Montclair, NJ – Building height and the viability of the unnamed supermarket quickly became the focus Monday night as the Montclair Planning Board began its process to review the Lackawanna Plaza Redevelopment Plan.
There was no public comment at this review meeting, but 10 people made their feelings known about the development by holding up signs throughout the meeting that read “Scale it Down” and “Follow the Master Plan.”
Attorney Arthur Neiss explained that the Planning Board was tasked with a “narrow goal.” They had the 60 days to review the plan and determine whether or not the proposed redevelopment plan was consistent or inconsistent with the master plan.
The master plan does not allow for buildings as tall as the Lackawanna redevelopment plan is proposing, but there are policy directives that provide for density bonuses when a development is also associated with public improvements.
Several members of the Planning Board expressed praise for the plan calling it “beautiful” and “thoughtful,” but the height of the buildings was called into question.
Presenting for the developer were Keenan Hughes, of Phillips, Grygiel, Lehent, Hughes, LLC, and Ira Smith, of Smith Maran Architecture, who presented the conceptual imagery for the plan at the last Lackawanna Plaza Redevelopment Plan informational meeting.
“I think you have designed a beautiful and impactful plan,” said Planning Board member Jeff Jacobson. “But does it have to be that big or dense?”
Hughes said the topography and sheer size of the site — over eight acres — allows it to accommodate additional building height and density that can then be mitigated with setbacks and upper story setbacks.
Planning Board member Michael Graham said he had a lot of respect for the design and that it had a lot of amenities, but wondered about buildings being two stories above “the old master plan of six stories” and how they might “dwarf the historic asset” of the Lackawanna Train station waiting room.
Jacobson also said the Board had an interest to ensure a viable supermarket. Planning Board member Carole Willis was concerned people wouldn’t see how to access the supermarket and would expect to enter on Bloomfield Avenue and not on Lackawanna Plaza where Hughes said the entry would be. Signage was also a concern and whether the height of the buildings would impede visibility.
Board members were interested in additional language that would ensure wayfaring signs to find parking and additional requirements to ensure the supermarket is visible.
When the discussion returned to building height, Smith spoke of the previous Hampshire plan that had all buildings at four stories, but had little to no public space and did not offer deep setbacks, but instead was to be be built “pretty much to the lot line.”
Smith also mentioned the other amenities the plan afforded, including affordable housing and the preservation and adaptive reuse of the site’s many historic elements.
Chairman John Wynn questioned whether the Board could give up some open space in the plan to get lower building heights.
“It’s a nice plan. I like the open space but to have six-story buildings that are taller than we’ve seen…can we afford that price,” Wynn asked.
Carmel Loughman mentioned the heights of various buildings in the vicinity of Lackawanna Plaza and stated the proposed buildings were out of scale with the surrounding area.
Planning Board member Anthony Ianule said he was not as concerned about the height as much as the broadness of the base of the buildings.
Several members said it would help to have more enhanced views from different vantage points, such as driving and walking by, to better assess how the buildings, at their current proposed height, would impact the neighborhood.
Smith said they could provide these additional views to the Board. Planner Janice Talley said questions raised during Monday’s meeting would be addressed at the next meeting.
On Thursday, the Historic Preservation Commission will review the Lackawanna Plaza Redevelopment Plan. On Monday, December 19, the plan is back before the Montclair Planning Board.
Finally, a more objective article! It doesn’t mention that 90% on Facebook are against this project, but that’s a start. Or and did they mention that they don’t want trees to block the view to the supermarket on Bloomfield Avenue? And then, the planning board joked that a 75 feet high building is actually blocking the view… not the trees! Again, prior project was 150 housing unit and this one is 375 housing unit. Using common space to justify to double the number of housing units, smart move, let’s see if that’s gonna work. Hopefully not! Too high and too bulky!
Oh, and can we know which local media gets money from Placek?
Debbie, that is just rude…and I know rude. If you don’t like this sandbox, go back to FB. BTW, FB? Really?
Anyway, it is time the Planning Board gets a new parking expert. The guy is a true gentleman, salt of the earth, but I have to disagree with not speaking out against the plan’s no parking requirement for airbnb use.
And unless I missed something, redevelopment plans can only change the zoning in the redevelopment area. Of course, this Council has some unconventional ideas when it comes to following the law…like, not.
And what exactly is the purpose of the Intent section and its development standards. Does that mean the Shall’s & Should’s have unique alternate meanings in this section? Or, is it just a workaround to grant a “D” variance without involving Chair Harrison’s body?
I want to be on record as one who appreciates the symmetry of having the 114′ high MC Hotel at our Western Gateway and a 87′ (thereabouts), 50-unit airbnb at our Eastern Gateway. I’m a little unclear whether the Council’s Economic Development Committee asked for this on the public benefit side of the ledger or whether Mr Placek asked for this in exchange for something we are receiving. Doesn’t matter, right?
What I would love to see in the Plan rewrite is a concise, plain-english interpretative statement prefacing each section. Or, maybe cap the main document at 50 pages. Do we really need 100 pages to cover two parcels? The Master Plan is like 160 pages…for the entire town. Seriously, the Council should hire an editor…and a proofreader. Volunteers, of course.
Frank… 700 comments on FB in the past 3 weeks on Lackawanna is something, if you haven’t read them, you are missing out…..!!!
Debbie,
The major issue with the Town’s proposed zoning plan is the height of the buildings in our downtown, C-1 commercial zone.
We rely on the Master Plan and the current zoning as reference points to guide us. These two, continuously evolving touchstones serve to verbalize Montclair’s consensus on the best & highest land use overall, and specifically, and extensively, our downtown development objectives and strategies.
The prior, and still valid site plan approval from 2018 – that was approved based on existing C-1 zoning (not redevelopment zoning) – consisted of one major substandard deviation after another from the best & highest land use standards. In short, it sucked and totally undeserving as an argument as an example of good development downtown. But, we ignored all that and approved it.
Somewhere along the way, this time around, Open Space entered the public benefits side of the ledger for downtown commercial space. This site is comprised of 8.25 acres. This plan mandates a minimum of 20%, 1.65 acres, for Open Space. A 1:5 ratio in a downtown commercial zone for non-revenue generating, accessory use space. Another ½ acre is set aside from development to provide historic preservation benefits.
Again, the aforementioned prior, sucky Hampshire/Pinnacle plan had open space for accessory uses, too….over 2 acres of asphalt surface parking, all fronting on Bloomfield Avenue.
And just for reference, this zoning calls for 375 housing units – 55% market rate units, 30% subsidized units and 15% airbnb (with it separate amnesties and facilities).
None of us know the financial specifics and trade-offs, so there is no point guessing. Further, this is a best & highest land use discussion where the law precludes the Planning Board from involvement itself in.
What should also be revisited in the PB/FB discussions is Montclair’d fundamental precept of ensuring unbroken street walls in developing our commercial zones. Don’t worry. They won’t touch that topic with a ten foot pole. The PB will struggle with several other key recommendations they have had in their Master Plan for a decade now.
So, as Planning Board Chair Wynn suggested, this is a simple trade-off between height and Open Space. I like the open space, but I also realize it is totally inconsistent with what we have said we wanted downtown.
There are alternatives. Eliminate the preservation protections entirely which opens up a ½ acre. Take Lackawanna out of downtown zoning and place it in a newly created, transitional zone along the lines your FB discussion feels is appropriate.
I think if you can double your supporters, you will have a clear majority. And I’m in for whatever the majority decides.
And if the FB group wants to distill the serious deliverables of this zoning plan, do a word search on shall, it’s meaning, and where the term was applied. It is faster than reading the entire document .
Yeah, yeah, another math error.
While the Planning Board can’t discuss the redevelopment financials, the rest of us can. I recommend a basic approach that creates pro forma municipal revenue schedules for both build-out scenarios – what can be developed as of right under existing zoning and what can developed using density bonuses under the proposed redevelopment zoning plan.
As part of the exercise, we monetize the public benefit costs for each: a supermarket use, Open Space, historic preservation, infrastructure & circulation improvements, etc. Then we can take a cafeteria plan approach to choose the public benefits we want to “pay for”. To fully capture all component costs, we would also include the soft costs: property tax revenue the school district would lose, the additional PILOT income from adjusting the County’s take, and let’s not forget the tax exemption benefit underlying the PILOT stream. We can assign a value to the developer avoiding a protracted review by the Zoning Board. Finally, we can easily project the density bonus value of the additional stories.
For example, projected max dollar benefit to us if built under current zoning might be $2MM while the RDA route may be $2.5MM. We can now rationally evaluate the economic trade-offs of heights and public benefits over a range of scenarios. Maybe we will decide to settle on collecting lower revenues, e.g. $2.1MM, to limit building heights to 67’. Maybe we want to go even lower and accept an annual revenue of $1.7MM.
The critical driver here is getting the neighborhood-appropriate land use standards to right. The maximization of revenue to Montclair is always secondary…as we learned from the GR fire contract.
Debbie Jones:
Instead of yakking to each other on FB, if these chatty folks would air their opinions at the public open mike section of the Council meetings, this may have some real effect. It is only when people come to the meetings that the Council looks up and pays attention. It is also helpful if folks email the Council. A barrage of emails and throngs of folks speaking to the Council would show that the community is against this project in its current iteration. Something will get built at Lackawanna, the question is whether the community will come forward and shape that project.
@Martin Schwartz:
Just a big “I told you so” about relying on Chair Wynn’s Planning Board. They apparently don’t see any connection between Areas In Need of Redevelopment and neighborhood building. This should stop you cold.
This is a Planning Board that has had no problem getting behind designating roughly half of downtown as Areas In Need of Redevelopment. Yes, 50%. Five-O. Because of crime, decrepit infrastructure, just horrible land uses, etc. etc. But, the Chair is 100% right that these neighborhoods always existed… well before Cranetown came to be.
Martin, I laugh heartily because of the zoning adjacencies to this project site. I laugh heartily to what has been built to the East and how sympathetic these buildings are to their neighbors. I laugh heartily because of the PB’s agenda. Having a land use board that is inconsistent with its own Master Plan, inconsistent with their previous approvals. inconsistent with the majority of the surrounding political wards and representing narrow, short-term interests are grounds for cynicism, not optimism they will be highly functioning.
minorchord,
This project has the potential to fundamentally shift the epicenter of Montclair Center away from the “above Six Corners” (Church/SPark) back to its historically diverse center down the hill.
What should be challenged is why we are protecting a funeral home and post office use in our C-3 zone bordering our C-1. And if we are not going for the density in the C-1, why are we spending $500,000 on a protected bike lane? What will we be protecting them from? Jaywalkers?
The last time the I checked, the Township defines the boundaries of our neighborhood destinations as having an ½ mile radius. People should educate the PB Chair.
And since the Montclair Civil Rights Commission and the Montclair NAACP Housing Committee are giving out quotes freely, I would like to hear more from them.
I highly recommend they grab a map and stick a pin in the center of the Lackawanna site. Then count how much of Montclair’s affordable housing units falls within ½ mile radius of the pin. If it make you happy, do a ¼ mile radius.
Compare that to the Township total.
Then reread our affordable housing strategy. Then please make your views known to the Council and the public you serve Tuesday during public comment.
I want to know who gets the affordable units: existing Montclair residents or out-of-towners. Where do I find this information? Can anyone guide me here?
Affordable Housing prohibits preferences based on where you live or work.
As far as guiding you? A tough ask. OK, just spitballing here…but, maybe read the thread above, that you posted this on, for some ideas? Maybe reach out to one of the subjects mentioned above.
Frank — I’m sorry but again, it’s too hard to follow your thinking and comments all over here because you go to details and commentary wrap-around first all over the place without the requisite core point made to start. The result is that it’s lots of strung information and POVs we kind of get but not enough center to what you are actually trying to say…in many of the comments.
Remember essay form….The Forest proving statement or theme to be made first, then trees, then leaves….with feelings and viewpoint perspective after witin so people can follow what you really have to say…which is actually quite important. Alternatively….a detail focus point made first but then, how this relates to the whole or main issue….then the commentary and perspective.
Think of, and help your readers follow you…we actually do want it. Beat us over the head at the start of the comment with the obvious point you are really trying to make…then the proving details.
I believe the housing element of the Council’s Redevelopment Area zoning plan is deficient and poorly crafted.
These are some examples.
Short-Term Rental Units (STRUs)
Treats housing transients as a residential use, not a commercial use. Council wants to charge these transients, not the property owner/lessee, a “hotel, motel, Holiday Inn” occupancy tax. Council will tax the people renting a designated multi-family, residential use here, but tax the property owner elsewhere in town for similar uses (ADUs)…and not call them multi-family dwellings.
The PB’s parking consultant avoided the whole STRU concept. The plan did not inform us if this was a sought-after public amenity (we were paying for) or is the developer’s creative economic hedge across two families of uses.
Affordable (AH) & Workforce housing (Wh) scheme
AH & Wh % to total minimum requirement is applied to a total with a mix of residential and commercial uses . It is does not explore or substantiate the standards in relation to a Township affordable housing policy or provide a neighborhood subtext. The Plan should indicate 75% of Montclair 800 Affordable Housing is concentrated in this neighborhood and 1/3rd of them are age-restricted to seniors…who might benefit from quality Open Space. An additional 75 AH units here advances the public good by my policy criteria. But we’re not using my criteria. I don’t support the workforce housing because Montclair has no workforce housing policy and, more importantly, density bonuses should be used for our high ranked/high priority public policy needs and public amenities. So, we should not give a density bonuses for a bike lane.
Housing Density
The underlying, existing zoning allows for 55 dwelling units/acre. This plan, by the Council’s count, has a maximum of 46 DUs/acre. Take out the STRU’s, and it drops to 39 DUs/acre. The contiguous, new C-3 Zone offers 40 DU’s/acre as does the Elm St RDA across the street. STRU seem well-suited and easily implemented for C-3, NC, OR- and elect R- zones. What is the purpose of STRUs? Is it the Council’s intent to down-zone housing use in the C-1 areas when our Master Plan is written for up-zoning both commercial and residential zones?
These deficiencies of thoughtfulness and discipline, but easily rectified within the normal statutory processes…if we get leadership from members of the Council. We’re not getting leadership now.
And to your points Martin, we will overpay for the public benefits/amenities because we are evaluating without a financial basis. Even worse, we are deciding a lot on an emotional level and have dispensed with significant levels of objectivity and data. This will be another fire contract cluster.
From a land use perspective, what is the financial difference between a 47,000 supermarket versus 47,000 of general retail use (or medical office use)? How does that translate into what we payout in a density bonus? How much of Plan’s maximum Gross Floor Area do the Density Bonus GFAs account for? And if one or more of the public benefits goes away in 10 years, does the financial justification someone is using still valid through Year 30?
And really, over 30 years, does it matter to us now if we bring in $70MM or $100+MM of payments in-lieu of tax?
After reading all of the comments, I have no idea where you stand or what the rant (for lack of a better term) is about Frank.
Its like you are having a convo with yourself and are shooting in all directions. For hecks sake, 13 of the 18 comments are you’re own.
I agree this is too dense. I agree we need open space and a grocery store. I feel people are unhappy and just stating random things they are unhappy about.
I think this whole process is pretty unorganized. It would be GREAT if the planning board came out and CLEARLY outlined to the people what the process is. [i.e. December 20th the township council votes to have the project move forwards to be evaluated by the PB and the Historic Preservation, 2nd step… 3rd step..]
It would be nice to know timelines and what the steps are and when the public has a chance to see the actual plan (and not concept) and speak up about it. Right now no one (on a large scale) really knows whats going on and people go to these council and PB meetings, get lost in the detail and comment about irrelevant things. Which in consequence take time from the meetings and required us to have more meetings and add time to the whole thing.
@Mark_M
Rant works for me. FYI, you’re not my target audience. You are a Montclairion, that after following this for years, has not bothered to learn that the Council owns & controls the entire process. The Planning Board is just the hired help (w/o pay, but with their own little personal agendas).
What should scare you and others of your ilk is that this Council, as did the Council in 2017, refuses to hire an expert in retail to advise them. I think retail is the lynchpin, but people much smarter than me would know better.
Now I know anyone that has sold directly to the public considers themselves retailers…and they are. But, I’m talking about having a successful, experienced, used child labor type of retailer to advise this Council. Look at this Council. Do they strike you as having a scintilla of retail expertise? The closet is Russo who ran point on NJ’s Lemon Law enforcement.
So, we sent this Council out to buy a 29,000 sf grocer and they came back with a 47,000sf big box retailer who does groceries, too. Oh, and the price is double, too. I rant because I see 40,000 people that are intentionally blind to this fact. Go ahead and pay for 47,000 of something when you only need 29,000.
All this after Hampshire couldn’t make a 65,000sf supermarket viable and lowered their expectations to…wait for it…wait…a 47,000 sf supermarket. What is it w/ 47KSF? They couldn’t make that happen, so they went with the 29KSF option that, as you know, walked away.
So this Council came back with a 47,000sf supermarket we don’t need – and news flash – is not viable no matter what David Placek, the developer & Council’s retail advisor may say. And seriously, no one should take my word for this. There has to be one sharp retailer living in town who thinks this project is bigger than is prudent to join your cause.
Myself? I’m fine with this plan – which is just a zoning plan btw. In no way, in any lifetime is David Placek obligated to build something that the Township’s architectural consultant envisioned. It is not even a rendering. It is a concept… of the ZONING.
Again, there is no design here. Get it? No design. Rant warning. No design.
A municipal government body, our Council, had pictures drawn of what is permitted in their building envelope. Please, get this.