July 2, 2014

trucks, a limousine service, and a number of other people used it for parking both related to Karl’s and the gymnasium to the rear. He said the plan was to place a retail building to cover approximately 19% of the property; the proposed impervious coverage was 78%. He opined it was a tough retail area; he described the current uses including the church to the north and west around Main Street, Karl’s to the east, and the buildings across Main Street; he said it was not a heavily retail environment. He opined that AutoZone had expertise in finding sites; they knew their business. He discussed Mr. Grygiel’s list of variances. He said that the variance for the freestanding sign was eliminated. The Applicant was proposing impervious coverage of 78%; the west side yard had 16.4 feet; 75 feet was required when the property abutted a residential zone; the church was a historic structure in a residential zone. He opined the church was not likely to be used or torn down to be converted into a residential use; there was a 7- ft. buffer; a 20-ft. buffer was required. He said the revised plan included landscaping on the top of the retaining wall. He said the unusual shape of the property made the parking area difficult to conform, the parking isle would functionally have a 24-feet backup distance, there was an arrangement for a cross easement with the adjacent property. The Applicant was requesting a waiver for the environmental impact study because the property was already substantially impervious in coverage. The manmade steep slope would be disturbed; a portion of the concrete retaining wall would be removed. The proposed building signage required a variance for the height of the letters; because the building was set back, the Applicant wanted signage on each side. Mr. Steck opined the Applicant would be a good addition to the area that was not a strong retail area. He opined that to confine all zoning standards to the property, it would probably be unbuildable. He stated the Application could be approved without substantial detriment to the public good, the zone plan and Zoning Ordinance. The eastern portion of the property was already asphalt; it shared parking with the building to the east, both properties would operate better with a parking area with cross-fertilization. He opined the plan strengthened the goals of the Master Plan; the property had been vacant

the building to the east, both properties would operate better with a parking area with cross-fertilization. He opined the plan strengthened the goals of the Master Plan; the property had been vacant for a number of years, it would bring a national retailer to the Main Street corridor. Vice Chairman Weston inquired if Mr. Steck was aware of St. Mark’s Church historic significance; if from a planning standpoint; the historic structure was to be considered when developing the surrounding property; and if he thought it would be good planning to have a buffer from a significant historic site to a franchised commercial or retail building. Mr. Steck said the Township Master Pian and Zoning Ordinance identified the church as a historic structure; West Orange had not designated the surrounding area a historic corridor; he opined the proposed landscaping was good. Vice Chairman Weston asked if Mr. Steck thought AutoZone was a better use for the community than one (business) that was less intensive; Mr. Steck said the area was currenily blank; the new retailer would organize the site, there would be formalized parking areas; he opined that a new building would show an investment in the area. Vice Chairman Weston stated there were pedestrian oriented retail spaces along Main Street; he inquired why the applicant’s site was a difficult pedestrian area; why was it better to have the parking lot in front; would it be better if the building was smaller and parking lot arranged differently. Mr. Steck said the site was not located in a strip of retail areas, and the applicant’s business was car oriented; the building was 19% of the coverage, where 60% was permitted by Code; he said the problem was the irregular shape of the lot. Vice Chairman Weston asked why would the freestanding sign be a benefit to the gateway of the Township, next to a historic property. Mr. Steck said the signage would look to be 100% confirming in square footage; the freestanding sign would be visible on Main Street in Orange; the building signage was integrated into the architecture of a strong national retailer. Dr. Bagoff inquired if the Applicant would consider deviating fram recognized AutoZone signage to conform to a better downtown look; Mr. Steck said he was not in a position to negotiate the signage. 10 7-2-14 Minutes Approved