November 6, 2024 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes

Objective 13: improve and maintain existing residential neighborhoods. BOARD QUESTIONS Mr. Guarino asked if there is anything from this project that could be seen as a negative that you have not been able to mitigate adequately. Ms. Clark answered that in an ideal version of the world, we might have a slightly different amount of breathing room of setback of lower residential behind us and that is driven from a design perspective to try to get close to our parking ratio. To accommodate the most reasonable parking configuration on the site would necessitate a bigger building footprint. Mayor McCartney asked if it is possible to swap the entrance and exits of the building itself where people would just be able to exit on the left instead of the right and have to go up and around the street. Mr. Wine said there is a safety concern about switching the entrance and exits. You wouldn’t want cars slowing down to turn into a 90 degree turn into a parking garage on Main Street. Given there is a property next to the site, they can’t exit onto their property. Mr. Rutherford asked how would the 10 parking spaces across the street impact the existing permit parking in that lot. Mr. Wine answered that they have confirmed the 10 spaces they would be looking for would have no conflict with any other arrangement the church may have on their site. Mr. Rutherford asked are we aware of the lighting for the people that may be crossing the street to the church. Ms. Clark answered that directly across the property there is a series of billboards and there are streetlights in front of those billboards. A couple of feet south of the intersection, there is another streetlight if you were to walk across Park Drive North and then cross directly from there. Ms. Clark states there is substantial lighting in the evening for pedestrians. Mr. Rutherford asked have you considered how police officers in a foot chase or any investigations around the rear of the building or particularly on the south eastern corner have visibility or lighting challenges and also make access to the rear of the building for firefighters a little more challenging. Ms. Clark said there is substantial ability for emergency services to access all sides of the property. Mr. Alper asked on the Edison and Central Valley redevelopment projects, the properties adjoining them, were there any existing single-family

r emergency services to access all sides of the property. Mr. Alper asked on the Edison and Central Valley redevelopment projects, the properties adjoining them, were there any existing single-family homes. Ms. Clark said she can’t definitely say there are single family in that zone. Mr. Alper stated that, on the front side yard on Park Drive North, you said there was a 5- foot setback but there is a planning review memo that said it was a 25-foot setback. Ms. Clark said that the 10-foot setback is for the side yard, which is the southern side of the property that would be happening along main street. The front side yard is what fronts onto Park Drive North and that is the 25-fot setback requirement. Mr. Alper asked what is the percentage of improvement of implementing a green roof. Ms. Clark said it’s 65% improvement of storm water managing on a site Mr. Alper asked from a permeable surface coverage perspective does that allow you to change the percentage that is covered. Ms. Clark said no due to the code not contemplating green infrastructure meeting the coverage requirement so it doesn’t change what we are required to do. Mr. Alper asked is the use of the parking either at the church or municipal lot mandatory for people that have a vehicle that don’t have a space for in the building. Mr. Wine said in the lease for the proposed tenants, it would allow every unit one parking space and if they have a second vehicle, they are required to let management know and they would coordinate another space either at the municipal lot or across the street at the church.

Mr. Smeraldo asked since there are 2 spots allocated to the commercial property, but if we anticipate foot traffic, where do you anticipate those people parking. Ms. Clark said that the code requires one space for every 250 square feet of commercial square footage, So it is up to operations long term whether those get dedicated for patrons vs. employees. Mr. Smeraldo asked what do you see as an optimal type of business there. Ms. Clark said there could be a variety of things. A full service restaurant however, could not be easily accommodated in 900 square feet. It could also be office spaces. Mr. Wine said after speaking with their client it would be more of an office space. Mr. Smeraldo asked if the resident is going to be charged for a second parking space or would it be included in their lease. Mr. Wine said they would make sure it would be included in their lease. The lease will ask the tenant how many vehicles you have and if it changes to let us know whether it goes up or goes down. Ms. Kapferer asked are there any aspects of the project that you feel would serve to improve pedestrian safety. Ms. Clark said that the warning systems that they are proposing would serve to eliminate safety concerns. Additionally, they have expanded sidewalk conditions that’s going to be created with the commercial space. PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS Mr. Haizel asked are the spaces at the church going to be 24/7 dedicated spaces. Mr. Wine said speaking with the church there is no issue with overnight and weekday hours. The only possible potential challenge would be Sundays. PUBLIC QUESTIONS Susan Lenczyk at 234 Eagle Rock Ave asked is it possible that the commercial space be the management office for the apartment building. Ms. Clark said from a zoning standpoint it would be permissible but a building of this size wouldn’t need a management office. Susan Lenczyk refers to the Justification of Variances document and asked how does the project “provide light, air, and open space”. Ms. Clark said provide just means allow for in this context, not generate. Susan Lenczyk asked did you make your judgments based on the actual site conditions or on diagrams on paper. Ms. Clark said both. Susan Lenczyk asked did you closely examine the property on the south side of the proposed development and if so what time of year. Ms. Clark said she examined it in aerial view from Google

aid both. Susan Lenczyk asked did you closely examine the property on the south side of the proposed development and if so what time of year. Ms. Clark said she examined it in aerial view from Google and confirmed with the property lines that the setback is approximately 5.5 feet from their property line. Susan Lenezyk stated that testimony regarding placing a building a few feet from an adjacent property where there was always open space, light, and airflow is suburban but isn’t that more urban in nature? Ms. Clark said it’s consistent with the zoning so the mixed used prototype is a permissible use within the property. Susan Lenczyk asked how does the project establish appropriate population density and specifically contribute to the well being of the neighborhood. Ms. Clark said they are looking at the zoning of the property at hand and so the residential property and their associated densities are subject to different zoning standards. Love Gaillard at 31 Park Drive North asked have you or your team driven around the township of West Orange to see what the landscape is. Ms. Clark answered that she is familiar with the town of West Orange and has handled other applications before the zoning board and is familiar from a zoning perspective. Love Gaillard asked are you or the developers aware of the historic significance of the

The Applicati national park that is behind the property. Ms. Clark said she can’t represent what the developers are aware of but in terms of how the site is developed we are looking at zoning of the subject property and what is permissible per the zoning code. Love Gaillard asked have you considered the safety of the children due to the possibility of moving the bus stops in the area. Ms. Clark said as the project currently proposed there is not an impact on the existing bus stop. Ms. Mary Kay Adams at Park Drive South refers to the slides of other redevelopment plans and asked isn’t it misleading to try to over lay those standards to what is strictly a B2 zone property. Ms. Clark said no, the exhibit tried to show was that it’s not really viable to meet the bulk standards of a wildly different site configuration from a building footprint standpoint. Ms. Adams asked what is the proportion of the commercial space of the buildings you propose compared to the residential units that are in each of those buildings. Ms. Clark said I do not have those numbers prepared tonight. Ms. Adams asked how does a 900 square foot office activate downtown redevelopment and justify all these mixed-use considerations and their requests. Ms. Clark said any level of commercial space is going to activate a street front more than a traditional residential on a street frontage. Ms. Adams asked since it is one parking space for every 250 square feet of commercial space, would that constitute 3 % parking spaces for this commercial space. Ms. Clark said we are implementing EV wire spacing, an energy efficiency program, so it reduces it to 2. Joe Middleton at 4 Ashwood Terrence asked what the term of the parking agreement is; would it be at least 5 years and would you have an ongoing agreement with another facility. Mr. Wine said they don’t have a formal agreement yet but the goal is for it to be indefinite. Joe Middleton asked do you think our zoning restrictions are unreasonable or ill informed and why is there a need to introduce those zoning regulations as opposed to the zonings here that are clearly defined. Ms. Clark said its not that they are ill informed, its just not a fully baked component of the ordinance. In her professional opinion, the next steps would be to look at what are the appropriate bulk standards for a mixed-use building in these zones under that conditional

baked component of the ordinance. In her professional opinion, the next steps would be to look at what are the appropriate bulk standards for a mixed-use building in these zones under that conditional use. Joe Middleton asked have you considered to stretch the size of the building to meet the irregularities. Ms. Clark said if we were to be complaint with the bulk standards, we wouldn’t have a viable mixed used project. William Mills at 11 Park Drive North asked if there is an actual agreement with the church. Mr. Wine said there is a framework. However, there is not going to be an agreement that says they have 10 spaces because there might not be a need for it. The first parking space will be given in the building; any subsequent spaces will be through the municipal parking lot or at the church. n_has been carried to the next Planning Board regular meeting on December 4, 2024 without further notice* Meeting adjourned at 11:00PM. ADOPTED: 2)/s|2s LI (i Janfilet Baqueri76 Vite Planning Board Secretary