The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of July 18, 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: Mayor Knudsen called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Susan Knudsen, Joel Torielli, Richard Joel, Councilman John Voigt, Isabella Altano, Melanie McWilliams, David Scheibner, Debbie Patire, and James Van Goor. Also present were Elizabeth McManus, Planner, Board Attorney Chris Martin, Village Engineer Chris Rutishauser, and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Ms. Barto was not present.
Reorganization of Planning Board
Administration of Oaths of Office to New Members and/or Reappointments – Mr. Martin administered the oath of office to Mayor Knudsen. Mayor Knudsen administered the oath of office to Mr. Van Goor as a Class II Member; Jeff Voigt, Class III Member; David Scheibner, Richard Joel, Isabella Altano, Melanie McWilliams, Debbie Patire, and Joel Torielli, Class IV Member.
Roll Call – The following members were present: Mayor Susan Knudsen, Joel Torielli, Richard Joel, Councilman John Voigt, Isabella Altano, Melanie McWilliams, David Scheibner, Debbie Patire, and James Van Goor. Also present were Elizabeth McManus, Planner, Chris Martin, Board Attorney, Chris Rutishauser, Village Engineer, and Michael Cafarelli, Board Secretary. Ms. Barto was not present.
Election of Officers
Board Attorney – Resolution appointing Chris Martin as Board Attorney for July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. The Resolution was adopted.
Alternate Counsel – Resolution appointing Glenn Kienz of Weiner Lensnaik, LLP as Alternate Counsel was adopted.
Chairman – Richard Joel was nominated and elected as Chairman.
Vice Chairman – Joel Torielli was nominated and elected as Vice Chairman.
Planner – Resolution appointing Brigette Bogart of Bogart Planning and Design Professionals as Planner for the Planning Board for the year July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018 was adopted.
Conflict Planner – Resolution appointing Elizabeth McManus of Clark Caton Hintz, as Conflict Planner for the Planning Board for the year July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018 was adopted.
Traffic Engineering Consultant – Resolution appointing John Jahr of Petry Traffic, LLC as Traffic Engineering Consultant for the Planning Board for the year July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018 was adopted.
Conflict Traffic Engineering Consultant – Resolution appointing David Shropshire of Shropshire Associates as Conflict Traffic Engineering Consultant for the Planning Board for the year July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018 was adopted.
Site Plan/Subdivision Review Committee – Mayor Knudsen, Councilman Voigt, and Isabella Altano were appointed to this committee.
Site Plan Exemption Committee – Mr. Scheibner and Mr. Van Goor were appointed to this committee.
Master Plan Reexamination Committee – Ms. Patire, Ms. McWilliams, Mayor Knudsen, and Mr. Torielli were appointed to this committee.
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) – Ms. Altano was appointed to this committee.
Open Space Committee – Ms. McWilliams was appointed to this committee.
Resolution re: Compliance with the Requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act. The resolution was adopted.
Reorganization portion of the meeting was closed.
Mr. Joel called the meeting to order at 8:20 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Susan Knudsen, Joel Torielli, Richard Joel, Councilman John Voigt, Isabella Altano, Melanie McWilliams, Debbie Patire, and James Van Goor. Also present were Elizabeth McManus, Planner, Board Attorney Chris Martin, Village Engineer Chris Rutishauser, and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Ms. Barto was not present.
Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – No one came forward.
Committee/Commission/Professional Updates for Non Agenda Topics, Correspondence Received by the Board – Mr. Scheibner reported the SPEC Committee met and discussed 5 Robinson Lane and the application was approved. Mayor Knudsen reported that the Historical Preservation Commission met and the Chairman was preparing a letter to support Graydon Pool's designation as a Historical Site.
257 Ridgewood Avenue, LLC, Block 3703, Lot 4, 6, & 8.01, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan – Pubic Hearing continued from May 16, 2017 – Following is the transcript of this portion of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:
Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – No one came forward
Correspondence received by the Board – MR. CAFARELLI reported none was received.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: 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 May 16, 2017.
- MR. BRUINOOGE, is the attorney on this matter. So the floor is yours, MR. BRUINOOGE.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Thomas H. Bruinooge, 301 Route 17 North, Suite 505, pleased and proud to appear here before this board on behalf of 257 RA, Ridgewood Avenue, L.L.C. As the Chairman has indicated this matter has found its way into the queue and eventually found it's way to a hearing tonight with jurisdiction having been established by virtue of an affidavit of proof of publication and an affidavit of service upon the property owners within 200 feet of the site in question, based upon a certified list of property owners provided by the village tax office. I would assume Mr. Joel and MR. MARTIN will confirm that the board is possessed of jurisdiction.
- MR. MARTIN: Yes. And that is also ‑‑ notice is satisfactory. Thank you.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Thank you very much. I guess, let me start it this way by saying congratulations to those of you who are elected or assumed positions tonight. I say that on behalf of my client and myself. For those of you who are serving on the board for the very first time, on behalf of New Jersey planning officials we welcome you to the course that the planning officials teach from time to time, as you know you have a statutory obligation to attend such a course. And I'm honored to teach such a course from time to time throughout the years. So we look forward to seeing you at the course. This last step of the long journey bringing this site to a point where the property owner/applicant seeks board approval for a permitted use under your ordinance under the B‑3‑R zone. The site is an interesting site. It's a challenging site. It presents a number of issues, but it presents as well some wonderful opportunities. And it's with those opportunities in mind that this application has been put together. You should know that within the last few weeks my team of experts has had an opportunity to meet with the village engineer as well as with Mrs. McManus. Mrs. McManus issued a lengthy review letter which was the subject of a rather extensive conversation with the team, I guess it was a week or so ago Friday. A number of interesting observations emerged from that conversation and candidly you will hear tonight that there have been some changes, minor changes, but nonetheless important changes, to various plans that were submitted as part of the application. Any of the changes that are going to be described this evening are, in my opinion, subject of course to your own board attorney's opinion ultimately, but the changes are not significant enough to warrant renotice. So that the matter can and should proceed. So we expect that over the course of tonight and probably another meeting, perhaps two, the board will hear from a number of witnesses. Our first witness will be Mike Dipple, a civil engineer who will present his qualifications to you and ask that you accept his qualifications, so that he can testify on behalf of the applicant as a civil engineer, qualified in such an area.
We also have with us this evening Mr. Englebaugh of the architectural firm Minno & Wasko. Minno Wasko has been with this project for quite some time. You will actually see exhibits during the course of the hearing which go back, believe it or not, to 2012. They have a long, deep involvement with this site and the project as it's evolved. One of the interesting things that's occurred within the last, I guess, you could say a year, little less than a year, because the application originally filed in May of 2016 was deemed complete in August of 2016. And since that time the applicant's had the opportunity to address a very important issue here in the village. I speak to the issue of affordable housing and particularly with respect to special‑needs housing. Having just concluded nine years as a board member of West Bergen Mental Health, the last three as chair of the board or president of the board, the need for special‑needs housing is hopefully apparent to everyone here, and certainly important. And the applicant has recognized that need and recognized the opportunity to address the need. And so working with the United Way of Bergen County we are able to present to Ridgewood an opportunity for eight units of special‑needs housing with up to 15 bedrooms. Those units will be creditable, in our opinion, against the ultimate obligation, whatever it is determined by the court in the declaratory judgment action, towards Ridgewood's obligation to provide a reasonable amount of affordable housing under the case law. So following Mr. Torranto we will ‑‑ we will hear from Eric Keller of Bowman Engineering. Eric will be presented as a traffic expert, parking testimony as well, he will be qualified. And what you'll hear from Mr. Keller is interesting in and of itself because as a consequence of bringing the special‑needs housing into the project, the complexion and nature of the project has changed. And when we apply some of the zoning conditions to the site, particularly parking, we see that an existing situation, that is to say the current situation on the ground right now shows 76 spaces available on the site. That is significantly below that which is required by ordinance, but the ‑‑ the 76 spaces exist legally and consistent with actions taken by this Planning Board over quite some number of years. I think Mrs. McManus will confirm that it's an interesting read going back through the resolutions taking this way back to the original Sealfons building. Some of us have very fond memories of the Sealfons building and going down there to shop with wives and children and what have you. But what's interesting about it is that the Sealfons building, as it has evolved over the years with its 76 spaces, right now presents a bit of a parking issue. And by eliminating a little over 13,000 square feet of commercial space, replacing it with the special‑needs housing the parking situation comes into a much better condition. And so you'll hear from THE WITNESSes that the project is proposing 131 total parking spaces assuming the project is approved. And a professional opinion from Mr. Keller that the obligation of the property owner/developer is really 141 units. So a very, very large shortfall or deficiency is being significant reduced by this particular project. End of the day, the presentation will conclude with testimony from a licensed New Jersey planner John Szabo who is a member of the firm Burgis & Associates, former planner for the town of Oakland, and I believe maybe he was the mayor of the town of Oakland, as well as the planner over in Wayne. He will testify on the planning reasons as to why the relief applied for and sought should be granted by the board under the relevant criteria set out in the MLUL and in the case law. So with that brief introduction, with your kind indulgence, we'll call the first witness.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sure.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Call Mr. Dipple please.
- MR. MARTIN: Mr. Dipple, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
- MR. DIPPLE: I do.
M I C H A E L D I P P L E, 60 Grand Avenue, Englewood New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
- MR. MARTIN: And just for the record your name, your business address and spell your last name.
- MR. DIPPLE: Sure. Michael Dipple, D‑I‑P‑P‑L‑E. I am employed by L2A Land Design, 60 Grand Avenue, Englewood, New Jersey. I am the licensed professional civil engineer in New Jersey and New York. I have a bachelor of science in civil engineering from Rutgers University. I am founder and owner of L2A Land Design which specializes in site plan applications such as commercial, residential, institutional, just about anything. I have appeared in front of this ‑‑ in front of the zoning board of adjustment as well as many, many communities throughout New Jersey and the Superior Court and have been found to be an expert in civil engineering.
- MR. MARTIN: And you're still qualified as a civil engineer tonight. Thank you.
- MR. BRUINOOGE?
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Thank you very much.
BY MR. BRUINOOGE:
- Q. Now, Mr. Dipple, you've been engaged by our mutual client 257 Ridgewood Avenue L.L.C.
Is that correct?
- A. That's correct.
- Q. And in that capacity as a civil engineer would you be kind enough to explain to the board what your responsibilities were and what you have done. And as a consequence of the work done for it on behalf of 257, what do you bring to the board for their review?
- A. So I prepared the civil site plan documents, working with Minno & Wasko the architect. We prepared the set that is on the board and in front of you entitled "Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, The Enclave of Ridgewood." I've worked on this project for six years now on this, so I have been there from the beginning.
- Q. Now, you mentioned plans in front of the board members I had asked you to ‑‑ and your office, to prepare duplicate copies of the exhibits that have been premarked and are up, in part at least, on the exhibit, but reduce them in size to 11 by 17 for easier use by board members. Is that, in fact, what you're thumbing through now? And do you represent to the board that the copies that you're about to hand out are exact duplicates of the exhibits?
- A. Yeah, that's correct. They're dated May 2nd, 2017. And I'm handing, I guess, to the gentleman on the left here.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: MR. CAFARELLI.
THE WITNESS: Copies of that, just reduced to make it easier if you want to flip through the set.
- MR. MARTIN: MR. BRUINOOGE, all the exhibits are in order in that stack?
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Are these the drawings revised on June 28th?
- MR. BRUINOOGE: The drawings bear the date that they bear and in some instances bear a later revision date. We'll get to that as we present the actual exhibit.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Okay, thank you.
THE WITNESS: Just for clarification that's only the site plan set, that's not all exhibit that we have with us. That's just the site plan.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: So let's ‑‑
- MR. MARTIN: You want to mark the site plan?
- MR. BRUINOOGE: We're going to mark what's been previously marked for identification by the certified shorthand reporter.
BY MR. BRUINOOGE:
- Q. And please identify, if you would, Mr. Dipple, the first exhibit?
- A. First exhibit is preliminary and final major site plan, The Enchain at Ridgewood. It's Exhibit A‑1. And the date on the plan is May 2, 2017. It's revised, second revision to include special‑needs housing component as redesigned.
- Q. Can you explain and describe the project, utilizing that particular exhibit or any other exhibit that's there. If you are going to use another exhibit please make specific reference to the exhibit you are testifying from?
- A. I am going to start with Exhibit A‑5 which is a Google Earth aerial of the property and surrounding areas. And what I have done is traced a yellow line around the approximate boundary of the site so the board can see what property's in and what property is not in. So looking at this document you have East Ridgewood Avenue along the bottom and that kind of runs east to west. You have North Maple Avenue running, you know, about a third of the way from the right side of the page, Route 507, and that runs in a north/south direction generally. And you have Franklin Avenue along the top which again runs in and east/west direction. The site, again, surrounded by this yellow lot includes ‑‑ this yellow line, it includes the Sealfons building that MR. BRUINOOGE described. It includes this brown ‑‑ I'm sorry ‑‑ this black rectangle which is currently being used as an Arthur Murray Dance Studio (indicating). And then you have another building on the property which is Landmark floors, I believe, they do. And you have some parking areas surrounding that.
- MR. CAFARELLI: Pardon me. You need to use the microphone, it's not getting picked up in the audience.
THE WITNESS: It's not getting picked up?
- MR. CAFARELLI: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: Okay. Can you hear me now?
- MR. CAFARELLI: It's working.
THE WITNESS: It's on. Okay. Okay. So orientation‑wise north will be Franklin Avenue and North Maple will be east an the municipal parking lots and Board of Education building will be to the west and, of course, Ridgewood Avenue ‑‑ East Ridgewood Avenue would be to the south. The property has three frontages, East Ridgewood Avenue, North Maple and Franklin. There are driveways to this site on East Ridgewood Avenue. There is one on North Maple Avenue underneath the Sealfons building. There's another one in front of the Landmark Floors to access the back. And currently there is no access, direct access to Franklin Avenue. The project does not include the Brake‑O‑Rama site, as can you see, which is at the intersection of Franklin Avenue and North Maple Avenue. From the drawing you can see that it's almost entirely impervious. I think we're ‑‑ I can check my figures, but we're in the high 90s on impervious coverage. It's mostly building and parking, asphalt parking. The site generally slopes from North Maple Avenue and the hills starts to climb in the rear so the grade increases as you go to the west. It increases significantly as you go from North Maple Avenue to the neighboring funeral home, which is just immediately to the west on the northern part of the site. So I think that's all I have for that.
BY MR. BRUINOOGE:
- Q. Well, before you put that down, Mike, I just want to get clear on the record that the site that you just described with that exhibit includes Lots 4, 6 and 8.01 in Block 3703. Is that correct?
- A. That's correct. That's shown on the cover of my drawings, Block 3703, Lots 4, 6 and 8.01.
- Q. And I note that the exhibit A‑1 also references the zoning as set forth on the zone map and in the zoning ordinance of the village. Is that correct?
- A. That's correct.
- Q. What is it?
- A. It's in the B‑3‑R business/residential zone district.
- Q. Okay. Thanks.
- A. Okay. So starting with A‑1, we just have the cover sheet, what is the first sheet CO‑1. I'm going to quickly go through the set and maybe 11 by 17s will help you to follow along. CO‑2 is a demolition plan. And this is important in this project because it depicts that the Sealfons portion of the building and the parking that's underneath the Sealfons is going to remain. It's really from the Arthur Murray Dance Studio to the north where the site features are going to be removed entirely. So the Landmark building, the ‑‑ what is clearly a prior building addition for the dance studio and all of the parking leading towards Franklin Avenue would all be removed as part of this project. So this is a building addition to the existing building. And what I have done also is put on the easel, the architect's rendering, which is Exhibit A‑8. And I'm not going to testify to it. I think the architect could give much better testimony than I can, but I think I find it helpful to the board to ‑‑ you can see from the civil plan which can be confusing, and I'm going to go through it and you can see what I'm referring to in the elevation. I thought that would be helpful so I asked the architect to place his exhibit on another easel. So moving forward through the set, I start with ground floor site plan. My site plan is a little bit ‑‑ it's not traditional I have two different plans in order to describe the civil portion of the site, because we really have two levels. So when I'm referring to the ground floor site plan, is the plan or the improvements which would be pretty much at the level of North Maple Avenue. All right, which is immediately to the east. So on CO‑3 this is what you would see if you cut the building away and would you look down you would see a parking lot with a lobby in the middle. And that on CO ‑‑ I'm sorry on A‑8 would be near the middle of the proposed building addition. So we have an entrance off of North Maple Avenue and an exit with a right turn only, after speaking with the county extensively. We can access the site and there would be parking, 46 public parking spaces on the ground floor, which would surround the lobby. Above you would be a concrete parking structure and then above you would be the residential floors. So the ground floor would, again, consist of the square near the middle which has the parking and it has the lobby and some of the amenities, like, the fitness center and the club room. Again this is immediately to the north of the Sealfons building which would remain and is depicted in A‑8 as existing to remain. So I'm going to put up an exhibit which is A‑2 which is a colored version of the ground floor site plan. So I could continue my testimony and you could see maybe better from the dais as to what I'm referring to. So the ground floor of the Sealfons building is a little strange in the front because when you enter off of Ridgewood Avenue you have a partial ground floor. You come in and PNC Bank is using that as kind of their welcome area. It's had different uses in the past. It was a furniture store, but this is kind of the landing point when you come in off of Ridgewood Avenue. And then you come go up a set of stairs and there's another level. But I'm still on the ground floor. And then you have some display windows which are thick, and prior tenants have used those to display products or ads or ‑‑ or whatever they have. And that is ‑‑ excuse me ‑‑ that's along North Maple Avenue and that's to remain. It's when we get to the back we have the new structure which would be concrete and parking on the ground level and then, of course, the lobby. And then in the front along Ridgewood Avenue we would have the streetscape. And we were continue the existing streetscape along North Maple Avenue from the Sealfons building and continue that northward toward the Brake‑O‑Rama site where we would have an opportunity to add some landscaping and other amenities at the entrance to the building. So maybe the color helps to see exactly what's ‑‑ what's happening in that ‑‑ on that floor. The access point, again, is ‑‑ continues to be from North Maple Avenue right‑in only and right‑out only. So it could only be accessed from the north side coming south along North Maple Avenue. There is an existing full movement driveway along Ridgewood Avenue which would remain. There are proposed 46 parking spaces underneath the building, as I mentioned before 38 of the parking spaces underneath the Sealfons building would remain untouched. Okay.
- Q. Let me just interject a quick question, hopefully it will somewhat of a clarification. The exhibit that you just referred to, the exhibit number again is?
- A. Is ground floor site plan. It's a colored version of Sheet CO‑3.
- Q. And you say "colored version" I see colors that are somewhat orange on there?
- A. Yes.
- Q. And that represents areas of commercial use to continue to be occupied in the Sealfons building; is that correct?
- A. Yes, there's a split variation in the colors. This lighter peach color is existing building to remain and the slightly darker orange color is the proposed structure (indicating).
And as I mentioned this is the lobby, the fitness center, the proposed club room. There are bathrooms and elevator and likely some mechanical space (indicating).
- Q. That darker orange represents then the lobby as you just described it for the market‑rate residential above?
- A. That's correct. So I can come back to this, I am going the leave this on the board I am going to slide it over and I am going to move through my site because I want to do the next floor up because they tie together so I am moving on to Sheet CO‑4 and now some of the building comes into view. And this level of the structure corresponds to a driveway to Franklin Avenue. So as I said in my opening remarks when I was ‑‑ when I had the Google Earth aerial of that ‑‑ the site has a rise, rises drastically as you go from North Maple Avenue to the back of the site near the funeral home and that's evidenced along Franklin Avenue the slope pitches up as you go towards the Kings Supermarket entrance and the Board of Education building and you continue along Franklin Avenue the grade rises. So CO‑4 is a depiction of improvements that are essentially associated with the next level up and linked to Franklin Avenue. So there would be a full‑movement driveway on Franklin Avenue which would lead southward into the site. You would encounter a row of parking spaces to your right. As you continue forward in your vehicle you would be presented with parking opportunities on that floor and now I'm one floor up from the previous exhibit that I had up on the board for CO‑3. And if you parked in this parking lot in the back you could enter the proposed structure through a rear door at what's called the first floor. And on the first floor there would be some apartments I see seven there, apartments on the ground floor, and then there would be apartments above as the building continues to go vertically.
- Q. Mike, let's take a moment please and focus on the number of parking spaces in the area that you just described. And if you know, will all those parking spaces be dedicated for use by any particular occupants of the building?
- A. Yes, there are 47 proposed parking spaces on this level. And they are designated as residential parking spaces. So they would likely be assigned to the residential users. There are 37 ‑‑ I'm sorry ‑‑ 39 market‑rate units in this building. And then, of course, I have not gotten to it yet, but this is in the front where the proposed special‑needs housing would be. So there are 47 residential parking spaces accessed only from Franklin Avenue, so anyone using this site would have to enter off of Franklin and exit onto Franklin. There are 47 parking spaces.
- Q. Are there any other significant features that you think should be pointed out at this point to the board?
- A. Well, this is elevated so we have a retaining wall which ‑‑ or a building wall, I should say, which supports the parking along the sides. It abuts right up against the Brake‑O‑Rama. Again, I'm up one floor now along North Maple Avenue. There is a stair tower in the back. There are columns to support the building above. And I'm going to bring up a colored rendering so we could see that a little bit better. So as I bring up Exhibit A‑3, which is first floor site plan, CO‑4, and again it's a colored version of that, maybe that helps to shed a little light on what is proposed at this level. The front would be where the special‑needs housing is on the upper floors. And that is the Sealfons building. So that's this slightly lighter peach color (indicating). And as I move into the middle of the site, this darker orange color is the proposed structure at that floor level which I'm calling first floor, and then there's this darker gray band that comes westward and that is proposed structure above(indicating). So if you enter this parking lot you would pass these parking spaces and you would actually go underneath the upper floors. So that at the upper level the buildings becomes an L‑shape, like a backward L‑shape. On this level it's just this rectangle, but on floors two, three and four it's this L‑shaped structure. So I did these two plans and I brought a bunch of easels so I could have them up so that it would be easier to describe the structure because it was challenging to design. And ‑‑ and I can imagine challenging to understand at first glance. Parking, again is depicted in the gray color, sidewalks are this other, you know, grayish green color. And then we have landscaping buffering the funeral home to the rear and the Brake‑O‑Rama building along that ‑‑ along that frontage. So this only colors the ‑‑ the site features associated with the first floor site plan (indicating).
- Q. Mike, I'd like to continue because I think there's a flow that's developing nicely ‑‑
- A. Okay.
- Q. ‑‑ but I want to just note for your use going forward here that that particular exhibit is helpful as we get into a discussion of the number of variances that are occasioned by this particular site plan, in particular with respect the side yards and height of retaining walls under the code so...
- A. I agree. So moving forward through the plan set I have ground floor now as the plan set progresses I'm doing my grading and drainage so I broke my set up into two sheets, again, and I have grading and drainage on the ground floor. And, essentially, that's really covered so we have a few drainage inlets throughout the parking lot, if there's ‑‑ you know water that comes in, sometimes it comes in off of cars or, you know, whatever it may be and it's traditional for or typical for there to be a few area drains through out the parking lot which connect to an existing pipe out in North Maple Avenue. It's generally flat on this site plan. There's not a lot of relief underneath the structure so it's not a lot of features to it. I am really just showing ADA compliance and grading the driveways. So I'm really pretty flat on this ‑‑ on this page.
- Q. Just a point of additional information your office did prepare, at the request of the applicant, a stormwater management report; is that correct?
- A. That's correct.
- Q. That what's been submitted to the village?
- A. It has.
- Q. And it has been reviewed?
- A. It has.
- Q. And you've had opportunity to discuss that with ‑‑
- A. Yes.
- Q. ‑‑ the village engineer?
- A. With the village engineer. I did ‑‑ we had a slight increase in the impervious coverage. As I mentioned it was close to 100 percent, but we did find we went from 91.89 percent to 92.46 percent. So we have a .6 percent increase in order to make this structure work. I think the Landmark building had a few old landscaped areas in front or does today, so those were removed. We did find some opportunity for landscaping, but we fell a little bit short. So I think it was agreed upon the principle anyway that we would ‑‑ there is a dry well at the site, we would increase the size of the dry well and mitigate any additional stormwater runoff. So I presented this to the village engineer and that's been the way we've been going forth.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: We kind of slipped into a discussion on stormwater management and Chris, MR. MARTIN, gives me an indication that it would probably be a good idea to have that stormwater report marked for identification. And I'll ask our reporter to please mark it as A‑11.
(Whereupon, Stormwater Management Report May 13, 2016 is received and marked as Exhibit A‑11 for identification.)
BY MR. BRUINOOGE:
- Q. I show you what has been marked A‑11, are you familiar with it?
- A. I am, yes.
- Q. And is that the report that you just testified to and report prepared by you or someone in your office?
- A. That is and it was prepared by me personally.
- Q. Okay. So moving, again, back to the testimony regarding the site plan and this particular sheet which is taking us through the building.
- A. The only other features that are part of this Sheet CO‑5 are the utility connections. So we find opportunities for sewer, water and gas right here along East Ridgewood Avenue (indicating). And we're talking to the utilities company and the village, of course, for water and sewer. So they're really just laterals out to the existing sewers that really service the existing building and they would be either increased or added new services for the building addition.
- Q. Based on those conversations that you had to date is there any indication that the building will not be able to be serviced by either sewer or water or any of the other utilities?
- A. There have been no indication that they would not be able to. There are some prior letters, but working with the village engineer we feel confident that everything can be ‑‑ that we can provide necessary utilities for this structure. Moving along, we have first floor grading, drainage and utility plan. And now I'm jumping up to the upper floor and, again, when you get above the parking below the structure on the previous plan, again it gets very flat, some of this is exposed. And we do have some pitch to it to get to a few inlets. But, generally, it's pretty flat in the parking area. It does grade down a little bit to Franklin Avenue to catch the grades. So there will be a little bit slope coming off of Franklin to get you up to a level in which you can cross over and get to the structured parking, which is near the middle of the site. And this is where the existing ‑‑ along Franklin Avenue I'm pointing it to, that's where the existing dry well is (indicating), so far the indication has been let's increase the size of that dry well by putting two more next to it and that should handle the stormwater management. So we would work with the village engineer if that ‑‑ after his review that doesn't ‑‑ isn't the case, but we feel pretty good about it. We show ADA compliance. There are two accessible parking spaces in the back of the site. There are columns in which the parking is worked around, but there's not a lot to see on the Sheet CO‑6. Moving forward through the plan set we get to lighting and, again, we do ‑‑ we break the site into two, lighting underneath this parking structure is pretty standard, standard parking garage lighting. We use a fixture which is typically used. It's an ‑‑ it's a linear light fixture by Phillips. And then we have we have some additional building‑mounted fixtures in the rear because there is a set of stairs and a sidewalk that exist today to get up to the upper level. And that would remain. So we're putting ‑‑ casting a little bit of light back here so access from Ridgewood Avenue can continue northward through the site to the upper parking level. So there's a lot of connectivity also in this plan for pedestrian activity in and around the property.
- Q. Is the lighting that you proposed as the project engineer and as reflected on the plans that you submitted, is it compliant with the village code?
- A. Yes, I believe it is. I had some conversations with MS. McMANUS, I believe, regarding lighting. And we do find opportunities where we could shield the sides of it a little bit and we have run those calculations. We didn't resubmit for ‑‑ just for the benefit of time and continuing tonight, but we did find some opportunities, just for some additional shielding, so that we don't get much throw. But the design is really ‑‑ it shows up on the next sheet CO‑8 more so than CO‑7 because CO‑7 is essentially the parking ‑‑ the interior parking area lighting. But on CO‑8 we have surface‑mounted lights or pole‑mounted lights which are depicted in the middle, that's a standard shoebox fixture. And we have a few of those on the site. And we did find some opportunities to shield those a little bit better, but we're in a downtown, commercial area. There's a lot of ambient light, but we're doing our part to keep the light on our site. So, again, we did rerun the model. We were able to improve it slightly. And I would continue to work with your professionals in order to get that right. But I think the lighting levels are very good. I think it's a good distribution throughout the property. From here on I think the plan set gets a little bit kind of technical and boring, it gets into soil erosion and sediment control and things like that. And we get into construction details so the plan set is available if we have any questions about that. But, in general, it ‑‑ it's really about the different levels of the site and understanding how they would be constructed. So I'm just going to remove A‑1 and put A‑3 back up on the easel, which are the two levels. And, again, I don't have a lot of room because of the camera, but I'm trying to get the building in there. On exhibit whatever that was A‑‑8.
- MR. MARTIN: A‑8 is the rendering.
THE WITNESS: A‑8 is the elevation view by Minno & Wasko, I think that's A‑8. Yes, it's A‑8.
BY MR. BRUINOOGE:
- Q. So, Mike, you've basically taken us through the site plan and in rather extensive detail and I thank you for that. I think you have done a fine job. But you've got a zoning table up on the plans that we are applying for a certain number of variances. Variances, by the way, which have been reflected on the plan submitted, but variances as well we're applying for under the catch‑all language in the notice, but coming about as a consequence of the normal type of review that we've had most recently with Mrs. McManus and with the village engineer. So let me just ask you, based on the plans as you see them and the information that you are aware of as of today, the number of parking spaces, total number of parking spaces that the site is providing?
- A. We are providing 131 parking spaces which includes, again, the existing ones underneath to Sealfons, the proposed spaces underneath the proposed building addition. And the surface spaces which are associated with the first floor site plan, all in total it's 131 parking spaces.
- Q. And do you know, based on your own research or conversations you've had with any other members of the expert team, total number of spaces required?
- A. We have a parking table here which indicates that by the village code there would be 140 parking spaces required.
- Q. I think it's 141 at this particular point right now?
- A. Yes.
- Q. We'll wait for Mr. Keller.
- A. We're going to wait for Mr. Keller.
- Q. Thanks. Surface parking area, under the code section 190‑118.4.F(12)B(3) parking area shall not be closer than 5 feet from any side lot or rear lot. We're proposing certain setbacks; is that correct?
- A. Yes, we are. And they exist primarily along the funeral home lot to the west and along the back of the Brake‑O‑Rama, technically I'm within 3.16 feet. So we have noted those in a table here parking lot location, minimum of 5 feet where side or rear lot line. And we're proposing a 2.14 setback to Lot 15 which is in this location, that I'm referring to, which is to the municipal parking lot (indicating). So we're abutting one parking lot, up against another parking lot. There is about a 4‑foot grade change there that is an existing retaining wall. So that ‑‑ that exists today. So we're just reusing that area, but I have a parking setback of 2.14 feet. I have a setback of 3.16 feet, again, to the back of Brake‑O‑Rama building. But that's elevated. So we're up again, kind of midway up the back of the building. And we are 3.16 feet ‑‑ we have a 4‑foot setback to Lot 5 which is ‑‑ exists here along the back of the Brake‑O‑Rama. We're including circulations so we have ‑‑ we have that ‑‑ that 4‑foot setback along the east side of the Franklin Avenue access driveway. And then we have another setback that I mentioned earlier to Lot 2.01 which is a 4‑foot setback. And it's really all driven by the width of this extension towards Franklin Avenue in order to get the standard drive aisle width and the standard parking stall size. We have ‑‑ we split 4 feet and 4 feet. We have 8 extra feet. And we split the difference between the sides. So we don't quite comply. We needed 2 more feet in order to comply, but we have landscaped that area.
- Q. Okay. The site plan, again, as you designed it, drawn it, if you look at Section 190‑124.F(2)B of the code retaining wall setback should be not less than the height of the retaining wall itself, but there is an existing retaining wall, as I understand it. Could you talk to the board about that please and explain what we're asking for?
- A. Yes, there's a number of retaining walls and we had quite a bit of discussion with your prior planner about the retaining walls. There's a retaining wall along ‑‑ I previously mentioned it along this lot line which divided the site between the building, public parking lot and the site, there's a retaining wall there. There's an existing retaining wall that I mentioned which supports the build ‑‑ the parking lot and does allow the access from Ridgewood Avenue, pedestrian access and continues through, up the existing stairs and accesses the top portion of the site. So there is that pedestrian vertical circulation, you know, that an elevator or something which exists today, which we're going to preserve. And, you know, there are ‑‑ based upon the interpretation there are retaining walls which would support the garage, but that's really where the bulk of the retaining wall encroachment exists.
- Q. Along with that 4.6‑foot high retaining wall, the applicant is proposing a 4‑foot high fence as well; is that correct?
- A. That is correct.
- Q. For security and safety reasons?
- A. That's correct.
- Q. So you have a total of 8.6 ‑‑
- MS. McWILLIAMS: I'm sorry. I'm having a really hard time hearing you.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: I said to Mr. Dipple, that the applicant is proposing a 4.6‑foot high retaining wall with a 4‑foot fence on top of it for security purposes and safety purposes.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: Thank you.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Moving on then.
BY MR. BRUINOOGE:
- Q. Actual retaining wall height under 190‑124.3(c) a maximum retaining wall height is 4 feet. And, again, we just ‑‑ I think we just really addressed that, the applicant proposes a 4.6‑foot high retaining wall with a 4‑foot fence for a total of 8.6. Is that correct?
- A. That's correct. And I note that in footnote number 11 in the middle of the page I talk about the retaining wall and what we just covered.
- Q. Now, earlier we made mention of the meeting that you and I and others on the team attended with Mrs. McManus and the village engineer. One of the comments listed by Mrs. McManus or given by Mrs. McManus under section 190‑118.4.F(10)D screening of parking beneath a building. Can you speak to that at least from your perspective as the civil engineer recognizing that there may be another expert who needs to speak more particularly on that?
- A. Yes, that's correct. It's an interpretation, and I think the intent of the code was to screen parking so that we're not looking at buildings up on stilts and we have parking underneath and your streets, your experience as you're walking down the street is not one of parking, but of a building. So along North Maple Avenue the architect will attest to that that they've taken great lengths to screen the parking. We do have a situation in the back of the building where we have the building above the first floor parking level which is this parking shown on Sheet CO‑4 of Exhibit A‑3 where we have building above, but we don't have ‑‑ this grade would be impossible for us to screen that parking that begins near Franklin Avenue and it extends about midway through the site towards East Ridgewood Avenue. And it passes underneath this overhead building. And it's in that area, I believe, that MS. McMANUS mentioned that that is not really screened. And I am going to leave that up to the architect and for the planner to describe. But I believe that is where we were referring.
- Q. The architect and the planner, I'm sure will have an opinion with respect to the other comments made by Mrs. McManus under 190 ‑‑ pardon me ‑‑ 190‑18.4.f.12(b)2 front yard parking. And that is again an interpretation issue as to whether or not the area coming off of Franklin leading up to the parking, that is eventually under the structure, whether that's front yard parking.
- A. That's correct. And it was identified specifically off of Franklin Avenue so a front yard would be from the building to the street, any area between that is the front yard, not to be confused with the front yard setback. And between Franklin Avenue we have an access drive which you can see from the size and shape, which I showed on Exhibit A‑5, we have this almost like an extension driveway towards Franklin Avenue. There is parking there now, but there's no building behind it. When we propose a building we technically find ourselves in a situation where we have parking between the building and the right‑of‑way line which is interpreted as parking in the front yard. It is not along Ridgewood Avenue which is the front of the building. It is not along North Maple Avenue which is the front of the building, especially with the new building addition. The situation only exists on this area of ‑‑ that extends ‑‑ the property that extends towards Franklin Avenue and the building is set above it.
- Q. Okay. Finally, one issue which I think is ‑‑ which warrants some attention and that is what the applicant is proposing in the plan submitted consistently throughout this past year, is a building which is slightly above the height of the permitted height under the ordinance. What is the applicant proposing in terms of height and can you speak to the board and tell the board how you have gone ahead, and based on the engineering work that you've done, determined how we get to that height?
- A. So the allowable height in the applicable zone is 50 feet. So the applicant is proposing a building which measures by your village code to be 54.92 feet which is 4.92 feet above the allowable which is a (c) variance and that is noted in the bulk table about the 6th line down, 50‑feet permitted and 54.92 proposed. Now the village calculates the building height by the average grade and then you go through a formula and you subtract the average grade from the highest point of the building and that is your building height. So we went through that exercise and I have an exhibit which may be difficult, I did not have an opportunity to shrink this exhibit, so I'm going ‑‑ it has a little bit of color to it. It is Exhibit A‑4. And it is entitled "Building Height Exhibit" and again we responded to a comment in MS. McMANUS' letter which asks for the calculation ‑‑ in other words, the calculation as been on the plans for, you know, six years or so and the interpretation now we're in front of this board and the way the building is being presented we re‑ran the calculations, and I think rightfully so, so what we did is we took points and coordinating with your planner since the meeting and over the last couple of days, we kind of picked points that would be representative and if you could see them there's these little red dots and you're supposed to pick a point that's 15 feet away from the building itself or within 15 feet.
- Q. When you say the building, itself, you're talking about in part the proposed building?
- A. The proposed structure. That's correct. And we see that often in codes, you know, I don't have to tell you, but the idea is you don't want to, you know, lift up a site and then say well the building is so high meanwhile you're up on stilts. So it's common, we've seen that the measurements taken some distance away from the structure. So you see these little lines out here with points on them we kind of projected them on a 45‑degree angle and we took the points and we did 11 points around the building. I believe myself and the planner agreed as to where we take the points to, to do a fair representation of that. And we came to an average grade elevation of 89.33, okay, which differs by .09 feet from the ‑‑ from the calculation that's on the plan. And that's because of the new interpretation. But Mr. Englebaugh, when he testifies to the architecture, is doing a building which will comply with 54.92 feet. So there was a slight variation based upon the new calculations, but I don't think it changes any of the plans. We are proposing a building which is, by any calculation, 54.92 feet.
- Q. Now, moving along then the application also seeks some waivers, I just want to make sure that the site plan notes and reflects the waivers that have been requested. There has been some testimony, I think you referred to a little while ago, about a dry well, is that what's commonly referred to under the code as a seepage tank?
- A. Yes. The dry well/seepage tank, yes, it serves the same purpose. It's retaining the flow and allows it to infiltrate into the ground.
- Q. So the application then and your site plan reflects that we're seeking relief from Section 190‑83.E.2(D)2 seepage tanks to be offset 15 feet from building's foundation. We are proposing to retain the existing seepage tank, and slightly expand it, I guess, but that's going to be within ‑‑ that is within 15 feet of the proposed building?
- A. Yes. Our new seepage tanks will be 15 feet away, but we're connecting to the existing one which is less than 15 feet away. So we're ‑‑ anything we propose is within that limit.
- Q. The second waiver 190‑84A regulates the spaces of trees within the right‑of‑way. The regulation requires three trees along North Maple. Your site plan doesn't show three, what does it show there?
- A. Well, on North Maple Avenue, I don't know if my exhibit has it, we are showing opportunity ‑‑ we have existing planters. We're showing a proposed tree in the center of the site and it has to do with spacing the existing trees and the location of the driveway and we are proposing one new tree planting in the front, also if we expand upon that your planner's requested some opportunity for passive recreation spaces, we intend to comply with. So we do have a lot of landscaping in the front, the front of the building right now there's really nothing there other than some old landscaping in front of the Landmark. But there is a real opportunity to beef that up, but I think with the tree spacing we find an opportunity to put one tree in front of the site and that's the waiver.
- Q. And, again, I realize that you're not a parking expert by any stretch ‑‑ well, I shouldn't say by any stretch, you're not a parking expert, you're a qualified civil engineer, but I think your site plan took into account the waiver request from 190‑90.B parking stall size at 90 ‑‑ excuse me ‑‑ 9 feet by 20 feet for spaces without a 2‑foot overhang. Is the parking configuration shown on your exhibit consistent with the waiver request?
- A. They are consistent with the waiver request. We're showing 9 by 18 foot parking spaces where we abut the parking garage all or ‑‑ that's really where this occurs is where we abut either a parapet or on the ground level where we have a parking lot we would ‑‑ if you pulled into a space you would abut the parking garage wall so we don't have the 9 by 20, I think, which is what the code said. We're using 9 by 18 which is the traditional parking space size. And one of the places where it occurs is underneath and you can see it's the one extension of the parking which has only a few parking spaces along the north side.
- Q. You're referring to another exhibit which exhibit are you referring to, what is that exhibit?
- A. I am referring to sheet A ‑‑ or Exhibit A‑2 and we have 9 by 18 parking spaces and there's no overhang. It essentially exists throughout this ground level ‑‑ ground level parking lot where we about those walls.
- MR. MARTIN: Mike, which sheet is that?
THE WITNESS: That's Exhibit A‑2 and ground floor site plan Sheet CO‑3.
- MR. MARTIN: CO‑3.
THE WITNESS: And that shows all the dimensions of the parking, 9 by 18, 24‑foot drive aisles which is traditional is all of these parking lots.
- MR. MARTIN: And the Chair notes that it's a colorized version so...
THE WITNESS: That's the colorized version.
BY MR. BRUINOOGE:
- Q. Anything else you would like to add?
- A. I don't, but I have a lot drawings up here, but...
- Q. Well, let me ask you, this set of plans and this exhibit other than the exhibit prepared by Minno and Wasko, these plans have been prepared by L2A and signed and sealed by you as a licensed New Jersey civil engineer?
- A. Correct.
- Q. They have been prepared consistent with good engineering practice and reflect accurately the conditions that you have described?
- A. I think so.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: I have no further questions of THE WITNESS at this particular time. I am happy to have the board question him.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: We'll start with cross by the board. Dave, do you have any questions?
- MR. SCHEIBNER: I didn't hear you mention the subsurface utilities.
THE WITNESS: I mentioned that there would ‑‑ there would be utilities which would serve the building which would come from the North Maple Avenue right‑of‑way.
- MR. SCHEIBNER: But in the architectural plans, in the ‑‑ the section drawings there's actually ‑‑ it's showing the utility room beneath the lowest level of the garage.
THE WITNESS: I'm going to ‑‑ I'm going to allow Mr. Englebaugh to elaborate on that. I haven't really testified to the building interior so...
- MR. SCHEIBNER: Because ‑‑ okay. No further questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Jeff?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: C‑04 your entrance and exit off of Franklin?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Is the intention of people to get into that parking area to make a right‑turn only to get in and right‑turn only to get out or do you expect people will go on East Franklin to be able to cut across traffic and get into that parking area? What's the intention?
THE WITNESS: We are showing a full‑movement driveway on Franklin Avenue. Speaking with the county that's where we stand right now that it would be no restriction on that driveway. It would lead only to these residential parking spaces so ‑‑
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Right.
THE WITNESS: ‑ I have feeling that the I don't want to get into the traffic engineer's testimony, but we have worked extensively with the county on all of the driveways although Ridgewood Avenue, as your engineer corrected me, in the area is not a county road, it is up to this interchange, North Maple Avenue is a county road and Franklin Avenue is a county road. So we've been working with the county on exactly how the movements work. And we feel that because of the size of the parking lot and the number of trips we do believe a full‑movement driveway is possible. But I'm going to leave the rest of the testimony for the traffic expert.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. As I just see some concern to be honest with you with people going on East Franklin and allow you to cut across traffic and it's a very busy intersection that may not be ideal. The ‑‑ parking area for the Franklin entrance is that the only access for some of the units? In other words, that's the only way that they can park their car and get to their units so ‑‑ so it's dedicated solely to those units, is that right?
THE WITNESS: It is a 47‑space lot which is dedicated to residential parking only. So the 39 market rate, you know, there will be eight units which, I guess, you know, theoretically would have two assigned parking spaces. There is a mix of unit size and perhaps the next space is typically upon request and usually costs a little bit more to get the extra parking space if you're a family with multiple vehicles. So is that the only place they could park, I don't think we've worked out exactly, you know, the parking distribution, but we know that the ground floor is public so that is for the common use for all of what is proposed. The front portion of the building which remains the PNC, the special needs, and then the residents ‑‑ the residential uses.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Are there service vehicles that are going to be coming in and out of here? Any kind of service vehicles whether they're ‑‑ even emergency vehicles?
THE WITNESS: We have spoken to the Ridgewood emergency department and they have told us unequivocally that they would not bring an emergency vehicle into the interior of the building, they could get stuck there, they would have to turn around in case of an emergency, God forbid, they would halt traffic on North Maple Avenue during that emergency, pretty wide right‑of‑way, I don't think it would stop the town, but in order to ‑‑ whether it's Franklin or Ridgewood or wherever the emergency is best served, they would ‑‑ they would just use the right‑of‑way and not go underneath, but it does allow clearance for an ambulance, not a fire truck.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So do you envision any service vehicles coming in and out of this facility and if yes, where would they do that?
THE WITNESS: We have a loading space proposed and that is ‑‑ it's existing and I don't think I gave ‑‑ I don't think I mentioned it in my testimony, coming off of Ridgewood Avenue, there is a space which is adjacent to the ADA accessible space and that would remain and that has the potential of a loading space should some product come in. Whether PNC needs it whether or not a move‑in vehicle can park there and use that space. If you have a small enough vehicle you would just use a parking space, but if it's a larger vehicle you would use that loading space. So that is a feature of the site plan that remains.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And I'm not an expert and there is the chief here who probably can provide some more light on this. The ‑‑ there's really no space between your building and the Brake‑O‑Rama. Right? I mean you can't even get through there it's just kind of like they're butted against each other?
THE WITNESS: That's correct. And that's actually ‑‑ that's actually the way the code was written, it's either 0 or 12 feet so you're 0 feet or if you do set back it needs to be 12 feet. So we're chosen the 0‑foot setback.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah. I don't know if there's any issue with fire concerns with these buildings?
- MR. VAN GOOR: It depends upon the building.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah. Okay. All right. I'll let you ask those questions.
The lighting of the buildings, I know you've done a whole bunch of different C‑07 is a whole bunch footcandles and there's measurements here, is that right?
THE WITNESS: Yes. Those are footcandle measurements taken at grade. So that's what you would see on the parking lot level.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: If you envision any issues with any of the surrounding ‑‑ I think on the other side of Maple there are some residential homes, I mean is that going to effect them having this lighting during the evening, do you know?
THE WITNESS: No, I would say especially beyond on North Maple Avenue because the light that is anywhere near North Maple Avenue would be underneath the deck and, again, I haven't testified to the specifics of exhibit A‑8 but the architect has gone to great lengths to give the building a nice facade and shield that so no light spillage would really come out of that building. The parking lot lighting is on the opposite side shielded by the building, itself, and by the Brake‑O‑Rama building. So ‑‑ and it would be quite a distance, you know, hundreds of feet across. I think directly on the opposite side we're mostly commercial there, Jersey Mike's. We have the bank. We have the real estate. And then we have medical offices, I believe. I don't know if it's ‑‑ so directly across the street I don't think there would be any impact, you know, especially to North Maple Avenue. These light are designed only to project downward and not project out and ‑‑
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: That's ‑‑ and then on the other side of Franklin you have a large apartment building. Is that going to be effected by any of the lighting here?
THE WITNESS: I don't believe so the first fixture is set back and, again, downward illumination only.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I had one other question I can't think of it.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: James, any questions?
- MR. VAN GOOR: What is the height of the parking underneath? You said an ambulance could get in, what would be the height?
THE WITNESS: It is ‑‑ it is ‑‑ I think it's 9 feet 6 or 9 feet 8 inches I don't have it on my plan. It's ‑‑ you're going to hear more testimony from the architect. He has a section.
- MR. VAN GOOR: On the drawing next to you there, you have that second floor overhang?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
- MR. VAN GOOR: And what's orange ‑‑ that little orange spot?
THE WITNESS: Of that's the stair tower so that does touch down on grade, that's what that is.
- MR. VAN GOOR: So that goes to the parking underneath that?
THE WITNESS: That goes to the ‑‑ it does not go down to the parking underneath that, it goes just from this level vertically (indicating) to the residential floors above. It doesn't go into ‑‑
- MR. VAN GOOR: Oh.
THE WITNESS: ‑‑ it goes up.
- MR. VAN GOOR: It goes up?
THE WITNESS: Yes, it doesn't go down to the parking below it.
- MR. VAN GOOR: Okay. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Mayor?
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Thank you.
I have a question on ‑‑ if we go to CO‑3 to start ‑‑
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: ‑‑ on the west back part of the building, the west side of the building ‑‑
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: You have this projection it appears to be a staircase going up.
Do you know what that is?
THE WITNESS: That ‑‑ that staircase exists, that is ‑‑ that vertical circulation from the parking area under the Sealfons which is very low compared to the parking area here, which has a difference of about 10 feet.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: So just walk me through how does somebody access that staircase?
THE WITNESS: Well, there's actually access from the village parking lot so one opportunity, because you can ‑‑ today you can actually drive through and actually go through the building.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right.
THE WITNESS: And continue. Yeah, it's a little ‑‑ it's a little short, but you can access that pedestrian walk or you can touch grade and then continue up the stairs. You can come in off of Ridgewood Avenue and walk through this parking lot and go up those stairs or conversely, you know, there's a parking lot here, you could go back down and go through the site.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: And then if somebody were coming in from Ridgewood Avenue and walking to that staircase, there's no ‑‑ is there a sidewalk in that space?
THE WITNESS: Yes. The sidewalk begins right about where the building begins. It's ‑‑
MAYOR KNUDSEN: No, let me rephrase. Is there a ‑‑ when you're at ‑‑ when you're trying to access as you're walking to that staircase is there a sidewalk and a driveway?
THE WITNESS: No. No.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: So somebody has to walk through a driveway to get to that staircase?
THE WITNESS: That's the present day conditions. There is ‑‑ it's not a very busy ‑‑ it's not a very busy lot. You might want to look to make sure cars aren't coming through the ‑‑ the easement from the village lot, but it's pretty wide open. It's very visible. You could walk from Ridgewood Avenue through that asphalt lot and then get to the sidewalk once you hit the building and then up to the other asphalt parking lot. I mean you would then be in that asphalt parking lot.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: But I think my questions is ‑‑ and it goes to COUNCILMAN VOIGT' s question about the loading space so that half of loading now we're going to introduce into that space where pedestrians need to access the staircase, we're now introducing not just vehicles, but trucks as well?
THE WITNESS: Yeah, I don't think the loading would really be used that often, but it is ‑‑ yeah, this condition currently exists today. It doesn't really get much traffic. I park back there when I come to the site, I pull in off of Ridgewood Avenue, and I have been to the back, especially in the evenings it's pretty much empty. There's a really a lot of opportunity ‑‑ it's not that there's no opportunity to move quickly through there. I mean when you come in a northbound direction you're confronted with this small parking lot which now will have 38 parking spaces in it. So there's really ‑‑ it's really no opportunity to move quickly. It's partially underneath the building, but it's just some opportunity for vertical circulation, again, we're leaving it in place. We think it's a good feature from one side to the other if you park your car and you want to get out to Ridgewood Avenue to shop or whatever, you do have an opportunity to come down a set of stairs and continue out or through the village parking lot which, again, would put you into a parking lot and then out to the streets.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: There's just no way to walk back in there, that's all, I guess there's no ‑‑
THE WITNESS: There's ‑‑
MAYOR KNUDSEN: ‑‑ sidewalk.
THE WITNESS: ‑‑ no sidewalk, I think is what you're getting to.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes.
THE WITNESS: But I don't ‑‑ I think it's a safe condition, even the village lot, if you park in the village lot you are essentially walking through the parking lot.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: And then that ‑‑ that loading ‑‑ what did you call it pad, elevated pad?
THE WITNESS: It's just a striped area. It's not ‑‑ there's no ‑‑ it's really featureless other than striping.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: What is the dimension of that? Can you tell me the dimension of that?
THE WITNESS: Yeah, I can ‑‑I think it's 36‑feet long because it's two parking spaces in length, actually measures a little bit longer about 40 feet and it's a little skewed in size it's about 10‑feet wide. So about 40 by 10.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. Let me ask about the lighting, if we could go to CO‑8 and this proposed lighting poles ‑‑
THE WITNESS: CO‑8?
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes.
THE WITNESS: CO‑8 is entitle "First Floor Lighting and Landscaping Plan".
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I want to go back to the lighting in the back of the building the light poles and how high those are?
THE WITNESS: Okay. They are 14 feet in height. And there are two pole‑mounted fixtures along the access drive to East Franklin and then there are building‑mounted fixtures, there are three of them to illuminate the parking level which is, I guess, on the southwest side of that parking lot. And that would be the same ‑‑ I think they will be the same fixtures just building‑mounted.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie?
- MS. McWILLIAMS: I have some questions pulling it together, you're parking deficient as the plan currently stands, if your parking variance request is denied tonight how much more deficient would you be?
THE WITNESS: Sorry. Could you just rephrase that?
- MS. McWILLIAMS: I'm sorry, if your parking variance request is denied ‑‑
THE WITNESS: Yes.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: ‑‑ how many more spaces will you be deficient?
THE WITNESS: Well, I --
- MS. McWILLIAMS: Do you have any idea?
THE WITNESS: I shown on my plan nine. I was informed that the traffic engineer may be testifying that it's ten. And I'm getting a nod from MR. BRUINOOGE. So let's say the requirement is 141 and we're proposing 131.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: And then some of your spaces, I think aren't you ‑‑ aren't you requesting a variance or a change in the actual size. You gave the 18 feet versus the 20 feet.
THE WITNESS: That's correct.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: So if that were not to be approved do you have any idea how much more of a deficiency you would be at, at that point?
THE WITNESS: No, I don't know off the top of my head. I don't know what could be done to the lobby in order to improve upon that and then where we don't have an overhang in the rear, perhaps I think it would result in a ‑‑ in a building change.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. I think this might be a question, quickly, for Chris, is any of the retaining wall that is currently back there to code or, you know, does it meet any of our current code or is it already out of code.
- MR. RUTISHAUSER: I think the only issues with that retaining wall would be regarding its height. Anything further regarding its construction or whether any of its footings subsurface encroachment on the village property we don't have any information on it.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.
- MR. RUTISHAUSER: The only issue I think is height because we also would have a safety fence on the top and I guess increase the vertical dimension in accordance with our ordinance.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: The 0‑ or 12‑foot setback between the Brake‑O‑Rama site and your ‑‑ I guess that would come under parking, is that ‑‑
THE WITNESS: Well, you would abut a structure it's ‑‑
- MS. McWILLIAMS: These units here, all right.
Is there any ‑‑ does that leave ‑‑ that you have chosen as 0‑foot setback does that meet and specifications or limitation on what can be placed in the Brake‑O‑Rama?
THE WITNESS: Not that I am aware of, but I'm not an expert of the building code. I think the architect may be better suited to answer that.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.
And you did say ‑‑ I believe my last question, you did say an ambulance could fit underneath, but not a large one? I didn't know if I heard you correctly.
THE WITNESS: Can fit what underneath? I'm sorry.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: An ambulance.
THE WITNESS: Oh, there is vertical clearance for an ambulance that's correct. I believe the maximum height for an ambulance is 110 inches which equates to 9 foot 2 based upon my reading of the federal standards. It could fit under there. We really don't see it going under there. But it ‑‑ but it could.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: All right. Thank you. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay, Debbie?
- MS. PATIRE: Yes, if you could look at a C‑04 one more time. I just want to make sure I understand it properly several question by board members, so coming off Franklin Avenue even though you're showing a line around the parking area, you come off Franklin Avenue and you make a left into the units on level two, right? You come in and you can make a left. Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: That's correct. We're showing a full‑movement driveway. That's correct.
- MS. PATIRE: Great. So can you just show me if I pull in and there are no open spaces, how am I getting out of there? And if there's another car behind me, how is he getting out of there? How does that work? Where does the circulation flow?
THE WITNESS: Well, that's where ‑‑ we think that this would be, you know, first of all it would be assigned spaces that that would be an opportunity to assign them to the residences so that you ‑‑ and we would have signage there saying that ‑‑
- MS. PATIRE: In other words, if I rented it wouldn't be ‑‑
THE WITNESS: Yes.
- MS. PATIRE: ‑‑ unit one is assigned a spot and you also have assigned spots on the Franklin Avenue side as well? They're all assigned?
THE WITNESS: I don't think the parking ‑‑ I don't think they've worked it out yet to see what the mix would be to see how the assigned spaces would go, but the ‑‑ the first level ‑‑ first floor level, which is what we're referring to is residential only. And it would be assigned and signed to be only residential. I think over time it would ‑‑ it would clearly be just for the residences.
- MS. PATIRE: And I just want to make sure you and I are saying the same thing.
THE WITNESS: And ‑‑
- MS. PATIRE: So that unit 1B has one assigned spot. Unit 2B has two assigned spots. They are assigned by units not just to residents because ‑‑
THE WITNESS: Yes.
- MS. PATIRE: ‑‑ so I know that my spot is the third one from the left.
THE WITNESS: I think that that is the way that it would go. I don't think that it's been completely vetted out yet as to how that would go, but that is an opportunity that's something we see in these types of residential buildings that it would be assigned specifically a space and a number not a free‑for‑all of you're in this lot and you go anywhere you want.
- MS. PATIRE: I almost think from a resident standpoint if I lived there I wouldn't want to pull in and then have to figure out how to get out. And if someone pulls in behind me then they have to figure out how to get out, that is a problem not to have a circular flow there. So I would think you would need to assign those to certain apartment units.
THE WITNESS: I agree. I concur that that's a good idea.
- MS. PATIRE: Also can you just show me on ‑‑ and I don't know where it would be, I guess it would be CO‑4. So if I'm moving in and moving out I'm parking in the ‑‑ towards the top of the left, correct? That's my loading zone?
THE WITNESS: That's an opportunity for loading, yes.
- MS. PATIRE: Where would I ‑‑ where are to elevators to take me to my apartment if I'm on the third floor?
THE WITNESS: Well, there's a ‑‑ there's a way to go from here ‑‑ from the loading space through and then access the parking. One of the features that I failed to mention is there's connectivity between the parking lots on the ground floor site plan. We have an active drive. So one could park here and then walk through the structure and get to the lobby which then would take them up. So that's an opportunity, if you have a larger vehicle and you felt like you had to use the loading space you spoke to building management, you said that's where I'm going to be on such and such a day on move‑in day you could park that larger vehicle in this location (indicating) and then you could walk through and get to the lobby. If you have a smaller vehicle, like a car or a van, something like that, you could just use one of the parking spaces, even your assigned space in order to move in. So these are apartments not big homes, but there are some things that arise ‑‑
- MS. PATIRE: So are they parking in the loading zone?
THE WITNESS: They ‑‑
- MS. PATIRE: And they would have to walk all the way across the loading area for any apartment.
THE WITNESS: They ‑‑ that's ‑‑ where they would walk.
- MS. PATIRE: These are rentals not condominiums, correct?
THE WITNESS: That's correct.
- MS. PATIRE: So people will be moving in and out ‑‑
THE WITNESS: That's correct.
- MS. PATIRE: The rentals will be moving in and out more frequently than the condos. Okay. That's all the questions I have.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Isabella?
- MS. ALTANO: Yes, I am actually although you gave testimony on the site plan I would be more comfortable if you also had building sections up there.
THE WITNESS: We will.
- MS. ALTANO: Because of the nature of the architecture because of the different levels, it would be a lot easier for us to compare when you're discussing versus these sections to the levels change and perhaps that would also create more questions from us.
THE WITNESS: I agree and you will get that, that's part of the disjointed part of having an engineer and an architect, one guy's got to go first so I ‑‑ I pulled the short straw and I go first so he's coming up with ‑ he's coming up with building sections. And I think you have those in your package you have sections of the building showing exactly how it's going to work and he'll give extensive testimony on that ‑‑
- MS. ALTANO: Right, but also it could have been done tonight so we can compare.
THE WITNESS: I think we'll ‑‑ I'm going to have these exhibits so they're not going anywhere. And that's why I put Mr. Englebaugh's drawing up there just so you could get some picture because if you looked at these orange spots it doesn't ‑‑ it doesn't tell you what the building looks like. So that's why I left that up there so that we could always see what it is we're talking about.
- MS. ALTANO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel?
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: On your Sheet CO‑4 you have ‑‑ it looks like you have a series of columns that are flanking some of your parking spaces; is that correct?
THE WITNESS: Yeah, that's correct. This is ‑‑ this brown ‑‑ brownish grayish shade here is the elevated portion and you do have columns that touch down on to that (indicating).
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I notice they look to be adjacent to the parking spaces that are deficient in size, correct?
THE WITNESS: No, I don't think they are because they do have an opportunity to overhang. The only ‑‑ they only need that larger space when you don't have an opportunity to overhang.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: So those are ‑‑ those are all 9 by 20s?
THE WITNESS: No. They're 9 by 18, but the 9 by 20, I believe, if I'm correct, is 9 by 20 is you don't have the opportunity to overhang by 2 feet. I think I'm getting a nod from your engineer that that's is correct. So ‑‑
- MR. RUTISHAUSER: It is 9 by 20 unless you have a 2‑foot overhang and then you go for a 9 by 18.
THE WITNESS: Right. Okay. So I don't think that location is where we're deficient. I think to the left of that possibly because we have the parapet walls, but in the front we have a sidewalk so...
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Then I kind of flipped through your details in the back I didn't see any details for bollards. Do you plan to protect those columns at all with bollards or anything? I just ‑‑ I'm thinking about vehicles strikes or people ‑‑
THE WITNESS: Those are not typically done.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: ‑‑ opening their doors or all kinds of difficulties getting in and out of the spots.
THE WITNESS: No, they're not typically protected with bollards. I could ask the architect if there's any opportunity, but, no, typically the column and the parking spaces goes in right next to the column. It's wrapped in concrete. It's a pretty robust structure, but, no.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Okay.
- MS. ALTANO: May I, could there ‑‑ could there be something else there like mirrors.
THE WITNESS: Mirrors? Yes. I think in a parking structure there's an opportunity for mirrors, if it's so warranted. I would say on the ground floor more so than the upper floor because the upper floors get natural light, ambient light, underneath possibly I'm not an expert in that. But
- MS. ALTANO: But it should be, you agree, because of columns.
THE WITNESS: Well, the columns will be very visible. It's going to be very bright in there. It's going to be lit up. The columns are going to be, you know, quite large. I think I'm showing them about 1 foot or 18 inches by maybe 2, 2.5 feet so a column for a parking structure is very large. I ‑‑ I don't know ‑‑
- MS. ALTANO: It's because they are very large.
THE WITNESS: Pardon me.
- MS. ALTANO: I think it's because they are very, very large that we're worried about it.
THE WITNESS: I ‑‑ I don't know if these are large comparatively. I think they're pretty ‑‑ pretty standard. I think they're ‑‑ you know, but ‑‑ but they fit in those parking spaces ‑‑ between the parking spaces we're going to have striped areas.
- MR. MARTIN: Could that be more for a blind‑spot issue as opposed to a lighting in terms of the mirrors?
THE WITNESS: I ‑‑ I don't ‑‑
- MR. MARTIN: You're probably not ‑‑
THE WITNESS: I don't know if I have an opinion on the mirrors. I think the mirrors would be great. Are we talking about mirrors so you could see someone coming?
- MR. MARTIN: Or, you know, around a blind ‑‑
THE WITNESS: Blind corners?
- MR. MARTIN: ‑‑ columns that create corners that have ‑‑
THE WITNESS: Yes, I think the mirrors ‑‑ I'm not suggesting that the mirrors aren't a good idea. I think it is. I just ‑‑ I don't really have a design in mind yet. I'm not really an expert on that, but I don't disagree that that ‑‑ there's an opportunity to improve with a simple installation of mirrors.
- MR. MARTIN: You're not the circulation guys.
THE WITNESS: I'm not a ‑‑ I'm not a parking garage mirror guy, but, yeah, I do a lot ‑‑ I do a lot with circulation and parking, yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I have some questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, go ahead.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Do you want to go first?
CHAIRMAN JOEL: No, go ahead.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. I just have a question going back to CO‑4 when somebody comes up into that parking lot in the back, you know, I see you have compact spaces as well. Right? Is that ‑‑ you appear to have three compact ‑‑
THE WITNESS: Yes. Yeah. There are ‑‑ there are compact spaces located to the ‑‑ just to the sides of the stair tower, yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: And so those spaces, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this, because this is a little bit of a complicated design obviously it's very complicated.
THE WITNESS: I agree.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: So these particular spaces are allocated to or assigned to units anywhere in the building or are they specific to a space in the building?
THE WITNESS: I don't think that has been fully vetted out, but I think that it would be logical that here's an opportunity where a user who has a small car, you would ‑‑ building management would offer them that space and say while you have this, while you own or lease this small vehicle, use that space. And I think it would be assigned that parking space. I think there's an opportunity for that. I don't think ownership has fully vetted how this is going to work. But I think it's pretty logical the way the board is thinking it would be a good idea and I agree that perhaps assigning those residential parking spaces, especially someone with a small vehicle, would be opportunistic.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: And so ‑‑ and then when I go back to my colleagues question about circulation and how if you get stuck how do you get out. So I'm to understand that somebody comes off Franklin and they get to that point where they actually turn into the other part of the garage is that accurate?
THE WITNESS: They come in off of Franklin, they could continue forward and utilize the 18 spaces which exist along the west side. They could make a left‑hand turn and access yet another bank of parking spaces whatever the difference is between that and the 47 spaces. So you have another parking area they could, you know ‑‑ and I guess the assigned space is a way to minimize the opportunity that someone's in your space, but again a lot of times it's not full, it could be full, but you would have to make ‑‑ if you went in there ‑‑ into that parking area errantly and you needed to turn around and come back you would have to either use an empty space, the ADA spaces, and make a K‑turn and turn around and you could continue or if you enter the parking area and look to your right and saw that there were no spaces because it's not a very big parking lot, you can simply enter your car, back out and then continue out to Franklin Avenue. But, again, I think there's ways to minimize that, that we'll discuss.
- MS. PATIRE: So you're just saying what we were kind of talking about earlier, right, on why we think it's important again because looking out for the safety of pedestrians crossing the street, people coming in and out of there, et cetera.
THE WITNESS: Right.
- MS. PATIRE: You know you're asking for variances on these parking spaces which are not only deficient by the size of them so that should sort of be thought out as far as a challenge ‑‑ you know, you guys figure it out because I think what you're asking the board for there is really some concern ‑‑
THE WITNESS: Right.
- MS. PATIRE: ‑‑ we have a bigger issue than the parking, but what we have now thought were going to be assigned, so we're going to have traffic coming in and out into this area, having to do K‑turns because that's why I asked you to walk me through because it's kind of dead‑end in that area and you can't get out and if someone else is behind you ‑‑
THE WITNESS: I understand.
- MS. PATIRE: ‑‑ that's a problem.
THE WITNESS: I concur. I'm just saying that you need the specifics. This has been discussed because we did assign this as residential spaces. So there has been discussion ‑‑
- MS. PATIRE: Residential spaces versus assigned spots. So 1B is assigned a spot, 2B is assigned a spot, et cetera.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I will confer with my client before the next meeting and we can try to drill that down there.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: One other question on it because you have the 14 spaces then you have four that are for those compact cars and what is the size of that ‑‑ of fourth space.
THE WITNESS: The one space is ‑‑ it's not dimensioned but it's 9 by 18.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: So that's what it is.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I have one more question on the entrance and exit on Franklin is that ‑‑ is there going to be a gate there so that people ‑‑
THE WITNESS: No.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So anyone could go in it.
THE WITNESS: Potentially, yes. We are proposing signage to say residential parking only for this building. Yes. And directional signage.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes. No consideration of a gate, where you can't get in unless you have a card ‑‑
THE WITNESS: No.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: No?
THE WITNESS: No, you know the gate causes problems and that is you fumble with your key, you have to push that gate to get into the parking lot. You're fumbling, you can't find your access key now you have to back up, what do you have to do. There are inherent problems with a gate to that ‑‑ ‑
- MS. McWILLIAMS: How many ‑‑ how many feet approximately is that driveway from the light on Franklin, that corner.
THE WITNESS: I'm going to approximate it at maybe 130 feet.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: Because then that light can back up with any ‑‑ at any time of day you can be sitting at that light. That's a three‑way traffic right here so it backs up well past where that entrance ‑‑ where that driveway will be if you had somebody, you know, with a gate or any ‑‑ any other method of getting in or out.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: But I don't know how you stop ‑‑ signage would be one way but I don't know how you stop somebody pulling in off the street trying just to find a parking spot.
THE WITNESS: Yes, well, I mean it ‑‑ you know, there are ‑‑ I mean there are other methods. I mean there could be ‑‑ there might be someone ‑‑ management at the building from time to time who if someone is doing it they might be doing it frequently, you know, this happens at residential buildings. So there are ways to employ ‑‑ that you can employ that make sure that this doesn't happen that they assigned spaces, someone comes home and they're in your space management's going to know about it pretty quick. So I think over time, I think, you know, initially when the ‑‑ as the residents move in it will start to take shape and the signage again, you know, can say: This is ‑‑ you till be removed or towed or whatever and that could be a deterrent.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: How are you going to tow them in there?
THE WITNESS: I walked into that one, right? Well, you know, those flatbed things that pick up cars aren't that big. So, yeah, they could ‑‑ I think it could.
- MS. PATIRE: Mr. Dipple, would you say it was safe to assume that from the stop lines on the street at that corner you are about, I don't know, seven or eight car lengths back to get to those driveways?
THE WITNESS: It's 130, yes, that's about right. Yes. Uh‑huh.
- MS. PATIRE: So I just want to understand for rush hour time people are leaving or whatever, that light backs up, I don't know if you have been in the morning or even in the evening or after school, but that light backs up so you might have a little congestion in that area I think both in and out.
THE WITNESS: I'm going to let the traffic engineer discuss that. I haven't preformed traffic counts or observations. I'm familiar with the area so.
- MS. PATIRE: Thank you.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I just wanted to ask you to walk through the trees again. Walk through the tree planting again.
THE WITNESS: Okay. The trees we have ‑‑ we showed the spacing of the trees so I think what MR. BRUINOOGE was referring to on North Maple Avenue was that there is a planter perhaps with a tree in it. There was one that's knocked down. And I can't remember which one it was, but I'm showing a planter here (indicating). So we're showing the spacing consistent down North Maple Avenue. And that's why we have ‑‑ there's an existing tree on the corner which will remain but we're proposing one additional tree almost in front of the ‑‑ of the entrance to the building so we're keeping the spacing consistent and I think that led to ‑‑ led to the waiver. And we do have, again, the landscaping. We have ornamental trees proposed. And your planner did recommend an opportunity for some pedestrian or passive seating area, which we want to incorporate into the plan.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: The planters that you're referring to are those planters that you have shaded in, like, darker.
THE WITNESS: Those exist. Those exist today. That's part of the streetscape.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Whose plantings are they?
THE WITNESS: I think they're the municipality's. Those existing planters.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right.
THE WITNESS: Yes. They're in the right‑of‑way.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I believe they're our planters as well. I think they're the village planters.
THE WITNESS: I think so.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I am still worried about ‑‑ I am still worried about that parking area on Franklin where the entrance is.
THE WITNESS: One second, I'll answer your question.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Sure.
I'm still worried about the entrance on Franklin and that parking area.
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: If ‑‑ and there's been some talk to develop that Brake‑O‑Rama and being potentially a restaurant, there's been some talk about that. My concern is what ‑‑ with the funeral home and if they have overflow that's just kind of inviting trends for people to park there. I am hoping you can think of ways to prevent non‑residents from going into that area because it can be ‑‑
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: It can really be a ‑‑ can be problematic.
THE WITNESS: I think you could draw some comfort that any applicant who would try to redo that Brake‑O‑Rama would have to ‑‑ the county would have a lot to say about it because they're fronting on a busy intersection. Just like they have a lot of say about ours. I do want to say that my client just informed me, even though we are working with the county on that driveway and as it stands and as it's submitted it's a full‑movement driveway, my client is taking the position that he doesn't want it to be a full‑movement driveway. That he only wants it to be a right in and right out. And I apologize for being incorrect on that. And but I think for the safety of that area and my client is from Ridgewood and knows the area much better than I do. That right in, right out will be proposed in a future submission or, you know, hopefully for resolution compliance. But, again, we have a traffic engineer who is going to elaborate on that.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: So just out of curiosity I see the driveway on to North Maple driveway appears to me anyway to be right out; is that correct?
THE WITNESS: Right in right out. Yes, the North Maple driveway is right in, right out. It's it has been, that's been with a lot of discussions with county ‑‑
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right.
THE WITNESS: And it's important to note that we are removing an exit driveway.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes, I know that.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I don't know if I really touched on that in my testimony, but there is an exit driveway which continues through and that would be removed that would ‑‑ that the county requested we remove that and you do right in and right out. We have a ‑‑ we have a workable project along North Maple Avenue and that's how we designed it.
- MR. MARTIN: Just because some people actually read these transcripts a couple weeks down the road or months, right in and right‑out only on the Franklin Avenue side and the other side?
THE WITNESS: That's correct right in right out and that's a change to my earlier testimony on Franklin Avenue and right in right out on North Maple Avenue. And I think the Franklin Avenue we just need a slight reconfiguration of that in order to make it right in right out. But it would be signed. So I hope that alleviates some of the concerns of the board with left turns and ‑‑ left turns out and left turns in.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else?
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes, I have another question.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Question if you could, so now the ‑‑ back to CO‑3. So the parking lot that we ‑‑ the parking lot that we see in this kind of boxed area, the only way in and out of that space is from Maple. Is that accurate?
THE WITNESS: No, it's not really accurate from ‑‑ directly from the right‑of‑way, yes. But there is ‑‑ there is a connection between the existing parking lot. So you have an opportunity from the municipal lot and from Ridgewood Avenue also.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: The municipal lot. Oh, okay, because I see you're going through this ‑‑
THE WITNESS: Yes. The municipal lot has an easement which extends down into the site that stops.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right. I understand. I'm sorry. I see it.
THE WITNESS: And then ‑‑ it is still possible you could come underneath the building and continue out onto North Maple Avenue. It's just getting relocated slightly.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: It's on that the ‑‑ that more circuitous route and you go out into that other parking lot going ‑‑ drive into the municipal lot. Is that what ‑‑
THE WITNESS: It would be possible to come in off of North Maple enter the ‑‑ underneath the structure, cross over into underneath the Sealfons portion and go west into the municipal parking lot, that is possible.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Or they can head south and dump out onto Ridgewood Avenue, is that correct?
THE WITNESS: Or you could ‑‑ you could go ‑‑ it's pretty circuitous, but, yes, you come in and go out and then come in and then, you know ‑‑
MAYOR KNUDSEN: You're not assuming somebody would come in. I'm just asking if somebody is in there already, it would make someone come in off of Maple and take that driveway ‑‑
THE WITNESS: Yes, it's pretty ‑‑ yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: All right. Okay I'm good.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: I have one quick last question you had mentioned something about amenity area or adding some ‑‑ what was it called? I want to make sure. What term it was, passive recreation?
THE WITNESS: So, like, a very passive opportunity for some seating or pedestrian, you know, a little rest area here where you would maybe have some benches facing the sidewalk, kind of, continue the streetscape and be inviting. So your planner recommended that there's an opportunity right here in the northeast corner for that where the building is set back and there's some landscaping. So ‑‑
- MS. McWILLIAMS: How many ‑‑ how many feet is that? I mean is it ‑‑ so it is ‑‑
THE WITNESS: It's no, it's pretty substantial. It's 45 feet. And it is 25‑feet deep. So we don't ‑‑ I mean we haven't really planned it yet. We're responding to the comment. We agree with it, but a couple of benches and a little seating area wouldn't take up much space.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. I would just like to echo what Isabella said, just it would have been nice to have some more visuals, it's kind of tough with a flat plan on it with the cross‑sections with any 3D models that you have.
THE WITNESS: I think it's coming.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, it would have been nice to have it from to get‑go to conceptualize.
But I understand where you're coming from.
THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Our next will be cross by our professionals. Chris, do you have any?
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Before we move in that direction ‑‑
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: ‑‑ please, Mr. Joel.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sure.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Two points, if I may please. One, while the architect hopefully will start this evening he's not going to finish this evening clearly. But I don't expect that Mr. Dipple, as he said earlier, that his exhibits will disappear. I expect him to be here so the opportunity to have available to you the section drawings from an architectural point of view will be there. I wanted to ask a question of Mike because I was left with a bit of confusion based on a question that came from this side of the board, I think it was from MS. McWILLIAMS as to the deficiency that exists and whether or not that will be exacerbated or improved as a consequence of the project being approved. And I think the parking table on the plan actually spells out the existing parking is set as or is ascribed at 76 space provided right now. What's the deficiency per code?
THE WITNESS: Per code 181 parking spaces are required for the existing uses on the site as configured presently. And 76 are available on the site, so 105‑space deficiency under the current conditions.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: And if the project is approved as presented and reflected on your plans the total number of spaces provided is 131 as I recall it?
THE WITNESS: That's correct.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: And the deficiency, if ultimately the traffic engineer says the requirement is 141, the deficiency is ten?
THE WITNESS: That's correct.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: So we go from 105 deficiency to a ten deficiency?
THE WITNESS: That's correct.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I have a question om what Melanie questioned and then maybe she can speak for herself, but what she questioned was if the design ‑‑ and she can correct me, but what I understood the question to be is if the design waiver was not approved ‑‑
- MS. McWILLIAMS: Right.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: And you had to then accommodate the appropriate‑sized vehicles what then would be the impact of the deficiency? Is that ‑‑
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Two more ‑‑ two more spaces would be lost.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: To answer.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I hate to jump in, I thought that's what you were asking.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: No, no, that's what I ‑‑ and I thought he had actually answered me.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: So instead of a ten deficiency you'd go to a 12 deficiency as opposed to 105 deficiency currently.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. We have different ‑‑ I mean it's a little bit different.
- MS. PATIRE: So the parking spots are open.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: Either way it's also changing the use of the building currently versus the use ‑‑ you know where there's a commercial use.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: We're changing it ‑‑ we're taking advantage of the planning exercise the village went through and the modification of your Master Plan and the current Zoning Ordinance which contemplates and permits this and it's a wonderful testament to sound, good planning that you take an ‑‑ an existing condition and not simply ‑‑ well, it's not exacerbated by a change in use or a re‑purposing of the structure and addition. It's a ‑‑ it's a marked improvement.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: Understood, but it wouldn't change the fact that to draw the parallel where there is now a ‑‑ you know a however many 100 something spot deficiency versus a ten spot deficiency in your current plan, there is still significant increase in use of the property. So it's really ‑‑ it's apples and oranges in my opinion.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Well, we're going to differ on that, but the truth of the matter is as someone who doesn't shop in Ridgewood because I can't park here, the parking situation is going to be improved in my opinion and we'll have testimony to that effect.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. Chris, do you have questions?
- MR. MARTIN: Yes. MR. BRUINOOGE, you know sometimes things go from questions, which is always allowed sometimes a statement is thrown in so I usually like to swear in the engineer just to stipulate to him, he asks the questions and if there is a statement back and forth they agree upon sometimes it's important. Are you okay that with?
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Sure.
- MR. MARTIN: R. RUTISHAUSER, raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
- MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes, I do.
C H R I S T O P H E R R U T I S H A U E R, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
- MR. MARTIN: MR. BRUINOOGE, do you stipulate that the village engineer is a professional engineer and a licensed civil engineering?
- MR. BRUINOOGE: I'll accept him as qualified to testify as to the village ordinances as well.
- MR. MARTIN: Thank you, sir. Go ahead.
- MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay. Thank you. Quick question, how much soil movement is anticipated for this project?
THE WITNESS: MR. RUTISHAUSER, I'm going to have to get back to you on that the soil movement ‑‑ let me explain it, I don't know if I have an exact number, because the borough ‑‑ I mean the village rather, computes it different than others do, but essentially the back portion of the site, the soil will be removed in order to excavate for the sub‑ground parking structure. It would begin where my hand is here. Yes, here, you could see an orange line drawn around. And that would be excavated to a depth of approximately 10 feet in the rear and match grade in the front (indicating). So while I could get a final number, I just want to point out that the excavation is in that area of the box in order to provide that parking.
- MR. RUTISHAUSER: The main reason for my raising that question is ‑‑ and we're going to look at the value created if it's over 2000 yards cut and fill combined the village has a major soil permit that'll have to be approved as an action of this board and a subsequent action of the village council.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Understood. We're aware of that regulation.
- MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay. The other thing is looking through the survey I noticed a couple of monitoring wells and what appears to be a vent for the Hallmark building possibly a UST. Are there any environmental issues that you know of that will be addressed and remediated as part of this project?
THE WITNESS: Not that I am aware of. I didn't do an environmental assessment of the property.
- MR. RUTISHAUSER: That's it for now. I have to finish my report which I will get issued. Thank you.
- MR. MARTIN: MS. McMANUS, can you raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
- MS. McMANUS: I do.
E L I Z A B E T H M c M A N U S, Having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
- MR. BRUINOOGE: I'm not so sure I really want to ‑‑ no, go ahead.
- MR. MARTIN: You stipulate to the professional planner's qualification?
- MR. BRUINOOGE: In working for quite some time with Mrs. McManus in a number of different municipalities I certainly have no hesitation in agreeing to her testifying as well.
- MR. MARTIN: Thank you. So stipulated. Thank you.
- MS. McMANUS: Okay. I issued a report on May 12th much of what's contained in this memo is not necessarily relevant to the engineer, but there are a few sections that I think are worth bringing up at this time. So if the doesn't mind I'm going to skip around a bit just to get to the relevant items. And for the engineer's testimony I'd really only like to address a few of the items towards the back of my memo beginning on page 9. The plantings now as the applicant has indicated I did meet with them more than a week ago at this point to discuss the contents of the memo they did agree to a number of items. But I think it would be helpful for them to just reiterate those agreements for the record. So I am looking at section 5, plantings there were ‑‑ some of these were addressed tonight, but there are a few different recommendations for either amending the plants that are proposed or identifying additional locations for trees around the site, particularly along the frontage of the site. And I think that the applicant had previously indicated they will comply with those recommendations, but I would like to get some further information on the record.
THE WITNESS: Yes, you know you're correct. We did meet on the plantings. And the new street tree, the existing planting area located 110 feet from the corner of Ridgewood Avenue and North Maple, as I said, I think there's a tree there. I know one came out, I believe that's what you're referring that the applicant would put a tree back if it wasn't there. I was just a little unprepared as to which tree actually came down. Relocate the trees proposed in the northeast corner planting area along North Maple Avenue, closer to the sidewalk and provide street trees in lieu of the ornamental tree proposed. I think this goes toward ‑‑ and correct me if I'm wrong, MS. McMANUS, that this goes towards that ‑‑ that area that's in question in the front corner ‑‑
- MS. McMANUS: Yes.
THE WITNESS: ‑‑ where I think we have some recommendations to improve that area and perhaps we can present an exhibit which would be satisfactory to the board and to the board planner to address that. As we move forward through the report you can stop me at any time Franklin Avenue we had a proposed ‑‑ we have some landscaping, I believe we all agreed that that would be beefed up a bit to ‑‑ to buffer out the parking area because it's parking in the front yard so that came out of that parking, you know, front yard between the building and the right‑of‑way discussion. And we agrees to that some species in item 5.1(d) are recommended and we have agreed to that which goes on to 5.2 and some more information was required for the perennial plantings so we can get a plant mix that would be typical for perennials from 5.3. And appears that the northeast planting area adjacent to North Maple Avenue contains a large area of mulch as a ground cover material, given the overall area of prominence in the space we recommend the applicant consider use of ground cover the lieu of mulch and then the interesting pedestrian plaza courtyard with seating, it an all blends into that, so we would incorporate all those recommendations into something that the borough can be proud of ‑‑ the village ‑‑ sorry. I testify in a lot of boroughs.
- MS. McMANUS: Thank you.
In terms the lighting in the next section I'm on page 10 at this point you previously indicated that your light fixtures be shielded to neighboring property lines so ‑‑
THE WITNESS: Yes.
- MS. McMANUS: ‑‑ so thank you that will be satisfied. And I encourage you to include on any subsequent lighting plans and detail of the fixture that shows the shielding.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
- MS. McMANUS: On parking and circulation again a number of these items have already been addressed. Item ‑‑ sight triangles I request that you show ‑‑ I'm sorry. 7.1, 7.2 are for information only and 7.3 sight triangles I encourage you to include those on subsequent plan revisions.
THE WITNESS: We will. The county is very interested in the sight triangles and we would add those in to a resubmission, but we're very confident that we have nothing in the way and that sight distance is very important for the motoring public as well as us. So...
- MS. McMANUS: Item 7.4, vehicle clearance we talked about that in testimony while you're parking garage ‑‑ parking structure can accommodate an emergency vehicle there's no intention as those will ‑‑ emergency organizations to do so that.
THE WITNESS: That's correct.
- MS. McMANUS: Item 8 ‑‑ excuse me section 8 page 11 can you provide some testimony in regards to the refuse disposal? I would like to ‑‑ I would like the board to understand how it is going to be accessible to trucks and how it will be accessed.
THE WITNESS: Yes. We have proposed in the southwest corner of the first floor parking lot which is the one accessed off of Franklin Avenue. We have a trash enclosure and the little storage area with a chute and the chute permits trash to be ‑‑ to go down vertically one floor where there is another such enclosure in the sublevel parking lot or the ground floor parking lot and then it can be accessed through the back parking space which is commercial so in off ‑‑ in off times they can access it through a small door in the back and pull the trash out. I would like the architect to give a little more on that, that's his design, but I think it works so it allows an opportunity for trash to be taken at this level, down to the lower level or the lower level to go straight out to the same trash enclosure which can be accessed not only from the top level but also from the lower level. So I mean we believe that private waste hauler ‑‑ and we can stipulate the hours of pick up with a private waste hauler. And they would use a small vehicle. We don't see this being a large vehicle, but more or a smaller private vehicle.
- MS. PATIRE: Mr. Dipple, the truck ‑‑ the truck is coming in the Franklin Avenue side or is it coming in from the Ridgewood Avenue side?
THE WITNESS: I think the plan is to come into from the Ridgewood Avenue side during the off hours where this parking lot would be open and use that door ‑‑ use that trap door. It's an interesting solution.
- MS. PATIRE: Okay.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: And what size vehicles? You don't foresee it being a huge garbage truck.
THE WITNESS: No.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: Like how ‑‑ like a pick‑up truck or ‑‑
THE WITNESS: Well, you know, I live in a local town and the truck that comes is not much bigger than a large SUV to be honest with you. It throws it into the back. The guys come around they take it right out of my trash can, they throw it in the back. There's opportunities for any size vehicle. They will serve the customer. And that's exactly how it works.
- MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.
- MS. McMANUS: My last item is ‑‑ and I'm not sure if you're the right expert from this, but about the material of the trash enclosure? Is that better for the architect.
THE WITNESS: It is, but it typically matches or somehow works with the building itself. It will be attractive. And I think that maybe Mr. Englebaugh could add a little more flavor to that.
- MS. McMANUS: Okay. Thank you. That's all my questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thanks. MR. JAHR? Do you want to swear him in?
- MR. MARTIN: I do.
- MR. JAHR, if you can raise your right hand. 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: And, MR. BRUINOOGE, you stipulate to MR. JAHR being a professional engineer?
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Yes, absolutely.
- MR. MARTIN: Thank you.
- MR. JAHR: Thank you. I only have two very simple questions. Can you send me an updated plan? And can you tell me who you have been working with in Bergen County?
THE WITNESS: This is Ridgewood, this is Michael Varner and, yes, of course. I can send you an updated site plan.
- MR. JAHR: And that may be the right question for Mr. Keller.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: I have spoken with Eric Keller. I had hoped that he would have been able ‑‑ would have been able to speak with you even before tonight, but I expect plans should be in our hands tomorrow ‑‑ report, rather, should be in our hands tomorrow and on your desk we will e‑mail two copies of the updated traffic report.
- MR. JAHR: I prefer just e‑mail for efficiency.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Yes, you will get that--We apologize for not being here before but we knew we weren't going to get to Mr. Keller tonight.
- MR. JAHR: Fine. Thank you very much.
THE WITNESS: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. That concluded the board professionals. Now will be cross by the public. Is there anyone in the public that would like to ask question of the engineer?
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Seeing there is none, this concludes cross by the public. We reached a point it's actually 10:25. We had this slotted till 10:30 we did start earlier on it would probably be appropriate to break, stop on the application now and schedule the next date on it. And I believe, Michael, is the next date that we for them August 15?
- MR. CAFARELLI: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: So our calendar cleared a little bit so that you're getting a quicker date than we would normally have for it so...
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Thank you. Hopefully we'll all be able to be here.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes. Okay. So we'll carry this application without further notice to August 15, 2017.And it's without prejudice to the board.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: I guess the question that comes out of the August 15th number is the next available date after that we could keep the queue ‑‑ keep the ball rolling. MR. CAFARELLI, is there a date beyond the 15th of August, behind it?
- MR. CAFARELLI: September 19th.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: September 19th would be the next available date for the hearing to continue?
- MR. CAFARELLI: As you mean in addition to the 15th?
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Yes, if we don't finish on the 15th.
- MR. CAFARELLI: Right now the 19th is available, September 19th.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. All right. So you're saying you want the August 15th and the September 19th.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: I don't know whether or not that fits in, we're coming to the High Holy Days so as we get into September.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: If you want to check with your professionals and see?
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Yeah. But if we can put a temporary hold on the 15th of August and the 19th of September. Sounds good to us. Subject to ‑‑
- MR. MARTIN: Why don't we carry to the 15th now.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Yes, definitely carry to the 15th.
- MR. MARTIN: No prejudice to the board, correct?
- MR. BRUINOOGE: I'm sorry?
- MR. MARTIN: No prejudice to the board in terms of decision?
- MR. BRUINOOGE: No prejudice to the board. We're not going to hold your feet to the fire.
- MR. MARTIN: And then if there's a problem, we could address it and carry as needed ‑‑
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Absolutely.
- MR. MARTIN: ‑‑ between now and the 19th of September things happen. Do you want to ask to put it on the 19th and if you have to say it's unavailable you can to tell Michael quickly.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Fine. So we'll go definitely 15 and 19th of September ‑‑ 15th of August, 19th of September.
- MR. MARTIN: Any change you'll notify the secretary. Thank you.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Absolutely. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: So this matter is carried to August 15th, 2017 and September 19, 2017. If there are any changes just let us know.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Joel, appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you for your time.
- MR. BRUINOOGE: Thank you.
(Whereupon, this matter will be continuing at a future date. Time noted 10:25 p.m.)
Appointment of Village Engineer – Mr. Rutishauser was nominated and appointed as the Village Engineer.
Master Plan Discussion – Mayor Knudsen said the Master Plan has not been reexamined since 1983 and discussed a budget approved by the Council for a proper Master Plan review to be completed. She discussed the website links sent to Board members and said they can be used as a resource for Board members during the Master Plan review process.
Ms. McManus discussed the components of a Master Plan and suggested the Board not do the Housing Element as it is in litigation.
Approval of minutes - The minutes from July 19, 2016 and August 2, 2016 were adopted with two corrections.
The meeting was adjourned 11:00 p.m.
Date Approved: June 5, 2018
- Hits: 1749