Planning Board Meeting Minutes 20170117
Ridgewood Planning Board
January 17, 2017
Page 1
The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of January 17, 2017. Interested parties may request an audio recording of the meeting from the Board Secretary for a fee.
Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Mr. Joel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Following members were present: Mayor Knudsen, Richard Joel, Joel Torielli, Councilman Jeff Voigt, Melanie McWilliams, Isabela Altano, David Scheibner, and Debbie Patire. Also present were Christopher Martin, Esq., Board Attorney; Village Planner Blais Brancheau, Village Engineer Chris Rutishauser, and Michael Cafarelli Secretary. Ms. Barto was not present.
Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – No one came forward
Committee/Commission/Professional Updates for Non Agenda Topics, Correspondence -There was none.
Following is the transcript of this portion of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci,
C.C.R., R.P.R.:
PLANNING BOARD HEARING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL
MAJOR SITE PLAN, (PUBLIC HEARING) 76 & 80 CHESTNUT STREET
AND 25-27 FRANKLIN AVENUE, BLOCK 2005, LOTS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
BEFORE: VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD PLANNING BOARD
RICHARD JOEL, Chairman SUSAN KNUDSEN, Mayor
CHRISTOPHER MARTIN, Board Attorney
DAVID SCHEIBNER
JEFF VOIGT
JOEL TORIELLI
DEBBIE PATIRE
ISABELLA ALTANO
MELANIE MCWILLIAMS
ALSO PRESENT:
BLAIS L. BRANCHEAU, Planner
CHRISTOPHER J. RUTISHAUSER, Engineer
MICHAEL CAFARELLI, Secretary
DAVID R. SHROPSHIRE, Traffic Engineer
|
Page 2 1 T R A N S C R I P T of the VILLAGE OF 2 RIDGEWOOD PLANNING BOARD HEARING taken by and 3 before Jane E. Clancy, C.C.R., a Notary Public 4 and Certified Court Reporter of the State of New 5 Jersey, at the VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD VILLAGE HALL, 6 January 17, 2017, commencing at 7:30 p.m. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 |
Page 4 1 I N D E X 2 WITNESS DIRECT PAGE 3 DAVID NICHOLSON, AIA 9 4 DANIEL W. BUSCH, P.E. P.P., C.M.E. 37 5 CHRISTOPHER J. RUTISHAUSER, P.E. C.P.W.M. 86 6 BLAIS BRANCHEAU, P.P. 91 7 DAVID R. SHROPSHIRE, P.E., P.P. 103 8 9 10 11 E X H I B I T S 12 EXHIBITS DESCRIPTION PAGE 13 A-17 Revised Plans to A-11 12 14 A-18 Revised Plans to A-13 14 15 A-19 Color Rendering 38 16 17 EXHIBITS RETAINED BY COUNSEL 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 |
|
Page 3 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 PRIME LAW 3 141 Ayer Court, Suite LLA-1 4 Teaneck, New Jersey 07666 5 (201)371-1026 6 BY: JASON R. TUVEL, ESQ. 7 Attorneys for the Applicant, KS Broad Street 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 |
Page 5 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Our next item will 2 be KS Broad Street, Preliminary and Final Major 3 Site Plans, 76 & 80 Chestnut Street and 25-27 4 Franklin Avenue, Block 2005, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 5 15. 6 This is a Public Hearing continued 7 from December 6, which was also heard on October 8 4, 2016. 9 The attorney was Jason Tuvel and on 10 October 4th, he gave an overview of his 11 presentation. 12 There was the architect, David 13 Nicholson, that they had testified and presented 14 Exhibits A-1 through A-15. 15 The witness was also cross-examined 16 by the Board and Board experts and the Public and 17 so Mr. Tuvel will be continuing with his 18 presentation at this point. 19 Mr. Tuvel? 20 MR. TUVEL: Good evening, Mr. 21 Chairman, Members of the Board. Happy New Year, 22 everybody. I'm Jason Tuvel, Attorney for the 23 Applicant. 24 Where we left off as Mr. Chairman 25 noted at the last meeting which was back in |
|
Page 6 1 October is, we presented to you our architectural 2 testimony from David Nicholson. We stopped at 3 that point and we did receive review letters from 4 your Board's professionals then. 5 What we did in the meantime since 6 6 we've had a few months since that time is we 7 submitted revised plans that addressed hopefully 8 all the items set forth in your Village Planner's 9 review letter, as well as your Village Engineer's 10 review letter, so that's where we are now and 11 those revised plans were submitted earlier this 12 month. 13 The game plan I guess for this 14 evening is as follows: I would like our 15 architect to come back and explain some of the 16 revisions that he made to his plans based on 17 those review letters. 18 I don't think that should take too 19 long. I'm anticipating about a half hour, maybe 20 a little bit less for his testimony, but you 21 never know. 22 And then following that, I'll have 23 our site Engineer, Dan Busch, from Maser 24 Consulting, go through civil and site testimony. 25 We did receive this evening a |
Page 8 1 detailed, but I do think it would be helpful both 2 to the Applicant and the Board if there's an 3 opinion on some of the site circulation. 4 CHAIRMAN JOEL: I think it deals 5 with foundational issues for his multiple 6 opinions, so I think it's okay. 7 MR. TUVEL: Okay. I'm just being 8 courteous to you. No, I understand. Okay. 9 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Proceed. 10 MR. TUVEL: So the first witness I 11 would like to recall is our architect, David 12 Nicholson. 13 David Nicholson was previously 14 sworn. So I'm assuming he's still under oath and 15 he was qualified by the Board at the previous 16 meeting as an expert in architecture, so I'm 17 assuming the Board will still qualify him as an 18 expert. 19 MR. MARTIN: Mr. Nicholson, you 20 remain qualified in the Statute I guess from 21 October 4th. 22 MR. NICHOLSON: That is correct. 23 MR. MARTIN: You remain qualified. 24 DAVID NICHOLSON, AIA 25 545 West 45 Street, New York, NY 10036, having |
|
Page 7 1 Traffic Report from your Board Traffic Engineer 2 as well as an updated report from your Board 3 Planner, so we'll do our best to try to address 4 those items as well. 5 So I would like to stop at that 6 point if we do get through both of those 7 witnesses as our Traffic Engineer had a conflict 8 and wasn't able to be here this evening, so 9 hopefully, we will finish with site and then at 10 the next meeting, we'll start off with traffic. 11 That would be the game plan, if that's okay with 12 the Board. 13 CHAIRMAN JOEL: With that being 14 said, do you think there's a need for our traffic 15 engineer to stick around, Mr. Martin? 16 MR. TUVEL: Well, can I just 17 mention, I just think it's a good idea for the 18 following reason: 19 There were some site circulation 20 comments set forth in your Board Traffic 21 Engineer's review letter and our engineer will 22 testify as to onsite circulation. 23 If we do get into the nitty-gritty 24 of it, I'll probably defer those comments to our 25 traffic engineer in the event they get really |
Page 9 1 been previously sworn, testified as follows: 2 EXAMINATION BY MR. TUVEL: (CONTINUING) 3 MR. TUVEL: You are still a 4 licensed architect in the State of New Jersey? 5 MR. NICHOLSON: I am. We didn't 6 have the cameras the last time. Where would you 7 like to set up the easels tonight, this side or 8 that side? I would like to set up a couple of 9 easels. 10 MR. TUVEL: So, Mr. Nicholson, as I 11 mentioned before, what I would like you to do is 12 explain to the Board what revisions you made to 13 your plans between the October 4th meeting and 14 today and if there's any comments in the Board 15 Planner's review letter that you would like to 16 address, I would like you to address that during 17 this testimony. 18 MR. NICHOLSON: Certainly. One of 19 the first comments in Mr. Brancheau's letter last 20 month in October was concerning the retail square 21 footage of our project, and it is our intention 22 to have 5,500 square feet of retail space and no 23 more. 24 There was some question about on 25 our previous plan what that square footage was |
|
Page 10 1 and what we should count for retail square 2 footage. 3 What I have on the Board here is a 4 revised exhibit, Exhibit 4. You saw Exhibit 4 5 last time. 6 The blue shaded area is the retail 7 space. It's showing divided up into two retail 8 stores, the yellow to the west and that is to 9 your left on the plan, which are utility spaces. 10 One is a retail trash room and one 11 is an allocation for floor space for all the 12 incoming utilities and meters for the building 13 and we were advised that we should not only count 14 the retail spaces themselves, but the retail 15 trash room and a pro rata share of the utility 16 room when calculating our retail square footage, 17 so that's what we have done. 18 We have adjusted the wall's 19 position between the retail and the community 20 facility space to the west of that last retail to 21 make sure that we are, in fact, 5,500 square feet 22 of retail space on the project. 23 Mr. Brancheau noted in his letter 24 today that there is a typographical error on my 25 last plan and I apologize for that. |
Page 12 1 MR. TUVEL: Yeah, I think that's a 2 better idea. 3 (Document is marked A-16 in 4 Evidence) 5 MR. NICHOLSON: Another comment was 6 that there was a small section of parking 7 adjacent to the Chestnut entrance to the project 8 that was visible from the street and that's 9 contrary to the Village's ordinances, that we 10 have modified the north end of that elevation 11 that you see here on the right-hand side of my 12 drawing to include a brick wall within the stone 13 arch that we had previously designed so that that 14 parking immediately behind that wall is not 15 visible from the street and in compliance then 16 with your Ordinance. 17 Another comment was with respect to 18 the building height and specifically, the 19 calculation of that height relative to average 20 grade. 21 Average grade has been recalculated 22 by our civil engineer and my elevations have been 23 modified to account for that very small revision 24 in average grade, and I can tell you that at this 25 point our design complies with the Village's |
|
Page 11 1 A number read for 5,488. It should 2 have read 68, but it is my testimony that this 3 project will have 5,558 square feet of retail 4 when it's all said and done. 5 MR. TUVEL: So based on the square 6 footage calculation, and I know our site engineer 7 and traffic engineer will speak more to parking, 8 but specifically on the square footage, you 9 believe that we comply with the parking 10 requirements? 11 MR. NICHOLSON: That's correct. 12 MR. TUVEL: Okay. Please continue. 13 MR. NICHOLSON: The other comment 14 noted in the letter of October was the screening 15 of -- 16 MR. MARTIN: Mr. Nicholson, just 17 before you continue, could we mark that as A-16 18 as the revised -- 19 MR. NICHOLSON: Yeah, sure. We can 20 mark that. 21 MR. TUVEL: Should we mark that? 22 MR. NICHOLSON: Should we mark that 23 as 16 or revised A-4? 24 MR. MARTIN: Continue with 16, 25 A-16. |
Page 13 1 requirements relative to building height in this 2 zone. 3 This would be a revision to our 4 Exhibit A-11, so I'll mark that, A-17? 5 MR. TUVEL: Correct. 6 (Document is marked Exhibit A-17 in Evidence) 7 MR. NICHOLSON: Another comment 8 that I wanted to address were some concerns about 9 discrepancies between the floor plans and the 10 elevations of our design, as well as its position 11 on the site. 12 As you can see, our design includes 13 a lot of architectural embellishments. Cornices, 14 stone bands, other design features of the 15 windows, and of course, those are included as 16 part of our design to address the historic 17 character of the downtown, but Mr. Brancheau's 18 concern, of course ,was that those might encroach 19 over the property line. 20 We've looked at that very carefully 21 and we have adjusted the position of the building 22 relative to the street line by several inches to 23 make sure that we have the space required to do 24 all the embellishments you see on our elevation 25 and still not encroach over the street line. |
|
Page 14 1 And the last exhibit I would like 2 to show you is the one I left over here in the 3 corner. I beg your pardon. 4 The north wall of our building is 5 on the property line and abuts commercial, 6 currently ,residential. 7 MR. TUVEL: Mark that as A-18. 8 (Document is marked A-18 for in 9 Evidence) 10 MR. TUVEL: Did you have a 11 question, Mr. Chairman? 12 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Chris, can you 13 shift just a teeny bit for her? She's having a 14 hard time. 15 MAYOR KNUDSEN: I was having a hard 16 time. Actually, it was just visual which was 17 okay but -- 18 MR. NICHOLSON: This is a revised 19 north elevation. This was previously Exhibit 20 A-13. 21 We have re-designed the north wall 22 of the building. This faces the property line 23 for the next property north on Chestnut. 24 We have incorporated and wrapped 25 the bands and treatment of the corners from the |
Page 16 1 MR. NICHOLSON: Board members had 2 asked me two questions that I wanted to answer 3 tonight. 4 One was relative to windows and the 5 concern about train noise, and I had mentioned in 6 my testimony last time I was before you that we 7 had done several projects where the acoustical 8 concerns were very great, and you had asked me 9 for specific information about that. 10 We are doing a residential project 11 in West Chelsea which was a very industrial area 12 of Manhattan up until several years ago when it 13 was rezoned to permit residential, but only 14 partly so, and part of that rezoning, the City 15 required a very high acoustical performance for 16 windows in residential buildings, and that is one 17 of the projects that I was thinking about when I 18 mentioned to you our experience in that regard. 19 The windows on that project have an 20 STC rating between 37 and 40. I don't know if 21 that means anything to you, but that's a pretty 22 high standard of noise blocking ability to use in 23 lay terminology. 24 The other project was a public 25 school in Queens that was a conversion of an old |
|
Page 15 1 other elevations around this elevation to 2 mitigate some of the concerns that were expressed 3 by Mr. Brancheau in his letter. 4 That concludes the revisions that 5 we made. 6 MR. TUVEL: So, Dave, before you 7 move on to the next issue in terms of Mr. 8 Brancheau's letter, building height from the last 9 memo that was issued before the October meeting 10 the building height discrepancies have been 11 clarified in height and complying. Is that 12 correct? 13 MR. NICHOLSON: That is correct. 14 MR. TUVEL: Okay. In connection 15 with the parking and the square footage, that has 16 also been rectified or will be rectified to 17 comply? 18 MR. NICHOLSON: That's correct. 19 MR. TUVEL: All the other 20 dimensional comments that were made by Mr. 21 Brancheau, we either comply with or will comply 22 with. Is that accurate? 23 MR. NICHOLSON: That's correct. 24 MR. TUVEL: Okay. If you can 25 continue, that would be great. |
Page 17 1 factory building very close to the Lyle Railroads 2 main line out of Manhattan, and not only was it 3 impacted by railroad noise, but it was impacted 4 by plane noise because it was on the path to land 5 at La Guardia. 6 The school construction authority 7 was very concerned about that, as was the DOE. 8 Those windows have an STC rating of 9 45, so my message to you is the technology is 10 there to mitigate the train noise at this 11 location, and we know how to do it. 12 And then the last comment was some 13 questions about the existing towers in town and 14 how they compare to our proposed corner element, 15 which you see in this elevation here on the 16 left-hand side of my board. 17 My research comes from a report 18 complied for the Village when they were 19 considering one of the parking garages in town. 20 49 Cottage Place, the Board of 21 Education Building, its central element is 58 22 feet above the sidewalk. 23 One East Ridgewood Avenue had its 24 eve 44 feet above the sidewalk and the spire tops 25 out at 61 feet and at 18 East Ridgewood Avenue, |
|
Page 18 1 the eve is at 44 feet and the spire tops out at 2 60. 3 Our design here has an eve at 52 4 feet above the sidewalk and tops out at 61 feet, 5 two inches, so compared to these other towers in 6 town, it's comparable. 7 And that's all I had for tonight. 8 MR. TUVEL: Okay. Now, I know that 9 there were other questions that were related to 10 some issues that I stated would be handled by 11 other experts, so I would just ask that you keep 12 those questions for either the site engineer or 13 for our traffic engineer when they come in at a 14 later date or any other witness which they would 15 be appropriate. 16 We really just try to deal with the 17 questions from the Board that related to Mr. 18 Nicholson's testimony as to his expertise of 19 architecture, but I, obviously, welcome the 20 Board's questions on his testimony this evening. 21 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Dave, do you have 22 any questions? 23 MR. SCHEIBNER: I don't have any 24 questions at this time. 25 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Councilman Voigt? |
Page 20 1 MR. NICHOLSON: I think that the 2 civil engineer will make a clarification. I 3 think it's 22 for the retail and the balance for 4 residential. 5 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Blais, I have a 6 question for you, and it relates to -- I think 7 there's something in the Ordinance that relates 8 to restaurant space and the number of parking 9 spaces you need for a restaurant, and then I 10 don't know whether or not that's addressed in 11 this particular analysis. 12 MR. BRANCHEAU: It's not and we 13 discussed this part of our reexamination, the 14 fact that the Village regulates non-residential 15 parking by zone, not by use, and we had discussed 16 particularly in the case of restaurants and other 17 high occupancy uses how that can exacerbate the 18 parking shortages in the downtown. 19 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah. 20 MR. BRANCHEAU: What I would 21 suggest now is what I suggested then, is that we 22 amend the regulations in the Village for parking 23 for non-residential uses to provide more use 24 specific standards particularly for those that 25 are placing the most highest demand on parking to |
|
Page 19 1 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: You mentioned 2 the retail space is 5,500 square feet. Is that 3 correct? 4 MR. NICHOLSON: That's correct. 5 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And it's for 6 two retail spaces. Is that right? 7 MR. NICHOLSON: We are currently 8 showing it as two spaces. Whether it's two or 9 three is yet to be determined. 10 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Could it be 11 collapsed into one? 12 MR. NICHOLSON: The current design 13 has a change in floor elevation because the 14 sidewalk moves up, but it is possible, yes. 15 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: It is possible. 16 At some point it might be one space? 17 MR. NICHOLSON: It could be. 18 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. And it 19 sounds like you complied with the parking 20 requirements. You talked about the parking 21 requirements. That's why I'm asking the 22 questions. 23 There were 23 reserved spots for 24 the retail space which complied with the 25 Ordinances. Is that correct? |
Page 21 1 avoid exacerbating those problems. 2 The residential is set by the 3 state. There's nothing we can do about that, but 4 for the non-residential, that's up to our 5 discretion as to what that can be and right now, 6 we don't really address that, and it wasn't 7 really a problem until recent years where we've 8 seen an influx of restaurant uses in the downtown 9 area that have really particularly at certain 10 times, Friday nights and on weekends, but 11 sometimes and other times as well, where there's 12 a strain placed on the parking supply, 13 particularly, the public parking supply and 14 because our Ordinance -- if there's a change in 15 use say from a retail store to a restaurant use, 16 at meal-time, that can result in a much 17 significantly higher parking demand that we have 18 experienced otherwise. 19 But our Ordinance does not deal 20 with that. And so it's allowed to happen today 21 and it would be allowed to happen here unless the 22 Ordinance were amended, so I'm suggesting that 23 that's a solution that we should be looking at 24 to provide more appropriate use basis standards 25 as opposed to one size fits all, which is the |
|
Page 22 1 current code requirement. 2 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Let me make 3 sure I'm clear on this. If we amended the 4 Ordinance, would it apply to this particular 5 site? 6 MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes. Changes of 7 use anywhere in the Village. 8 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And the reason 9 I ask is because I think there's some 10 municipalities around our area that say for every 11 three seats in a restaurant you should have one 12 parking place, and my concern is if this ended up 13 being a hundred seat restaurant, then you are 14 looking at 33 parking places that we just don't 15 have. 16 And then you are also looking at 17 the employees who may have a higher demand on the 18 spaces that are in that area as well, so we would 19 address that. Could we address that? 20 MR. BRANCHEAU: We could absolutely 21 address that. 22 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. All 23 right. Thank you. 24 MR. TUVEL: I mean, the only thing 25 I would say from a legal perspective is you could |
Page 24 1 I want to put that on the record. 2 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I understand. 3 I guess one of the concerns we have at least in 4 on the Council is that based on the parking 5 shortage, and you know, potentially looking to 6 build a garage, and that garage per space is 7 relatively steep, we would hope that 8 maybe the developer might consider assisting in 9 paying for some of those spaces that they are 10 going to use if it's a restaurant, just as a 11 thought. 12 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anything further? 13 Any more questions? Mayor Knudsen? 14 MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes. I just wanted 15 to walk through the different towers again, the 16 different architectural details. 17 You went through, for instance, the 18 Board of Ed building, so, first, would you just 19 mind going through those one more time? 20 MR. NICHOLSON: 49 Cottage Place, 21 the Board of Ed building tops out at 58 feet. 22 One Ridgewood Avenue -- I'm sorry -- I can't 23 remember the name of that building at the corner 24 of Broad and Ridgewood. 25 MR. BRANCHEAU: Is this the Wilsey |
|
Page 23 1 address it going forward in an Ordinance that 2 could apply to other sections of town and could 3 apply in the zone. But based on the time of the 4 application, the rule, it wouldn't apply to this 5 project or to this application. 6 MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, I think that 7 there's a distinction here. The Applicant has 8 not requested approval for any particular uses, 9 just on residential retail in general, and if the 10 Ordinance were written to apply to all changes of 11 use, then I think it would apply. 12 MR. TUVEL: All right, so, I'll 13 just put on the record that I disagree with that 14 position. If it's a development regulation, the 15 time of application applies to any development 16 regulation, whether that's site plan zoning or 17 storm water, anything regarding development. 18 So when you file, and especially 19 here where we've been deemed complete and we are 20 moving forward to a public hearing, the zoning is 21 set in stone forever. 22 Even if you change something not 23 even zone specific but town-wide, it wouldn't 24 apply if it was a development regulation. 25 I know we can agree or disagree but |
Page 25 1 Building we are talking about? 2 MR. NICHOLSON: Yes. Thank you 3 very much. It has an eve 44 feet and tops out at 4 61. 18 East Ridgewood Avenue has the same eve 5 height at 44 and tops out at 60. 6 CHAIRMAN JOEL: 49 Cottage. 18 7 East Ridgewood Avenue. 8 MR. NICHOLSON: The upper most 9 limits of all those towers in the order that I 10 read them are 58, 61 and 60. 11 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Right. The address 12 is 49 Cottage Place. 13 MR. NICHOLSON: One East Ridgewood 14 Avenue and 18 East Ridgewood Avenue. 15 MAYOR KNUDSEN: So my next question 16 then is, what is the maximum width of that tower 17 on your structure? 18 MR. NICHOLSON: The Ordinance says 19 that a certain -- and I'm sorry, I can't quote it 20 precisely, I'm sure Blais can, that the width of 21 this tower on each elevation, the width of the 22 towers on each elevation can only be a certain 23 percentage of that elevation and we comply with 24 that standard. 25 MAYOR KNUDSEN: That wasn't my |
|
Page 26 1 question. I said, how wide is it? 2 MR. NICHOLSON: How wide are they? 3 Give me a moment, please. I don't have that 4 precise dimension on any of the plans I have here 5 with me right now. It's about 32 feet. 6 MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay, so 7 presumably, you wouldn't have the width of the 8 tower at One East Ridgewood Avenue, 18 East 9 Ridgewood Avenue? 10 MR. NICHOLSON: No, I'm sorry, I 11 don't. 12 MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. That would 13 be helpful because, you know, when we talk about 14 towers as an architectural detail, there's 15 something about when we talk about One East 16 Ridgewood Avenue, it has like an entirely 17 different roof pitch, so the whole visual 18 aesthetic is quite different. 19 MR. NICHOLSON: The two towers I 20 quoted on Ridgewood Avenue do have different 21 proportions. The Board has practically the same 22 proportion. 23 MAYOR KNUDSEN: So if you wouldn't 24 mind -- I mean, if it wouldn't be too much 25 trouble to have the specific details -- when you |
Page 28 1 none that matched this specific location type. 2 MS. KNUDSEN: Okay. I don't have 3 any other questions right now. 4 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie? 5 MS. MCWILLIAMS: Maybe come back to 6 me. I'm still reviewing some notes from last 7 time that I wanted to double-check questions on 8 to make sure I don't ask them twice. 9 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Debbie? 10 MS. PATIRE: No questions from me. 11 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Isabella? 12 MS. ALTANO: The shingles, the roof 13 shingles, right now the legend shows that you 14 have blue shingles? 15 MR. NICHOLSON: No, the dark shade 16 that you see on this elevation for the fifth 17 floor mansard roof, those are shingles. Those 18 are the slate shingles. 19 It runs here. 20 MS. ALTANO: So you have the area, 21 okay, so two separate -- 22 NICHOLSON: I'm sorry, I'm having a 23 hard time hearing you. 24 MS. ALTANO: So we are going to 25 keep two different shingles? |
|
Page 27 1 are comparing the towers, it's good to say, well, 2 the height, but that height is mitigated by the 3 width and the architectural detail so on one it 4 has like a spire type thing at the top, another 5 one is a little embellishment shape. 6 MR. NICHOLSON: Understood. 7 MAYOR KNUDSEN: If we can get as 8 much information about those towers, it would be 9 really helpful. 10 I think that when I had asked the 11 question pertaining to West Chelsea and the other 12 projects that you had worked on nearer to train 13 stations, I believe, my recollection is that you 14 stated that you had done a number of residential 15 projects near train stations, and I think I had 16 asked specifically for those locations and 17 projects. 18 MR. NICHOLSON: I think my 19 testimony was that we have never done a 20 combination like this project, residential, very 21 close to railroads. 22 MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. Combination. 23 Go ahead. 24 MR. NICHOLSON: We have done 25 several residential projects over the years but |
Page 29 1 MR. NICHOLSON: There's a standing 2 seam on the corner element and there are shingles 3 on the mansards. So wherever you have a mansard 4 roof, it's slate and then our corner elements 5 here on this corner and then where you pass 6 through the building right next to the train 7 station, the tops of those towers are standing 8 seam metal. 9 MS. ALTANO: You will be behind, 10 keeping it separate and different? 11 MR. NICHOLSON: We hadn't really -- 12 we had a number of things to address since our 13 last meeting. We really didn't tackle that one. 14 I acknowledge you did raise that as 15 a question last time, but we hadn't really 16 considered the design issues at this stage. We 17 were focusing on the technical. 18 MS. ALTANO: Right. I understand. 19 Okay. Thank you. 20 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel? 21 MR. TORIELLI: Just to reiterate 22 what Mayor Knudsen was saying about the towers, I 23 think the comment last time I may have had, it's 24 really about the slope, the pitch of the roof, so 25 it would be helpful next time just giving us the |
|
Page 30 1 delta between the top of the roof and the eve 2 without giving us the width. Is it a fair 3 comparison? 4 If I could ask you next time, the 5 apparent exhibit, you just took a photograph, I 6 know it's difficult, if you can estimate the 7 slope of these properties that you mentioned, 49 8 Cottage, One East Ridgewood and 18 East 9 Ridgewood, and then compare the slope of your 10 towers, that would be helpful. Thank you. 11 CHAIRMAN JOEL: I have no 12 questions. The Board of Professionals, Blais, do 13 you have any questions? 14 MR. BRANCHEAU: They've stipulated 15 to address the comments in my report. They are 16 fairly minor, so I will take them afterward. 17 I have no further questions with 18 the proviso that the comments in the report be 19 made a condition if the Board approves the 20 application, so it's just dealing with some 21 technical discrepancies, a couple of dimensional 22 things that I raised. The rest of the items were 23 repeats from my prior report. 24 Mr. Nicholson mentioned one of the 25 discrepancies. It's a typographical error. I |
Page 32 1 that right? 2 MR. NICHOLSON: That's correct. 3 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Chris, do you have 4 any questions? 5 MR. RUTISHAUSER: Not at this time. 6 Thank you. 7 MR. TUVEL: I would just note that 8 Mr. Brancheau also has some comments other than 9 architecture that our other experts can address. 10 MR. BRANCHEAU: And I'll be raising 11 those if they are not addressed in testimony. 12 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Very good. At this 13 time there will be cross-examination by the 14 public. Does anyone want to come forth and ask 15 questions? All right. Just come up to the 16 podium, state your name and address and spell 17 your last name and you can ask questions of the 18 architect. 19 MR. LACKS: Good afternoon. My 20 name is Mike Lacks. I'm a representative of 104 21 C Ridgewood LLC located at 104 Chestnut Street, 22 Ridgewood, New Jersey. 23 My question for the architect and 24 this is kind of maybe not an architectural 25 question right now, but it did come up in the |
|
Page 31 1 raised a minor discrepancy of an inch and a half 2 in a building wall dimension. It sounds minor, 3 but when you multiply it over a certain distance, 4 it can have an effect on floor area calculations 5 as well as setbacks and encroachment issues. And 6 the rest of it was addressing the testimony on 7 the architecture. 8 MR. TUVEL: The reports. I feel as 9 though the reports are always part of the record 10 just like the application materials, but it's up 11 to you if you prefer them. Then we should mark 12 each one. We should mark each report then. 13 I would stipulate they are into 14 evidence and part of the record because they were 15 submitted ahead of time and typically, the Board 16 of Professionals, it's up to the Board. 17 MR. MARTIN: Of course, there are a 18 number of reports. Let's refer to the 2017 19 report from the Village Planner. You agree with 20 the representations made by the Planner as to the 21 stipulations? 22 MR. TUVEL: Correct. I'll have Mr. 23 Nicholson just confirm that as our expert, but 24 yes, in terms of architecture, we stipulate that 25 we can accommodate Mr. Brancheau's comments. Is |
Page 33 1 earlier testimony concerning the parking and 2 restaurants, et cetera, and one of the issues 3 here is that there are a string of properties 4 along Chestnut Street that all access the same 5 easement area and there is traffic that flows in 6 and out through that easement through our parking 7 lots into the rear parking lot of this property 8 and there is a concern when you talk about 9 restaurants and things and only having 23 spots 10 for them, so my question is first, is there any 11 way that the town can restrict access in and out 12 of the parking lot? 13 MR. TUVEL: So I guess my point to 14 you would be ask that to either our sited traffic 15 engineer -- 16 MR. LACKS: No, because these 17 questions came up and you gave answers to them 18 concerning the law and what you thought, so I'm 19 asking that question now because it was asked of 20 the architect and it was brought up here and I 21 would like to have the answer to the question 22 whether access in and out of the parking lot 23 because of planning type issues can be done? 24 MR. TUVEL: Sir, respectfully, we 25 didn't talk about access with respect to Mr. |
|
Page 34 1 Nicholson's testimony, but I would ask that the 2 Chairman -- 3 MR. LACKS: I'll ask the next 4 question because you don't have a planner -- 5 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Direct your 6 comments to the Chair. 7 MR. LACKS: Are they going to be 8 having a planner testify? 9 CHAIRMAN JOEL: You asked a 10 question. Mr. Nicholson, can you answer it? 11 MR. NICHOLSON: I really can't. I 12 mean, I can address compliance with the Ordinance 13 with respect to parking count, but the gentleman 14 is asking the question really about operations, 15 about how you control access across the easement. 16 I think it's out of my -- 17 MR. LACKS: My next question is, 18 Mr. Chairman, has this building been designed to 19 have venting for restaurants to the roof? 20 MR. NICHOLSON: No, it has not. 21 MR. LACKS: Is it possible given 22 the design of this building that heavy 23 ventilation for restaurants with grills and deep 24 fryers, et cetera, could be installed into this 25 building and turned into restaurants that have, |
Page 36 1 MR. LACKS: And is there a planner 2 going to be testifying on this case? 3 MR. TUVEL: Yes, the professional 4 planner is typically the last witness that the 5 Applicant puts forth to summarize and take in all 6 the testimony, so yes, we will be providing one. 7 MR. LACKS: Thanks. That's all the 8 questions I have. 9 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else from 10 the public who wants to ask questions? Seeing 11 that there's none, thank you, Mr. Nicholson. 12 MR. TUVEL: So, Mr. Chairman, the 13 next witness that I would like to call, assuming 14 we are done with architecture at this time, is 15 our professional site engineer, civil engineer, 16 Dan Busch, from Maser Consulting, so he has not 17 been sworn or qualified. So we'll go through 18 that right now. 19 Dan, could you provide a card for 20 the court reporter? Would you like one as well 21 just for your notes? 22 MR. BRANCHEAU: Thank you. 23 MR. MARTIN: Mr. Busch, raise your 24 right hand. 25 DANIEL W. BUSCH, P.E., P.P., C.M.E. |
|
Page 35 1 you know, any restaurant? 2 MR. NICHOLSON: It is possible to 3 incorporate that into the design before the 4 building is built. I would tell you after the 5 building is built, that it would be very 6 difficult. 7 MR. LACKS: So as an architect, you 8 are also, essentially, a person who is a planer. 9 Do you understand the area of 10 Ridgewood and the parking issues that are here? 11 MR. NICHOLSON: Well, I'm not a 12 planner as the State of New Jersey defines a 13 planner. 14 MR. LACKS: As an architect there 15 are sound principles of use of buildings and 16 design of buildings that all kind of circulate 17 together and things like that. Correct? 18 MR. NICHOLSON: I'm familiar with 19 the design of restaurants. 20 MR. LACKS: Do you think it's sound 21 planning principles to have 23 parking spaces for 22 a location that could have 5,000 square feet of 23 restaurant space? 24 MR. NICHOLSON: I'm not qualified 25 to answer that question. I'm not a planner. |
Page 37 1 having been first duly sworn, testified as 2 follows: 3 MR. MARTIN: State your name and 4 your professional title and your business? 5 MR. BUSCH: I'm a Licensed 6 Professional Engineer. I'm a Principal of Maser 7 Consulting. 8 I have a Bachelor of Civil 9 Engineering from the University of Delaware. 10 I've been practicing in the field of civil 11 engineering for over 20 years. 12 I have testified before Boards 13 throughout the State of New Jersey. I've not had 14 the pleasure of appearing before this Board. 15 I look forward to speaking to you 16 this evening. 17 MR. TUVEL: He pretty much went 18 through his qualifications right there. Unless 19 the Board has any other questions, I would ask 20 they accept Mr. Busch as an expert in civil 21 engineering. 22 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Any other questions 23 of the Board? Have you ever not been accepted as 24 a professional engineer at a hearing? 25 MR. BUSCH: No. |
|
g
|
Page 42 1 3,317 square feet and they are located in the 2 southwest corner as well as the southeast corner. 3 Those are basically a decorative paver area. 4 One of the comments from your 5 planner, and quite frankly, when I looked at the 6 plans, was to add some seating and some benches 7 to those areas. 8 I do have planters around the 9 perimeter of them to kind of provide some 10 buffering. 11 With respect to parking, I know 12 there was a lot of testimony at the last hearing 13 with respect to parking. We have as noted in 14 your planner's letter there is, in fact, 23 that 15 are identified as retail spaces. 16 We are going to eliminate one of 17 those and we will only have 22 designated for 18 retail space and we then do have 128 for 19 residential. 20 One thing that I want to clarify is 21 there was a lot of discussion about visitor 22 parking. 23 For this in the residential Site 24 Improvement Standards, part of the standard for 25 whatever size unit, one half of a stall is |
Page 44 1 That is a significant improvement 2 for pedestrian safety and the handicapped ramps 3 have all been redone at that intersection as 4 well. 5 With respect to improvements along 6 the frontage, the entire frontage of Franklin 7 Avenue gets a new sidewalk. The appropriate 8 Village street lights, street trees and the 9 sidewalk improvements continue along Chestnut. 10 One of the other comments that came 11 up in one of the letters today, and you see this 12 obviously throughout the Village, is that 13 these crosswalks that change the pavement color 14 or pavement type to accentuate that it is, in 15 fact, a pedestrian crosswalk, so we will agree to 16 incorporate that. 17 MR. TUVEL: And let's just 18 reference what letter is that. For the record, 19 that's the letter from Shropshire Associates 20 dated January 17, 2017, so that's the Board's 21 traffic consultant with respect to this project? 22 MR. BUSCH: Yes, that's correct. 23 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does the witness 24 concur with that? 25 MR. TUVEL: Yes, we agree that the |
|
Page 43 1 designated for visitor parking, so for 66 units, 2 according to the Residential Site Improvement 3 Standards, there are 33 visitor parking stalls 4 for this site. 5 MR. TUVEL: I know our traffic 6 engineer will get more into the details of 7 parking and how the retail and the residential 8 work together, but just from a code standpoint 9 and how you lay out the site, the site plan 10 complies with the Statewide Residential Site 11 Improvement Standards. Is that correct? 12 MR. BUSCH: Yes. 13 MR. TUVEL: As well as the Village 14 of Ridgewood Code as to the retail or 15 non-residential component? 16 MR. BUSCH: Correct. Just a couple 17 of identifying some of the improvements that are 18 off-site or immediately adjacent to the site. 19 The existing handicapped access and 20 ramping at the intersection of Chestnut and 21 Franklin Avenue is going to be redone. 22 There will be basically a 23 pedestrian area of refuge which would be on the 24 easterly side of the intersection for providing 25 pedestrian access across Franklin Avenue. |
Page 45 1 change in color with respect to pedestrian 2 crossing would be acceptable. Is that correct? 3 MR. BUSCH: That's correct. With 4 respect to the access, obviously, there are two 5 access points, one at the traffic signal on 6 Franklin, and then a second one on the north end 7 of the frontage on Chestnut. 8 MR. TUVEL: Dan, so the Franklin 9 Avenue access is under County jurisdiction? 10 Chestnut is under the Village's jurisdiction? Is 11 that correct? 12 MR. BUSCH: That is correct. The 13 corresponding site triangles per the different 14 standards, whether they be AASHTO, County or the 15 Village standards, and are identified on the plan 16 and complied with on the plan. 17 The access provides, as you are 18 aware from the architectural testimony, that they 19 basically both enter and go under the building. 20 The building will have clearance to allow for a 21 fire truck. 22 We did submit in conjunction with 23 the application, truck turning movements for the 24 Ridgewood fire truck. It's about a 39-foot long 25 truck and demonstrated that that vehicle can |
|
Page 46 1 enter from either driveway and then circulate 2 through the site. 3 Just as a point of reference, our 4 hydrant is located near the entrance from 5 Franklin Avenue. 6 The onsite circulation is pretty 7 basic. We have 9 by 18 parking stalls, 24-foot 8 wide drive aisles. 9 There was a comment discussing the 10 northern most drive aisle which just as a matter 11 of clarification is incorrectly identified on 12 this exhibit, but is correctly identified in the 13 plans as being one way 20 feet wide. 14 We're going to reconfigure that and 15 basically eliminate that aisle, so the question 16 with respect to widening it out to 24 feet to get 17 it to be two ways, it's going to go away. The 18 aisle itself is going to go away. 19 The existing easement that has 20 direct access to Franklin Avenue roughly in the 21 middle of the site is going to be located to the 22 Chestnut Street driveway and then basically, form 23 an L along the rear of those properties, the 24 adjacent properties that front on Chestnut and it 25 will remain the same width. |
Page 48 1 aisles. 2 We're going to stipulate that the 3 largest vehicle will fit within the loading 4 space, will be a single unit truck. It would not 5 be a WD 40 because it would obstruct that drive 6 aisle. 7 MR. TUVEL: Dan, some of the other 8 comments, just to knock them out, in Mr. 9 Shropshire' s letter here, the site triangles 10 should be dimensioned? No issues with that? 11 MR. BUSCH: Correct. 12 MR. TUVEL: That was commented on 13 Page 2 of his letter and all site distances as 14 far as you are concerned are appropriate? 15 MR. BUSCH: Yes, obviously, at the 16 signalized intersection looking to the right, you 17 have obstructions, but it is a signalized 18 intersection. 19 MR. TUVEL: Comment 4 details the 20 details specified 24 inches. Is that fine? 21 MR. BUSCH: Yes. 22 MR. TUVEL: And then Comment Number 23 5 talks about the turning analysis for the fire 24 truck. We did provide that connection with the 25 submission? |
|
Page 47 1 With respect to loading, there is a 2 12 by 40 loading space located to the north side 3 of the Chestnut Street entrance. 4 For reference, a single unit truck 5 which would be basically the largest truck that 6 would do deliveries here, 30 feet long, so this 7 actually is 10 feet longer than the longest 8 truck. 9 In fact, it would actually 10 accommodate the fire truck, if it were to park 11 there. 12 MR. TUVEL: Just for context, Dan, 13 that basically means there would be no tractor 14 trailer deliveries on site? 15 MR. BUSCH: That's correct. We 16 did, in fact, prepare a truck turning movement 17 for a WD 40, which is basically a small tractor 18 trailer and it can circulate through the site. 19 The issue would be that vehicle is 20 50 feet long. Obviously, the loading space is 40 21 feet long, so the cab would overhang this drive 22 aisle. 23 There were some concerns with 24 respect to making sure whatever vehicle loaded on 25 the site did not obstruct any of the drive |
Page 49 1 MR. BUSCH: Correct, there is a 2 second part to that comment with respect to the 3 vertical clearance question and we're going to 4 provide clearer documentation that the vertical 5 clearance is complied with. 6 MR. TUVEL: Okay. And then with 7 respect to other vehicles such as you mentioned, 8 the SU 30's and trash trucks, those can navigate 9 and circulate the site safely and efficiently? 10 MR. BUSCH: Correct. 11 MR. TUVEL: So those were just the 12 access comments that Mr. Shropshire 13 had in connection with his report, so keep going, 14 Dan, I'm sorry. 15 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Is that 1 through 16 6? 17 MR. TUVEL: That is correct. 18 MR. BUSCH: 1 through 7. 7 is the 19 one about the crosswalk. 20 MR. TUVEL: We already testified as 21 to that one. 22 MR. MARTIN: 1 through 7 at this 23 juncture, they would be stipulated to? 24 MR. TUVEL: Dan, that's acceptable. 25 Is that correct? |
|
Page 50 1 MR. BUSCH: That's correct. I'm 2 going to just briefly touch on utilities. The 3 utility connections are to Franklin. 4 There is a stipulation that we are 5 going to sleeve the existing sanitary sewer along 6 the frontage of the site on Franklin Avenue 7 With respect to storm water 8 management, we have a reduction in impervious 9 coverage and by definition at any point in time 10 the rate of runoff from the site will be less 11 than the existing condition because there's 12 simply less impervious coverage. 13 With respect to water quality, we 14 do not increase by more than a quarter of an acre 15 of impervious coverage, therefore, we do not need 16 to provide for water quality. 17 What I would just say to you is a 18 reduction in impervious coverage is, in fact, an 19 improvement in water quality. Admittedly, five 20 percent reduction in impervious coverage is not a 21 lot. But it is, in fact, an improvement. 22 MR. TUVEL: And Chris, just for the 23 record, the circulation comments as well as 1 24 through 5 I believe are also acceptable. Is that 25 right, Dan? I just want to be clear on that. I |
Page 52 1 With respect to lighting, you have 2 the standard Village Street lights that will be 3 located on Franklin Avenue. Those are metal 4 Howell light fixtures. 5 Everything else within the site or 6 on the building is an LED fixture. 7 There is decorative pole mounted 8 fixtures located throughout the parking lot 9 as well as ceiling mounted fixtures under both of 10 the breezeways, if you want to call them that, 11 and there is also some decorative light fixtures 12 located on the building on the Franklin Avenue 13 frontage. 14 For those that are not familiar 15 with LED fixtures, you may have both in your 16 house, they are far more efficient. The quality 17 of the light that they produce is much better. 18 It's a white light and it's much more controlled 19 and with respect to the cutoff nature of the 20 fixture, it means the light source is recessed 21 into the box per se and that the light does not 22 go above the horizon, so it's all directed 23 downward. 24 The lighting levels that are 25 provided here are consistent with this type of |
|
Page 51 1 think we testified as to most of them, but just 2 for the record? 3 MR. BUSCH: Yes. 4 MR. TUVEL: Okay. And with respect 5 to the parking and traffic, which is really the 6 trip generation aspect of Mr. Shropshire' s 7 Report, our traffic engineer will hit on those 8 items when he testifies. Sorry to interrupt you, 9 Dan, go ahead. 10 MR. BUSCH: No problem. With 11 respect to ground water recharge, this is 12 redevelopment in a PA 1. Ground water recharge 13 is not required, so we do not intend to provide 14 ground water recharge. 15 With respect to soil movement in 16 your Ordinance, this will require a minor soil 17 movement permit for less than 2,000 cubic yards 18 of soil movement. 19 Just touching on the landscape in 20 which I kind of touched on already, but you do 21 have the street trees across the two frontages 22 and shade trees located in the internal portions 23 of the site in the different parking lot islands, 24 and then we do have shrubs as I noted earlier 25 adjacent to the amenity spaces as well. |
Page 53 1 use. The ratios of the max to mins and average 2 mins numbers are typical and consistent with the 3 standards. 4 MR. TUVEL: Dan, in your 5 professional opinion, will the lighting that is 6 proposed have any adverse impacts on any 7 neighboring properties? 8 MR. BUSCH: No. I do want to just 9 note, there's noted on the plans there's 10 identification. 11 If you look at the lighting, you 12 will note that there is a box called, that says 13 MS next to several of the fixtures at the rear. 14 Those are identified to have motion sensors. 15 We are going to change that just a 16 little bit in that the three lights in the 17 internal, in the center of the parking lot will 18 remain on dusk to dawn and the motion sensor will 19 apply to the other lights within the parking lot 20 after 11 p.m. and that's just to maintain a level 21 of security lighting throughout the parking lot 22 whether there's somebody there or not. 23 MR. MARTIN: I don't know if you 24 can answer the question, but with the proximity 25 to New Jersey Transit, do the lights have to |
|
Page 54 1 comply with any regulations as to the running of 2 the trains? 3 MR. TUVEL: That's a question for 4 the engineer. I'm not aware. 5 MR. BUSCH: I'm not aware and 6 in reality, just as the simple reality of it, 7 the rail is roughly -- it's not quite 15 feet 8 higher, but it's close to that. Our lights are 9 at 17 and a half. So in reality, our light is 10 not going to reach the rail in any way because 11 they are so much higher than us. 12 Their light does, in fact, spill on 13 to our site and they have the old high pressure 14 sodium, the yellow light which is personally not 15 as comfortable as the whiter LED light that we're 16 going to provide. 17 I don't think I have anything else. 18 MR. TUVEL: So I guess we're 19 finished with direct with respect to Mr. Busch's 20 testimony, so I welcome the Board to ask 21 questions, if you have any. 22 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Sure. Dave, 23 do you have questions? 24 MR. SCHEIBNER: Yeah, we heard the 25 testimony that the siding of the building was |
Page 56 1 -- you are responsible to talk about remediation 2 at all, if there's any cleanup? Is that your 3 word? 4 MR. BUSCH: I mean, I can speak to 5 it in a general sense. I have quite a bit of 6 familiarity with Brownfield sites. 7 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I'm assuming 8 this probably wouldn't be a Brownfield site 9 because it's a residential use? You would have 10 to clean up more than Brownfield. Is that right? 11 MR. BUSCH: Brownfield is basically 12 a contaminated site. 13 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So that 14 would be part of the process. You do an 15 assessment and then you do a cleanup if that was 16 necessary? 17 MR. BUSCH: That's correct. So 18 this would fall under the LSRP, the License 19 Remediation Program by the State where the 20 Applicant or the owner would hire a licensed 21 remediation professional to implement whatever 22 site remediation may or may not be required. 23 Ultimately, any of those reports, 24 actions, what have you that that LSRP would 25 produce are all subject to audit by N.J. DEP, so |
|
Page 55 1 adjusted because of the decoration on the 2 building going into the public right-of-way 3 space. 4 Does that mean that all of the 5 elements were shifted those few inches or was 6 just the building moved and the other elements of 7 the site plan were not moved? 8 MR. BUSCH: Certainly, the other 9 elements of the site plan were not moved. I do 10 not know the order of magnitude of the shifting 11 as you described. 12 MR. SCHEIBNER: Wouldn't that have 13 an impact on the size of the parking spaces? 14 MR. BUSCH: What it would impact is 15 the sidewalk might go from 6 feet to, for the 16 sake of argument, you know, 5 feet 9 inches, 17 which is relatively insignificant. 18 MR. SCHEIBNER: On another subject. 19 Do I understand correctly that the retaining wall 20 for the railroad is encroached on the property? 21 MR. BUSCH: That is correct. 22 MR. SCHEIBNER: I don't have any 23 other questions. 24 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Councilman VOIGT? 25 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: You didn't talk |
Page 57 1 they can't go off and do anything they want. 2 They still have to file the technical 3 regulations. 4 What it does and what my experience 5 has been, that the process moves along much 6 faster, that the site will get cleaned up in a 7 more efficient, quicker manner than when it was 8 directly through N.J. DEP. 9 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I guess my 10 question is, you anticipate that if there is 11 cleanup as needed, it would occur relatively 12 quickly. Is that right? 13 I don't know how long it would take 14 to assess and clean up. The concern I would have 15 it would be sitting there for quite a while as 16 you are cleaning it up and kind of a mess. 17 MR. BUSCH: Obviously, I can't 18 speak to the nature of what the cleanup may or 19 may not be because I just simply don't know and 20 nobody here knows what that would be. 21 For obvious reasons, the developer, 22 just to be honest, is not in the cleanup 23 business. They are in the development business, 24 so it's in their interest for obvious reasons to 25 get it cleaned up as quickly as possible and move |
|
Page 58 1 forward with the development. 2 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay, thank 3 you. And then you mentioned the lights, the 4 traffic lights. I guess there's one on Franklin 5 and Broad and then there's one on Franklin and 6 Chestnut. Is that right? One is municipal? 7 MR. BUSCH: It's just at Franklin 8 and Broad. It's stop control at Chestnut. 9 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So that is a 10 County light? 11 MR. BUSCH: Yes, that's correct. 12 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And so how does 13 that work as far as who pays for what for that? 14 Are you responsible for some of it? 15 How does that work? 16 MR. TUVEL: Typically, the County, 17 if we were dealing with the County light, they 18 would assess the developer with their pro rata 19 share of any -- I'll call them off-track 20 improvements associated with the project, so when 21 you apply to Bergen County, this happens, they 22 will let you know if off-track improvement is 23 required based upon the development you are 24 proposing, and yes, you would pay your pro rata 25 share of that off-track improvement, so if we |
Page 60 1 MAYOR KNUDSEN: I would like to 2 just come back after everyone else. 3 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie? 4 MS. MCWILLIAMS: Could you just 5 quickly talk again about the handicapped ramp on 6 Franklin and Chestnut and what exactly is being 7 done to it or modified? 8 MR. BUSCH: Sure. So, currently, 9 first of all, at the immediate site corner 10 there's an inlet located directly at that corner, 11 so first of all, that just obstructs the handicap 12 access at the corner itself, so that's going to 13 be moved adjacent to right on the turning radius 14 on Chestnut, so they'll then be a new handicapped 15 ramp at the southeast corner of our site. 16 Then immediately across Chestnut, 17 there's going to be a new handicapped ramp on the 18 sidewalk and then as you move in an easterly 19 direction, they'll be a new crosswalk handicapped 20 ramp on Franklin crossing to the south and in the 21 middle of that, of the street there, they'll be 22 an island as an area, what's called an area of 23 refuge for the pedestrian and there's new ramps 24 on what would be the southeast corner of the 25 intersection of Chestnut and Franklin. |
|
Page 59 1 impact it X percent, we would pay that percent 2 and then possibly people across the street or 3 whatever. 4 I'm just giving you an example 5 that's how it would work. 6 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Then you 7 mentioned this particular development, the 8 sewerage line would hook into the existing I 9 guess municipal sewerage line. Is that right? 10 MR. BUSCH: That's correct, yes. 11 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: A question for 12 you, Chris, do we have the capacity to take 13 additional stuff into our system? 14 MR. RUTISHAUSER: I don't have the 15 memo with me. If we did do an analysis of the 16 existing system, we do have an I&I issue. That 17 stands for Inflo & Infiltration in that length. 18 I requested that the Applicant 19 could either consider replacing the line which 20 could be disruptive or to line it. 21 The engineer did mention slip 22 lining or I would prefer a curative place by 23 lining. That is still to be worked out. 24 COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Thank you. 25 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Mayor Knudsen? |
Page 61 1 MS. MCWILLIAMS: All right. Thank 2 you. The end aisle at the top, yes, the 24 foot 3 one, if you are going to eliminate it, it will 4 just end against, at the end of the property and 5 somebody would have to turn around to come back 6 out? 7 MR. BUSCH: It's a little 8 confusing, but what will happen is the last 9 parking bay, which I'm pointing to, is towards 10 the north end, this parking bay, and what you 11 will be able to do is you drive and circulate 12 here. There will be no need to go past here. 13 What you would have is, you'll have 14 these last four parking stalls will be dead-end 15 stalls, but everything else you are going to have 16 a full circulation around. 17 MS. MCWILLIAMS: Will those be 18 allotted to specific units? 19 MR. BUSCH: No. 20 MS. MCWILLIAMS: So it would be -- 21 say somebody pulling in there as a visitor or a 22 guest or somebody to the retail space who might 23 then have to back up or turn around, is there 24 turn around room in that aisle? 25 MR. BUSCH: Well, what would happen |
|
Page 62 1 is if they got to this point, quite frankly, they 2 are going to see whether there's a stall there or 3 not and they are going to make that right turn 4 and circulate back to the site. 5 Keep in mind these are the most 6 remote stalls on the site. There's literally 33 7 visitor stalls. That's the location. These 8 stalls are going to be used fairly infrequently. 9 MR. TUVEL: And Dan, just to 10 ducktail off that question, what would be in that 11 area if we eliminated that access aisle? 12 MR. BUSCH: It's going to be 13 landscaped in some manner or otherwise impervious 14 material. 15 MS. MCWILLIAMS: Okay. For the 16 truck length and truck capability of the loading 17 zone there, if you had a business, and I was 18 under the impression it had not ruled out a 19 restaurant could go there, I thought Jeff had 20 asked that, I'm just asking, but would there be 21 any way to eliminate or rule out or disallow or 22 stop somebody from coming in there with a truck 23 that was too big or would they just pull in and 24 block the area? 25 MR. BUSCH: It is going to be |
Page 64 1 MS. MCWILLIAMS: Okay, and just the 2 further out ones are going to be -- 3 MR. BUSCH: There's a series of 4 lights that are in these islands here. Those 5 would be the ones on that would be on the motion 6 sensor. 7 MS. MCWILLIAMS: Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Debbie? 9 MS. PATIRE: Yeah, to piggyback a 10 few things my fellow Board members are saying, 11 have you thought about all the lights doing what 12 the Smart City Technology does with the LED so 13 it's dimmed and then when someone walks toward it 14 on a motion sensor, they all light up, so instead 15 of having the group of lights right in the 16 center, they are all dimly lit and as someone 17 walks towards it, they go brighter? 18 MR. BUSCH: We could certainly do 19 that. Just in my mind, what I was preferring is 20 that we have lights that simply remain on dusk to 21 dawn just to provide a basic background lighting 22 for security and then exactly that, that you 23 would have to have the remaining on motion 24 sensors, so the way I see it, it's kind of a 25 hybrid of what you are describing to maintain |
|
Page 63 1 written into the leases for the retail tenant as 2 well as the residential tenant, so they will know 3 the biggest truck you could have is a box truck 4 effectively. 5 MS. MCWILLIAMS: So if they had a 6 business that had a longer truck for a delivery, 7 for a delivery for a restaurant business, where 8 would they suggest that they park or what would 9 be there? 10 MR. BUSCH: The alternative is they 11 have to bring it in a different truck or they are 12 not going to come to the site. 13 MR. TUVEL: The goal would be 14 eliminate the issue that you are raising so that 15 the lease clearly addressed the size of trucks 16 that can come in and that there would be 17 penalties for violating so that way, cut that off 18 right from the beginning. 19 MS. MCWILLIAMS: Okay. And the 20 last question I have was with the motion sensor 21 lights, those were dusk to dawn? 22 MR. BUSCH: They would go on to a 23 motion sensor like 11 p.m. The internal poles 24 that are in the middle of the parking lot, those 25 would remain on dusk to dawn. |
Page 65 1 some basic light level. 2 MS. PATIRE: Yeah, again, I'm not 3 an expert in this, but for parking structures 4 that are enclosed and open, a lot of people like 5 the whole thing sort of dimly lit for security 6 versus making it black in one back area, so it's 7 all dimly lit and then as you walk towards them, 8 the level of light goes up? 9 MR. BUSCH: I think what I'm 10 describing probably would look very similar to 11 what you are describing because you would have 12 that background lighting level that would be 13 lower than what it would be if all the lights 14 came on and then as you approached, those lights 15 would come on. 16 MS. PATIRE: Then I think this is a 17 question for Chris, so on the Franklin exit, 18 understanding that's a County road, so when they 19 apply and there's an analysis done on what that 20 traffic light needs to be, do they speak to 21 anyone at the town who understands traffic flows 22 and the reason I ask that is because if you park 23 in Citizens Park and you are trying to come out 24 of Citizen Park which is just up the street from 25 here, the road is a similar situation, it's not |
|
Page 66 1 exactly aligned but they are both green at the 2 same time, so if you are coming out and trying to 3 make a left, because it doesn't say "no left 4 turn," the cars coming at you, typically, you 5 sort of have a right-of-way to go that way versus 6 them coming to make the other way and it's a very 7 similar situation from there and during certain 8 hours, there are lots of kids that walk down 9 that way and walk in the town after school 10 or they do whatever they want to do. 11 That to me is a very dangerous 12 place to have an ingress and egress. 13 MR. MARTIN: Any effect on the 14 County road would have to have County -- 15 MS. PATIRE: Right, but do they ask 16 us anything about that intersection or how does 17 that work from a County perspective? 18 MR. MARTIN: Due diligence in terms 19 of coordinating with the Village. 20 MS. PATIRE: They would? So they 21 would come to us? 22 MR. MARTIN: I would hope so. 23 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Do you want to add 24 to that, Chris. 25 MR. RUTISHAUSER: Sure. First off, |
Page 68 1 can only park one vehicle in that spot? 2 MR. TUVEL: So, I mean, this would 3 be more of Traffic Engineering but just to give 4 you a preview, we can set forth through the 5 property management company times that the 6 residents can come and go if they have to move in 7 or move out. We can work that through the 8 property management company. They just won't be 9 able to do it on their own volition. 10 With respect to the retail, there's 11 not that much retail space here. This isn't some 12 big box type of development. It's only 5,500 13 square feet. 14 So, again, the property management 15 company can set forth rules and regulations 16 within the lease that makes sure to your point 17 that you don't have multiple deliveries occurring 18 at one time, and quite frankly, the developer 19 wouldn't want that either. 20 MS. PATIRE: Okay. Do we as a 21 Village have any regulations as far as, you know, 22 move in and move out dates are between weekdays 23 and they are between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. They do 24 that in Manhattan all the time. 25 Do we have anything like that here |
|
Page 67 1 the traffic light is not the County's. It's the 2 Villages. It's ours, so any improvements that 3 will be done will be reviewed by my staff and the 4 Village in conjunction with the County because 5 they own Franklin Avenue. 6 It's one of the interactions that 7 we are currently studying for improving Franklin 8 and North Broad. That is correct. 9 If this development were to be 10 approved, I would look at making sure that the 11 driveway is as centered as possible because the 12 concern you raise with your example over by 13 Godwin and Lincoln is a valid one and this does 14 have a lot of traffic. 15 MS. PATIRE: Again, that's kind of 16 my obsession on this whole site plan, quite 17 frankly, is making that left coming out, people 18 wanting to go straight especially during rush 19 hour. You've got school. Again, there's a lot 20 of things going on. So, thank you, Chris. 21 The next thing is, I'm assuming 22 because you have one bay to load in and load out, 23 if there's a bunch people that are coming in or 24 moving in and out, or you have restaurants and 25 things, things will be timed, right, because you |
Page 69 1 that designates since weekend traffic is busier 2 downtown? 3 MR. TUVEL: I didn't see anything 4 in the Ordinance unless somebody else is aware of 5 it. 6 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Blais, can that be 7 a condition of approval? 8 MR. BRANCHEAU: Regulating the 9 timing? 10 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yeah. 11 MS. PATIRE: Load in and load out? 12 MR. BRANCHEAU: You know, I need to 13 know more information before I could evaluate 14 that. I don't see why not, as long as it was 15 reasonable, and a valid purpose, but with 16 particular times and so forth, I need more 17 information to be able to advise. 18 MR. MARTIN: The lease. 19 MR. TUVEL: I agree with your 20 comments. It should be completely organized so 21 that there's no issues and so does the developer. 22 MS. PATIRE: I'm assuming that's 23 on the operations side, is going to say, this one 24 is moving in at ten o'clock. You can't come 25 until the following day or whatever it is just |
|
|
Page 74 1 the construction. 2 MS. ALTANO: Because I think it 3 would be a wonderful project for Ridgewood to 4 have. 5 And one more question. We have 6 retail allocated, however, we don't know who is 7 going to lease the retail space. 8 MR. TUVEL: That's correct. 9 MS. ALTANO: How do we, for 10 instance, as one example, is a dry cleaning 11 business where you have certain parameters where 12 you are going to put your exhaust and the toxic 13 nature of the exhaust. I believe it's like 15 14 feet from the next window. I'm not sure. I just 15 want to go back into that information. 16 So do we deter those particular 17 businesses from applying, only because the 18 building is done. How do you retrofit the 19 building to include an exhaust particularly when 20 you have residential units over there? 21 MR. TUVEL: Mr. Busch mentioned 22 what I was going to say. One, it's more of an 23 architectural question, but also, it's governed 24 by building code regulations, so, if for example, 25 the building code wouldn't allow for a dry |
Page 76 1 see what the elevation is. That's roughly, and 2 if you look at Sheet 2 of the plans, it's roughly 3 Elevation 140 and we're down -- you know, our 4 parking lot grades there are 127, 126, near the 5 intersection, so it's 13,14. 6 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Have you ever 7 walked the lot at night to see the ambient 8 lights come on? 9 MR. BUSCH: Literally, before I 10 came here, I wanted to for that exact reason, to 11 get a sense of what the lighting is. The ambient 12 light is clearly coming from the platform and 13 it's that high pressure sodium kind of yellowish 14 light. 15 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does that make it 16 so that you can turn down the light that you have 17 on your lot just to get a certain level? 18 MR. BUSCH: I mean, I would much 19 rather see the LED white light within the site. 20 That's more appropriate and most people prefer 21 that. 22 CHAIRMAN JOEL: But you wouldn't be 23 adding to any more light pollution in a sense or 24 overspill? It would be pretty contained? 25 MR. BUSCH: Correct. We basically |
|
Page 75 1 cleaner based on certain parameters, then we 2 couldn't do one. It would almost be self 3 policing in that respect. 4 MS. ALTANO: Thank you. Thank you 5 very much. 6 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel? 7 MR. TORIELLI: I have no questions 8 at this time. 9 CHAIRMAN JOEL: With respect to 10 those lights in the lot, can they be seen by the 11 residences around the area? 12 MR. BUSCH: They can certainly be 13 seen by the properties that are on Chestnut. 14 CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. Do you 15 know -- I guess the train platform has the lights 16 on all night. Is that correct? 17 MR. BUSCH: I couldn't tell you. I 18 would suspect that that is, in fact, the case, 19 but I couldn't tell you for certain. 20 CHAIRMAN JOEL: And I would assume 21 those lights would be higher than what the lot 22 lights would be? 23 MR. BUSCH: Yeah, just quickly, 24 because I know that that was a question that came 25 up at the last hearing, I just quickly looked to |
Page 77 1 cut off roughly at the property line. There's 2 some small amounts. I think it's a half or 3 something along those lines which is pretty 4 minor. 5 CHAIRMAN JOEL: These lights are in 6 a box, so it's more directional that it sprays 7 down? 8 MR. BUSCH: Correct. So the actual 9 light source is recessed into the fixture so you 10 know, on the horizontal, you don't see it. You 11 have to be below the fixture to see the light 12 source. 13 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thanks. Blais, do 14 you have any questions? 15 MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes, I do. But I 16 promised Chris he could go first. 17 MR. RUTISHAUSER: Am I still under 18 oath? 19 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Hold on. Mayor, do 20 you have any questions? 21 MAYOR KNUDSEN: Actually, the 22 questions I had were exactly yours, the spillage 23 of light into the adjacent residences. 24 I actually will ask Blais, does 25 anyone know the adjacent properties along |
|
Page 78 1 Chestnut, do those have any housing in those, 2 apartments? 3 MR. BRANCHEAU: There is some. 4 MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. So this dusk 5 to dawn lighting does impact those residences. I 6 mean, you can't control light pollution. I mean, 7 light is light, so when you are in the dark and 8 suddenly you have light dusk to dawn, it's light? 9 MR. BUSCH: Correct. The control 10 is to keep the light source more internal to the 11 site such that you don't eliminate the amount of 12 spillage that could take place. 13 MS. PATIRE: Just to be clear, 14 that's why I'm suggesting the dim and then have 15 people walk towards it because it is relatively 16 low, but it does provide that sense of safety and 17 security. 18 MR. TUVEL: Dan, just to be clear, 19 there's no spillage on to any residential 20 properties. Correct? 21 MR. BUSCH: There is some light 22 along the easterly side that does extend because 23 we have a drive aisle that is immediately at the 24 property line, so there is some light that 25 extends up to that property line just to maintain |
Page 80 1 satisfaction. 2 We believe it works now, but if 3 they have any additional comments based on what 4 the Board has said, we are happy to work with 5 them on the lighting. 6 MAYOR KNUDSEN: One last question. 7 The size of the box truck again, what was the 8 size of the box truck? 9 MR. BUSCH: It's 30 feet long. A 10 single unit truck by definition is 30 feet long. 11 MR. TUVEL: Can you give an example 12 to the Board? 13 MAYOR KNUDSEN: I did not hear what 14 you just asked. 15 MR. BUSCH: He asked for an 16 example. A trash truck is a single unit truck. 17 MAYOR KNUDSEN: A garbage truck. 18 MR. BUSCH: A garbage truck, yes. 19 MAYOR KNUDSEN: So on your biggest 20 unit apartment square footage wide, how big of a 21 truck would it take -- I mean, just talking to 22 somebody who is not really thinking that through, 23 what is the truck size required to the apartment, 24 the largest apartment you have? A 30 foot box 25 truck? |
|
Page 79 1 good lighting. 2 I'm not sure whether that's 3 residential there or not, but it's a drive aisle 4 circulation for pedestrian vehicular safety. You 5 need to illuminate it. 6 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel? 7 MR. TORIELLI: Along the east 8 property line, where you have your foot candle 9 and your spots, it looks like there's -- and on 10 your sheet seven of 10, it looks like you are 11 showing some light? 12 MR. BUSCH: On that easterly side. 13 MR. TORIELLI: Are these 14 photometrics done when the site is fully lit or 15 just the minimal lighting? 16 MR. BUSCH: Yes. It's fully 17 illuminated. 18 MAYOR KNUDSEN: So you always have 19 to rely on the worst case scenario, obviously. 20 I mean, that would be something of a 21 concern. 22 MR. TUVEL: We would be willing to 23 work with your Board of professionals in 24 connection with the comments that were made to 25 ensure that the lighting was to their |
Page 81 1 MR. BUSCH: That's a pretty big 2 truck in a relative sense. It's been a long time 3 since I moved some place. I'm not going to 4 profess and say what size truck, but certainly, 5 it's going to be identified in an applicant's 6 lease for, you know, for one of the apartments. 7 They are going to know that they can use certain 8 trucks. 9 I would also suggest that a lot of 10 people for an apartment of that nature probably 11 move themselves. 12 MAYOR KNUDSEN: But, you know, 13 sometimes somebody calls a furniture store -- I'm 14 trying to think -- like Levitts or a furniture 15 store and they order a sofa and the truck is not 16 just delivering one sofa, it's delivering like 30 17 sofas and so it happens along the way and it has 18 to deliver that sofa and it's not a box truck so 19 if somebody ordered a new sofa, how do you 20 accommodate for a truck that might be delivering 21 furniture to a store? 22 I'm trying to think what's that 23 furniture store that's on the highway -- I don't 24 know a store -- pick a store from somebody -- 25 Ethan Allen is delivering furniture. Somebody is |
|
Page 82 1 delivering furniture and you know, not everything 2 is always going to be this scenario where the 30 3 foot box truck is coming along down the roadway. 4 There will be times that somebody 5 orders furniture and the furniture company isn't 6 delivering just to one place. It sometimes 7 delivers to 10 and it comes with a big truck. 8 How do we accommodate that? That's 9 a real life scenario. 10 MR. TUVEL: Okay. So let's talk 11 about it for one second. Number one, it's not 12 going to be something -- even if it were to occur 13 if there was a mistake, a truck would come that's 14 larger, it wouldn't be that often. 15 The second point I would make is 16 the deliveries would have to be scheduled for 17 something like that through the property 18 management company. Any delivery would have to 19 be scheduled through them. 20 The property management company 21 would be aware and would also tell the tenant at 22 the property they can't have trucks of a certain 23 size, and that they would need to look into that 24 to ensure that they complied with the lease and 25 the rules and regulations of the development. |
Page 84 1 it might not be all the time, but things are 2 going to happen and you know what, if it happens 3 at a bad time when there's a ton of kids or it 4 happens on the weekend because we are a busy 5 downtown, it's a problem for us. That's what 6 we're trying to say. 7 MR. TUVEL: No, I understand the 8 point that's being raised. But it's a very 9 similar point to a lot of comments that I 10 received on retail projects and the typical 11 answer from a professional standpoint is you 12 don't design things for Black Friday. 13 You're sort of projecting a 14 Doomsday scenario like this might happen a couple 15 of times a year, but you don't design a site for 16 those specific instances. 17 I mean, there is human error that 18 occurs. 19 MS. PATIRE: For our Village 20 knowing our current situation with parking and 21 lack of space or whatever, so that's not 22 Doomsday. 23 MR. TUVEL: No, I understand. 24 That's why I think even your code does not 25 provide for timeframes or rules and regulations |
|
Page 83 1 So it's all going to be controlled 2 through property management. 3 MS. PATIRE: Let's give another 4 real life scenario. Ethan Allen is going to come 5 and deliver and that could be a four hour window 6 between 10 and 1. 7 I got someone moving in that day so 8 you can't tell people they can't move in that 9 day? 10 MR. TUVEL: It would have to all be 11 scheduled accordingly. It would all have to be 12 coordinated. 13 MS. PATIRE: So you can't move in 14 that day because somebody in 13 is having 15 furniture delivered so they can't move in until 16 tomorrow. 17 MR. TUVEL: We can bring up a lot 18 of different scenarios. The point I'm trying to 19 make, put across, is that it's all going to have 20 to be coordinated so there is no duplication or 21 overlap. 22 MS. PATIRE: But I think what we 23 have been saying from the Planning Board is that 24 you got one day and this is a big building. So 25 if things are going to happen to your point and |
Page 85 1 with respect to deliveries and things of that 2 nature, that this is all permitted, that we're 3 still willing to work with the Board and with the 4 municipality to ensure that all this stuff is 5 coordinated properly and that there are no issues 6 based on what you said and that's why we thought 7 about that. 8 MS. PATIRE: In all fairness, 9 we also haven't had something like this in the 10 Borough of Ridgewood, so again, we are giving you 11 all scenarios. 12 MR. TUVEL: Everybody's input is 13 helpful and a lot of comments that were made 14 tonight are helpful in connection with how this 15 project develops. 16 MAYOR KNUDSEN: So, I mean, I'm 17 just saying it's 66 units and it's two retail 18 locations, possibly, three retail locations, 19 maybe one big retail location and I'm just 20 unclear as to -- I just think it's a real life 21 scenario and I don't think this is really 22 answering the question by suggesting it's a 23 Doomsday scenario. 24 I mean, there will be times 25 multiple people could be moving in. |
|
Page 86 1 That's 66 units and two three retail units 2 establishments which is quite significant or 3 actually for that particular location for that 4 particular congestion and I guess the roadway 5 network that was not intended. 6 You know, I'm just saying I think 7 the real life scenario is the potential for much 8 larger trucks and I think the suggestion that 9 that's entirely controllable, I see it happening 10 more frequently than you are suggesting that it's 11 one time in a million. Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Chris? 13 CHRISTOPHER J. RUTISHAUSER 14 Village Engineer, having been first duly sworn, 15 testified as follows: 16 MR. MARTIN: You are the village 17 engineer? 18 MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes, I am. 19 MR. MARTIN: Jason, do you 20 stipulate to his credentials as a professional 21 engineer? 22 MR. TUVEL: Yes. 23 MR. RUTISHAUSER: Refresh my 24 memory. Did you say these plans were prepared 25 under your oversight? |
Page 88 1 MR. RUTISHAUSER: So that's not 2 your client's fence? 3 MR. BUSCH: I do not believe so. 4 MR. RUTISHAUSER: The basis of that 5 line of questioning is in speaking with the fire 6 inspector, Lieutenant Young, he had made a 7 suggestion if it was possible on the fence to 8 have a gate to provide emergency egress from the 9 properties to the north because I think we can 10 have a multi-use facility just off of there. I 11 forgot the name of it. West Bergen Mental 12 Health. 13 MR. BUSCH: There's a significant 14 grade difference there because you have a wall 15 and then the fence on top of it so there's -- I 16 didn't measure the wall. The wall is three or 17 four feet high. 18 You couldn't put a gate in that 19 fence because you would fall off the wall. 20 MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay. Traffic 21 signal we touched base on. It is owned by the 22 Village. You will have to work with us for any 23 improvements. I look forward to the suggestions 24 from your Traffic Engineer and in conjunction 25 with our traffic engineer. |
|
Page 87 1 MR. BUSCH: I did not. 2 MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay, I thought 3 you had said -- because I notice that there's a 4 different engineer that designed these plans. 5 Could you explain that? 6 MR. BUSCH: Yes, Mr. Haney signed 7 the plans. I did not and they were not prepared 8 under my supervision. 9 I've had an opportunity to review 10 the plans thoroughly and offer my opinion to the 11 Board from a professional engineering standpoint. 12 MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay. I'll leave 13 that up to the Board's consideration. 14 MS. PATIRE: I'm sorry, may I ask a 15 question on that? I don't mean to interrupt. 16 Does he work with you or is this a 17 different engineer? 18 MR. BUSCH: Yes. 19 MR. RUTISHAUSER: On the north end 20 of the property, the narrow section in the 21 northern most section, there's a fence shown. Is 22 that fence on your client's property or on the 23 adjacent property? It's unclear on the drawings. 24 MR. BUSCH: I believe the wall and 25 the fence are on the adjoining property. |
Page 89 1 For the storm water run-off, you 2 had indicated you felt that this was not a major 3 development? 4 MR. BUSCH: No, I did not say that. 5 It is a major development. 6 MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay, because 7 we're looking for ground water recharge in 8 accordance with our storm water regulations. 9 MR. BUSCH: There's two comments 10 where you do not do ground water recharge, one, 11 PA 1, planning area one, metropolitan planning 12 area which is what we are in and redevelopment. 13 We meet both those criteria. On 14 top of that, what I would submit to you is 15 something that we discussed briefly which is 16 ultimately there will be what's called a Remedial 17 Action Work Plan associated with cleanup of the 18 site. 19 Ground water recharge where you 20 have circumstances like that is not desirable and 21 there's language specifically in the code with 22 respect to where ground water recharge would be 23 contrary to an approved Remedial Action Work 24 Plan. 25 I would also suggest that that |
|
Page 90 1 circumstance will, although it technically 2 doesn't arise today, will ultimately arise as 3 well. 4 MR. RUTISHAUSER: Looking at it 5 from another perspective, once we clean up the 6 site, your LSRP has done that, you shouldn't have 7 a contaminant loading unless you're capping 8 contaminants in place. 9 MR. BUSCH: It could be. 10 Ultimately, if it is contrary to a Remedial 11 Action Work Plan, that criteria would apply. 12 But beyond that, before we even get 13 to that point, we are PA one. We're 14 redevelopment, no ground water recharge. 15 That is in the State's Storm Water 16 Management Rules. 17 MR. RUTISHAUSER: Do you know where 18 the LSRP is for the site? 19 MR. BUSCH: I do not. I'm not even 20 sure there is one. 21 MR. RUTISHAUSER: Regarding the 22 soil movement, you had indicated you would be 23 below a major soil removal permit. Is that 24 correct? 25 MR. BUSCH: Correct. |
Page 92 1 Professional Planner? 2 MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes, I am. 3 MR. MARTIN: Do you stipulate to 4 Mr. Brancheau as the Village's Professional 5 Planner? 6 MR. TUVEL: Yes. 7 MR. BRANCHEAU: You spoke about the 8 amenity areas in my comment asking if benches 9 were being planned for those areas, but I don't 10 remember what your response was. Could you 11 restate that? 12 MR. BUSCH: The short answer is 13 yes. 14 MR. BRANCHEAU: You indicated that 15 the site triangles on the plans that had been 16 identified and are compliant. 17 There was a comment in my report 18 from today that noted that the site triangle on 19 the plan is not drawn in accordance with our 20 Ordinance, specifically, Section 190. 21 MR. BUSCH: I know specifically 22 what you are referring to, the 25 by 25 which is 23 drawn from the right-of-way, whereas, on our plan 24 it's drawn from the street line and my 25 understanding is there's a small sliver or corner |
|
Page 91 1 MR. RUTISHAUSER: Would that be 2 taking anything into account, any remedial 3 excavation required by a site cleanup? 4 MR. BUSCH: No. 5 MR. RUTISHAUSER: All right, 6 because if the site cleanup requires 7 evacuation in conjunction with the proposed 8 development's excavation and that goes over 2000, 9 you would still need a major soil permit and you 10 will have to come back to the Planning Board and 11 subsequently, the Village Council. 12 MR. BUSCH: We acknowledge that. 13 MR. RUTISHAUSER: As long as you 14 are aware of that. That's it. Thank you. 15 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Blais? 16 MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes. A couple of 17 questions. 18 MR. MARTIN: Actually, we are 19 beyond stipulations at this point. We will have 20 some questions and comments from the public. Why 21 don't you raise your right hand. 22 BLAIS L. BRANCHEAU, 23 Village Planner, having been first duly sworn, 24 testified as follows: 25 MR. MARTIN: You are the Village |
Page 93 1 of the building that actually falls within that 2 area and it's my understanding that that building 3 is chaffered to comply with that requirement. 4 MR. BRANCHEAU: So that the 5 Applicant is not seeking relief from that? 6 MR. BUSCH: That is correct. 7 MR. BRANCHEAU: I raised an issue 8 about the crosswalk that's being eliminated in 9 Franklin Avenue and the report from your firm 10 indicated that that was done to the request of 11 Bergen County. 12 I know you are putting a refuge 13 area on the east side of the intersection but on 14 the west side I'm talking about the intersection 15 of Franklin and Chestnut. On the west side of 16 the intersection there's an existing crosswalk 17 that's proposed to be eliminated? 18 MR. BUSCH: Yes, if I may. 19 MR. BRANCHEAU: Could you address 20 that? 21 MR. BUSCH: There is the need to 22 add some additional signage to identify the 23 people that are on the west side. I'm just going 24 to point to it. It's just easier. 25 So on the west side of the |
|
Page 94 1 intersection, this crosswalk is eliminated. 2 There needs to be signage added on the south side 3 and north side at the intersection. To tell 4 people to cross Franklin, you need to move across 5 the east side of the intersection. 6 MR. BRANCHEAU: Humans being humans 7 and wanting to take the shortest path possible, 8 have you assessed the possibility that someone 9 would cross there, notwithstanding the 10 elimination of the painted striping and that 11 could create a safety concern? 12 MR. BUSCH: Well, we are providing 13 for a path that is the safest route to cross 14 there. 15 We're not providing a handicapped 16 ramp. So there is no visual cue that this is a 17 place to cross and they are being provided a 18 close place to cross that is much safer than the 19 current condition and is actually in the area 20 that it crosses Franklin. It's a shorter 21 distance that you are actually in the street of 22 Franklin Avenue. 23 MR. BRANCHEAU: Let's say I am 24 coming from the west and I want to go to the 25 restaurant down the street and I got on to a |
Page 96 1 At least the driver today sees a 2 painted crosswalk to think, okay, there could be 3 a pedestrian here, whereas, if that paint is 4 gone, now, he's probably more relaxed. He sees 5 one a little further ahead and he doesn't think 6 that a pedestrian could be crossing here, and 7 although, it may not be legal to cross there, 8 it's too late. 9 I'm sure the State will have to 10 deal with it if there's a fatality there and 11 that's the concern that I have. 12 I want to know whether that was 13 done at the direction of the County or whether 14 there was an analysis done to evaluate the safety 15 concern that the elimination of that striping 16 could have. 17 MR. BUSCH: I just have two 18 comments. One is the visual cue to the driver 19 that there could be a pedestrian crosswalk and 20 would it be eliminated there. 21 That obviously goes away if the 22 crosswalk is gone. But it also works the same 23 way as a pedestrian. There's no crosswalk there. 24 The visual cue that that's the place I'm supposed 25 to cross goes away and I clearly have identified |
|
Page 95 1 circuitous route to get there and I want to go 2 across. 3 I guess I want you to advise the 4 Board as to what the likelihood is in your 5 professional opinion someone is actually going to 6 do that instead of just saying, this is shorter, 7 I'm going this way, and this is an intersection 8 where we have had pedestrian/vehicle accidents. 9 And it's a question that I have as to the safety 10 of elimination of that crosswalk. 11 MR. BUSCH: My short answer to your 12 question is, that movement that you are 13 describing is no different than what occurs 14 today. 15 What we are providing and creating 16 is a much safer way for somebody to cross, quite 17 frankly. 18 MR. BRANCHEAU: One way it's 19 different is that by eliminating the painted 20 striping, you have now eliminated in the driver's 21 mind that this is a pedestrian cross area and 22 therefore, it seems to me there is a greater 23 chance of pedestrian/vehicular conflict there 24 because the stripe is eliminated, whereas, the 25 movement may be occurring there today. |
Page 97 1 paths that are immediately adjacent while I'm 2 standing there and make that decision to cross 3 here, I have a crosswalk right adjacent to me. 4 I'm going to be able to see this 5 one and let's be honest, people learn by habit, 6 behavior. They are going to know to make that 7 movement, so the visual cue goes away both to the 8 driver and to the pedestrian. 9 I don't think there's any question 10 that this is a safer way to cross Franklin Avenue 11 here. 12 MR. BRANCHEAU: It's less 13 convenient and that's the concern, if someone may 14 choose convenience over safety to their 15 detriment. 16 MR. BUSCH: I don't want to dwell 17 on this any further but who is saying everybody 18 that walks down Chestnut is walking on the west 19 side, that they are not walking on the east side. 20 If I'm some place further up in 21 this neighborhood and I know on Franklin Avenue 22 this crosswalk is here, I'm going to walk down 23 the east side of the street, go right across the 24 crosswalk. 25 MS. PATIRE: Every one in your |
|
Page 98 1 building is on that side of Chestnut. 2 MR. BUSCH: Well, if they are 3 coming out our building -- 4 MS. PATIRE: You just said how many 5 people are walking down that street. Everyone in 6 your building is on the opposite side of 7 Chestnut. 8 MR. BUSCH: Correct, so they are 9 going to cross right here at the intersection. 10 MS. PATIRE: They would take the 11 path of least resistance to Blais's point and 12 cross the crosswalk. 13 MS. MCWILLIAMS: He's arguing that 14 it's the safest route. I would not give that for 15 a second, but we struggle with the people who 16 don't want to walk an extra three minutes to get 17 to the train which is what this building is going 18 to be used for. Obviously, you hope a lot of 19 commuters will live there. 20 People will go the fastest route. 21 They are late. They are whatever. You got 22 school kids. This is going to be in the ridge I 23 would assume catchment zone and -- 24 MS. PATIRE: They are going to want 25 to get a cup of coffee on that side of the street |
Page 100 1 MR. TUVEL: We'll take a look at 2 that between now and the next time. 3 MR. BRANCHEAU: That's all I have 4 on engineering. 5 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thanks, Blais. Mr. 6 Shropshire? 7 MAYOR KNUDSEN: I had a question 8 too. Do you mind? Just a couple of questions. 9 I thought I heard Blais say 10 something that the County or somebody said that 11 the County determined that that was -- 12 MR. BRANCHEAU: The letter from 13 Maser dated December 30th on the crosswalk 14 indicated that it was done at the direction of 15 the County. 16 That's why I was asking what the 17 County based that on. 18 MAYOR KNUDSEN: I don't know if 19 Chris might comment. 20 MR. BRANCHEAU: C-5 in that letter, 21 "the existing crosswalk referenced on the west 22 side of the Franklin Avenue and Chestnut Street 23 Intersection has been removed at the direction of 24 the County to consolidate the pedestrian 25 crossings." |
|
Page 99 1 before they cross the train station. 2 MS. MCWILLIAMS: The safest is not 3 disputed whether or not they are going to use it. 4 We're saying as the people that live here and 5 witness this and use that street every day, that 6 they are not going to do it. I'm just telling 7 you they are not going to do it. 8 MS. PATIRE: Has the County seen 9 the proposed plans? 10 MR. BUSCH: Yes. 11 MR. BRANCHEAU: Last question, you 12 indicated you are moving the northern most pile 13 and that some impervious material would be put 14 there. 15 You didn't specifically identify. 16 I take this because you didn't really have a lot 17 to think about what's going to go there. 18 I'm wondering if that could be made 19 into an amenity area. Some comments have been 20 made about the amenity area in the south west 21 corner, particularly, its proximity to the 22 intersection into the railroad which may be kind 23 of busy. 24 The northern area quite obviously 25 still has somewhat of a railroad. |
Page 101 1 MAYOR KNUDSEN: All right. The 2 other question then is on the east side of 3 Chestnut, and Chris might be able to answer this 4 question, do you know roughly how far up the east 5 side sidewalk runs and where it ends because it 6 says sidewalk all the way up. 7 MR. RUTISHAUSER: On Chestnut? 8 MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right. 9 MR. RUTISHAUSER: I know on the 10 west side it goes up most of the way because we 11 have it up to the PSE&G substation. 12 MAYOR KNUDSEN: Exactly. 13 MR. RUTISHAUSER: Then usually on 14 the east side it stops -- I think the house just 15 before that because then it gets very steep to 16 the back side of the YMCA. 17 MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right. Okay. 18 MR. BRANCHEAU: I have some 19 additional questions. 20 Are you done, Susan? 21 MAYOR KNUDSEN: Go ahead, Blais, 22 it's all yours. 23 MR. BRANCHEAU: I guess I don't 24 know who to ask questions so since they are site 25 plan related, I'm going to ask them now and if |
|
e
|
Page 106 1 The property is an eye sore and something needs 2 to be done and it's up to the developers and the 3 town to figure out what the right things are to 4 put there, and that's not our business. 5 We only care about what impacts our property. 6 And right now, there is an issue. 7 In your testimony, sir, you 8 indicated that there were only two ways in and 9 out of the property. That's not true. 10 According to the plan that's shown 11 there, our parking lot, which is along the 12 easement way, there is no fence in that plan. 13 So if you were to look right here, 14 which is our parking lot, this is open. 15 I sent a letter to the Board a 16 while back I believe in September talking about 17 this issue and we have no problem -- they can do 18 whatever they want over here, but this is a 19 serious problem for us. 20 The first floor of our building, we 21 have physical therapy. A lot of people are older 22 people. If they are moving slow across the 23 parking lot, this is going to become an issue and 24 the real issue is here is that anybody who is in 25 the town a lot knows that anybody going out of |
Page 108 1 that. 2 MR. LACKS: Just for the record, we 3 did approach them asking that question. 4 I mean, obviously, we are using the 5 easement areas for parking right now. We would 6 like to retain that. But we know it's not our 7 right. 8 That being said, something needs to 9 be done here because we know that this will not 10 be the primary ingress and egress going into this 11 property, and logically, I know you're not a 12 traffic guy, I don't know if you know this town 13 very well, but if you were moving north on 14 Chestnut, does it seem logical that anybody 15 would use this entrance and exit. 16 If you were coming from going south 17 down Chestnut, would you make the right turn, the 18 first right turn, the last right turn? 19 Would you make the right turn where 20 the parking lot is wider or narrower if you were 21 a trucker and you were making a delivery? 22 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. You can keep 23 asking him questions. 24 MR. LACKS: It's in the form of a 25 question. It's more like Jeopardy. |
|
Page 107 1 town towards 17, they are all going to take 2 Linwood Avenue. 3 You take Linwood Avenue. What's 4 the most natural way to leave that site is 5 through our parking lot, and this ingress and 6 egress point that he referred to is their's, is a 7 very interesting place to get in and out of. 8 The traffic backs up there. We all 9 know that. There are a lot of issues there. 10 MR. TUVEL: So I'm going to be the 11 bad guy. Right now you will have time to comment 12 on the application. Just ask a question. 13 MR. LACKS: Sir, we're not against 14 you. We just want safety here. You know, you 15 had stated there was no other way in and out of 16 the property. Is that the case? 17 MR. BUSCH: So we have two site 18 driveways. There is pavement that there is 19 connectivity just as you described here. 20 Is there a way to make some 21 physical barrier, what have you, that would 22 prevent people from crossing that, sure. 23 I don't think the Applicant, my 24 client, would disagree or not. We are willing to 25 work with you to come up with a way to address |
Page 109 1 Actually, I thought your point was 2 well-taken. 3 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Martin? 4 MR. MARTIN: If you are interested 5 in a demarcation line that you just discussed or 6 set forth, could you give him your card? 7 MR. LACKS: We tried starting a 8 dialogue and the dialogue was cut off. 9 MR. MARTIN: End the dialogue and 10 get back on track. 11 MR. TUVEL: The questions and the 12 real estate issues are really outside the Board's 13 purview in terms of the terms of any relationship 14 between the parties. 15 MR. MARTIN: In terms of blending 16 areas that are for the parking lot, it would be 17 beneficial to discuss that. 18 MR. LACKS: I do have one question 19 along those lines, which is you stated that it 20 met AASHTO to make a left turn out of Chestnut 21 Street towards -- and this is really more of a 22 traffic thing but you did say it met AASHTO and 23 make looking left, what's the distance to the top 24 of the crest of the hill from the northern most 25 point of the parking area because that's probably |
|
Page 110 1 not 300 feet. You would need at least 300 feet 2 to the crest of that hill. I don't know if you 3 can see above that hill and meet AASHTO. Maybe 4 I'm wrong. I'm just eyeballing it. 5 MR. BUSCH: The site plan on Sheet 6 4 identifies a 335 foot AASHTO sight distance. 7 It does not factor in a great elevation change. 8 MR. LACKS: It should. 9 MR. BUSCH: I don't disagree with 10 you. We could certainly look at that as to what 11 that is taking that into account. 12 MR. LACKS: That's the only 13 questions I have. I would only again ask the 14 question of the Applicant to work with us on this 15 and then we will probably go away, but if it is 16 not, we implore the Board to do something because 17 this is a true safety issue. 18 CHAIRMAN JOEL: What are you 19 looking for specifically, a fence, or a wall? 20 MR. LACKS: It's got to be -- we 21 think probably the best thing is in looking at 22 this thing, is something for the Chestnut Street 23 people where there's some kind of gated access in 24 and out of there. 25 If we fence that off completely, |
Page 112 1 Before you walk out, if you want 2 counsel's card -- 3 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else from 4 the public have questions? State your name, 5 address and spell your last name. 6 MS. REYNOLDS: Lorraine Reynolds, 7 550 Windermere Avenue. The first question. Mr. 8 Busch, you said that there were 128 residents' 9 total spaces total? 10 MR. BUSCH: Yes. 11 MS. REYNOLDS: And then 33 for 12 visitors. Is the 33 within the 128? 13 MR. BUSCH: Correct. 14 MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. So it's not 15 additional? 16 MR. BUSCH: 33 is a sub-set of 128. 17 MS. REYNOLDS: All right, and then 18 with the crosswalk, I couldn't really see because 19 your body was in the way. 20 MR. BUSCH: This is the new 21 crosswalk location with the area of refuge in the 22 middle. 23 MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. So they are 24 eliminating this crosswalk? 25 MR. BUSCH: That is correct. |
|
Page 111 1 it's not fair to the people next to us who have 2 been using that for years. 3 MR. TUVEL: We'll work something 4 out. 5 MR. LACKS: Again, we have no issue 6 with this. I don't care. They could put all 7 restaurants in there as long as nobody is pulling 8 in and out of parking lot. We're afraid of 9 getting sued and people getting hurt because it 10 is a real issue. I can't tell you, but we 11 probably spend more on salt than anybody on the 12 planet. 13 MR. TUVEL: I'm trying to be polite 14 but we really have to keep it to questions. I 15 know you have issues and concerns. 16 MR. LACKS: You are correct, sir. 17 I apologize. I'm not following the rules. 18 MR. TUVEL: I'm trying to be 19 polite. 20 CHAIRMAN JOEL: Your point is well 21 taken. Did you have any more questions? 22 MR. LACKS: No, sir. 23 MR. MARTIN: Or course, the Police 24 and Fire have to be involved in any kind of 25 analysis of that as well. |
Page 113 1 MS. REYNOLDS: If somebody from 2 this building comes out on the sidewalk and wants 3 to cross along the shops here, do you think they 4 are going to go here, here and here? 5 MR. BUSCH: Yes. 6 MS. REYNOLDS: So the question is, 7 it doesn't sound like that was your idea, this 8 came from the County to eliminate that crosswalk? 9 MR. BUSCH: The short answer is, I 10 don't know. 11 MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. But it didn't 12 come from you? 13 MR. BUSCH: That is correct. 14 MR. MARTIN: You being the 15 Applicant. 16 MS. REYNOLDS: Right. So do you 17 have any idea what the reasoning was to eliminate 18 that crosswalk or whoever decided to eliminate 19 that crosswalk? 20 MR. BUSCH: I'm just going to 21 reiterate, I just said I don't know. 22 MS. REYNOLDS: You don't know. We 23 don't know the reasoning. 24 I think that would be a good idea 25 to find that out. |
|
.
- Hits: 2833