PB-21-10 Altera 769 - 769 Northfield Avenue

[ OB-1 Zone: 1.5 parking area (1.0 footcandles required fc proposed) 25.15.3(c)(1)(g) Maximum width of a Freestanding sign freestanding sign on width greater a property with a than 6’ (7’ minimum lot Proposed) frontage of 100’: 6’ (Including supporting structure) 25-12.1and 12.2 452 parking spaces 226 parking spaces | 226 parking spaces (modified during the public hearing to 224 parking spaces) Phase II- Preliminary Site Plan Section Required Existing/Proposed 25-7.1 Part B Maximum permitted lot 70.1%; 94.4% effective coverage in the OB-1 proposed District is 50% (60.4%; 81.3% effective (Phase 1)) 25-27.4b(4) No person shall be Removal of trees as shown permitted to “Cut down or | on Demolition & Tree remove any tree ona Removal Plan (Phase Il) last slope of 15% or greater in | revised 1/24/22 by grade or onaslope where | Dynamic Engineering vegetation is presently (Sheet 5 ), and Landscape stabilizing soils where a Plan (Phase II) last revised tree removal permit is 1/24/22 by Dynamic submitted in connection Engineering (Sheet 14) And with a development Report dated last revised application, or a parcel January 2022 by Marla L. upon which a new Roller of Dynamic development is Engineering contemplated 25.28.8.c Disturbances of slopes of Disturbance of 35.2% of 25% or more is prohibited. | the slope area of slopes in excess of 25% and Maximum disturbance disturbance of 39.7% of the L area permitted is 20% for | slope area of 20-25% slope. |

L | slope area of 20-25% slope. 25.28.8f(11) Retaining walls will comply | Proposed retaining wall to with the applicable wall exceed 4 feet. height requirements for the zone in which the property is located. All retaining walls greater than four feet in height shall require a variance and certification by a professional engineer that the wall was constructed in accordance with approved plans. 25-14.1¢ Light poles shall not Approximately 25’ high exceed a height of 18 feet above normal grade in the vicinity of the light fixture 25.14.1d The level of illumination at | Greater than 0.3 of a ground level shall not footcandle and 0.5 of a exceed 0.5 of a footcandle | footcandle at the property at the property line, nor lines (2.1 fc at residential 0.3 of a footcandle at any | property lines and 1.8 fc property line abutting a proposed at other property property used by or zoned | lines) for residential use. 25-14.3 Minimum level of Illumination less than 1.5 of illumination within parking | a footcandle within parking areas in the OB-1 Zone: 1.5 | area (1.0 fc proposed) footcandles required 25-12.1and 12.2 452 parking spaces 282 parking spaces (modified during the public hearing to 280 parking spaces) Testimony established that the existing 23,391 square foot medical office building will remain with proposed renovations to the exterior of the building and parking lot. The existing parking on site consists of 226 parking spaces with a one-way entrance to the site from the Eastern edge of the property with counter-clockwise traffic circulation and egress on the Western side of the property. . The building has pre-existing nonconforming bulk issues which include lot coverage, light pole height, parking shortfalls and as more fully set forth in the above chart.

5. The testimony established that the topography of the property slopes up in the rear and slopes north to south. 6. The proposed exterior renovation to the building includes a porte-cochere on the north side and on the south side a canopy will remain but will be improved aesthetically. Currently there is no formal entrance in the rear and the proposed rear entrance will Provide needed drop-off ability for patients to the building. 7. The proposed changes to the parking will increase ADA parking near the building and will be a significant improvement over the current ADA parking which is situated on a steeper slope than current ADA standards permit. The new ADA parking will be a level area. The plan will maintain the current number of parking spaces by utilizing space in the rear of the property. 8. The Applicant originally proposed to reconfigure the parking field to accommodate the site changes while maintaining the existing number of parking spaces on the property at 226 parking spaces, however, during the course of the hearing the Board had requested that one parallel parking stall on each side of the building be removed to allow for greater maneuverability thereby reducing the parking count to 224 parking spaces for the Phase | development. 9. The entire parking lot will be milled and repaved and the sidewalk will be replaced in the front of the building. The parking lot will also be upgraded to add 8’ wide landscape islands as per the ordinance requirements. 10. The proposed retaining walls are necessary due to the topographic conditions of the site. 11. Phase II of the project will add an additional 56 parking spaces, bringing the total on site parking spaces to 280 spaces (accounting for the removal of two parallel parking spaces as part of the Phase | development). 12. A variance is required due to steep slopes; however, the steep slope variance is limited to a small portion of the property (15%) and is located mostly to the north part of the property in the undeveloped portion of the property. The Board took note that the testimony presented demonstrated that the steep slope was not naturally occurring but was an accumulation of stockpiles from dirt removal for the construction of the original building and parking area. Testimony also established that there was no danger of landslides from any of the proposed work. 13. The Board also found

dirt removal for the construction of the original building and parking area. Testimony also established that there was no danger of landslides from any of the proposed work. 13. The Board also found compelling that the Applicant made significant efforts to lessen the impact on the residential properties by moving the proposed parking area away from the residences on the east and supplementing the space between the residences and the parking lot area with additional trees and landscape buffering. 14. The proofs also demonstrated that the additional storm water runoff from the proposed additional impervious coverage will be adequately managed with the existing storm water management system already on site as well as new proposed underground stormwater management system.

15. As to Phase II, the additional parking will also be extended on the west side and allow for the continued tree and landscape buffer to the east along the residential properties. The additional impervious coverage will trigger the construction of a new storm water retention facility to be built on the west side of the parking lot (Mid way) adjacent to the current detention facility. 16. While the Applicant proposes to remove a number of trees which are detailed in the plans submitted, the Board takes note that the tree replacement exceeds the ordinance requirements and appear to be appropriate and will improve buffering to the residences and within the parking lot to bring the lot into greater conformity with parking lot requirements. 17. The proposed light poles in the parking lot are designed to match the existing light poles in height and will have LED lighting. The lighting proposed while exceeding the permitted foot candle brightness in some areas and being under the proposed standard footcandle brightness in others is balanced to provide security for persons in the parking lot and reduce the brightness near the residential properties. 18. The Board took note of the parallel parking spaces on the East and West sides of the building and that the length of those spaces are tight and may present difficulties for those attempting to parallel park. The Applicant accepted the condition that the parallel parking spaces be lengthened to an 8’ x 22’ size to allow for more efficient parking while reducing one existing parallel space on each side of the building to create the additional length. 19. Testimony of the Applicant's planning expert established that the bulk variances requested could be granted as a c (1) variance as there is a hardship created by the topography of the property, the shape of the property being very long and narrow, and the existence of structures lawfully located thereon. 20. As for the parking variances, the Board notes that even if the entire property was paved, there would not be space for the required 452 parking spaces (And such extreme paving would create other issues with respect to lot coverage and adverse effects on neighboring properties and steep slope issues.) 21. The requested height increase for the retaining walls is necessary for the site conditions. The existing retaining walls are already in excess of the

ighboring properties and steep slope issues.) 21. The requested height increase for the retaining walls is necessary for the site conditions. The existing retaining walls are already in excess of the ordinance allowances. 22. The light poles proposed are to match the existing conditions and are designed to promote safety in the parking lot with consideration to the neighboring residential properties. 23. Finally, the proposed lot coverage is necessary for increasing and improving ADA parking, creating drop off aisles and allowing upgrades to the medical building. 24. As for the requested bulk variances, they also satisfy a c (2) criteria as Applicant has provided credible evidence that the following purposes of the MLUL set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2 are advanced. Paragraph a. of the statute is advanced as there will be more ADA accessibility provided by the proposed development and the proposed sign will Promote public safety as it will make the site more identifiable for safe access. (The sign

25: 26. complies with the area requirements but is slightly wider than allowed, which creates the need for a variance.) Further, under paragraph i. the sign and overall property upgrades will promote a desirable visual environment through creative design. The medical building is a permitted use in the zone and the proposed upgrades will advance paragraph g of the statute as it will allow the medical building to function more efficiently and safely. Paragraph i. is also further advanced by the rehabilitation of the building which is currently underutilized and in need of upgrades and modernization. Paragraph m. of the statute is established by the project as it provides for more efficient use of the land and is rehabilitating an existing building instead of tearing down and building new. With respect to the negative criteria under the MLUL, the Board accepts the testimony that there is no detriment to the public good as most of the variances are due to pre- existing deficiencies such as number of parking spaces, lighting and any increases to the existing conditions (Impervious coverage) are adequately addressed by storm water management and landscape buffers. The project meets the goals of the Master Plan as it fulfills the goals and objectives including, Objective #16- Encouraging Economic Development and Redevelopment That is Compatible with the Suburban Character of the Township as it encourages economic redevelopment and Objective #2: Ensure That the Public’s Safety is Secured as the project addresses the issues with flooding (Storm water management, and topography). NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the Planning Board of the Township of West Orange that preliminary and final site plan approval for Phase | with variance relief and preliminary site plan approval for Phase II with variance relief for the application of Altera 769, LLC for property located at 769 Northfield Avenue, is determined as follows: 1. The Board grants the following bulk variance relief pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c (1) and c(2): Phase I- Preliminary and Final Site Plan Section Required Existing Proposed 25-7.1 Part B Max permitted lot 59.3% 60.4%, 81.3% coverage 50% effective 25-27.4. b(4) No person shall be Removal of trees permitted to “Cut on slopes greater down or remove any than 15% as tree ona slope of shown on 15% or greater in Demolition & grade or ona slope Tree

25-27.4. b(4) No person shall be Removal of trees permitted to “Cut on slopes greater down or remove any than 15% as tree ona slope of shown on 15% or greater in Demolition & grade or ona slope Tree Removal where vegetation is Plan (Phase 1) last presently stabilizing revised 1/24/22 soils where a tree by Dynamic removal permit is Engineering

submitted in connection with a development application, ora parcel upon which a new development is contemplated (Sheet 4 ), and Landscape Plan (Phase 1) last revised 1/24/22 by Dynamic Engineering (Sheet 13) And Reportlast revised January 2022 by Marla L. Roller of Dynamic Engineering 25-8.8b&c. Disturbances of Applicant slopes of 25% or Proposes more is prohibited. Maximum disturbance area permitted is 20% for slope area of 20-25% slope. disturbance of 20.1% of the slope area of sloes in excess of 25% and disturbance of 23.5% of the slope area of 20- 25% slope. 25-28.8.f(11) and 25-8.4(c) Retaining walls will comply with the applicable wall height requirements for the zone in which the property is located. All retaining walls greater than four feet in height shall require a variance and certification by a professional engineer that the wall was constructed in accordance with approved plans. Proposed retaining wall to exceed four (4’) feet. 25.14.1¢ Light poles shall not exceed a height of 18 feet above normal grade in the Approximately twenty-five (25’) feet high

vicinity of the light fixture parking areas in the OB-1 Zone: 1.5 footcandles required 25.14.1d The level of Greater than 0.3 illumination at of a footcandle ground level shall and 0.5 of a not exceed 0.5 of a footcandle at the footcandle at the property lines property line, nor (2.1 fc at 0.3 of a footcandle residential at any property line property lines abutting a property and 1.8 fc used by or zoned for Proposed at residential use. other property lines) 25.14.3 Minimum level of Illumination less illumination within than 1.5 ofa footcandle within parking area (1.0 fc proposed) 25.15.3(c)(1)(g) Maximum width of a freestanding sign on Freestanding sign width greater a property with a than 6’ (7’ minimum lot proposed) frontage of 100’: 6’ (Including supporting structure) 25-12.1and 12.2 452 parking spaces 226 parking spaces | 224 parking spaces Phase II- Preliminary Site Plan permitted to “Cut down or remove any tree ona slope of 15% or greater in grade or on a slope where Section Required Existing/Proposed 25-7.1 Part B Maximum permitted lot 70.1%; 94.4% effective coverage in the OB-1 proposed District is 50% (60.4%; 81.3% effective (Phase 1)) 25-27.4b(4) No person shall be Removal of trees on slopes greater than 15% as shown on Demolition & Tree Removal Plan (Phase Il) last revised 1/24/22 by