| Author |
Message |
    
Former Cowgirl
Citizen
Username: Formercowgirl
Post Number: 25
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 7:41 am: | 
|
I checked out Spring Fields today and like their selection. It's minimal, but prices compare or may be less expensive than Whole Foods, so if you're in the area and notice your favorite brand it would make sense to buy at the small, local store. Wouldn't it? Vitamin water, Paul Newman cookies, Ethnic Gourmet, Earth's Best baby food, are just some of the brands I noticed. |
Camnol
Citizen
Username: Camnol
Post Number: 289
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 9:15 am: |
|
Purplebug,
There is a stationery store in Maplewood, on Baker. It's across the street from Goldfinch Books. They have some cute things. |
train 6406
Citizen
Username: Suburban
Post Number: 3
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 9:27 am: |
|
Ideas for new retail/commercial venues:
Halcyon “west” as per Halcyon Cobble Hill = Halcyon DUMBO
A decent & modern clothing store
Another high quality coffee shop
A good bike retailer/service center
A modern music store
More/additional restaurants
(limited selection in downtown Maplewood and would rather not be driving to neighboring towns & Manhattan for good food)
-good thai
-good deli shops
-good spanish (tapas etc.)
-good french
-good vietnamese
-can never have too many Japanese restaurants
-upscale diner
-more good pubs & lounges in general
Or the instant “downtown” route can always be taken:
Banana Republic
Urban Outfitters
Club Monaco
CVS
Cosi
GAP
Chipotle
Yankee Candle
Virgin Records
Movie theatre
Etc.....
|
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 2543
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 9:35 am: |
|
I like your bike shop idea, train. We have bought/serviced bikes in Millburn thus far. Place like that would be good.
There was a CVS on SA I think, and it was poorly maintained and went under. The rest of your ideas I like, personally, in the store realm. Some may jump on you because they're chains; others because they'll point out that they may not appeal sufficiently to some nearby residents. |
Camnol
Citizen
Username: Camnol
Post Number: 291
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 10:25 am: |
|
I've been reading this thread with interest. I think part of the problem with Springfield Ave is getting the word out. I'm relatively new to the area, but my impression is that SA was a dive for so long, that many residents just avoid it all together. So, if you don't read MOL or the News Record, and don't travel down that road regularly, you don't know about some of these stores.
I would hate to see SA turn into a mini Route 10, BUT, I think it is extremely short-sighted, given our tax situation, to have a blanket rule against chains. Maybe we need to relax the rule, but be picky about who we accept. We need the help and chains have deeper pockets. You can say what you want about the Gap, but it would bring in more business than an over-priced boutique. Plenty of people shop the Gap and then a neighboring restaurant for lunch... The village of Ridgewood seems to have a great mix like that.
|
John
Citizen
Username: Jdm
Post Number: 25
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 12:06 pm: |
|
-more good pubs & lounges in general
Talk to the state about its bizarre liquor-licensing laws. |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 2548
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 8:33 pm: |
|
Fresh from a sort of public "coffee" for BOE candidates, and hearing what I heard about money, I think we should accept darned near ANY type of business on SA that would likely bring in lots of revenue. E.g., The Gap, and the various dreaded chains. This town needs ratables and money or we're looking at a whole lot worse than the Gap and Starbucks to bail our sorry asces out. |
train 6406
Citizen
Username: Suburban
Post Number: 6
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 10:46 pm: |
|
Agree Camnol, I am personally not a huge fan of the instant downtown effect of
"Banana Republic
Urban Outfitters
Club Monaco
CVS
Cosi
GAP
Chipotle
Yankee Candle
Virgin Records
Movie theatre
Etc"
....but the organic growth approach may take a while and these types of retail may have better survival odds and would indeed generate revenue. Don't know how much of route 10 effect could happen on Springfield though as the lot depths could be quite limiting...a downtown Summit-ish blend of retail could be more likely and probably more desirable.TargetCostcoCircuitCityBabiesRusHomeDepotian traffic congestion is probably something Springfield Ave and Maplewood could do without.
From the looks of it, Livingston NJ is in the middle of pushing through a similar transformation. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1454
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 12:52 am: |
|
Sorry to be so crass...oh well...I would give my left nut for a Chipotle in town. |
train 6406
Citizen
Username: Suburban
Post Number: 8
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Alleygater,
http://www.chipotle.com
scroll through the annoying circular nacho shaped menue to "development:
You can click on the map and send them an email with your thoughts on how a Springfield Ave location would benefit them and the town of Maplewood.
|
train 6406
Citizen
Username: Suburban
Post Number: 9
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 2:20 pm: |
|
Went to Saint James Gate on Saturday evening to find a line out the door and not chance of getting a seat. Very disappointing that there are not more casual dinning options in Maplewood to choose from. Would not take much to add more food & drink goldmines on Springfield Ave. / Maplewood Ave. the demand is most definitely there… just about every Maplewood resident I have ever spoken with has the same lack of option complaint and ends up spending their disposable dollars in Millburn, Summit, South Orange etc. |
ccurtis
Citizen
Username: Ccurtis
Post Number: 37
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Getting more restaurants into the area would be much welcomed to the maplewood population, as well as the local businesses for the foot traffic it would generate. Train 6406 is right about someone having a gold mine by opening another restaurant or two. The town is obviously starving for it since the Gate has become such a downtown staple. There needs to be something similar to drive the traffic to Springfield as well, so that the businesses there will gain the extra foot traffic. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2019
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:37 pm: |
|
train: would you believe TS already did write to them. They responded too stating that they didn't have any intention of heading in our direction (and if memory serves me correctly they meant NJ in general). I think their usual approach is to pick locations with huge street traffic (as in cities).
Also, I'm partial to my left nut.  |
annabanana
Citizen
Username: Banana
Post Number: 12
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 4:58 pm: |
|
A thai restaurant would be perfect. Where does everyone get thai food now? (I go all the way to hoboken)
|
Morrisa da Silva
Citizen
Username: Mod
Post Number: 459
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 5:35 pm: |
|
Morris Thai on Morris Ave in Union (just off of Stuyvesant) |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2031
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 5:41 pm: |
|
I go to Morris Thai, but I have had many acceptable Thai curries from Ginger Taste which get's HIGH PRAISE from me because they deliver to Maplewood. But many people rave about Khun Thai in Milburn. Seems a bit too pricey to me though.
Also, not that it's local but Penang on Route 10 in East Hanover is amazing for Asian and they have very many Thai dishes to choose from. Unfortunately I am so smitten with the Kari Mee with Shrimp for the super discounted price of $6.95 that I refuse to try anything else on the menu. |
annabanana
Citizen
Username: Banana
Post Number: 13
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 6:24 pm: |
|
Thanks! We'll have to try those. |
Jersey_Boy
Citizen
Username: Jersey_boy
Post Number: 839
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 8:24 pm: |
|
Other Thai:
Tup Tim in Montclair. Or Thai Chef in Montclair. Both on Bloomfield Ave!
J.B. |
train 6406
Citizen
Username: Suburban
Post Number: 10
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 10:25 pm: |
|
Thanks for all the 411 on good food options, many sound great.
But I would have a much clearer conscience spending my culinary dollars in a true local fashion, therefore benefiting local merchants, and helping to offset some of Maplewood’s ridiculous taxes. Point is that there is an obvious demand, plenty of underutilized space to accommodate new commercial ventures (S-Field Ave.), and a desire to redevelop the strip…so where is the disconnect?
|
Jersey_Boy
Citizen
Username: Jersey_boy
Post Number: 852
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 10:36 pm: |
|
train 6406,
Check out the Food Thread, you'll get an eyeful of opinions about more local eateries. I support, in South Orange, The Village Cellar, Arugala, Papillion, and, yes, Bunny's.
J.B. |
Jgberkeley
Citizen
Username: Jgberkeley
Post Number: 4567
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 6:26 pm: |
|
"and a desire to redevelop the strip…so where is the disconnect?"
Finding people willing to invest and then work to make it work.
Recently I took several groups through a couple of stores currently empty or soon to be available. Of the people looking to put in eating venues, all were stopped for various reasons. The big one is the expensive and long legal path to get township permission. You must prove that you have a parking spot or can use a parking spot for every x square feet of dining space. X= 20 or 40 based on takeout or eatin space. The folks building Cafe Meow spent around $10,000 just to gain township permisson to build the Cafe. You need surveys, lawyers, certified blue prints, parking maps and a lot more. That is a big nut to eat.
Springfields Organic food store can not serve fresh made juices because of this very same problem over parking.
Then you have the cost of building a kitchen. Two teams looking at my spaces estimated the cost to be 1.2 to 1.8 million to build a kitchen and dining area for a venue that looks of the grade of St. James Gate.
Then you need a ABC license, or forget about it. Think I'm wrong, go to Burnett BBQ. It is not doing that well as a sit down. The take out dive in Union still has lines out the door. Why, Same food? ABC, if you could buy booze, as at the Gate, they will come. Check out Ver Jus. Good food, booze.
So, are you willing to have a long and costly fight with the township over parking, have an ABC license and want to take on the township over that, and have a pocket full of cash to build out, then step up to the plate, so to speak.
Oh, you need a good cook as well.
Maplewood is not dining frendly.
Later,
George
|
annabanana
Citizen
Username: Banana
Post Number: 15
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 10:03 pm: |
|
Thanks for the info, George! Are there any rules about outdoor dining? I'm not sure I know of any places in Maplewood that have it - there are a few in SO. i definitely make my spring and summer dining choices based on that.
|
Jgberkeley
Citizen
Username: Jgberkeley
Post Number: 4569
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 6:54 am: |
|
You don't see outdoor dining for a reason.
I do not know the exact rule, but outdoor dining is not an easy thing.
Burnett BBQ has a good solution, they have an out door patio behind and not on the street. Perhaps the traffic on SA stops the idea there. I know that I would not enjoy sharing a meal with the Bus, truck and police traffic. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2051
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 12:29 pm: |
|
The Dastis location has outdoor dining too.
I'm not sure that BOOZE brings people. But the markup on booze is so high that it definitely helps business in a dramatic way.
Does anyone know how H2TA got their license? It seemed like magic. One day there wasn't booze there, then there was. I was under the impression that they don't make more liquor licenses here, so presumably, they got theirs because some other restaurant went out of business. |
growler
Citizen
Username: Growler
Post Number: 943
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 1:21 pm: |
|
Quote:The folks building Cafe Meow spent around $10,000 just to gain township permission to build the Cafe. You need surveys, lawyers, certified blue prints, parking maps and a lot more. That is a big nut to eat.
That's ridiculous. I thought the township committee wanted new businesses to move in. With monetary roadblocks like that it seems that they are not as committed as they keep saying. I thought the master plan says that SA needs more restaurants and establishments to create more foot traffic? Is the same kind of plans required for a new restaurant in the Village?
|
Dogbert
Citizen
Username: Dogbert
Post Number: 103
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 4:40 pm: |
|
The town was able to qualify for a new ABC license and auctioned it off. My impression is that there was just one bidder, and in fact it's a third party who is leasing the license to H2TA.
Click here for the OUTDOOR CAFES code. You have to click on the "Chapter 187: OUTDOOR CAFES" link on the left. Doesn't look especially onerous to me. |
Jgberkeley
Citizen
Username: Jgberkeley
Post Number: 4570
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 4:46 pm: |
|
"I thought the master plan says that SA needs more restaurants and establishments to create more foot traffic? "
You are correct. The Master Plan does say that.
HOWEVER, the laws used by the Zoning Board, the Planning Board and the Building Department were not changed.
So we have a Master Plan, but no law changes to support it.
Go figure. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11560
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 5:24 pm: |
|
I don't think the sidewalks on SA are wide enough to support outside dining. |
ccurtis
Citizen
Username: Ccurtis
Post Number: 38
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 9:30 am: |
|
So maybe the new question should be: "How do we go about petitioning the zoning boards/town to change the regulations and enable more businesses to move into the SA business district?"
I happen to live very close to SA and would like to see the businesses there grow, which would help increase the value of my home, as well as the rest of us who live near it. People on the "other side of town" don't necessarily see the value of improving this area, because they aren't within walking distance from it.
As for Chipotle, its odd that they aren't interested, because I know of several locations (I'm from Ohio, and they have had Chipotle's there for a while) which are no where NEAR large cities, and are not tied to any particular foot traffic volume. They are usually in strip malls and such. |
Tom Carlson
Citizen
Username: Tomcarlson
Post Number: 106
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 9:33 am: |
|
“You need surveys, lawyers, certified blue prints, parking maps and a lot more. That is a big nut to eat.”
“The laws used by the Zoning Board, the Planning Board and the Building Department were not changed.”
My man George Berkeley is playing a bit fast and loose with his description of Maplewood’s master plan and zoning regulations. This is understandable since he is a business owner on Springfield Avenue and has an entrepreneur’s impatience with regulations. But it wouldn’t hurt to set the record straight here.
Separately, Growler asks if the town is trying to increase foot traffic on Springfield Avenue, and what differences are there for approval of new businesses on Springfield Avenue compared with Maplewood Village. Both are relevant and insightful questions.
The master plan does, indeed, call for creating two “pedestrian nodes” on Springfield Avenue, one around the intersection of Prospect Street, the other in the vicinity of Maplecrest Park. Similar recommendations can be found in the town’s 1999 and 2004 economic development reports. However, the master plan also notes that parking in all our business districts needs attention and planning. Therein lies the rub.
As for the zoning regulations, George is wrong. In 2004, Maplewood’s zoning code was amended to create the new Pedestrian Retail Business district, and the first occurrence was added to the zoning map in the Prospect Street area, running along both sides of Springfield Avenue from Indiana Street to Princeton Street. This zone is distinct from the surrounding area on Springfield Avenue. Its provisions are intended to encourage foot traffic and increase density of development and are similar, but not identical, to provisions for Maplewood Village.
The key difference between Springfield Avenue and Maplewood Village is the parking requirement. In the Village, merchants are not required to provide any parking whatsoever for customers or employees; the town assumed responsibility for providing such parking many years ago, sometime in the 1970’s. (I will leave it to you, dear reader, to decide whether this approach has been effective.) On Springfield Avenue, the township committee did not make such a drastic change with the new zoning regulations for the Pedestrian Retail Business district. When seeking site plan approval for new projects, business owners on the Avenue are still required either to provide parking or seek a variance. This is the “big nut” that George referred to in his earlier post.
So what is the correct approach? Can we increase foot traffic on Springfield Avenue without providing more parking? Is there already enough public and private parking capacity? Or, alternatively, is there a sufficient customer base within walking distance? If we were to waive the parking requirements for new businesses on Springfield Avenue, would we be acting in the public good or dooming those businesses to failure, or both? Has the parking policy in Maplewood Village been successful, or is the congestion there proof that we need a different approach?
These are the type of questions that stakeholders struggle with constantly. To me, improving our business districts and providing parking are works in progress. Setting goals and achieving public consensus is challenging – and takes time.
|
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5412
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 9:45 am: |
|
Regarding parking on Springfield Avenue -
In order to encourage business owners to consider the Avenue, would it be appropriate to have a "master parking study" done? Go block-by-block, and use accepted methods in order to draw a conclusion about how many eateries, retail stores, or other businesses could be located there, based on the available parking. |
Joel Janney
Citizen
Username: Joel_janney
Post Number: 53
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 9:51 am: |
|
"Setting goals and achieving public consensus is challenging – and takes time."
This is one of the many examples where change happens far too slowly because of the perceived need to make the "right" change the first time. Of the three options; moving forward the right way, moving forward the wrong way, and not moving forward at all, the latter is the worst option here.
Businesses are creative and the town cannot know everything that's going to happen. If we rush something through and later realize we need to make some right and left turns from our plan, so be it. But the important thing is to MOVE FORWARD. Good companies understand this, they are constantly innovating, and making mistakes, but they're making progress. Governments like to sit on their heels and keep doing things the same way until they know exactly what needs to be done. That's because governments aren't in fear of losing their revenue base so they can afford to be excessively cautious.
The current situation is infuriating. What we're doing now isn't working (or it's taking too long), but let's keep doing it this way because of the possibility that changing things won't work either.
|
Tom Carlson
Citizen
Username: Tomcarlson
Post Number: 107
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 10:37 am: |
|
Joel,
Please define "moving forward" in this context. And while you're at it, outline some of the specific policy changes you would like to see implemented to achieve that goal.
Thanks,
- Tom
|
Joel Janney
Citizen
Username: Joel_janney
Post Number: 54
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 10:57 am: |
|
Moving forward: increasing the business presence on Springfield Ave.
Specific policy change: Relax or temporarily eliminate the parking restriction, which you describe as the big nut.
Maybe foot traffic and available parking will be sufficient. Maybe the businesses will rely on delivery or pickup/delivery to compensate. Maybe the business won't make it due to not having available parking. Let the business make the decision and take the consequences. We have parking problems in the Village, but the businesses survive and pull in revenue. Why not try it on SA? Worst case, it doesn't work.
Hopefully others can respond to your request for specific policy changes. |
marie
Citizen
Username: Marie
Post Number: 1428
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 12:32 pm: |
|
As a business owner on Springfield Avenue whose customers travel from towns near and far, parking has NEVER been an issue for myself, or my customers. My building abutts the Indiana Street parking lot and that lot is NEVER full, even on the busiest days. I don't know if my other business compatriots have found parking to be an issue, but for my area of SA between Indiana and Prospect, parking really is a non-issue.
I think part of the parking "problem" perceived or real, is a lack of adequate, visible signage. I believe the town is in the process of installing these signs - knowing WHERE available parking exists could be greatly helpful in helping to ease the "fear of parking" on SA...
Why don't you all come on over and have a stroll this weekend - Stop by NetNomads for Deanne's great Iced Coffee - Anny's for some terrific bargains on cool stuff for your home, The Beaded Path to see George's really CUTE dogs and to create some beautiful jewelry, to Wooden You Know to pick up that special and different last minute birthday gift - to the Bank of America to meet Olga the nicest banker in town, to Stories in Motion and Shakti Yoga to get the kinks out and of course, to Transcend Skate Shop to pick up an Indo Board for a really fun and effective workout! The list goes on and on and on...
The business are there - you all just need to come on by and support them!
|
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2061
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 3:09 pm: |
|
Marie, I totally agree. SA is definitely looking better and becoming more useful everyday. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11580
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 3:12 pm: |
|
I agree on better signs. The Indiana Street lot is pretty obvious, but I will be that many, maybe even most people, know there is a fairly good size lot behind the abandoned gas station at Yale Street and parking behind the Sherwin Williams paint store as well, although I don't know if that is municipal or private. |
Joel Janney
Citizen
Username: Joel_janney
Post Number: 55
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 5:09 pm: |
|
Tom Carlson "The key difference between Springfield Avenue and Maplewood Village is the parking requirement...When seeking site plan approval for new projects, business owners on the Avenue are still required either to provide parking or seek a variance."
Then fix this - suspend the requirement for a defined period of time. How many traffic attracting businesses can do all the other things they need to do to gain approval in, say, one year? In any case, we'd be in a better situation if people were complaining about having to park a block or two away to get to their favorite Springfield Ave. business, the way folks complain about parking near the Village.
Tom again: "To me, improving our business districts and providing parking are works in progress. Setting goals and achieving public consensus is challenging –and takes time." We have consensus on the big picture. Trying to achieve consensus on all the tactical aspects is too time-consuming and not good leadership. Is anyone thinking about the opportunity cost of moving so slowly? Why do we need to tiptoe around trying to ensure we have the perfect solution?} |
Jgberkeley
Citizen
Username: Jgberkeley
Post Number: 4573
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 7:05 pm: |
|
Tom,
Me fast and lose, how about realistic? (Oh, Engineer by training, currently a licensed contractor, regulations are a way of life for me.)
If the zoning laws were amended and all is well, why did the owners of Cafe Meow get turned down at the Minor Plan review, and have to pay the money for the representation for a Major Plan review? While I did not pay the bills, $10K in expenses is in the ballpark? From their point of view, they never had a concern about parking; they just had to do all the work to prove to the TC that 26 parking space existed in the area and would not be an issue.
Springfields Organic Food store cannot open the juice bar because of the expense needed to walk thru this process. Serve an open container of juice made in the store and you have a take out restaurant, and now need to account for parking based on the square foot space of your take out area, again not a problem for the store owner, but a requirement of the variance process.
I just acquired the space that was a Pizza place with sit in dining. I approached the Building Department about building a new restaurant in the space, serving take out and sit in dining of Crock Pot created dishes. My thinking was that it was a pre-existing restaurant and I would have no problems other than re-building the kitchen and dining space. Bob M. (The Building Department) told me that since the space was gutted after the fire, by his order, the kitchen was gone and that I needed to go thru the Major Plan review process to get permission to build. That's $10K I don't need to spend.
I came up with another idea to use the front for a retail store and the back as a kitchen to prepare food for use in other places short of kitchen space, Bob M. told me that I'm not zoned for industrial use, and I would have to go the Zoning Board, and then the Site Plan process. Wow, even more fun.
So, how is it you think all is well, yet we people can't get permission to move forward with anything that involves food over here?
Respectfully,
George
|
marie
Citizen
Username: Marie
Post Number: 1430
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 8:40 pm: |
|
Georgeb,
NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!  |
mwsilva
Citizen
Username: Mwsilva
Post Number: 499
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 10:06 pm: |
|
No, no soup for us!! |
Tom Carlson
Citizen
Username: Tomcarlson
Post Number: 108
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 10:50 pm: |
|
Joel,
Interesting observations and questions on your part. The community should have more dialog like this, precisely in order to get the ball rolling.
I agree with your notion that successful strategy involves setting broad goals and letting the tactics evolve, even if they are sometimes erratic or flawed. I disagree, however, with your assertion that we “have consensus on the big picture”. As a community, I feel we have a way to go before we have clear marching orders. Let me raise a few points of view to illustrate.
In your last paragraph you cite the concept of opportunity cost. How would that apply here? Opportunity for whom or for what? What benefit are we missing out on? I could point out that vacancy rates on Springfield Avenue are low, and some businesses are already complaining that their customers can't find parking. Maybe that means we’ve already achieved success. Why not temper business expansion by requiring review of parking requirements?
On the other hand, the volume of pedestrian traffic on Springfield Avenue is, at best, unremarkable; most observers would probably call it sparse. If (wholesome) street life is what we’re after, we’ve got a long way to go. Will abrogating current parking requirements invigorate such street life? Or will potential customers expect parking in the immediate vicinity of their destination? If the latter, who should provide such parking, the town or the private sector?
Here’s something else to consider. The lots on Springfield Avenue are not deep by commercial standards (typically 100 feet) and abut residential neighborhoods. Consequently, overflow parking often finds its way onto the nearby residential streets. Is that a good idea? The residents of these neighborhoods don’t always think so and often complain. They would generally advocate creating more parking on Springfield Avenue. Where is the balance from a public policy standpoint: to promote commerce or preserve peace and quite for the residents?
I don’t suggest we engage in paralysis by analysis and let these issues linger for years. But I do believe we are facing some critical issues of community character that shouldn’t be left entirely to chance.
- Tom
|
Tom Carlson
Citizen
Username: Tomcarlson
Post Number: 109
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 10:53 pm: |
|
“Engineer by training, currently a licensed contractor, regulations are a way of life for me”
George,
My experience with engineers is they like to get their facts straight before putting things in writing. That doesn’t seem to stop you from posting on MOL, although let’s be honest, those who post on MOL without getting their facts straight (or pretending they don’t know better) is a big club.
However, you know full well that the strict zoning regulations about restaurants stem from the town’s experience in 2003 with the pizza franchise at the corner of Springfield and Yale. That business got into its space without a site plan review on a technicality. Consequently, they were not required to provide any parking for employees, customers or their fleet of delivery vehicles. This, in turn, has created an undesirable traffic and parking situation in the area. It is, in my humble opinion, an utterly inappropriate use for that space on Springfield Avenue.
The Township Committee subsequently amended the zoning code to distinguish take-out restaurants from others, and to require site plan review of any proposed restaurant use. That’s the state of the art now. Maybe the pendulum swing a bit too far, but I’m not going to be the one to advocate another high-volume take out restaurant on the Avenue.
I would also like to respectfully disagree with your assertion that I believe “all is well”, which you attributed to me twice. I certainly do not believe all is well, especially on Springfield Avenue. That’s why I volunteer my time to try to improve public policy and make Maplewood even better than it is. I’m not saying I’m any smarter than the next guy, or have any silver bullet to make things happen, but at least I’m plugging away, just like you.
Keep smiling through,
- Tom
P.S., I’m an engineer, too, N.J. P.E. #24GE02815700
|
Jgberkeley
Citizen
Username: Jgberkeley
Post Number: 4574
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 12:53 am: |
|
"That doesn’t seem to stop you from posting on MOL, although let’s be honest, those who post on MOL without getting their facts straight (or pretending they don’t know better) is a big club."
That is a cheap and personal shot!
My facts are straight. Get out of your ivory tower and come with me to pull a permit for a dining establishement on SA. Then you will see the effect of all that has been created. And no, I did not know about the Poppa John's events. I was not part of it.
I have the empty address on SA, by Monday next I can have a set of blue prints, meet me at Township hall for filing good for you?
Call me to set the date. 973 953-0781.
George
NJ Contractor 13VH00864300 |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11583
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 4:47 am: |
|
Parking is always going to be an issue on SA as it develops. The only real solution may be to knock down every second building and turn it into a parking lot if the Township wants strict parking rules. 
I don't think too many people are happy about the pizza franchise. However, the new rules promolgated in response to Papa John's seem a little bit like trying to kill a fly with an elephant gun. At this point most of the stores that have opened around Prospect are small, locally owned businesses. To set the bar too high for these types of operations isn't going to help the development of SA, it will hurt it.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
|
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 4477
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 6:40 am: |
|
I agree with you Bob K. That Papa John's creates a ton of trash and IMO brings a negative vibe to the stores around it.
It's too bad that (very bad) mistake can continue to live on but better ideas have to jump through hoops to be approved. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 5129
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 7:40 am: |
|
...now, now boys, let's not get over excited here.
From someone who has been there and done this, I believe the "What if this, or What if that" is the biggest single problem in most regulations on our books today. Way too often businesses are limited and restricted because this or that "COULD HAPPEN", or has happened already to someone else, or someplace else!
So why not just have a penalty “if” you do something, rather than not allowing you to do it at all?
Listen, we all know that regulations can be very taxing. IMHO, all that is missing is:
1. A little more flexibility in some of our local ordinances.
2. Faster inspections and turn-around times.
3. Less hypothetical and “personal opinions” by members of our TC and various Boards.
4. Limiting all Nimby objections to one written page per person that must be mailed in for Board review 10 days prior to any meetings.
5. And, more sympathy for those regulations from the state that can't be changed...
Art
NJ Resident No. 061640TOB2215
|
Tom Carlson
Citizen
Username: Tomcarlson
Post Number: 110
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 12:33 pm: |
|
George,It wasn’t a cheap shot at all, but I guess, by definition, it was personal. My objection was to your claim that the zoning code had not been changed to support the master plan. As I stated above, the code was changed in 2004 to create the Pedestrian Retail Business Zone.
Perhaps the code wasn’t changed to suit all of your specific business purposes, but that’s often the case for any given person. There are plenty of individual zoning provisions that I don’t like, but I don’t expect the world to revolve around me. Zoning is intended to lay out a set of rules that allows all stakeholders, including neighbors and taxpayers, to understand what are the permitted uses. That, in turn, helps people decide where to buy property, where to live, where to start a business, etc. At a fundamental level, strong zoning helps protect property values.
As for your proposed restaurant project, you know that the application procedure starts with the municipal staff at Town Hall, not with a citizen volunteer such as me. If you encounter specific problems with an application, I am happy to help navigate the process, as I have done in the past.
Virtual It Girl,Zoning mistakes live on because they are grandfathered-in by virtue of Constitutional protections for property owners. This explains why zoning provisions are sometimes reactionary.
Art, Your suggestions to be more flexible in our zoning regulations and to avoid the “What If” scenarios are similar to Joel Janney’s proposal about experimenting with zoning regulations. Ideally, we would like to believe that a liberated marketplace can make better decisions than government regulations. But the devil, as they say, is in the details. Consider the nail salon issue. Last year the town amended the zoning code to limit the number of such establishments on Springfield Avenue and in Maplewood Village. Was that a good idea? Is it visionary policy or excessive regulation of the free market? Or perhaps we don’t yet know, and it’s just the kind of experiment that Joel advocates.
Moreover, changing public policy always requires buy-in from all stakeholders. I can imagine that many existing business owners would wish to go slow with zoning changes on Springfield Avenue. Residential neighbors around the corner are likely to be conflicted, wanting both a peaceful neighborhood and a dynamic business district nearby.
Keep having fun,
- Tom
|
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2074
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Just for the record the 18 wheelers parked in front of Papa Johns should be ticketed. EVERY TIME. Maybe increase the fine with each offense. I think that would solve the Papa John problem pretty quickly. If they slid in because of a technicality I don't see any reason to be kind by NOT ticketing for blocking traffic illegally on SA. |
John
Citizen
Username: Jdm
Post Number: 58
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 2:30 pm: |
|
Seems like we've been mentioned a few times while out in the mid-west this weekend. 
A few comments:
The Master Plan does call for the PRB which, as Tom rightly notes, has been created. It also calls for changes to parking ordinances that have not happened. It also makes several other recommendations, including one that new businesses moving into existing storefronts not have any parking requirements at all, which would have been very nice for us. The Plan is on-line and linked from the town website. Go to the planning board page to see it in context.
Parking on and around SA is very very ample. Believe me. I spent many hours before Café Meow went before the planning board walking around and counting cars. Marie is right about the Indiana lot. The Yale Lot is even bigger and has more open spots. I challenge anyone to find a time when it doesn't have at least two dozen available spots for parking. And don't forget about Hilton Ave, and even SA itself. I pulled up right in front of Spring Fields this today at noon When I left there were three other openings.
IMHO, the problem is more one of enforcement. It's easy to find cars parked for much longer than they should be and never getting ticketed.
More signs and more obvious oneswould go a long way, I think. The mapleleaf is nice, but how about a big green P?
Given how difficult parking is in the Village, I'm often surprised at how bad people think SA is. If you're willing to walk a block or two (literally), there is never a problem. Come by and check it out.
Oh, and there is indeed an outdoor café ordinance. You need to leave 4' of free space on the sidewalk. And pay for the permit, of course. What's free?  |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 5142
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 2:15 pm: |
|
"Moreover, changing public policy always requires buy-in from all stakeholders."
Tom, I have to disagree with you on "ALWAYS", and "ALL"... Try for once to agree with Joel on this one...
"Why do we need to tiptoe around trying to ensure we have the perfect solution?"
|
Tom Carlson
Citizen
Username: Tomcarlson
Post Number: 111
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Art,
I will concede that “all” and “always” are too much. I guess I sometimes get carried away in my pursuit of utopian democracy. After all, Maplewood is already pretty close to being Utopia, ain’t it?
The point I would like to drive home is that stakeholders always deserve to be considered -- that's why they are stakeholders. And the term “buy-in” doesn’t necessarily mean 100% agreement, but it does imply that stakeholders were informed and involved.
|
Georgie
Citizen
Username: Georgie
Post Number: 109
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 3:03 pm: |
|
Here's something that has nearly universal buy-in: our tax rate is high (factually true relative to other townships) and it is rising quicker than inflation or average salaries (again, a fact).
What about those stakeholders who don't want more traffic on their side streets? A bustling Springfield Ave would make some homeowners happy because they could have some of what they missed from their Brooklyn days by walking to restaurants and shopping. (I know they can do this now, but more volume of the kinds of businesses Marie mentions is needed to make the Avenue a destination).
Tom is right however that an increasing number of homeowners would be conflicted or downright unhappy about that development. They might even want to leave for a quieter neighborhood. Fortunately for them, they'll find that the very condition they want to get away from, the Brooklynization of their neighborhood (except that they'll still have their own garages and protected parking) has caused the value of their homes to rise sharply. Why damage the entire town's tax base for this group?
Springfield Ave turning into Smith Street is beyond fantasy right now - I'm just making a point. |
Joel Janney
Citizen
Username: Joel_janney
Post Number: 56
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 3:09 pm: |
|
I didn't realize my wife was logged on...Georgie is me. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page