What is going in the old PNC bank site?

[Guest]

If the PNC lot (Block 32, Lot 5, Zone VC) plans proposed to the Planning Board on 6/17 are approved (next meeting 7/1 at 7:30 pm) the parking and traffic safety situation is going to get worse on Scott, Maplewood, Park, AND Main, I believe. This is due to the fact that all parking access via Main Street is proposed to be CLOSED for these 2 new businesses (~30 total employees) and 1 new residence, despite the fact that all three have Main Street addresses. This is a proposed 60% reduction in parking lot access (3 of current 5 INs/OUTs proposed to be CLOSED) with only Maplewood access, which was previously a secondary access for most parkers to, remain open. Given the significant usage of these 49 parking spaces, this plan would result in an increase of traffic on Scott, Park and Maplewood AND even more parking commercial problems on Main as having no parking access on Main will likely cause many of their customers to park on Main.

In the current proposal, the owners (who seem like great people and who are building a beautiful home and seem to run great a business) are asking for a variance from the "Maximum Impervious Coverage" code which states something like the sub-divided lot cannot be more than 60% of the original. This plan calls for the residential lot (5.1) to be only ~20% of the original, so a variance is needed for the commercial lot 5.0 (with its 49 parking spaces/2 businesses) to take up 80% (75% supposedly with some small, unspecified landscape on Maplewood corners). This will allow for maximum parking (49 spots) as the residential driveway will be an easement through the lot, allowing for dual residential and commercial usage of that portion of 5.0. Another waiver or variance is being requested so some of the parking spaces can remain 16.5 feet long instead of the standard 18.5 feet. Another variance was for the lights to have 3 foot high cement bases and some light "spill over" onto main. Another variance was requested for a higher (8 foot now 6 foot) fence in a portion of the proposed fence surrounding the residential portion. The engineer proved that he doesn't understand the traffic concerns or scenario of our township that he is developing when he stated that currently the cut-through from Main to Maplewood (through PNC lot) is a "racing strip" for traffic. It is actually the side streets that are the racing strip!

Not having a Main Street access to these businesses and residence is going to create serious and non-desirable traffic as it pertains to residential safety and downtown commerce. Please attend the 7/1 meeting in town hall to voice your concern on this important matter and urge our new neighbors to provide (or the board to require) Main street access for the parking of these 2 businesses and 1 residence.

[Guest]

The problems of parking are a direct result of the planning boards lack of forethought. The Witts should not be held responsible to fix a problem that the township planning board created. They should and are making a parking lot on their property for their employees.
If the Blue Rooster was forced to provide parking the same way the Witts arebeing forced then Scott Ave. would not be the way it is now. You cannot find a spot nor get two way traffic through there. Why would the Board allow for an eating establishment to be built and not mandate at least some parking. Another example of not what you know but who you know.

[Guest]

[Guest]

As of resident of Cranbury AND of Maplewood Avenue, a one way would be preferred!

[Guest]

[Guest]

Another Maplewood resident here who does NOT want a one way.

[Guest]

[Guest]

It should not be the Witts issue to solve a parking problem. However, access to the lot should not be from Maplewood alone if there will be 40 cars going in and out. I do not want a one way. Do you know how hard it will be for us? We'll end up driving around and around.

[Guest]

Most of these employees with drive in once in the morning and out again at the end of the day. Hardly a traffic crisis. Main Street will look much better when it is restored to its previous use that had a house there with the parking in the rear.

[Guest]

Agreed that the owners have no obligation to provide public parking. But not having any Main street access to the parking lot for the two Main Street businesses doesn't make sense. That should cause significant traffic changes that would be a safety concern as a parent in the area. This could be accomplished and still restore the house to that lot. Bombarding Maplewood with now ~100 INs and OUTs per day (vs. around 15 when you consider it was always a secondary access to the 3 INs and OUTs on Main now) is a SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN.

[Guest]

[Guest]

First there is a bike shop. So it should be required given the size of the lot that a certain amount of spots are designated for the bike shop. I understand the BR, but they did not go into a building with a large lot already existing.

Second, the address is Main St. How many GPS units will take them to the front of the building? I would think they would want to make visiting their office easier.

Third, Maplewood is small and has a lot of kids walking to the park. We should not be encouraging more traffic on the side streets. Cars fly down that road already.

Lastly, I wish the businesses would stop blaming parking as the reason for failure. Gil and Berts has no parking and people will park near Teddy's and walk to get a cone. They are busy. They have shown that if you have a product people want then they will come. The problem is that the business which failed are either selling goods no one wants or has a need for every day or they were put out by cheaper prices from chain stores none of which would have been solved by parking.

By the way, why did the Police put up temporary no Parking Signs after Memorial Day on Maplewood? Or is this just a resident wanting a clear street in front of their home?

[Guest]

This problem starts and ends from an ineffective Planning Board. They allowed for a NEW restaurant (BR) with no parking. That was the beginning of the end for Scott Av. residents. I'm sure that the Blue Rooster owners will be the first one's crying for the loss of PNC parking lot.
The Board failed to acknowledge the effects that the lost PNC lot had on businesses and they continue to fail to plan for the future. There is money being spent on many things but no one has suggested a municipal lot. They treated the PNC lot like it was their own but it was always and remains PRIVATE property. If a restaurant did not need ONE spot built why should a bike shop? The precedent was set and it was done by the Planning Board. A Board that did not plan.

[Guest]

Didn't the Blue Rooster initially open as just a bakery/coffee shop and not as the full-fledged restaurant it is now? Are there different parking requirements for different kinds of business?

[Guest]

People get a grip. The BR is not destroying Scott Ave. There is plenty of Main St. parking that sits empty. Just look across the street or even down past the lake. I have been in the BR numerous times when it is empty and there are still tons of cars on Scott Ave.

The BR never had no room for parking, the bike shop does. That is the big difference and the owner of the parking lot is the same owner as the building who the bike shop will rent from. So you simply say if you want to rent the space you have to provide spaces in your lot to your tenant. That is the case with other properties in town where an owner rents out space.

People love to bash the BR for some reason.

[Guest]