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.
Roll Call
Chair Wynn, Vice Chair Brodock, Councilor Schlager, Mr. Rooney, Ms. Willis, Ms. Loughman and Mr. Barr were present. Mr. Schwartz arrived at 8:00. Mr. Gilmer and Mr. Ianuale were excused. Board Attorney Robert Muñoz, Board Engineer Thomas Watkinson, Michael Dannemiller from NV5, Gerard Giosa from Level G Associates and Planning Director Janice Talley were also present.
Minutes
None.
2019 Meeting Calendar
A motion to approve the 2019 meeting calendar was made by Chair Wynn, seconded by Vice Chair Brodock and approved unanimously.
Application 2566: 59 Glenridge Avenue, LLC – 59-61 Glenridge Avenue. (Block 4210, Lot 23)
Ms. Talley announced that the applicant has retained a new engineer for this matter and that the public hearing has been carried to the February 25, 2019 Planning Board meeting to provide sufficient time for their new engineer to complete the plans.
Application 2543: Lackawanna SPE, LLC – Lackawanna Plaza. (Block 3213, Lot 2 and Block 4202, Lots 4.01 and 4.02)
Thomas Trautner, Esq. stated that he will present three witnesses this evening.
Bruce Stieve, project architect, clarified that the proposed fast food restaurant comports with the zoning ordinance definition which permits both eat-in and take-out services. He also stated that the fast food restaurant area has been revised so that the front door entrance faces the supermarket parking lot. The brick façade in the previous submission has been replaced with a glass storefront. He also stated that the historic elements on both ends of the terminal platform facing Lackawanna Plaza will be preserved.
Vice Chair Brodock asked if the chimney on the historic waiting room will be preserved. Mr. Stieve said it will be maintained. Vice Chair Brodock asked if the historic wall at the northern end of the terminal platform will block view of the pedestrian passageway. Mr. Stieve responded that it would only partially block the view of the passageway.
David Greenbaum of 91 Lloyd Road asked for details about the length and width of the passageway. Mr. Stieve said it is approximately 12 feet wide and 45 feet long. Mr. Greenbaum asked about the lighting in the passageway. Mr. Stieve responded that it is enclosed by the canopy and will be lit by internal lights. Mr. Greenbaum asked how the passageway will be used. Mr. Stieve responded that the passageway will be used for pedestrian access to the supermarket from the west. Mr. Greenbaum asked if Mr. Stieve approved the location of the horse trough. Mr. Stieve responded that is the location is appropriate because it is a focal point in the plaza. Mr. Greenbaum asked if the horse trough will obstruct sight lines. Mr. Stieve stated that it will not.
Ms. Loughman asked what is behind the dropped ceilings in the mall. Mr. Stieve stated that he does not know as they have not looked behind the ceiling tiles. Chair Wynn stated that in looking at the original plans, this space was mostly open air.
Vice Chair Brodock asked if the back side of the store signs/parapet will be visible from the street. Mr. Stieve stated that they will not. Chair Wynn asked if the proposed roofline at the transition between the historic waiting room and the new storefront is appropriate. Mr. Stieve stated that this transition will be improved.
The public was invited to question Mr. Stieve.
Adam Baker of 38 Christopher Street asked about the location of the HVAC equipment. Mr. Stieve stated that it will be placed on the roof near the middle of the building and hidden by the parapet to reduce its visibility.
Kristen Sokitch of ProPark presented the revised parking management program. He showed how the valet parking plan for the parking lot in front of the medical office building has been revised so that cars will only be parked in designated spots. The plans show where cars will be parked based on various times of year.
Ms. Willis stated that she is concerned about the parking variance and inquired how the valet parking program could be guaranteed. Mr. Trautner stated that the applicant has testified that the valet program is part of the variance and that the Board can make this a condition of approval. Mr. Munoz agreed that the requirement for valet parking will run with the land.
Jane Weaver of 10 Bellaire Drive asked who will be able to use the valet parking. Mr. Sokitch stated that valet parking will be available to anyone who wants to use the service. Ms. Weaver asked how many metered spaces will be lost with this project. The applicant confirmed that two metered spaces will be lost. Ms. Weaver asked if Mr. Sokitch can estimate the ripple effect caused by the loss of free parking on the Lackawanna Plaza parking lot at present. Mr. Sokitch stated that the proposed onsite parking will meet the demand of the proposed uses at Lackawanna Plaza.
David Greenbaum of 91 Lloyd Road asked if the parking variance is conditional and whether it can expire. Mr. Muñoz stated that the parking variance runs with the land. He noted that the parking variance is fact sensitive and it may change if a new use is proposed that has a higher parking requirement. Mr. Greenbaum asked if the variance can be more strictly defined. Chair Wynn stated that if the application is approved conditions will be placed on the approval as needed.
Priscilla Eschelman of 50 Label Street asked if the entrance to the east lot will be used by the valets. Mr. Sokitch stated that the route used by the valets will depend on where they plan to park each car. Mr. Trautner stated that this is addressed in the prior parking management plan. Ms. Eschelman asked for more details about the entrance to the underground parking. Mr. Sokitch showed where the entrance is located on the site plan. Ms. Eschelman asked who is parking in the lot now, noting that she counted 133 cars parked in the lot. Chair Wynn stated that the lot is being used as convenient free parking in the community.
Johanna Coxeter of 165 Lincoln Street asked if Mr. Sokitch could provide examples of valet parking at other office buildings. Mr. Sokitch stated that his firm provides valet parking services at Mountainside Hospital. Ms. Coxeter asked if he has provided valet parking at a supermarket. Mr. Sokitch stated that the valet parking is not necessarily geared towards the supermarket, but is available if needed. Chair Wynn noted that valet parking at supermarkets is provided in other areas of the country.
Councilor Schlager asked about the hours of valet parking. Mr. Sokitch responded that it will be provided between 8 am and 6 pm, Monday through Friday and as-needed based on parking demand.
Cary Heller of 1 Greenwood Avenue asked about the cost for the valet parking. Mr. Sokitch stated that the cost has not been determined. Mr. Heller asked if Mr. Sokitch is familiar with the parking variances granted for the building at 1 Greenwood Avenue and the other buildings in the area. Mr. Sokitch stated that he is not familiar with these variances, but concentrated on the parking management for the subject property. Mr. Heller asked how many cars will be valet parked per day. Mr. Sokitch stated that it depends, but can be up to 75 or 80 cars a day. Mr. Heller asked for examples of valet parking provided by ProPark. Mr. Sokitch responded that he also provides valet parking at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) and Mountainside Hospital.
Kirsten Giardi of Greenwood Avenue asked for details about the percentage of residents who will use cars. Mr. Sokitch stated that the percentages used in the shared parking plan are based on the developer’s experience in other buildings in Montclair. He noted that his firm will police the lots to make sure that there is no illegal parking. Mr. Sokitch noted that he has experience in a mixed-use project in White Plains across the street from a train station where 50 percent of the cars are gone during the day. He added that 130 new spaces will be available with the new parking deck built on Glenridge Avenue.
James Cotter of 21 Cloverhill Place asked if the Township can set the ceiling for the cost of valet services at the lot. Mr. Trautner stated that the Board cannot impose a price ceiling as this is a private enterprise.
The Board took a five-minute break.
Mr. Trautner introduced Sean Moronski, the applicant’s professional planner. Mr. Moronski provided his credentials, was accepted by the Board and sworn in.
Mr. Moronski stated that the application requires two bulk variances including 1) a variance for parking 83 cars in the front yard where no front yard parking is permitted and, 2) a variance to provide only 459 parking spaces when 833 spaces are required.
With respect to variance request (1), Mr. Moronski stated that the parking in the front yard variance is an existing condition, with 90 spaces currently located between the building and Bloomfield Avenue. He noted that the number of parking spaces in the front yard is reduced from 90 to 83 in the proposed site plan, as several parking spaces will be converted to the public plaza. He noted that this variance meets the requirements for both a c(1) hardship variance and a c(2) special reasons variance. He stated that the front yard parking situation meets the requirements for a c(1) variance because this is an exceptional situation applicable only to this site, and is a hardship because the site has frontage on four roads. He stated that the variance meets the requirements for a c(2) variance because it advances the purposes of planning. He stated that it meets the negative criteria because it reduces a nonconforming condition and provides more parking spaces for customers and other retailers. He concluded that the front yard parking variance creates no substantial detriment to the public good.
With respect to variance request (2), Mr. Moronski testified that the variance for the number of parking spaces meets the requirements for a c(2) variance because it advances the following purposes of planning: (a) maximizes the use of an underutilized parking lot; (e) promotes appropriate population density and concentration; (g) provides sufficient space on the site for a variety of uses; and (j) promotes the conservation of historic sites and districts. He stated that the negative criteria are met by the proposed shared parking approach and parking management plan, and that the circulation plan will provide for safe and efficient parking operations. He noted that the site is located in a transit core area and that the application of a suburban parking standard at this location is not appropriate. Mr. Moronski noted that replacing the indoor mall area with parking creates a layout that improves the center’s overall chance for success. He stated that the parking variance creates no substantial detriment to the public good because it proposes improved circulation and protects and improves the historic assets of the site. He noted that less asphalt and more landscaping and open space is proposed with the applicant’s site plan.
Mr. Moronski concluded that the variance creates no substantial detriment to the public good and is consistent with the policies in the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, noting the goals of the Historic Preservation Element are advanced with the protection of many of the historic assets of the site. He referred to page 54 in the Historic Preservation Plan which stated “in 1979, all of the remaining historic structures were demolished, with the exception of the station building.“ He noted that the demolition of the interior of the mall is not removing an important historic structure because the integrity of the platform canopies has been diminished with the previous alterations in the mall design.
Mr. Moronski stated that a waiver is required from the NJ Residential Site Improvement Standards which require parking spaces to be 9 feet by 19 feet and the proposed spaces measure 9 feet by 18 feet. He stated that the 9 feet by 18 feet size is uniform and will have a diminutive impact and still provide for safe circulation.
The public was invited to question Mr. Moronski.
Priscilla Eschelman asked if the project design would be improved if the creek was day lighted. Mr. Moronski stated that daylighting of the culverts would make development of the site impossible and the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance do not compel daylighting for the underground culverts.
David Greenbaum asked where is the station building. Mr. Moronski responded that it is depicted on page 55 of the Historic Preservation Plan Element. Mr. Greenbaum asked if the train shed was an important component of Grand Central Station. Mr. Moronski stated that it is, but that is a very different site that still includes train service.
The public hearing was continued to the next Planning Board meeting on December 17, 2018.
Council Referral of Ordinance 18-045 – Amendment to Hahne’s Redevelopment Plan
The Board referred this to the Redevelopment Subcommittee and will discuss the matter at their meeting on December 17.
Payment of Bills
A motion to pay bills was made by Vice Chair Brodock, seconded by Mr. Rooney and approved unanimously.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 pm.