April 7, 2021 Adopted Planning Board Minutes

n approval with variances DISCUSSION: -Mr. William Sullivan, Esq. entered on the record for the Applicant. He explained that all of these lots in question are currently owned by the Township of West Orange and located in the Central Avenue redevelopment area which is subject to an agreement executed between the Township

and the Applicant. Mr. Alpert and his company have been trying to get this development up and running for thirteen (13) years. After all improvements made, they are now ready to move on to the next phase to construct 94 apartments in a five story building with some first floor commercial and amenity space. Applicants need to comply with the Redevelopment Plan or seek relief from the Board. The applicant is seeking for approval in regards to four deviations from the plan. Building height minimum unit size for some of the building units, non-building area, and minimum landscape buffer in one small area next to a residential use. -Mr. Sean Savage was sworn in by Mr. McPherson and entered on the record. He qualified himself as an expert and was accepted. Mr. Savage then proceeded to explain/discuss the existing conditions to the proposed new site development. First, he brought up plans dated February 23, 2021 (Sheet 3 of 15) (Exhibit A1). He reiterated that the applicant is looking to add 94 residential units in the “L” shape of building. There is also approximately 3,500 square feet of commercial space which will be fronting on Central Avenue. -Mr. Savage touched on parking with full access in and out from Central Avenue and Mitchell Street. The parking area proposed is 103 spaces. There was a comment in review about a miscalculation and the intention is to revise the plan and get it to the 133 spaces that was mentioned on the site plans. In addition to the 94 units, the requirement for the parking is one space per unit and they are also providing 22 spaces designated for public parking with another 17 spaces for a second project that will be utilized by a second project located on Tompkins Street (near Mitchell Street entrance). - Mr. Savage then showed “Truck Turning Plans” which were not submitted as part of the submission package and dated February 16, 2021(Exhibit 2). This explained a turning and coming down Central Avenue entering the site and circulating through the parking lot along where the building would be and then back out to Mitchell Street to demonstrate that this vehicle can make those turns. - Mr. Savage proposed sidewalks along Central Avenue that would lead up to the residential spaces and doors leading to the commercial portions of the building and another walkway in regards to the trash enclosure. He then went on to explain about the

ue that would lead up to the residential spaces and doors leading to the commercial portions of the building and another walkway in regards to the trash enclosure. He then went on to explain about the trash compactor room and how a container will be wheeled out towards the curb line then be picked up, so no garbage trucks are anticipated in that area. They also propose some bike parking as a part of the Central Avenue area, - Mr, Savage also referenced the Grading Plan of the submitted Site Plan- Sheet 4 of 15 (Exhibit A3) that this site is in a flood zone and elevation varies as it goes towards Central Avenue. So site and stream that are heading towards the East, creates a fluvial flood site condition and Applicant has to comply with the requirements according to the DEP. In order to do that they need to be careful with how they grade this site can’t elevate it too much because they have to balance that. In order to accommodate flood like conditions in the South East are of the Site Plan is going to be open so flood waters can flow freely to compensate flood elevation. All residential areas had to be elevated as well to work with the flood like elevation requirements. All commercial areas are below the flood line area but are going to be completely treated so no damage can come their way on the other side of the building. The flood line follows the property line and runs on the edge of the site. According to the DEP because of it being residential, can be more than 1 foot below the elevation, although most of the parking is close to or even in areas below the flood line elevation. DEP permits have been submitted. Proposed drainage system utilizing onsite pipes in the basin. Pipes are acting an underground storage sewage system and are being treated like a detention system. In regards to the storm water, because of the site they don’t trigger or feel need to address water quality. Site is contaminated and under remediation and is not a site for recharge to the contamination and the information received from the DEP through the soil as well. Site will also be capped part of building, pavement, soil in regards to Green Infrastructure. Mr. Sullivan brought up the bicycle rack and added that they will be adding an electric charging station as

well. Mr. Savage confirmed that this will take place off the electrical room but having it be “electric vehicle ready”. Meaning the tenant requires the space/supplier to be available and installed. - Mr. Sullivan then brought up lighting and landscape (Exhibit A4) Landscape Plan (Sheet 8 of 15) where they are planting trees where they can on the side and in the front closer to the building. There are also a number of shrubs (of evergreen variety) to block headlights. In regards to the buffer, instead of five (5) feet in the variance, this design shows/requires them to use four (4) feet. The absence of that one foot does not change the effectiveness of the screen as the parking spaces intended will be sideways instead of longways. - Mr. Savage then entered Exhibit AS (Sheet 9 of 15) in regards to the Lighting Plan. Where different methods of the lighting are shown in the design of wattage and how they are displayed (ie: pole mounted, wall mounted, and in the different designs and patterns.) basically just a little shield that comes down behind that that light fixture to just even further direct that light back onto the site so the light spilled would be negligible to nonexistent here you know those ever those plantings here that will start growing obviously and so the lighting and then there's a number of existing lights out here along those streets that show isolated patterns just to kind of show that you know these frontages are also live by these existing public lights and then it'll be some other lights that we don't show in our plans and would refer to architectural lighting near the entrances and things like that that will provide more light for the entrances. Mr. Savage brought updirectional in terms of light versus metal lights but then in addition these lights are going to have house shields which basically cut off the flight data that would shine back behind that that light fixture to just even further direct that light back onto the site so the lights village here we would think it be negligible to nonexistent here and then there's also plantings that will start growing obviously and there's a number of existing lights along those streets that that we just kind of show those isolates patterns just to kind of show that you know these frontages are also live by these existing public lights and then they'll be some other lights that don't share

hat we just kind of show those isolates patterns just to kind of show that you know these frontages are also live by these existing public lights and then they'll be some other lights that don't share plans and referred to Architectural lighting near the entrances and things like that that will provide more light for the entrances locations. -Mr. Parisi mentioned the deviation to the landscape and Mr. Savage followed up his prompt by expanding 20% non-buildable area for site we have 14.3% before that and so given this site currently has the one of the buildings along lot 32 that is still existing. Then there was the larger building that took up a lot of Lot 36 which has a lot of pavement -Mr. Sullivan explained to the Board in regard to Mr. Hess’ letter beginning on Page 3 where the comments begin item at item 20 where they were not aware of any deed restrictions or covenants 21 is related to the parking that we were just talking about this is the subject of the development agreement by the Township we understand that there's going to be some kind of agreement between us in the challenger whether it's a lease or easement or something for the area that is going to be stage in restaurant we have not yet completed that agreement or figured out exactly what term is going to be but they’re working with Mr. Trenk’s office that in item 52 compliance with the coordinates is certainly you could make that a conditional approval will compare those item number 2 sustainability checklist with an indirect reference to the project of Tompkins St which is going to come before you that is a big project of 17 affordable apartments that is the same application but related and connected and checklist for this application and wasn't aware until it got to that. Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. McPherson to make note of all this. Mr. Savage continued his list Number #3 in discussing the traffic circulation plan where there are no freestanding signs and the architect is going to address the wall sign issue. -When went to the Site Plan Review Advisory Board, no one at that point said Traffic Study was needed. Mr. Savage continued his list number 10 we just discussed turning templates 11 to 12 related to flood hazard which we discussed 13 comply.

- Mr. Savage then explained 14 the basewall that will be separating between the transformer and the generator and they will double check whether or not that absolutely is required it is required based upon the proximity items but that'll be double check but then the purposes is related to the proximity to the transformer and jet thank you 15 and 16 can comply. -Chairman Bagoff said, as it pertains to 17 to show the radius is row not asking for this to be curved or what the radius then brought it back to the movement plan and asked to identify on the plan the truck that show #18 is an architecture issue although Mr. Savage did discuss the trash collection and movement but comply with all of the drainage comments so we have no issues Mr. Hess went through letter and commented on the representations made for the Board. Mr. Hess mentioned that he would work with Mr. Savage to work on any details that might be required and in regard to the trash he asked for clarification from Mr. Savage that the trash is going out to the street and said the Architect addressed this but showed room and where it would internally be brought into this would be compacted and then the containers of that compact it would be then rolled out by a private carrier PROFESSIONAL QUESTIONS: -Ms. Spach Trachan's only question was related to the bike parking and wondering if it could be moved inside to improve the design but Mr. Savage testified that the architect would cover that BOARD QUESTIONS: -Mr. Jerry Guarino brought up that the flood and sewerage pipes the existing pipes that Mr. Savage said the out flow that will be going into those pipes and clarified that those pipes are not existing pipes those pipes are the ones that are showing runoff rates then a Drainage Report was submitted that shows the pre imposed runoff rates to basically with this site there's flow towards Mitchell so that the existing verse the proposal is all analyzed within Storm Water Report. we're talking about the existing site analyzing this which is you know the remnants of the old the building that was torn down and the parking so the actual impervious coverage when he looked at the existing or the pre-existing versus now there's only a.06 acre increase it's a very negligible increase in impervious and then just based on this system we're minimizing or were producing those rates of runoff from the site. -

g versus now there's only a.06 acre increase it's a very negligible increase in impervious and then just based on this system we're minimizing or were producing those rates of runoff from the site. - Mr. Guarino asked in regards to the architectural view in the area of the building that goes off to the parking lot that it's attached to the building or their fire lanes or no parking lanes that if att emergency vehicle had to come. Mr. Savage said they can actually come right up to the building. - Mr. Guarino stated that his real concern is to understand about the fire rate equipment, first aid, and medical personnel getting close to the building. Mr. Savage responded that in the rear those personnel would be able to pull up at the big curve right in the main entrance from the rear of the property and obviously a front pull up on the main entrance. - Councilwoman Susan McCartney thanked Mr. Sullivan for Mr. Savage for explaining the non- building area when he was describing the flood hazard which relates to her question about the status of the East Branch of the Rahway River Stream in regards to if there is anything else that has to get done as she is anxious to work with the Master Gardeners on that those banks is there anything else that has to be done to the street Mr. Sullivan said there's nothing related to this project that effected the stream and I'm aware of that you have that interest and I believe that you have spoken to Mr. Joe Alpert about that and other than whatever you know sort of very routine permitting that you might need to do that we would sure that Mr. Trenk could talk about there's nothing that we would support it because it's consistent with our original idea 10 years ago when they wanted that stream to be an asset to the neighborhood She then went on to say that she appreciates the charging station there and quite grand indoor and landscaping space your buffer

needs to be 5 feet are impressively 5 feet where we have 4 what will that be filled with Mr. Savage explained that it's a mixed up Chestnut Hill shrub and then the other one was this inquiry that's the two types of Japanese Plum Hu so there's kind of a mix to give a little. -Councilwoman McCartney said there is no trees shade in that parking area but does that have more to do with mediation that exists? Mr. Savage responded that with the amount of parking providing the additional public spaces is 17 for the other site that was mentioned you know we kind of places to put islands in that sense put them where we could near the parking but wasn't driven based upon the environmental aspects. - Councilwoman McCartney asked about the 194 the unit public spaces and will there be residential because parking is so limited there or would there be some type of signage prohibiting clarify or clarify that comment about no signs that that was really referring to signs other than signs on the site they'll be various and actually related to the flooding area. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Savage agree that it is up to the applicant too or deny that the all the other spaces whether or not those would be assigned. Mr. Sullivan explained that for the purposes of this hearing the intent is that the 17 spaces closest to Mitchell will be reserved for Tompkins and then remaining open public spaces will be again that the rest of that space and then in another space that are closer behind the residential buildings -Mr. Smeraldo asked Mr. Savage the decrease the 2016 report that if since this is a little bit further away from the Rahway River does the DEP plan include making sure that the merge management included with this and they sign off on it that they that they realize the stakes of it because the concerns at the time were that where we able or we fully prepared to deal with the amount of people this particular plan encompasses with the people dictation that we make sure that Emergency Management please review this and things look at that's all based on the testimony can you add that as a condition please Mr. Savage responded that's just to clarify condition review up the officer management and that's the Township correct compliance would be in including with the PSDP obviously has the jurisdiction over this but in order to sign off last time Emergency Management coordinator had to

ement and that's the Township correct compliance would be in including with the PSDP obviously has the jurisdiction over this but in order to sign off last time Emergency Management coordinator had to approve it and things like that should be exparided to include that's correct and then Chief Smeralido was very involved in this the last time as was the chief in orange when first building was built and it is fully expected that the DEP will require those same representations that we made last time about this town having reverse 911 that have high axle vehicles to pick and get in and out and we did purchase a Zodiac for both West Orange Fire Department and Orange Fire Department which would still be available also if there was an issue the capabilities are there and if they meet the minimal requirements. Mr. Smeraldo at least wanted this topic to have been addressed. PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS: -No Questions from Professionals PUBLIC COMMENTS/QUESTIONS: -No Comments/Questions from Public Mr. Sean Savage testimony is concluded. -Ms. Mary Johannesen entered on the record, was sworn in by Mr. McPherson and was accepted as an expert in the field of Architecture by Chairman Bagoff. Ms. Johannesen explained using those plans to describe the proposed building with the architectural exhibits that were submitted which are drawings A-1 A-2 and A-3 (Floor Plans dated 2/23/2021) prepared exhibits A-4 and A-5 (Building Elevations 2/23/2021) A-6 and A-7 (Perspective renderings dated December 16, 2020) the classification of A1- are the plans important for all of those and that for our purposes I think that's a 6 through 11 and 10

we'll call it that anyway for now go ahead utilizing drawing Al which is Exhibit A-6 presenting the Ist floor plan for the building is in the same orientation as Mr. Savage had presented on the site plans North is upwards of this corner along the top of the drawing is Central Ave along the bottom of the drawing is Mitchell St the parking is in this area of the drawing that this is this is a new building that is mixed use predominantly residential with some commercial it is a five story building with 94 market rate rental apartments and two commercial suites that contain approximately 3500 square feet in total. - There are 49 one bedroom | bath and 45 two bedroom 2 bath drawing 84 which is (Exhibit A-9) is showing the building elevations the central Ave elevation is on the top of the sheet and the South elevation facing the adjacent Harvard printing building is on the lower side of the street we are requesting a deviation from the building height that in the redevelopment plan is requires a maximum of five stories and 55 feet being a residential and we are currently at five stories and 16.4 feet that dimension is from the average great plain to do this highest parapet which is limited to an area that is approximately 64 feet wide over the main entrance fronting on central Ave the other flanking rooflines are slightly lower 2 feet five and two feet 6 inches lower the reason we are requesting this deviation is based upon the typical construction for a building of this type we have a ceiling switch our building code compliant and we allow two feet of structure between Florida floor and that is the typical construction from the 2nd through fifth floors including the roof structure the first floor to the second floor has one additional footage structure to accommodate the different structure between the Ist and 2nd floor so when added up brings us to 51 feet 51.65 feet with roof insulation which is code compliant - Ms. Mary Johannesen showed Birds Eye view which is drawing A7 Exhibit A-12 and showed the proposed building as well as the 22 Central. Where she then described the exterior materials that were selected for durability, low maintenance, and to have a very long life. There’s a decorative masonry that wraps along the front as well as around the perimeter of the base of the building which is articulated with a larger smooth decorative masonry bit with a