Former Cozzoli Machine Company building
A proposal for development on the former Cozzoli Machine Company site contained so many changes Thursday that the Planning Board decided to start fresh with a new hearing in April.Attorney Elnardo Webster II began his presentation on the Crown Real Estate Holdings proposal with a litany of changes: 150 units, not 153 as stated on the agenda; 104, not 110 one-bedroom units and 46, not 43 two-bedroom units; 113, not 110 parking spaces in the basement with more at ground level.
Webster downplayed the changes, but later the board got into a discussion of how many stories were actually proposed if the basement garage and a rooftop community space were counted. When architect Noel Musial mentioned the rooftop element, Planner William Nierstedt said, "Wait a second." Addressing Webster, he said, "If that's correct, it raises a huge question."
Webster said the fifth floor was on the plan that was reviewed, but board Chairman Ron Scott Bey said, "You didn't ask for a five-story building."
In the end, board attorney Michele Donato concluded that the proposal had changed so much that the applicant had to start all over, with a hearing on April 16.
Before the decision to start over, Musial had provided numerous details of the proposal, such as the site being 1,620 feet from the main train station, its proximity to the Plainfield campus of Union County College, the addition of 50 storage units, a community space on the third floor, a laundry room with 20 washers and dryers, a rental range of $900 to $950 for one-bedroom units and $1,200 to $1,250 for two-bedroom units and outdoor decks on the fourth floor.
Two other expert witnesses did not get a chance to testify.
The East Third/Richmond redevelopment tract had previously included many more parcels. In 2006, Plainfield Plaintalker had numerous posts about a prior redevelopment plan by George Capodagli. The plan was fast-tracked early on, but the developer's designation expired in 2007 and in 2008 Capodagli was excused. The Thul family, which had a business in the area since 1919, objected to the plan and later closed all operations. Union County College recently acquired one of the Thul buildings.
The next Planning Board meeting is 7:30 p.m. on April 2 in City Hall Library. Applications scheduled to be heard include one for a vacant three-story office building at the southwest corner of Park & Seventh to be converted to 14 apartments above 6,693 square feet of commercial space on the first floor.
--Bernice
Parking, parking, parking, parking..but it'll slide because the city has no clue or desire to do anything about it.
ReplyDeleteYates Real Estate? Yates is listed as a two employee Real Estate firm with an annual reported sales of $160,000. To be a demolition Contractor you must be licensed,be caopable of producing a Performance and Payment Bond, Bonded, and carry appropriate General Liability and Workman Compensation Insurance naming the City of Plainfield as an additional Insured. The possibility that a small Realty firm could acquire any of these is remote. It suggests that it is the intention of Yates to broker, that is subcontract, the actual performance of the work to a qualified demolition contractor, Maybe? Or perhaps it is their intention to hire a crew from a street corner hiring hall and rent a 6 yard loader?. If the City needs a qualified demolition contractor they can contract one directly thereby avoided Yates margin. . There is a great deal of explaining to do to justify the proposed arrangement. A gentle person might suggest that all this is irregular. A more precipitous person might say this fish smells before it is caught. Bill Kruse
ReplyDeleteHi Bernice,
ReplyDeleteCan you move Bill's comment to your post about the special meeting about demolition?
Thanks,
Tom Kaercher
My only choices with comments are Publish, Delete or Mark as Spam. Maybe Bill can re-send his comment to the right post and ask to have it deleted from the other post.
DeleteHi Bernice,
ReplyDeleteI attended Thursday's meeting and was very impressed with the thoroughness of the Planning Board in reviewing the plans and questioning the developer on this project. I am glad they rescheduled it. The lack of adequate parking, the undersized apartments, and having only 20 washing machines & 20 dryers for over a 150 apartments are big red flags to this building being a long term asset to Plainfield. The developer also mentioned the building would be over 1900 feet, which is almost 4/10 of a mile, into the train station. That seems to stretch the limits of being in walking distance to the station, specially in bad weather.
A new building with with big inherent problems such insufficient parking and undersized apartments should be voted down by the planning board.
Tom Kaercher
We need new businesses and good commercial property for people to have jobs! For developers to come here and want to give us undersized units with not enough parking is just pure greed!
ReplyDelete