The applicant’s presentation on the Palmer Square redevelopment project detailed accommodations made for Somerset County road widening requirements. Concerns were raised about the potential traffic congestion and the safety of pedestrians, particularly in relation to the southeast corner and the alignment discrepancy between Mt. Airy Road and Route 202. The traffic engineer’s updated study showed minimal increases in delay. However, the difficulty of certain traffic movements and the necessity for time-of-day restrictions were debated.

A significant portion of the meeting focused on the project’s traffic and delivery plans. Specific attention was given to vehicle speeds on Morristown Road, the frequency and size of delivery trucks, and potential left turn restrictions from Route 202. The board sought clarifications on the traffic model utilized and its consideration of modern delivery methods, such as Uber and pharmaceutical services. The peak hours for traffic count collection were disclosed, with the highest volumes pinpointed within those periods. The applicant displayed willingness to discuss intersection improvements, with stipulations not to encroach on the property or walkway.

Pedestrian safety concerns were at the forefront of the discussions. The placement of the crosswalk in relation to the access driveway was scrutinized, with potential safety features like flashing beacons or motion detection considered. The board also debated the increase in pedestrian volume due to the redevelopment and its impact on traffic flow and safety.

The meeting delved into the potential impact of shifting a building to the east to improve setback and sight lines. Members expressed concern that moving the building could result in higher vehicle speeds and thus pose a risk to pedestrian safety. The need for official confirmation from the Department of Transportation regarding planned RightWay lights and the feasibility of changing the corner radius were also topics of discussion.

The proposed retail commercial building’s impact on traffic was questioned, with board members and the public expressing concerns about vehicle circulation and pedestrian safety. Specific concerns were raised about the dimensions from the building corner to the stop bar and the facade’s impact on traffic. The utilization of internal capture credit and pass-by reduction credit in the traffic impact study was questioned, and the management of emergency vehicle access was discussed.

Architectural plans were dissected in detail, focusing on material choices, including stone and shingle treatments, and the design of awnings. There was also a discussion about the transparency rules for the building, the slope of the driveway and its drainage implications, and the layout of the lower level apartments, especially regarding access and maintenance capabilities.

The board debated the inclusion of den spaces and the necessity of doors in these areas, which could lead to non-compliance with regulations. Fire safety was a concern, with suggestions to install balconies outside windows as areas of refuge and disagreements on the necessity of fire escapes.

The debate on the architectural features and materials, landscaping, and the construction methods, including the lower level and service entries, highlighted the complexities of evaluating the redevelopment’s impact.