that should the change of the LDO makes his home and his neighbors’ homes non- conforming. Ms. Strungys explained that the planned changes might make his property more conforming. Mr. Kolber indicated that any changes govern future use not historic use, thus any existing properties will be able to continue to be used as is; there will not be a requirement to demolish his building on the property. Additionally, the intent of the overhaul of the LDO it is to bring more properties into conformity rather than create even more non-conforming properties. Additionally, if something needs to be rebuilt because of unexpected damage there is a proposed change to the LDO that will allow 12-months for repairs that will restore the damaged building to what it was without requiring it to be torn down. Mr. Dan Brenna, City Resident, asked why there is now a minimum height for a building, which in the draft is now a 90ft. minimum in the area beside Ms. Fair’s area of concern. Ms. Strungys indicated that this is common when are trying to create a high density. Mr. Brenna indicated that in the City it’s financially impossible to build such a tall building and if there is no one to build such a building the property will remain empty and then that expands the vacant lots in Trenton. Ms. Strungys confirmed that this criteria was imported from the TOD plan. Mr. Fatton noted that if a requirement cannot be met there is always an option to ask the Board to consider granting a variance. Plaza and park stands are not on private parcels so there is no way to show them on a Zoning map as they are just ‘rights of way’. CONCERNS • Parking • Housing density • What happens if your property becomes Non-conforming once the LDO is updated. This last concern should be highlighted in the public announcement about the opportunity to provide public comment so it lessens potential panic. Ms. Fair indicated that she just reviewed the standards that are in the area she was expressing concerns about and she is more comfortable with the changes that are proposed upon her secondary review, although her concerns about the parking are still a concern. Mr. Kolber indicated that Cities that have changed their parking requirements, like 4 Trenton is considering, have not regretted it. He noted that the current parking dissuades developers from considering developing in the City because of the parking requirements. The Board is indicating that it’s looking to have case-by-case consideration for what parking will need to be provided and that the threshold for what needs to be provided is high. Trenton has an abundance of parking, however, it is misused. Meeting Adjourned at 7:21pm Cherry Oakley, Planning Board Secretary 5