Read this if you think the Post Office Redevelopment is being rushed

I'm sorry for starting another Post Office thread, but I felt this topic required its own discussion, that I'm sure will devolve into the $hit$how that every other PO thread evolves into, but here goes.

I don't care to discuss whether you agree with the redevelopment plan, the use of a PILOT or the reputation of the developer or architect. What I do care to point out to you all is that this project has been discussed in a variety of evolving ways, since 2004, beginning with a Master Plan effort under the supervision of one of the key obstructionists in the debate online. You will notice that in that administration, if you read the documents available on the township website, several council members were also members of the Planning Board, and the Master Plan Steering Committee, so were fully involved in the process. It is impossible, for any reasonable person, after reading the two Master Plans from 2004 and 2011, as well as the minutes and recommendations from the first two community meetings prior to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan (which contain text that while they might vary to minor degrees, essentially matches the final version of the Redevelopment Plan) to think that this process is being rushed, by any stretch of the imagination. It was discussed from a Planning Board and Township Council level, in 2004, that there was the possibility, though unlikely, that the Post Office would move out. In 2011, that possibility was becoming more real and the knowledge was widely shared for whomever was willing to listen. So here it is in timeline format with a few bits of key information highlight. I did not include the final Redevelopment Plan text. Commence the mud slinging. Sorry the post is so long, I'm copying in right from the plans.

Timeline:
March 9, 2004: Maplewood Master Plan
(Fred Profeta, Tom Carlson, John Branigan, Annette DePalma Marla Hanan David Heumer, Ian Grodman, Kathleen Leventhal, Ken Petttis, Stephen Finn, Kahiha Sharif-Drinkard, Allison Ziefart, Donald Richardson, Ed Bolden, Deb Lyons, Richard Roper, Ellen Davenport, Leonard Robbins, Gerry Ryan, Jane Witkin)
Page 129: The other issue identified is the presence of the postal service distribution facility in the downtown. While this use is not optimal from a land use perspective, and it consumes land that could be used for either commercial development or parking, it is unlikely that the U.S. Postal Service would go through the expense and trouble of relocating its facility unless there was a pressing need to do so. Ideally the post office would keep its customer service facilities in the Village, while moving its vehicle park and distribution facilities elsewhere. This is unlikely to happen, and it would be the Villages loss to have the whole post office facility leave. the township is supportive of maintaining both retail postal facilities in Maplewood. Should the post office plan to move its downtown facility outside the Village in the future, the township should insist that a branch to serve customers remain in the Village. The township should then look at ways to facilitate a move of the remainder of the facilities to either Springfield Avenue or the industrial ares of the township. Until then, the visual impact of the vehicular parking facilities can best be mitigated through landscaping.

Page 149:
B. Commercial Development in Maplewood Village
4. Continue to encourage, through zoning and other policy, a diverse mix of retail, office and residential use in Maplewood Village.
Maplewood Village is the symbolic, social and commercial heart of the township. Its continued health has town-wide benefits. it depends upon a lively mix of uses generating activity throughout the day and into the evening. For these reasons, zoning and development policy in the Village should continue to nurture and encourage this fine-grain mixing of uses. While the built form of the Village is unlikely to change much over its current condition, market trends and economic circumstances are ever-evolving. The township should periodically review its zoning and building codes to ensure that the Village's stock of mixed-use buildings continues to support a viable and divers mix of uses.

2011: Maplewood Master Plan Update
Page 44: Maplewood Village and Dunnell Road (Station Area)
Residential and offices uses should be permitted on upper floors only in the core of Maplewood Village.

Page 51: Potential Maplewood Village Post Office Rehabilitation Area
A study was prepared in May 2011 on behalf of the Township Committee to determine of the Post Office property and certain adjoining parcels in Maplewood Village qualify as an “Area in Need of Rehabilitation” pursuant to the LRHL (Local Redevelopment and Housing Law 1992, New Jersey State regulation)...

Page 63: While Maplewood Village is generally stable, there are a few key parcels that are likely to be redeveloped or may be vulnerable to reuse in the coming years. These include the Post Office, Woman's Club, Maplewood Theater, Kings supermarket, Bank of America and three parking lots.

Page 65: The Post Office is located in a leased building, and its lease expires in 2013.

Page 66: ...there are opportunities for new development through the reuse of existing buildings and potential new construction on the Post Office site and properties currently occupied by one-story buildings, which could be replaced by multi-story structures...In terms of specific sites, the most likely property to be redeveloped in the next few years is the Post Office property. The Township should strive to retain a retail storefront postal operation in Maplewood Village, while seeking to relocate the circulation and mail sorting function that occupies much of the current facility, including its parking lot. This parcel is a perfect location for multi-family residential use given its location steps away from the Maplewood train station on one side and shops and services on the other side. As in the rest of this area, residential should be provided on upper floors, with retail space on the ground floor. Building design is very important given this property's key location and large size. Key principles include providing active uses at strete level, utilizing high-quality building materials, shielding parking areas from public views and improving access to the railroad station.

January 19, 2012: Maplewood Village Post Office Redevelopment Plan First Community Meeting

February 29, 2012: Maplewood Village Post Office Redevelopment Plan Second Community Meeting
Page 1: The Township has chosen to prepare a redevelopment plan for the site as this approach provides the municipality with more control over the use, design and timing of the redevelopment than typical zoning would allow.
Page 3:
Maximize value to the Township, yet respect the site’s context
• Permit new development consistent with mixed-use, transit-oriented and pedestrian-friendly setting
• New building(s) should be similar in scale along Maplewood Avenue to existing development in Maplewood Village
• Mandate green building(s) – LEED certification will be required
• Require an affordable housing component
• Maintain existing amount of public parking and ideally expand supply
• Do not negatively impact circulation patterns
• Maintain or improve pedestrian access to train station
Maximum of three stories/40 feet fronting Maplewood Avenue
• Maximum of four stories to rear (RB zone allows 50 feet, with upper floor stepback)
• Minimum of two stories along Maplewood Avenue
• Height in feet should be measured from average grade to highest point
• Could also set maximum at any one point (e.g., 40 feet within 25 feet of southern property line, 10 feet of Maplewood Avenue and other property lines; 50 feet beyond those points)
• Allow rooftop appurtenances to exceed maximum permitted height by five feet, but require to be screened and/or setback from edges of building two times height over roof height

When you consider that the town has planned to oust the post office from its now former location since the mid 1990s if not earlier, waiting until 2004 to begin planning for the future use of the property could be seen by some as rushed.  (insert multiple emoticons here for emphasis)

Sorry, I read it by accident.

ArchBroad said:

I'm sorry for starting another Post Office thread, but I felt this topic required its own discussion, ... 

 Don't be sorry for providing facts.  But, can it fit on a lawn sign?  ;-)

well if you consider that the earth is millions of years old, 11 years is but a blink of an eye.

.

10 years of study to plan 20 luxury apartments and 5 retail stores of suburban architecture? If that's the argument, it's does not hold water.

ml1 said:

well if you consider that the earth is millions of years old, 11 years is but a blink of an eye.

 Lots of people don't believe that the earth is millions of years old, and need to be better informed.

Of course, lots of people in Maplewood don't know that discussion of redeveloping the post office site has been going on for 11 years.

The universe is expanding, so really, why bother?

rastaquere said:

10 years of study to plan 20 luxury apartments and 5 retail stores of suburban architecture? If that's the argument, it's does not hold water.

That's not the argument. 

Maybe not many beside this one are concerned about creating more shade where we had sunlight............but in 11 years of study it never dawned on anyone that the delivery trucks from Kings need to practically smash the front door of the proposed building in order to jockey back and forth to bring their goods through their alley way and to their loading dock area.?

Calling Monty Python

author said:

Maybe not many beside this one are concerned about creating more shade where we had sunlight............but in 11 years of study it never dawned on anyone that the delivery trucks from Kings need to practically smash the front door of the proposed building in order to jockey back and forth to bring their goods through their alley way and to their loading dock area.?

Calling Monty Python

 You know full well that the KIngs issue is as a result of the current design.  It was not an issue in the whole process of planning to replace the post office with some sort of mixed retail/residential building.

Thanks @nohero. I was just going to type that. 

And it took an official from Kings to point it out to the builder/ contractor.    Current design that had to be in the works for at least a year .  How many times had he visited the site?   Certainly not enough to see the Kings trucks in their jockeying back and forth.

Not impressed at all.

author said:

And it took an official from Kings to point it out to the builder/ contractor.    Current design that had to be in the works for at least a year .  How many times had he visited the site?   Certainly not enough to see the Kings trucks in their jockeying back and forth.

Not impressed at all.

 When you make up your own facts, no wonder you're not impressed.  Especially when you consider that the earlier version had the KIngs in it.

@author, comment on the actual content and subject matter of this post. Do not hijack it with unrelated material to distract from people trying to have a useful conversation. The post is not about Kings or traffic.

author said:

And it took an official from Kings to point it out to the builder/ contractor.    Current design that had to be in the works for at least a year .  How many times had he visited the site?   Certainly not enough to see the Kings trucks in their jockeying back and forth.

Not impressed at all.

I have lived in Maplewood for almost 30 years and am in and out of the village several times a week and that has been true for the entire time I've lived here.  I've probably observed the delivery truck thing a dozen times or so.  Although it doesn't always work out, I believe that they do try to have most of the deliveries fairly early in the morning and it might be less likely to have been observed.

I also think that Kings could get their deliveries in smaller trucks if it became necessary to do so.  After all, it is a small Kings.

The theme of the thread is rushing the re development of the Post Office.   This naturally has to do with the proposed building.

Since the contractor or developer was unaware of the Kings situation I would say yes......clearly he has not done all his homework

Also if you look at the earliest drawings furnished by the first contractor............the patio is sitting there for all to see.  Which means this was no new development at all...........It is a condition which has existed and to not take the time to survey the area is clearly rushing the development.

author, what you are referring has nothing to do with the notion of this being a "rushed" process. It has to do with the design of the building. At least be honest about that.

After 24 hours, an eternity for a Post House thread (with a midday bump for good measure), still no attempts to call into question the pace of the process. Among the possible conclusions:

Probably 4.  I'd like to think 2, but highly doubt it.  I personally like 3, albeit purely on aesthetic merit.  I will offer 5: the debate has simply remained on VG where the pro-rush (small "R") crowd prefers it.

One last comment on the Kings delivery truck issue just to ease Author's concerns:   Under the penultimate proposal when Kings was to be included in the proposed new structure, delivery times to Kings were to be restricted to certain low traffic/parking volume times as a condition of their tenancy.  If you walk (or drive) through the Village in the early morning hours, you will see a Kings truck parked in front of the store, occupying about four parking spaces, making deliveries.  At that hour they do not use the driveway and based on personal almost daily observation haven't been doing so for years.  Unless construction results in all vehicular access to Kings being cut off, I fail to see why they physically can't continue to do this.  If the Kings management were to meet with the appropriate authorities and arrive at a delivery schedule similar to the one worked out with the USPS for their new Maplewood Avenue location, I think the seriousness of the identified design flaw might have a cost effective work around.  At least it is worth exploring.

Joan...........I see that Kings delivery truck from my front window every morning.   But what I see is one truck and one truck only.

You can not stock a Supermarket  unless you receive  goods in bound on a more frequent basis.They cannot parallel park in front of Kings passed  opening time at 7 AM and be considered good neighbors

I have also seen groups of people some of whom carried large schematics the size of a drafting table walking back and forth

across Maplewood Avenue trying to come up with a solution. They did not look happy.

Also the Post Office Delivery is basically the Post Office Delivering to itself.

Kings receives their goods from many, many vendors who have their own schedules to fill and would have to do a major

revamp to avoid making deliveries during the day.

Let's say you lived across from me and I owned a tractor-trailer, and every night I back my tractor-trailer into my driveway using your driveway to straighten up, and every morning I pull out using your driveway to help me k-turn into the street (I hate running over my own yard).

Let's say you plan to build the garage you always wanted, which is half-way up your driveway and would mean I wouldn't be able to back my tractor-trailer into mine.

Do I get to tell you that you can't build your garage?

Author:  It is pretty clear that you don't want this whole thing to work but assuming it gets built anyway, don't you think it would be a good idea to contribute your first hand knowledge of the location to not just identify potential [and real] problems in advance of construction but to help come up with possible solutions to those problems as well?  Consider it a contingency plan to reduce any perceived and real disruption to your life as much as possible.  

author said:

I have also seen groups of people some of whom carried large schematics the size of a drafting table walking back and forth 

across Maplewood Avenue trying to come up with a solution. They did not look happy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbbkIodDikA

Joan.............I have made it clear for more than 2 years now that I am opposed to this building as it's imagined rising in our Village.

I was one of the original 5 members of Engage...............this "opposition" is nothing new

Frankly I do have an idea which would solve the delivery problem for Kings.   However it is pretty radical and would probably entail added expense and a certain amount of re design for the builder.   Plus in my simple calculations probably a dozen parking spaces would be lost.

This breaks down to a cost/benefits analysis which he would probably accept only if all else fails.

As far as simple solutions............if there is one out there it eludes me.

author said:

Frankly I do have an idea which would solve the delivery problem for Kings.   However it is pretty radical and would probably entail added expense and a certain amount of re design for the builder.   Plus in my simple calculations probably a dozen parking spaces would be lost.

@author's only intention is to obstruct the development, rather than be constructive. In the end, if he in fact has a useful idea that could solve this problem and doesn't share it, he will be one of those most inconvenienced by whatever the alternative resolution might be. So be it.

joan_crystal said:

Author:  It is pretty clear that you don't want this whole thing to work but assuming it gets built anyway, don't you think it would be a good idea to contribute your first hand knowledge of the location to not just identify potential [and real] problems in advance of construction but to help come up with possible solutions to those problems as well?  Consider it a contingency plan to reduce any perceived and real disruption to your life as much as possible.