Call to Order
Chair Wynn called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm and announced that the meeting has been properly noticed in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act and that the meeting is being recorded and can be viewed on the Township website or on Channel 34.
Roll Call
Chair Wynn, Vice Chair Brodock, Councilor Schlager, Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Rooney, Ms. Willis, Mr. Ianuale, Ms. Loughman and Mr. Gilmer were present. Mr. Ianuale and Mr. Barr were excused. Board Attorney Dennis Galvin, Board Engineer Thomas Watkinson, Board Traffic Engineer Michael Dannemiller from NV5, Board Parking Expert Gerard Giosa from Level G Associates and Planning Director Janice Talley were also present.
Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes from the January 14, 2019 meeting as amended was made by Chair Wynn, seconded by Vice Chair Brodock and approved unanimously.
Resolution Application 2592: Mary and Joel Jeffrey – 115 Cooper Avenue and 118 Bellevue Avenue
A motion to approve the resolution was made by Chair Wynn, seconded by Vice Chair Brodock and approved unanimously.
Application 2543: Lackawanna SPE, LLC – Lackawanna Plaza. (Block 3213, Lot 2 and Block 4202, Lots 4.01 and 4.02)
Councilor Schlager announced that she has a conflict concerning Application 2543 and left the meeting. Mr. Ianuale also left the meeting because of a conflict with Application 2543.
Thomas, Trautner, Esq was present for the applicant. Brian Stolar announced that a lease has been signed with a supermarket tenant and asked that Robert Schmidt from Hampshire, one of the partners of the applicant, make the announcement. Mr. Schmidt stated that he is proud to announce that Lidl, one of the largest grocers in the world with 10,500 stores, will be the supermarket tenant for the project. He stated that Lidl is a new breed of grocery store that delivers high quality goods for reasonable prices. This will be a smaller format grocery store, occupying only 29,000 square feet of space.
Mr. Trautner introduced Nicholas Buckner, a real estate manager with Lidl. Mr. Buckner was sworn in by the Board. He stated that he oversees the northern New Jersey region and that he is excited to come to Montclair. He noted that 80 to 90 percent of the store’s products are private label and that they source most of their products locally.
Board members questioned Mr. Buckner.
A question was asked if the company has adapted historic structures for new stores and Mr. Bruckner responded that they do in Europe but have not done that to date in the United States.
A question was asked if Lidl had considered putting the store in the existing site without removing the platform canopies. Mr. Bruckner responded that the current site plan reflects their needs and they did not consider retaining the platform canopies as they needed the additional parking and better visibility.
A question was asked about the use of the remaining commercial space in the plan since the grocery store is only 29,000 square feet. Mr. Stolar said that the additional space will be used for complementary uses and that having Lidl as an anchor will attract good quality tenants for the remaining retail space. He noted that Lidl will only use two-thirds of the storefront and that other commercial tenants will use the remaining storefront.
A question was asked if Lidl will provide deliveries of groceries to customers or pre-ordering of food for pick up at this store. Mr. Bruckner responded that these services may be part of a longer-term focus as trends change, but it is not something they have developed yet.
The Board discussed the application.
Chair Wynn started the discussion by stating that the two primary issues concerning the application are historic preservation and parking.
On the issue of parking, several Board members were satisfied with the application, noting that the parking arrangement will work based on the testimony provided and that the proposed plan works better in terms of parking than either of the two alternative plans. Other Board members disagreed, noting that the valet parking on the west lot is a problem and valet parking should be limited to the east lot and that the parking is too tight based on the report from the Board’s parking consultant. The safety of pedestrians crossing Glenridge Avenue to the post office was mentioned as a major concern as it will be the main thoroughfare of the valet drivers traveling from the MOB to the East Lot. It was suggested that the medical office building has a large parking requirement and should not be part of this application.
There was much discussion on the issue of historic preservation. One Board member pointed out that there may be another parking plan that preserves the structure, but others stated that the Board’s decision must be based on the evidence that has been provided and that the Board is not tasked with the duty of coming up with another plan. Another Board member noted the platform canopies can be preserved if the parking variance is reduced by eliminating the medical office use on the site. Another Board member pointed out that to have a substantial supermarket, a good-size parking lot is needed.
A Board member stated that the site plan does not represent a significant destruction of historic resources but involves tearing down a portion of something that no one sees. It was pointed out that preservation of the platform canopies was not discussed in the public roundtables for the redevelopment plan; the public talked about preserving the waiting room and the horse trough and preserving the stanchions did not become an issue until 11 months ago. The value of the sheds has been reduced because there are no longer any train tracks and that a compromise is needed.
Other members disagreed, stating that there has been substantial testimony and evidence about the importance of the train tracks and platform canopies. The original historic property should remain intact and that the train platform canopies should be preserved, especially since the train tracks may remain. The Master Plan calls for conserving neighborhood form and character, but this is not accomplished with this site plan.
Several Board members stated their satisfaction with the testimony in support of the c(2) variance for the 9 foot by 18-foot parking spaces and the variance required for parking in the front yard because of the configuration of the property. They agreed that the project will advance the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law. While they did not like the destruction of historic resources, most of the historic resources are being preserved and the original historic nomination report emphasized the building, not the site, and therefore the impact to the walkway canopies is acceptable. The walkway canopies lost much of the historic context in the 1980’s renovation and using the stanchions in the parking lot as light posts is a reasonable compromise.
Another issue raised was that the public should be allowed to use the tunnel under Grove Street to access the supermarket, although it was pointed out that it is important to maintain privacy in residential buildings and safety of the residents is a legitimate consideration as it relates to the tunnel. Another issue mentioned was that the project does not activate Glenridge Avenue or Grove Street.
Mr. Schwartz stated that the public good is not served by taking down an historic building and made a motion to deny the application. The motion was seconded by Ms. Loughman. Ms. Talley called the roll as follows: Chair Wynn – no. Vice Chair Brodock – no. Mr. Schwartz – yes. Ms. Willis – no. Mr. Rooney – no. Ms. Loughman – yes. Mr. Gilmer – no.
The Board took a break at 9:30 and returned at 9:45.
The Board discussed potential conditions for the resolution. A motion to approve the application was made by Chair Wynn. Mr. Galvin read the conditions into the record. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Brodock and Ms. Talley called the roll as follows: Chair Wynn – yes. Vice Chair Brodock – yes. Mr. Schwartz – abstained. Ms. Willis – yes. Mr. Rooney – yes. Ms. Loughman – abstained. Mr. Gilmer – yes. The application was approved.
Other Matters
Ms. Talley announced that discussion of Council Ordinance 09-001 will be carried to the February 25, 2019 Planning Board meeting. A motion to pay bills was made by Vice Chair Brodock, seconded by Chair Wynn and approved unanimously.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:01 pm.