August 7, 2013

Mr. Sutherland discussed the utility plan; he said that the NJ DEP. had approved it. He described the existing conditions; he indicated the Applicant had not contacted the utility company; but had confirmed that utilities were available to the building. Mr. Sutherland said the fire suppression system would meet code requirements. Mr. Russo said there were no hydrants in the vicinity; one was needed. Mr. Sutherland said there were two water mains on Central Avenues. Mr. Sutherland discussed the lighting plan; it would include decorative lighting on Central Avenue, Mitchell Street and the parking lot; there would also be path lighting along the parking lot. He noted the Redevelopment Plan did not have specific requirements; there would be foot-candles for the entire lot. Mr. Sullivan stated that a foot-candle analysis could be included as a condition of approval. Mr. Sutherland discussed the landscaping plan; there would be shade trees along Central Avenue and Mitchell Street; there was not too much room, but the plantings would be where there was enough green space; there would be extensive shrubs (over 1,400), and grass along the West Orange side of the channel. All plantings would be water resistant (folerable); there was a six-feet low flow channel, the idea was to make the area a natural setting; the plan did not include railings. With regard to the parking area, there was not enough room for sidewalks around the perimeter. In response to the Omland memo comment #5, Mr. Sutherland said the mean elevations were 174.75; regarding comments # 6 and #7, Mr. Sullivan said he had spoken to Mr. Glen McCarthy who advised there was an easement. Mr. Sullivan said the Applicant would be responsible; Mr. Russo asked how the City of Orange had addressed the issue; Mr. Sutherland said Orange did not raise the issue. Regarding comments #9, #10 and #11, Mr. Sutherland said there would be revisions to the parking plan but there really was no room for a pedestrian sidewalk in the parking lot. The entrance to the building would be on Central Avenue. Mr. Sutherland said the lack of a sidewalk was common in shopping centers (parking lots); it would not be an issue with the proposal. Regarding comment #12 - treatment of culvert headwalls, Mr. Sutherland said the NJ DEP did not ask for information; the Applicant would comply with the Omland recommendation on Ceniral

h the proposal. Regarding comment #12 - treatment of culvert headwalls, Mr. Sutherland said the NJ DEP did not ask for information; the Applicant would comply with the Omland recommendation on Ceniral Avenue. In response to Omland memo comments #13 and #14, Mr. Sutherland said that Central Avenue was a wide street. The plan was to make a traffic common area for someone to get picked-up or dropped-off; creating easy egress and eastbound entry in to traffic on Central Avenue. In response to question from Mr. Russo, Mr. Sutherland indicated that Central Avenue was a county road and the plan would need county approval. In response to Omland memo comment #15, the retaining walls would be of textured concrete. In response to comment #34, Mr. Sutherland said that the Applicant had considered pedestrian safety along the stream; it was up to the Board to determine if a railing was needed for the three-hundred feet area barrier. The plan was for public access along the stream; benches and trash containers would be installed along the stream walkway. Mr. Sutherland said the Applicant agreed to comply with comments #36 and #37. Referring to Mr. Grygiel’s Planner’s Report dated July 26, 2013 regarding parking, Mr. Sullivan said the plan was a little vague but he believed the Applicant honored the plan by creating additional parking spaces in the Deco garage. WNAPLANNING. BRD\WPMINUTES\204 3\8-7-13 Minutes.doc 7

Mr. Ghebremicael said he was concerned the Applicant would compromise the safety of the tenants by not installing a parking lot walkway; he inquired if a walkway could be installed and still meet the parking requirements. Mr. Sutherland said the plan could be looked at; a walkway might be installed if it did not interfere with the requirements. He said that there would be signage there was additional parking in the garage. Council President McCartney asked about the status of the remediation; with regard to the additionally thirty parking spaces in the Deco structure, how would people know there was additional parking. She said she was also concerned about pedestrian safety; would it be possible to create a paved walkway. She also asked about property maintenance on site with the change to rental units Dr. Bagoff said regarding the parking spaces; the goal of downtown redevelopment was to have spaces for the people who live. in the community to have available parking spaces. The plan was for one-hundred units, with one-hundred parking spaces in West Orange, with an additional thirty spaces in the garage in Orange. He opined that if the goal was to meet additional spaces for the community, then with the proposed plan the goal was not being met because tenants would use the overflow parking. There would be no public parking; people in the community living outside the development must have access to parking spaces. Dr. Bagoff opined that that the Applicant should maintain the waterway area in perpetuity. He said the lighting plan needed to reflect lighting levels; placement of foot-candles, and emergency call boxes; he recommended the West Orange Fire Department review the plan. He asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of the 1,400 shrubs; he stated the retention basin was not a stream, he asked if some sort of safety net could be installed in the case of a child in the area. Regarding the building’s roof, had a light roof been considered for heat island effect. Inquiring about the fence along the new daylighted waterway, Vice Chairman Weston asked if there was a way to provide an edge treatment. Mr. Sutherland said it was a gentle slape. Vice Chairman Weston voiced concern regarding the lack of a sidewalk along the parking area to the street and the front door Mr. Gurland inquired about the parking lot traffic pattern ingress and egress;

Chairman Weston voiced concern regarding the lack of a sidewalk along the parking area to the street and the front door Mr. Gurland inquired about the parking lot traffic pattern ingress and egress; Mr. Sutherland said there would be directional signage for one way in and one way out. Mr. Eben said the zoning ordinance required one tree for every ten parking spaces; he said he was concerned about the flooding along Central Avenue, Mitchell Street and South Jefferson Avenue. He stated the plan should include an emergency phone system. Mr. Sutherland said that opening the culvert would increase the volume, the water would not back up; it would help the area. Chairman Heller said he had many questions about the landscaping plan and architectural plan; he said the architectural plan did not match what was being presented; Mr. Sullivan said the new architect had been retained within the last year. Referring to the architectural Floor Pian Level 1, sheet A1.1, Chairman Heller said the plan being shown showed some sort of barrier; he opined that trees had a tendency to keep people on path. The plan being presented this night did not reflect the same landscaping; the plan needed to be revised; it should include screening along the two properties and he said he would like to see screening along parking spaces one through ten. NAPLANNING. BRD\WPWINUTESI2013\8-7-13 Minutes.doc 8

Mr. Grygiel said he had an answer to Mr. Eben’s question regarding zoning requirements for the number of trees per parking space; as described on Page 21 of the Redevelopment Plan, the plan was not completely clear with regard to landscape design. Mr. Eben opined that he liked trees but if ihe Redevelopment Plan superseded Zoning ordinance, then so be it; Mr. Grygiel asked if the plan should give up parking for trees. Mr. Russo inquired if the Applicant's architect was going to be testifying about solid waste. He stated the plan was for a three-hundred foot blank building with no landscaping; he opined there was an opportunity to break up the straight line of the West Orange portion of the plan. He opined there was more opportunity to provide a better esthetic along the stream on the West Orange side, the Orange side of the stream was more swooping. He was concerned about root issues of the tree plantings, and pedestrian safety along the top of the stream. He said he was not comfortable that the proposed landscaping would provide a long-term deterrent; maybe there could be some sort of intermittent barrier. He said that clearly, the Board had seen two different landscape plans. Mr. Kiein opined that maybe a seat wall could be installed. Mr. Russo inquired what would be an acceptable level of lighting along a three-hundred feet area; the Board could give the Applicant guidance. Council President McCartney opined that for the sake of safety, the area should be very well lit. Harvey Grossman, Esq., Public Advocate inquired if a security plan had been done for the project. He was concerned that anyone could have access to the parking area. Chairman Heller advised that the question was part of Applicant’s testimony. Carolyn Verderamo, 10 Tompkins Street, West Orange, inquired if the Applicant was aware of ihe current parking conditions in the area. She said there were very few houses in the area that had on-site parking and that there was no on-street parking. She was concerned that with thirty-three proposed one-bedroom units, there would be a need for additional parking spaces. She said she was concemed about the graffiti that was currently on the buildings all the way up to the river; she said that if the setback was nine feet, what would deter people from continuing to spray paint the buildings. Lastly, she voiced concern about the flooding in the area;

ll the way up to the river; she said that if the setback was nine feet, what would deter people from continuing to spray paint the buildings. Lastly, she voiced concern about the flooding in the area; what could be done to stop the flooding. Chairman Heller announced a brief recess at 9:43 P.M.; he re-convened the meeting at 9:53 P.M. Stephen Schoch, RA, AIA, Kitchen & Associates, was sworn in, stated his credentials, confirmed he held a valid Certificate of Authorization in the State of New Jersey, and was accepted by the Board to be an expert in architecture. Referring to Exhibit A-3, Mr. Schoch said the aerial photo gave a complete overali view of the project; two new compatible buildings. The proposed plan was similar in style to the Orange portion of the plan. Exhibit A-4 reflected the design and esthetics of the original plan, a style of industrial esthetic that had been successful in New Jersey. There would be a mix of textures including brick veneer and concrete block. Referring to Architectural Plan Sheet A1.1—Mr. Schoch said there was very little ground floor enclosed space. The main entrance was on Central Avenue, access for residents would be by key fob. The ground floor space included a central trash room; trash shoots would be on each floor. Garbage collection would be by private hauler. All building operations would go through the tail end of Central Avenue; there would not be an exterior dumpster enclosure. The ground NAPLANNING. BRDWPAMINUTESI201 3\8-7-13 Minutes. doc

floor would have a common lobby area, management offices and utility area. The building would be fully sprinkled; if necessary, a hydrant would be added at curbside. Referring to Sheet A1.2 — Floor Plan Second Level, Mr. Schoch said it was a simple plan of residential units with the elevator corridor located in the middle. The units would be a mix of one, two and three bedroom apartments. The roof would be light colored, sustainability had been considered in the plan, reflected in the Energy Star Level III. With regard to the parking, Mr. Schoch said under the building was wall-to-wall bay; he opined that a parking lot walkway was not appropriate, but said he would agree to more robust landscaping. Mr. Ghebremicael asked if there would be laundry facilities for the tenants; Mr. Schoch said each apartment would have their own washer/dryer units. Council President McCartney said she appreciated the light colored roof consideration; she inquired if the garbage collection would accommodate recycling. Mr. Schoch said there were several options being considered for recycling. In response to Council President McCartney's question regarding parking, Mr. Schoch said the redevelopment standards for parking when the development is closer to public transportation is to have less cars; he said it was “right-size” parking, defensible design. Dr. Bagoff asked about the security system. Mr. Schoch said there would be key control; camera monitors in the pathway; the underside of the parking area would be well lit and modern. Vice Chairman Weston said the Board encouraged LEED; would it be possible to provide a list of standards sustainable features; he said the elevations did not describe the building materials, and what was the material for the parking along the base. Mr. Schoch said the materials would be approximately fifty-percent brick; there would be metal panels of various colors; at ground level, there would be a brownstone type base. The building would be a mixture of colors and textures. The parking base was a masonry base with open window with industrial open wire fabric. Mr. Weston asked about the parking lighting; Mr. Schoch said the plan included sufficient lighting Mr. Gurland stated that the building materials would be brick, metal panels, and cement panels; the window frames will be metal. On north elevation, the sidewalls would not have windows; there

ghting Mr. Gurland stated that the building materials would be brick, metal panels, and cement panels; the window frames will be metal. On north elevation, the sidewalls would not have windows; there would be rooms without windows. The plan did not include an active gate for the building; the management office would issue have tags or hangers for residents; it would be a private parking lot. He opined that he did not want to vote nay on the Application; but there were many unanswered questions. Mr. Eben asked about the handicap handicapped parking spaces in the lot; how would a handicapped person access the sidewalk. Mr. Schoch said there would be a slant to access the sidewalk. Mr. Eben asked how many bathrooms would be in each unit. Mr. Schoch said there would be one bathroom in the one and two bedroom units; one and one-half baths in the three bedroom units. Mr. Eben asked if there was any consideration to add a second elevator. Mr. Schoch said the elevator would be located in the center of the structure; the length of travel was not an issue. Mr. Klein asked how many bike racks were included in the plan. Mr. Schoch said there were three areas for bike racks that could easily accommodate at least 50 bikes. Mr. Klein asked Mr. Schoch to detail the trash configuration; Mr. Schoch described the details. NAPLANNING. BRD\WP\MINUTES(2013\8-7-13 Minutes.doc 40

Council President McCartney asked about the Applicant's COAH obligation; Mr. Schoch said the unit sizes conformed to code. Dr. Bagoff inquired if the Applicant had considered Tesla sites for electric cars. Mr. Grossman asked if the plan could be revised to show the placement of a security plan; Mr. Schoch said a narrative could be submitted. Mr. Grossman asked if the Applicant had consulted with a security expert; had a security study been done of the surrounding area; Mr. Schoch answered in the negative. Mr. Grossman inquired how the trash would be placed on to Central Avenue; Mr. Schoch explained how the pick-up would occur; it would be picked up at least twice a week or more if necessary. Trash would not be left overnight on Central Avenue. Joseph Alpert, Principal, Valley Road Residential, LLC, was sworn in. Mr. Alpert advised the Board his company took over the site in 2008 but due to the subsequent downturn in the economy, the project was put on hold. The company was currently attempting to take advantage of Hurricane Sandy monies the NJ HMFA to fund the project. The deadline for the application was the end of August. Sean F. Moronski, PP, AICP, Burgis Associates, Inc. was sworn in, stated his credentials and accepted to be an expert in planning. Mr. Moronski advised the Board there was one deviation from the plan that was the side yard setback. Referring to Sheet A1.1, he said the ordinance required that upper floors be set back a minimum of four feet from the property line. The plan indicated that along the westerly side of the building for approximately sixty-five feet from Mitchell Street, the upper floors would be at the property line. He opined there was more than suffice space and it complimented the redevelopment on the Orange side of the project. He opined there was no negative criteria; the project would provide new housing, clean up the area and provide transit oriented development. Mr. Klein asked if the building was set back four feet, would it be a negative impact; Mr. Moronski said it would negatively impact; it would shift the building. Mr. Klein asked if in his opinion as a planner, did Mr. Moronski believe traffic routes would be affected; Mr. Moronski answered in the negative. Brian Dempsey, PE, TRC Engineers, Inc., was sworn in, stated his credentials, and accepted by the Board to be an expert in traffic engineering.

uld be affected; Mr. Moronski answered in the negative. Brian Dempsey, PE, TRC Engineers, Inc., was sworn in, stated his credentials, and accepted by the Board to be an expert in traffic engineering. Referring to his Traffic Impact Study dated July 26, 2013, he said the study concluded that the project would have no impact on area traffic; it would not lower the Level of Service of the adjoining streets or intersections. Mr. Russo requested that the traffic comments from the Omland Review letter dated August 1, 2013 be addressed; Mr. Dempsey said he would address the memo. There were no questions from the Board, the Public Advocate or the Public. Conditions: 1. The Applicant shall comply with ali applicable Township, County, State and Federal laws, ordinances, regulations and directives, including without limitation, obtaining all applicable local, state and federal approvals and/or permits. Without limitation of the foregoing, prior to the signing of the approved site plans, and prior to the commencement of any land disturbance or construction, the Applicant NAPLANNING. BRD\WPAMINUTES\2013\8-7-13 Minutes.doc 11