Planning Board Public Meeting Minutes 20170919

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of September 19, 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 7:40 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Susan Knudsen, Joel Torielli, Richard Joel, Councilman John Voigt, Melanie McWilliams, Dave Scheibner, Francis Barto and James Van Goor. Also present were Elizabeth McManus, Planner, Board Attorney Chris Martin, Village Assistant Engineer Jovan Mehandzic, and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Mr. Rutishauser and Ms. Patire were not present.

Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – Mr. Tuvel, attorney for KS Broad Street, asked if the Board would convene a Special meeting for the KS Broad II application. The Board deliberated and agreed to hold the meeting on Tuesday, October 18, 2017.

Committee/Commission/Professional Updates nor Agenda Items – Mr. Joel reported on the Master Plan subcommittee progress in preparing an RFP for a Master Planner. Mayor Knudsen reported the September Historical Commission meeting was cancelled.

Correspondence received by the Board – Mr. Cafarelli said a traffic report from Petry Traffic, a memorandum from the Village Manager about Companion Animal Pledge and Plan, and an email from the Board Attorney.

257 Ridgewood Avenue, LLC, Block 3703, Lot 4, 6, & 8.01, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan – Pubic Hearing continued from August 15, 2017 - Following is the transcript of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Our next item will be 257 Ridgewood Avenue, LLC, Block 3703, Lot 4, 6 and 8.01, preliminary and final major site plan, public hearing continued from August 15, 2017. 

The attorney on this is Tom Bruinooge and we've heard from the engineer, Mike Dipple on July 18th, and then on August 15th and we also heard from Tom Toronto from the United Way. I guess next up is probably the architect and traffic and others. But you have the floor, Tom.
MR. BRUINOOGE: Thank you. You're correct, and we have those witnesses and Mr. Englebaugh from Minno & Wasko the architect for the project did testify, I believe concluded what I would consider to be direct questioning at least from me and so what I anticipated doing with your indulgence is to put Mr. Englebaugh up and is available for answering whatever questions that the board may have had at this point, to be followed by Eric Keller, the traffic engineer who did a traffic report which was submitted to the Village and to John Jahr along the way and then finally John Szabo, one of the principals of Burgis & Associates on the planning issues. At the suggestion of MR. MARTIN and I believe, perhaps, somebody else on the board, we had filed with the Village a major soil movement permit application, which we have noticed pursuant to your ordinance. And to that end I have a proof of publication and an affidavit of service that the appropriate notice as required by the ordinance has been completed and I would like to have that marked and give it to Mr. Cafarelli for the record.
MR. MARTIN:  Thank you, MR. BRUINOOGE.
MR. BRUINOOGE: What's the next exhibit that we have?
MR. MARTIN:  I'm on AR 10 L.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  So this would be  
COURT REPORTER:  11.
MR. MARTIN:  AR 11.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Fine.  AR 11 makes sense.
(Whereupon, Major Soil Movement Permit Application is received and marked as Exhibit AR 11 for identification.)
MR. MARTIN: The notice for the hearing on this was done months ago. 
MR. BRUINOOGE: This particular notice is focused on the question of the major soil movement permit.
MR. MARTIN:  As long as we have it. This is AR 11. And the notice is satisfactory. 
Thank you, MR. BRUINOOGE.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  You're welcome.
MR. MARTIN:  Here you go. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Having established the notice then the order would be at the conclusion of THE WITNESSes for the application, the main    for want of describing it a little differently, we'll finish up with Mike Dipple on the question of the major soil movement permit. 
We thank the Village for bringing along an engineer, Jovan, who has been in touch with Mike Dipple to address whatever questions we have at that point. So our hope is that we can conclude tonight and with that, Mr. Englebaugh is here. I remind him that he continues to be under oath and he is available to answer any questions the board might have with respect to the architectural issues that were presented at the last meeting.
B R U C E  E N G L E B A U G H, having been previously sworn, continues to testify as follows: 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Did he have any other direct testimony to present with respect to the   
MR. BRUINOOGE:  I don't believe so.
MR. ENGLEBAUGH:  No. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Would it help if he simply referenced the last exhibit or the exhibit that's up there? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yeah, I think it would.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Just to get us thinking about what we're talking about.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes, I think that would, yeah.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BRUINOOGE: 
Q. If you don't mind, Bruce, thanks. 
A. Not at all.  I need the microphone. Testing. Hello? Okay. The drawing we're looking at right now is labeled "Site Plan." And it is Exhibit AR 7. Just to get you familiarized again, North Maple is going horizontally along the bottom. Franklin Avenue is off to the right. And Ridgewood is off to the left hand side going vertically (indicating). The building shown in green here is the here is the Sealfons building that's existing. And the only thing we're doing in the Sealfons building is adding special needs housing on the top floor. In order to accommodate that, we're going to make the elevator larger in the Sealfons building to accommodate handicap and wheelchairs. Over on the right hand side shown in tan, that is the new building that we're doing, The Enclave, you could see it's 39 dwelling units and it is basically four stories over top of a parking deck. It gets a little bit more complicated than that, because there's actually a two level deck with residential units in the front and then there's a second story parking deck in the back. So they interlock so to speak. The access to the lower level parking deck would be right here (indicating), off of North Maple Avenue. And the access to the upper level parking deck would be here up on Franklin Avenue. The front of the buildings where you could see here it says "roof terrace,". We've taken the top level off that faces onto North Maple Avenue and then in the back right here, this would step up to four stories. So it has a nicer scale, so to speak, when you're on North Maple Avenue because the buildings do appear much lower. So I don't know if you want to go into it a little bit more, like walking through the floor plans, things like that.
Q. That might help, because I think it's important that the board recall and   
A. Okay.  I'll just try to give you a re cap of  
Q. Yes, and I'd like you to touch specifically on the elimination of certain spaces of the Sealfons building and replacing it with special needs housing. 
A. Okay.  Last time we were up    I'll just go through these very quickly. If anybody has any questions, just stop me. We started out with this. This is an Exhibit AR 6 and it just shows some of the buildings in downtown Ridgewood. What we were trying to do, if you look at the lower right, you'll see that the buildings are broken up vertical and that happened back in the day because that's where the property lines where people built their buildings within their own identity and individual character. And that's what we tried to capture in the facade on North Maple Avenue. You also see in the lower level there's a horizontal line and below that there were usually retail shops. We tried to capture that vocabulary as well. And you'll see that when we get on the front elevation. The next exhibit is labeled AR 8 and it is the east elevation or the front Maple Avenue elevation. And this shows the existing Sealfons building over on the left side and the new Enclave building on the right. Here you can    actually, I'm not going to spend too much time on this because we have an enlargement and Mike will go in more detail on that. For this, just remember we have the Sealfons building over here and The Enclave building over here (indicating). If you have any questions, you can refer to that. 

This is an enlargement of what we're calling The Enclave. It's the same elevation that we just looked at, just an enlargement of the new construction that is going to take place. North Maple Avenue obviously is in the front here (indicating). This area over here is the ingress into the parking deck and this is the front door or the address of the building. Kind of thinking back to those images of downtown Ridgewood, you can see how we tried to break this up vertically so that each one of those portions has somewhat an identify, so to speak, is similar to the buildings in downtown Ridgewood. You also see the horizontal line that comes across here (indicating), the retail shops on Ridgewood Avenue, we kind of kept that same vocabulary on this design. Up above are the residential units, here you could see one, two, three stories of residential. We also have a fourth floor, but, again, this top level steps way back, when we get to a building section, you'll see that this portion of the building is set back about 32 feet from the base of this building    the base of this facade rather.
Q. Bruce, would you just mention the exhibit you are referring to?
A. This is Exhibit AR 9.
Q. Thank you. 
A. And the next thing we looked at was a flip chart of the floor plans. What we're looking at now is the ground floor plan. It's labeled Exhibit AR 10A. In the gray color here is the parking deck, the lower level parking deck. There are 46 public spaces. We were just looking at the elevations. The ingress into the garage at this point, this is the main front entrance at this point right here (indicating). We also talked a little bit about some of the red clouds that you see on these drawings. Those refer to responses to Beth McManus's memo. On this one you'll see a couple of red clouds. What we did is we added a turnaround space for the parking deck here. So that if somebody came in, they could turn around and get back out. And we moved that space over to this area, so we didn't lose any spaces when we made that revision. Up in the back here we put in double doors (indicating). This is kind of a service area and we wanted it a little bit wider. There's a ramp here so that a hand truck can get down here, if they need it. We just wanted some wider doors. As we go up through the building, I'll explain how the trash works, but right over here is the    what I'll call, the lowest level of the last place the trash gets collected. The truck would come in here (indicating). These dumpsters would wheel out. It would pull in and dump it into the truck. Back in here and turn around and go out. 
The trash, you'll see it on the upper level.  The trash comes down the chute and then the porter will take it over to this area, but, again, that's on the area up above. The next exhibit is    if I can take a break here and lift this up. Okay. This next exhibit is AR 10B.  It is the first floor plan now one level up, so to speak, from North Maple Avenue. This level you could see we have parking in the back. This is the second level parking deck and then we have residential units up in the front. We have two elevators right here. The larger one is a service elevator.  This other one would be the elevator for the residents. There's two stair towers, one over here on the left and one over here on the right side (indicating) towards the top of the sheet. But you can see as you come in off of Franklin Avenue via car you would drive underneath this portion of the building, what you see with the red diagonal stripes, that's the building up above. 

So you drive underneath that, find a parking place and then this is    what would for all intents and purposes will be the front entrance for the residents. We have a double loaded corridor and you could see we have residential units on both sides of that corridor (indicating). 
Over here is the trash    we're talking about the level below what would    the way the trash would be handled would come down this service elevator. It would    I'm sorry, it wouldn't come down the service elevator. It would go down the trash chute. There would be a compactor in here. A porter will take it out the trash room over to this holding area and there's a chute here where it drops down to the area below and that's where the truck would pick it up and take it out. The next exhibit is AR 10C. It's the second floor and the Sealfons building kind of a bluish color over here (indicating), this is the special needs housing. You could see we have a one bedroom and the rest are two bedrooms over here (indicating). And then we have a community room shown in this greenish color. Here is the elevator using vertical transportation. Over on the right hand side in the tan color is The Enclave. You could see it's double loaded corridor. We have the elevators in the center here and the trash room shown in gray and then a stair tower on each end. The third floor, we're now above the Sealfons building.  So all we're seeing is the new Enclave, it's the L shaped building with a tan color, very similar to the floor below. The next exhibit is the fourth floor. This is AR 10E. Again, you'll see that L shape. But the difference on this level is    and it's hard to see, because it's all the same color of tan, but this is that roof terrace in the front here. So the only residential units are above my hand to the back. So there's a single loading corridor here and then it turns into a double loading corridor. Again, the stair towers on each end and the elevators in the center and the trash room. This room up in the upper left is an amenity space. Again, that was added to Beth's memo about we needed more common space for the building. So this is a space that's accessible to all the residents. Next exhibit is Sheet A 6, the roof plan. And this is exhibit number AR 10. So you see where the terrace is down below, this lighter tone tan. Up above in this darker brown color is the roof. You could see we have the condensing units and there's a red cloud on here. What we did is we've added a louver screen so that you don't see the condenser units. It's just a series of louvers so that if you're standing    you actually wouldn't even see them from the ground. If you're up in the air on any of the surrounding buildings, you would see decorative louvers rather than the mechanical equipment. I won't spend too much time on this. This is Sheet A 7. This is a elevation. This is Exhibit AR 10G. These are basically the black and white versions of the colored ones that we looked at earlier. Down here on bottom of the sheet is the south elevation. We didn't really look at that. This would be Ridgewood Avenue (indicating) in the foregrounds would be Sealfons and the foreground as well. And then the new Enclave building would sit far back in the distance. So if you can see this from the ground here, this is Ridgewood, we're looking this way. Next sheet is sheet number A 8. It's more building elevations. And it's labeled Exhibit AR 10H.  On the top we have the west elevation. This would be the Sealfons building on the right hand side. And this would be The Enclave on your left side. So to get you oriented on the site plan, you would be looking at it like this, like that (indicating). The Sealfons building on your left, The Enclave on your right. This portion all in brick would be this wing right here (indicating) that comes towards you. The north elevation down below, this is what faces Franklin Avenue. This area here would be the ramp that you drive up (indicating) and then you would park underneath the building and then this is the three residential floors that are up above the parking and this is North Maple Avenue out here to the far left. 

One thing I did want to talk about that I didn't talk about last time was in Beth's memo, it's concealing the parking. We don't show the Brake O Rama building up here, but the Brake O Rama building is going to hide any of the parking. I think the Brake O Rama building is probably 10 feet higher. So any cars that are parked behind that building you're not going to see them. You will see them parked here, though (indicating). The next drawing is Sheet A 9. It's a building section. The exhibit is labeled AR 10I. This would be North Maple Avenue on the right hand side. You'll see here the three dwelling units, the three stories with a terrace up above that face out on North Maple Avenue. The garage down below, you can see that it's partially buried. You actually slope down a little bit to get into that garage and then by the time you get to the back it's pretty much fully there. There is an existing utility room that's there now. That's where all the utilities come in, actually for the Sealfons building and we're going to keep that room and it's going to be a service and utility room for this project as well. 
This wing in the back up towards the upper left    let me just get this site plan for you. So this building section we're looking at there will be a line cut through here (indicating). I know it's hard to see down here, I don't know if everybody could see it. Right through here (indicating).  So you're seeing North Maple to the right. The roof terrace right here. Parking in the back. And then you'll see this wing, which is this right here. That's this one right here. This is good, because it shows if there's someone on the sidewalk, even the offices aside the sidewalk on North Maple Avenue, when they look up, this is the sight line (indicating). So you could see that wall. This is the wall that we were talking about that was set 32 feet back. It's right here. So if you're on the sidewalk, you won't even see that wall. You will see the site here. 
Next exhibit is labeled AR 10J. It's sheet number A 10. It's a typical unit floor plan. On the left we show a typical one bedroom at 865 square feet. On the right is a typical two bedroom at 1,250 square feet. Just in general we tried to keep the kitchens and the baths in the back where we don't need the windows and we have the living and the bedroom spaces out here on the window wall.

Next exhibit was Sheet No. A 11. It's labeled AR 10K. It just shows the breakdown of the various square footages. There's a chart down in the lower left hand corner and it just shows the retail, office, residential and, you know, how they all total up. The last exhibit is a building height diagram. It's Exhibit No. AR 10L and what we did is we took several of the buildings that are nearby, such as Franklin Avenue, you can recognize it more with the images that are down on the bottom. That we had Franklin Avenue, Cottage Place. And then we put The Enclave project in the center and we compared the heights of the surrounding buildings. Just looking at The Enclave, the height per code is 54 feet, 11 inches or 54.92 feet. The thing to remember about this is it's averaged from an imaginary plane that's established by setting points around the perimeter of the building. We take an average of those points. That sets this imaginary grade plane line and we measure from there to the top. So that's how we can measure per code. Some of the earlier hearings that we had back    you know, dating back to 2014, 2012, there was a concern about high the building was from the sidewalk. So we took all the heights measured against the terraces, is taking the floor off the building in the front. So we took all the various heights, because you could see the parapets steps up and down. We averaged them together and from the sidewalk it averaged 46 feet, 4.5 inches. That's basically a quick recap of what we talked about last time. A couple of additional pieces in there. 
MR. BRUINOOGE: And so any questions of this particular witness on the architectural issues? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Jeff?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: The condenser units that will be on top of the building, how big are they?  How much do they weigh? 
THE WITNESS: How much do they weigh? I don't know. They're probably about 2.5 feet.  Maybe 3 feet would be tall.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  So if you wanted to get them down, in other words, if they need to repair another, how would they    would they go through the elevator to get out? 
THE WITNESS:  No, they'd have to take them to the stairs.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So they're portable by human beings as opposed to, like, a crane? 
THE WITNESS:  Well, most times if they're doing a lot of them, they probably have a crane to pick them up.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So if they need to be removed, then a crane would come and remove them; Is that right? 
THE WITNESS: I can't answer that accurately. You know, if they had to come down the stairs, they could. I would say if a contractor has a crane, he'd probably use a crane to get them out of there. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Just wondering how big they are. Okay. And behind the building that's up on the Cottage Place side, can a vehicle go from one side to the other? Can they go south to north to get under the building, if they wanted to? 
THE WITNESS: You're saying back through here (indicating)? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah.
THE WITNESS:  Not on the property, no.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay. So then it's basically really cut off, they just won't go through, right? 
THE WITNESS: That's correct.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.
THE WITNESS: This goes up a ramp and there would be a retaining wall here. Here you can see there's some stairs. So, yes, there's probably about an 8 foot drop.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay. The property that's next to the building, Brake O Rama  
THE WITNESS:  Uh huh.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:     do you guys think there's going to be any issues with a new tenant    is that better? Sorry. So the property that's next to the Brake O Rama, do you perceive any issues with the tenants when that becomes something else? In other words, it becomes a high utility or a high utilization type of facility, like a restaurant? Is that going to be an issue for people who are living in that building? Will it affect their quality of life? 
MR. BRUINOOGE: Mr. Voigt, that's to be pure speculation to attempt to answer that question. You know, people will come in and be tenants in the building based on the amenities in the building, the unit that they want to occupy, et cetera and they will take a look at the neighborhood. There's no guarantee the neighborhood isn't going to change and that's just the way it is. Couldn't speculate as to what someone two, five, ten years from now would feel with respect to changes in Ridgewood or changes in the immediate neighborhood.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  I'm just concerned that we might have people living in the building with the addition above the new facility next to it.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Well, if they're tenants they can not pay their rent, I suppose, and move.  There's a simple answer. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay.
MR. MARTIN:  But obviously MR. BRUINOOGE is not testifying.  So if you know the answer, don't know the answer, want to say what MR. BRUINOOGE said, precisely.
THE WITNESS:  I would concur with those thoughts. 
I mean, it's designed to comply with the building code.  So if anybody wanted to come in there and put a higher building, it complies with all the building codes. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I mean, we had   
MR. MARTIN:  Mr. Voigt, your witness.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Thank you. We did have someone come before us a few months ago to propose a restaurant down there. And I don't know if that will come to fruition or not, but it's a concern. The size of the trucks that we get in and out of there, is that a traffic issue? 
MR. BRUINOOGE: That would be a traffic issue. I think it would be best directed to the next witness. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. The easement between that facility and the Brake O Rama, is there a space there?  Will there be a space, easement space? 
THE WITNESS:  Between the two buildings?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah. 
THE WITNESS:  It would be tight up against each other.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Just so the record is clear, that's per code. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: That's it. 
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you, Jeff. 
Okay, Dave. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  You mentioned that the existing utility room that's subterranean is going to stay. I noticed on the plans that there's an indication that there's meters on the west side of the lower level. 
THE WITNESS: Correct.
MR. SCHEIBNER: So are those electric meters?
THE WITNESS: They're for gas meters there. 
MR. SCHEIBNER: Gas meters. But that's    but the gas actually comes in through the utility room? 
THE WITNESS: Uh huh, yes. The way we're going to handle that is    it's hard to see it, but we're looking at Exhibit AR 10I. This is the building section. Down in the lower left hand corner there's a plan of that utility room. The meters that you're referring to are over here (indicating) on the left hand side. We're not going to disturb that wall. What we're going to do is come off of that existing wall and probably put one to two columns and those columns will be about 2.5 feet, roughly, away from that wall and then there will be like about a 10 inch reinforced concrete slab that's going to cantilever over that, so we're not going to disturb that wall and then that    that floor will hold up the rest of the building up above. Does that answer the question? 
MR. SCHEIBNER: Not exactly. Have you ran this plan by the gas utility? You know, as far as locating the meters that far away from where the gas comes off of the property? 
THE WITNESS: To answer your question we've talked to the gas company. The second part of your question about how far they are, they're actually under the new building.
MR. SCHEIBNER: Yes. My experience with utilities is they like the meters to be as close to where the supply comes into the property to minimize the possibility of lines being tapped before they hit a meter.
THE WITNESS: There are two places for utility rooms. We have some located here on the right hand side of the building (indicating). We haven't finalized it. My opinion, I think they're best served coming into that utility room. It's right here in the corner of the building (indicating). There's a perfect place to bring a chase up through there. So I think that's a good place to have it, actually. 
MR. SCHEIBNER: So the    you haven't presented this plan to the utilities? 
THE WITNESS: I have not, no.
MR. SCHEIBNER: And you're planning to meter all the utilities separately for the different units? 
THE WITNESS: Usually that's how it's done. We have    you're asking some questions. Right now we're trying to get everybody to look at the big picture, is this an approvable project and then we can kind of dig in with that level of detail. We don't necessarily have to put all of those meters down here. They can go in the garage. Typically, when we do these residential projects, that's where the meters go. All I'm saying is there's an existing basement down here now. The meters for this building, the Sealfons building, are in that basement. We can build this without disturbing any of those. But sometimes when you actually get into the nuts and bolts of this, this is where we have to talk to the gas company. They may say that's high pressure service, you need all new meters, these are old meters. I don't know the answer to that. It's not unusual to come across that type of complexity once you start to dig into the details. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Okay.  That's all the questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Thank you. 
MR. BRUINOOGE, would you agree that any utility requirements will be followed by the applicant? 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Sure, reasonable. 
We always hope that Public Service Electric & Gas is reasonable in their demands and requests, but certainly the intention is to provide that particular service both electric and gas from the current utility company.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Right.  And in the same manner you were being interrogated by a professional utility manager. I just want to focus on one other thing. Okay. That's acceptable.  Okay. Thank you.
Okay, Chief? 
CHIEF VAN GOOR: I have no questions. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I'm going to take over Chief's time. 
Bruce, thank you.  Bruce, right? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I have a few questions. 
The first, you're using the    let me just go to the first page of the site plan where    actually on every page of the site plan. 
On the front entrance way where the staircase is located, and you could see it actually on the ground floor plan A 1.  So  
THE WITNESS:  The main entrance?
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  That staircase there.
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Now, I'm reading that that's the road widening easement, it's in the easement; is that accurate?
THE WITNESS: I might have to defer to the civil engineer on that question. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Let me rephrase the question then. Because it's in a road widening easement, how would you redesign that as the architect to remove it and place it back on the road widening easement? How would you handle that? 
THE WITNESS: It looks like the road widening easement runs right through on the bottom line here and we're actually showing the stairway going up to the left there. 
So if that front stair, which is, you know, it's nicely designed, designed to be attractive, if that were taken away, the ramp still works and the stair over to the left would service it as well. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes. I think that that would have to be corrected, because I wouldn't want to compromise our everybody's hooked up down the road and to other issues that might arise. If I go to    well, if I go to page    oh, the same page, the    this plan shows the access through that 19 foot, if you look at the upper left corner, it actually would be the    that western side, correct?
THE WITNESS:  Right. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  A little over to your right. So you see that roadway, that 19 foot wide drive is going through the Village owned Cottage Place lot. Is that accurate? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: So my question is: A dump truck or a garbage truck could actually come into the property and then exit through that, because there's nothing blocking a vehicle from taking that route; would that be accurate? 
THE WITNESS:  I would say yes, but I would say vehicular parking and circulation is probably best answered by the traffic engineer. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Actually I'm going to address it with him. But I just wanted to ask because you did testify about the    that other driveway running along the western side. Right? I don't think    is that 15 feet? I wanted to go through the elevations. Immediately, the front of this building is absolutely beautiful, the Maple Avenue side, it's beautiful, good job breaking it up.
And, actually, I think that you took the design elements and applied them appropriately because you really got it. 
THE WITNESS:  Thank you.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: However, I'm a little concerned    and I love these little packets as opposed to a big plan, but the problem is I can't see the length of the buildings, the corridor lanes, it's 104. When I'm looking at    if I'm looking at the    so if I'm standing on Ridgewood Avenue and I see the Sealfons building exactly in the front and I see the new Enclave in the back, and I see that you appointed each of those units or structures, if you will, that break up point with the same finishes as the front of the building; is that accurate? So I'm seeing that if it's a brick face or brick veneer, they're all broken up as well with different finishes.
THE WITNESS:  They're not broken up to the same degree, but it is the same treatments, it should be brick and stucco.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yeah. So I think what would be really important to me, because as I turn also down to the Franklin Ave side, because there's so much attention that it gives some attention to the front of the building along Maple, and it occurs to me that the other three vantage points, whether you're standing from the north looking south, from the west looking east, from the south looking north, we're seeing a very significant structure and part of the design element    I think only never anticipated what was on the road in front and in this instance, because of the way it's kind of seen from four different locations. I'm interested in knowing how you could break those massive structures up, maybe a little bit more creatively, because it just looks like a wall of a building and I'm not quite understanding how it's going to visualize from different perspectives. 
THE WITNESS: I think one of the things that would have helped is if we saw it in color, because we're going to do some different colors on here, so that's one thing. The other thing that's difficult to see, we're going to put joints and stucco to help break that up. It isn't going to have the same articulation as the front. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yeah, and I think that it's such an important location. It is your entrance.  It is when somebody enters into our central business district, is the first statement that's going to be seen. This is a statement building. I think you would agree that it's going to be a very significant visual impact and I think that we really need to better understand how this is going to look from those perspectives because this is what everyone's going to see when they first are welcomed into our central business district. And I'm just interested in how you might give it more attention, if you could.
THE WITNESS:  Well, I mean, I could discuss that with our team. And as we know every time we add that kind of detail, it costs money at some point.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: No, I know it costs money, but, you know, the    but for the Village it's what everybody will see. When you're on Cottage Place, you see the    if you're looking at the big Board of Ed building, from every side is the same details with the same architectural elements. So everywhere you stand you can see that that particular building, you see it from every angle.  It's not like there's another building blocking it visually and so you see the beauty of the building everywhere you go. If you look at the Franklin Avenue, you go in that darker building, I think it has a name, actually, you see your brickwork, you see the details, you see the appointments to the building. So I'm thinking that needs a little more attention. It just looks like a plain wall. And then my last question on the front of the Maple Ave side, those balconies, are those Romeo and Juliette? Are those intended to be doors opening on that, that end unit?
THE WITNESS:  To the far right? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Yeah. I mean, it's beautiful. I mean  
THE WITNESS:  Yeah, they're Juliette balconies. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay.  I just want to say Romeo and Juliette. Okay. Got it. Okay. All right.  I'm good for right now. Thank you, thank you, Bruce.   
THE WITNESS:  You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie? 
MS. MCWILLIAMS: What is the space between the building once it's constructed and the Brake O Rama building?  I think we came to some feet, right. 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  Okay. 
THE WITNESS:  Yeah, this area right here is tight up against it. When it gets back here, there's parking. I don't know what that distance is, maybe 10, 15 feet. 
MS. MCWILLIAMS: I think it was 12 feet.
THE WITNESS:  Twelve feet, okay.
MS. MCWILLIAMS: Okay. That's all I have for the moment, if I come back another round.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel?
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: One question on your Maple Ave elevations. You have the Romeo and Juliette balcony. You know those two areas that kind of project out on the left and right side? Yup, and then further down. Yeah. Keep going. Keep going. Right. So you've articulated the elevation really nicely. You have the shadow lines, so it looks like those two areas project out from the building, right?
THE WITNESS: This area in gray is like a little bay window that projects out.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Yeah. And it adds nice detail. I don't think it's reflected on your floor plans.
THE WITNESS: No, it's not. We haven't thought, even articulated that at this point.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: How far are you anticipating that projecting and did you include that projection in your square footage calculations? 
THE WITNESS: That is    that probably is not in the square footage calculations. I might say 6 to 8 inches it might project out. 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  6 to 8 inches?
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Okay. It looks like    it looks like more than that based on the shadow lines, but if that's what you're saying, then I guess that's okay. It would be good to kind of match the plans, because on your plans you have kind of tiny little projections that don't really match the elevations. So it's a little confusing.
THE WITNESS: Yeah, the lines that you see on the plans pretty much reflect these vertical offsets. We didn't get into that level of, you know, detail, because we have to put together the unit plans. So that 6 to 8 inches is kind a estimate at this point. 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Like I said, it looked like 2 feet, but you're saying it's less than that. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  Thanks, Joel.
For the first floor with the residential and the parking there, is there some kind of ventilation that you have there, In the parking deck to get rid of exhaust?
THE WITNESS:  Typically that's required, yes. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  What are they just vents that just push it out?
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. And with the units on top that you're going to have the louvers, are they metal or they're painted or what are they going to be made out of? And what color?
THE WITNESS: They're usually metal. I don't know the color at this point. They probably have like a baked on anodized pinch, maybe. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Is it made to kind of blend in with the sky or, you know  
THE WITNESS:  I would say we do like our color selections.  You know, we put the whole palette together, the brick, you know, the fasces and, you know, when we pull all that together, that's probably when we would pick the color of that. My guess is it might match the cap on top of the parapet. We might take that color and use it for the louvers. Yes, it's probably like a darker, maybe a bronze color. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  And when it's louvered, it's fully louvered that would block the view fully, but it ventilates?
THE WITNESS:  That's correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: And when you show the person standing on the road across the street looking up, is that an actual kind of estimation of the sight line or is that just an hypothetical?
MR. BRUINOOGE:  I thought you recognized me.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  I couldn't tell who that was standing there. Was that you? 
THE WITNESS:  No, that's the actual sight line.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  That's actually what they're going to be seeing?
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  And I do like the Mayor's comment on the state of the building.  You did a fantastic job on the front.  It makes it tougher for you to do the other side.  You did a too good of a job, maybe, but, you know, maybe you could do something with those other sides.  You know, really when you think about it, you're going to be revolving around the town when you come in around there and you're really going to be picking up all those views there.  So I think you have a good thing going if you give it that. 
THE WITNESS:  Thank you. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Could I just jump in? I actually    could I'd just see your beautiful elevation?  Yes. The Vice Chair raised an issue on that front piece there that's projecting out.  You know, it's interesting because I, too, see the shadow and I'm not sure how far it comes out, whether it's 6 inches or 8 inches. But just as a design element, it seems to be out of place to me, because everything else is sort of flat and really works so beautifully together. I just wonder is it essential to your design? Is it essential to the floor plans? Or is it something that, you know, maybe it's better if it weren't there. And I'm not looking to redesign your work, because it's absolutely beautiful, but I think that piece just doesn't seem to fit to me.
THE WITNESS: It doesn't    I see your point. I think what we were doing is articulating the element over top of the garage entrance just to say, hey, here's important, here's an important point. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I guess you don't want to be   
THE WITNESS:  I think is that point away when you saw that brick facade there? I think it would be just fine.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I think it would be so much    absolutely gorgeous. Yeah, I think it would be beautiful. Okay. Thank you. 
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  I have one more question on parking. Up on the top deck area where there's, you know, the seating in front of the windows, I think this got brought up with something and I'm not 100 percent sure if I ever    if I heard the answer. Is there any blocking at all of the windows in the units along that upper rooftop deck area from where people are sitting?
THE WITNESS:  Up here (indicating)?
MS. MCWILLIAMS: Yeah, up there.
THE WITNESS: We're showing windows up there, but if we looked at the plan, you will see that most of that is a hallway. So you're walking down a hallway that has a lot of windows in it. 
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  Okay.
THE WITNESS:  Does that answer your question?
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  No, yeah, I thought somebody had brought that up before and you decided the windows be put in, but that's significant.  Thank you. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  How high was the parapet again for a balcony?  Like if you're on a balcony? 
THE WITNESS:  Up here?
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yeah.
THE WITNESS:  It's going to vary, because you see it going up and down.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yeah.
THE WITNESS:  The requirement so that nobody falls over the edge is 3 feet, 6 inches. Okay?  Now, we could have this at some points lower, like this one looks a little bit lower. So we could have maybe a horizontal bar, anything that gets you up to that 3 foot, 6 height. I'm going to say that it can vary between, you know, 2.5 feet to maybe up to 4 feet when you get to like the top of that, maybe even higher at that point.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Yes. 
MS. McMANUS:  If you're going to need to add a safety railing across that top floor where the terrace is, I'd like to ask that that detail be added to the plans just so that we can review that to make sure, you know, it continues or is consistent with your architectural treatment and the style of the building.
THE WITNESS: Yeah. I don't think that that would be sitting on top of a parapet. I think it would be pulled back. 
MS. McMANUS: It would be pulled back?
THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  But we can show that.
MS. McMANUS:  Yeah.  I think that would be helpful, just so we have confirmation on how that is going to appear or if it's going to be visible.
THE WITNESS:  Yeah. It will kind of be colored in a way that disappears.
MS. McMANUS:  Good.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Anyone else? 
Beth can start off with the questions.
MS. McMANUS:  I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  That's okay. 
MS. McMANUS:  I actually don't have any additional questions. I had issued a memo on this application, dated August 14th and in that there were a variety of architectural comments, but as of the last meeting with one exception that was answered during the meeting, all of those comments had already been satisfied. And given my comments and questions this evening, I have nothing additional at this time. 
MR. MARTIN:  MR. BRUINOOGE, the planner remains sworn and qualified?
MR. BRUINOOGE:  I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
MR. MARTIN:  The planner remains sworn and qualified, right?  MS. McMANUS?  I believe  
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Sure, absolutely.
E L I Z A B E T H   M c M A N U S,    
Having been duly sworn, continues to testify as follows:
MR. MARTIN:  We do have a new face. Mr. Rutishauser is not here. Can you raise your right hand, sir. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
MR. MEHANDZIC:  I do.
J O V A N   M E H A N D Z I C,
131 North Maple Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey,  having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. MARTIN:  And just state your name and your business address.
MR. MEHANDZIC:  Jovan Mehandzic, Village of Ridgewood assistant engineer.  And the address is 131 North Maple Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey.
MR. MARTIN:  Thank you.
And you're a professional engineer? 
MR. MEHANDZIC:  No, I'm not. 
MR. MARTIN:  And you're here [threw|through] the professional engineer, Chris Rutishauser, correct?
MR. MEHANDZIC:  Chris Rutishauser, yes.
MR. MARTIN:  Okay.  All right.  Do you have any questions? 
MR. MEHANDZIC:  No.
MR. MARTIN:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  So no questions for the architect?
MR. MEHANDZIC:  No.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  John, do you have any questions of the architect?
MR. MARTIN:  MR. JAHR, I don't know if we swore you in yet. 
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 
MR. JAHR:  I do.
J O H N   J A H R, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows: 
MR. MARTIN:  John Jahr, traffic expert. 
MR. BRUINOOGE, do you  
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Acceptable. 
MR. MARTIN:  Thank you.  Go ahead. 
MR. JAHR: I only had two very minor questions. One is I always to refer to when we have parking structures and whatnot.  Have you shown the sight triangles? Are we sure we have a good, clear sight lines?  When I was looking at the plan, there was some plantings and some other things, can you make sure that on the plan you show the sight lines so we know that we have that for the future?
MR. BRUINOOGE: Yeah. Mr. Dipple happens to be here again this evening. I believe he will be happy to testify what the current version of the plan shows. 
MR. JAHR:  Perfect. That's the only thing that hasn't really that actual architectural part of this.  Thank you. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Does anyone from the public have any questions for the architect?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  Seeing there are none, call your next witness. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Eric Keller. 
MR. MARTIN:  Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
MR. KELLER:  I do.
E R I C   K E L L E R, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. MARTIN:  State your full name and business address.
THE WITNESS:  Certainly.  Eric L. Keller, K E L L E R, Bowman Consulting, 54 Horsehill Road, Cedar Knolls, New Jersey.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BRUINOOGE:
Q. MR. KELLER, would you be kind enough, if you would, tell the board a bit about your background, your training, your education and whether or not you hold any current licenses here in the State of New Jersey or any other jurisdiction?
A. Certainly. Professional engineer in the State of New Jersey since 1987. I'm also a licensed engineer in New York and Pennsylvania.  I'm a licensed planner in the State of New Jersey, although I'm not testifying as a planner this evening. I appeared before this board several times.  I have appeared before many boards thought Bergen County and other parts the state and other states and have worked on similar projects in a number of jurisdictions.
MR. MARTIN:  And MR. BRUINOOGE, MR. KELLER is being offered as a professional engineer with a  
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Expertise in traffic, parking and related issues.
MR. MARTIN:  I believe    so accepted, MR. JAHR?  Any Board member    no issues?  MR. KELLER, you're accepted. 
MR. BRUINOOGE: Let the record reflect that MR. JAHR seemed to indicate that he accepted his credentials.
MR. MARTIN:  Yes, in a good way.  Thank you, MR. BRUINOOGE.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  You're quite welcome. 
I'm going to ask that this particular report be marked as the next exhibit, please.
(Whereupon, Traffic Report is received and marked as Exhibit AR 12 for identification.)
BY MR. BRUINOOGE:
Q. Now, MR. KELLER, I'm going to show you what's been marked for identification as AR 12.  Are you familiar with that particular document?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. What is it?
A. It's the traffic report prepared by myself on this application.
Q. And what, if anything, did you do with that application    excuse me, that report after you prepared it, other than sending it to the client and me?
A. Since then I've read it, I've prepared for this evening.
Q. Did you send it to the Village of Ridgewood and to their consultant?
A. I believe so through your office.
Q. Okay. Tell us, if you will, what precisely    or I shouldn't say precisely    what your role was on this development team and what your purpose of appearing here this evening is with respect to this application?
A. Our purpose is twofold on this application. One, is to access the traffic impacts of the redevelopment of this site and also to look at the parking and in particular prepare a shared parking analysis for this mixed use project.
Q. In preparing for this evening, did you look at any    or did you    have you had an opportunity over the years to prepare any other traffic studies?
A. Yes. I prepared a traffic study. The original traffic study was in January 2013.  We prepared an amendment in May of 2014, which included full range of traffic counts, which I discussed with MR. JAHR. We compared that data from 2013 to more current counts that MR. JAHR has in his records and found that over the past couple of years that the peak hour traffic volumes have not changed to any degree. So we have used those original counts as the basis for our analysis, but maybe appropriate adjustments for time in accordance with DOT standards.  Growth rates, our study also included the other developments, Dayton, Chestnut Village and the KS Broad application.  All of those traffic counts    or the site generated traffic from those developments is included in our no build calculations for this site.
Q. Now, MR. JAHR is here this evening and I know that you already testified that you had some dialogue and conversation with him with respect to your report and your conclusions; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you aware of a letter dated September 7, 2017 prepare by MR. JAHR, signed by him and addressed to the Board?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. In that letter a number of comments are made by MR. JAHR and essentially he has concluded or asked that you address certain points, if you would, to inform the board as to just what went on in    you doing the calculations necessary to come to the conclusions that you ultimately did?
A. Certainly.  Starting with number one of his traffic analysis comments, we followed standard trip generation calculation procedures. For these sites, because they're not on a state highway, we use the ITE Trip Generation Manual. And this case, the 9th edition, the DOT has their own rates for certain uses, but we have not used those in this case. And even if we had, because where    there's retail on the property today and we're reducing that by almost 16,000 square feet of retail that's being removed. That's a Hallmark floor building. And then some of the retail space within the existing building. That's being removed, so if we used a different trip generation rate, the comparison between the two is the same. You know, maybe the number in absolute is higher, but all we're doing is looking at the differential. So the trip generation would come out the same. But we did use ITE basic data. As we have on other applications in a downtown area such as this, we presented two measures of trip generation. We did it without a mass transit component. We used the standard ITE trip generation rates, which are for a more suburban location where you don't have the bus service, the rail service that you do in Ridgewood. Really, the numbers are fairly small when we look at just the proposed residential uses. Forget about what's there today and how much of the office and retail space we're removing. We are removing just under 14,000 square feet of office space out of this building. 
If you just look at how much traffic is being generated by the proposed residential uses, we're looking at 18 trips in the morning peak hour, 24 trips in the p.m. peak hour and 24 Saturday trips. We're looking at very low traffic volumes because of the residential use. So overall, when you look at the removal of the commercial space in the building, there's actually a decrease in the trip generation generated by this site based on ITE rates. We did not do that in our analysis. We took no credit. We counted the traffic. And that traffic that we counted at East Ridgewood and North Maple and North Maple and Franklin includes the traffic that goes to and from this site today. We didn't deduct anything. All we did was add the residential traffic. So our analyses are conservative in the fact that we didn't deduct any traffic. We just added more. 
Q. When you    essentially, I guess, you eventually compared a no build situation to the build situation; did you not?
A. That's correct and that's the incremental effect. There's going to be some level of traffic on the roadways. There's level of traffic today. There's    we're assuming that there's going to be more. As MR. JAHR had noted in Item 3 of his report, we used the two percent growth rate.  The latest DOT growth rate factors say we should have only used the one percent growth factor. So, again, we were conservative in growing that traffic that's not from specific developments, it's from other developments that haven't been factored in. Plus, we added the three other developments.
Q. I think you out to    this is probably just a good a time as any to tell the board your familiarity and what    whether or not that your familiarity with the existing conditions, mass transit opportunities and the other development that are taking place in the village, the impact of those on this particular project and its traffic. 
A. Well, it's    the board's seen me before on the KS Broad application, so we're very familiar with the traffic that's generated by that. This site obviously is a little bit further from the train station then the KS Broad site, but it's still a 9 minute walk. So it is certainly a walkable distance from this site to the train station. There's a bus stop outside the door. So there is    which is bus service to New York City. So there is good mass transit opportunities in the area and serving this particular site.
Q. I'm going to turn your attention then back to MR. JAHR's September 7th letter. In Item No. 2, he states that he has reviewed the engineer's trip generation and distribution and he was wondering whether you could please provide some testimony regarding the operation of the site's access points. So if you could identify those access points and talk to that particular issue, that would helpful. 
A. Certainly. I have Exhibit AR 7 on the easel three proposed    well, two proposed access points and an existing one that will remain. You have the existing two way driveway from East Ridgewood Avenue, which will remain as it does today. The existing exit only from the existing parking underneath the Sealfons building goes away. And is replaced by a new driveway generally where the driveway is to the surface parking lot for the Hallmark building, which will permit only right in and right out onto North Maple. That garage access leads to that same level of parking as is underneath the Sealfons building. 
This is Exhibit AR 10A.  The existing parking underneath the Sealfons building. There's a two way connection to the new parking level below the building addition, which is all integrated a total of 84 parking spaces on that level. You then have another driveway, new driveway to Franklin Avenue. This driveway serves the upper level of parking.  This parking area is limited to the residential units or 47 parking spaces on that level for the 39 dwelling units in the building addition. 
Our analysis in our report assumed that this was a right in, right out. MR. JAHR has opined on his    what he thinks should happen here. Myself, the Applicant would like to have the left in.  We're not even thinking about a left out. And the reason for the left in is if you don't have a left in and understanding that there could be some queuing issues, is that people are then forced to drive around the block and it makes it inconvenient. 
We certainly don't want to create an unsafe condition, but, you know, there are other similar situations to this where you have driveways in the vicinity of intersections and this is a fair distance back from the stop bars. We don't think it's unreasonable to have the left turns in. 
That's our request. Obviously, the Village has their opinion and ultimately Franklin Avenue is a County road and I know that the County Planning Board will have their opinions.
Q. Before we delve too deeply into whether or not a left onto the side from Franklin    we should get into detail, let's continue on with a more course of the issues, if you will, of the particular project. 
A. Sure.
Q. So    and I'm going to skip No. 4 in MR. JAHR's letter and go to the shared parking analysis, which I think really requires you to maybe talk a little bit about existing parking on site and then the proposed parking on site. 
A. Okay.
Q. And whether or not that results in a deficiency and any opinions that you might have with respect to that. 
A. Well, let's start with where we are today. The existing uses on the property based on the Village code require 181 parking spaces. There are 76 parking spaces today. So the current uses on the subject property have a parking shortfall by Ordinance of 105 parking spaces. 
Now, there are obviously shared parking opportunities that exist today because of the office and retail space, more so on a Saturday than on a weekday, but the    not as great with the proposed use, now we're introducing a residential use. So the residential parking characteristics are really almost 180 degrees opposite from commercial parking or at least office parking. 
Based on, again, the Village code the proposed uses would require 141 parking spaces when we add up the individual uses just by math. And 131 spaces are provided. It's a shortfall of 10, a factor of 10 we've improved the parking condition on the site. 
Q. And there's a variance the Applicant is asking for?
A. Correct. 
If it's necessary, because when we look at shared parking, which is contained in tables, I believe it's 7, 8 and 9    7, 8    6, 7, 8 and 9 of my report.  6 and 7 talk about the existing conditions, Table 6. And this is after Page 9. Table 6 is a weekday. Table 7 is the weekend. This uses the Village's parking requirements and it looks at the temporal differential of parking demand by use by time of day. So on a weekday with shared parking we're still 96 spaces short of what would be required on a Saturday, because the office use essentially does to nothing, we're 32 spaces short. Table 8 now introduces    first off, there's a significant reduction in office and retail square footage on the property. So that reduces the demand for those two components. We then add in the parking demand for the residential units. And what we've done, because the residential units, the residents themselves will have their reserved parking. So we've only looked at that parking that would exceed the capacity of the upper level lot. And what we find is that at a minimum we will have 41 extra spaces. We'll have a surplus of 41 spaces at 8:00 p.m. on a weekday, this is in Table 8. In a common area    that's total for the site. In a common area, we have at least 22 spaces available at the peak time, which would be at noontime. Table 9 is a Saturday. In this because the office demand essentially, again, goes to zero, the parking surplus in the common and for the site as a whole occurs at the same time, again at noontime and we have at least 37 spaces available based on shared parking. In other hours of the day when the demand is less, we have more parking available. So while we sum the parking demand of the individual uses based on Village code, when we look at it based on the hourly variation of parking behind, we have a significant surplus of parking. So there is no shortfall in my opinion. 
Q. I think it's important that you point out or I ask you to point out just how you went about doing that calculation and which standard you used, because I know you relied upon the Village Ordinance, but comparing that, for example, with the ITE Parking Generation Manual 4th Addition. There's a difference there, is they're not? 
A. Yes.  The ITE Parking Generation Manual    and I'll take a step back. The ITE Parking Generation Manual like the Trip Generation Manual has a compilation of parking demand studies that have been done at existing uses throughout the country and said they go out and count cars and how many cars are parked in the lot and they take the average of the peaks.  So they don't take the average of every observation. They take the average of the peak demand at these uses and come up with an average peak parking demand based on land use like we do for trip generation. And what that document has found is that the retail demand    your ordinance requires four spaces per thousand. The ITE Trip    ITE Parking Generation on a Friday, because Friday has a higher parking demand than a weekday is just under three for retail.  For an office building, it is    let me find it    I believe it is 2.84 and that's on a weekday.  So the ITE Parking Generation Manual has found that the actual observed peak parking demands are less than your code requires, but we didn't use that in our analysis. I wanted to take, again, a conservative approach. We used the standard demands. Now, your ordinance also uses the standard RSIS parking requirements for residential uses, which, again, is a suburban parking demand and doesn't account for a transit oriented development, a downtown development where you may have less and likely have less parking demand from the residential traffic.  But, again, we use those same RSIS rate in our analysis.
Q. So I guess what I'll ask you at this point is:  Is it your testimony then that the shared parking, the way you analyzed it using a very conservative approach, there really is no need for a variance in your opinion?
A. In my opinion there is not.
Q. But if there is, the request would be for 10 spaces, which is the perceived shortfall depending on how you want to calculate the demand, correct?
A. Correct.  You take a straight mathematical approach of the sum minus the demand, yes, it's 10. 
Q. Thank you. 
MR. JAHR speaks in Point 4 in his letter to capacity analysis using the highway capacity software. And he says he's reviewed the analysis.  He's asking that you provide a capacity analysis for existing conditions so he can perform a more thorough review of the proposed development. Has that information been provided?
A. It has not, but I will give that to him. That was    I didn't include it in here, because it was in the original report, but    and I'm not sure MR. JAHR reviewed our original report from three years ago.
Q. I see. 
A. He might have. I don't know. But it's easy enough to give it to him.
Q. He makes comment as well with respect to the traffic signal that's located on East Ridgewood Avenue and North Maple Avenue. He concludes that it's currently under a heavy stream    as he calls it    a heavy stream into existing traffic volumes.  Any traffic added to the adjacent roadways are overlap and peak hour traffic will have an effect at that intersection. 
So please, if you would, based on your professional experience and what you have concluded in your report, talk about just how you are advising the developer to deal with this issue and what  in your professional opinion is the proper approach to deal with the issues of the signalization at Franklin and North Maple. 
A. Well, his memo says East Ridgewood and North Maple.
Q. I'm sorry, you're right. 
A. Which, I mean, again, we have a small amount of traffic added there.  We received a memorandum from the Village Engineer about an improvement that the Village undertook there. I drove through there this evening and happened to catch that lead southbound left, zipped right through, it was perfect. So there is an improvement that the Village has taken on at that location to deal with the southbound left turn movement and any    that would, you know, obviously benefit the flow at that location. Now, North Maple and Franklin is challenged. It's challenged today. I'm not going to tell any of you what you don't already know, because you drive through it every day. It's challenge for a couple of reasons. One, you have an offset intersection, which because of its offset, it's a three faced signal. The east side of Franklin Avenue goes, the west side goes, and then North Maple goes. And if you're coming up from East Ridgewood Avenue and you want to make a left onto Franklin, you're going to sit there for a while, because there is no left turn arrow for that. The signal, like a lot in the Village is pre timed so even if there's nobody on Franklin Avenue on the eastbound side, you have to wait, because it runs through it's cycle. So what we had shown in our report    and this is summarized in Table 5 on Page 8    we looked at a mitigation measure that would include the addition of a northbound left turn movement on North Maple. So that those people who want to go onto Franklin, get a lead green like you now have it, East Ridgewood Avenue. Putting in an actuated controller. And making some adjustments to the green time. And with those changes, you go from the Level of Service E and F that you have on various approaches today to better than Level of Service D on all of the approaches. 
Now, we've also looked at what is the incremental impact of the subject development at that location. And as I said in my testimony, this project with the reduction in office and retail space would end up with a net reduction in traffic. Even looking at it with the residential, the amount of traffic that's added to that intersection is fairly small. So the problem exists today. It's only going to get worse in the future as traffic grows and this project has a very, very small incremental impact at the intersection.
Q. When we speak about off tract improvements in the business that we're all in, we normally talk about the logical or reasonable nexus between the project itself and the proposed improvement or impact assessment. 
What's your opinion, if any, on whether or not there is such an impact?
A. There really isn't. I mean, you know, we're looking at very small traffic volumes being added just from the residential use and then when you deduct for the loss, the 28 some thousand square feet of commercial space that's being removed, there's a net reduction in traffic from this project as a whole. But, again, I've been conservative. You just looked at the residential traffic. You're adding, you know, total for the project 24 trips of the p.m. peak hour which is the most critical and of those, you know, we're looking at 15 trips that go through Franklin and North Maple out of the total that go    that's there today, which, you know, is    you know, 1400.
Q. Well, I directed you to a sort of legal standard and I guess there's a practical aspect of this as well.  Are you asking in your professional opinion should this board sort of ignore whether or not there's any real improvement to the proposed development that will benefit from the improved signalization of that particular intersection? 
A. Well, I mean, the board has their opinion as to what should be done and can be done. All I'm saying from an engineering perspective is that the rational nexus, you know, the fair share contribution at that location based on trip generation and trip volume is small and practically negative.
Q. Let's get right to the heart of the matter then. Have you made a recommendation to the client as to whether or not a contribution based on that fair share is appropriate and if so, how much or what?
A. Well, we have discussed it and my discussions with the Applicant is that he'd be willing to based on what we think the improvements overall need to be, would be willing to make a fair share contribution to that, improvements to that intersection, of $50,000. Which is 20 percent of what we have estimated as the overall intersection improvement would be.
Q. So let's just circle back then and go back to the site itself and to sort of a summary restatement of what you looked at to get to the conclusions you came to. 
You've examined the site as proposed?
A. Yes.
Q. You understand the access points as proposed?
A. Yes.
Q. You've done any review of the parking as proposed; that's correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the traffic movements onto and from the site, as well as traffic in the immediate neighborhood, you've analyzed that as well? 
A. Yes, we have.
Q. Have you formed a professional opinion as to whether or not the project as proposed works from your point of view?
A. From a traffic and parking point of view, this project will work.  It will not have an impact on the adjacent street system and can be accommodated without burdening the operations at the existing signals.
MR. BRUINOOGE: I have no further questions of this witness at this time.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. Thank you. 
Jeff, is there a question? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yeah. So here's my question or my concern.  You're using town ordinances for a number of spaces per square footage, one space per every 250 square feet; is that right?
THE WITNESS:  Correct.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  The problem that may occur is that that office space may have a higher density of use depending upon who rents it. So as an example, if you have a realtor there and the realtor uses the office space, would you guarantee that it's going to be more than one car for every 250 square feet? As a matter of fact, it's probably going to be triple or five times that.  So that's one issue. It depends upon who's going to rent the space. Again, if you take a look at the retail space, if the retail space is a restaurant, if you look at other ordinances in other towns, they typically have for every three seats in a restaurant or every two seats in a restaurant you need one parking space. So if you put a restaurant in here and you have 60 to 100 seats, that's going to increase the number of spaces which you're going to need for people to park. So my concern is the analysis, while you say it's fair, a more fair way to do it, a more fair way to look at it is let's look at the worst case scenario. Let's assume that a realtor goes into that office space and let's assume that a restaurant goes into the retail space and let's assume that the ordinances that we don't have on our books, but others in other municipalities do, let's use those ordinances to determine the number of spaces that are needed. So I think that your estimate, to be honest with you, is probably under estimated as to the number of spaces that are needed there. And it's probably significantly higher. So I think for our own edification and for our own use, it would be important for you to look at probably a worst case scenario and let's see what happens. That would be my suggestion.
THE WITNESS:  Well, Councilman   
MR. BRUINOOGE: Excuse me. Is that a question, sir? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: It is. Well, actually it's a recommendation. 
The other thing I'm looking at and I'm having a hard time understanding this. I'm looking at Table 5 on Page 8 of your report. And you look at as an example, northbound North Maple left.  And you're saying if we mitigate the intersection, if we do your improvements, we're going to improve the time waiting there by five, eight fold. And I'm having a tough time trying to get my hands around how bad it is now, how much better you're going to make it based on your mitigation.  I just    the map to me is a little funny. I'm having a tough time understanding how you're going to make it that much better than what it currently is.
THE WITNESS:  Okay. Well, we're looking    that's a Saturday condition. The  
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Well, even in the p.m. situation, you're looking at improving the five fold. I'm just telling you that's what I'm not understanding, how you could make it that much better. 
THE WITNESS:  Okay. Well, we'll look at p.m., we'll at Saturday.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah. But this    help me understand that, because I just    I don't get it.
Let me ask the question now. But I'm just    I'm having a tough time. 
THE WITNESS: I'm going to try and answer your question and hopefully my explanation will help bring some light to this. You have almost 200 left turns in both the p.m. peak hour and then in a Saturday peak hour trying to make that left onto Franklin Avenue. Now, those 200 left turns are opposed by, because North    the left turns are also going to be impacted by people coming down from this building to make a right onto Franklin. So by looking at    in the p.m. peak hour we have 470 cars coming south and I'm trying to put 200 cars across that 400. That's a lot of traffic that are at odds and on a Saturday, we have 500 cars against those 200. So you got a lot of conflict. By providing a lead left turn, you can get four, five, six cars making a left every cycle, which means that there's very few cars that now come up northbound that are going to be in conflict with those, because they're going to have their own left turn like you now have if you turn around and go south on North Maple and make a left onto East Ridgewood Avenue. You have that lead arrow and you're not conflicted by people coming the other way, because they still have a red light. We're doing the same thing here, just in the opposite direction. So those left turns no longer have as much impedance because of opposing traffic and that's why the left turn movement, the level of service improves by a factor of five to eight. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I'm wondering if John you do have do it at this point I would like your opinion that how you make it that much better. So the other question I have is the fair contribution 50,000 and that's for the intersection of the Maple/Franklin intersection?
THE WITNESS:  Correct.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So what's the total cost of that improvement?
THE WITNESS: I mean, we haven't done a detailed analysis, but knowing improvements of that type for that type of an intersection, you're looking at $250,000. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  So the Village has to eat the 200,000; is that right? 
THE WITNESS:  Somebody does. I mean, yes.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So the other concern we had is    this was talked about in KS Broad the situation that the    on Franklin Avenue is the kind of conduit east to west and it's a county road and there are five of lights on that road. Okay? So you can    you can certainly improve this, this particular intersection. But then you just messed up all the other four. 
So the issue that we have I think from this standpoint and this is where we're having a tough time, I think we're trying to figure this out, because you can improve the one, but you're going to make the other three or four lights probably worse. And so the question we have is: Who's paying for that? And you know, if you're asking the Village to contribute to those five lights, I'm not sure that's fair for us to bear the brunt of these developments. And, you know, we're hoping at some point that the developers and, you know, there's probably a couple that are working on this, that they would    that they would probably contribute a bit more than the 50,000. I mean, because that    again, it's an unfair ask, to be honest with you, to have the Village really bear the brunt of this. And that's just a general comment. I don't think it's right, so...
MR. BRUINOOGE: Well, I'm going to ask that MR. KELLER not respond to that question. If it is a question, I don't think it is a question. It's a statement. But I understand what you're saying.  We told you what our position is. We believe that the law requires us to deal with improvements off tract that can be logically tied as a nexus between the project and its impacts and the proposed improvement. But beyond that, to engage in dialogue that you're suggesting we negotiate an approval, that's frowned upon by the case law. It's not something that we're going to participate in. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Thank you.
MR. MARTIN:  Just a brief    in terms of COUNCILMAN VOIGT's question. 
MR. KELLER, when I look at you sometimes I think of the other application, I apologize. 
Again, another great presentation. And MR. JAHR could talk about this, but    and everything's different, I understand that, but I believe up the road on Franklin, the improvement was approximately $400,000.00 that Shropshire and yourself talked about for that light.  I just didn't    your estimate was based upon your professional experience, 250.  Is there any support for that or are you    I don't care, I'm trying to get the Board to get it right, because obviously when you said $50,000, and that is 250. I agree with MR. BRUINOOGE, we're not negotiating at this point. It's a fair question. But where the heck do you come up with 250 as opposed to 400 and 150.
THE WITNESS: Well, I think Mr. Fran is 400 was not just the signal improvement at a location.  It was  
MR. MARTIN: Installation, perhaps?
THE WITNESS:  No, no. We talked about installation costs and when we do these, we do these based on public bidding prices, we don't do it. But it was the coordination of the signals. It was handicap improvements. It's a little bit more complicated at North Broad and Franklin because of the railroad overpass, you need a few extra signal heads, you know, but, you know, there was more than just the traffic signal was the 400,000. And that was his number, it was not mine. I think the 400,000 was on the heavy side. I've designed, I can't tell you how many traffic signals, bid them out, built them. $250,000 gets you a really nice traffic signal.
MR. MARTIN: You and MR. JAHR could come up with some fair estimate somehow, right? 
THE WITNESS: I think we can.
MR. MARTIN: Because I know as you say you're very fair about a challenge in terms of the area.  I mean, I remember as a kid sitting in between the front seat just looking out from the back and that turn has been there 1,000 years, so I'm not that old, but it's a challenge. So I think we need another look at that. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I did have one last question, I'm sorry. I apologize.
THE WITNESS:  Sure. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  It relates to the left turns. That's the one on Franklin going into    when you cross Franklin into the driveway itself, but it's left turns everywhere in this particular development. Probably would be certain left    it's a left turn on Maple, across Maple going into that driveway.
THE WITNESS:  No, this is right in, right out. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay. And on the site there is a left turn there? 
THE WITNESS:  There is a left turn there today. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I don't have a problem   
THE WITNESS:  Not a lot of people use it and one thing    I'm sorry to interrupt.  One thing that we didn't do in our analysis, and Mayor you brought this up, there is a connection to the Cottage Place    Cottage Place municipal lot.  I'm having trouble talking.  We didn't miss    we didn't assume any traffic was going in and out of there for our development. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  And you shouldn't.
THE WITNESS:  Well, we didn't. So    but we saw very few left turns into the site from East Ridgewood, but it is a permitted movement. 
MR. MARTIN:  MR. BRUINOOGE, the other right turn only was stipulated by the engineer last time? 
MR. BRUINOOGE: That's correct. Right turn    right in, right out on Maple and I believe there was that testimony with respect to right in, right out.  I think what's happened is the engineer has spoke with the client. I haven't had a conversation with the client to determine whether or not    he was here. I don't see him at this point, so I'll get that clarified as to where we are on that, but I think we can delve into that with MR. KELLER.
MR. MARTIN:  Thank you.
MR. SCHEIBNER: The existing signal at Franklin and Maple, does not have pedestrian signals or does it? 
THE WITNESS: It does not. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  So is adding pedestrian signals part of your estimate? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MR. SCHEIBNER:  How does that impact the amount of vehicular traffic if you go through that intersection? 
THE WITNESS: We didn't do pedestrian counts. There was some observations made.  The notes were that there was not a substantial amount of pedestrian traffic, at least at, you know, during the peak hour times. From what was observed, you do have crosswalks across both legs of Franklin Avenue and across the north side of North Maple above Franklin. What happens with that is that it's part of the phasing. The only approach that's fairly wide where you might need a little bit extra time for a pedestrian to cross is the western half of Franklin Avenue, but that's part of the timing. There's a different timing program for pedestrians to make sure that they have enough to cross. But that wouldn't effect the    you know, that lead left for northbound, because pedestrians aren't supposed    can't cross when there's a lead left.  Whether they pay attention to the red hand is another story.  But they would not be permitted to cross by the signal and then they would cross when there's the flow of traffic in a north and south direction. 
It has some impact on volumes, but it's not material because it's not, you know, a consistent heavy flow, you know, during the peak hour. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Peak hour is what? 
THE WITNESS:  From our counts, the a.m. peak hour was 8:30 to 9:30; p.m. is 5 to 6; and on Saturday 12 to 1 p.m. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  In my own observations the need for pedestrian traffic actually is in the middle of the day, because there's high school students. 
THE WITNESS:  Right. So that's    so there's more pedestrian traffic, but there's less vehicular.  So giving them more time to cross doesn't affect, negatively impact traffic flow, because you have lower traffic volumes. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  The other question I had was, again, about the right in, right out only.  This forces people to go around the block and I think that means more turns at the intersection of Cottage Place. And both of those intersections are controlled only by a stop sign and I'm just wondering if this is going to raise a hazard level for pedestrians.
THE WITNESS:  No. And the traffic that might go to Cottage Place is going to be the right turn movements. You know, because they can't make a left in here or left in here. I mean, if they can't make the left in here, they're actually going to come in on East Ridgewood, because this driveway, the East Ridgewood driveway and the North Maple driveway lead to the same parking area. So you have flexibility for that lower level, which is the larger parking lot. They have multiple locations to get in. The one that's a little bit more circuitous, which is why I had to put in my two cents of asking for the left turn in is this lot, the    which is residential only, if it's right in, right out, if somebody's coming from East Ridgewood and would otherwise make a left in, they'd have to go around the block. But it's a handful of cars. I mean, we're looking at 47 spaces and in the peak hour you're probably looking at, you know, that want to come in that way, five, six cars.  So it doesn't    it's not a material impact on  
MR. SCHEIBNER: The problem I see with the left in that Franklin Avenue entrance is that your queued traffic for, you know, the eastbound traffic on Franklin at that light, it's almost always queued up past that point. 
THE WITNESS: Today, yes. Because of the operation of that signal, the pre timed signal.  If there was an improvement to it, it would improve, the queues would be reduced. 
As a traffic engineer, what I look at is giving the person the flexibility to make a decision as to what they're comfortable with and somebody may say, I don't want to make that left, I'm going to around the block and make the right in. But if somebody else wants to do it, it's    that the way I approach and have approached, you know, design aspects for    since I've gotten into this business. That's what I look at. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  So there's really two distinct parking area? 
THE WITNESS: Correct.
MR. SCHEIBNER: And are the parking spaces assigned? Are the residents going to be all using the Franklin Avenue entrance? Or is  
THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know if they're going to be assigned, but that upper level is for residents only. And there's more than    there's 1.2 spaces per unit.  So obviously every unit gets one space in that level. How they decide to get, you know, the extra 10 spaces, probably go to bigger units, but I don't know specifically, but every unit will have one space in that upper level and then there's a couple of extra. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  The reason I ask that is: Are there going to be people who are compelled to use that Franklin Avenue entrance?
THE WITNESS:  Yeah. I mean, all the residents will have one car    one space in that level.
MR. SCHEIBNER:  I see.
THE WITNESS: So    and when we did our trip assignment, we accounted for that separately knowing that there was    the residential traffic would be going to that level. 
MR. SCHEIBNER: So those of people who would be going out to the left hand turn, those are the people who are going to be going around the block?
THE WITNESS: Right. And the Applicant has indicated to me it's right in, right out. So forget what I said. It's right in, right out on Franklin. 
MR. SCHEIBNER: That's it. 
CHIEF VAN GOOR: I have no new questions. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I have a couple of questions. The retail space existing, not the Sealfons building, but there's the Hallmark and then there's the other space downstairs, which was the Arthur Murray Dance Studio?
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Do you know how much space is allocated to the Arthur Murray Dance Studio? 
THE WITNESS:  I don't know the individual breakdown within the building. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  But when you contemplated that, you contemplated that as retail space, so that's how you how contributed to the calculations, so that would be under no build, is that how that works? 
THE WITNESS:  Well, we treated it    we have    yeah, the Arthur Murray space we treated as retail both in the current condition and in    well, it's gone in the after condition, but we treated it as all retail space.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I mean, the only reason I ask that question is because that was formerly a B 2 zone, they it became another zone and only retail could be permitted on the first floor, but that particular business had a variance to operate because that's the second floor business, because the low impact dance studio, but it's not retail, so I didn't know if that would change much or   
THE WITNESS: No, and that's why I said when we did our trip generation I didn't deduct anything for the existing uses. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I want to ask you about the intersection, that crazy intersection. When you're looking at improvements and I guess presumably there will be more pedestrian traffic generated for two reasons, because you're adding all the residential units, but also because the disabled, especially the housing component is    and I know that Tom is back there, but I see of a more independent oriented special needs housing. So the individuals that would reside there are a little more functioning independent. So, again, presumably there's more pedestrian traffic. And I just would be interested in understanding how you might improve the intersection for pedestrian safety and the reason I ask this is I walk all the time and the other day I was on way to the Board of Ed building and I realized that to get from my point A to point B, I actually had to cross three roads to get to the corner, which you should only have to make one movement for, so if you just can elaborate how that could work.
THE WITNESS:  Sure. You have three crosswalks. Once across each leg of Franklin and one across North Maple. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Right. And if I'm on the southeast corner    right there. 
THE WITNESS:  Okay.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I can't just cross  
THE WITNESS:  You can't cross over Maple. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I can't cross there.
THE WITNESS:  No.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I have to cross first, I have to cross that and I have to cross back.
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  One at a time. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Does that make sense?
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  No, no.
THE WITNESS: It's also knowing  
MAYOR KNUDSEN: No, I know to know if an improved light, signalized light with pedestrian movement    and I'm just asking a question, I guess, unrelated, but if that would then allow that crosswalk to be installed, is that something you foresee is  
THE WITNESS: It's hard to understand why the county may not have permitted it there. Part of it is putting the crosswalk here. That crosswalk can't be used when this    the western leg of Franklin goes and it can't be used when North Maple goes. It would have to be tied to the signal for the east half of Franklin Avenue. I think it's possible, but that needs county input, but what we're looking at is pedestrian push buttons. So you hit the button and you have the new pedestrian heads, which will have the little man walking and white lights the hand and red and a countdown timer so that you know how much time you have before you need to run out of the street. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. Just going back to    to the Cottage Place lot and that 19 foot opening, is there a reason that you didn't use that in your analysis of who might pass through there?  Is it because that technically shouldn't be used? 
THE WITNESS:  No, I just wanted to be conservative and put as much traffic out to North Maple and East Ridgewood and Franklin. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay.  So when you    if that were open like that, you would    people would use it; would that be fair?
THE WITNESS:  I'm sure they use it today. And they will be able to use it tomorrow. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. The next question: Going back to that left turn in or right in and out  
THE WITNESS:  It's right in, right out.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Yeah, so I'm just interested in knowing when    so now there's cars that are coming    they're actually passing there. If everyone's going to go right in, right out, as opposed to left, now they're going to have to do passes through lights, additional passes that otherwise they wouldn't have done; is that accurate?
THE WITNESS:  Well  
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  That those    if someone came    if someone came south on Maple and they made a right into Franklin and then a left into the lot? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  But now if you don't permit that, now they're making    they're going straight and now those trips are added to the Maple Avenue   
THE WITNESS:  That's the way I did my analysis.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay. 
THE WITNESS:  I didn't account for lefts in. So it's already counted for in the analysis.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So then in other words, if it were a left in, then that would be reduced significantly or what would that be? 
THE WITNESS: It's a handful of cars.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  A handful of cars, okay. 
THE WITNESS:  Yeah.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: And then to get the distance from that right in and out would be    the distance from that driveway to the southwest corner, like just in terms of car lengths or physical length. 
THE WITNESS:  From the driveway into the stop bar? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Yeah, that's perfect. The stop bar actually makes sense. What's the distance and how many car lengths could that be?
THE WITNESS:  It's about six car lengths, that's 120 feet.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So any improvement of a light, even if it were improving it significantly, you won't prevent that    not a lot of cars to queue there pretty quickly. I mean, it's not like it's a lot. So it appears any improvement to the light there wouldn't impact that considerably, because I mean, you're talking about they still have to wait for the light. 75 cars to get in line is a lot.  If it were 20 cars, I would agree. But 75 cars is going up.
THE WITNESS: The separation meets design standards. You have to have a minimum of 100 feet from the stop bar to a driveway, which we do comply with. There is some improvement particularly during the Saturday, but it's still    with a right out, I mean, some of it may depend on what we call curtesy gaps. A person on Franklin allowing the person to come out. But, again, we're not looking at a lot of traffic in that level coming out. The peak time is a morning and in the morning is when the traffic on that light at Franklin is at its lowest level.  So we're looking at a, you know, in this case, a car every 5 or 6 minutes coming out of that driveway. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. I have no other questions. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Frances? 
MS. BARTO:  I don't have any questions. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Melanie?
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  I think we asked some of these questions the first time around, but is there a way or any plan in place to block that driveway from any, you know, strange    anybody off the street parking in that upper level coming in off of Franklin? 
THE WITNESS:  Nothing.
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  Nothing in place?
THE WITNESS:  Nothing.
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  Because there was no turnaround in there. Also like if somebody were to get up, wasn't it that there was no  
THE WITNESS:  The turnaround issue was on the lower level and that's been redesigned based on a comment from your planner. 
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  Okay.
THE WITNESS:  So there is turnaround. The upper level has circulation. 
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  Okay. The right turn, right turn in, that's what we kind of covered, I actually wouldn't care if there was a left turn out of there at all, because honestly the queue would be up into that level and that would be the residents issue to deal with, not the street, but that's a whole another    I guess that's been done with already also. Would your    this $50,000 towards the signal, the contribution, is that in addition to any striping on the streets for crosswalks and sidewalks upgrades that could be needed in here?
THE WITNESS:  The $250,000 estimate includes striping, head heads, traffic signal improvements, that's the whole signal.  So the 50,000 is  
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  Was your  
THE WITNESS:  Was the applicant's contribution, what he indicated to me he was willing to contribute.
MS. MCWILLIAMS: And you just gave the $400,000 estimate towards those lights? I mean, there's a couple of different MR. JAHR and other safety gentlemen    or traffic engineer had suggested that those were    and I believe Mr. Rutishauser also had suggested that that was a price for the lights. 
MR. BRUINOOGE: I don't believe there's any testimony with respect to a 400,000 dollar cost.  The signalization or improvements related to the North Maple, Franklin intersection.
MS. MCWILLIAMS: That may be    that may be true. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  400,000 dollar reference was, I believe, relative to some improvements of the intersection of Broad and Franklin near the Kent Smith site. 
MS. MCWILLIAMS: Can you just explain a little bit to me why you opted to go with a 2 percent when you were sort of more aggressive in your approach? I think that MR. JAHR was    he didn't strongly agree with your decision to go with the 2 percent increase in traffic.  Why did you choose to do that?
THE WITNESS: A lot of it was, you know, when we first started the study, 2 percent is what the DOT published. And they just    every two years they publish new rate tables. Well, this time around they dropped the rates for Bergen County. I didn't want to go back and redo it, especially since it was a lesser number. I said, you know, I'll stick with the 2 percent, because I've already done it and I don't want to change it and then have John go, why did you change it, why did you make it less?  I left it at 2 percent. 
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  Would you be amenable to    or I mean, this is going to be a question, I think, probably for the Village to look at, too, for some sort of blocking off of the Cottage Place lot so that there is no access there? 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Can't do it.
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  What is that? 
THE WITNESS:  I'm deferring to another    to somebody else.  I have no  
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I heard somebody say you can't do it    I think it's the Village's property, so I don't    I just thought it would be something the Village would make a decision on.
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  I guess just would there be    there would be nothing to object to on that. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I mean, that's not something that    I don't  
MR. BRUINOOGE:  I haven't done the title search on this property or on the Village's property to the west.  But I would    my recollection is that over the years this board or the zoning board have granted a number of variances based on that free flow of traffic back and forth from one site to the other.  I just don't know where the relative rights are and responsibility would be as well.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I mean, I don't    I don't know why the question    I mean, I don't know that it is relevant to this, I don't think it's anything that Eric   
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Well, it wasn't factored into the calculations  
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Right.  It wouldn't factor into the calculations. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:     which are the basis of the report. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  And as I said, nor should it be, because it's    I mean, that would be a decision that the Village would make and past variances that were granted on past applications in my mind would be responsible. And not relevant to this. Not a decision at all to be made. 
MS. MCWILLIAMS: I don't think I have any further questions. Other than that I would actually see a pedestrian study in that area    I would of liked to see that looked at in more detail.  I travel that area all the time, all day, many times a day and I never felt safe, I never not backed up at any of those lights, at any of those intersections and rarely throughout the daytime is there not a pack of kids, you know, from morning until late in the afternoon coming and going from high school. It' right now a cut through area right now into some of those streets. So I just think it would be something I would have liked to see in this study. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel?
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: No questions. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. I guess you'll have adequate signs for the circulation around the building so people don't get confused. I guess right on Maple is right in, right out, right?
THE WITNESS:  Correct.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. I just wanted to confirm that. 
But you'll have signage there indicating that they can't make the left and things like that?
THE WITNESS:  Right. We'll have all the appropriate regulatory signs, right turn only, no left turn, you know. You try not to clutter it up too much, but have enough so that people are clear that they can't make certain movements.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  And clear markings in the garage for flow, too? 
THE WITNESS:  Correct.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  For circulation? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Did you do any turning templates for any vehicles within the garage for any emergency or anything like that?
THE WITNESS:  The site engineer did. And my understanding is that in discussions with both fire and police and rescue    well, not police, but fire and rescue is that they would not put their vehicles in the garage. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  And I guess the applicant is amenable to discussing modifications with the    our traffic engineer in agreeing in good faith to resolve any contributions. I think that would be fair.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  We can represent that we're always amenable to having conversations with MR. JAHR. 
MR. JAHR:  In good faith. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  In good faith, yes. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  So countdown, timer, get a lot of actuation on the lights? 
THE WITNESS:  Yeah, yeah. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. 
THE WITNESS:  We don't do pre timed signals anymore.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  And I guess    how do you think the residents will react to that if you can't make that left in?  You think just people adapt and then there will be adequate flow going around there? 
THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  I mean, the street network is such that they would have opportunities to make and they'll learn the way to get around. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  No further questions?
Yes.  John Jahr will be the next person to ask questions. 
MR. JAHR:  Good evening. Considering the layout, I don't think I'm going to be able to get through my stuff by 10:00. And the board has other matters to deal with. So I'm not going to    I don't think it's fair to ask them delayed. What I would like to do is I'd like to get the Board's permission to meat with MR. KELLER to figure out exactly how he came up with 20 percent and exactly how he came up with the 250,000 and when we next back    come back for the next meeting, I could better understand how we've gotten to that place. And then report back to you on how the rational nexus of how we got from there to here. And I think it might be able to help to answer a number of questions that have come up with regard to the pedestrian study, which I totally agree. What I would rather do is I would rather have the opportunity to speak with these matters with MR. KELLER and maybe come up with a plan to simply improve the pedestrian access at that signal. I think it's something that needs to get done And it sounds to me like there may be a process that we're going to have to hear where    with regard to Mr. Voigt's comment or well, where we going with the 20,000. My request or my idea might be instead of trying to get that, maybe we can fix the light that's there up by putting in a controller and the pedestrian hits some buttons and make some reasonable improvements to the infrastructure that we currently have that is within a reasonable proximity to the impact they're having on the traffic. And so to answer how I'm getting from there    from one place to the next, if you look carefully at Table 3, there is MR. KELLER's future no build and future build.  And you'll notice that there is a difference to the negative from the no build to the build. And that's the rational nexus that gets us to asking them for some help to make some improvement from a traffic standpoint. So we're not just making it up. We actually have a real reason to ask for, you know, some modem of traffic mitigation. 
I will say that based on what I've heard tonight, it sounds like the offer is right in a reasonable range to the amount of traffic, but I need to look at the whole thing and with your permission if I can get MR. KELLER, I would suspect that when next we come back, a much more clearer picture that hopefully the board will feel more comfortable with. 
MR. MARTIN:  MR. JAHR, if I may add just to clarify for the record, if the board allows that and I think it's a great idea, can you also go over with MR. KELLER as to what the county may require of this project in terms of traffic issues?  I'm sure you guys can look into that. I'm sure you can get on the same page. The second thing is: I see Mr. Toronto is in the audience. He testified on behalf of the applicant. The individuals who are going to have the benefit of residing at this location, including those, I believe, Mr. Toronto, I might be wrong, but the term developmentally disabled and I believe there's a significant aspect of walking in the community that I think MR. BRUINOOGE pointed out when you have anybody walking in the community, this might have people walking in the community, this kind of development, so that's something to look into for the pedestrian flow, I think, as well.
MR. JAHR:  I think it all ties together and again, I need the Board's permission to do that.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Any comments on that? 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  There's always a willingness to communicate professional to professional and address them collaborative in a cooperative way solution to problems. Frankly, I had understood that the level of conversation between MR. KELLER and MR. JAHR was fairly extensive and rather complete. We're intent on moving the application to conclusion. I don't want to impose on the time that this board volunteers, but I'm hoping to go as long as you'll let me go tonight. I got one other witness, plus Dipple back for the soil permit. Candidly, Michael has told me that the next available date, I believe, is November 21st, I think, or something like that? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes, that's correct.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Which creates a burden.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  I understand.  I mean, we can do the questions with our engineer and our planner, finish that, open to the public and then reserve John for the next meeting and then do your planner.  Does that  
MR. BRUINOOGE:  It's your hearing.  I'm just here to put a case on. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  No, we try to work with  
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Thank you.  And I very much appropriate it.  You're very sensitive to the time that volunteers  
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yeah, we're very sensitive to the applicant.  There's costs and timing issues and things like that.  And we've had a whole plate and, you know, we try our best, also. 
All right.  So I guess our engineer can ask questions of the traffic expert if you have any.
MR. MEHANDZIC:  I don't really have any questions.  I just have two concerns for the Village. 
One is the garbage truck entering from the Maple    Ridgewood Avenue side.  The drainage system that runs under there is very shallow. And that is going to be a problem for us.  Extremely shallow. The other concern is our municipal lot. It's worn and it's not pedestrian friendly. For if not that we're going to have an overflow of parking, but people might say it might be easier to park in the municipal lot and walk over to retail. It's    it would need some improvements to make it pedestrian friendly and ADA complaint. That lot hasn't been touched ever in 50 years.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Do you have any questions? 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  He didn't really say that    I didn't hear him say that.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I didn't hear him say anything. 
THE WITNESS:  On the municipal lot I think there's a greater likelihood that there is usage of that municipal lot today because there's such a lack of parking on site. As far as the drainage system, I mean my understanding is that the trucks are going in and out of that driveway today to serve this site, because that's where the loading area is now. But obviously if there's any damage to that pipe, it affects the applicant and he's going to, you know, fix it to what extent he has to.  So there's probably going to be a reduction in truck traffic because we have that much less commercial space than we do today. So it's no worse or probably better than what you have today.
MR. MEHANDZIC: Thank you.
THE WITNESS:  You're welcome.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Could I just ask    when you talk commercial, I mean, on that commercial space, that's office space. What kind of trucks do you have going in and out of there?
THE WITNESS:  It's, you know, office supplies, garbage trucks. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay. Just asking.
THE WITNESS:  Yeah.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Because it didn't seem like it's not like there's deliveries, like more goods or anything, so I'm just kind of interested, because I don't even know what offices are in there and what used to be. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  There used to be a furniture store. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  No, I know that, but I appreciate that there was furniture store, but I just was curious to know how much. 
THE WITNESS:  I don't know the specifics. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. Beth, did you have any questions?
MS. McMANUS:  I have no questions of this witness.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Anyone from the public that wants to ask questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. There is no one.
All right.  So I guess we'll carry to November 21st, 2017. You're the only one that night. 
MR. MARTIN:  No further notice required as to the application inclusive of the major soil permit application and no prejudice to the Board, I believe MR. BRUINOOGE is okay with that. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  That's no further notice? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yeah, without further notice, without prejudice to the Board.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  That's correct.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. Thank you for your professionalism. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Always a pleasure to be here.
MR. MARTIN:  Always a pleasure. 
(Whereupon, the matter is carried to a later date. Time noted: 10:01 p.m.)

Adoption of Minutes: The minutes from November 15, 2016 were adopted as written.
Executive Session – The Board moved to executive session at 10:05 a.m. At the conclusion of the executive session, the Board reconvened the public session.
Mr. Joel and adjourned the meeting at 10:05 a.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
      

Michael Cafarelli
      Board Secretary

Date approved: December 4, 2018