Call to Order
Chair Wynn called the meeting to order at 7:40 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.
Chair Wynn made opening remarks that emphasized the quasi-judicial role of the Planning Board when it came to reviewing applications. He stated that it is important to follow procedures to ensure the integrity of the Board’s decision-making process. He stated that the applicant is entitled to present his witnesses and that the Board and the public will have an opportunity to ask questions of each witness. Comments on the application are only to be made once the applicant’s presentation is complete. Chair Wynn emphasized that it is important that questions and comments are concise, and that each person will have three minutes to ask his or her questions of each witness and provide comments at the end of the hearing. Finally, any objectors to the application will have an opportunity to make a presentation after the applicant’s case is completed.
Roll Call
Chair Wynn, Vice Chair Brodock, Councilor Schlager, Mr. Schwartz, Ms. Willis, Mr. Rooney, Ms. Loughman and Mr. Barr were present. Mr. Brandon, Mr. Gilmer and Mr. Ianuale were excused. Board Attorney Andrew Ball, Board Engineer Thomas Watkinson, Board Architect Barton Ross, Joseph Fishinger from NV5, Gerard Giosa from Level G Associates and Planning Director Janice Talley were also present. Board Attorney Dennis Galvin arrived at 8:45.
Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes from the August 27, 2018 meeting was made by Ms. Loughman, seconded by Chair Wynn and approved unanimously with Vice Chair Brodock and Mr. Barr abstaining.
Application 2543: Lackawanna SPE, LLC – Lackawanna Plaza. (Block 3213, Lot 2 and Block 4202, Lots 4.01 and 4.02)
The applicant was represented by Thomas Trautner, Esq. who stated that he planned to present three witnesses this evening to present changes to the site plan followed by traffic and parking testimony.
Kevin Webb, the civil engineer for the project, stated that there are substantive changes to the plan that will be submitted at the next meeting. He stated that the Grove Street driveway has been widened by 9 feet to provide a dedicated left turn lane and that this change resulted in the loss of one parking space. He stated that the applicant has explored the options for a pedestrian connection from Grove Street and proposes to install a 65-foot ramp from Grove Street along the driveway.
Mr. Webb presented Exhibit A-34 which illustrated the truck turning movements at the Glenridge Avenue entrance. He stated that the location of the loading areas has not changed and that there is 135 feet from the loading dock to the property line, which is an appropriate area for truck maneuvering. The island on Glenridge Avenue has been enlarged by 15 feet and a screening wall has been added which, along with landscaping, will screen much of the loading area from the road. The screening wall is 45 to 48 feet long and the trucks are 53 feet long, so the rear part of the trucks will be visible.
Mr. Webb stated that the colored asphalt in the parking lot has been removed because of safety concerns. He stated that since the concrete canopies are less than 14 feet high, they cannot be in the parking lot because of fire safety concerns per the letter from Fire Official John Thomas.
Mr. Webb stated that he is working to locate the culverts and that the site utility subcontract will provide these details using video inspection, ground penetrating radar and test pits.
Mr. Webb stated that the applicant proposes to install the lights on the columns which will result in compliant lighting levels.
Mr. Trautner asked about the frequency of deliveries for the intended tenant. Mr. Webb responded that generally, 10 tractor trailer trucks per day are anticipated plus 5 or 6 box trucks. He stated that the tenant manager will coordinate parking and loading timing, which generally occur during normal business hours but could happen any time.
Ms. Loughman asked if there will be reserved parking for customers who are picking up orders. Mr. Webb stated that this will be decided by the tenant.
Mr. Trautner asked about management of the shopping carts. Mr. Webb responded that the tenant will have mechanisms on the shopping carts so that they cannot go beyond the property. Mr. Trautner asked about security in the pedestrian tunnel. Mr. Webb stated that access will be provided by fobs.
Mr. Schwartz asked if the roof scenario can be adapted with decorative metal that meets the 14-foot height requirements and creates a shed like feel. Mr. Webb responded that this may be considered.
Chair Wynn asked about the easement language in the rear of the property. Mr. Trautner stated that it allows vehicles to cross the property line but noted that the proposed loading docks are 30 feet farther from the property line than at present. Chair Wynn asked about the height of the screening wall. Mr. Webb stated that the height has not yet been determined.
The public was invited to question Mr. Webb.
Frank Rubacky of 398 Upper Mountain Avenue stated that the ramp is a good addition, but he is concerned about the length of the crosswalk which is 37 feet wide. Mr. Webb stated that this is not unusual. Mr. Rubacky asked if the circulation efficiency for the movement of cars in the parking lot is the safest pattern for pedestrians since the busiest area for pedestrians is at the front of the store. Mr. Webb stated that this design is safe for pedestrians. Mr. Rubacky stated that he is confused about the 14-foot height limitation. Chair Wynn stated that he wants to see the regulation cited by the Fire Official.
Frank Godlewski of Essex Fells stated that probes are not necessary to determine underground culverts and utilities because there are 660 drawings in Scranton that depict the historic development of the site. Vice Chair Brodock stated that these drawings would not accurately depict existing conditions.
Cary Heller of 1 Greenwood Avenue stated that he has not had an opportunity to review the truck maneuvering drawings. Mr. Webb stated that they will be available for review before the next meeting. Mr. Heller asked how the other two loading docks will work. Chair Wynn stated that there are no changes proposed to the two existing loading docks, but that the applicant should show all truck movements in the plan. Mr. Heller stated that the easement language limits the use of the area to maneuvering and that no loading or parking is permitted in the easement. Mr. Trautner stated that he will review the easement language.
Mr. Heller asked about the snow removal plan. Mr. Webb stated that snow will be pushed to the nose of the driveway. Mr. Heller asked why not remove the snow off-site. Mr. Webb stated that this is a management decision. Mr. Heller asked about the length of time trucks will be parked at the loading docks. Mr. Webb stated that this is an operator issue. Mr. Heller asked if the applicant will reinforce the asphalt in the easement area. Mr. Webb responded that the applicant will evaluate the asphalt. Mr. Heller asked how the sidewalk at the driveway entrance will be identified. Mr. Webb responded that the concrete apron will be striped as a crosswalk. Mr. Heller asked if an island can be installed at this location. Chair Wynn responded that this is not a street and that there is not enough vehicle activity to require an island. Mr. Heller asked if the applicant has considered how trucks will be stopped from entering his parking deck. Mr. Webb stated that the applicant will install headache bars to stop trucks from entering the deck.
Priscilla Eschelman of 50 Label Street asked if Mr. Webb is familiar with the walk score at this location. Mr. Webb stated that he is not. Ms. Eschelman stated that it is 95/100, which translates into a walker’s paradise. She asked what the safest way for a pedestrian is to access the site. Mr. Webb stated that the applicant is enhancing pedestrian access to the site with many new improvements. Ms. Eschelman asked if entrances at two sides would improve walkability.
Britney DeMaio of 16 Seymour Street asked how the project will improve pedestrian mobility. Mr. Webb stated that the project is not taking away any pedestrian pathways and is adding new pathways including the stairs, a ramp and an alleyway.
James Cotter of 21 Cloverhill Place asked if the new entrance on Grove Street has received County approval. Mr. Webb stated that it is under review by the County.
Kathleen Bennett asked for information about the pedestrian tunnel. Mr. Trautner stated that this was addressed at the last meeting and that the recorded map grants the property owner the rights of the tunnel.
Laura Wilan of Glenridge Avenue asked if public parking spaces will be lost with this design. Mr. Webb stated that the application increases the number of public parking spaces from what is there today.
Mr. Trautner asked if the amount of loading activity associated with the stores will be decreased. Mr. Webb said it will decrease as there will be less retail at the site.
The Board took a 5-minute break.
Mr. Trautner introduced Dan Desario, a traffic expert from Langan Engineering. Mr. Desario reviewed his credentials, was accepted by the Board and sworn in. Mr. Desario stated that his goal is to arrive at a parking supply that is right-sized, and the applicant does not want parking demand to spill over the site. He noted that trends are changing in transportation, with car ownership dropping as alternatives such as car sharing and ride sharing reducing the demand for parking. He stated that the applicant is seeking a parking variance for 360 parking spaces. He noted that the Board is familiar with shared parking and the Montclair Township Master Plan identifies this site as part of a transit-oriented development area that is within walking distance to the Bay Street train station.
Mr. Desario presented his shared parking analysis, noting that it is based on the peak parking time in December during the holiday shopping season. His analysis assumed that 10% of the medical office employees, 25% of the retail employees, 20% of the retail customers and 30% of the residents will not have cars. His shared parking analysis shows that a total of 434 parking spaces are needed for the project and it assumes that all employees park on the east parcel. He noted that there is a deficit of 17 parking spaces on the west parcel and the applicant proposes to provide attendant assisted parking for the medical office use.
Mr. Schwartz asked why the size of the supermarket has been increased if a major parking variance is required. Mr. Desario responded that more people are not using their cars and that transit village project have a 30 percent decrease in parking demand according to NJ Transit data.
Mr. Kristin Sokich, the applicant’s parking management expert, was introduced and sworn in. Mr. Sokich stated that attendant assist parking is not fully valet parking and that the first set of drivers self-park. Once the parking lot is maximized, valets park the cars in the aisles and elsewhere. He noted that there are 30 self-park spaces near the medical office building and that a parking attendant will be present from 8 am to 6 pm 6 days per week. He stated that with attendant assist parking, an additional 21 vehicles can be parked in the aisles.
Ms. Loughman asked how the tenant or owner will know that employees are parking in the correct location. Mr. Sokich responded that decals and license plates will be monitored.
Gerard Giosa, the Board’s parking consultant, stated that there is a saturation issue with parking in the west parcel. He noted that demand is higher than supply. Mr. Sokich stated that the attendant assist parking can be expanded as needed.
Joseph Fishinger, the Board’s traffic consultant, asked if any on street parking spaces will be lost or moved. Mr. Desario stated that his report does not account for any loss in on street parking. Mr. Fishinger noted that cars are parking on the vacant lot at present and asked where these cars will go once the site is developed. Mr. Desario stated that it is not incumbent on the applicant to address illegal parking. Mr. Fishinger asked how illegal parking will be managed in the future. Mr. Desario responded that it will be managed.
Frank Rubacky asked if non-captive demand was included in the analysis. Mr. Desario responded that it is captured.
John Reimnitz of 189 Highland Avenue asked if the applicant can get away with less parking. Mr. Desario responded no.
Councilor Schlager asked if there are visitor spots at the residential building. Mr. Desario responded that there are no designated spots in the building, but visitors will be able to park in the outdoor parking area. He noted that there will be a mechanism to manage visitor parking.
HPC Chair Kathleen Bennett stated that she had called a meeting to discuss the details of the alternative site plan prepared by John Reimnitz and David Greenbaum. She noted that the HPC endorses the alternative plan and indicates its support in their revised report to the Planning Board. In summary, the HPC is concerned about the size of the parking lot. She stated that they would like to make a 30-minute presentation to the Board on their plan.
Board Attorney Dennis Galvin cautioned the HPC that offering a materially different alternative to the developer is shifting their role from helpful in design to objector. Chair Wynn suggested that if the HPC determine if they want to offer their recommendation as either a design recommendation or objector to the plan.
The public hearing was continued to a special Planning Board meeting on October 22.
Payment of Bills
A motion to pay bills was made by Vice Chair Brodock, seconded by Councilor Schlager and approved unanimously.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 pm.