Start your 7-day free trial — unlock full access instantly.
← Back to Search4 CLAUSES FOUND2 CLAUSES FOUND
Lead Closed
This opportunity is no longer accepting submissions.
Notice of RFQ - Summit Broad St West Redevelopment - Receipt of Proposals 7/26/18
BID #: 47
ISSUED: 6/28/2018
DUE: 7/26/2018
VALUE: TBD
60
Rating
Risk Rank
Red Risk
AI-Powered Lead Insights
Executive Summary
The City of Summit is seeking a qualified developer for the redevelopment of the Broad Street West Redevelopment Area. The goal is to create a well-integrated, mixed-use area linked to the downtown and key city assets through multi-modal transportation networks. The project aims to foster urban growth adjacent to the Central Retail Business District (CRBD) and the train station through a public-private partnership. Proposals must be delivered to Summit City Hall by July 26, 2018, at 4:00 PM.
Web Content
Bid Postings • Notice of RFQ - Summit Broad St West Redevelo Skip to Main Content Create a Website Account - Manage notification subscriptions, save form progress and more. Website Sign In Search Government Services Community How Do I... Home Bid Postings Print Sign up to receive a text message or email when new bids are added! Print Bid Title: Notice of RFQ - Summit Broad St West Redevelopment - Receipt of Proposals 7/26/18 Category: City of Summit Status: Closed Description: The City of Summit, located in Union County, NJ about 25 miles west of Manhattan , invites qualified developers to submit qualifications for the redevelopment of the Broad Street West Redevelopment Area. Through a transparent and competitive selection process, a development team will be designated to redevelop a centrally located area, directly adjacent to the City’s historic, walkable downtown . The City and the designated developer(s) will enter into a public-private partnership to create an area that is well integrated with the downtown and linked to key City assets and landmarks by safe, user-friendly multi-modal streets and transportation networks for Summit residents, businesses, and visitors. The Redevelopment Area is located directly adjacent to the Village Green and is an integral component of the broader effort to create healthy, livable neighborhoods and districts throughout out the City. Proposals must be delivered to Summit City Hall on or before July 26, 2018 by 4:00 PM and must be enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: To: Michael F. Rogers, City Administrator Subject: Summit Broad Street West RFQ Address: 512 Springfield Avenue, City Hall, Summit, NJ 07901 Envelopes must also include the name and address of the respondent. Questions may be directed to Michael Rogers, Summit City Administrator via email at For security reasons, you must enable JavaScript to view this E-mail address. . No proposals shall be received after the time designated in the advertisement. Publication Date/Time: 6/28/2018 12:00 PM Closing Date/Time: 7/26/2018 4:00 PM Related Documents: Request for Qualifications - Summit Broad St West Redevelopment - June 2018 Return To Main Bid Postings Page Live Edit Smart911 Nixle Report a Concern FAQs Agendas & Minutes For Common Council and all boards and commissions Report a Concern For non-emergency service requests Notifications Sign up to get emergency and general information Make a payment Submit tax, sewer, parking and other payments online Get a permit For parking, Transfer Station, and more OPRA Request Request Open Public Records Act information Helpful Links Emergency Alerts Birth Certificates Report a Concern Construction Updates Employment Staff Directory Transit Schedules & Info City of Summit Webmail /QuickLinks.aspx Site Links Home Site Map Accessibility Copyright Notices Terms and Conditions /QuickLinks.aspx Contact Us City Hall 512 Springfield Avenue Summit, NJ 07901 Phone: 908-277-9400 Regular Hours: Monday through Friday 8:30 am to 4:30 pm Government Websites by CivicPlus® Loading Loading Do Not Show Again Close Arrow Left Arrow Right [] Slideshow Left Arrow Slideshow Right Arrow
Document Text
--- Document: Request for Qualifications - Summit Broad St West Redevelopment - June 2018 ---
BROAD STREET WEST
Issuance Date 6/28/18
Response Date 7/26/18
REDEVELOPMENT
Request for Qualifications
Developer + Development Team
UNLOCKING POTENTIAL
IN PLACES YOU LOVE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Summit Residents + Stakeholders
Mayor
Nora G. Radest
Common Council
B. David Naidu, President, Ward 1
Matthew Gould, President Pro tem, Ward 1
Mike McTernan, Ward 1
Mary Ogden, Ward 2
Stephen E. Bowman, Ward 2
Marjorie Fox, Ward 2
Beth Little, Council Member at Large
City Administrator
Michael F. Rogers
City Engineer
Aaron Schrager
Planning Board
William Anderson, Chair
James Jay Brinkerhoff, Vice Chair
John Kieser, Mayor Designee
Rick Matias, Assistant City Engineer
David Naidu, Common Council
Andrew Parella
Jennifer Balson-Alvarez
Gregory Drummond
John Zucker
Chris Dunn, Alternate I
Greg Vartan, Alternate II
1
Broad Street West Redevelopment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction..........................................................
Project Snapshot..................................................
The Redevelopment Area..................................
Precedents.............................................................
Development Team Selection...........................
Submittal Requirements.....................................
Process Schedule.................................................
Other Information................................................
Appendix A: 2017 Broad Street West Preliminary Study
Appendix B: 2016 Master Plan ReVision
Appendix C: 2016 Parking System Review & Evaluation
2
5
7
12
14
16
19
20
Request for Qualifications
2
INTRODUCTION
The City of Summit, New Jersey (“City”) invites qualified developers (“Respondents”) to
submit qualifications for the redevelopment of the Broad Street West Redevelopment Area
(the “Planning Area”). Through a two-part community-led, transparent and competitive
selection process, a development team will be selected to redevelop one of the City’s
strategic areas for reinvestment. The City and any designated developer will enter into a
public-private partnership to produce a model design for urban growth adjacent to the
City’s Central Retail Business District (CRBD) and train station.
The redevelopment of the Planning Area is an integral component of the City’s broader
effort to create new opportunities for all Summit residents and businesses alike. It is the
City’s desire to create pockets of infill redevelopment that are linked to key City assets
and landmarks by safe, user-friendly multi-modal streets (bike, car, pedestrian, and public
transit riders) and transportation networks for Summit residents, businesses, and visitors.
It is important that any proposals support and complement the Central Retail Business
District around Springfield Avenue and the Summit Train Station.
I2
Springf
ield Ave
Broad St
S
u
m
mit Ave
State Hwy 24
Interstate 78
Mounta
i
n
Ave
Glenside Ave
Morris Ave
Balt
u
srol R
d
Orchard Rd
Morris Tpke
Elm St
Springfield Ave
S
p
r
i
ngf
i
e
ld
A
v
e
Broad St
Broad St
Morris Ave
Bro
a
d
S
t
Morris Ave
Orchard Rd
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,
IGN, and the GIS User Community
0
0.5
1
0.25
Miles
N
Map: Redevelopment Area Context
The purpose of this Request for Qualifications is to identify a qualified development team
(s) to prepare full development proposal (s), in collaboration with the City’s redevelopment
professionals, for publicly-owned lots and, if appropriate, additional private parcels. The
process for creating the development proposal shall include the Respondent’s facilitation
and participation in a civic engagement process that will be established as part of the public-
3
Broad Street West Redevelopment
private partnership with the City. The final development proposal will be incorporated into
a Redevelopment Plan to be developed by the City’s redevelopment professionals and
approved by the City of Summit’s Common Council.
The Planning Area is envisioned as the broader context in which the Redevelopment Sites
are located (see Redevelopment Area section below for explanation and identification
of redevelopment sites). While the redevelopment site consists of sixteen (16) separate
parcels, including publicly-owned parking located throughout the Planning Area, the
design and redevelopment of the parcels must be considered within the surrounding
context and public feedback. Elements of urban design must include adequate circulation,
parking, public space, access and connectivity, as well as potential redevelopment of other
privately-owned parcels within or adjacent to the Planning Area.
As of 2016, the American Community Survey reported that the City of Summit had a
population of 21,895, up from 21,217 in 2010. The median age of City residents was 40.3
years. The racial composition of the population was 80.4% White, 8.7% Asian, 3.8% Black
or African American, 5.4% another race alone, and 1.7% two or more races. In addition,
15.1% of Summit’s residents identified as Hispanic. The median household income was
approximately $136,491. In terms of housing, 71.8% of units were owner-occupied, with
28.2% of units occupied by renters. The reported homeowner vacancy rate was 0.0%, with
rental units reporting 4.5% vacancy rate. The median owner-occupied home value within
the City was approximately $822,000. The median monthly rent for housing units was
$1,706. Approximately 22.7% of residents are foreign born and 27.8% speak a language
other than English at home. Additionally, 70.3% of residents 25 years of age and over have
obtained bachelor’s degrees or higher.
The Summit Train Station, which is centrally located in the City’s main commercial district,
is a regional hub for commuting. The station is served by both the Morris + Essex and
Gladstone Lines, which provide direct access to regional centers, including Newark and
New York City. According to New Jersey Transit, approximately 3,880 riders board trains
every day from the Summit station, making it one of the 15 busiest stations in the system.
The City is seeking development that supports and encourages transit use and multi-
modal forms of transportation. The Planning Area is a priority reinvestment area for
transit-oriented development within the City. The selected Respondent is expected to
contribute to the larger comprehensive planning process by participating in, and then
incorporating public feedback from, civic engagement activities and workshops.
The City of Summit is a six-square-mile city in Union County on the second Watchung
Mountain about 25 miles west of Manhattan. Interstate 78, runs near the southern
boundary of the municipality with State Route 24 forming the eastern boundary. Newark
Airport is only about 10 miles, or 15 minutes, to the east, and New York City is a 35-minute
express train ride. Neighbors include Short Hills, Millburn, Springfield, Chatham and New
Providence.
Summit has a unique mix of natural, historic, cultural and economic assets that set it apart
from other suburban communities. Summit hosts top-rated public and private schools,
a vibrant business community, major healthcare institutions, Fortune 500 companies,
diverse religious institutions, dedicated non-profit organizations and access to universities
INTRODUCTION
Request for Qualifications
4
in nearby towns. The city is a distinguished balance of quiet residential neighborhoods,
accessible public transportation and a historic, walkable downtown. It is the community of
choice for the 21,826 residents who call Summit home, and the 17,654 workers employed
here.
The City of Summit is run by dedicated professionals with a proven track record of
conceptualizing and implementing a number of vitally successful redevelopment projects.
Summit’s community-driven 2016 Master Plan Reexamination (see appendices) highlights
redevelopment of Broad Street West as a priority along with the potential relocation of
the Summit Fire Department to a larger parcel of land adjacent to the downtown, creating
ample and additional opportunity for inspired redevelopment.
INTRODUCTION
5
Broad Street West Redevelopment
PROJECT SNAPSHOT
Site Location:
Block 2701, lots 1, 6, 7, and 8; Block 2702 lots 1, 2, and 3
(partial); Block 2705, lots 1 and 2; and Block 2706, lots 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, and 7 (see image on page 5)
Acreage:
Total developable area is 10.1 acres (8.4 acres are public
property, 6.3 acres of which are controlled by the City).
Current Zoning:
All parcels in Block 2701, all parcels in Block 2706, and Block
2702, lots 2 and 3, lie in the B (Business) district. All parcels
in Block 2705 and Block 2702, Lot 1 lie in the City’s PL (Public
Land) district. The City of Summit will establish, in collaboration
with selected redeveloper(s), a redevelopment plan(s) with
development controls and design guidelines as part of the
redevelopment planning and agreement negotiating process.
Required Parking:
Based on New Jersey Residential Site Improvement Standards.
Parking requirements may be negotiated and amended in the
redevelopment plan based upon findings in a parking study to
be provided by the developer. However, all existing 262 public
parking spaces (Lot 7: 59, Lot 10: 99, Lot 16: 104) need to be
replaced within any redevelopment project. Features such as
electric vehicle charging stations, bike lockers, motercycle, and
scooter parking should also be included in proposed parking
strategies. Additionally, creative ideas to address the current
deficit of 457 shared public and commuter parking spaces
within the downtown identified by the 2016 Level G parking
study will be favorably considered.
Redevelopment Status:
The
site
was
designated
as
a
Non-Condemnation
Redevelopment Area by the Summit Common Council by
resolution on November 13, 2017, with the exception of
Block 2702, Lot 1(the Post Office) which was designated on
September 2, 2014, and Block 2702, Lot 2 (Railroad Avenue
parking lot), which was designated on March 5, 2013.
Business Terms:
Business terms, including if/how the municipality disposes
of property, will be determined as part of Redevelopment
Agreement negotiations. The developer is expected to provide
the necessary financial pro formas for the City to evaluate
and determine disposition terms. Defensible terms must be
established if terms differ from appraised value.
Type of Development:
Mid-rise, mixed-use development, which is to include structured
parking, residential, commercial/retail and public space. The
community strongly desires to see family entertainment and
a food market. Respondents may propose additional creative
uses.
Request for Qualifications
6
Residential Affordability:
The City will assure that low- and moderate-income units will
be created as part of any residential component within the
Planning Area. In January 2017, Summit entered into a court-
approved settlement agreement with Fair Share Housing
Center. Later the same year, the City adopted a Housing
Element and Fair Share Plan pursuant to the Municipal Land
Use Law at N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et seq. and Affordable Housing
ordinances implementing the associated policies.
Respondents will be expected to comply with all applicable
local ordinances as well as state statutes, administrative
codes and/or case law applicable at the time redevelopment
agreements are executed. More specifically, respondents
should consult the following:
--
Summit Development Regulations, Article 10 - Affordable
Housing Development Fees
--
Summit Development Regulations, Article 11 - Affordable
Housing Multifamily Set-Aside
Unique and creative proposals, such as provision of housing
for underrepresented populations (i.e. special needs, veterans,
etc.) are welcome. Any specific inquiries with regard to the
provision of affordable housing should be submitted in
accordance with the directions provided herein.
Land Use + Elements:
The Site will require a redevelopment plan and agreement to
be approved by the Summit Common Council pursuant to
the New Jersey Local Redevelopment and Housing Law. Site
plan approvals will be required through the Summit Planning
Board, pursuant to the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law.
Site Preparation:
Developer is responsible for identifying and securing all
permits and approvals from applicable state or county entities.
The City of Summit will make best efforts, as appropriate, to
assist a redeveloper in obtaining necessary permits.
Other:
Respondents should know that the City is willing to consider
a concessionaire liquor license for the City-owned portion of
the development and include appropriate uses that will take
advantage of such an opportunity. Additionally, all utilities
should be buried. Developers will propose a temporary
parking plan during construction.
PROJECT SNAPSHOT
7
Broad Street West Redevelopment
The Broad Street West Redevelopment Area encompasses much of the property south of
the below-grade regional rail line, west of Maple Street, north of Morris Avenue, and east
of Springfield Avenue. The Planning Area includes the US Post Office, Summit Area YMCA,
and Summit Library located on Maple Street. The current location of the Summit Fire
Department on Broad Street, the Summit Municipal Complex at the corner of Springfield
Avenue and Morris Avenue, and a number of smaller, privately owned parcels compose
the remaining area. The Vito A. Gallo Senior Housing facility is notably excluded from
the redevelopment designation. The facility’s parking lot directly east of the building is
included. The Planning Area consists of a large amount of surface parking lots, on several
different properties, with diverse ownerships.
The majority of the Planning Area [Block 2701, lots 1, 6, 7, and 8; Block 2702, lot 3 (partial);
Block 2705, lots 1 and 2; and Block 2706, lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7] was designated as an “Area
in Need of Redevelopment” by the Summit City Council pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-6 et
seq. on November 13, 2017. Summit City Council had previously designated Block 2702,
Lot 2 and Block 2702, Lot 1 on March 5, 2013 and September 2, 2014 respectively.
I2
2702
2701
2706
2705
Summit
Maple St
Broad St
Morris Ave
Elm St
Sp
r
ingfield Ave
Locust Dr
Cedar St
Union Pl
Railroad Ave
Beechwood Rd
Prospect St
George St
K
ent
Place
B
lv
d
Railroad Ave
Morris Ave
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
5
8
3
7
6
4
6
7
2
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,
IGN, and the GIS User Community
0
660
1,320
330
Feet
N
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
Map: Redevelopment Area Parcels
Request for Qualifications
8
A Redevelopment Plan has not been established for the Planning Area as of the writing
of this document (Spring/Summer 2018). The City and the designated developer will
cooperate through a public-private partnership to create a Redevelopment Plan that will
govern land use, zoning, and design regulations, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 12A-7 et seq. The
Plan will establish a feasible and predictable “as-of-right” redevelopment opportunity that
is community-driven.
The Redevelopment Area consists of sixteen (16) separate parcels, five of which (6.3 acres)
are owned by the City of Summit.
Based on a review of title histories within the Planning Area, interviews with property
owners and preliminary planning recommendations, the following key points relating to
the City’s parcels should be taken into consideration by all respondents:
Chestnut Avenue Right-of-Way Easement:
Block 2701, Lot 1 - (Summit City Hall Parking)
Parking Lot was divided into four (4) lots per February 21, 1989 survey and
topography map. The second parking lot was built over a portion of the
right-of-way which has been vacated.
Block 2701, Lot 6 - (Belle-Faire Cleaners & Sandra Elizabeth Diaz Bridal Design)
Property has an easement right to Chestnut Street in the rear of the lot
through the adjacent municipally-owned City Hall parking lot.
Funeral Home and Fire House Access Easement:
Block 2706, Lots 2 & 5 - (Bradley, Brough & Dangler Funeral Home)
Lot 2 contains a 20’ wide easement for ingress & egress purposes onto
Broad Street per DB 2802 – PG. 647.
Block 2706, Lot 3 - (Summit Fire Department Headquarters)
Utilizes a 20’ wide easement for ingress & egress purposes on Block 2706,
Lot 2 to gain vehicle access from Broad Street per DB 2802 – PG. 647.
Block 2706, Lot 7 - (St. Teresa’s Church – Memorial Hall)
No access easement but rear lot is flanked by Funeral Home and Fire
Department surface lot that does contain an access easement.
All public properties will be disposed of independently from the private properties.
The City will not intervene with private negotiations and cannot guarantee that these
transactions will occur. Acquisition and integration of private properties is not a requirement
to be qualified for the City-owned property. Respondents that opt to seek qualification for
privately-owned parcels shall provide documentation demonstrating reliable site control,
to be determined at the discretion of the City, as part of their qualifications statement.
Respondents may present a compelling redevelopment vision for other proximate
sites not identified in this RFQ to create a larger assemblage of both public and private
development sites.
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
9
Broad Street West Redevelopment
The City envisions a development proposal that is built on the following core principles
for redevelopment in Summit:
Promotes District Economic Development
--
Seamless connectivity among adjacent commercial corridors through
complementary street level uses and façades.
--
Satisfies market demand for retail and other neighborhood serving uses on
street levels of mixed use buildings.
--
Built infrastructure that allows for future flexibility in response to market
forces.
--
Enhance access to and traffic circulation in and around existing establishments.
--
Pursue a food market and socially oriented uses like dining and entertainment.
Pedestrian-Friendly Streets
--
Streets with physical layouts that can accommodate multiple means of travel
and flexible enough to accommodate various uses (outdoor eating, public
seating, festivals, outdoor markets, etc.).
--
Universally designed sidewalks that are accessible to all users.
--
Create a pleasing pedestrian experience with lighting and other features
designed to increase walkability (decorative paving patterns, street art,
woonerfs, bike racks, etc.).
--
Ensure safe and efficient travel to transit hubs throughout and around the
Planning Area through routes that are intuitive and aesthetically pleasing
--
Foster healthy lifestyle choices by promoting walking as a viable means of
transportation through design and connecting pedestrian networks to key
population centers.
Quality, Usable Open Space
--
Emphasis on well-designed hardscapes with landscaping for each season.
--
Prioritization of community purposes (strolling, lounging, public markets,
special events, etc.) through design and programming.
--
Design that is mindful of opportunities to include green infrastructure, and
providing ample space for pedestrians and flexible uses.
--
Creation of safe and comfortable transitional spaces for pedestrians between
the train station and other modes of transportation.
--
Attention to public enjoyment in the selection of open space features such as
water fountains or programming space.
Civic Engagement
--
An iterative planning process and civic dialogue that represents the City’s
commitment to empowering residents to shape their City and neighborhoods.
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
Request for Qualifications
10
Equitable Development
--
Encourage a diverse range of households in Summit through a redevelopment
strategy that promotes mixed-income housing options.
Residential Set-Aside
Ordinance Reference:
Article 11 - Affordable Housing Multifamily Set-
Aside
Minimum Set-Asides:
15% of total rental units
20% of total for-sale units
Affordability Mix:
Very Low Income: Min. 13% of Affordable units;
Low Income: Min. 50% of Affordable units, within
each bedroom distribution;
Moderate Income: Max. 37% of Affordable units.
Bedroom Mix:
Studio/1-Bed: Max. 20% of Affordable units;
2-Bedroom: Min. 30% of Affordable units;
3-Bedroom: Min. 20% of Affordable units;
Remainder of unit mix within developer’s
discretion.
Control Period:
Minimum of 30 years (deed restriction) for rental
or owner-occupied units.
Other Standards:
Please consult the City’s code for additional
inquiries regarding the required affordability
structure and associated controls.
Non-Residential Development Fee
Ordinance Reference:
City Code, Section 35-10.2
In addition to the minimum inclusionary
requirements
enumerated
above,
non-
residential components shall be subject to a
development fee totaling 2% of the equalized
assessed value of non-residential improvements.
These funds will be deposited within the City’s
Affordable Housing Trust Fund to be used for
housing initiatives throughout the City.
Architecture that is Characteristic of Summit
--
High-quality architecture with traditional scale and styling that emulates
Summit’s architecture and urban design.
--
Mixed use buildings that feature inviting views into both storefronts and
streets.
--
Scale that is suitable to the needs of the project area and complements the
existing conditions of the surrounding built fabric.
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
11
Broad Street West Redevelopment
Environmental + Energy Design
--
Achieve U.S. Green Building Council: Leadership for Environmental and Energy
Deign (LEED) – Neighborhood Development certification standards.
--
Development and design that meets Sustainable Jersey standards and
advances Summit’s standing as one of New Jersey’s most livable and
sustainable communities.
Green Infrastructure
--
Creation of a street tree canopy for the sidewalk to create a more comfortable
environment during hot summer months.
--
Inclusion of planted bio-retention swales and green roofs to add beauty to
public spaces and prevent run-off water from entering the storm management
system.
--
Water conservation through xeriscaping.
Reduce Negative Impact of Car Circulation + Traffic Issues
--
Create synergy between government transportation departments at the state,
county and local level capable of addressing the negative impacts of vehicular
traffic on streets surrounding the site through long-term and cost-efficient
solutions.
--
Utilize traffic abatement strategies and existing transit assets to relieve local
and regional traffic congestion.
--
Create safe on and off-site parking and access solutions that accommodate
safe and pedestrian – oriented streetscapes.
--
Development of bicycle infrastructure on site that connects to existing bicycle
facilities in the City and beyond.
--
Reduce overall automobile traffic in the downtown by promoting transit use
through street design and transportation policy as well as shared car services,
on-demand ride hailing and other substitutions for personal private car usage.
Summit seeks to emulate the successful elements of other popular Transit-Oriented
Developments (TOD) while creating something uniquely characteristic of the City’s character
and residents. Photographs of comparably scaled projects are included herein, chosen
by the public for their architecture, urban design, environmental design, and multimodal
accessibility. Architecture is human-scaled and reflects the mix of contemporary and
traditional design elements that resonate in Summit. Transport modes are seamlessly
integrated, prioritizing non-motorized accessibility and pedestrian safety. Open spaces
create community living rooms that are durable, well-designed, and attractive. Qualified
Respondents will have demonstrated experience in developing innovative transit-oriented
districts with exemplary urban design and architecture.
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
Request for Qualifications
12
Precedent: Architecture
Project: Grandview
Location: Jersey City, NJ
Designers: Marchetto Higgins Stieve
Notes: Human-scaled building which addresses all
street frontages. Eclectic but traditional details and
materials with reserved detailing.
Precedent: Architecture
Project: 10th Avenue E & East Mercer Street
Location: Capital Hill, Seattle, WA
Notes: Lofts and townhouses that mix contemporary
northwest modernism style with traditional urban
brick facades. Traditional human scale modern
large windown and open spaces.
Precedent: Open Space
Project: Oakhurst Park
Location: Kingwood, TX
Designers: Kudela & Weinheimer
Notes: Well-maintained, informal, but deliberately
designed public open green space. Ample seating,
interesting plantings and landscaping with quality
walking paths that encourage pasive usage.
Precedent: Open Space
Project: Findlay Market
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Notes: Flexible, protected open space which can
function for planned programming like a farmers'
market and eveing entertainment, or informal,
unplanned passive recreation.
PRECEDENTS
13
Broad Street West Redevelopment
Precedent: Design
Project: Main Street
Location: East Hampton, NY
Notes: Buildings set back from the curb to allow
for large street trees and flower beds as well as
sidewalk furniture. Expasive sidewalks allow for
temporay programming and activation of the
spaces as desired.
Precedent: Circulation
Project: Princeton Station
Location: Princeton, NJ
Designers: Vanasse Hangen Brustin
Notes: People-oriented design with a balanced
prioritization of various modes of transportation
within the downtown area.
Precedent: Circulation
Location: Downtown Summit, NJ
Notes: Understanding of, and sensitivity to, the
local and regional traffic patterns that impact the
local network. This will require a recognition of
pedestrian safety and circulation, bicycle usage,
service by multiple train lines, and close proximity
to state and national highways.
Precedent: Design
Project: Church Street
Location: Montclair, NJ
Notes: Wide sidewalks that encourage pedestrian
activity and outdoor dining. Street furniture,
plantings, and streetscaping that beautify and invite
people to linger and use the space.
PRECEDENTS
Request for Qualifications
14
DEVELOPMENT TEAM SELECTION
The City of Summit will implement a two-step Developer and Development Team Selection
process generally described below:
Step 1
The respondent will submit qualifications and relevant information only.
The City’s administration and redevelopment professionals will review
qualifications. City administration and redevelopment professionals will
then interview select respondents. Based on an evaluation of the Step
1 submission, the respondent(s) will be invited to submit development
proposals of the publicly-owned and/or other privately-owned parcels
in the Planning Area. The City, at its sole discretion, may determine to
invite one or more qualified respondent(s) to proceed to Step 2 of the
selection process.
Step 2
The short-listed respondent(s) will work collaboratively with the City’s
redevelopment professionals and the public to prepare a full development
proposal that will be integrated into the City’s Redevelopment Plan.
The process for creating the development proposal shall include the
respondent’s facilitation and participation in a civic engagement process
that will be established as part of the public-private partnership with the
City. The objective of the civic engagement process will be to provide
citizens the opportunity for input and feedback, and to build consensus
on the development proposal. The final development proposal will be
incorporated into the City’s Redevelopment Plan for the Planning Area,
to be developed by the redevelopment professionals and approved by
the City Council.
Selection Criteria for the designated developer and development team are as follows:
Developer:
--
Track record and capacity for financing, developing, constructing and
managing mixed-use residential buildings of similar scale.
--
Track record of developing within the public-private partnership framework.
--
Capacity
and
experience
developing
mixed-use/mixed-income
development with a focus on transit and/or multi-modal transportation.
--
Ability to commence project pre-development upon selection.
--
Experience facilitating civic engagement processes in developing approved
redevelopment plans.
15
Broad Street West Redevelopment
Legal Team:
--
Legal team experience and capacity to enter into amicable and successful
public-private partnerships and real estate transactions of similar
complexity.
Design Team:
--
Experience planning and designing award-winning, environmentally-
friendly, transit-oriented, mixed-use projects.
--
Design team should include at minimum a licensed New Jersey architect,
engineer, planner and landscape architect.
Construction Team:
--
Experience completing similar projects in this region on time.
--
Commitment to local hiring practices.
Property Manager:
--
Experience and capacity managing developments of similar sale and
tenancy.
Note: The City, at its sole discretion, may request the developer substitute certain
redevelopment team members. The developer has the right to accept or reject said
requests. However, the selection and designation of the developer is contingent upon the
City’s acceptance and approval of the full development team listed above.
DEVELOPMENT TEAM SELECTION
Request for Qualifications
16
The City is committed to a transparent and informed public-private partnership. Qualified
developers are those that share this commitment and are willing to provide the necessary
due diligence documentation for the City to fully evaluate the qualifications, capacity,
and experience of the development and management team, as well as to undertake the
necessary negotiations in connection with the redevelopment agreement. As such, all
respondents shall provide the following documentation in the following order for Step 1
of the procurement process:
Step 1
1. Table of Contents
2. Corporate Entity (Exhibits Tab A)
a. All formation documents of the developer entity, including the formation
documents, the operating agreement, shareholder agreement, or
partnerships agreement, as applicable, and a current certificate of good
standing;
b. The name, business address, and (as applicable) ownership percentage of
each of the current members and officers of the developer entity;
c. The name and business address of any entity which is currently a manager
or director of the developer entity;
d. The name, business address and ownership percentage of each individual
or entity currently having directly or indirectly, an ownership interest, of ten
percent (10%) or more in the developer entity;
e. The name, business address, and ownership percentage of each individual
or entity currently having, directly or indirectly, an ownership interest of ten
percent (10%) or more in any entity required be disclosed in the preceding
paragraph 4; and
f. The name, business address, and ownership percentage of each of the
members, owners, partners, officers, directors and/or managers of any
legal entity that currently holds an ownership interest disclosed under the
preceding paragraphs 4 and 5.
3. Financial Capacity (Exhibits Tab B)
a. Provide evidence that the developer entity has the financial capacity to
provide the necessary financing and related guarantees to undertake and
complete the development and operations of this project.
4. Site Control (Exhibits Tab C)
a. Respondents requesting qualification for privately-owned parcels should
provide proof of site control, a purchase agreement or similar evidence. If
respondent only seeks to be qualified for the public property, developer
should include a statement indicating the same.
5. Commitment to Civic Engagement (Exhibits Tab D)
a. Respondents shall provide an affirmation that they and their design
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
17
Broad Street West Redevelopment
professional will participate in public workshops. In this section, respondents
shall discuss their experience in community engagement and examples of
successful outcomes.
6. Experience (Exhibits Tab E)
a. Developer:
i. Similar projects (a minimum of five (5)), with project descriptions,
completed within the past seven (7) years.
ii. References three (3) within each of the following categories: Public
Agency, Financial Partner/Investor/Funder/Lender, and Construction
Contractor. Please provide complete contact information.
iii. Resume of key staff that will be involved in this project.
b. Legal Counsel:
i. List the name and contact information.
ii. Similar projects (a minimum of five (5) projects), with project descriptions,
completed with the past seven (7) years.
iii. References three (3) within each of the following categories: Developers
and Public Agency. Please provide complete contact information.
iv. Resumes of key staff that will be involved in this project.
c. Design Team:
i. List the name and contact information for each firm.
ii. Similar projects (a minimum of five (5) projects), with project descriptions,
completed within the past seven (7) years.
iii. References three (3) within each of the following categories: Construction
Contractor and Public Agency. Please provide complete contact
information.
iv. Resumes of key staff that will be involved in this project.
d. Construction Contractor/Construction Manager:
i. List the name and contact information.
ii. Similar projects (a minimum of five (5) projects), with project descriptions,
completed within the past seven (7) years.
iii. References three (3) within each of the following categories: Financial
Partner/Investor/Funder/Lender, Developers and Public Agency. Please
provide complete contact information.
iv. Resumes of key staff that will be involved in this project.
e. Property Manager:
i. Similar projects (a minimum of five (5) projects), with project descriptions,
currently in management portfolio.
ii. Three (3) references. Please provide complete contact information
iii. Resumes of key staff that will be involved in this project.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Request for Qualifications
18
Step 2
(Note: Only short-listed respondent(s) will submit Step 2 requirements.)
In Step 2, the short-listed respondent(s) will provide detailed information
regarding their project proposal that will be collaboratively refined with the
City’s redevelopment professionals. The Step 2 submission materials will be
presented to the City Redevelopment Entity as part of the formal redeveloper
designation process. The submission materials will also be incorporated in the
City’s Redevelopment Plan for the Planning Area, to be developed by the City’s
redevelopment professionals and to be approved by the City Council.
Selected respondent(s) will receive a list of Step 2 requirements as part of
their invitation to submit. The redeveloper will be expected to submit project
budgets and pro formas to demonstrate economic feasibility and to serve as
the basis for negotiations. The designated redeveloper will work with the City
to establish design parameters for the Planning Area, including bulk standards,
site layout, vehicular circulation, and sustainable design features. Specific civic
engagement activities as well as the City’s plans, policies, ordinance and other
requirements will inform these design parameters.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
19
Broad Street West Redevelopment
PROCESS SCHEDULE
Issuance Date:
June 28, 2018
Question Period End:
July 12, 2018
Qualifications Packages Due:
July 26, 2018
All Selected Team Interviews:
August 15 and 16, 2018
**All respondents should ensure their team is available for interviews on August 15th and 16th, 2018.
Request for Qualifications
20
Transmittals
Each respondent shall submit one (1) reproducible original and six (6) copies
of their submission in 8.5x11” format (11x17 pages may be folded). Total
submission must not exceed forty (40) pages. The original and all copies must
be clearly labeled, contain respondent’s return address and contact information.
The face of the package should be labeled “Summit Broad Street West RFQ.” All
costs associated with the submittal requirements are at the sole responsibility
of the respondents.
Submittal Address
All materials and required submittals in connection with this selection process
are to be mailed or delivered in-person, and addressed, as follows:
Michael F. Rogers, City Administrator
Subject: Summit Broad Street West RFQ
512 Springfield Avenue, City Hall
Summit, NJ 07901
RFQ Reviewer Fee
Respondents must include with their submission a non-refundable check to
the City of Summit in the amount of a $750 payment of the City’s review fee.
Respondent Contact Information
The required submittals shall clearly indicate the contact person(s), full contact
information, and the preferred method of contact, in which the respondent is
to be notified of decisions and other matters in connection with this selection
process. Preferred method of contact may include one or two of the following:
phone, regular mail or email.
City Contact Information
Inquiries in connection with this selection process are to be directed to the City
as follows:
Michael F. Rogers, City Administrator
Email: MRogers@cityofsummit.org
Responses to all questions will be made available on the City’s website at:
https://www.cityofsummit.org/. Under no circumstances should any respondent
contact the City or any members of the City’s Selection Team (to be determined)
to request clarification of any concerns in connection with this selection process.
Rights
The City reserves the right to reject any of all submittals in this developers
and development team selection process. The City reserves the right to amend
submittal requirements, including Due Dates, and other materials, as may be
necessary to ensure a competitive and transparent process. All work products
submitted by the respondent as part of the required submittals become the
property of the City. No submissions will be returned to respondents.
OTHER INFORMATION
60 Union St #1N, Newark, NJ 07105
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
BROAD STREET WEST, SUMMIT, NJ
DATE: September 15, 2017
Topology
60 Union St #1N Newark, NJ 07105
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
The City of Summit
512 Springfield Ave Summit, NJ 07901
Mayor
Nora Radest
Administrator
Michael Rogers
Common Council
Mike McTernan, Council President, Ward 1
Dr. Robert J. Rubino, Ward 1
B. David Naidu, Ward 1
Richard Sun, Councilman at Large
Patrick J. Hurley, President Pro tem, Ward 2
Mary Ogden, Ward 2
Stephen E. Bowman, Ward 2
Planning Board
John Kieser
Rick Matias, Assistant City Engineer
David Naidu, Common Council
William Anderson, Chair
James Jay Brinkerhoff, Vice Chair
Jeffrey Wagenbach
Jennifer Balson
Gregory Drummond
John Zucker
Chris Dunn, Alternate I
Greg Vartan, Alternate II
Planning Board Planner
Joe Burgis
Planning Board Councel
Clifford Gibbons
Planning Board Engineer
Andrew Hipolit
Prepared by:
Acknowledgements
__________________________
Philip A. Abramson, AICP/PP
NJ Planner License No. 609600
__________________________
Leigh Anne Hindenlang, AICP/PP
NJ Planner License No. 628600
Introduction................................................................................
Study Authorization
Summary of Findings
Background................................................................................
Legal Authority
Redevelopment Procedure
Progress
Purpose + Scope
Existing Conditions Analysis........................................................
Study Area Description + Context
Existing Zoning
Ownership
Property Taxes
Application of Statutory Criteria..................................................
Introduction
Redevelopment Case Law Principles
Study Area Evaluation..................................................................
Summary of Findings
Study Area - All Lots
Block 1913, Lots 1 & 2 - (Bedosian Rug & Carpet)
Block 1913, Lot 3 - (PNC Bank)
Block 2701, Lot 1 - (Summit City Hall Parking)
Block 2701, Lot 6 - (Belle-Faire Cleaners & Sandra Elizabeth Diaz Bridal Design)
Block 2701, Lot 7 - (Reincarnation Salon)
Block 2701, Lot 8 - (7-Eleven)
Block 2702, Lot 3 - Partial (Vito A. Gallo Senior Building Parking Lot)
Block 2705, Lot 1 - (YMCA)
Block 2705, Lot 2 - (Summit Free Library)
Block 2706, Lot 1 - (Municipal Parking Lot 7)
Block 2706, Lots 2 & 5 - (Bradley, Brough & Dangler Funeral Home)
Block 2706, Lot 3 - (Summit Fire Department Headquarters)
Block 2706, Lot 4 - (Medical Office Building)
Block 2706, Lot 6 - (Otterstedt Agency Office Building)
Block 2706, Lot 7 - (St. Teresa’s Church – Memorial Hall)
Conclusion..................................................................................
Appendix A Resolution No. 37882
Appendix B Map of Study Area
Appendix C Planning Board Resolution
Appendix D Existing Facility Assessment - City of Summit Fire Headquarters
Table of Contents
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
7
9
10
10
12
13
13
13
15
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
34
35
38
Introduction
Study Authorization
The following preliminary investigation has been prepared for the City of Summit Planning Board to deter-
mine whether certain properties qualify as a non-condemnation “area in need of redevelopment” under
N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5. The Mayor and Common Council of Summit authorized the Planning Board, through
resolution No. 37882, annexed hereto as Appendix A, to conduct this preliminary investigation to determine
whether designation of Block 1913, Lots 1, 2 and 3; Block 2701, Lots 1, 6, 7, 8; Block 2702, Lot 3 (partial);
Block 2705, Lots 1 and 2; Block 2706, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 as shown on the official tax map of the City
of Summit (collectively, the “Property”) as “in need of redevelopment” is appropriate and in conformance
with the statutory criteria in N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5.
I2
Lot 2
Lot 1
Chestnut Ave
Broad St
Maple St
Morris Ave
Springfield Ave
Elm St
Locust Dr
Cedar St
Union Pl
Railroad Ave
Beechwood Rd
Prospect St
George St
Railroad Ave
Morri
s A
ve
Block 2702
Block 2701
Block 2706
Block 2705
Block 1913
Summit
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 1
Lot 1
Lot 3
Lot 5
Lot 3
Lot 8
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 7
Lot 6
Lot 1
Lot 4
Lot 6
Lot 7
Lot 2
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0
400
800
200
Feet
N
Current Study Area
Previously Designated
Broad Street West
City Hall
Post Office
Fire House
YMCA
Summary of Findings
The analysis contained within this report will serve as the basis for the recommendation that Block 2701, Lots
1(partial), 6, 7, 8; Block 2702, Lot 3 (partial); Block 2705, Lots 1 and 2(partial); Block 2706, Lots 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, and 7 qualify as a non-condemnation area in need of redevelopment.
1
Library
2
Background
Legal Authority
New Jersey’s Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (the “LRHL”) empowers local governments to initiate a
process by which designated properties that meet certain statutory criteria can be transformed to advance
the public interest. Once an area is designated “in need of redevelopment” in accordance with statutory
criteria, municipalities may adopt redevelopment plans and employ several planning and financial tools to
make redevelopment projects more feasible to remove deleterious conditions. A redevelopment designation
may also qualify projects in the redevelopment area for financial subsidies or other incentive programs of-
fered by the State of New Jersey.
Redevelopment Procedure
The LRHL requires local governments to follow a process involving a series of steps before they may exer-
cise powers under the LRHL. The process is designed to ensure that the public is given adequate notice and
opportunity to participate in the public process. Further, the redevelopment process requires the Governing
Body and Planning Board interact to ensure that all redevelopment actions consider the municipal Master
Plan. The steps required are generally as follows:
A.
The Governing Body must adopt a resolution directing the Planning Board to perform a prelimi-
nary investigation to determine whether a specified area is in need of redevelopment according
to criteria set forth in the LRHL (N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5).
B.
The resolution authorizing the Planning Board to undertake a preliminary investigation shall state
whether the redevelopment area determination shall authorize the municipality to use all those
powers for use in a redevelopment area other than the use of eminent domain (non-condemnation
redevelopment area) or whether the redevelopment area determination shall authorize the munic-
ipality to use all those powers for use in a redevelopment area, including the power of eminent
domain (condemnation redevelopment area).
C.
The Planning Board must prepare and make available a map delineating the boundaries of the
proposed redevelopment area, specifying the parcels to be included and investigated. A state-
ment setting forth the basis of the investigation or the preliminary statement should accompany
this map.
D.
The Planning Board must conduct the investigation and produce a report presenting the findings.
The Board must also hold a duly noticed hearing to present the results of the investigation and to
allow interested parties to give testimony. The Planning Board then may adopt a resolution recom-
mending a course of action to the Governing Body.
E.
The Governing Body may accept, reject, or modify this recommendation by adopting a resolution
designating lands recommended by the Planning Board as an “Area in Need of Redevelopment.”
The Governing Body must make the final determination as to the Non-Condemnation Redevelop-
ment Area boundaries.
F.
If the Governing Body resolution assigning the investigation to the Planning Board states that
the redevelopment determination shall establish a Condemnation Redevelopment Area, then the
notice of the final determination shall indicate that: (i) the determination operates as a finding of
public purpose and authorizes the municipality to exercise the power of eminent domain to ac-
quire property in the redevelopment area, and (ii) legal action to challenge the final determination
must be commenced within forty-five (45) days of receipt of notice and that failure to do so shall
preclude an owner from later raising such challenge.
G.
A Redevelopment Plan may be prepared establishing the goals, objectives, and specific actions to
be taken with regard to the “Area in Need of Redevelopment.”
H.
The Governing Body may then act on the Plan by passing an ordinance adopting the Plan as an
amendment to the municipal Zoning Ordinance.
I.
Only after completion of this process is a municipality able to exercise the powers under the LRHL.
Progress
In satisfaction of Part A above, the City of Summit Common Council adopted Resolution No. 37882 on May
2, 2017. A preliminary investigation map, also dated May 2, 2017, is attached to the amended resolu-
tion and are on file with the Municipal Clerk. On May 22nd, the City of Summit Planning Board passed a
resolution directing Topology NJ, LLC to prepare this preliminary investigation report. The resolutions and
preliminary investigation map, which satisfy Part B above, are included as Appendix A and Appendix B,
respectively.
Purpose + Scope
In accordance with the process outlined above, this Preliminary Investigation will determine whether the
Property (hereinafter referred to as the “Study Area”) within the City of Summit meets the statutory require-
ments under N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5 for designation as an “area in need of redevelopment.” This study was
duly authorized by the Mayor and Common Council and prepared at the request of the City of Summit
Planning Board.
In addition to on-site inspection of property conditions and current land uses, the scope of work for this in-
vestigation also included a review of the following:
3
• Occupancy and ownership status;
• Municipal tax maps/aerial photos;
• Development approvals/permits;
• Property maintenance records;
• Fire and police records;
• Tax assessment data;
• Existing zoning ordinance/map.
To supplement the evaluation of physical and documentary evidence, property owners in the Study Area
were interviewed regarding their property, to communicate the nature of the redevelopment process and to
address preliminary concerns.
4
Existing Conditions Analysis
Study Area Description + Context
The Study Area is located in the geographic center of Summit, at the confluence of three major thorough-
fares in the City: Morris Avenue., Broad Street and Springfield Avenue. A portion of the Study Area is
situated along a below grade segment of the NJ Transit Morris & Essex Line. In fact, three of the seventeen
lots in the Study Area (Lots 1, 2 and 3 in Block 1913) directly abut the NJ Transit right-of-way. It should be
noted that in 2014 the Summit City Council and Planning Board determined that Lots 1 (the Post Office)
and 2 (public parking lot) in Block 2702, contiguous with the Study Area, satisfied the criteria and were
declared a Non-Condemnation Area in Need of Redevelopment.
Less than 600 feet from New Jersey Transit’s Summit Station which offers a direct one-seat ride to New York
City’s Penn Station, the Study Area enjoys a location with many strategic planning benefits. At 3,638 aver-
age weekday boardings Summit Station is one of the busiest along the Morris & Essex Line. In addition to
the proximate commuter rail station, three NJ Transit bus lines--the 70, 78 and 986, run through the Study
Area and provide additional public transit options. These bus lines provide service to Newark, Livingston,
and Plainfield. For these reasons, Summit was the 27th municipality to be designated a “Transit Village” by
the New Jersey Department of Transportation. The “Transit Village” designation confers certain benefits that
will facilitate redevelopment of the Study Area. These include direct grants from NJDOT for infrastructure
improvements as well as additional incentives for redevelopers and/or commercial tenants to implement
transit-oriented development projects that will concentrate population densities around commuter nodes and
create attractive, vibrant, and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.
The Study Area, represents a major hub of civic life in Summit. The area contains the City’s municipal com-
plex, the Summit Free Public Library, the Fire Department, a 125-unit senior housing complex managed by
the Summit Housing Authority, the local YMCA and is adjacent to the Post Office. In addition, located just
across Maple Street from the Study Area is the City’s historic Village Green, containing almost 6 acres of
public open space that is used for passive recreation and community events. Saint Theresa’s Church and the
Central Presbyterian Church directly abut the Study Area and the City’s Middle School sits caddy corner to
its southeastern edge. Finally, the Central Retail Business District (CRBD) and the heart of Downtown Summit
is located north and east of the study area, across the NJ Transit right-of-way.
The fact that the Study Area is located at the confluence of major transportation networks and within the
City’s most significant concentration of civic and institutional assets underscores the importance of redevel-
opment, particularly given the current layout and development patterns. In addition to the aforementioned
civic uses and a few relatively isolated commercial uses, the study area is otherwise dominated by surface
parking lots. The area lacks the qualities and amenities that make for a comfortable pedestrian environment
and is divided by regional arterial routes, some of which carry almost 15,000 vehicles per day1. The lack of
a rational street grid--created by irregularly shaped blocks and the rail right-of-way and the prevalence of
major thoroughfares, inhibits mobility to, through and within the Study Area.
1 In January 2013, NJDOT conducted counts in vicinity of the Study Area, which found an average daily traffic volume
of 13,600 vehicles was recorded for Morris Avenue; 14,859 along Broad Street, and 9,655 along Springfield Avenue.
Existing Zoning
All parcels in Blocks 1913, 2701, 2702 and 2706 of the Study Area lie in the B (Business Zone) district,
which permits a range of retail and commercial uses and is intended for the conduct of general business to
which the public requires direct and frequent access as prime customers, clients, or patients. The B district
currently allows for the construction of buildings up to three stories with a floor-to-area ratio (FAR) up to
seventy-five percent. Block 2705 lies in the City’s PL (Public Lands Zone) district, which is intended to provide
a separate and distinct zoning category for lands in public use and for limited quasi-public uses, such as
houses of worship and for nonprofit use. Buildings in the PL district may be up to forty-eight (48) feet tall.
5
5
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 1
Lot 1
Lot 3
Lot 5
Lot 3
Lot 8
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 7
Lot 6
Lot 1
Lot 4
Lot 6
Lot 7
Lot 2
Block 2702
Block 2701
Block 2706
Block 1913
Block 2705
Chestnut Ave
Broad St
Maple St
Morris Ave
Springfield Ave
Elm St
Locust Dr
Cedar St
Union Pl
Railroad Ave
Beechwood Rd
George St
Prospect St
Kent Pl
a
ce
B
lv
d
Railroad Ave
Morris Ave
Summit
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0
400
800
200
Feet
N
Zoning:
B - Business
PL - Public Land
Study Area Zoning
6
Study Area Zoning Districts
B: Business Zone
Principal Permitted Uses
USE: Retail sales, except drive-thru facilities are prohibited; Offices; Restaurants and other eating
establishments, except drive-thru or drive-through facilities shall not be permitted; Financial insti-
tutions, except drive-thru facilities are prohibited; Residential uses above the first floor; Theaters;
Personal service facilities; Retail service facilities; Dance schools and studios; Health clubs; Lodges
and social clubs; Funeral parlors; Institutional uses; Automobile sales.
Conditional Uses
USE: Adult day care; Gasoline service stations; Automobile service stations; Automotive repair;
House of worship
Yard Requirements (Minimum)
Height & Development (Maximum)
Lot Area Min Sq. Ft.
NONE
Lot Coverage
90%
Lot Width Min. Ft.
NONE
Floor Area Ratio
75%
Front Yard Min. Ft.
NONE
Building Coverage
30%
Rear Yard Min. Ft.
NONE
Maximum Height
3 Stories / 42 FT
Side Yard Min. Ft Ea. Side
NONE
Density—Units per Acre
NONE
Min. Total Side Yard
NONE
PL : Public Lands Zone
Principal Permitted Uses
USE: Institutional uses; detached single-family dwellings subject to requirements and standards as
provided in the R-10 Zone; public parks and playgrounds subject to requirements and standards
as provided in the R-10 Zone.
Conditional Uses
USE: House of worship; educational institutions
Yard Requirements (Minimum)
Height & Development (Maximum)
Lot Area Min Sq. Ft.
15,000
Lot Coverage
90%
Lot Width Min. Ft.
100
Floor Area Ratio
NONE
Front Yard Min. Ft.
25
Building Coverage
50%
Rear Yard Min. Ft.
25
Maximum Height
3 Stories / 48ft
Side Yard Min. Ft Ea. Side
12
Density—Units per Acre
NONE
Min. Total Side Yard
25%
7
Ownership
A review of the City’s property tax records was conducted for properties in the Study Area to determine
current ownership information. The table below shows the most current ownership records based on 2017
records from the New Jersey Division of Taxation. It is important to note that a third of the study area is
owned by the City of Summit.
Chestnut Ave
Broad St
Maple St
Morris Ave
Springfield Ave
Elm St
Locust Dr
Cedar St
Union Pl
Railroad Ave
Beechwood Rd
George St
Prospect St
Kent Pl
a
ce
Bl
v
d
Railroad Ave
Morris Ave
Summit
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0
400
800
200
Feet
N
Ownership
City of Summit
Summit Area
YMCA
Warner
Fam LLC
Housing Auth.
of Summit
Southland
Corporation
Trugman, R.
Elizabeth
Catherine
Albar
Realty
Summit Free
Public Library
503 Springfield
Ave. Assocs.
299 Morris
Ave. Assocs.
299 Morris Ave. Assocs.
City of Summit
St. Teresa’s R.C.
Church
291 Morris
Ave, LLC
City of Summit
8
*B = Business District
*PL = Public Lands District
Block
Lot
Zoning*
Property
Class**
Area
(Acres)
Address
Owner
Bedrosinan Rugs
1913
1
B
4A
0.16
503 Springfield
Avenue
503 Springfield
Ave. Assocs, LLC
Bedrosinan Rugs
1913
2
B
4A
0.36
503 Springfield
Avenue
503 Springfield
Ave. Assocs, LLC
PNC Bank
1913
3
B
4A
0.55
509-517 Springfield
Avenue
Warner Fam LLC
PNC Bank Natl Tax
City Hall
2701
1
B
15C
2.27
512 Springfield
Avenue
City of Summit
Belle Faire Cleaners
2701
6
B
4A
0.12
7 Chestnut Avenue
Elizabeth Catherine,
Inc.
Reincarnation Salon
2701
7
B
4A
0.09
417-419 Broad Street
Trugman, R.A/K/A
Salon Reincarnation
7-Eleven
2701
8
B
4A
0.43
317 Morris Avenue
Southland Corpora-
tion - Corp Tax
Senior Building Parking Lot 2702
3 (partial)
B
15C
0.33
12 Chestnut Avenue
The Housing Au-
thority of Summit
YMCA
2705
1
PL
15D
0.74
35 Maple Street
The Summit Area
YMCA
Free Public Library
2705
2
PL
15C
1.80
75 Maple Street
The City of Summit
Municipal Lot 7
2706
1
B
15C
0.74
406 Broad Street
City of Summit
Funeral Home Driveway
2706
2
B
4A
0.07
402 Broad Street
299 Morris Avenue
Associates LLC
Fire House
2706
3
B
15C
0.64
384-92 Broad Street
City of Summit
Medical Offices
2706
4
B
4A
0.16
7 Cedar Street
Albar Realty LLC
Funeral Home
2706
5
B
4A
0.6
299 Morris Avenue
299 Morris Avenue
Associates LLC
Otterstedt Insurance
2706
6
B
4A
0.25
293 Morris Avenue
291 Morris Avenue,
LLC
Memorial Hall
2706
7
B
15D
0.29
303 Morris Avenue
St. Teresa’s Roman
Catholic Church
TOTAL:
9.60
**Class 4A = Commercial
**Class 15C = Exempt Public Property
**Class 15D = Exempt Church & Charitable Property
Table of Ownership by Block + Lot
9
Property Taxes
Property tax records from the State of New Jersey Division of Taxation’s 2017 database were analyzed to
determine the assessed value of each property in the Study Area and current property taxes. The value of
the land, improvements thereon and the net taxable value for all seventeen parcels is displayed in the table
below. It should be noted that over half (8.3 acres) of the study area is exempt from taxation and therefore
provide no rateables for the City. Additionally, parcels with surface parking within the study area creates
significantly lower overall assessed values when compared with nearby improved sites.
2016 Taxes
Acres
Tax/Acre
Total Tax
County &
Open Space
Local School
District
Municipal
Public
Library
CRBD-District
14.9
$246,032
$3,674,245
$1,065,283
$1,829,007
$714,176
$65,779
Business(B)-Dis-
trict
59.9
$66,968
$4,008,413
$1,162,169
$1,995,353
$779,129
$71,762
Manufacturing
(MFT)-District
15.6
$123,342
$1,925,155
$558,165
$958,325
$374,199
$34,466
Study Area
11.5
$17,411
$199,722
$57,906
$99,420
$38,821
$3,576
Study Area (less
tax exempt)
3.1
$63,606
$199,722
$57,906
$99,420
$38,821
$3,576
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 1
Lot 1
Lot 3
Lot 5
Lot 3
Lot 8
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 7
Lot 6
Lot 1
Lot 4
Lot 6
Lot 7
Lot 2
Block 2702
Block 2701
Block 2706
Block 1913
Block 2705
Chestnut Ave
Broad St
Maple St
Morris Ave
Springfield Ave
Elm St
Locust Dr
Cedar St
Union Pl
Railroad Ave
Beechwood Rd
George St
Prospect St
Kent Pl
a
ce
Bl
v
d
Railroad Ave
Morris Ave
Summit
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0
400
800
200
Feet
N
Study Area
17 Lots
9.60 Acres
13 Owners
$44,770,800 Assessed Value
$4,576,200 Private Property
$199,722 Taxes in 2016
10
Block
Lot
Assessed
Land Value
Assessed Improve-
ment Value
Net Assessed
Value
Prior Year Taxes
(2016)
Bedrosinan Rugs
1913
1 + 2
$268,800
$140,700
$409,500
$18,439.79
PNC Bank
1913
3
$554,400
$471,600
$1,026,000
$46,200.78
City Hall
2701
1
$1,500,000
$10,000,000
$1,1500,000
0
Belle Faire Cleaners
2701
6
$187,200
$257,000
$444,200
$19,105.04
Reincarnation Salon
2701
7
$140,000
$119,500
$259,500
$11,161.1
7-Eleven
2701
8
$333,600
$147,100
$480,700
$20,674.91
Senior Building Parking Lot
2702
3
$1,395,000
$5,938,200
$7,333,200
Exempt
YMCA
2705
1
$1,010,800
$11,331,300
$12,342,100
Exempt
Free Public Library
2705
2
$1,780,000
$3,978,100
$5,758,100
Exempt
Municipal Lot 7
2706
1
$384,000
$15,000
$399,000
Exempt
Funeral Home Driveway
2706
2
$15,000
$2,000
$17,000
731.17
Fire House
2706
3
$490,500
$1,552,900
$2,043,400
Exempt
Medical Offices
2706
4
$250,900
$426,900
$677,800
$29,152.18
Funeral Home
2706
5
$500,000
$100,000
$600,000
$2,5806
Otterstedt Insurance
2706
6
$371,500
$290,000
$661,500
$2,8451.12
Memorial Hall
2706
7
$222,800
$596,000
$818,800
Exempt
TOTAL
$ 9,404,500
$35,366,300
$44,770,800
$199,722.09
Application of Statutory Criteria
Introduction
The “Blighted Areas Clause” of the New Jersey Constitution empowers municipalities to undertake a wide
range of activities to effectuate redevelopment of blighted areas:
“The clearance, replanning, development or redevelopment of blight areas shall be a public purpose
and public use, for which private property may be taken or acquired. Municipal, public or private
corporations may be authorized by law to undertake such clearance, replanning, development or
redevelopment; and improvements made for these purposes and uses, or for any of them, may be
exempted from taxation, in whole or in part, for a limited period of time… The conditions of use,
ownership, management and control of such improvements shall be regulated by law,” NJ Const. Art.
VIII, Section 3, Paragraph 1.
The New Jersey Local Redevelopment and Housing Law implements this provision of the New Jersey Consti-
tution, by authorizing municipalities to, among other things, designate certain parcels as “in need of rede-
velopment,” adopt redevelopment plans to effectuate the revitalization of those areas and enter agreements
with private parties seeking to redevelop blighted areas. Under the relevant sections of the LRHL (N.J.S.A.
40A:12A-1 et. seq.), a delineated area may be determined to be “in need of redevelopment” if the governing
body concludes there is substantial evidence that the parcels exhibit any one of the following characteristics:
A.
The generality of buildings are substandard, unsafe, unsanitary, dilapidated, or obsolescent, or
possess any of such characteristics, or are so lacking in light, air, or space, as to be conducive to
unwholesome living or working conditions.
B.
The discontinuance of the use of buildings previously used for commercial, manufacturing, or
industrial purposes; the abandonment of such buildings; or the same being allowed to fall into so
great a state of disrepair as to be untenantable.
11
C.
Land that is owned by the municipality, the county, a local housing authority, redevelopment agen-
cy or redevelopment entity, or unimproved vacant land that has remained so for a period of ten
years prior to adoption of the resolution, and that by reason of its location, remoteness, lack of
means of access to developed sections or portions of the municipality, or topography, or nature of
the soil, is not likely to be developed through the instrumentality of private capital.
D.
Areas with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, over-
crowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive
land coverage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other fac-
tors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.
E.
A growing lack or total lack of proper utilization of areas caused by the condition of the title,
diverse ownership of the real properties therein or similar conditions, which impede land assem-
blage or discourage the undertaking of improvements, resulting in a stagnant and unproductive
condition of land potentially useful and valuable for contributing to and serving the public health,
safety and welfare, which condition is presumed to be having a negative social or economic
impact or otherwise being detrimental to the safety, health, morals or welfare of the surrounding
area or the community in general. (As amended by P.L. 2013, Chapter 159, approved September
6, 2013).
F.
Areas, in excess of five contiguous acres, whereon buildings or improvements have been de-
stroyed, consumed by fire, demolished or altered by the action of storm, fire, cyclone, tornado,
earthquake or other casualty in such a way that the aggregate assessed value of the areas has
been materially depreciated.
G.
In any municipality in which an enterprise zone has been designated pursuant to the New Jersey
Urban Enterprise Zones Act, P.L. 1983, c. 303 (C.52:27H-60 et seq.) the execution of the actions
prescribed in that act for the adoption by the municipality and approval by the New Jersey Urban
Enterprise Zone Authority of the zone development plan for the area of the enterprise zone shall
be considered sufficient for the determination that the area is in need of redevelopment pursuant
to sections 5 and 6 of P.L. 1992, c. 79 (C.40A:12A-5 and 40A:12A-6) for the purpose of grant-
ing tax exemptions within the enterprise zone district pursuant to the provisions of P.L. 1991, c.
431 (C.40A:20-1 et seq.) or the adoption of a tax abatement and exemption ordinance pursuant
to the provisions of P.L. 1991, c. 441 (C.40A:21-1 et seq.). The municipality shall not utilize any
other redevelopment powers within the urban enterprise zone unless the municipal governing
body and planning board have also taken the actions and fulfilled the requirements prescribed in
P.L. 1992, c. 79 (C.40A:12A-1 et al.) for determining that the area is in need of redevelopment or
an area in need of rehabilitation and the municipal governing body has adopted a redevelopment
plan ordinance including the area of the enterprise zone.
H.
The designation of the delineated area is consistent with smart growth planning principles adopt-
ed pursuant to law or regulation.
It should be noted that, under the definition of “redevelopment area” and “area in need of redevelopment” in
the LRHL, individual properties, blocks or lots that do not meet any of the statutory conditions may still be in-
cluded within an area in need of redevelopment provided that within the area as a whole, one or more of the
expressed conditions are prevalent. This provision is referred to as “Section 3” and is set forth under N.J.S.A.
40A:12A-3, which states that:
“a redevelopment area may include lands, buildings, or improvements which of themselves are
not detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, but the inclusion of which is found necessary,
with or without change in this condition, for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they
are a part.”
12
Redevelopment Case Law Principles
The New Jersey Local Redevelopment and Housing Law has been interpreted extensively by the New Jersey
State courts with regard to the specific application of the redevelopment criteria established under N.J.S.A.
40A:12A-5. The bulk of the case law relevant to this analysis has addressed: 1) the minimum evidentiary
standard required to support a governing body’s finding of blight; and 2) the definition of blight that would
satisfy both the State Constitution and the LRHL.
Standard of Proof: According to the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision, Gallenthin Realty v. Borough
of Paulsboro (2007), a “municipality must establish a record that contains more than a bland recitation of
the application of the statutory criteria and declaration that those criteria are met.” In Gallenthin, the Court
emphasized that municipal redevelopment designations are only entitled to deference if they are supported
by substantial evidence on the record. It is for this reason that the analysis herein is based on a specific and
thoughtful application of the plain meaning of the statutory criteria to the condition of the parcels within the
Study Area as they currently exist. The standard of proof established by the Court in Gallenthin was later
upheld in Cottage Emporium v. Broadway Arts Ctr. LLC (N.J. App. Div. 2010).
The Meaning of Blight: The Supreme Court in Gallenthin emphasized that only parcels that are truly
“blighted” should be designated as “in need of redevelopment” and clarified that parcels designated under
criterion “e” should be underutilized due to the “condition of the title, diverse ownership of the real proper-
ties.” Prior to this decision, municipalities had regularly interpreted criterion “e” to have a broader meaning
that would encompass all properties that were not put to optimum use and may have been more financially
beneficial if redeveloped. Gallenthin ultimately served to constrict the scope of properties that were once
believed to qualify as an “area in need of redevelopment” under subsection (e). On the other hand, in 62-64
Main Street LLC v. Mayor & Council of the City of Hackensack (2015), the Court offered a clarification that
resisted an overly narrow interpretation, “[this Court has] never stated that an area is not blighted unless it
‘negatively affects surrounding properties’ because, to do so, would undo all of the legislative classifications
of blight established before and after the ratification of the Blighted Areas Clause.” The Hackensack case is
largely perceived as having restored a generally expansive view of the Housing and Redevelopment Law,
except as restricted by the Gallenthin interpretation of subsection (e).
Surface Parking & “Obsolescence”
In Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Mayor and Council of the Borough of Princeton (2004), the New Jersey Ap-
pellate Division affirmed that a downtown surface parking lot met the requirements for an area in need of
redevelopment under “Criterion D” based on substantial evidence that a surface parking lot, in itself, was
evidence of “obsolescence.” Generally speaking, the court defined obsolescence, in the context of Criteria
D, as “the process of falling into disuse and relates to the usefulness and public acceptance of a facility.”
Concerned Citizens v. Princeton, citing Spruce Manor Enter. V. Bor. Of Bellmawr (Law Div. 1998). More
specifically, the Court concurred with municipal experts on certain key conclusions that are analogous to the
conditions present within the Study Area:
• Surface parking represented “yesterday’s solution” in downtowns where “structured parking is now
the standard.” This aspect of the court’s reasoning directly implies that obsolescence is relative to the
location of the parcel and accepted industry practices for the use, design and development thereof.
• The parking lot, which was assembled over time, had an irregular shape that lead to an inefficient
configuration and inhibited the types of “urban center” uses that would fulfill Princeton’s redevelop-
ment objectives.
• Redevelopment was projected to support economic development and create a more orderly and us-
able layout. The court found these benefits to “serve the public health, safety, and welfare of the entire
community.”
13
Many of these factors are present throughout the Study Area and, similar to the area of downtown Princeton
considered by the court, the negative impacts of obsolete surface parking facilities contribute to a process of
stagnation within the Study Area.
Study Area Evaluation
The following is an evaluation of the study area properties against the statutory criteria described above for
designation as an “area in need of redevelopment.” The evaluations were based on a review of property
conditions, occupancy, ownership status, and a review of other relevant data.
Summary of Findings
The table below summarizes this report’s findings with regard to the statutory criteria’s applicability to each
parcel within the Study Area:
Study Area - All Lots
Criterion H applies to all properties that either meet other criteria or are determined to be necessary for
the effective redevelopment under Section 3. Criterion H states: “the designation of the delineated area is
consistent with smart growth planning principles adopted pursuant to law or regulation.” The Smart Growth
principles crafted by the Smart Growth Network and cited by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency include:
• Mix land uses.
• Take advantage of compact building design.
• Create a range of housing opportunities and choices.
• Create walkable neighborhoods.
• Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place.
• Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas.
• Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities.
• Provide a variety of transportation choices.
• Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective.
The Study Area’s proximity to public transit, both bus and commuter rail lines, provides for a variety of
transportation options. This transit rich location is ideal for the promotion of smart growth principles that
encourage compact building design, creating a range of housing options, and supporting a walkable area.
14
Block
Lot
Acreage
Criteria
Section 3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Bedrosinan Rugs
1913
1
0.33
X
Bedrosinan Rugs
1913
2
2.27
X
PNC Bank
1913
3
0.12
X
City Hall
2701
1 (partial)
0.09
X
X
Belle Faire Cleaners
2701
6
0.43
X
X
X
Reincarnation Salon
2701
7
0.16
X
X
7-Eleven
2701
8
0.36
X
X
Senior Building Parking Lot
2702
3 (partial)
0.55
X
X
YMCA
2705
1
0.74
X
X
Free Public Library
2705
2 (partial)
0.07
X
X
Municipal Lot 7
2706
1
0.64
X
X
X
Funeral Home Driveway
2706
2
0.16
X
X
Fire House
2706
3
0.60
X
X
X
Medical Offices
2706
4
0.25
X
X
Funeral Home
2706
5
0.29
X
X
Otterstedt Insurance
2706
6
0.74
X
X
Memorial Hall
2706
7
1.80
X
X
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 1
Lot 1
Lot 3
Lot 5
Lot 3
Lot 8
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 7
Lot 6
Lot 1
Lot 4
Lot 6
Lot 7
Lot 2
Block 2702
Block 2701
Block 2706
Block 1913
Block 2705
Chestnut Ave
Broad St
Maple St
Morris Ave
Springfield Ave
Elm St
Locust Dr
Cedar St
Union Pl
Railroad Ave
Beechwood Rd
George St
Prospect St
Kent Pl
a
ce
Bl
v
d
Railroad Ave
Morris Ave
Summit
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0
400
800
200
Feet
N
Study Area
15
Block 1913, Lots 1 & 2 - (Bedrosian Rug & Carpet)
Bedosian Rug & Carpet
Block 1913, Lots 1 & 2 contain a single-story commercial retail structure and seven-spot parking lot. The back
of the lot is directly adjacent to the commuter rail right-of-way. The retail location that fronts on Springfield
Avenue is owner-occupied and houses a carpet and rug store. The building and façade are in good condi-
tion. New retail windows were installed in 2008 and the stucco facade was updated as recently as 2015.
Based upon an inspection of the property and an examination of construction and inspection records, Block
1913, Lots 1 & 2 do not meet any of the criteria under the LRHL. While access was not gained into the build-
ing, the exterior of the structure and improvements to the site appear to be in good condition.
Lot 1
Lot 3
Lot 2
Lot 1
Chestnut Ave
Springfield Ave
Kent Place Blvd
Morris Ave
Deforest Ave
Nor
wood Ave
Morris Ave
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0
200
400
100
Feet
N
Bedosian Rug + Carpet
Lot 1
Lot 3
Lot 2
Lot 1
Chestnut Ave
Morris Ave
Springfield Ave
Kent Place Blvd
Deforest Ave
Nor
w
ood Ave
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0
200
400
100
Feet
N
Block 1913, Lot 3 - (PNC Bank)
PNC Bank
Block 1913, Lot 3 contains a commercial bank location on a 0.55 acre site. A twenty-spot parking lot on
the site serves bank employees and customers. The building also includes a drive-thru banking use. The
commercial bank on the site was built in 2009 and is in good condition. The site is well-maintained and the
16
Block 2701, Lot 1 - Partial (Summit City Hall Parking)
Lot 1
Lot 1
Lot 3
Lot 8
Lot 2
Lot 1
Lot 6
Lot 7
Chestnut Ave
Springfield Ave
Broad St
Morris Ave
George St
Locust Dr
Morris Ave
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0
200
400
100
Feet
N
Summit City Hall Parking
Based upon an inspection of the property and an examination of construction and inspection records, Block
2701, Lot 1 meets the following criteria under the LRHL:
Criterion D: Areas with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, over-
crowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land cov-
erage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental
to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.
The City of Summit City Hall has two parking lots that serve employees and visitors. The lot just east of the
City Hall building is a surface parking lot that has access both from Chestnut Avenue and Springfield Ave-
nue. Historically, Chestnut Avenue connected Broad Street with Springfield Avenue. Over time, the Chestnut
Avenue right-of-way was incorporated into the City Hall parcel, appropriating the former public street into
a drive lane that terminates without warning in the City’s parking lot. A driver can still use Chestnut Avenue
and the parking lot to provide access between Springfield Avenue and Broad Street, but it requires a much
more dangerous and hazardous route. This resulting circulation pattern requires ninety degree turns through
the parking lot. The street is neither marked not delineated in a way that makes it clear to parking lot users
or pedestrians walking to and from their cars that there is in fact a through street (or not) that passes through
the lot.
The second parking lot to the south and east of City Hall has direct access to Chestnut Avenue and is ad-
jacent to Block 2701, Lot 6. Vehicles leaving the lot have the option of turning right to access Broad Street
or turning left in order to cut through the other City Hall parking lot to access Springfield Avenue. Before
site design provides for landscaping and clear circulation markings. The façade is free of any visible signs
of deterioration.
Based upon an inspection of the property and an examination of construction and inspection records, Block
1913, Lot 3 does not meet any of the criteria under the LRHL. While access was not gained into the building,
the exterior of the structure and improvements to the site appear to be in good condition.
17
the construction of City Hall, Chestnut Avenue connected Broad Street and Springfield Avenue, acting as a
through-street. While the parking lot was built over a portion of the right of way, the street was never formally
vacated and is still mapped as a though-street on official City maps and still functions as a means of getting
from Broad Street to Springfield Avenue. This lot exacerbates the circulation issues created by the pseudo
through-street nature of Chestnut Avenue. Improvements on both lots consist almost entirely of surface park-
ing, with limited pedestrian and landscaped area. Impervious coverage, primarily blacktop, occupies nearly
the entire area of the parking lots. The configuration of the parking areas, and internal circulation exhibit a
faulty arrangement and design, which in turn contributes to conflicts between motorists and pedestrians. This
is detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public at large. Furthermore, the use of this lot
as a surface parking lot adjacent to a thriving downtown district is, in itself, significant to this analysis. As
articulated in Concerned Citizens (above), the use of this lot as a surface parking lot within what should part
of a thriving downtown district is, in itself, significant to this analysis.
While the City Hall Building was not found to meet any criteria under the LRHL, based on the foregoing,
sufficient evidence exists to conclude that the current use and conditions of the parking lot in Block 2702, Lot
3 support designation under “Criterion D.” The lot is an outdated and unplanned land use that evolved over
time in a way that resulted in an inefficient, unsafe, and obsolete surface parking facility.
Block 2701, Lot 6 - (Belle-Faire Cleaners & Sandra Elizabeth Diaz Bridal Design)
Lot 1
Lot 1
Lot 8
Lot 6
Lot 3
Lot 7
Lot 6
Lot 7
Lot 5
Lot 4
Lot 2
Chestnut Ave
Broad St
Morris Ave
Locust Dr
Springfield Ave
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0
150
300
75
Feet
N
Belle-Faire Cleaners & Sandra Elizabeth Diaz Bridal Design
Block 2701, Lot 6 contains a two-story mixed-use structure on a 0.12 acre parcel. The ground floor of the
building houses two retail storefronts that front Chestnut Avenue. A dry cleaner and a bridal design shop
occupy the ground floor. The second story has residential units that are accessed through the back of the
property. The service parking and loading areas are in the back of the property and can only be accessed
via the adjacent City Hall parking lot.
Based upon an inspection of the property, an examination of construction and inspection records as well as
an interview with the property owner Block 2701, Lot 6 meets the following criteria under the LRHL:
Criterion D: Areas with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, over-
crowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land cov-
18
One significant observation is the lack of parking for the second-story residential units, which would support
a conclusion of obsolescence. Parking is generally demanded by the marketplace and is required by the
City’s zoning code for all new residential dwellings. Upon inspection of the building, several signs of deteri-
oration were observed both on the façade of the building and building improvements. The stucco façade of
the building shows signs of water infiltration and is spalled, which could have been caused over time by im-
proper drainage of window air conditioning units. On the retail storefront of the building, the painted finish
on metal panels of the storefront facades shows significant signs of wear and are in need of maintenance.
Roof gutters and drainpipes were found to be detached from the building façade and in need of repair.
Inspection of the side and rear facades of the building revealed multiple furnace exhaust pipes projecting
through the one-story roof. One of the pipes leading into the one-story roof shows significant corrosion.
Furthermore, the parking area located at the rear of the building is not striped and the commercial refuse
was not stored in an appropriate enclosure. The rear staircase, presumably second means of egress for the
second-floor residential units, shows signs of multiple repair attempts and is likely in need of replacement
Taken together, the configuration of the existing improvements and faulty parking arrangement as well as its
erage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental
to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.
While access to the interior of the building was not gained, an external inspection of the property supports
the finding that the existing structure shows signs of obsolescence and the site design exhibits a faulty ar-
rangement. Based on a review of historic Sanborn maps and current aerial photographs, it appears the
current mixed-use structure is largely an addition to an existing frame dwelling that was observed in maps
as early as 1903. This unique aspect of the existing building’s history would explain the multitude of physical
adaptations – the structure is in itself an adaption, not initially constructed for the purpose it ultimately came
to serve.
Chestnut Ave. Area 1903
19
dilapidated and obsolete nature of the structure provide sufficient evidence to designate Block 2701, Lot 6
under “Criterion D.”
Criterion E: A growing lack or total lack of proper utilization of areas caused by the condition of the title,
diverse ownership of the real properties therein or similar conditions, which impede land assemblage or
discourage the undertaking of improvements, resulting in a stagnant and unproductive condition of land
potentially useful and valuable for contributing to and serving the public health, safety and welfare, which
condition is presumed to be having a negative social or economic impact or otherwise being detrimental to
the safety, health, morals or welfare of the surrounding area or the community in general. (As amended by
P.L. 2013, Chapter 159, approved September 6, 2013).
The back of the building on Block 2701, Lot 6 has a parking area and rear entrance for deliveries, trash
and service functions. Access to the rear of the lot is only provided through the adjacent municipally-owned
City Hall parking lot. The property owner enjoys an easement right to access the back of the property via the
municipal parking lot. Over time, the use of this building and the back area evolved to be interdependent on
the basis of access arrangements that allowed for the continued use of this and adjacent property. Diverse
ownership across these interdependent properties impedes the viable redevelopment of both Lot 3 and dis-
courages the further improvement of the adjacent City owned surface parking lot. Based on the foregoing,
the conditions of title surrounding this parcel and the adjacent City lot results in a stagnant or unproductive
condition upon land potentially valuable for contributing to the public welfare, as contemplated in “Criterion
E.”
Block 2701, Lot 7 - (Reincarnation Salon)
Lot 1
Lot 1
Lot 8
Lot 6
Lot 7
Lot 6
Lot 7
Lot 5
Lot 2
Lot 3
Chestnut Ave
Broad St
Morris Ave
Locust Dr
Springfield Ave
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0
150
300
75
Feet
N
Reincarnation Salon
Block 2701, Lot 7 contains a one-story structure with a retail storefront on a 0.09 acre parcel. Rob Trugman’s
Reincarnation Salon occupies the retail location. The building is owner-occupied and located on the corner
of Chestnut Avenue and Broad Street. There is a small four-space parking lot on the west side of the building
that is used by the salon.
Access was gained into the building and both the exterior and interior of the structure appear to be in good
condition. Based upon an inspection of the property and an examination of construction and inspection re-
cords Block 2701, Lot 7 does not meet any of the criteria under the LRHL, per se.
However, Block 2701, Lot 7 should be designated as an area in need of redevelopment because it fits within
the intent and purpose of Section 3 (N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-3): “buildings…which of themselves are not detri-
mental to public health, safety or welfare, but the inclusion of which is found necessary…for the effective
redevelopment of the area of which they are a part.” Due to the size, shape and configuration of adjacent
parcels within Block 2701, it is reasonable to find the parcel necessary for the effective development of the
study area.
20
Block 2701, Lot 8 - (7-Eleven)
Lot 1
Lot 1
Lot 8
Lot 7
Lot 6
Lot 7
Lot 2
Lot 5
Chestnut Ave
Morris Ave
Broad St
Locust Dr
Springfield Ave
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0
150
300
75
Feet
N
7-Eleven
Block 2701, Lot 8 is a 0.43 acre corner lot that is located at the intersection of Broad Street and Morris Av-
enue. The lot is currently occupied by a 7-Eleven convenience market that is open twenty-four hours a day.
The single-story commercial building is situated at the back of the lot, making way for an eighteen-space
parking lot at the front of the site that is used by customers and store employees. The parking lot provides for
two points of access: directly onto Broad Street and Morris Avenue. The lot is adjacent to two commercial
structures to the east and surrounded by City Hall and one of City Hall’s parking lots to the northeast, north
and northwest. The convenience store itself is less than seven feet from the City Hall building, which is directly
behind the structure.
Based upon an inspection of the property and an examination of construction and inspection records Block
2701, Lot 8 meets the following criteria under the LRHL:
Criterion D: Areas with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, over-
crowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land cov-
erage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental
to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.
The arrangement and design of the site is faulty and found to be detrimental to the safety, health, morals and
welfare of the community. The irregularly shaped lot contains a front-yard parking lot consisting of eighteen
spaces without a marked loading area for deliveries. There is a long drive to access a side yard dumpster
enclosure. The parking lot has two access points, one along Broad Street that egresses into a dedicated right-
turn queue lane that is separated from oncoming traffic by a double-yellow line (i.e. no legal left turns). The
other access point is along Morris Avenue, which contains a driveway that is not aligned with the signalized
4-way intersection, resulting in driver confusion where left egress turns would also require crossing of a
double-yellow line. The high-volume parking lot has limited lines of sight, a particularly dangerous condi-
tion where vehicles are backing out of spaces on both sides of a two-way drive aisle. There were eight (8)
vehicular accidents in this parking lot in 2016 alone and forty (40) such accidents between the years 2012
and 2017. This corner parking lot, necessitated by the faulty arrangement of improvements on the site, con-
21
tributes to a circulation pattern that is dangerous and therefore detrimental to the health and welfare of the
community.
Furthermore, a review of police records suggests that this twenty-four hour convenience store operation
along a heavily traveled regional thoroughfare has proven to encourage vagrancy and an unusually high
rate of crimes reported at the site. Since 1992, 1,330 police calls were made regarding activity on the site
according to the City of Summit Police Department records. Of the calls made, 260 were crime related. For
comparison purposes, the adjacent site (Lot 7), which has a salon use, recorded just 42 police calls in that
same time period, only four (4) of which were crime related. The higher crime rate reported in the area
supports the finding that the current use invites criminal conduct therefore constitutes a deleterious land use.
Taken together, the faulty arrangement of the site design and the deleterious nature of the use itself, provides
sufficient evidence to conclude Lot 3 meets the specifications of “Criterion D.”
Block 2702, Lot 3 - Partial (Vito A. Gallo Senior Building Parking Lot)
Lot 1
Lot 3
Lot 6
Lot 7
Chestnut Ave
Railroad Ave
t
N
Vito A. Gallo Senior Building Parking Lot
Lot 3 is a 1.84 acre parcel owned by the City of Summit Housing Authority. The structure on the parcel is the
Vito A. Gallo Senior Building which contains 125 units of senior housing. This Study does not include the
senior housing building, only the parking lot located on the western portion of Lot 3 which is .33 acres and
has 39 parking spaces.
Based upon an inspection of the property and an examination of construction and inspection records Block
2702, Lot 3 meets the following criteria under the LRHL:
Criterion D: Areas with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, over-
crowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land cov-
erage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental
to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.
The Vito A. Gallo Senior Building parking lot is owned by the City of Summit Housing Authority and serves
the building’s residents. The entire eastern edge of the parcel, as well as significant portions of its southern
and western boundaries, are occupied by the surface parking area with very limited landscaping and pe-
destrian circulation areas. Access to the eastern lot is provided by a bi-directional driveway on Broad Street
which is approximately 75 feet from another two-way drive used to access the adjacent public parking lot.
This creates an unpredictable and potentially dangerous environment for both drivers and pedestrians. This
is exacerbated by a third curb cut within less than 200 feet, which provides access to the Post Office rear
loading area. The disconnected nature of the parking areas suggest an ad-hoc approach to circulation plan-
ning for this area, which in turn creates unsafe and uncomfortable conditions for motorists and pedestrians.
These conditions amount to the type of “faulty arrangement and design…[that is] detrimental to the safety,
health, morals or welfare of the community” contemplated under Criterion D.
As articulated in Concerned Citizens (above), the use of this lot as a surface parking lot within what should
22
be part of a thriving downtown district is, in itself, significant to this analysis. Sufficient evidence exists to
conclude that the current use and conditions of the parking lot in Block 2702, Lot 3 support designation under
“Criterion D.” The lot is an outdated and unplanned land use that evolved imperfectly over time, resulting in
an inefficient, unsafe, and obsolete surface parking facility.
Block 2705, Lot 1 - (YMCA)
Lot 2
Lot 1
Lot 6
Lot 5
Lot 3
Lot 4
Lot 1
Broad St
Maple St
Cedar St
Railroad Ave
Railroad Ave
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0
150
300
75
Feet
N
YMCA
Block 2705, Lot 1 is home to the Summit Area YMCA. The main structure of the facility was built in 1912 and
underwent a major renovation, that included the addition of a new wing to the building, in 1998. The facility
covers that majority of the 0.74 acre parcel and has only four parking spots on-site. The adjacent municipally
owned parking lot offers additional parking to patrons of the YMCA.
Broad St
Post Office
YMCA
Fire Station
7-Eleven
Curb Cuts Along Broad St.
23
Block 2705, Lot 2 - Partial (Summit Free Library)
Lot 2
Lot 1
Lot 1
Lot 3
Lot 5
Lot 7
Lot 6
Lot 4
Lot 7
Lot 2
Maple St
Morris Ave
Cedar St
Broad St
Prospect St
Broad St
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0
200
400
100
Feet
N
Summit Free Public Library
Block 2705, Lot 2 is home to the Summit Free Public Library. The one-story brick building covers approxi-
mately half of the 1.8 acre parcel. The other half of the parcel is covered by a publicly accessible surface
parking lot. The lot serves both the library’s patrons as well at the adjacent YMCA recreation facility.
The building is in generally good condition and was not found to meet critereia under the LRHL. The parking
lot, however, does meet the criteria and based upon an inspection of the property, a portion of Block 2705,
Lot 2 meets the following criteria under the LRHL:
Criterion D: Areas with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, over-
crowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land cov-
erage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental
to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.
The Summit Free Public Library has one parking lot that serves employees, library visitors and visitors to
the adjacent YMCA. The lot, just north of the library building, is a surface parking lot that has 109 parking
spots and access from both Maple Street and Cedar Street. The lot is entirely paved with no landscaped or
Based upon an inspection of the property and an examination of construction and inspection records Block
2706, Lot 4 meets the following criteria under the LRHL:
Criterion D: Areas with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, over-
crowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land cov-
erage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental
to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.
The subject property provides only four on-site parking spaces, including one handicapped accessible park-
ing space, which is not van accessible. While additional parking is provided on an adjacent municipal lot,
the lack of parking given the intensive use of the property as an active community recreation facility and
lack of handicapped accessibility, renders the site obsolete and detrimental to the welfare of the community.
Furthermore, the site has no open space available for patron or public use (e.g., outdoor exercise area/
field), an amenity that cannot be incorporated since the current structure covers almost all of the existing lot
area. Such an amenity is customarily part of community recreation facilities and lack thereof is evidence of
obsolescence. One block away, a significantly smaller community recreational facility, “The Connection”,
offers 71 public parking spaces, two bus parking spaces, and an outdoor area for children.
The obsolete nature of the structure provides sufficient evidence to designate Lot 3 under “Criterion D.”
24
Block 2706, Lot 1 - (Municipal Parking Lot 7)
Block 2706, Lot 1 contains Municipal Lot 7, also known as the Chestnut Avenue Lot, which has 62 parking
spaces designated for residents and employees. It is located at the corner of Broad Street and Morris Av-
enue. The lot has a single egress point off Broad Street. The lot is paved but provides limited landscaping
that includes shrubbery and trees. The municipal lot is marked with pedestrian crossings and has circulation
markings throughout the lot.
Based upon an inspection of the property and an examination of construction and inspection records Block
2706, Lot 1 meets the following criteria under the LRHL:
Criterion D: Areas with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, over-
crowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land cov-
erage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental
to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.
Improvements on the lot consist almost entirely of surface parking, with limited pedestrian and landscaped
area. Impervious coverage, primarily blacktop, occupies nearly the entire area of the parking lot. The condi-
tion of the lot is fair, the lot is properly stripped and appears to afford an efficient and safe circulation pattern.
Despite the fair condition, design and circulation, the use of this lot as a surface parking lot adjacent to a
thriving downtown district is, in itself, significant to this analysis based on the theory described above relating
to Concerned Citizens. As such, sufficient evidence exists to conclude that the current use and conditions of
the parking lot in Lot 1 supports designation under ‘Criterion D.’
Block 2706, Lot 1 should also be designated as an area in need of redevelopment because it fits within the
intent and purpose of Section 3 (N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-3): “buildings…which of themselves are not detrimental
to public health, safety or welfare, but the inclusion of which is found necessary…for the effective redevelop-
ment of the area of which they are a part.” The surrounding parcels adjacent to this lot meet the criteria for
an “area in need of redevelopment.” This corner lot is found to be necessary in order to realistically effectu-
ate redevelopment on the block of which this parcel is a part of.
Lot 1
Lot 1
Lot 6
Lot 5
Lot 8
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 7
Lot 1
Lot 4
Lot 6
Lot 7
Lot 2
Lot 1
Chestnut Ave
Broad St
Morris Ave
Cedar St
Locust Dr
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0
200
400
100
Feet
N
Municipal Parking Lot 7
permeable elements.
The use of this lot as a surface parking lot adjacent to a thriving downtown district is, in itself, significant to
this analysis, based on the theory advanced under Concerned Citizens, (described above). Sufficient evi-
dence exists to conclude that the current use and conditions upon the parking lot in Block 2705, Lot 2 support
designation under ‘Criterion D.’
25
Block 2706, Lots 2 & 5 - (Bradley, Brough & Dangler Funeral Home)
Lot 1
Lot 6
Lot 5
Lot 8
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 7
Lot 1
Lot 4
Lot 6
Lot 7
Lot 3
Lot 2
Lot 1
Chestnut Ave
Broad St
Morris Ave
Cedar St
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0
150
300
75
Feet
N
Bradley, Brough & Dangler Funeral Home
Block 2706, Lots 2 & 5 contain a single-story, brick, commercial building and accessory parking lots. Lot 5,
which fronts on Morris Avenue, houses the principle commercial structure on the site: a funeral home. Lot 5
also has direct frontage onto Cedar Street, where a thirty-one spot parking lot is located. The parking lot is
used by funeral home employees and visitors. Lot 2, which contains another twelve-spot parking lot, primar-
ily serves as an additional point of egress onto Broad Street. Lot 2 is also used — via an easement, as the
vehicular access point to the Summit Fire Department Headquarters building. The irregular three-pronged
shape of these two lots give the property direct access to three streets: Broad Street, Cedar Street, and Morris
Avenue.
Based upon an inspection of the property and an examination of construction and inspection records Block
2706, Lots 2 & 5 meet the following criteria under the LRHL:
Criterion E: A growing lack or total lack of proper utilization of areas caused by the condition of the title,
diverse ownership of the real properties therein or similar conditions, which impede land assemblage or
discourage the undertaking of improvements, resulting in a stagnant and unproductive condition of land
potentially useful and valuable for contributing to and serving the public health, safety and welfare, which
condition is presumed to be having a negative social or economic impact or otherwise being detrimental to
the safety, health, morals or welfare of the surrounding area or the community in general. (As amended by
P.L. 2013, Chapter 159, approved September 6, 2013).
Lot 2 is a narrow lot that allows for access to the funeral home parking lot from Broad Street. This narrow
access point is also required by the Summit Fire Department in order to allow for access to the back of the
Fire Station. The City of Summit enjoys an access easement on Lot 2 so that emergency vehicles are able to
enter the Summit Fire Department Headquarters which is located just north of the funeral home property.
Varied ownership across these properties impedes the viable redevelopment of the property and adjacent
parking lot. Additionally this discourages the further improvement of the City owned site for productive uses
apart from parking and circulation. This parcel exhibits the type of title issue contemplated in “Criterion E.”
26
Lot 5, on which the principal structure and accessory parking lot are located, divides the block into several,
irregularly shaped parcels. Lots 2 and 5 combined, create a three-pronged, irregularly shaped property that
provides access to all of the streets on the block although the principle use on the site only fronts on Morris
Avenue. Due to the location of the property in the middle of the block and the aforementioned irregular
shape of the parcel, possible property assemblage is impeded on the block and thus is having a negative
economic impact on the block that it is a part of.
Sufficient evidence exists to conclude that the current use and conditions upon Lots 2 & 5 support designation
under “Criterion E.”
Block 2706, Lot 3 - (Summit Fire Department Headquarters)
Lot 1
Lot 1
Lot 1
Lot 3
Lot 8
Lot 3
Lot 7
Lot 4
Lot 6
Lot 7
Lot 2
Chestnut Ave
Broad St
Morris Ave
Railroad Ave
Summit, NJ
Summit Fire Department Headquarters
Block 2706, Lot 3 houses the Summit Fire Department Headquarters. The 16,298 s.f. two-story structure is
located at 396 Broad Street. The center, two-story portion of the existing building was built in 1901. In 1948
four back-in bays were added in a saw-tooth arrangement to the structure. The two-story addition on the
west side of the building was constructed in 1968, when three more back-in bays were added. In 1996, an
exterior courtyard area was enclosed and interior office spaces were renovated.
Based upon an inspection of the property and an examination of construction and inspection records, Block
2706, Lot 3 meets the following criteria under the LRHL:
Criterion D: Areas with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, over-
crowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land cov-
erage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental
to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.
In 2014, the City of Summit Fire Department commissioned a facility assessment of Fire Department Head-
quarter’s building. The assessment report, completed by LeMay Erickson Willcox Architects and Brinjac En-
gineering, found that the building does not meet current station design standards. The Headquarters building
was given a score of 12% based on criteria that included life safety code, accessibility, station alerting, emer-
gency response paths, gender equality, and bunk facilities, among other criteria. Similarly, the site design
was evaluated and found to not meet design standards. The site design was given a score of 22% based
on criteria that included vehicle circulation, paving conditions, training features, outdoor amenities, trash/
dumpster location, among other criteria.
27
As evidenced by the aforementioned assessment reports commissioned by the City of Summit, the Fire De-
partment Headquarters building is functionally obsolete due to faulty design and obsolete layout. Efficient
and modern operation improvements are necessary to maintain and preserve the health and safety of the
community, therefore the obsolescence of the facility is inherently detrimental to the safety and health of the
community.
The obsolete nature of the structure provides sufficient evidence to designate Block 2706, Lot 3 under “Cri-
terion D.”
Criterion E: A growing lack or total lack of proper utilization of areas caused by the condition of the title,
diverse ownership of the real properties therein or similar conditions, which impede land assemblage or
discourage the undertaking of improvements, resulting in a stagnant and unproductive condition of land
potentially useful and valuable for contributing to and serving the public health, safety and welfare, which
condition is presumed to be having a negative social or economic impact or otherwise being detrimental to
the safety, health, morals or welfare of the surrounding area or the community in general. (As amended by
P.L. 2013, Chapter 159, approved September 6, 2013).
The adjacent Lot 2 of the same Block provides the only point of entry to the back of the Firehouse building.
The back of the building has one bay for emergency vehicles and several parking spots used by the Fire
Department. Access to the back of the building is crucial to the function of this site and emergency response
dispatch station. The City of Summit enjoys an easement on Lot 2, without which no access to the back of the
building would exist. This condition of title impedes land assemblage and discourages the undertaking of
improvements and results in a stagnant condition of the land.
Sufficient evidence exists to conclude that the current use and conditions upon Lots 3 support designation
under “Criterion E.”
Block 2706, Lot 4 - (Medical Office Building)
Lot 2
Lot 1
Lot 6
Lot 1
Lot 5
Lot 7
Lot 1
Lot 4
Lot 3
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 6
Lot 7
Chestnut Ave
Broad St
Cedar St
Morris Ave
Maple St
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0
150
300
75
Feet
N
Medical Office Building
28
Block 2706, Lot 4 contains a two-story office building located on Cedar Street that abuts both the Summit
Fire Department Headquarters building and the Bradley, Brough & Dangler Funeral Home parking lot. The
6,000 s.f. office building is a fully leased Class-B office building that houses multiple medical-office tenants.
The office building is set back from Cedar Street and has a 12-car parking lot in front of the building.
Based upon an inspection of the property and an examination of construction and inspection records Block
2706, Lot 4 meets the following criteria under the LRHL:
Criterion D: Areas with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, over-
crowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land cov-
erage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental
to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.
The 6,000 s.f. office building is currently in fair condition and is fully leased. The arrangement and design
of the site, however, is faulty due to the placement and amount of parking available to the facility which is
entirely leased by dental and medical offices. Per the City of Summit’s Development Regulation Ordinance,
medical and dental offices shall have one parking space per 150 gross square feet of building area. This
provision is in place in order to ensure that patients visiting medical or dental offices, who may have limited
mobility due to disability, injury, or age, are able to safely access the offices. This site offers only twelve park-
ing spaces for visitors to the office building. Per the aforementioned code, a 6,000 s.f. building that houses
dental and medical uses should have forty spaces. The number of spaces provided (12) is twenty-eight spac-
es short of what would typically be deemed appropriate for such a use.
Furthermore, the twelve-space parking lot is placed in front of the building, an arrangement that is not
customary or typical of a central, downtown location. This parking lot placement breaks up the pedestrian
experience throughout the site and creates a circulation pattern that is not conducive to the safe and efficient
movement of vehicles and pedestrians. The location of the building on the site makes it impossible for the
parking lot to be located anywhere else on the site.
The faulty arrangement on the site and obsolete design are sufficient evidence to designate Lot 4 under “Cri-
terion D.”
29
Block 2706, Lot 6 - (Otterstedt Agency Office Building)
Lot 2
Lot 1
Lot 1
Lot 3
Lot 5
Lot 7
Lot 6
Lot 8
Lot 4
Lot 7
Lot 2
Morris Ave
Maple St
Cedar St
Broad St
Prospect St
Broad St
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0
200
400
100
Feet
N
Otterstedt Agency Office Building
This owner-occupied office building is found to be in good condition and does not meet the criteria estab-
lished in the LRHL (N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5 et seq.).
Block 2706, Lot 6 does fit within the intent and purpose of Section 3 (N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-3): “buildings…
which of themselves are not detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, but the inclusion of which is found
necessary…for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part.” Due to the relatively small
size of the lot and the fact that it is flanked on two sides by the irregularly shaped surface parking lot that
houses the Bradley, Brough & Dangler Funeral Home, it could be reasonably concluded that Lot 6 may nec-
essary for the effective redevelopment of the area.
30
Block 2706, Lot 7 - (St. Teresa’s Church – Memorial Hall)
Lot 1
Lot 6
Lot 5
Lot 2
Lot 8
Lot 7
Lot 1
Lot 4
Lot 6
Lot 7
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Chestnut Ave
Broad St
Morris Ave
Cedar St
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0
150
300
75
Feet
N
St. Teresa’s Church - Memorial Hall
Memorial Hall is owned by the St. Teresa’s Roman Catholic Church which also owns a much larger church
across the street from this location on Morris Avenue. This smaller structure was moved here from its original
location across the street around 1905, when the new place of worship was constructed. The church is in
generally good condition and the site is well-maintained, with few signs of deterioration to its facade and
windows. The facility does not have any dedicated parking adjacent to the premises.
Based upon an inspection of the property and an examination of construction and inspection Block 2706, Lot
7 does not meet any of the criteria under the LRHL. While access was not gained into the building, the exte-
rior of the structure and improvements to the site appear to be in good condition. The church itself does not
have any direct parking on-site as it shares parking with the much larger St. Teresa’s Church across the street.
The only adjacent ADA accessible parking spots are available at Municipal Lot 7 northwest of the building.
Block 2706, Lot 7 does, however fit squarely within the intent and purpose of Section 3 (N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-3):
“buildings…which of themselves are not detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, but the inclusion of
which is found necessary…for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part.” Due to the
relatively small size of the lot and the fact that it is flanked by the surface parking lot that houses the Bradley,
Brough & Dangler Funeral Home, the City’s parking lot and the Fire Department building, it could be reason-
ably concluded that Lot 7 may be necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area.
31
Conclusion
The foregoing study was prepared on behalf of the City of Summit Planning Board to determine whether
properties identified as of Block 1913, Lots 1, 2 and 3; Block 2701, Lots 1, 6, 7, 8; Block 2702, Lot 3 (par-
tial); Block 2706, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7; Block 2705, Lots 1 and 2 qualify as a non-condemnation “an
area in need of redevelopment” in accordance with N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 et seq. Based on the foregoing
analysis and further investigation of the Study Area, we conclude that Block 2701, Lots 1(partial), 6, 7, 8;
Block 2702, Lot 3 (partial); Block 2705, Lots 1 and 2(partial); Block 2706, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 meet
the criteria for a redevelopment area designation, while Block1913, Lots 1,2 and 3; Block 2706, Lot 7 do
not.
32
Appendix A
Resolution No. 37882
33
Appendix A
Resolution No. 37882
34
Appendix B
Map of Study Area
35
Appendix C
Planning Board Resolution
36
Appendix C
Planning Board Resolution
37
Appendix C
Planning Board Resolution
38
E X I S T I N G F A C I L I T Y A S S E S S M E N T
City of Summit Fire Headquarters
Prepared by:
LeMay Erickson Willcox Architects
11250 Roger Bacon Drive, Unit No. 16
Reston, Virginia 20190
Brinjac Engineering
114 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1401
September 30, 2014
Appendix D
Existing Facility Assessment
City of Summit Fire Headquarters
60 Union St #1N, Newark, NJ 07105
MASTER PLAN
RE-EXAMINATION
CITY OF SUMMIT, NJ
November 2016
Master Plan Re-Examination
Summit re:Vision
Adopted by the Planning Board
November 21, 2016
Prepared by
Topology, NJ LLC
In cooperation with Summit re:Vision Committees
and Planning Board
The original copy of this report was signed and sealed in
accordance with N.J.S.A. 45: 14A-12
Philip Abramson, P.P. # 33LI00609600
Krzysztof Sadlej, Project Director
CONTENTS
Introduction & Engagement
Goal 1: Guide Development to Maintain
and Enhance the Character of Summit
Goal 2: Maintain a Dynamic and Vibrant
City
Goal 3: Improve Connectivity between
People and Places to Promote a Healthy and
Vibrant Community
Goal 4: Promote a City that is Welcoming
to Residents of All Ages, Races, Ethnicities,
Abilities and Income Ranges
Goal 5: Build Economic Resiliency by
Supporting Reinvestment
Goal 6: Preserve and Enhance Natural
Beauty, Open Space and Community Facility
Assets for Future Generations
Appendices
Appendix A: Issues and Objectives in Past Planning
Appendix B: Changes Since the 2006 Master Plan
Re-examination
VI
I
VII
VIII
V
IV
III
II
01
06
15
27
33
36
39
45
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Mayor
Nora Radest
City Administrator
Michael Rogers
Summit Planning Board
William Anderson, Vice Chair
Jennifer Balson-Alvarez
B. David Naidu
Gregory Drummond
Mark Gianguilio
James Jay Brinkerhoff
John Kieser
Judith Mandelbaum
Rick Matias
Jeffrey Wagenbach, Chair
John Zucker
Summit Common Council
Patrick J. Hurley
Sandra R. Lizza
Michael McTernan
B. David Naidu
Mary Ogden
Dr. Robert J. Rubino
Richard Sun
Economic Development Committee
Jeffrey Wagenbach, Chair
Reagan Burkholder
Lizanne Ceconi
Thomas Conway
John Coughlan
Annette Dwyer
Timothy Erday
Jessica Hobson
Ginny Jordan
Bethany Welsh
Land Use Committee
William Anderson, Chair
Jennifer Balson Alvarez
Karen Khalaf
Diane Klaif
Kevin McGoey
Eric Mendelsohn
Phyllis Sank
Kenneth Stevenson
John Zucker
Circulation & Transportation Committee
Judith Mandelbaum, Chair
John Christmann
Christopher Cordaro
Craig Gangi
Davis Gates
Beth Lovejoy
Thomas Mineo
Aaron Schrager
Claire Toth
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Parks, Open Space & Community
Facilities Committee
James Jay Brinkerhoff, Chair
Alison Chieffo
Jamie Colucchi
Angie Gannon
Sunil Garg
Marian Glenn
Dwight Hiscano
Roz Kendellen
Dr. Robert J. Rubino
Annie Schiffer
John Staunton
Dennis White
Adam Zucker
Housing Committee
Gregory Drummond, Chair
Joe Billy
Emilie Boggis
Paul Deehan
Vito Gallo
Pam Gumport
Denison Harrield
John Kieser
Norman Miller
David Mollin
B. David Naidu
Steven Schlageter
Citizen Advisory Committee
Rick Matias, Chair
Thomas Getzendanner
Walter Gonzalez
Brooke Loughlin
Betsy Macpherson
Drew Maldonado
Heather Marotta
Raymond Merritt
Donna Miller
Gabe Schiffer
Melanie Wilson
Utilities & Infrastructure Committee
Rick Matias, Chair
Tom Loughlin
Eric Moberg
Norm Sanyour
John Szabados
Rob Walton
Project Team
Topology NJ LLC
Krzysztof Sadlej, Project Director
Phil Abramson, Principal
Daniel Gordon, Policy Analysis
Daniel Harris, Graphic Design
City of Summit
Amy Cairns, Public Information Officer
Jin Blades, DCS Manager
Cynthia Kiefer, DCS Land Use Assistant
PREFACE:
The 2016 Master Plan re:Vison will be the
key strategy document that will guide policy
direction in Summit for the next ten years. Its
intent is to provide broad goals and objectives,
and identify actions and strategies to further
improve the wellbeing of Summit residents.
The goals, objectives, actions and strategies in
this document should not be applied in isolation.
They are intended to be considered as an
integrated set of principles that aim to balance
the decision-making process. As a result, many
of the recommendations and actions support
numerous interconnected goals.
City systems —infrastructure, transportation
and circulation, land use, historic assets, parks
and open space, community facilities, economy,
housing— are inherently complex and ever
changing. The goals contained in this re:Vision
document are intended to be specific enough to
be actionable but also broad in order to maintain
flexibility as the issues the community faces
evolve and shift.
These goals individually consider the trade-
offs that are necessary when making policy
decisions. It is the task of the elected officials,
boards, committees and commissions staffed by
resident volunteers and City of Summit staff,
supported by input from private and public
organizations, and the residents themselves, to
enact policy decisions that will best serve the
community into the future.
The set of actions and strategies that follow are
intended to be undertaken immediately after the
adoption of this document in order to generate
momentum and jump-start the implementation
process.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
The Planning Board should establish a
Committee (or Committees) to prioritize
development of data, studies, guidelines,
and policy priorities for this plan, and
engage stakeholders to assess capacity to
complete tasks and assign action steps to
appropriate parties.
Î
Î
Make the 2016 Master Plan re:Vision
document available online and publicize
its location to encourage a wide
familiarity with the goals and objectives
contained in document.
Î
Î
Print and distribute the 2016 Master
Plan re:Vision documents to City
staff, elected officials, and key partner
organizations.
Î
Î
The designated Committee should
provide an annual update on progress
made in completing actions and
strategies, and which actions and
strategies will be undertaken in the
coming year.
1
INTRODUCTION
The City of Summit has a unique mix of natural,
historic, cultural, and economic assets that set
it apart from other suburban communities.
Its location in the region, with a direct
commuter rail connection to New York City,
is one the City’s most valuable assets. Summit
is a community with a mostly residential
character, whose citizens place great value on
the historic character and scale of its existing
neighborhoods.
The City hosts a top rated school system, major
healthcare institutions, a vibrant business
community, diverse religious institutions and
remarkable natural resources, arts and non-
profit organizations. This diversified balance
of quiet residential neighborhoods near
transportation and a historic, compact and
walkable downtown is what makes Summit a
community of choice for the 21,826 residents
who call Summit home and the 17,654 workers
who are employed here.
While this mix of uses is indeed a core
asset in Summit, it also poses challenges as
opportunities for reinvestment and growth
can at times compete with maintaining
the character and scale of neighborhoods.
Reinvestment and economic development,
important to the continued vibrancy and
success of the City should incorporate goals that
aim to retain the historic character and natural
assets of the City and enhance the overall
wellbeing of residents. This document outlines
the following goals intended to guide policy and
strategy for the City of Summit:
1.
Guide development to maintain and
enhance the character of Summit;
2.
Maintain a dynamic and vibrant city;
3.
Improve connectivity between people
and places to promote a healthy and
vibrant community;
4.
Promote a city that is welcoming to
residents of all ages, races, ethnicities,
abilities and income ranges;
5.
Build economic resiliency by supporting
reinvestment;
6.
Preserve and enhance natural beauty,
open space, and community facility
assets for future generations.
The re:Vision Document
This document is a Master Plan Re-examination
Report of the City’s 2000 Master Plan, and
subsequent Re-examinations (2003 and 2006).
The purpose of the Re-examination is to
review and evaluate the local master plan and
development regulations on a periodic basis in
order to determine the need for updates and
revisions.
The City of Summit has taken much care to
dedicate resources to community planning.
Aside from documents such as this one that
are required of the City by State of New
Jersey statutes, the City has also developed
many supplemental planning documents that
add to the City’s ability to plan effectively.
At the onset of this Reexamination process,
Committees expressed a desire to make the
Summit Re:Vision
2
most of the opportunity to review public input
and consolidation of top goals, objectives and
associated action strategies in this document
so that policy actions remain focused. While
contents of many objectives, goals, actions
and strategies in this document are based on
prior planning efforts, they aim to update and
consolidate actions and strategies into a clear
and usable format. Hence this document serves
as not only a Re-examination of the Master Plan,
but also a “re:Vison.”
Appendices
The Municipal Land Use Law establishes the
legal framework for municipal planning and
requires that municipalities conduct a general
re-examination of their master plans at least
every ten years. This reexamination is required
to maintain the presumption of validity for
municipal land use policies and ordinances.
The re-examination also recognizes municipal
planning as an ongoing and participatory
function of local governing.
The minimum legal requirements for a re-
examination are to review the following:
a) The major problems and objectives relating
to land development in the municipality at the
time of the adoption of the last re-examination
report.
b) The extent to which such problems and
objectives have been reduced or have increased
subsequent to such date.
c) The extent to which there have been
significant changes in the assumptions, policies,
and objectives forming the basis for the
master plan or development regulations as last
revised, with particular regard to the density
and distribution of population and land uses,
housing conditions, circulation, conservation
of natural resources, energy conservation,
collection, disposition, and recycling of
designated recyclable materials, and changes
in State, county and municipal policies and
objectives.
d) The specific changes recommended for the
master plan or development regulations, if any,
including underlying objectives, policies and
standards, or whether a new plan or regulations
should be prepared.
e) The recommendations of the planning
board concerning the incorporation of
redevelopment plans adopted pursuant to the
“Local Redevelopment and Housing Law,”
P.L.1992, c.79 (C.40A:12A-1 et al.) into the land
use plan element of the municipal master plan,
and recommended changes, if any, in the local
development regulations necessary to effectuate
the redevelopment plans of the municipality.
The structure of this Re-examination Report
prioritizes specific changes recommended
for the Master Plan (criteria d). The goals,
objectives, and actions/strategies contained in
this document constitute these recommended
changes. While these objectives and strategies
are built on prior planning efforts, and in fact
often simply reword, consolidate, or break
apart prior goals and objectives, they in effect
constitute new language to be added to the
Master Plan.
Appendix A of this document establishes the
major problems and objectives relating to land
development in the municipality at the time of
the adoption of the 2006 re-examination report.
This appendix also summarizes other planning
documents that informed goal and objective
development.
Appendix B summarizes how the goals
and objectives contained in this document
(recommendations) relate to the 2000 Master
Plan and the 2006 Master Plan Reexamination
recommendations and ascertains whether the
recommended objectives and goals render any
prior goals and objectives no longer valid based
on the extent to which problems have been
reduced or increased since 2006 and the extent
to which there have been significant changes
in the assumptions, policies, and objectives
forming the basis for the Master Plan.
3
PUBLIC INPUT
This Master Plan re:Vison document was
developed as part of a robust public process that
reached a broad spectrum of Summit residents,
businesses, workers, local officials, and
stakeholders. It is based on and incorporates
the many ideas, opportunities, challenges,
and observations voiced by citizens who
contributed their time to the development of
this policy and strategy document. The City and
Planning Board placed a priority on ensuring
full transparency in decision-making processes,
promoting collaborative and accessible public
meetings, and maximizing participation by
residents and other local stakeholders.
Advisory Committees
Community engagement and consultation was
achieved through several means.
Steering Committees were formed to investigate
strategies pertaining to economic development,
land use, parks and open space, conservation,
public art, community facilities, transportation
and circulation, housing, historic preservation
and utilities. A Citizen Advisory Committee was
also formed to identify solutions to issues that
were most pertinent to residents.
Workshops & Public Meetings
Over 100 people attended the first public
workshop held June 1, 2016 at the Summit Elks
Lodge. The purpose of the meeting was to help
the planning team identify and confirm specific
challenges and areas of opportunity for the City
of Summit. A second public meeting was held
at the Connection on September 13, 2016 to
& ENGAGEMENT
4
confirm and refine goals, strategies and action
steps that should be included in the Master Plan
re:Vision document.
Online Engagement
In order to maximize opportunities for input
from the public, an online site was launched
in collaboration with coUrbanize, a platform
provider that specializes in public process
engagement. The interactive website enabled
the planning team to pose questions and receive
feedback on a wide range of topics such as
pedestrian safety improvements, circulation
and traffic issues, opportunities for community
facility improvements, and ways we can better
utilize the Village Green.
Members of the planning team regularly
reviewed comments and ideas for incorporation
into this document. To increase the volume of
feedback, regular posts on Facebook were made,
email notices were sent, and signs were placed
in prominent places throughout the City.
There were also two rounds of surveys deployed
to the community both via the online platform
and in-person. The first, a housing demand
survey, was intended to gather robust data on
the housing needs in Summit. The second, a
retail and entertainment survey, gathered input
on how people would like to see the retail and
entertainment options enhanced in Summit.
6
Basis
Summit residents love the scale, character and
historic fabric of their city. There are competing
concerns regarding opportunities for reasoned,
appropriate growth and ensuring that new
development does not detract from the quality
of the existing built environment. These goals
need not be mutually exclusive. There is strong
sentiment that additional design standards and
guidelines are needed to promote a desirable
building form for all future developments.
The historic character, scale, design and form
of a neighborhood is not only an aesthetic
consideration, it is an economic one. The quality
of the built environment has a direct impact on
the desirability and livability of a neighborhood
and the City as a whole.
Reality
The lack of adequate design standards and
guidelines poses some specific economic
risks. First, the character of residential
neighborhoods, transition zones between
commercial and residential districts, and
commercial districts themselves could
be degraded over time. As a result of new
development that is not perceived to enhance
existing neighborhoods, community trust can
be eroded, increasing skepticism of all new
investment and reinvestment. If the outcomes of
potential new development are not sufficiently
predictable, the uncertainty can become a
disincentive to investment and reinvestment.
Outcome
The key to incentivizing reinvestment while
ensuring that adequate control is maintained is
to establish regulations that produce predictable
results, while maintaining enough flexibility to
allow for innovation.
Desired Outcomes:
Î
Î
Define Summit’s character.
Î
Î
Preserve the unique characteristics of
neighborhoods.
Î
Î
Revise zoning ordinances so that they
foster desired policies and outcomes.
Î
Î
Allow for more nuanced management
of new building structures through
enhanced land use control (e.g., scale
and design).
Î
Î
Create incentives for investment and
reinvestment through enhanced land use
controls.
Î
Î
Maintain and encourage effective
transition zones between commercial
and residential areas/zones.
GOAL 01: Guide Development to Maintain
and Enhance Character of Summit
7
Objective 1.01: STRENGTHEN DESIGN STANDARDS AND
GUIDELINES
The need to incorporate design guidelines
and performance standards in order to ensure
that any new development contributes to the
existing character of Summit was stressed by
many residents. There is a perception that some
developments are eroding the aesthetic value of
the built environment in Summit.
Before design guidelines are developed, the
City should first establish what core guiding
principles should permeate throughout the
guidelines. The consistency of design is not
only an issue for buildings, but also streets,
parks and all public infrastructure. Promoting a
cohesive and high quality visual environment in
the City will contribute to the wellbeing of the
community and support the economic and social
resiliency of Summit over time.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
When developing design guidelines
or standards, work to establish what
Summit “looks like” and what design
characteristics will reinforce Summit’s
image and character.
Î
Î
Develop streetscape design guidelines
and/or standards that guides public
infrastructure investment in a consistent
manner.
Î
Î
Develop design guidelines and/
or standards for multifamily and
commercial buildings.
Î
Î
Develop design guidelines and/or
standards for facades, storefronts and
signage; see Objective 2.08 and 2.10 for
detail.
Î
Î
Ensure that the Design and Preservation
Guidelines for Historic Properties
developed by the Summit Historic
Preservation Commission is available
online to city staff, boards and the
public.
Î
Î
Include all design guidelines and/or
standards as an appendix in the DRO
Binder and online for Zoning Board,
Planning Board, City staff and the public.
Î
Î
Designate a qualified design professional
who identifies program needs, ensures
conformity to best practices and
provides creative and design guidance.
Î
Î
Where design is a particular
priority, consider the use of the State
Redevelopment Statute (e.g., NB zone, B
zone, Gateway II zone).
Î
Î
Consider providing incentives to induce
consistency, where compliance is not
mandatory.
Examples of design guidelines
Design guidelines can help to ensure that scale
remains consistent in neighborhoods, character
is preserved, and appropriate transitions are
maintained.
Incorporating architectural features like cornices is more
compatible with adjacent buildings, by lowering the apparent,
conflicting height of the building.
In areas with a number of buildings that feature a distinctive
architectural concept or style, referring to that
organizational concept can achieve compatibility.
Not Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Not Recommended
Recommended
Not Recommended
Source: City of Seattle Design Guidelines
Rooflines can reinforce the architectural character of a street.
8
Objective 1.02: ASSESS ORC & B ZONES TO ENSURE THEY ARE
MEETING INTENDED POLICY OBJECTIVES
The Office Residential Character (ORC) zones
are intended to promote the adaptive reuse of
existing buildings in a manner that is sensitive
to neighboring residential developments. While
the Business (B) zones are also in transitional
locations, they provide for more intensive
commercial use. For this reason, B zones that
border residential neighborhoods should be
assessed to ensure that appropriate transitions
are maintained.
The key policy objectives are two-fold for
both zones: promote reinvestment and reuse
of buildings while maintaining scale that is
appropriate for a transition zone. Currently it is
unclear whether these zones are meeting either
legislative objective. Some properties remain
underutilized or unimproved while some new
development proposals do not maintain the
prevailing scale of the neighborhood.
A review should be undertaken to ensure that
policies are in place to effectuate the key policy
objectives.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Review the legislative intent of the ORC,
ORC-1, B, B-1 and NB zones to determine
whether they provide a buffer between
commercial districts, particularly
the CRBD and neighborhoods with
residential, mostly single family,
character.
Î
Î
Assess whether both the maintenance of
appropriate transitional character and
reinvestment incentive are provided for
in the zoning ordinance.
9
Objective 1.03: PROTECT EXISTING SITES THAT ARE OF
HISTORIC VALUE TO PRESERVE THE CITY’S
HISTORIC CHARACTER
The historic character of the downtown and
residential neighborhoods is recognized as a
core differentiating attribute that contributes to
Summit’s success.
The very identity of Summit is tied to the
diverse architectural styles and village character
that distinguish the City from newer suburban
communities.
Proper consideration should always be
given to the impact any development has
on the prevailing character and scale of a
neighborhood. A proposed alteration or
demolition of historic structures should be
carefully reviewed by the Planning Board and
the Historic Preservation Commission in order
to ensure that historical assets are not lost over
time. This can be achieved through a variety of
mechanisms that include requiring additional
review when buildings of historic value are
being altered or demolished. Additionally, the
zoning ordinance can be more prescriptive
in maintaining setback, lot size, and yard
requirements.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Consider developing a local ordinance
that allows for the designation of “local
landmarks” that are of historic value that
would be subject to design guidelines
or standards in the event of significant
facade alteration or proposed demolition
of such landmarks (criteria for what
constitutes a “local landmark” could
be the same as contributing structures
already listed on the National and State
Registers of Historic Places as well as
those eligible for listing).
Î
Î
Consider requiring a “certificate of
appropriateness” when significant
alterations are being made to a
structure, demolition is proposed or the
subdivision of lots is proposed for sites
deemed to be Local Landmarks. When
considering the review process the
following criteria may apply:
Site’s historic, architectural or
aesthetic value
Historic listing or eligibility
Setting, design, arrangement,
texture, details, scale, shape,
materials, finish, color, streetscape,
and relationship of those
characteristics to the surrounding
neighborhood
Extent to which proposed changes
would alter the public’s view of the
property
Importance of the site to the
character of the City as a whole and
adverse effects proposed changes
may have on that character
Î
Î
As part of the permitting process, new
construction should not erode the
historic character and prevailing scale of
a neighborhood.
Î
Î
Encourage the adaptive reuse of historic
properties.
Î
Î
Ensure that the advisory function of
the Historic Preservation Commission
is integrated into zoning variance and
Planning Board review process.
Î
Î
Consider designating a qualified design
professional to review application where
a “certificate of appropriateness” is part
of the permitting process.
10
The Clearing (Reeves Reed Arboretum) - April 9, 1993
Twin Maples - August 29, 1997
Wallace Chapel A.M.E. Zion Church - August 28, 2007
Summit Playhouse - December 30, 2009
Summit Downtown Historic District - June 30, 2011
Many historic structures and sites have been preserved in the
City of Summit contributing to the unique atmosphere and
character of the City. Summit currently has five historic sites
that are listed on the National and State Registers of Historic
Places, including much of the Downtown. The five sites and the
date they were added to the Registers are listed below:
Historic Sites in Summit:
The Summit Playhouse is home to one of the oldest
continuously operating amateur community theaters in
the United States. The original stone building, designed by
Arthur Bates Jennings, was built in the Romanesque style of
architecture.
11
Objective 1.04: MAINTAIN THE PREVAILING CHARACTER OF
NEIGHBORHOODS
In addition to maintaining the overall character
of Summit, further care should be taken to
prevent the periodic deterioration of the
prevailing scale of neighborhoods and blocks,
particularly in single family residential districts.
Residents have three particular concerns that
may pose a threat to maintaining prevailing
character in Summit neighborhoods: transition
zones, lot mergers and lot subdivisions. In
the case of potential lot mergers, there is
concern about larger homes on (merged) lots
that do not match existing patterns and could
disrupt a neighborhood’s existing character.
Conversely, lot subdivisions are also of concern
where property owners may be incentivized to
construct dwellings that are out of character
with the neighborhood.
In both cases, as-of-right development
could have these unintended consequences
under current regulation. In neighborhoods
where lot mergers are a concern, setting lot
area maximums should be considered, and/
or dwelling square foot maximums may be
appropriate.
In areas where lot subdivisions are a concern, a
broader look at the zone criteria is called for.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Review single family zoning districts to
identify all the oversized lots in these
districts.
Î
Î
Review single family zoning districts
and assess if policy objectives are being
met.
Î
Î
Consider the inclusion of maximum
total lot size, maximum structure size
and/or maximum yard requirements,
as opposed to just minimum
requirements.
Î
Î
Evaluate the effectiveness of existing
regulations to protect single family
residential neighborhoods from higher
intensity uses, including commercial
and other incompatible uses adjacent to
residential areas.
Î
Î
Evaluate the effectiveness of existing
regulations to ensure new development
is compatible with the prevailing
neighborhood context.
12
Objective 1.05: REDEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE PURSUED BY THE
PLANNING BOARD IN AREAS LIKELY TO MEET
THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR AN AREA
IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT
In order to stimulate reinvestment and better
manage building and site design of new
development, the City of Summit has the option
of designating specific locations as “areas in
need of redevelopment”
The New Jersey Local Redevelopment and
Housing Law allows municipalities to adopt
“redevelopment plans” for areas that have been
designated as “in need of redevelopment” or “in
need of rehabilitation.” A redevelopment plan
may supersede the applicable provisions of the
local zoning ordinance or constitute an overlay
zoning district, but it must be substantially
consistent with, or designed to effectuate, a
municipality’s master plan.
Where traditional zoning has limited ability to
control the outcome of a development project,
developments pursued under the redevelopment
statute provide for a greater degree of control
and predictability.
One area identified during the public outreach
process that potentially could fit the necessary
parameters was the Broad Street Corridor.
Currently, untapped reinvestment potential
along the Broad Street corridor is inhibiting
neighborhood cohesion and connectivity
between the downtown and the east side of
Summit. The Gateway II zone, where the
Salerno Duane auto dealership is currently
located, has been unable to attract reinvestment
despite concerted effort to incentivize
investment.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Identify target areas likely to meet the
statutory requirements for an “area in
need of redevelopment” (e.g., Broad
Street Corridor).
Î
Î
Adopt appropriate resolutions to
undertake a preliminary investigation of
target areas in need of redevelopment.
Î
Î
Redevelopment plans should align with
stated public goals that encourage public
benefits such as: affordable housing;
live/work unit types; adaptive reuse of
historic structures; pedestrian amenities;
pubic art and open space; affordable
neighborhood retail; co-working space;
community facilities.
Î
Î
Consider “area in need of rehabilitation”
status for neighborhoods that
would allow for the development of
redevelopment plans consistent with
prevailing character throughout said
area.
Î
Î
The current need to relocate the fire
house should be considered as an
opportunity to develop a redevelopment
plan.
Î
Î
Reevaluate the Gateway II zone
and rework the ordinance to better
incentivize redevelopment consistent
with the needs of the City.
Î
Î
Commission a financial feasibility study
of the Gateway II zone to determine
what zoning is needed to create a
predictable and economically feasible
redevelopment.
13
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000 Ft
Broad St West
Industrial Place
Gateway II
Ashwood Avenue
Subareas
Village
Green
City
Hall
Summit
Train Station
MORRIS AVE
BROAD STREET
PROPOSED AREAS THAT MAY
QUALIFY AS “IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT”
14
Objective 1.06: PROMOTE CLEAR, USER FRIENDLY, AND
TRANSPARENT APPLICATION, REVIEW,
AND PUBLIC HEARING PROCESSES FOR
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AND APPLICATIONS
A predictable application and permitting
process promotes the City’s ability to control
and guide development so that it meets both
public objectives and incentivizes reinvestment.
Providing a high level of transparency fosters
a partnership between the public and private
sectors that is more likely to result in alignment
in public and private interests that benefit the
entire community.
Residents and business/property owners have
reiterated the difficulty and cost associated
with variance approvals. This burden is not
only a financial strain on Summit residents
and commercial land owners, but it can
disincentivize reinvestment and has the
potential to hurt property values and the
economic stability of neighborhoods and the
downtown in the long-run.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Provide all needed materials online and
ensure the usability of documents.
Î
Î
Develop a clear submission checklist
that includes building design standards.
Î
Î
Implement an online property
information GIS and permit status
tracking system.
Î
Î
Ensure an effective and well publicized
mechanism for residents to report
quality of life issues and code violations.
Î
Î
Ensure regulations are applied evenly
across neighborhoods to ensure that
property maintenance violations are
addressed and to protect the wellbeing
of the community in a uniform fashion.
15
Basis
Walkable streets, human-centered scale, direct
rail access to the region, historic character and
successful retail and office markets: Summit
has all the foundational assets that make
for an attractive and thriving city. Perhaps
most importantly, as illustrated through the
thousands of ideas that were submitted through
the Master Plan re:Vision engagement process,
the citizens of Summit care for and have strong
affinity for their city. Summit should continue
to support the aspects of the City that residents
love and proactively respond to the changes in
commerce, technology and preferences that will
continue to position the City as a community of
choice that supports civic, social and economic
vitality.
Reality
A dynamic and well balanced retail mix is a key
element of any successful city. However, the
very nature of commerce and retail is changing.
While the growth of malls and the consolidation
of retail into big box store formats threatened
the continued existence of small-scale, mom
and pop retail in cities before, today online sales
provide consumers with unparalleled choice
and convenience. Summit’s retail districts have
something that neither the mall nor an internet
retailer can compete with: they provide a place
to gather and see other people, socialize with
friends and family and engage in civic life;
they provide a unique experience and have the
capacity to inspire and delight.
Outcome
The quality of life amenities, entertainment
and recreation opportunities, and engaging
streetscape that dynamic and vibrant cities can
provide is indeed their core asset and advantage
that should be supported and enhanced through
the City’s policies, legislation and investment
priorities.
Desired Outcomes:
Î
Î
Enhanced use of downtown.
Î
Î
Implement City strategy and branding.
Î
Î
More places for people to meet, gather
and socialize (e.g., public plazas and
engaging streetscapes).
Î
Î
Improved entertainment and nightlife
amenities.
Î
Î
Continued efforts to implement parking
strategies that prioritize visitors,
residents and workers.
Î
Î
Policies that mitigate vehicular
congestion and improve safety.
Maintain a Dynamic and Vibrant
City
GOAL 02:
16
Objective 2.01: PROMOTE MIXED- USE AND RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN
Without exception, the vibrancy of a downtown
is dependent on one key element: people. The
people downtown are not merely consumers
who keep the shops in business and the parking
meters fed, they are the very social fabric
that create and define the identity of a city.
A walkable and inviting public realm fosters
the opportunity to socialize, the possibility of
running into your neighbor at a coffee shop or
just the ability to watch others as they go about
their day.
One way to get people to a downtown is to
attract visitors and another is to put them
there. A residential population encourages
the consistent and stable use of downtown,
enhancing vibrancy and economic sustainability.
According to the housing demand survey
conducted for the purposes of this document,
housing options within walking distance to
public transit, services and amenities are
high priorities for current residents when
considering purchasing or renting a new home
in Summit.
Current housing options downtown are limited.
Constrained availability of land, small lot sizes
with disparate ownership and a shortage of
suitable resident parking hinder opportunities
for private development.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Work with property owners, residents,
and City staff to identify criteria and/
or incentives for developing additional
residential units by private owners.
Î
Î
Public/visitor parking and additional
traffic impacts should be assessed when
considering multi-family development
downtown.
Î
Î
Consider a financial feasibility analysis
on single-story parcels to identify
private-market incentive needs and
barriers to encourage development (e.g.,
along Broad Street Corridor).
Î
Î
Where appropriate, incentivize
residential development above retail
locations — specifically in locations with
current single-story uses.
Î
Î
Pursue the creation of a Redevelopment
Plan for areas likely to qualify as an “area
in need of redevelopment”; see objective
1.05 for detail.
Î
Î
Promote and incentivize the adaptive
reuse of historic and existing structures
(e.g., Turkey Hill Inn and DeBary Place
Inn).
Survey Results
Walkable to train station:
0.89%
2.68%
29.46%
36.61%
30.36%
Deterrent
Unimportant
Somewhat Important
Very Important
Essential
0.89%
6.25%
26.79%
36.61%
29.49%
Deterrent
Unimportant
Somewhat Important
Very Important
Essential
Walkable to services and amenities:
Q: How important are the following factors to you when
considering purchasing or renting a home in Summit?
17
Objective 2.02: ENHANCE THE PROGRAMMING AND DESIGN OF
PUBLIC SPACES
The quality of experience in a city is in large
measure dependent on the activities that happen
inside buildings: the shops, restaurants, offices
and entertainment venues. A distinguishing
quality of an engaging and vibrant city is how
the spaces between those buildings function.
Plazas, walkways, parks, alleys and the streets
themselves are a crucial component of the city
experience.
Public spaces should first and foremost be
designed to function as places that people
can access, socialize in, gather and encourage
chance interactions. It is here where function
and form should be in harmony. A well designed
public space is not only beautiful and well
maintained, but also invites use with plentiful
places to sit, interact and enjoy the city.
Public spaces foster social interactions that
respond to a variety of variables. Determining
what does or does not work takes time,
deliberate action and some trial and error.
It does not, however, require a lot of capital
investment to activate underutilized public
spaces. Simple and inexpensive interventions
such as placing movable tables and chairs
in plazas, improving lighting and safety,
incorporating concessions and sidewalk cafes or
hosting community events in public spaces are
all efficient and effective ways to bring new life
to public spaces.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Create a public space agenda that
identifies the following:
Current public space assets
Public space asset performance. Is
it accessible to all? What are the
barriers to its use. Are people using
it? Is an intervention needed?
Possible partners, both short-term
and long-term interventions and
possible funding sources.
Î
Î
Incorporate public health goals when
promoting vibrant public space so that
the development of great civic spaces
also promotes an active and healthy
experience for all residents.
Î
Î
Promote incorporation of public space
when considering new construction so
that new buildings, including new civic
buildings, are designed to be an integral
part of the community.
Î
Î
Structure implementation of the public
space agenda so that City departments,
community organizations and Summit
Downtown Inc. work together towards
common goals.
Î
Î
Develop a formal parklet program with
specific design standards and operating
procedures that clearly outlines strategy
and operational goals.
Î
Î
Incorporate public art into streetscape
and infrastructure: see objective 2.03 for
detail.
Î
Î
Establish the train station as a desirable
public space: see objective 2.04 for
detail.
18
The public space at the corner of Beechwood Road and Bank
Street is an example of a plaza where there is an opportunity
to implement low-cost improvements such as movable seating,
public art and programming to support opportunities for social
interaction.
This public space activation in Detroit, MI employed pouring
sand over a plaza and providing lounge chairs and umbrellas.
The creation of this “urban beach” did not require costly
infrastructure or capital investment, but rather focused on
creating a space where people were encouraged to gather and
socialize.
19
Objective 2.03: INCORPORATE PUBLIC ART AND PLACEMAKING
INTO STREETSCAPE AND INFRASTRUCTURE
THROUGHOUT THE CITY
Summit residents love their public art, and
would like to see it more integrated into the
downtown experience. Public art does not have
to be restricted to formal installations in the
traditional sense.
Incorporating art and design strategies
that promote placemaking into everyday
infrastructure, signage, bicycle racks, transit
stations, trash receptacles and the streets
themselves, can have a profound effect on the
experience of a place. Creating an enhanced
sense of place and encouraging interaction
and pedestrian experience can support local
business with increased foot traffic and add
significantly to a community’s livability.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Designate a qualified design professional
who identifies program needs, ensures
conformity to best practices and
provides creative and design guidance.
Î
Î
Encourage requiring a portion of funds
for streetscape capital projects and
private projects to be used for public art
(e.g., 1% of total cost with an established
maximum cap).
Î
Î
Streetscape infrastructure capital
project budgets should include design
development (e.g., 20%-30% of budget).
Î
Î
Identify criteria for public art that
establishes quality of work, site
specificity and durability of materials.
Î
Î
Involve the community, including
local institutions, in the design and
incorporation of public art (e.g., New
Jersey Visual Arts Center, public
schools).
Î
Î
Promote a public art policy that
strengthens partnerships with existing
institutions.
Incorporate public art
into city infrastructure
to build a sense of
place and community,
and have some fun.
Bike Rack
Bridge
Traffic Signal
Seating
Crosswalks
20
Objective 2.04: ESTABLISH THE TRAIN STATION AS DESIRABLE
PUBLIC SPACE
The Summit train station is one of the most
highly utilized commuter train stops on the
Morris-Essex New Jersey transit line. The
structure was opened in 1905 and stands as a
handsome architectural feature of downtown
Summit. Thousands of daily commuters pass by
and through the space on their daily commutes.
For many visitors, the train station is their first
impression of Summit.
Improving the experience of the public realm in
and around the train station serves to connect
the areas north and south of the tracks, further
promotes the use of public transit, improves
the customer experience and increases the
utilization of available public spaces. The
station hall and overpass, public areas around
the station, the walls of the overpass and the
platform itself all provide opportunities for
placemaking and enhanced use.
The foremost key to unlocking the potential of
the train station as a public space is a concerted
effort by the municipal government to build a
strong relationship with New Jersey Transit.
Collaborating with New Jersey Transit on
meeting goals, building a partnership and
identifying funding opportunities is crucial.
As emphasized in Objectives 1.02 and 4.02,
activating public spaces does not necessitate
a high level of funding or capital expenditure,
only collaboration, bold ideas and ensuring that
places are welcoming to all people.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Assess current underutilized public
space in and around the train station.
Î
Î
Add the train station to the public space
agenda: see Objective 2.02 for detail.
Î
Î
Define a placemaking strategy that
includes public art opportunities,
seating and public plaza opportunities,
greening and landscaping improvements
and public event opportunities that
are consistent with the streetscape
design guidelines and/or standards: see
Objective 1.01 for detail.
Î
Î
Identify public arts funding that could
support placemaking strategies.
Î
Î
Study and improve the circulation
patterns around the train station.
Î
Î
Build a strong relationship with NJ
Transit to establish and communicate
long-term objectives.
Î
Î
Leverage grant funding to design and
build a welcoming and safe bicycle
parking facility adjacent to the train
station.
Î
Î
Improve connectivity and access
between the train station and the
commuter parking garage through
pedestrian experience and safety
improvements, particularly at the
Summit Avenue and Broad Street
intersection.
Î
Î
Work with NJ Transit to provide input
on their Capital Improvement Plan.
21
Objective 2.05: REDEFINE THE BOUNDARIES OF “DOWNTOWN”
TO INCLUDE THE BROAD STREET CORRIDOR
Many of the strategies contained within Goal
2 will likely effect downtown Summit. When
residents identified how they would like to
see the future of downtown Summit to unfold,
ideas were not isolated to the boundaries of the
Central Retail Business District (CRBD) zoning
designation, often the implied definition of
downtown.
Transitional areas around the CRBD zoning
district —which include the Business (B), Office
Residential Character (ORC), Multi-Family
Residential (MF), Gateway I (GW-1), Gateway II
(GW II) zones and the Village Green — are all a
part of the downtown experience. Implementing
strategies contained within Goal 2 only within
the boundaries of the CRBD would miss the
opportunity to integrate, connect and create
a united sense of place in Summit. The Broad
Street corridor was identified as an area where
the downtown experience persists and should
be included in the definition of the area.
The separate and distinct zoning designations
that exist create standards that guide land
use in those districts. The broader objectives,
strategies and actions contained in Goal 2
should be applied within the constraints and
guidance established in the zoning regulations.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Collaborate with all downtown
stakeholder groups, including City
of Summit departments, Summit
Downtown Inc., residents, and business/
building owners from within and beyond
the CRBD to establish common goals
and needs.
Î
Î
Establish a definition of “Downtown
Summit” boundaries to potentially
include areas south of Springfield and
along the Broad Street corridor.
Î
Î
Identify long-term Summit Downtown
Inc. assessment area expansion that
coincides with expanded definition of
“downtown”.
Î
Î
Zoning in the areas south of the CRBD,
specifically on the Broad Street Corridor,
should be re-evaluated based on this
analysis.
Î
Î
Expansion of the CRBD zone should not
be pursued.
Î
Î
Any zoning changes should strive to
maintain and strengthen an appropriate
transition between lower-density
residential neighborhoods and the
downtown/commercial zones.
22
Objective 2.06: DEFINE SUMMIT’S BRAND
A city’s brand is more than a logo or a tagline.
A brand is the authentic expression of the
unique history, community assets, values and
aspirations of a place.
When asked to describe Summit’s core values
and aspirations, answers were quite consistent.
Family-focus, diversity, walkability, historic
character, eclectic culture and safety were
most commonly referenced when describing
why residents love Summit. Residents see an
opportunity for Summit to lead in fostering civic
innovation, a thriving community and cultural
life, improved accessibility and championing
sustainability.
These values are not only translated into a
branding strategy through campaigns, but
by personifying these values when policy
decisions, investments and tactical visions are
set. An authentic brand that is reflective of the
community is earned; it cannot be created or
invented.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Work with Summit Downtown Inc. to
unify SDI branding with City’s overall
branding strategy.
Determine how to make the
branding strategy reflective of all of
Summit
Consider an aligned City-wide
merchandising plan
Is the branding strategy authentic?
Is the branding strategy unique, not
generic?
Î
Î
Reach consensus on a key branding
message, broadly communicate and
distribute the key message points to City
staff and department heads.
Î
Î
When making public investment
decisions, ensure that strategic branding
goals are being supported.
Î
Î
When setting policy recommendations,
ensure strategic branding goals are being
supported.
Î
Î
Include all residents and adapt
communication strategies that respect
the needs, cultures and interests of
diverse populations.
23
Objective 2.07: ACTIVELY RECRUIT RETAIL TO FILL NEEDS
THROUGHOUT THE CITY
Downtown Summit’s retail district is well
loved by residents. High quality dining options,
boutiques and home design shops, some serving
the community for generations, all contribute to
the vibrancy and quality of life in Summit. The
varied range of retail options is highly valued
and should be maintained, and where possible,
expanded. However, throughout the course of
community outreach it was clear that there is
a crucial component residents feel is missing
in Downtown Summit: entertainment and
nightlife.
With the loss of the movie theater downtown,
options for evening activities and entertainment
are noticeably lacking. Residents cite that
they rarely visit Downtown Summit for
entertainment and nightlife activities, opting to
visit nearby downtowns. Tapping the after-five
potential of the downtown is an opportunity to
better serve current residents and retain dollars
in the local economy.
Maintaining and enhancing the retail mix in
commercial districts should aim to support the
overall economic vitality of the City. A balanced
retail mix that attracts a wide customer base will
benefit all businesses by supporting their long-
term economic viability in a retail environment
that is threatened by ever increasing online
competition.
In addition to identifying the lack of
entertainment and nightlife options in Summit,
residents also often reiterated that a quality
grocery store located close to downtown would
be desirable and would fill a currently unmet
need.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Encourage Summit Downtown Inc.
to manage and hire a retail attraction
consultant that will market available
spaces to target tenants.
Î
Î
Support policies that promote evening
uses and encourage business to stay
open later (e.g., night markets, evening
community activities).
Î
Î
Encourage the location of
entertainment-related uses downtown
including, but not limited to, restaurants,
cafes, hotels, bowling alleys, museums
and theaters.
Î
Î
Explore possible sites that would
support the development of a grocery
store near downtown.
Î
Î
Encourage businesses to stay open late
at least one day of the week (e.g., Friday).
Î
Î
Encourage businesses to maintain
illumination of storefronts after-hours
even if they are closed.
24
Objective 2.08: DEVELOP CONSISTENT FACADE, STOREFRONT
AND SIGNAGE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
The historic village feel and character of
downtown Summit is highly valued. The design
of storefronts, signage used and the quality of
building facades reinforces this character.
Building and store owners should be given
adequate guidelines that are clear, well
communicated and comprehensive. Design
guidelines should be flexible enough to allow
business owners to develop a unique and
differentiated branding, but encourage context
appropriate design.
Features that should be encouraged:
Î
Î
Preservation of historic architectural
features.
Î
Î
After-hours lighting.
Î
Î
Street-level transparency and dynamic
storefronts.
Î
Î
Quality signage and detailing.
Î
Î
Consistency of dimensions, awning
height and materials.
Features that should be discouraged:
Î
Î
Cluttering of storefronts with signage
(temporary or permanent).
Î
Î
Obstructed transparency that reduces
vibrancy at street-level.
Î
Î
Removal of, obstruction or alteration of
historic building features.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Work with Summit Downtown Inc. and
the Historic Preservation Commission to
review sign ordinance and improve the
objectives.
Î
Î
Review if set objectives are being
met by current ordinance and adjust
accordingly to align objectives.
Î
Î
Consider retaining a retail design/
architecture consultant to develop
high-quality design guidelines and/or
standards.
Î
Î
Provide more nuanced design guidance
beyond what will be controlled by
ordinance, develop a clear, visual and
easy to use storefront design and facade
guidelines document and consider
adoption of design and facade standards.
Î
Î
Ensure that design guidelines and/or
standards are easily accessible online
and information is broadly distributed
to all building and store owners, and are
included in DRO binder.
Î
Î
Consider the creation of a storefront/
facade improvement grant program that
supports the implementation of best-in-
practice design and encourages pride in
storefront design.
Î
Î
Recognize and celebrate building and
business owners that most clearly
exemplify quality contextual storefront
and facade design downtown.
Î
Î
Integrate the review of plans so that
designated staff are able to assist
business owners adhere to design
guidelines as part of the permitting
process.
25
Objective 2.09: DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE PARKING
STRATEGY THROUGHOUT THE CITY
When asked about what downtown Summit
needs, it doesn’t take long for residents to cite
the difficulty they have finding parking. While
high parking demand is a sign of success, it also
poses a constraint on convenience, accessibility,
and economic viability of a retail district.
Parking supply, however, creates a conundrum
in relatively dense historic downtowns such
as Summit. Land is limited and valuable, and
parking structures and surface lots do not
contribute to the experience of downtown, the
very competitive advantage that draws people
there to begin with.
A comprehensive parking strategy includes
assessing need, setting common goals and
including solutions that address both supply
and demand objectives. Given that land is
valuable and limited, including broader mobility
improvements that encourage alternative modes
of transportation, including walking, can have
a significant impact on the overall parking
utilization and capacity of a system. Recently,
Summit launched a new partnership with the
online network transportation company, Uber,
to incentive commuters to use the service to get
to and from the commuter train station during
peak periods. The new service is intended to
decrease the demand for commuter parking
downtown.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Update quantitative assessment of
the current parking shortage at peak
periods.
Î
Î
Reach consensus on a single set of
parking goals.
Î
Î
Establish an “optimum occupancy”
target for on-street parking, and adjust
time limits and rates accordingly.
Î
Î
Develop a strategic implementation
plan that addresses existing deficiencies
in supply.
Î
Î
Monitor parking and traffic impact of
new development projects.
Î
Î
Identify current parking users
downtown and create a strategy for each
user that addresses both supply and
demand.
Î
Î
To maximize the use of existing assets,
explore technology platforms that
increase the efficiency with which the
parking system is utilized.
Î
Î
Encourage shared use parking where
possible.
Î
Î
Encourage reduction in parking demand
by proactively creating and promoting
bike parking capacity in areas of highest
parking demand.
Î
Î
Consider the financial feasibility of
adding another tier to the existing Broad
Street parking structure.
Î
Î
If a parking structure is needed, mitigate
its impact on the built environment with
active street-level activities, such as
retail.
Î
Î
Where additional parking supply
is considered, the impact of traffic,
especially in adjacent residential areas,
must also be considered.
Î
Î
Work with downtown employers to
explore and implement options for
commuter incentives for downtown
employees.
Î
Î
Consider creating a parking fund
for CRBD developments to which
developers or owners contribute when
projects seek variance approval (e.g.,
when proposals exceed allowable FAR).
26
Objective 2.10: DEVELOP A STRATEGY TO ENHANCE
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS CORRIDORS
Neighborhood Business (NB) zones are
typically small commercial zones surrounded by
residential neighborhoods. These commercial
districts provide services to the local community
and are an important amenity for the areas that
they serve.
Residents see an opportunity to reinforce
these smaller commercial districts as walkable,
connected and desirable places that enhance the
neighborhood character and urban fabric of the
City as a whole.
Many of the objectives found in Goal 2 of this
document could be applied to enhance the sense
of place and vibrancy in these districts.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Form a committee that includes
stakeholders from each of the
Neighborhood Business zones to define
or redefine objectives and set an action
plan that includes short-term and long-
term objectives.
Î
Î
Ensure that Neighborhood Business
zones are considered in the development
of Bicycle Plan (connect zones to each
other and to CRBD).
Î
Î
Enhance walkability and pedestrian
safety in Neighborhood Business zones
to promote use and vibrancy.
Î
Î
Incorporate public art and streetscape
improvements in Neighborhood
Business Zones to reinforce the
importance of the zones and promote
reinvestment.
Î
Î
Ensure a consistent application of design
standards including, storefront, facade
and street design guidelines or standards
in Neighborhood Business zones.
27
Basis
The connections between people, places, and
things are at the very root of why cities exist.
Access to trade, transportation, entertainment,
recreation, education and the experiences and
activities that residents engage in on a daily
basis create the rhythm of a community.
An issue reiterated throughout prior plans
and by residents is parking availability
downtown. While parking may not seem like a
“connectivity” issue, it is in fact central to the
topic as it is an indicator of how well connected
a city currently is.
Land is valuable and limited, meaning the
capacity to supply parking is equally limited. A
connected city that provides for many modes
of transportation functions more efficiently has
less congestion and subsequently fewer parking
issues. No single mode of transportation —cars,
buses, trains, bikes or feet — can effectively meet
all of the transportation needs of residents. A
balanced and multi-strategy approach is needed.
Reality
The nature of transportation is evolving
quickly. The growth of the sharing economy,
the resurgence of biking, a renewed focus
on walkability and the imminent rise of
autonomous vehicles are forcing paradigm
shifts about how we design a community that
will be resilient and competitive into the future.
Summit has a walkable core, a centrally located
commuter train station, an established walking
and biking culture and a pro-transit attitude. An
opportunity lies in building on these attributes
and ensuring that connectivity is enhanced at all
levels of community design.
Outcome
Connectivity and circulation systems are ever
evolving and inherently complex. Hence, careful
consideration of the effects of all new policies
and infrastructure investments is required to
ensure that they enhance and never inhibit
community connectivity.
Desired Outcomes:
Î
Î
Improved safety on streets and
sidewalks for pedestrians, cyclists, and
motorists.
Î
Î
Reduced parking demand and increased
parking availability.
Î
Î
Multiple travel mode options for
residents.
Î
Î
Improved accessibility for residents of
all abilities.
Î
Î
Better utilization of key assets (e.g.,
parks, community facilities, streets and
sidewalks).
Î
Î
Reduced vehicular congestion.
Î
Î
Improved circulation patterns.
Î
Î
More convenient access to transit and
alternate modes of transportation, such
as a shuttle/jitney service.
Improve Connectivity between
People and Places to Promote a
Healthy and Vibrant Community
GOAL 03:
28
Objective 3.01: ADDRESS PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING SAFETY
PRIORITIES
Residents have overwhelmingly stressed the
need for pedestrian and safety improvements
of the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in
Summit. Particular concern is focused on gaps in
the sidewalk network throughout the City.
The Summit Environmental Commission,
in collaboration with the City Engineering
Department and the Summit Police Department,
is currently developing a Bicycle Plan for the
City, and City Council has adopted a “Complete
Streets” ordinance. These are important steps
in planning for a safer pedestrian and cycling
environment for Summit residents. These
initiatives should be incorporated into and
supported by future infrastructure planning and
design decisions.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Strengthen the City’s commitment to
develop “Complete Streets” by creating
an implementation plan for streets with
specific design criteria.
Î
Î
Create a Street Design Manual to define
desirable design features of pedestrian
realm and roadway.
Î
Î
Support completion of the Bicycle
Plan being developed by the Summit
Environmental Commission
Use capital budget to purchase and
install bike racks.
Create and update a map of bicycle
infrastructure in Summit.
Î
Î
Incorporate pedestrian realm
improvements into building design.
Î
Î
Leverage existing green and open
space assets to improve pedestrian
connections.
Î
Î
Promote the implementation of a full
and complete sidewalk network.
Î
Î
Ensure that streets are accessible for
all users, including seniors and the
disabled.
Î
Î
Explore the creation of “low speed
corridors” in residential neighborhoods,
particularly around schools.
Î
Î
Strengthen enforcement of traffic
infractions around known problem
corridors.
Î
Î
Consider redesign solutions on corridors
and intersections that pose systematic
risk to pedestrians and cyclists.
Î
Î
Support the installation of bicycle
racks (where possible, covered bicycle
racks) particularly near businesses and
community facilities.
Î
Î
Redesign pedestrian gateways to
downtown Summit.
Î
Î
Where possible, reclaim pedestrian
space and implement traffic calming
measures.
Î
Î
Prioritize pedestrian safety and usability
improvements that connect east side of
Summit and the downtown.
Î
Î
Improve the street tree canopy and
streetscape to enhance the pedestrian
environment (e.g., Broad Street,
Springfield Avenue, Morris Avenue).
Î
Î
Ensure capital improvements to Broad
Street, Springfield Avenue and Morris
Avenue improve connectivity to the
eastern neighborhoods of Summit.
29
“I like the white road striping on
Sunset Dr. ... it is a traffic
calming action because it
visually narrows the road.”
“More sidewalks on Woodlawn!”
“Better sidewalks on Woodlawn
would better allow walkers and
bikers and daily commuters to
get downtown vehicle free”
“Add sidewalks to street that radiate
away from Washington Elementary”
“Bring the walking/biking path back to
Canoe Brook Parkway. They were there for years
and then paved over when they resurfaced the street”
“There needs to be a sidewalk under
the bridge. It is dangerous for
people walking under it.”
“We need a sidewalk
connecting the town to
the Watchung reservation
on Glenside Avenue.”
Street locations where Summit residents
identified safety issues due to lack of
sidewalks, traffic flow issues, or general
pedestrian or circulation issues.
“Adding a protected left hand
turn for cars can help
with traffic. It is often difficult
to turn left onto Morris from Kent Pl.
Typically, only one (rarely two)
cars can turn. This causes a traffic
build up that can even block
driveways on Kent Place.”
Example of an implemented
“complete street” design in
Hamburg, NY. This street
design accommodates
pedestrians, cyclists and
motorists safely and
conveniently.
30
Objective 3.02: UTILIZE THE VILLAGE GREEN AS AN ACTIVE
CENTER THAT CONNECTS NEIGHBORHOODS
The 2009 Summit Village Green Master Plan
developed in collaboration with the Summit
Area Development Corporation and the City of
Summit Department of Community Services
outlines the design improvements, investment
alternatives and maintenance goals for the
Village Green.
While the 2009 Summit Village Green Master
Plan provides an outline and guidance for
capital improvements to the park, this objective
is intended to support broader criteria that
should be considered when investments or
programming changes are implemented.
The Village Green is distinct from other open
space assets in Summit due to its location
and function as an urban park that serves as
an active space for residents. Many residents
reiterated the importance of preserving this
space and contributed many ideas on how the
space could be further utilized as an active space
that connects the surrounding neighborhoods
and contributes to the connectivity and
walkability of the downtown area.
While the southern quadrants of the Green are
often activated by programming developed by
the City of Summit Department of Community
Programs, an opportunity often reiterated by
residents is the possibility of further activating
the Green with concessions that offer food and
drink.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Support the Department of
Community Programs in developing
and implementing a comprehensive
permanent or temporary concession
strategy that promotes local business
and generates revenue that supports
Village Green maintenance.
Î
Î
Continue to support the programming
of the Village Green that includes events
and activities for all residents.
Î
Î
Further promote events on the
Village Green that include food truck
vending.
Î
Î
Utilize the Village Green to host
temporary markets (e.g., winter holiday
markets).
Î
Î
Encourage diverse uses on the Village
Green that support both passive and
active recreation.
31
Objective 3.03: ACTIVATE ALLEYWAYS AS VIBRANT
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
Alleyways are a familiar component of the
historic development patterns found in
downtown Summit. They serve as a connecting
point between blocks and present a unique
opportunity for improving connectivity and
placemaking.
While alleys still accommodate deliveries
and vehicles, for the most part they do not
accommodate through traffic, they therefore
present an opportunity to curate a unique
pedestrian environment. Any intervention
intended to promote alleyways as pedestrian
corridors should first include a plan for
adequate lighting, maintenance and safety
provisions.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Implement a pilot program that
demonstrates the potential of alleyway
improvements. Potential treatments can
include:
Lighting installation and general
safety improvements
Art/mural application
Distinctive pavement application
Wayfinding, signage,and arched
gateways
Sidewalk cafes in back of
restaurants
Trash can containment/enclosure
prototypes
Î
Î
Take steps to promote the improved
maintenance of alleyways (e.g., owner/
tenant education and code enforcement).
32
Objective 3.04: FINALIZE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR
THE SUMMIT PARKLINE
Opportunities to secure additional open space
and recreation assets in communities that are
largely built-out are rare. The Summit Parkline,
a proposed horizontal park along the Rahway
Valley Railroad right-of-way, is one of those rare
opportunities. The Parkline investment holds
not only the opportunity to create additional
open space amenities, it also has the potential to
connect communities and enhance pedestrian
connectivity between downtown Summit and
the train station, residential neighborhoods, and
parks (Hidden Valley Park and Briant Park).
In addition to its connectivity potential, the
Summit Parkline could also become a regional
tourist and cultural attraction celebrating
Summit’s rich history.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Engage residents, particularity in
neighborhoods surrounding the
proposed park, to gather input and build
community support and enthusiasm.
Î
Î
Develop a phasing plan and cost
estimates for design, construction and
maintenance.
Î
Î
Support the Parkline Foundation’s
efforts to raise funds from private,
county, state and federal sources.
Î
Î
Support the development of pedestrian
and bike-friendly access between
downtown and Parkline.
Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff
Renderings for illustration purpose only
Potential Access Points for Summit Parkline
33
Basis
The resiliency and long-term success of a city
is directly dependent on its ability to retain and
tap into the many talents and contributions that
its diverse population can offer. Ensuring that
the most vulnerable among a population have
adequate access to the physical, economic and
social assets of a community benefits all citizens.
When housing options are expanded for low
and moderate-income families, the young and
seniors also benefit. When public infrastructure
and facilities are designed to be fully accessible
to disabled residents, they are equally more
accessible for a family with a stroller. When
considering public investment and policy,
Summit should strive to be a diverse and multi-
generational city that embodies the values of the
entire community.
Reality
Pending demographic shifts will transform
communities and economies. In line with
national trends, the City of Summit is getting
more diverse and older. These trends are likely
to continue, and perhaps accelerate, into the
future. Summit is a community with a strong
focus on families. Consideration should be given
to how the community is serving the needs of
every family member, in every stage of life.
Outcome
Environmental equality as a core value in city
design and policy setting will ensure that the
needs of current and future residents are met,
and prosperity is maintained.
Desired Outcomes:
Î
Î
Increased housing options for young
adults, empty-nesters, and seniors.
Î
Î
Expanded accessibility to all city assets
for residents.
Î
Î
Improved mobility options and
efficiency.
Î
Î
Positioning Summit to be more
competitive as a community that
welcomes the contributions of a diverse
population.
Promote a City that is Welcoming
to Residents of All Ages, Races,
Ethnicities, Abilities and Income
Ranges
GOAL 04:
34
Objective 4.01: PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A VARIETY OF
HOUSING TYPES
The Housing Element and Fair Share Plan are
concurrently being developed for adoption
to address the number of affordable housing
units to be developed in Summit under State
requirements and regulation. Affordability,
however, can be more broadly applied to the
needs of residents in Summit.
An informal Housing Demand Survey conducted
revealed that many Summit residents —nearly
30% of survey respondents—were considering
a move in the next five years. Most respondents
considering a move cited cost of living (namely
property tax), and the desire to “down-size” as
the top reasons for their likely decision to sell
their current home.
Providing a more diverse supply of housing
at a range of price-points can help retain and
attract empty-nesters interested in down-
sizing their dwelling, first time home buyers
interested in planting roots in the community,
low and moderate-income residents and people
employed in Summit who find it difficult to find
appropriate housing in the community.
The City of Summit has participated in the
third round affordable housing process, and
has received immunity through a declaratory
judgment action in the Superior Court of New
Jersey. An affordable housing settlement agreed
upon by the City with the Fair Share Housing
Center was approved by Common Council on
October 5, 2016 and by the Superior Court of
New Jersey in October 31, 2016.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Continue to enforce the mandatory
provision of affordable housing in new
development.
Î
Î
Continue to encourage affordable
housing units in new developments to be
constructed on-site.
Î
Î
Pursue the creation of a redevelopment
plan for areas likely to qualify as an
“area in need of redevelopment”: see
objectives 1.05 and 2.01 for detail.
Î
Î
Consider enacting carefully tailored and
context appropriate regulations to allow
accessory dwelling units.
Î
Î
Consider municipal financing
participation for developments that
expand senior housing opportunities.
Î
Î
Evaluate the inventory of City
owned properties in order to identify
opportunities for redevelopment.
Î
Î
Consider the use of alternative
construction methods that reduce the
cost of development (e.g., prefabricated
construction).
Î
Î
Explore special or conditional use
permits or zoning changes that
incentivize developing a wider range of
unit mix (e.g., require that units include
studio, one bedroom and family-size
(two and three bedroom) units in the
same building in exchange for additional
height, FAR, or set back requirements).
Î
Î
Encourage the preservation of existing
housing stock (e.g., discourage lot
mergers that reduce the number of
dwelling units).
35
Objective 4.02: ENSURE THAT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
ARE NOT ISOLATED FROM COMMUNITY
SERVICES AND ARE DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE
PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY AND ACCESS TO PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION
Promoting the use of multiple modes of
transportation achieves several objectives. This
objective is distinct in that is intended to ensure
that access to transportation, and thus services,
is considered not only from the perspective of
efficient circulation and capacity improvements
but also from the perspective of access and
equity. The City should encourage people to
shift transportation modes when possible while
recognizing that some do not have the option
of driving due to age, disability or lack of car
ownership. Securing basic connectivity in the
form of accessible transportation ensures that
these residents have the ability to participate
and contribute to the social and economic life in
Summit.
The principles of universal/inclusive design
can be broadly applied to encourage buildings,
transportation systems, streets, sidewalks,
recreation facilitates and parks that are
accessible to all residents, including older
people, and people with disabilities. The
principles of universal design include:
Î
Î
Equitable in use.
Î
Î
Flexibility in use.
Î
Î
Simple and intuitive.
Î
Î
Perceptible information.
Î
Î
Tolerance for error.
Î
Î
Low physical effort.
Î
Î
Size and space for approach and use.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Explore the viability of a shuttle/jitney
service.
Î
Î
Encourage accessibility improvements
in all buildings and public spaces per
universal design standards.
Î
Î
Ensure that all transportation systems,
including public transit, sidewalk
networks and cycling infrastructure
adhere to universal design principals.
Î
Î
Include all residents and adapt
communication strategies that respect
the needs, cultures and interests of
diverse populations.
Designing buildings and public spaces that can be used by
the most vulnerable populations,makes them more
accessible for everyone. “Universal design” helps all users.
"Truncated dome" warning tiles
Accessible public space
Lift at public transit location
36
Basis
A defining and unique characteristic of the City
of Summit is the concentration of highly skilled
workers who not only reside here but also work
here. Leading institutions in the healthcare,
biotechnology, financial and business consulting
industries have made a home for themselves in
the City.
There is an opportunity to not only preserve and
grow the economic benefit that these industries
bring to the City but also to reflect the spirit of
innovation, technology and future-focused city
design in the investment and policy decisions
that the City makes.
Reality
The City of Summit has seen a continued
decline in tax revenue per capita and shrinking
state aid funds. If this trend continues, the
decision between raising tax rates vs. decreasing
expenditures and thus reduced municipal
service delivery, will be an inevitability.
Fortunately, Summit’s tax base is diversified
beyond only having to leverage residential
property taxes, but the community needs to
promote that continued diversity to ensure the
health of the budget into the future. Taking
advantage of the favorable business climate and
strong economic foundation is an opportunity to
support and broaden reinvestment.
Outcome
Lead the way in creating an environment that
fosters social and technological innovation for
the benefit of long-term economic resiliency and
reinvestment.
Desired Outcomes:
Î
Î
Create infrastructure and regulatory
environment that supports innovation
and new investment.
Î
Î
Moderate, and where possible remove
barriers to reinvestment.
Î
Î
Tap into the creative energy of Summit
residents and workers.
Î
Î
Foster strong bonds with institutions
and regional partners.
Î
Î
Utilize technology to improve efficiency
of city systems.
BUILD ECONOMIC RESILIENCY BY
SUPPORTING REINVESTMENT
GOAL 05:
Property Tax Revenue Per Capita: City of Summit
$938
$922
$918
$883
$873
$840
$860
$880
$900
$920
$940
$960
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
37
Objective 5.01: RECOGNIZE AND MANAGE THE CITY’S POSITION
AS AN ECONOMIC HUB
The City of Summit hosts major institutions.
Notably, Overlook Hospital and Celgene are
both major regional employers and leaders in
the healthcare and biotechnology industries.
Additionally, leading companies in the business
consulting and finance industries such as
McKinsey and Company, Boston Consulting
Group and JP Morgan Chase all maintain offices
in Summit. The mix and caliber of knowledge
industry jobs located in Summit is particularly
noteworthy considering the size of the City.
This cluster of economic activity and the highly
educated workforce that it attracts to the City
should be supported and maintained. The first
step in doing this is to more clearly define what
being an “economic hub” means to Summit and
how it balances with the needs of residential
neighborhoods and the impacts on the quality of
life for residents.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Clearly quantify what the value of
business is to Summit, to its budget and
broader economy.
Î
Î
Set goals that align with supporting the
continued success of desirable business
activities in the City, while considering
the needs of residents.
Î
Î
Communicate with current institutions,
to ascertain their future needs.
Î
Î
Identify the potential public benefits
that could emerge from public-private
partnerships and develop strategies to
leverage public benefit (e.g., corporate
sponsorship of public art, partner with
institutions to find ways to provide
housing for workers, collaborate with
existing shuttle services when evaluating
possibility of public service).
Î
Î
Develop collaborative relationships that
benefit both public and private entities.
Î
Î
Ensure an appropriate focus on the
adequacy, resiliency, and functionality
of the utility infrastructure in the City,
including the power grid, gas, sewer and
water systems.
38
Objective 5.02: ENSURE THAT SUMMIT LEVERAGES
TECHNOLOGY TO PREPARE FOR 21ST CENTURY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Summit is home to cutting edge industries
that chose to locate in the City for a number
of likely reasons, such as access to an educated
workforce, mass transit connections to New
York City and quality of life amenities available
here. A key component of the City’s strategy
to foster this innovative energy should be to
continually promote innovation with City
policy, infrastructure investment and the City’s
branding.
The “Smart Cities” ideal is a fairly nascent
movement that aims to leverage data and
technology in order to drive policy decisions
that increase the efficiency and effectiveness
of city systems. With robust data availability,
issues and inefficiencies can be more accurately
scrutinized and efficient solutions developed.
A continued push to redefine how a small city
can innovate and lead the way in civic and
city systems innovation would not only lead to
improved results and efficiencies in city systems
but could also become a defining feature of
Summit’s competitive advantage and branding.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Develop cost-effective capacity for more
robust data collection of city systems.
Potential target data goals can include:
Better traffic management
Environmental indicators (e.g., air
quality and noise pollution)
Pedestrian foot-traffic data
Measure transportation network
utilization
Real-time information to improve
mobility and parking use
Advance safety and monitoring
systems
Coordinated, and responsive traffic
management
Advanced ridesharing that supports
the mobility needs of seniors and/or
persons with disabilities
Î
Î
Pursue the installation of a commercial
fiber network in Summit that will meet
the needs of 21st century industries.
Î
Î
Explore the feasibility of installing free
pubic Wi-Fi in the downtown.
Î
Î
Make city datasets available online for
public use to promote civic innovation
(e.g., app development, data analysis).
Î
Î
Consider the creation of a committee of
local business experts that can serve as a
peer-to-peer network advisors to small
businesses.
39
Basis
Summit residents express pride in the natural
beauty of the City and the commitment to
environmental stewardship. This commitment
should be continued and enhanced through
future investment and policy decisions.
The open space, natural resource and
community facility assets in Summit do not
only provide an opportunity for recreation,
they provide an enhanced standard of living for
residents and ensure a more harmonious and
balanced relation to the natural environment.
The preservation of these assets is a high
priority for residents, as is ensuring that future
investment supports increased utilization of
existing assets.
Reality
The inventory of open space, parks and
community facilities in combination with the
community programming available at these
facilities is impressive, particularly given the size
of the City. This of course contributes greatly to
the quality of life and health of residents and sets
expectations high.
The ongoing maintenance cost of facilities and
capital improvement needs should be addressed
by ensuring that there is a centralized and
appropriate venue to make long-term capital
decisions that assesses trade-offs rationally and
leverages available grant funding efficiently,
maximizing the City’s ability to implement
capital plans without overwhelmingly burdening
Summit tax payers.
Outcome
Create a rational approach to investment that
prioritizes maximum public benefit and fully
utilizes available external funding.
Desired Outcomes:
Î
Î
Protect natural resources.
Î
Î
Enhance the quality of existing
community facilities.
Î
Î
Enhanced tree canopy, including in the
right of way.
Î
Î
Maximize available funding to highest
public benefit.
Î
Î
Prioritize capital investments efficiently
and with community input.
Î
Î
Make use of opportunities to add to the
City’s inventory of public open space.
Preserve and Enhance Natural
Beauty, Open Space and
Community Facility Assets for
Future Generations
GOAL 06:
40
Objective 6.01: PRESERVE AND ENHANCE PARK AND
RECREATION FACILITIES, WHERE APPROPRIATE,
TO MEET THE NEEDS AND DEMANDS OF
PRESENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS
Enhancing current assets and coordinating
investment and maintenance so that greatest
public benefit is achieved is a complex task.
Both public land and funds are limited, meaning
that every investment is a trade-off and a
commitment to maintenance cost.
Residents contributed many ideas for potential
enhancements to existing assets and for the
creation of new ones. Ideas included suggested
locations for a new sculpture park and the
addition of new pocket parks throughout the
City. Most commonly mentioned by the public
was the condition and overall inadequacy of the
City’s baseball/softball facilities.
In order to make the most of available funding
and make appropriate decisions, the capital
planning process should include an appropriate
venue where these ideas are submitted, vetted
and prioritized.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Incorporate park, open space and
recreation facility stakeholders into
City’s capital planning process.
Î
Î
Provide appropriate venue for
investment goal prioritization
that involves the community (e.g.,
participatory budgeting procedure) with
the intent of:
Prioritizing community goals
Providing perspective on trade-offs
for available tax- dollars
Streamlining investment decisions
into single process
Î
Î
Assist in identifying a possible location
for, and developing a feasible plan for,
consolidating and improving Summit’s
baseball facilities.
Î
Î
Maintain a catalog of shovel-ready
projects that can be positioned for
County, State, and Federal grant funding.
Î
Î
Coordinate with the Summit Board
of Education capital planning process
to facilitate efficient and coordinated
investment in sports field assets.
Î
Î
Coordinate with Union County to align
long-term goals for County owned
assets.
Î
Î
Perform an audit/update of Summit
Recreation Master Plan to determine
outstanding goals, and relevance of those
goals.
Î
Î
Utilize grant funding and other sources
of non-City funds where possible to fund
all or portion of City projects.
41
Objective 6.02: ENCOURAGE LOW-IMPACT DEVELOPMENT
AND GREEN TECHNOLOGIES IN ALL NEW AND
EXISTING BUILDINGS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND
CAPITAL PROJECTS
When considering the preservation of the
natural environment in Summit, the impact the
built environment has on the ecology of the City
should be considered and encouraged.
Zoning ordinances should actively support new
construction or substantial renovation projects
meeting green building criteria. Current zoning
incentives require that new construction meet
LEED Neighborhood Development or LEED
New Construction criteria. The City may also
develop its own criteria led by the guiding
principles of LEED certification without
imposing the cost of certification.
A consistent application of these standards
can substantially help address issues related to
water conservation, stormwater management,
energy efficiency, indoor air quality,
construction materials, active design and
accessibility.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Perform an audit and update the Action
Plan for a Sustainable Summit prepared
by the Mayor’s Sustainable Community
Task Force to determine:
Which action steps were achieved
Which action goals remain to be
undertaken
Review relevance of action steps yet
to be taken
Î
Î
Incorporate green technology and
infrastructure as part of placemaking
and public education strategy.
Î
Î
Adopt minimum energy performance
standards and/or incentives for new
development.
Î
Î
Establish minimum stormwater
management standards for new
development.
Î
Î
Establish minimum sustainable site and
building standards for the design and
construction of new development.
Î
Î
Incentivize retrofitting of existing
buildings to meet modern sustainability
opportunities.
Î
Î
Promote the extensive use of green
infrastructure.
Î
Î
Maximize planted areas, greenway, and
swales to retain and filter stormwater.
Î
Î
Maintain and expand the presence of a
healthy tree canopy in the right of way
and parking areas to provide shade and
further encourage walkability.
Î
Î
Support policies that encourage
recycling by businesses and residents
(e.g., enforcement of current compliance
and reporting regulations; encouraging
investments in infrastructure that
makes recycling more convenient and
cost effective for both residents and
businesses).
42
Objective 6.03: LEVERAGE RESIDENTS AND DATA TO KEEP AND
UPDATE INVENTORY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
The City of Summit took an important
conservation step in developing an
Environmental Resource Inventory in 2011.
The initiative was led by the City of Summit
Environmental Commission.
Developing these types of documents not
only reinforces the City’s commitment
to conservation but promotes the ideals
throughout the community.
Environmental factors change over time and
any inventory document has to be updated
periodically. In line with Objective 5.02 that
supports the collection of more robust data on
city systems, the update of the Environmental
Resource Inventory should also have a focus
on how the City can best leverage existing
technology and update available information in
real-time moving forward.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Review Environmental Resource
Inventory and identify which data could
easily and inexpensively be posted
online and updated periodically.
Î
Î
Coordinate with City Departments,
especially the Summit Police
Department, to enhance the availability
of relevant data (e.g,. noise complaints or
vandalism)
Î
Î
Promote canopy cover and contiguous
forest cover across private and public
land.
43
Objective 6.04: REACH AND FINALIZE CONSENSUS AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR COMMUNITY
FACILITY ASSETS AND OPEN SPACE
IMPROVEMENTS
Open space and recreation improvements can
contribute to more than just the wellbeing
and quality of life of residents. They can also
function as economic development tools that
help a community stand out and establish a
unique competitive advantage.
Multiple investments in community and
recreation facilities are either being considered
or are in the planning, fundraising or
development phase. Among possible projects
that could meet Goal 6 objectives are the
proposed Summit Parkline, the Passaic River
trail improvements, Summit Community
Center improvements, proposal to establish a
permanent home for the Summit Free Market,
and the development of a master plan for the
Transfer Station. In addition to providing
additional recreation options, these investments
have the potential to connect existing assets,
improve accessibility and mobility and
ultimately become differentiating aspects of the
community that have the capacity to catalyze
economic growth.
All of these projects could also become
exemplary case studies for the leveraging
of outside grant funding and long-term
maintenance plans that minimize the impact on
local budgets.
Actions & Strategies
Î
Î
Incorporate broader mobility,
connectivity, accessibility and economic
development objectives into the design
and implementation plans of community
facility asset investments and open space
improvements.
Î
Î
Communicate mobility, connectivity,
accessibility and potential economic
benefits clearly to the community
and engage potentially impacted
neighborhoods in a meaningful way.
Î
Î
Leverage available grant funding to avoid
local tax-dollar investment.
Î
Î
Develop and communicate long-term
maintenance strategy and funding.
Î
Î
Support the development of a
comprehensive master plan for the
Transfer Station.
Î
Î
Consider the addition of a closed-vessel
composting system at the Transfer
Station.
Î
Î
Support the fundraising and planning
efforts for the Summit Community
Center improvements.
Î
Î
Finalize funding and investment plan for
Passaic River Trail improvements.
Î
Î
Support efforts to establish a permanent
home for the Summit Free Market.
APPENDICES
45
APPENDIX A
The Summit Master Plan re:Vision document
did not start from scratch. Past planning
efforts have articulated goals and objectives
for Summit, and these provided a foundation
for this document. This appendix aims to
review prior planning objectives by topic area
and identify consistency between and among
prior plans. These goals and objectives formed
the starting point for the re:Vision effort.
Recommendations listed in the Goals and
Objectives section of this report built upon
prior planning objectives by assessing where
progress has been made, where challenges
persist, and whether goals and objectives are
still aligned with the future vision for Summit.
The following plans are reviewed:
Î
Î
2000 Master Plan – Served as a general
guide for leaders in the City of Summit,
including elements to address land
use, circulation, community facilities,
recreation/open space, conservation,
historic preservation, and recycling.
Î
Î
2003 Master Plan Reexamination –
Suggested additional zoning changes
determined through implementation of
the 2000 Master Plan.
Î
Î
2005 CRBD Master Plan – Outlined how
the central retail business district can
continue to be a successful downtown.
Î
Î
2006 Master Plan Reexamination –
Updated the 2000 Master Plan with
current conditions and additional
recommendations.
Î
Î
2009 Village Green Master Plan –
Envisioned the future of the Village
Green of Summit to guide future
improvements.
Î
Î
2008 Action Plan for a Sustainable
Summit – Outlined how Summit can
be more environmentally-sensitive and
sustainable.
Î
Î
2015 Downtown Improvement Plan
– Reviewed Summit’s downtown
for recommendations to foster
continued economic development and
improvement of existing conditions.
Overall Goals/Visions
Past planning efforts recognized Summit as a
small residential city with a role as a regional
center. They articulated the importance of
residential neighborhoods, the Central Retail
Business District (CRBD), office uses, and the
surrounding region; these different elements
must be connected through multiple modes
of transportation. Several raised the goal of
addressing the issues of the day, especially with
regard to sustainability, while preserving the
best aspects of the community.
2000 Master Plan
Î
Î
Preserve existing residential
neighborhoods and offer a diversity of
housing types.
Î
Î
Maintain and upgrade the availability
of community resources for residents
through modern, efficient and
strategically located facilities.
Issues and
Objectives in Past
Planning
46
Î
Î
Enhance connections within the
City between and among residential
neighborhoods, community resources,
the Central Business District, and the
region, through the use of public transit
system, walking and alternative modes
of transportation.
Î
Î
Recognize and manage the City’s
position as a regional center – as a
transportation, employment, shopping
and entertainment destination.
Î
Î
Balance growth and development
opportunities with the established
pattern of development and existing
infrastructure.
Î
Î
Reinforce the Central Business District
as a mixed-use core that is pedestrian
oriented with a concentration of
commercial, civic and institutional uses
in close proximity to housing and mass
transit.
Î
Î
Reinforce the City as a desirable
location for office, research and other
employment uses within its existing
pattern of development.
Î
Î
Encourage a balanced development
pattern, which will protect and enhance
long term economic and social interests
of present and future residents in order
to maintain and improve the City’s
overall quality of life.
Additions from 2006 Re-Examination
Î
Î
Recognize the importance of cultural
arts as a contributing element to the
City.
Land Use
Key elements identified as sources of
Summit’s character included its residential
neighborhoods, commercial districts, parks,
and institutions. Leaders were encouraged to
balance these different City elements, ensuring
that Summit remains a desired place for
living and doing business. Strong design and
enforcement of building codes were strategies
listed for making sure buildings were visually
appealing. Overcrowding and overdevelopment
have been a concern in past Summit planning
efforts. Zoning designations, both through the
zoning code and the redevelopment process,
were primary tools for making decisions going
forward; many adjustments have been suggested
over time to make sure designations accurately
reflect residents’ desires for the City.
2000 Master Plan
Î
Î
To support the upgrading of substandard
properties in the City through code
enforcement efforts, education,
ordinance amendments and other
initiatives.
Î
Î
To promote a desirable visual
environment through creative and
flexible development techniques.
Î
Î
To continue Summit’s tradition of
providing for a variety of housing types
designed to support and address the
housing needs of a diverse population
representing a variety of income groups.
Î
Î
To encourage residential development
in locations and at densities which are
compatible with existing development
patterns and which public roadways and
utilities can service.
Î
Î
To recognize the changing needs of
Overlook Hospital and provide for
the redevelopment of the Overlook
neighborhood through collaboration
with Atlantic Health System.
Î
Î
To increase housing opportunities for
senior citizens.
Î
Î
To improve the quality of neighborhood
business areas.
Î
Î
To clearly define commercial and
industrial areas with natural boundaries
and effective buffers.
47
Economic Development
Summit’s businesses have provided services
to the region, contributed to the character
of the City, made up an important part of
the tax base, and provided employment for
residents. Suggested efforts to help businesses,
especially those in the Central Retail Business
District, included marketing/advertising
efforts, increasing the number of community
events, supporting capital upgrades to existing
businesses, and providing assistance for new
development projects.
2000 Master Plan
Î
Î
To encourage and promote economic
development and revitalization through
new investment, maintenance and
reinvestment in existing commercial and
industrial activities within the City.
Î
Î
To ensure that transportation, business
and economic development retain a
healthy relationship with the residential
character of the City.
Î
Î
To maintain the City’s employment base.
Î
Î
To plan for continued economic viability
by strengthening the tax base through
the encouragement of continued private
investment and tax-producing uses
which are consistent with community
needs, desires, existing development and
environmental concerns.
2005 CRBD Master Plan
Î
Î
Create a business retention,
enhancement and expansion program
that works to retain existing businesses
and identifies and markets the Summit
CRBD to desirable new businesses.
Î
Î
Offer assistance with the development
process in the CRBD to developers,
landlords, merchants and residents
through the Department of Community
Services.
2015 Downtown Improvement Plan
Î
Î
To promote the downtown district
incorporating special events with a
refined focus.
Î
Î
To develop a comprehensive advertising
program to promote the downtown,
including a downtown guide brochure, a
restaurant brochure, and a promotional
brochure.
Î
Î
To foster greater levels of business
recruitment and retention.
Î
Î
Ensure that the Summit Downtown
Inc. (SDI) organization is more easily
accessible and understood by both
business owners and the public alike.
Î
Î
To promote walking and district
exposure.
Housing
Housing makes up most of Summit and has
been listed as a defining element of this
primarily residential City. A past focus was
on providing for a variety of housing types,
both to better serve its residents and meet
State obligations. Senior housing was one
example of an additional housing type which
could be encouraged. Affordable housing was
encouraged to integrate with other housing
units within the City, rather than be isolated.
2000 Master Plan
Î
Î
To continue Summit’s tradition of
providing for a variety of housing types
designed to support and address the
housing needs of a diverse population
representing a variety of income groups.
Additions from 2006 Re-Examination
Î
Î
To particularly focus on identifying
and realizing opportunities to provide
affordable housing for low income
households and housing options for
senior citizens.
48
Î
Î
To address the City’s COAH obligations.
Î
Î
To increase housing opportunities for
senior citizens.
Î
Î
The City should continue to aggressively
move forward with implementing
the Fair Share Plan and at the same
time respond to the Court Master’s
comments.
Î
Î
It is desired that, to the extent possible,
any Mt. Laurel units required as a result
of a residential development will be built
and integrated within the development.
Community Facilities
Public places like schools, municipal offices,
community centers, and public safety facilities
were identified as important for building
community in Summit. One suggestion was
to maximize existing community facilities to
efficiently use resources and reach as many
Summit residents as possible. They should be
upgraded as needed, in concert with the City’s
Capital Improvement Program. A point of
emphasis was that upgrades should plan for the
future by considering demographic changes in
Summit.
2000 Master Plan
Î
Î
To provide community services which
address the changing demographic
characteristics of the population.
Î
Î
To provide an effective array of
recreational and cultural programs and
opportunities for all segments of the
community.
Î
Î
To coordinate the construction of
improvements with the City’s Capital
Improvement Program.
Î
Î
To encourage public art in strategic
locations throughout the City.
Î
Î
To efficiently use school facilities where
possible.
Î
Î
To integrate the goals and objectives
of the City’s recently adopted Strategic
Plan.
Î
Î
The City should continue providing
proper maintenance to municipal
facilities and capital funding for
upgrades and improvements.
Î
Î
The City should also develop
recommendations for capital
improvements for other public and
quasi-public entities in the City.
Î
Î
Efforts should be made to work
cooperatively with surrounding
municipalities.
Additions from 2006 Re-Examination
Î
Î
Evaluate whether a separate Cultural
Arts Element would be appropriate as
part of the next Master Plan.
Î
Î
Address the impact of enrollment
projections and the subsequent need
for additional and/or renovated school
facilities.
Î
Î
Work with public and private schools
to address parking and traffic issues
and lessen the impact on surrounding
neighborhoods.
Î
Î
Implement, where appropriate, the
recommendations of the ADA task
force regarding community facilities,
including public schools.
Circulation & Parking
Traffic congestion and lack of parking were
identified as a concern for Summit. This was
especially true in the busy Central Retail
Business District (CRBD), where congestion
and parking availability are closely connected
with the success of businesses. Motorist
and pedestrian safety could be addressed by
looking at critical intersections and mitigating
their deficiencies. One suggestion was to
49
route through-traffic on major streets rather
than through neighborhoods. Encouraging
alternative transportation methods, including
walking, biking, and public transportation, was
also recommended.
2000 Master Plan
Î
Î
To promote the free flow of traffic in
appropriate locations while seeking
ways to address congestion and unsafe
roadway conditions.
Î
Î
To channel through traffic to major
streets and discourage in residential
neighborhoods.
Î
Î
To provide for adequate parking
and adequate loading and unloading
facilities.
Î
Î
To improve and expand pedestrian and
bicycle connections.
Î
Î
To relieve traffic congestion in the
CRBD.
Î
Î
To encourage the use of mass transit.
Î
Î
To implement streetscape, parking and
traffic improvements proposed by SDI
Inc.
Î
Î
To ensure traffic study takes into
account origin and destination of vehicle
trips.
Additions from 2006 Re-Examination
Î
Î
Continue to encourage the use of
alternate modes of transportation by
expanding safe walking and biking
opportunities.
Î
Î
Establish an effective Sidewalk Location
Policy to address gaps in sidewalk
networks and pedestrian safety
concerns as well as set forth criteria
for prioritizing and funding sidewalk
installation projects.
Î
Î
Work in conjunction with the County on
the Broad Street Corridor project.
Î
Î
Work to improve sight distance at
critical intersections, where possible.
Î
Î
In the Neighborhood Business zones,
encourage the redevelopment of
commercial properties to include on-site
parking and loading located in rears of
lots and consider implementing traffic
calming measures.
Î
Î
The integration of a GIS system as a
long term planning tool for traffic and
pedestrian safety improvements should
be evaluated.
Î
Î
The City continues to oppose the
proposed reactivation of the Rahway
Valley freight line.
2005 CRBD Master Plan
Î
Î
Respond to present and future parking
demand with a parking plan and
implementation policy, in conjunction
with the increase of the FAR.
Î
Î
Based on a projected build out, explore
a parking trust fund as a method
for creating new parking resources,
including a new parking garage.
2008 Action Plan for a Sustainable Summit
Î
Î
Reduce transportation fuel use, through
reduced automobile use and increased
fuel efficiency.
2015 Downtown Improvement Plan
Î
Î
To improve the balance of parking
availability and awareness while also
reducing congestion and encouraging
the use of mass transit.
Î
Î
To use parking policies to promote
District Economic Vitality.
Î
Î
To support walking, biking and transit
use.
Î
Î
To ensure that parking solutions are
implemented in an unbiased fashion.
50
Conservation
One key theme of past planning efforts was to
identify, protect, and preserve environmentally
sensitive areas in the City, including floodplains,
wetlands, steep slopes, and aquifer recharge
areas. Review of building regulations and
practices, such as green building, lot grading
ordinance, and stormwater management, was a
mechanism to ensure conservation goals were
being achieved. Conservation goals should be
balanced with the need for space for recreation.
Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and
reduction of waste were identified as important
ways that Summit could contribute to a more
sustainable planet; the 2008 Action Plan for a
Sustainable Summit tackled these questions in
detail.
2000 Master Plan
Î
Î
To protect natural and environmental
resources including floodplains,
wetlands, steep slopes, and aquifer
recharge areas and areas suitable for
public and quasi-public recreational
activities.
Î
Î
To identify and preserve
environmentally sensitive areas in the
City.
Î
Î
To encourage the use of conservation
easements on environmentally sensitive
lands in private ownership.
Î
Î
To conserve treed rights-of-way and
institute a tree planting program.
Î
Î
The City should continue to work with
State and County agencies in an effort
to acquire or otherwise preserve the
remaining undeveloped land in the City.
Î
Î
The City should work with Union
County to evaluate recreational uses
for existing county open space, i.e. the
Transfer Station.
Î
Î
The City should prepare a Natural
Resources Inventory.
Î
Î
The City should review its current
development regulations to ensure
that they protect natural resources and
environmentally sensitive areas.
Î
Î
The City should review its current
policies and methodologies in the use of
pesticides, fungicides and herbicides in
its parks and on all other public lands.
Î
Î
The City should continue to balance the
growing need to provide adequate active
recreation facilities with the need to
preserve land for passive use and purely
conservation purposes.
Î
Î
The City should work closely with
owners of developed and/or abandoned
properties where contamination may
have occurred.
Î
Î
The City should implement the recently
adopted tree/conservation/management
program.
Additions from 2006 Re-Examination
Î
Î
Review the lot grading ordinance to
confirm that it addresses additional
concerns that have been raised since the
ordinance was adopted in 2003.
Î
Î
It is recommended that the City evaluate
“green” building and design techniques,
such as the U.S. Green Building
Council’s LEED Green Building Rating
System, and create a “Green” Master
Plan that outlines best practices for a
“sustainable” Summit. (Addressed in
“Action Plan for a Sustainable Summit”)
Î
Î
Several neighborhoods experience
flooding during severe storms – the
causes of this should be studied and
addressed to the extent appropriate.
2008 Action Plan for a Sustainable Summit
Î
Î
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
energy loss
Î
Î
Reduce energy use by increasing energy
efficiency and use of renewable sources
51
Î
Î
Encourage and promote green building
practices
Î
Î
Increase use of recycled and renewable
materials in new construction and
renovation projects; reduce construction
waste
Î
Î
To conserve water through aquifer
recharge and water conservation,
and improve water quality through
reduction in toxics from rainwater
runoff and wastewater.
Î
Î
Decrease solid waste and encourage
best use of resources through a reduce-
reuse-recycle philosophy
Î
Î
Improve data collection of total tonnage
of solid waste disposed and recycled by
businesses and industry
Î
Î
Encourage a program for Green
Purchasing, or Environmentally
Preferred Purchasing (EPP), to be
adopted by the City and the Board of
Education (BOE)
Î
Î
Encourage residents, businesses, and
industry to make purchases that are
increasingly environmentally friendly
Î
Î
Develop and disseminate accurate
and timely information in an easily
accessible format to inform people about
best practices
Î
Î
Create a structure that will enable a long
term sustainability effort
Parks & Open Space
Summit has several parks and green spaces, and
a key theme was the maintenance, upgrading,
and preservation of these lands where
appropriate. Other options in this category
included exploring opportunities for expanding
the amount of green space in Summit, being
diligent about finding available properties, and
maximizing available funding. One example
was a proposed linear park along the Passaic
River. The City’s 2007 Village Green Master
Plan specifically addressed the Summit Village
Green, located adjacent to Downtown Summit.
2000 Master Plan
Î
Î
To identify as open space/recreation
certain public and private lands that
serve as open space, buffers, streetscape
or vistas; and/or are in a strategic
location as it relates to existing parks
and recreation.
Î
Î
To preserve and enhance park and
recreation facilities, where appropriate,
within the City to meet the needs and
demands of present and future residents.
Î
Î
To explore the creation of a linear park
along the Passaic River.
Î
Î
To create physical links, where feasible,
between City parks and the County park
system.
Î
Î
Maintenance and upgrading, where
necessary, of the existing parks network.
Î
Î
Proposed acquisition of 12 identified
parcels designated on the Open Space/
Recreation Plan Map as proposed open
space.
Additions from 2006 Re-Examination
Î
Î
Continue to explore recreational uses
for the Transfer Station site.
Î
Î
Explore mechanisms, such as public/
private partnerships, to encourage
and fund the acquisition of open space
parcels, historic sites, conservation
and historic easements and enhanced
maintenance of public parks.
Î
Î
Continue to seek funding from Union
County’s Open Space Trust Fund, Green
Acres and other sources to acquire open
space, improve outdoor recreational
facilities and preserve historic sites.
Î
Î
Continue to consider use of artificial
turf as a means of maximizing limited
52
playing field space. Shared use of field
space should be encouraged.
Î
Î
Continue to promote physical links
between parks, and between parks and
neighborhoods.
Î
Î
Consider whether additional open space
parcels should be identified.
2007 Village Green Master Plan
Î
Î
Re-invigorate the current structure of
the Village Green.
Î
Î
Improve safety and visibility at the
Village Green.
Î
Î
Preserve the sacred spaces important to
the community
2008 Action Plan for a Sustainable Summit
Î
Î
Continue to promote the preservation
of green space in and around the City of
Summit
Î
Î
“Promote a sustainable community
forest by encouraging the protection
and replacement of trees and become
more proactive in the management
and care of our trees.” (from Summit’s
Community Forestry Management
Plan)
Utilities
The Master Plan and subsequent
reexaminations identified effective and well-
maintained utility services as essential to daily
life in Summit. Stormwater management and
the sewer system were noted as areas of focus
for City officials and the appropriate private
sector partners.
2000 Master Plan
Î
Î
To encourage the efficient management
and regulation of storm water through
the implementation of appropriate
guidelines which will prevent future
drainage problems and provide for
environmentally sound land use
planning.
Î
Î
To rehabilitate and upgrade the
sewer system that serves the City in
accordance with Federal, State and local
law.
Historic Preservation
The Master Plan, subsequent reexaminations,
and plans focusing on the CRBD have
recognized the City’s historic buildings,
landmarks, and character. They suggested
additional work to preserve buildings already
designated as historic, in concert with the
Historic Preservation Ordinance. Recognition
of and education about historic sites would lead
to increasing awareness of Summit’s historical
assets, both for residents and those from other
places. Continued information gathering
and designation would ensure that lists were
accurate and up to date. Much of this work was
to be undertaken by the Historical Preservation
Commission (HPC).
2000 Master Plan
Î
Î
To recognize and preserve the historic
character of the City.
Î
Î
To explore incentives to encourage the
maintenance and facade restoration of
historically notable buildings.
Î
Î
To encourage the preservation of
historic buildings and landmarks that
are significant to Summit’s past.
Î
Î
Oversee implementation of Summit’s
program for protecting its historic sites
and districts within the framework of its
historic preservation ordinance.
Additions from the 2006 Re-Examination
53
Î
Î
In the short term, the Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) should
focus its efforts on preserving the 40
remaining individual historic sites and
the 2 sites that are on the National and
State Registers of Historic Places.
Î
Î
In the longer term, the Master Plan list
of historic sites and districts should
be updated. Sites that now qualify as
historic should be identified and added
to the list and the boundaries and
historic significance of the 12 districts
should be reviewed.
Î
Î
Add the Downtown Historic District,
identified in the 1990 Historic Resources
Survey, to the list of historic districts.
This recommendation is intended
to be in lieu of the Master Plan 2000
recommendation to expand the Civic
Center Historic District.
Î
Î
Consider creating a set of design
guidelines specifically for the CRBD,
prepared by the Historic Preservation
Commission.
Î
Î
Increase efforts to educate the
community about the importance of
historic preservation.
Î
Î
Amend the historic preservation
ordinance to give the HPC
responsibilities for the identification,
designation and limited regulatory
control of historic sites.
Î
Î
Consideration should be given to
applying for Certified Local Government
status.
2005 CRBD Master Plan
Î
Î
Request that the Historic Preservation
Commission develop a list of significant
historic buildings in the CRBD.
Challenges
Summit has many strengths and advantages,
but several challenges have previously been
identified as areas of focus for Summit. Traffic
and parking constraints limit the desirability
of the CRBD, discouraging customers and
hurting businesses. Pedestrian access and safety
in all parts of the City were also important;
these could be addressed by more complete
sidewalk cover and by looking at dangerous
intersections. Conflicts between residential and
nonresidential land uses were areas of focus.
Housing affordability has also persisted as a
challenge, especially for those at the lowest
income levels.
2000 Master Plan
Î
Î
Traffic
Î
Î
Residential/Non-Residential Land Use
Conflicts
Î
Î
Parking constraints
Î
Î
Overlook Hospital Neighborhood –
balance of level of the utilization of
the hospital and its impact on the
surrounding neighborhood
Î
Î
East Summit Pedestrian Access
Additions from the 2006 Re-Examination
Î
Î
Encouraging preservation of historic
buildings and landmarks that are
significant to Summit’s past.
Î
Î
Need for housing for lowest income
residents in the City.
Î
Î
Dangerous intersections requiring re-
engineering and improving of sight lines.
Î
Î
Lack of sidewalks in certain parts of the
City.
2005 CRBD Master Plan
Î
Î
The floor area ratio (FAR) of 225
percent, limiting incentives for private
redevelopment
Î
Î
Lack of retail continuity at street level
Î
Î
Insufficient residential units in
downtown
54
Î
Î
Some unattractive window displays
Î
Î
Lack of convenient parking
Î
Î
Significant traffic downtown
Î
Î
Lack of public art
Î
Î
Lack of easy connections between
residential neighborhoods and
downtown
Î
Î
Lack of unified management for the
CRBD
55
APPENDIX B
The last Re-examination Report (2006)
evaluated the extent to which the problems in
the 2000 Master Plan had been reduced or had
increased subsequent to that date. The 2016
Summit Master Plan re:Vision Objectives and
Goals were determined by examining the extent
to which the problems identified and addressed
in the 2006 Re-examination Report had been
reduced or have increased subsequent to that
date. The 2016 Summit Master Plan re:Vision
Goals and Objectives are also informed by
changes in assumptions, policies and objectives
that formed the basis for the 2006 Master Plan
Re-Examination and development regulations.
Appendix B outlines the objectives in both the
2000 Summit Master Plan and the 2006 Re-
examination report, and ascertains whether that
goal or objective remains valid. In many cases it
is in fact the case that prior goals and objectives
are still valid as many of the problems that were
identified in 2006 either persist, even if reduced,
or have been intensified. Summit Master Plan
re:Vision Committee members and residents
often confirmed the validity of past goals and
objectives, while recognizing that language
needed to be updated. Often, simply splitting out
a single objective from a prior plan into multiple
objectives to enhance clarity and actionability
was identified as a recommended update .
The Extent to Which Problems
Have Been Reduced or Have
Increased Since 2006
Traffic and parking challenges continue to be
a persistent issue for residents, hence goals
and objectives relating to finding ways to both
increase supply and reduce demand for parking
have been maintained and expanded upon.
Pedestrian safety and access issues identified
by prior plans have also been identified as
a continuing problem that requires further
mitigation. Conflicts between residential
and nonresidential land uses continue to be a
challenge, particularly in transitional zones that
surround the downtown. Since the 2006 Re-
examination housing affordability has become
an even greater issue, as real estate values have
been rising in the region.
Notably, the 2006 Re-examination focused
attention on the Salerno Duane property
(Gateway II) zoning. The zoning came into
effect at a precarious time and economic
cycles effecting the entire country rendered
investment in the property unlikely. These
recommendations are no longer valid, as it has
been determined that the Gateway II Zoning
district requires a wholesale overhaul that starts
with establishing the objectives and economic
feasibility of development on the site.
Assumptions and policies that form the basis
for the 2000 Master Plan and subsequent re-
examinations remain valid, and none of the
goals and objectives in the re:Vision Document
invalidate or propose policy that would counter
these assumptions and policies. Development
standards are guided by the Mater Plan and
some goals and objectives in this document
have outlined additional suggested standards
for consideration by the Planning Board (e.g.,
additional design standards for store fronts,
signage and facades; additional standards for
building design).
Changes Since the
2006 Master Plan
Re-Examination
56
Assumptions
1.
Continued effort to enhance the safety
and well-being of the community
through comprehensive, timely,
effective and just programs that address
significant needs and problems.
2.
The City of Summit will be able to
guide its growth in accordance with the
Municipal Land Use Law and will have
meaningful input into any proposed
County, regional, State and/or Federal
development plans, which affect the City
or its immediate environs.
3.
The future growth during the next ten
(10) year period will not exceed the
capacity of the City to provide essential
community facilities, utilities and/or
services.
4.
The City will continue to function as a
regional center.
Policies
1.
The Master Plan and the City’s overall
planning policies will provide for a
variety of residential and non-residential
uses which will encourage continuation
and enhancement of Summit as a quality
small residential city.
2.
Land developments should be designed
to protect and enhance the quality and
diversity of the City and to protect
neighborhoods from the intrusion of
inappropriate or incompatible uses.
3.
The City will consider and evaluate
innovative development and zoning
proposals which would enhance and
protect the City’s diverse character,
economic vitality and overall high
quality of life.
4.
The City will emphasize a balancing of
concerns in establishing land use and
zoning policies throughout Summit
seeking to provide economic stability,
public safety, retention of employment
opportunities and neighborhood
preservation.
5.
The City will encourage and provide for
review of development proposals of uses
which promote social, welfare, cultural,
recreational, service and religious
activities within Summit to serve present
and future residents of the Summit area.
6.
The City will update and implement
the technology plan to provide for
enduring institutional memory essential
for enhanced code enforcement and
precedents for future land use decisions.
The technology plan should take into
account the City’s newly installed
Geographic Information System (GIS)
and reflect the status of the City’s
attempts to install a city-wide wireless
internet network.
Standards
The Master Plan provides standards for
development that regulate the density, height,
type, and location of development. The Master
Plan also delineates locations that are generally
not developable. The Master Plan also provides
recommended standards for roadways and other
facilities. The City Development Regulations
Ordinance (DRO), adopted December 2nd,
2003 and amended through September 8, 2015
include zoning, site plan, and land subdivision
and design regulation, providing specific
standards for the design, construction and
development of individual land uses and
development sites within the City. In addition,
City regulations pertaining to utilities, fire
prevention, flood plains, wetlands, soil erosion,
street trees and other development factors have
been adopted and are applied by the Planning
Board, Zoning Board of Adjustment, as well as
various municipal agencies and commissions,
Union County, the State of New Jersey and
various federal as well as regional agencies.
57
Reference
Number
2000 Master Plan Goals
Reference in
2016 Master Plan
re:Vision
Goal/Objective/
Recommendation
remains valid:
MP 1.1
Preserve existing residential
neighborhoods and offer a diversity of
housing types.
Goal 01;
Objective 4.01
YES
MP 1.2
Maintain and upgrade the availability
of community resources for residents
through modern, efficient and
strategically located facilities, including
libraries, hospitals, recreation facilities,
emergency services, schools,
community centers, senior centers.
Objective 6.01
YES
MP 1.3
Enhance connections within the
City between and among residential
neighborhoods, community resources,
the Central Business District, and the
region, through the use of public transit
system, walking and alternative modes
of transportation.
Goal 03;
Objective 3.0;
Objective 3.04
YES
MP 1.4
Recognize and manage the City’s
position as a regional center – as
transportation, employment, shopping
and entertainment destination.
Goal 5;
Objective 5.01
YES
MP 1.5
Balance growth and development
opportunities with the established
pattern of development and existing
infrastructure.
Goal 01;
Objective 1.01;
Objective 1.02;
Objective 1.03;
Objective 1.04
YES
MP 1.6
Reinforce the Central Business District
as a mixed-use core that is pedestrian
oriented with a concentration of
commercial, civic and institutional uses
in close proximity to housing and mass
transit.
Goal 02;
Objective 2.01;
Objective 4.02
YES
MP 1.7
Reinforce the City as a desirable
location for office, research and other
employment uses within its existing
pattern of development.
Goal 05;
Objective 5.02
YES
MP 1.8
Encourage a balanced development
pattern, which will protect and enhance
long term economic and social interests
of present and future residents in order
to maintain and improve the City’s overall
quality of life.
Goal 01;
Objective 1.01;
Objective 1.02;
Objective 1.03;
Objective 1.04
YES
58
Reference
Number
2000 Master Plan Goals
Reference in
2016 Master Plan
re:Vision
Goal/Objective/
Recommendation
remains valid:
2000 Master Plan Land Use Objectives
LU 1.1
To support the upgrading of
substandard properties in the City
through code enforcement efforts,
education, ordinance amendments and
other initiatives.
Goal 05;
Objective 1.06
YES
LU 1.2
To promote a desirable visual
environment through creative and flexible
development techniques with respect to
environmental assets and constraints of
the City.
Objective 6.02
YES
LU 1.3
To continue Summit’s tradition of
providing for a variety of housing types
designed to support and address the
housing needs of a diverse population
representing a variety of income groups.
Objective 4.01
YES
LU 1.4
To encourage residential development
in locations and at densities which are
compatible with existing development
patterns and which public roadways and
utilities can service.
Goal 01;
Objective 1.01;
Objective 1.02;
Objective 1.03;
Objective 1.04
YES
LU 1.5
To recognize the changing needs of
Overlook Hospital and provide for
the redevelopment of the Overlook
neighborhood through collaboration with
Atlantic Health System.
Objective 5.01
YES
LU 1.6
To increase housing opportunities for
senior citizens.
Goal 04;
Objective 4.01
YES
LU 1.7
To improve the quality of neighborhood
business areas.
Objective 2.10
YES
LU 1.8
To clearly define commercial and
industrial areas with natural boundaries
and effective buffers.
Objective 1.04
YES
LU 1.9
To recognize the City’s role as a regional
center without impacting quality of life of
its residents.
Goal 5.01
YES
LU 1.10
To fully utilize the upper floor spaces in
the CRBD, encouraging residential use
where appropriate, to provide for much-
needed housing and to prevent building
deterioration while protecting retail trade.
Objective 2.01
YES
59
Reference
Number
2000 Master Plan Goals
Reference in
2016 Master Plan
re:Vision
Goal/Objective/
Recommendation
remains valid:
2000 Master Plan Economic Development Objectives
ED 1.1
To encourage and promote economic
development and revitalization through
new investment, maintenance and
reinvestment in existing commercial
and industrial activities within the City in
areas suitable for such development.
Goal 05;
Objective 5.01;
Objective 5.02
YES
ED 1.2
To ensure that transportation, business
and economic development retain a
healthy relationship with the residential
character of the City.
Goal 01;
Objective 1.01;
Objective 1.02;
Objective 1.03;
Objective 1.04
YES
ED 1.3
To maintain the City’s employment base.
Goal 05;
Objective 5.01;
Objective 5.02
YES
ED 1.4
To plan for continued economic viability
by strengthening the tax base through
the encouragement of continued private
investment and tax-producing uses
which are consistent with community
needs, desires, existing development
and environmental concerns.
Goal 05;
Objective 5.01;
Objective 5.02;
Objective 6.02
YES
2000 Master Plan Community Facilities Objectives
CF 1.1
To provide community services which
address the changing demographic
characteristics of the population (e.g.
schools, day care facilities, recreation
facilities, senior centers).
Goal 04;
Objective 4.01
YES
CF 1.2
To provide an effective array of
recreational and cultural programs and
opportunities for all segments of the
community.
Goal 04; Goal
06; Objective
6.01
YES
CF 1.3
To coordinate the construction of
improvements with the City’s Capital
Improvement Program so that
community facilities are available when
needed.
Objective 6.01
YES
CF 1.4
To encourage the placement of public
art in strategic locations throughout the
City.
Objective 2.03
YES
CF 1.5
To efficiently use school facilities
where possible, both as schools and
recreational resources.
Objective 6.01
YES
60
Reference
Number
2000 Master Plan Goals
Reference in
2016 Master Plan
re:Vision
Goal/Objective/
Recommendation
remains valid:
CF 1.6
To integrate the goals and objectives
of the City’s recently adopted Strategic
Plan, wherever appropriate, with the
goals and objectives of Master Plan
2000.
YES
2000 Master Plan Circulation Objectives
TC 1.1
To encourage the location and design
of transportation and circulation routes
which will promote the free flow of
traffic in appropriate locations while
seeking ways to address congestion and
unsafe roadway conditions.
Objective 3.01
YES
TC 1.2
To channel through traffic to major
streets and discourage it in residential
neighborhoods.
Objective 3.01
YES
TC 1.3
To provide for adequate parking
and adequate loading and unloading
facilities.
Objective 2.09
YES
TC 1.4
To improve and expand pedestrian and
bicycle connections.
Objective 3.01
YES
TC 1.5
To relieve traffic congestion in the
CRBD.
Objective 2.09
YES
TC 1.6
To encourage the use of mass transit.
Objective 3.01;
Objective 4.02
YES
TC 1.7
To implement streetscape, parking and
traffic improvements proposed by the
SID.
YES
2000 Master Plan Conservation Objectives
C 1.1
To protect natural and environmental
resources including floodplains,
wetlands, steep slopes, and aquifer
recharge areas and areas suitable for
public and quasi-public recreational
activities.
Goal 6; Objective
6.01
YES
C 1.2
To identify and preserve
environmentally sensitive areas in the
City.
Goal 6; Objective
6.03
YES
C 1.3
To encourage the use of conservation
easements on environmentally sensitive
lands in private ownership to protect
future disturbance.
Goal 6; Objective
6.03
YES
C 1.4
To conserve treed rights-of-way and
institute a tree planting program.
Goal 6; Objective
6.03
YES
61
Reference
Number
2000 Master Plan Goals
Reference in
2016 Master Plan
re:Vision
Goal/Objective/
Recommendation
remains valid:
2000 Master Plan Parks and Open Space Objectives
POC 1.1
To identify as open space/recreation
certain public and private lands
that serve as open space, buffers,
streetscape or vistas; and/or are in a
strategic location as it relates to existing
parks and recreation.
Goal 6; Objective
6.01; Objective
6.03
YES
POC 1.2
To preserve and enhance park and
recreation facilities, where appropriate,
within the City to meet the needs
and demands of present and future
residents.
Goal 6; Objective
6.01
YES
POC 1.3
To explore the creation of a linear park
along the Passaic River.
Objective 6.04
YES
POC 1.4
To create physical links, where feasible,
between City parks and the County park
system.
Goal 03
YES
2000 Master Plan Utilities Objectives
U 1.1
To encourage the efficient management
and regulation of storm water through
the implementation of appropriate
guidelines which will prevent future
drainage problems and provide for
environmentally sound land use
planning.
Objective 6.02
YES
U 1.2
To rehabilitate and upgrade the
sewer system that serves the City in
accordance with Federal, State and local
law.
YES
2000 Master Plan Historic Preservation Objectives
HP 1.1
To recognize and preserve the historic
character of the City.
Objective 1.03
YES
HP 1.2
To explore incentives to encourage the
maintenance and facade restoration of
historically notable buildings.
Objective 1.03;
Objective 2.08
YES
HP 1.3
To encourage the preservation of
historic buildings and landmarks that are
significant to Summit’s past.
Objective 1.03
YES
62
Reference
Number
2000 Master Plan Goals
Reference in
2016 Master Plan
re:Vision
Goal/Objective/
Recommendation
remains valid:
2000 Master Plan Recycling Objectives
RC 1.1
The City should continue to promote the
local and statewide benefits of recycling
and continue to expand and enhance its
programs.
Goal 6; Objective
6.02
YES
RC 1.2
The Zoning Ordinance should be
amended to establish and implement
standards for the location,design
and maintenance of on-site trash/
recyclable enclosures. The purpose
should be to ensure that adequate and
safely designed and located space
is incorporated into any site plan
application.
Goal 6; Objective
6.02
YES
RC 1.3
The City should continue to pursue
the State of New Jersey to re-institute
the tonnage grant reimbursement
program in order to offset local costs
in implementing this State-mandated
program.
Goal 6; Objective
6.02
YES
RC 1.4
The site plan and subdivision review
checklists contained in the City’s
Development Regulations Ordinance
should be amended to require that
plan submittals include provisions for
recyclable storage facilities.
Goal 6; Objective
6.02
YES
63
Reference
Number
2006 Master Plan Re-Examination Plan
Goals
Reference in
2016 Master Plan
re:Vision
Goal/Objective/
Recommendation
remains valid:
2006 Re-examination Land Use Recommendations
06RX 1.1
Clarify the purpose of the NB
Neighborhood Business zone to
emphasize its role as a buffer with an
opportunity for small scale businesses
to serve the adjacent neighborhood.
Businesses should not encroach on
adjacent residential neighborhoods;
rather they should complement the
neighborhood in terms of impact and
services.
Objective 2.10
YES
06RX 1.2
Extend the NB zone down Morris
Avenue and around the east side of
River Road. Existing conditions, size
of lots, and proximity of commercial to
adjacent residential uses make it more
appropriate to extend the NB zone along
Morris Avenue and River Road.
YES
06RX 1.3
Review permitted uses and regulations
for NB zones to ensure compatibility
with purpose of zone.
Objective 1.02
YES
06RX 1.4
Further study is recommended regarding
the appropriateness of the LI zone. The
impact of a fully occupied Schering
Plough campus and the redeveloped
site of the former Novartis Training
Center on Morris Avenue on the area
should be monitored. Consideration
should be given to revising some of the
uses permitted in the LI zone to include
some B uses such as auto sales.
YES
06RX 1.5
The Business zone on Franklin Place
should be rezoned to a residential use.
The Infiniti auto dealership has vacated
their premises and Summit Truck Body
has gotten a variance to build residential
units.
YES
06RX 1.6
In light of the rezoning recommendations
for Franklin Place and the Salerno Duane
site on Broad Street, the Business
zone bordered by Summit Avenue, the
railroad tracks, Walnut Street and Park
Avenue is an area that requires further
study.
YES
64
Reference
Number
2006 Master Plan Re-Examination Plan
Goals
Reference in
2016 Master Plan
re:Vision
Goal/Objective/
Recommendation
remains valid:
2006 Reexamination Land Use Recommendations
06RX 1.7
Appropriate residential infill development
in established neighborhoods remains
an issue in the City. Bulk and design
standards in the residential zones
should be studied and amended where
necessary to ensure that new residential
infill is appropriate in terms of scale
and character with the surrounding
neighborhood.
Goal 1; Objective
1.04
YES
06RX 1.8
Drive-through uses, such as banks,
pharmacies, etc. should not be
permitted in B zones.
YES
06RX 1.9
Consider allowing some personal
services, such as personal trainers and
tutors, as uses in the CRBD except on
the ground floor.
NO
06RX 1.10
The standards of the Office Residential
Character (ORC) zones should be
reviewed in light of the original intent of
creating this zone to preserve residential
structures.
Objective 1.02
YES
Recommendations pertaining to Gateway I:
06RX 1.11
A buffer area between 10 and 20 feet
should be required where Lots 1 and
2 in Block 2607 abut adjacent Lot 7.
No encroachments, such as patios or
decks, should be permitted in the buffer
area.
NO
06RX 1.12
A maximum height of 48 feet/4 stories
should be permitted. Parking levels
should not be counted toward the
story limitation, however, they should
be counted toward the overall height
limitation. Townhouses should have a
maximum height of 40 feet/3 stories.
NO
06RX 1.13
A 20% set-aside of affordable housing
on-site and integrated throughout the
entire project is strongly recommended.
Objective 4.01
NO
06RX 1.14
The Parmley Place right-of-way should
not be vacated.
YES
65
Reference
Number
2006 Master Plan Re-Examination Plan
Goals
Reference in
2016 Master Plan
re:Vision
Goal/Objective/
Recommendation
remains valid:
2006 Reexamination Land Use Recommendations
06RX 1.16
The use of “green” building practices is
encouraged.
YES
Recommendations pertaining to Gateway II:
06RX 1.17
This is a "gateway" site and should be
designed as such. As a "gateway" site,
streetscapes and aesthetics are key to
the reuse of the site.
Objective 1.05
YES
06RX 1.18
The site has significant topography
and grade which should be used as a
resource in the design of parking and
access.
Objective 1.05
YES
06RX 1.19
Parking for all uses must be provided
on-site either in structured or
underground parking (with the possible
exception of townhomes). To the extent
possible, parking should be under the
building or below grade in order to
maximize the extent of "green" on the
site.
Objective 1.05
YES
06RX 1.20
Any parking structure on the site must
be screened from public view.
Objective 1.05
NO
06RX 1.21
Although grade can be used to offset
the perception of height, height on this
site should be limited to 4 stories and
a maximum of 48 feet. Parking levels
should not be counted toward the
story limitation, however, they should
be counted toward the overall height
limitation. Townhouses should have a
maximum height of 40 feet/3 stories.
Objective 1.05
NO
06RX 1.22
FAR for the site should be consistent
with the bulk and design standards
should be limited to 4 stories and a
maximum of 48 feet. Parking levels
should not be counted toward the
story limitation, however, they should
be counted toward the overall height
limitation. Townhouses should have a
maximum height of 40 feet/3 stories.
Objective 1.05
NO
06RX 1.23
Mixed uses should be permitted on the
site with small, "neighborhood business"
uses permitted at street level and
residential uses above.
Objective 1.05
NO
66
Reference
Number
2006 Master Plan Re-Examination Plan
Goals
Reference in
2016 Master Plan
re:Vision
Goal/Objective/
Recommendation
remains valid:
Recommendations pertaining to Gateway II:
06RX 1.24
The site should be evaluated in context
to the surrounding uses. In particular,
since a City-owned surface parking lot
abuts the site there is an opportunity to
explore a creative public/private parking
partnership.
Objective 1.05
YES
06RX 1.25
No parking should be permitted
between the street line and the building
and there should be a front yard setback
between 10 and 20 feet in order to
"green" the streetscape.
Objective 1.05
NO
06RX 1.26
Any development must address the
traffic issues in the area and must be
coordinated with all planned traffic
improvements.
Objective 1.05
YES
06RX 1.27
A 20% set-aside of affordable housing
on-site and integrated throughout the
entire project is strongly recommended.
Objective 1.05
NO
06RX 1.28
Every effort should be made to increase
the amount of green space on-site.’
Objective 1.05
NO
06RX 1.29
The use of "green" building practices is
encouraged.
Objective 1.05
YES
2006 Master Plan Reexamination Circulation Recommendations
06RX 1.30
Continue to encourage the use of
alternate modes of transportation by
expanding safe walking and biking
opportunities with technical and
financial support from NJDOT. Per the
Board of Recreation Master Plan, any
proposed bike route should be designed
in compliance with the requirements
and recommendations of NJDOT and
ASHTO to ensure acceptance for
potential grant funding.
Objective 3.01;
Objective 4.02
YES
67
Reference
Number
2006 Master Plan Re-Examination Plan
Goals
Reference in
2016 Master Plan
re:Vision
Goal/Objective/
Recommendation
remains valid:
2006 Master Plan Reexamination Circulation Recommendations
06RX 1.31
Establish an effective Sidewalk Location
Policy to address gaps in sidewalk
networks and pedestrian safety
concerns as well as set forth criteria
for prioritizing and funding sidewalk
installation projects.
Objective 3.01
YES
06RX 1.32
Work in conjunction with the County
on the Broad Street Corridor project.
Implement the redesigning of the block
of Broad Street between Ashwood
Avenue, Park Avenue, and Denman
Place with a safe sidewalk and
pedestrian-friendly streetscape to
connect east Summit with the train
station, hospital and downtown.
Objective 3.04
YES
06RX 1.33
Work to improve sight distance at critical
intersections, where possible.
YES
06RX 1.34
In the Neighborhood Business zones,
encourage the redevelopment of
commercial properties to include on-
site parking and loading located in
rears of lots and consider implementing
traffic calming measures (e.g. better
identification of crosswalks) to make
these areas more pedestrian friendly.
Objective 2.10
YES
06RX 1.35
The integration of a GIS system as a
long term planning tool for traffic and
pedestrian safety improvements should
be evaluated.
YES
06RX 1.36
The City continues to oppose the
proposed reactivation of the Rahway
Valley freight line.
YES
68
Reference
Number
2006 Master Plan Re-Examination Plan
Goals
Reference in
2016 Master Plan
re:Vision
Goal/Objective/
Recommendation
remains valid:
2006 Master Plan Reexamination Housing Recommendations
06RX 1.37
The City should continue to aggressively
move forward with implementing
the Fair Share Plan and at the same
time respond to the Court Master’s
comments. The City should continue
to seek opportunities for providing
affordable housing, with particular
emphasis on identifying and realizing
opportunities to provide affordable
housing for low income households
and housing options for senior citizens.
Public/private partnerships should be
encouraged.
Objective 4.01
YES
06RX 1.38
It is desired that, to the extent possible,
any Mt. Laurel units required as a result
of a residential development will be built
and integrated within the development.
It is further recognized that certain
commercial development may trigger a
growth share obligation. It is understood
that it may not be practical for the
developer to locate housing within a
commercial site and therefore it will be
the responsibility of the developer to
provide an alternative plan for complying
with the growth share obligation. If the
units are to be built, purchased or paid
for by the commercial developer to fulfill
the growth share obligation, the primary
preference for location of these units
shall be within the City.
Objective 4.01
YES
06RX 1.39
The City should also take advantage of
the opportunity to examine the COAH
model growth share ordinance issued in
December, 2005 and review its current
plans and consider adopting a revised
growth share ordinance to facilitate the
provision of affordable housing.
Objective 4.01
NO
69
Reference
Number
2006 Master Plan Re-Examination Plan
Goals
Reference in
2016 Master Plan
re:Vision
Goal/Objective/
Recommendation
remains valid:
2006 Master Plan Reexamination Conservation Recommendations
06RX 1.40
Review the lot grading ordinance to
confirm that it addresses additional
concerns that have been raised since
the ordinance was adopted in 2003.
NO
06RX 1.41
It is recommended that the City evaluate
“green” building and design techniques,
such as the U.S. Green Building
Council’s LEED (Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design) Green
Building Rating System, and create a
“Green” Master Plan that outlines best
practices for a “sustainable” Summit
including building guidelines, expanded
recycling initiatives, incentives for energy
conservation, etc. and that encourages
public education regarding relevant
topics and current technologies.
Objective 6.02
YES
06RX 1.42
Several neighborhoods experience
flooding during severe storms – the
causes of this should be studied and
addressed to the extent appropriate.
YES
2006 Master Plan Reexamination Recreation and Open Space Recommendations
06RX 1.43
Continue to explore recreational uses
for the Transfer Station site through the
subcommittee that has been appointed,
including the creation of a linear park
along the Passaic River.
Objective 6.04
YES
06RX 1.44
Explore mechanisms, such as public/
private partnerships, to encourage and
fund the acquisition of open space
parcels, historic sites, conservation
and historic easements and enhanced
maintenance of public parks. Continue
to seek funding from Union County’s
Open Space Trust Fund, Green Acres
and other sources to acquire open
space, improve outdoor recreational
facilities and preserve historic sites.
Objective 6.01
YES
70
Reference
Number
2006 Master Plan Re-Examination Plan
Goals
Reference in
2016 Master Plan
re:Vision
Goal/Objective/
Recommendation
remains valid:
2006 Master Plan Reexamination Recreation and Open Space Recommendations
06RX 1.45
Continue to consider use of artificial turf
as a means of maximizing limited playing
field space taking into consideration
the impact on adjacent residential
neighborhoods. Shared use of field
space should be encouraged.
Objective 6.01
YES
06RX 1.46
Continue to promote physical links
between parks, and between parks and
neighborhoods.
Goal 03
YES
06RX 1.47
Consider whether additional open space
parcels should be identified and added
to the list of parcels designated for
proposed open space.
Objective 6.03
YES
2006 Master Plan Reexamination Historic Preservation Recommendations
06RX 1.48
In the short term, the Historic
Preservation Commission should focus
its efforts on preserving the 40 remaining
individual historic sites and the 2 sites
that are on the National and State
Registers of Historic Places.
Objective 1.03
YES
06RX 1.49
In the longer term, the Master Plan list
of historic sites and districts should be
updated.
Objective 1.03
YES
06RX 1.50
Add the Downtown Historic District,
identified in the 1990 Historic
Resources Survey, to the list of historic
districts. This recommendation is
intended to be in lieu of the Master
Plan 2000 recommendation to expand
the Civic Center Historic District.
Objective 1.03
YES
06RX 1.51
Consider creating a set of design
guidelines specifically for the CRBD,
prepared by the Historic Preservation
Commission.
Objective 1.01;
Objective 1.03
YES
06RX 1.52
Increase efforts to educate the
community about the importance of
historic preservation.
Objective 1.03
YES
71
Reference
Number
2006 Master Plan Re-Examination Plan
Goals
Reference in
2016 Master Plan
re:Vision
Goal/Objective/
Recommendation
remains valid:
2006 Master Plan Reexamination Historic Preservation Recommendations
06RX 1.59
Amend the historic preservation
ordinance to give the HPC
responsibilities for the identification,
designation and limited regulatory
control of historic sites, subject to
oversight by Council and the Planning
and Zoning Boards.
Objective 1.03
YES
06RX 1.60
Consideration should be given to
applying for Certified Local Government
status in order to further historic
preservation efforts in Summit.
Objective 1.03
YES
PARKING SYSTEM REVIEW
&
EVALUATION
CITY OF SUMMIT, NJ
NOVEMBER 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.
Background
1.
Purpose & Scope of Report
1.
Acknowledgements
2.
Figure 1 – Summit Municipal Parking System (Map)
3.
2.
DOCUMENT REVIEW
4.
Table 1A – Desman Reports 2009 & 2010
5.
Table 1B – Desman Reports 2015 & Burgis 2014
6.
3.
PARKING SPACE OCCUPANCY COUNTS
8.
4.
REVIEW OF PARKING REGULATIONS & POLICIES
10.
Table 2A – Regulations & Policies (On-Street)
11.
Table 2B – Regulations & Policies (Off-Street)
12.
Table 3 – Parking Payment Options
13.
5.
EVOLVING TRENDS & TECHNOLOGIES
14.
Table 4 – Projected Commuter Parking Demand
16.
6.
REVIEW OF PARKING RATES
18.
Table 5 – Parking Rate Comparison
19.
7.
RECENT PROGRAMS & DEVELOPMENTS
21.
Operating Expense
22.
Table 6 - Estimated $ Impact of Recent Programs
23.
8.
PARKING STRUCTURES
24.
Useful Life
24.
Optimal Use
25.
continued….
9.
RECOMMENDED PROGRAM PLAN
26.
Table 7 – Recommended Program Plan
26.
Figure 2 – High Concentration Parking Supply Diagram
27.
Effect of Other Redevelopment Initiatives
28.
Figure 3 – De Forest Lot 3 Parking Deck Sketches
29.
Estimated Cost of Recommended Program
30.
Table 8 – Program Cost & Funding Assumptions
30.
10.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY – PRO FORMA
31.
Table 9A - 20 Year Pro Forma – Base Condition
33.
Table 9B - 20 Yr Pro Forma – Recommended Program
33.
Table 10 – Financing Worksheet – 2017 Funding Program 35.
* * * * * * *
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A.1
Occupancy Counts / Thursday / Zone 1
Appendix A.2
Occupancy Counts / Thursday / Zone 2
Appendix A.3
Occupancy Counts / Saturday / Zone 1
Appendix A.4
Occupancy Counts / Saturday / Zone 2
Appendix A.5
Occupancy Count Summaries
1
1.
INTRODUCTION
The City of Summit has engaged Level G Associates, parking consultants, for the purpose of
reviewing and evaluating parking in the City of Summit. This report summarizes our findings
and conclusions and provides estimates of the financial performance of the municipal parking
system over the next 20 years given certain operational parameters.
Background
Like many cities and towns with active and successful downtown business districts, the City of
Summit struggles with balancing the diverse parking needs of its residents, commuters,
workforce, downtown shoppers / visitors, and the business community. In response to this
the City has undertaken a number of parking studies and implemented a number parking
programs and policies designed to address these needs.
Purpose and Scope of Report
The purpose of this assignment is to review previously prepared reports, review regulations
and programs of the municipal parking system, conduct evaluations, and render our findings
and conclusions. This has been accomplished via completion of the following scope of work:
1. Review previously submitted reports and documents pertaining to parking, traffic,
circulation, or economic development in downtown Summit;
2. Conduct occupancy counts of the City’s off-street parking facilities and on-street meters at
8AM, 10AM, 12 Noon, 2PM, 4PM, 6PM, 8PM and 10PM on a typical weekday and typical
Saturday;
3. Review and evaluate the City’s parking policies, regulations and programs to determine
their effectiveness in meeting the unique parking requirements of downtown Summit;
4. Evaluate regulatory ordinances, standards and laws concerning parking and determine how
they can be consistent, and whether or not they are consistent, with best parking
management practices;
5. Evaluate established rates, such as at the De Forest lots and their use for long term
parking, and make recommendations based upon current or future parking demand. The
forecasting of rates will be incorporated into broader financial projections;
6. Evaluate the potential impacts of evolving technologies such as self-driving cars on future
parking supply and demand;
2
7. Evaluate the useful life of parking structures based on available information, including
tiered garages, and recommend optimal uses for the parking structures;
8. Review current rates and determine a 20-year plan of rate structures to meet current and
future expenditures and capital projects;
9. Describe recent parking system upgrades, programs, developments, or projects / proposals
and provide an estimation of their economic impacts on the parking system;
10. Preparation of a 20 year pro forma detailing the projected performance of the municipal
parking system using generally acceptable accounting principles and taking into account a
series of assumptions consistent with recommendations and/or industry standards.
Please refer to Figure 1, next page, for a map depicting the Summit parking system.
Acknowledgements
We are indebted to Mr. Michael Rogers and Ms. Rita Mc Nany for providing insight and
background information that were essential to the preparation of this report.
3
FIGURE 1 – SUMMIT MUNICIPAL PARKING SYSTEM
4
2.
DOCUMENT REVIEW
We reviewed numerous documents supplied by the city including but not limited to; parking
inventory, parking ordinances, parking resolutions, financial reports, parking garage condition
surveys, and others. In addition, we reviewed four studies that were prepared within the past
seven years. They are:
Title: Downtown Improvement Plan / Parking Analysis & Recommendations
By:
Burgis Associates
Year: 2014
Title: Parking Expansion Studies
By:
Desman Associates
Years: 2010 and 2015
Title: Downtown Parking Assessment Study
By:
Desman Associates
Year: 2009
Table 1A and 1B, shown on the following two pages, summarize the findings and
recommendations included in these reports. A synopsis of the key findings and takeaways of
these reports is provided below.
Parking Space Deficit - After augmenting and adjusting key figures developed in previous
reports the Desman (2009) report estimates a downtown parking deficit of about 450 parking
spaces and the Burgis report estimates a downtown parking deficit of about 500 spaces.
Based on our occupancy counts and observations of parking conditions in downtown Summit
we believe these estimates are accurate if the City wishes to maintain a business environment
that will attract new investment and development in the downtown district. If the city
wanted to simply fix the current parking deficit without creating an environment that will
support any growth or attract new investment we believe a parking program that adds 225 to
250 spaces would suffice.
Using parking inventory provided by the city plus estimates developed by Desman, Burgis and
the Institute of Transportation Engineers the following parking supply / demand summary is
estimated for downtown Summit:
7
Parking
Supply
Parking
Demand
Surplus or
(Deficit)
Employee / Commuter
1,719
2,346
(627)
Shopper / Visitor
1,047
877
170
Totals
2,766
3,223
(457)
Many of the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report regarding the current
accommodation of local parking needs are based on this summary.
In addition to providing estimates of parking space deficits, the previous studies included a
number of recommendations designed to improve parking conditions and / or the delivery of
parking services. The following is a summary of these recommendations.
Recommendations that have been IMPLEMENTED
Increase overtime parking fine from $21 to $25
Replace Single-Space meters with Multi-Space meters in parking lots
Hire a full time Parking Administrator
Add 15 Minute limit “Express Park” meters on streets
Increase De Forest Lots free parking threshold from 30 minutes to 60 minutes
Hire a Financial Analyst / Bookkeeper
Reduce Railroad Avenue time limits from 5-Hour to 3-Hour time limit
Recommendations that have NOT been IMPLEMENTED
Implement a 2-Hour time limit for all on-street meters in the CBD
Extend paid parking / enforcement operating hours from 6PM to 8PM
Implement an AVI / Proximity Card system to control monthly parking
Reduce Broad Street and De Forest Street time limits from 5-Hour to 3-Hour time limit
In 2012 the city formed the Summit Parking Advisory Committee (SPAC) to evaluate the
Desman reports and develop their own recommendations. The SPAC effort resulted in the
development of the current De Forest shopper lots, merchant validation program, and the
parking “ambassador” program.
8
3.
PARKING SPACE OCCUPANCY COUNTS
The parking consultant conducted occupancy counts of the city’s off-street parking facilities
and on-street meters in the central business district at 8AM, 10AM, 12 Noon, 2PM, 4PM, 6PM,
8PM and 10PM on Thursday June 9, 2016 (a typical weekday) and June 18, 2016 (a typical
Saturday). The overall results of these counts are illustrated below.
The 90% parking space occupancy level is a significant threshold in parking program planning
and design. Because of the constant in-flow and out-flow of vehicles, improperly parked
vehicles and typical vacancies in handicap parking areas a parking supply can be reasonably
expected to accommodate a “practical capacity” of about 90%.
As indicated, overall peak parking demand in downtown Summit occurs at 12 Noon on a
typical weekday. At this time, 2,667 cars were parked in 2,766 parking spaces – an occupancy
rate of 96.4%. This parking demand level (2,667) is 178 cars higher than the “practical
capacity” of the parking supply (2,489).
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
8AM
10AM
12N
2PM
4PM
6PM
8PM
10PM
Number of Cars Parked
PARKING SPACE OCCUPANCY
ZONES 1 & 2 / SUMMIT, NJ
Thursday / June 9, 2016
Saturday / June 18, 2016
Practical Capacity
9
For the purposes of analysis and useful comparison the parking study area was divided into
two sections:
Zone 1:
North of the railroad tracks – 1,267 total spaces
324 on-street spaces
943 off-street spaces
Zone 2:
South of the railroad tracks – 1,499 total spaces
277 on-street spaces
1,222 off-street spaces
A complete set of tables that break down the occupancy counts on a “per zone”, “per block
side” and “per facility” basis is provided in Appendices A.1 through A.5. Some interesting
parking patterns to be learned from the counts are listed below.
On-street parking spaces in Zone 1 exhibited the highest occupancy levels in the CBD. At
12 noon on Thursday 6/9/16 there were 345 cars parked in 324 on-street spaces, an
occupancy rate of 106.5%;
Peak parking observations on Saturday also occurred at 12 noon but were significantly
lower than the Thursday peak count (40.9% versus 96.4% overall occupancy);
There is a significant occupancy decrease in 5-Hour limit meters in sections of Elm and
Broad Streets in Zone 2 between 12 noon and 2pm. Over the same time period there is a
25.5% increase in parking occupancy in De Forest Lots 1 and 2;
The evening (8PM) parking occupancy levels are 55.3% lower than the daytime (12N) peak
on a weekday but only 31.7% lower than the daytime peak on a Saturday.
10
4.
REVIEW OF PARKING REGULATIONS & POLICIES
The city maintains a wide variety of parking rules, regulations, restrictions, programs, and
payment options. Many of these have been implemented to serve the needs of specific user
groups such as:
Downtown shoppers / visitors;
Takeout / Other short duration parking activity;
Downtown employees;
Commuters;
Summit residents; and
Library / YMCA patrons.
Table 2A and 2B, next two pages, describe these regulations and policies for on-street parking
(Table 2A) and off-street street parking facilities (Table 2B). These tables also include our
observations as to whether or not each regulation or policy is meeting local needs and is
consistent with industry best practices.
A number of these initiatives are not meeting local needs because parking demand exceeds
the parking supply. Most of the initiatives are in alignment with industry best practice but a
few are not. These are identified in the tables.
Table 3, page 13, is a matrix that summarizes parking programs, policies, and payment options
at each municipal parking facility.
14
5.
EVOLVING TRENDS & TECHNOLOGIES
The City of Summit is one of the national leaders in efforts to reduce local parking demand by
offering subsidized rides by a transportation networking service, in this case Uber. The city
recently approved a six month program where users would be charged $2 per ride, from
points within the City of Summit, to and from the Summit Train Station. The resulting $4
round trip charge is identical to resident daily fees for parking at the train station and the hope
is that regular resident commuters will utilize the new service rather than driving themselves
and dealing with train station parking every day. If the program is successful, the city will
subsidize up to 100 commuter round trips per day.
One of the primary goals of this “virtual parking garage” program is to reduce existing
commuter parking demand by up to 100 cars per day. Until the program has been operational
for several months it will not be possible to determine the actual impact.
There are a number of other trends identifiable today and expected to continue into the
upcoming planning horizon that are expected to reduce future train station parking demand.
Bicycle Use & Programs - Bicycle use continues to increase for commuter trips to and from
train stations further reducing commuter parking
demand. This can be attributed to the significant
construction of bike lanes and bike parking facilities that
has occurred over the past decade, much due to federal
and state funding programs that continue to be
supported and authorized. The inset photo was taken at
the Scarsdale (NY) train station by Level G Associates as
part of a 2015 parking study.
Connected / Autonomous Vehicles – Uber’s business model already includes a significant shift
to driverless vehicles happening in 15 to 20 years. Bloomberg Business estimates that this
technology will be significant enough to make a difference in the transportation economy by
2030 and will have a transformative effect by 2040. These driverless coaches are projected to
be quite affordable and could easily make many “station cars” obsolete.
Retiring Baby Boomers - The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts flat to weak
employment growth nationwide averaging out to about 0.7% per year between 2020 and 2050
as waves of Baby Boomers retire and leave the workforce.
15
Millennial Generation – It is clear that Millennials are embracing the Sharing Economy and will
continue to fuel the growth of companies like Lyft, Uber and Airbnb for years to come.
All the above trends are likely to impact parking facilities serving the Summit train station
including the Broad Street Garage (491 spaces), Broad Street East Lot (180 spaces); Lot 7 (59
spaces); Lot 8 (123 spaces); Lot 9 (60 spaces); and Lot 14 (36 spaces).
Train Station Parking Demand
The Summit train station is the 10th busiest in New Jersey with average daily boardings (ADB)
of 3,933 per day (source: NJ Transit). The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ widely
referenced publication “Parking Generation – 4th Edition” indicates an 85th percentile value
for “Peak Parking Versus Daily Boardings” of 21% at light rail transit stations. A recent parking
study by Level G Associates at the Morristown train station indicated a peak commuter parking
factor of 19%. Therefore, it is estimated current commuter parking demand at the Summit
train station is probably about 20% of average daily boardings or 787 spaces (3,933 ADB x 20%
= 787).
The following graph is from a quarterly report of ridership trends published by NJ Transit in
2013. Based on this graph it is evident that there is a clear correlation between NJ Transit
Ridership and regional employment.
The catchment area of the Summit train station is primarily located in Union County. Current
employment projections prepared by the New Jersey Department of Labor indicate that
16
employment in Union County is projected to grow at an average rate of 0.8% per year
between now and 2022.
Table 4, below, is a 30 year projection of Summit train station parking demand that attempts
to quantify the impacts of regional employment growth, “virtual parking” / ridesharing, and
autonomous vehicles.
TABLE 4 – PROJECTED COMMUTER PARKING DEMAND (CUMULATIVE) / SUMMIT, NJ
Year
Base
(Exisiting)
Demand
New Parking Demand
From Regional
Employment Growth
(Constrained)
Net Parking
Demand
Reduction From
"Virtual Parking"
Parking Demand
Reduction From
Autonomous
Vehicles
Projected Train
Station Parking
Demand Total
2016
787
0
-10
0
777
2017
787
3
-25
0
765
2018
787
6
-45
0
748
2019
787
9
-47
0
749
2020
787
12
-50
0
749
2021
787
15
-52
0
750
2022
787
18
-55
0
750
2023
787
21
-57
0
751
2024
787
24
-60
0
751
2025
787
27
-63
0
751
2026
787
30
-66
0
751
2027
787
33
-70
0
750
2028
787
36
-73
0
750
2029
787
39
-77
0
749
2030
787
42
-81
-5
743
2031
787
45
-75
-15
742
2032
787
48
-65
-30
740
2033
787
51
-50
-45
743
2034
787
54
-40
-60
741
2035
787
57
-35
-70
739
2036
787
60
-30
-80
737
2037
787
63
-30
-90
730
2038
787
66
-30
-100
723
2039
787
69
-30
-110
716
2040
787
72
-30
-120
709
2041
787
75
-30
-130
702
2042
787
78
-25
-140
700
2043
787
81
-25
-150
693
2044
787
84
-25
-160
686
2045
787
87
-25
-170
679
2046
787
90
-25
-180
672
17
As indicated, it is estimated that regional employment and transportation trends could reduce
current train station parking demand from about 787 cars to 672 cars over the next 30 years.
There are currently 889 parking spaces in downtown Summit that can be used for commuter
parking and it is likely this number will be reduced as the described trends begin to emerge.
This phenomenon would have the beneficial effect of creating additional parking opportunities
for downtown shoppers, employees and/or non-resident parkers.
18
6.
REVIEW OF PARKING RATES
Normally, a review of downtown parking rates would include a discussion of how parking fees
can be adjusted to alter unhealthy parking patterns in a business district. For example, in
many business districts centrally located convenient parking spaces are filled to capacity with
employee and shopper cars while less convenient perimeter parking spaces go unused
because employees and other parkers have not been priced or enforced out of the convenient
shopper spaces. However, the ability to accomplish these shifts through pricing or
enforcement is limited in Summit because there are few available spaces, even on the
perimeter, to accommodate the shift.
Therefore, if pricing strategies are employed to open up parking spaces in downtown Summit,
the displaced users would either be shifted to private or remote parking areas and/or
alternate modes of transportation such as ridesharing, carpooling, or the city’s new “virtual
parking garage” program.
Table 5, next page, compares parking rates in downtown Summit with parking rates in
Westfield and Morristown. These municipalities were selected to illustrate various parking
space management strategies. They are:
Westfield – Parking fees are virtually “flat” across the board for hourly and daily parking (50¢
per hour) on the streets and in the parking lots. Permits are limited to residents and
downtown employees and there are waiting lists for both varieties. The on-street parking time
limit is 2 hours in the CBD but there are a few 9-hour limit meters and permit spaces located
on the fringes of the CBD for downtown employees. The CBD parking lots use pay stations and
offer 4-hour limit parking to accommodate longer shopper and visitor trips but there some 9-
hour limit spaces in two CBD lots. Train station lots are “permit parking” only and are shared
by commuters and downtown employees. These permit holders do not pay a daily parking
fee. Permit issuance is limited so permit holders can always find a space.
Morristown – Parking fees are higher on the streets ($1.00 per hour) than in the parking lots
(50¢ per hour) for short term hourly parking. Short term parking in the 3 parking garages is
$1.50 per hour. Many lots and garages offer both hourly and permit parking. Permit fees are
custom priced based on location. With the exception of the train station lot, there is no
distinction or price differential between resident or non-resident permits. The on-street
parking time limit in the CBD is either 90 minutes or 2 hours but there are a few 18-hour limit
meters located on one street near the train station. Most parking lots have pay stations and
20
offer short term (3 hour limit) and long term (12 hour limit) parking although there are some
smaller lots that only offer short term parking. The parking garages are gate controlled and
transient (short term and long term) parkers “pull a ticket” at the entrance gate while permit
holders use proximity cards to activate the gates. The transient fee is based on duration and is
calculated upon exit. The train station lot has a permit area and a pay station area ($5/ day)
and permit holders do not need to pay the meter. Permit issuance is limited so permit holders
can always find a space.
Summit - Parking fees are lower on the streets (50¢ per hour) than in the parking lots ($1.00
per hour) for short term hourly parking. Long term transient parking is only available in the
three shopper lots but is discouraged by use of an aggressive graduated fee structure ($2, $5,
or $8 per hour). All other parking facilities are tightly controlled for use by downtown
employees or commuters who must purchase a pre-paid permit (and not pay the meter) or a
general permit (and pay the meter $4 per day). The on-street parking time limit in the CBD
core is mostly 90 minutes however, there are quite a few 3-hour and 5-hour limit on-street
spaces conveniently located on the just outside the CBD core. Permit issuance is unlimited so
permit spaces are not guaranteed. This structure favors the earliest arriving customers.
As indicated in Table 5, Summit’s parking fees are generally comparable with those in
Westfield and Morristown however, Summit’s pricing of “first choice” on-street parking below
that of off-street parking is counter to industry recommended / best practice.
The rationale behind this recommended practice is supported by the widely recognized
economic principle of supply and demand:
Low supply + high demand = higher pricing;
High supply + low demand = lower pricing.
Parking fees that are comparatively low in high demand areas create congestion by
encouraging motorists to circle for inexpensive convenient parking and inviting meter feeding
by local merchants and employees.
21
7.
RECENT PROGRAMS AND DEVELOPMENTS
The City of Summit and the Parking Services Agency have been one among the most
progressive in the state when it comes to implementing new parking technology and
programs. This includes past programs such as parking pay stations, smart cards and train
station valet; recent programs such as pay by phone and on-line purchasing; and new
programs such as transportation networking (Uber program), pay by plate and LPR.
The exploration and implementation of new technology and programs to assist in parking
system management is a characteristic of high functioning parking systems that should be
encouraged and sustained. The following summary restates the programs listed above and the
benefits that have resulted:
Parking Pay Stations
Accept credit cards; reduced cash handling; secure collections;
improved internal controls
Smart Cards
Pre-paid revenue; customer convenience; merchant participation
Train Station Valet
Increased system capacity
Pay By Phone
Reduced cash handling and collection load; customer
convenience
On-line Purchasing
Reduced cash handling; customer convenience
Uber Program
Increased system capacity
LPR
Increased operating efficiency (PEOs cover more ground in less
time); reduced parking ticket duties for higher pay scale police
officers; high ticket issuance volume (if desired); increased meter
compliance
Pay By Plate
Lower maintenance costs; and (if used to replace on-street
meters) increased system capacity, enhanced enforcement via
LPR, aesthetics, credit card for on-street transactions1
1 Pay-by-plate has been deployed in Hoboken, Collingswood, Fort Lee, West Windsor, and Montclair State
University. Pay-by plate has been active and thriving on the streets of Pittsburgh since 2012.
22
Table 6, next page, is a chart that describes the city’s recent parking programs and includes an
estimate of the financial impact of each program.
As indicated we have estimated that each new program will result in a net financial benefit to
the city.
Operating Expense
Operating expenses of the Summit Parking Utility (SPU) are expected to be about $1,633,000
in 2016. This translates to about $590 per space per year. Parking system expenses in New
Jersey generally range between $300 and $700 per space per year depending on the size and
complexity of the system. Based on the complexity and range of products offered by the
Summit Parking Utility the operating expense metric of $590 per space per year is quite
reasonable.
24
8.
PARKING STRUCTURES
Useful Life
Parking structures in the northeast generally have a useful life of 50 to 60 years. However, a
parking structure’s life span can be extended indefinitely with structural replacements and
restoration.
The physical science of caring for a parking garage is similar to dentistry. Regular check-ups
and a modest amount of routine care will prevent painful, costly and unexpected repairs in the
future. A parking garage “preventative maintenance” program includes; sealing decks,
replacing caulk, painting, crack repairs, cleaning decks, replacing joints, etc.
In the northeast, where harsh winters and the use of salt to combat ice are common, it is
recommended that parking garage owners budget and plan for annual expenditures as part of
a regular preventative maintenance program. A regular annual deposit of about $100 per
structured parking space per year should be sufficient to fund this program. Distributions from
the fund should be used exclusively for parking garage preventative maintenance, and may be
utilized as follows:
Every Year:
Remove oil stains; power wash decks and stair towers; clean and
test drainage system;
Every Two Years:
Crack repair program;
Every Third Year:
Rust removal; prime and paint doors, frames, connections, etc;
Every Fifth or Sixth Year:
Seal decks; re-caulk;
Every Eighth Year:
Replace expansion joints.
It is also recommended that the city’s structural engineer conduct simple routine “check-ups"
of the city’s parking garages on an annual basis and more detailed inspections as necessary.
The ebb and flow of a parking garage preventative maintenance program for the city’s two
parking garages (930 total spaces total) could resemble the following table / schedule:
25
Maintenance
Fund Deposit
Maintenance
Fund Expenditure
Fund Balance*
Year 1
$ 93,000
$ 12,300
$ 80,700
Year 2
$ 93,000
$ 15,200
$ 158,500
Year 3
$ 93,000
$ 15,500
$ 236,000
Year 4
$ 93,000
$ 16,400
$ 312,600
Year 5
$ 93,000
$ 175,500
$ 230,100
Year 6
$ 93,000
$ 26,600
$ 296,500
Year 7
$ 93,000
$ 17,500
$ 372,000
Year 8
$ 93,000
$ 243,600
$ 221,400
Year 9
$ 93,000
$ 19,700
$ 294,700
Year 10
$ 93,000
$ 225,300
$ 162,400
Year 11
$ 93,000
$ 19,500
$ 235,900
Year 12
$ 93,000
$ 33,200
$ 295,700
Year 13
$ 93,000
$ 22,500
$ 366,200
Year 14
$ 93,000
$ 435,000
$ 24,200
Year 15
$ 93,000
$ 28,300
$ 88,900
Totals
$ 1,395,000
$ 1,306,100
* Does not include accrued interest
The city has expended over $3 million over the past 7 years for structural repairs and
rehabilitation of its two parking garages. It is likely that these costs could have been avoided
or greatly reduced had the city employed a preventative maintenance program like the one
described above.
Optimal Use
As indicated in Section 2 there is a shortage of employee / commuter parking in downtown
Summit. Because the Broad Street Garage and Tier Garage are both operated to serve these
user groups Level G Associates believes they are being optimally utilized. The use of the
ground level of the Tier Garage for shopper / visitor parking provides important short term
parking for local businesses and should be preserved.
26
9.
RECOMMEDED PROGRAM PLAN
We have developed the following 8-point parking program plan based on a review of past
studies and documents, data collection, and our experience in similar cities and communities.
TABLE 7 – RECOMMENDED PROGRAM PLAN
Item
Description
Rationale
1
Re-stripe Lots 9 and 16. Create head-in parking on Elm
Street and Maple Street.
Adds 100 spaces2
2
Build structured parking that will provide a net gain of
350 spaces (minimum)
Adds 350 spaces
3
Incrementally correct the parking supply / demand
imbalance depicted in Section 2. Phase 1: convert up
to (40) 5-hour meters to 9 or 10-hour limit (resident or
employee sticker required before 11AM). Phase 2: use
additional parking described above to create additional
employee parking opportunities.
Increases employee parking
supply and moves employees out
of spaces intended for downtown
shoppers and visitors.
4
Increase on-street short term meter (15 minute to 2
hour limit) rates to $1.00 per hour.
Best practice. Discourages
employee use of on-street spaces
north of the railroad tracks.
5
Derive maximum benefit from recently deployed LPR
system. Implement, encourage, and market digital
permitting and Pay-by-plate on a system-wide basis.
Industry is clearly moving in this
direction - becoming familiar to
many. Multiple benefits
described in Table 6.
6
Implement Pay-by-plate in De Forest "shopper lots"
and remove gates. Pay-by-plate can support "1st hour
free" parking. Re-purpose Shopper Lot gates and pay
stations to new Parking Garage (Item 2 above).
Eliminate congestion / back-ups
onto De Forest. Ambassadors can
be re-assigned to more
productive duties such as Junior
Enforcement Officers.
7
Explore a 3-tiered permit system. Tier 1 - Reserved
space / Guaranteed $250/$500 per month
(resident/non-resident) - Digital permit only (not
oversold); Tier 2 - Guaranteed space / Not reserved
$90/$200 month (resident/non-resident) - Digital
permit only (modestly oversold based on observed
occupancy); Tier 3 - T/B/D based on sales of Tier 1 and
Tier 2 permits.
Leverages use of LPR. Greatly
reduces use of "daily" pay station
use by commuters and
employees.
8
Increase overtime parking fine from $25 to $45
The "All Day" parking fee in De
Forest Lots is $30 per day. The
overtime parking fine should
exceed this amount.
2 Sketches indicating these potential parking reconfigurations were forwarded to the city under separate cover.
27
With respect to Item 2, we believe the possibility of developing a parking deck on Lot 3 should
be explored. A deck in this location offers the following benefits:
Offers excellent balance in terms of distribution of high concentration parking supply and
coverage of central business district (see Figure 2 below);
Location is proximate to high parking space deficiency areas identified in Burgis report3;
“North of the tracks” location is proximate to central business district yet allows De Forest
Lots 1 and 2 to remain open during construction;
Less likely to be impacted by potential decreases in future parking demand around the
train station resulting from evolving transportation trends;
Can become part of a redevelopment package to include adjacent and/or nearby
properties.
FIGURE 2 – HIGH CONCENTRATION PARKING SUPPLY DIAGRAM (PROPOSED)
3 Highest concentration of parking deficiency in Burgis report – area within dashed line on Figure 2 has a
parking deficit that is 2x greater than areas west of Maple Street and north of the rail corridor.
28
The dimensions of Lot 3 offer excellent opportunities for screening and/or mixed use
development along De Forest. Also, integration of all or part of the adjacent drive-thru bank
property can improve parking capacity and/or the mixed-use potential of the site. Adjacent
properties may be integrated via rehabilitation partnerships, land swaps, air rights agreements
or other arrangements. These parking deck functional and property assemblage concepts are
all worthy of further exploration.
Please refer to Figure 3, next page, for sketches depicting a potential parking deck on De
Forest Lot 3. This sketch features a parking deck footprint of about 126’ x 183’. If developed
to a height of 5-supported levels this sloping floor deck would contain about 427 spaces
yielding a net parking gain of about 350 spaces.
Effect of Other City Redevelopment Initiatives
Level G met with and presented our preliminary findings to city planning officials and
professionals in advance of the preparation of this report. We learned that the western
portion of Zone 2 is an area that is being considered for redevelopment. In some cases, a
redevelopment project can be packaged with new public parking development in an efficient
shared parking relationship. Unfortunately, the measured parking space deficiencies in the
eastern portions of Zone 1 are so intense that our initial recommendation to develop
additional parking supply at De Forest Lot 3 is unchanged.
However, it is recommended that the city remain flexible in terms of addressing its parking
shortages. For example, if there is good opportunity to develop 100 additional public parking
spaces as part of a redevelopment project on Lot 16 (western portion of Zone 2) then perhaps
the target net parking gain on Lot 3 can be reduced by 100 spaces from 350 to 250. However,
we feel strongly that the net parking gain on Lot 3 should be at least 250 spaces.
29
FIGURE 3 – DE FOREST LOT 3 PARKING DECK SKETCHES4
BLOCK DIAGRAM (LOOKING EAST)
4 Conceptual plan / proof of concept.
6-LEVEL PARKING DECK
(GRADE + 5 SUPPORTED
LEVELS) BEHIND 3-LEVEL
LIVE-WORK UNITS
SUMMARY .
LEVEL
NO. SPACES
GRADE
65
1ST
74
2ND
74
3RD
74
4TH
74
ROOF
66
TOTAL
427
EXIST ON SITE
(77)
NET GAIN
350
LIVE-WORK UNITS
EXAMPLE
30
Estimated Cost of Recommended Program
The following table indicates our cost and funding assumptions for the recommended program
plan. These estimates and assumptions will be integrated with current parking system
financial data and projections in Section 10 of this report.
TABLE 8 – PROGRAM COST AND FUNDING ASSUMPTIONS
Item
Description
Assumed
Funding
Developmental
Cost Estimate
1
100-car at-grade parking expansion;
Re-Striping; Misc improvements
Short
Term
$1,000,000
2
430-car parking garage
Short
Term
$11,000,000
3, 4
Meter re-programming
Short
Term
$40,000
5a
Signage; Pay station re-programming
Short
Term
$50,000
6
Seven (7) new pay stations; signage;
removal of existing equipment
Short
Term
$160,000
7, 8
Permit System; Fine Increase
Short
Term
$0
Sub-total / Short Term Funding Program
$12,250,000
5b
On-Street pay-by-space / North of RR
21 pay stations & associated costs
Mid
Term
$465,000
5c
On-Street pay-by-space / South of RR
19 pay stations & associated costs
Mid
Term
$445,000
31
10.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY – PRO FORMA
In 2016 it is estimated that the Summit Parking Utility will earn over $3 million in operating
revenue offset by operating expenses in excess of $1.6 million and debt service payments of
about $623,000. This projected financial summary for 2016 is indicated below and yields a
very respectable debt service coverage ratio of 249%.
a) Estimated Revenue
$ 3,186,800
b) Estimated Expense
( 1,633,200)
c) Net Income (Available for Debt Service)
$ 1,553,600
d) Debt Service
( 623,300)
e) Debt Service Coverage Ratio (cd)
249%
Table 9A, next page, is a 20-year pro forma indicating the derivation of the above estimates as
well as three years of historical financial data and projected financial estimates through the
year 2032. This pro forma is a “Base” condition or “Do Nothing” analysis that assumes no
significant capital programs or changes in operating capacity or staffing but has averaged in
modest gains in revenue via rate and/or volumetric increases. As indicated, the municipal
parking system in its current configuration can be expected to produce surplus revenues in
excess of $1 million per year for the next 15 years5.
Table 9B, page 34, integrates the recommended parking program plan described in Section 9
into the Base Condition pro forma. This table includes impacts from recommendations
included in this report such as rate increase, fine increase and the establishment of a
preventative maintenance fund as well as the addition of new staff. As indicated, we are
projecting debt service coverage ratios ranging between 146% and 276% for the first 15 years
following the bond sale6. Because the bond market will require minimum projected debt
service coverage ratios of 110 to 115% it is preliminarily determined that the recommended
program is financially feasible.
Important: These are preliminary conclusions based on a “conceptual” parking program. A
more detailed feasibility study will be required if and when a final program is determined and
approved by the city. For example, the final project may very well include real estate
5 Except 2026 when existing note requires refunding.
6 Except 2026 when existing note requires refunding.
32
agreements or transactions that increase the Lot 3 parking deck footprint or perhaps there
may be other sources of income such as developer contributions or Payments in Lieu of
Parking (PILOP)7 that may need to be considered.
The achievement of any projected performance is dependent upon future events that cannot
be assured. Therefore, actual results are likely to vary from the forecasts presented herein.
Such variations could be material.
7 A number of municipalities require developers who seek or are granted relief from code dictated parking
requirements to pay into a municipal fund that is then used to develop public parking. If the city does not have
such a policy it should be considered to help off-set the high cost of building structured parking.
TABLE 9A
TABLE 9A
20-YEAR PROJECTED PERFORMANCE OF THE SYSTEM ($ 000's)
Run Date: October 13, 2016
BASE CONDITION
SUMMIT PARKING UTILITY
REVENUE:
Off-Street / Hourly & Daily
Capacity
2013 (1)
2014 (1)
2015 (1)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
Broad Street Garage
491
$251.1
$297.3
$329.5
$334.4
$339.5
$344.6
$349.7
$355.0
$360.3
$365.7
$371.2
$376.7
$382.4
$388.1
$394.0
$399.9
$405.9
$412.0
$418.1
$424.4
Broad Street East
180
$348.1
$352.9
$312.0
$316.7
$321.4
$326.3
$331.1
$336.1
$341.2
$346.3
$351.5
$356.7
$362.1
$367.5
$373.0
$378.6
$384.3
$390.1
$395.9
$401.9
Tier Garage - Upper Levels
353
$108.7
$157.8
$152.3
$154.6
$156.9
$159.3
$161.6
$164.1
$166.5
$169.0
$171.6
$174.1
$176.8
$179.4
$182.1
$184.8
$187.6
$190.4
$193.3
$196.2
Tier Garage - Ground Level
78
$87.1
$68.2
$73.9
$75.0
$76.1
$77.3
$78.4
$79.6
$80.8
$82.0
$83.2
$84.5
$85.8
$87.1
$88.4
$89.7
$91.0
$92.4
$93.8
$95.2
Bank Street Lot
29
$51.7
$53.4
$56.5
$57.3
$58.2
$59.1
$60.0
$60.9
$61.8
$62.7
$63.6
$64.6
$65.6
$66.6
$67.6
$68.6
$69.6
$70.6
$71.7
$72.8
Library / YMCA Lot
104
$67.4
$66.1
$68.0
$69.0
$70.1
$71.1
$72.2
$73.3
$74.4
$75.5
$76.6
$77.8
$78.9
$80.1
$81.3
$82.5
$83.8
$85.0
$86.3
$87.6
De Forest Lots
294
$397.0
$386.9
$434.4
$440.9
$447.5
$454.2
$461.1
$468.0
$475.0
$482.1
$489.3
$496.7
$504.1
$511.7
$519.4
$527.2
$535.1
$543.1
$551.2
$559.5
Park & Rail
36
$102.8
$104.4
$103.5
$105.1
$106.6
$108.2
$109.9
$111.5
$113.2
$114.9
$116.6
$118.3
$120.1
$121.9
$123.7
$125.6
$127.5
$129.4
$131.3
$133.3
Park & Ride Lot
75
$55.7
$62.0
$66.0
$67.0
$68.0
$69.0
$70.0
$71.1
$72.2
$73.2
$74.3
$75.5
$76.6
$77.7
$78.9
$80.1
$81.3
$82.5
$83.8
$85.0
All Other Lots
600
$200.6
$249.3
$260.2
$264.1
$268.1
$272.1
$276.2
$280.3
$284.5
$288.8
$293.1
$297.5
$302.0
$306.5
$311.1
$315.8
$320.5
$325.3
$330.2
$335.1
Sub-Total
2240
$1,670.2
$1,798.3
$1,856.3
$1,884.1 $1,912.4 $1,941.1 $1,970.2 $1,999.8 $2,029.8 $2,060.2 $2,091.1 $2,122.5 $2,154.3 $2,186.6 $2,219.4 $2,252.7 $2,286.5
$2,320.8
$2,355.6
$2,391.0
Off-Street / Permits
Resident Bar Code
$14.9
$14.8
$15.3
$15.5
$15.8
$16.0
$16.2
$16.5
$16.7
$17.0
$17.2
$17.5
$17.8
$18.0
$18.3
$18.6
$18.8
$19.1
$19.4
$19.7
Employee Bar Code
$7.0
$6.7
$6.9
$7.0
$7.1
$7.2
$7.3
$7.4
$7.5
$7.7
$7.8
$7.9
$8.0
$8.1
$8.2
$8.4
$8.5
$8.6
$8.8
$8.9
Resident Pre-Paid
$274.0
$290.8
$266.4
$270.4
$274.5
$278.6
$282.7
$287.0
$291.3
$295.7
$300.1
$304.6
$309.2
$313.8
$318.5
$323.3
$328.1
$333.1
$338.1
$343.1
Employee Pre-Paid
$305.7
$291.2
$304.9
$309.5
$314.1
$318.8
$323.6
$328.5
$333.4
$338.4
$343.5
$348.6
$353.8
$359.2
$364.5
$370.0
$375.6
$381.2
$386.9
$392.7
Overnight
$42.7
$46.7
$44.4
$45.1
$45.7
$46.4
$47.1
$47.8
$48.5
$49.3
$50.0
$50.8
$51.5
$52.3
$53.1
$53.9
$54.7
$55.5
$56.3
$57.2
Sub-Total
$644.3
$650.2
$637.9
$647.5
$657.2
$667.0
$677.0
$687.2
$697.5
$708.0
$718.6
$729.4
$740.3
$751.4
$762.7
$774.1
$785.7
$797.5
$809.5
$821.6
On-Street Meters
601
$460.9
$469.6
$493.6
$501.0
$508.5
$516.1
$523.9
$531.7
$539.7
$547.8
$556.0
$564.4
$572.8
$581.4
$590.2
$599.0
$608.0
$617.1
$626.4
$635.8
Other Income
Leased Spaces
$51.8
$51.1
$51.4
$52.2
$53.0
$53.7
$54.6
$55.4
$56.2
$57.0
$57.9
$58.8
$59.7
$60.5
$61.5
$62.4
$63.3
$64.3
$65.2
$66.2
Meter Bags
$11.8
$17.7
$33.6
$34.1
$34.6
$35.1
$35.7
$36.2
$36.7
$37.3
$37.9
$38.4
$39.0
$39.6
$40.2
$40.8
$41.4
$42.0
$42.6
$43.3
Smart Cards
$220.9
$98.1
$12.8
$13.0
$13.2
$13.4
$13.6
$13.8
$14.0
$14.2
$14.4
$14.6
$14.9
$15.1
$15.3
$15.5
$15.8
$16.0
$16.2
$16.5
Visitor Passes
$45.2
$33.9
$37.4
$38.0
$38.5
$39.1
$39.7
$40.3
$40.9
$41.5
$42.1
$42.8
$43.4
$44.1
$44.7
$45.4
$46.1
$46.8
$47.5
$48.2
Miscellaneous
$11.9
$10.2
$16.7
$17.0
$17.2
$17.5
$17.7
$18.0
$18.3
$18.5
$18.8
$19.1
$19.4
$19.7
$20.0
$20.3
$20.6
$20.9
$21.2
$21.5
Sub-Total
$341.6
$211.0
$151.9
$154.2
$156.5
$158.8
$161.2
$163.6
$166.1
$168.6
$171.1
$173.7
$176.3
$178.9
$181.6
$184.3
$187.1
$189.9
$192.8
$195.7
Adjustment To Reconcile With Audit
($215.5)
($154.8)
Grand Total Revenue
$2,901.5
$2,974.3
$3,139.7
$3,186.8 $3,234.6 $3,283.1 $3,332.4 $3,382.3 $3,433.1 $3,484.6 $3,536.8 $3,589.9 $3,643.8 $3,698.4 $3,753.9 $3,810.2 $3,867.3
$3,925.4
$3,984.2
$4,044.0
Grand Total Operating Expense
$1,436.8
$1,554.5
$1,593.4
$1,633.2 $1,674.0 $1,715.9 $1,758.8 $1,802.7 $1,847.8 $1,894.0 $1,941.4 $1,989.9 $2,039.6 $2,090.6 $2,142.9 $2,196.5 $2,251.4
$2,307.7
$2,365.4
$2,424.5
NET INCOME - AVAILABLE FOR DEBT SERVICE
$1,464.7
$1,419.8
$1,546.3
$1,553.6 $1,560.6 $1,567.2 $1,573.6 $1,579.6 $1,585.3 $1,590.6 $1,595.5 $1,600.0 $1,604.1 $1,607.8 $1,611.0 $1,613.7 $1,616.0
$1,617.7
$1,618.9
$1,619.5
Existing Debt Service (Source: Annual Report)
$912.4
$939.4
$939.4
Existing Debt Service (2)
$623.3
$745.2
$739.3
$426.9
$420.2
$413.5
$406.7
$399.8
$397.7
$390.7 $1,621.2
$285.1
$287.7
$98.0
$101.0
$100.0
$100.0
Not Used
Total Debt Service
$912.4
$939.4
$939.4
$623.3
$745.2
$739.3
$426.9
$420.2
$413.5
$406.7
$399.8
$397.7
$390.7 $1,621.2
$285.1
$287.7
$98.0
$101.0
$100.0
$100.0
DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO
1.61
1.51
1.65
2.49
2.09
2.12
3.69
3.76
3.83
3.91
3.99
4.02
4.11
0.99
5.65
5.61
16.49
16.02
16.19
16.20
Surplus or (Deficit)
$552.3
$480.4
$606.9
$930.3
$815.4
$827.9 $1,146.7 $1,159.4 $1,171.8 $1,183.9 $1,195.7 $1,202.3 $1,213.4
($13.4) $1,325.9 $1,326.0 $1,518.0
$1,516.7
$1,518.9
$1,519.5
(1) Source: Audited & Unadudited of the City of Summit and Summit Parking Utility
(2) Source: City of Summit (Unaudited)
LEVEL G ASSOCIATES, LLC
33
TABLE 9B
BUILD CONDITION / RECOMMENDED PROGRAM PLAN
TABLE 9B
20-YEAR PROJECTED PERFORMANCE OF THE SYSTEM ($ 000's)
SUMMIT PARKING UTILITY
Run Date: October 16, 2016
REVENUE:
Off-Street / Hourly & Daily
2013 (1)
2014 (1)
2015 (1)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
Broad Street Garage
$251.1
$297.3
$329.5
$334.4
$339.5
$344.6
$349.7
$355.0
$360.3
$365.7
$371.2
$376.7
$382.4
$388.1
$394.0
$399.9
$405.9
$412.0
$418.1
$424.4
Broad Street East
$348.1
$352.9
$312.0
$316.7
$321.4
$326.3
$331.1
$336.1
$341.2
$346.3
$351.5
$356.7
$362.1
$367.5
$373.0
$378.6
$384.3
$390.1
$395.9
$401.9
Tier Garage - Upper Levels
$108.7
$157.8
$152.3
$154.6
$156.9
$159.3
$161.6
$164.1
$166.5
$169.0
$171.6
$174.1
$176.8
$179.4
$182.1
$184.8
$187.6
$190.4
$193.3
$196.2
Tier Garage - Ground Level
$87.1
$68.2
$73.9
$75.0
$76.1
$77.3
$78.4
$79.6
$80.8
$82.0
$83.2
$84.5
$85.8
$87.1
$88.4
$89.7
$91.0
$92.4
$93.8
$95.2
Bank Street Lot
$51.7
$53.4
$56.5
$57.3
$58.2
$59.1
$60.0
$60.9
$61.8
$62.7
$63.6
$64.6
$65.6
$66.6
$67.6
$68.6
$69.6
$70.6
$71.7
$72.8
Library / YMCA Lot
$67.4
$66.1
$68.0
$69.0
$70.1
$71.1
$72.2
$73.3
$74.4
$75.5
$76.6
$77.8
$78.9
$80.1
$81.3
$82.5
$83.8
$85.0
$86.3
$87.6
De Forest Lots (Revenue dip in 2018 represents switch to PBP)
$397.0
$386.9
$434.4
$440.9
$447.5
$425.0
$431.4
$437.8
$444.4
$451.1
$457.8
$464.7
$471.7
$478.8
$485.9
$493.2
$500.6
$508.1
$515.8
$523.5
Loss of DeForest Lot 3
($44.7)
($45.4)
($86.3)
($87.6)
($88.9)
($90.2)
($91.6)
($92.9)
($94.3)
($95.8)
($97.2)
($98.6)
($100.1)
($101.6)
($103.2)
($104.7)
Park & Rail
$102.8
$104.4
$103.5
$105.1
$106.6
$108.2
$109.9
$111.5
$113.2
$114.9
$116.6
$118.3
$120.1
$121.9
$123.7
$125.6
$127.5
$129.4
$131.3
$133.3
Park & Ride Lot
$55.7
$62.0
$66.0
$67.0
$68.0
$69.0
$70.0
$71.1
$72.2
$73.2
$74.3
$75.5
$76.6
$77.7
$78.9
$80.1
$81.3
$82.5
$83.8
$85.0
All Other Lots
$200.6
$249.3
$260.2
$264.1
$268.1
$272.1
$276.2
$280.3
$284.5
$288.8
$293.1
$297.5
$302.0
$306.5
$311.1
$315.8
$320.5
$325.3
$330.2
$335.1
Sub-Total
$1,670.2
$1,798.3
$1,856.3
$1,884.1
$1,867.7
$1,866.5
$1,854.3
$1,882.1
$1,910.3
$1,939.0
$1,968.0
$1,997.6
$2,027.5
$2,057.9
$2,088.8
$2,120.1
$2,151.9
$2,184.2
$2,217.0
$2,250.2
Off-Street / Permits
Resident Bar Code
$14.9
$14.8
$15.3
$15.5
$15.8
$16.0
$16.2
$16.5
$16.7
$17.0
$17.2
$17.5
$17.8
$18.0
$18.3
$18.6
$18.8
$19.1
$19.4
$19.7
Employee Bar Code
$7.0
$6.7
$6.9
$7.0
$7.1
$7.2
$7.3
$7.4
$7.5
$7.7
$7.8
$7.9
$8.0
$8.1
$8.2
$8.4
$8.5
$8.6
$8.8
$8.9
Resident Pre-Paid
$274.0
$290.8
$266.4
$270.4
$274.5
$278.6
$282.7
$287.0
$291.3
$295.7
$300.1
$304.6
$309.2
$313.8
$318.5
$323.3
$328.1
$333.1
$338.1
$343.1
Employee Pre-Paid
$305.7
$291.2
$304.9
$309.5
$314.1
$318.8
$323.6
$328.5
$333.4
$338.4
$343.5
$348.6
$353.8
$359.2
$364.5
$370.0
$375.6
$381.2
$386.9
$392.7
Overnight
$42.7
$46.7
$44.4
$45.1
$45.7
$46.4
$47.1
$47.8
$48.5
$49.3
$50.0
$50.8
$51.5
$52.3
$53.1
$53.9
$54.7
$55.5
$56.3
$57.2
Sub-Total
$644.3
$650.2
$637.9
$647.5
$657.2
$667.0
$677.0
$687.2
$697.5
$708.0
$718.6
$729.4
$740.3
$751.4
$762.7
$774.1
$785.7
$797.5
$809.5
$821.6
On-Street Meters
Base Revenue
$460.9
$469.6
$493.6
$501.0
$508.5
$516.1
$523.9
$531.7
$539.7
$547.8
$556.0
$564.4
$572.8
$581.4
$590.2
$599.0
$608.0
$617.1
$626.4
$635.8
Impact of Rate Increase (Note 2)
$300.0
$447.5
$454.2
$461.0
$467.9
$475.0
$482.1
$489.3
$496.7
$504.1
$511.7
$519.3
$527.1
$535.0
$543.1
$551.2
Sub-Total
$460.9
$469.6
$493.6
$501.0
$808.5
$963.6
$978.1
$992.8
$1,007.7
$1,022.8
$1,038.1
$1,053.7
$1,069.5
$1,085.5
$1,101.8
$1,118.3
$1,135.1
$1,152.1
$1,169.4
$1,187.0
Other Income
$341.6
$211.0
$151.9
$154.2
$156.5
$158.8
$161.2
$163.6
$166.1
$168.6
$171.1
$173.7
$176.3
$178.9
$181.6
$184.3
$187.1
$189.9
$192.8
$195.7
New Revenue
De Forest Garage (Note 3)
$188.9
$458.7
$485.7
$485.7
$485.7
$485.7
$582.8
$582.8
$582.8
$582.8
$582.8
$582.8
$680.0
$680.0
$680.0
100 Spaces South of Broad Street (Note 4)
$118.8
$118.8
$118.8
$118.8
$118.8
$118.8
$132.0
$132.0
$132.0
$132.0
$132.0
$132.0
$145.2
$145.2
$145.2
Increase Fines From $25 to $45 (Note 5)
$300.0
$300.0
Sub-Total
$307.7
$877.5
$604.5
$904.5
$604.5
$604.5
$714.8
$714.8
$714.8
$714.8
$714.8
$714.8
$825.2
$825.2
$825.2
Adjustment To Reconcile With Audit OR Capitalized Interest
($215.5)
($154.8)
$215.0
$215.0
Grand Total Revenue
$2,901.5
$2,974.3
$3,139.7
$3,186.8
$3,704.9
$4,178.7
$4,548.1
$4,330.2
$4,686.1
$4,442.8
$4,500.4
$4,669.1
$4,728.4
$4,788.6
$4,849.7
$4,911.7
$4,974.7
$5,149.0
$5,213.9
$5,279.7
Expenses
Existing System
$1,436.8
$1,554.5
$1,593.4
$1,633.2
$1,674.0
$1,715.9
$1,758.8
$1,802.7
$1,847.8
$1,894.0
$1,941.4
$1,989.9
$2,039.6
$2,090.6
$2,142.9
$2,196.5
$2,251.4
$2,307.7
$2,365.4
$2,424.5
Deposit To Preventative Maintenance Fund
$93.0
$136.0
$136.0
$136.0
$136.0
$136.0
$136.0
$136.0
$136.0
$136.0
$136.0
$136.0
$136.0
$136.0
$136.0
$136.0
New staffing needs
$40.0
$41.0
$42.0
$43.1
$44.2
$45.3
$46.4
$47.5
$48.7
$50.0
$51.2
$52.5
$53.8
$55.1
$56.5
$57.9
430 Space Garage at $600 / Sp / Year
$129.0
$258.0
$264.5
$271.1
$277.8
$284.8
$291.9
$299.2
$306.7
$314.3
$322.2
$330.3
$338.5
$347.0
$355.7
Grand Total Expense
$1,436.8
$1,554.5
$1,593.4
$1,633.2
$1,807.0
$2,021.9
$2,194.8
$2,246.3
$2,299.0
$2,353.1
$2,408.5
$2,465.3
$2,523.6
$2,583.3
$2,644.4
$2,707.2
$2,771.4
$2,837.3
$2,904.9
$2,974.1
NET INCOME - AVAILABLE FOR DEBT SERVICE
$1,464.7
$1,419.8
$1,546.3
$1,553.6
$1,897.9
$2,156.8
$2,353.3
$2,083.9
$2,387.0
$2,089.7
$2,091.8
$2,203.8
$2,204.8
$2,205.3
$2,205.3
$2,204.6
$2,203.3
$2,311.7
$2,309.0
$2,305.6
Existing Debt Service (Source: Annual Report)
$912.4
$939.4
$939.4
Existing Debt Service (2)
$623.3
$745.2
$739.3
$426.9
$420.2
$413.5
$406.7
$399.8
$397.7
$390.7
$1,621.2
$285.1
$287.7
$98.0
$101.0
$100.0
$100.0
Debt Service (Series 2017) - See Table 10
$430.0
$736.7
$736.7
$736.7
$736.7
$736.7
$736.7
$736.7
$736.7
$736.7
$736.7
$736.7
$736.7
$736.7
$736.7
$736.7
Total Debt Service
$912.4
$939.4
$939.4
$623.3
$1,175.2
$1,476.0
$1,163.6
$1,156.9
$1,150.2
$1,143.4
$1,136.5
$1,134.4
$1,127.4
$2,357.9
$1,021.8
$1,024.4
$834.7
$837.7
$836.7
$836.7
DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO
1.61
1.51
1.65
2.49
1.61
1.46
2.02
1.80
2.08
1.83
1.84
1.94
1.96
0.94
2.16
2.15
2.64
2.76
2.76
2.76
Surplus or (Deficit)
$552.3
$480.4
$606.9
$930.3
$722.7
$680.8
$1,189.7
$927.0
$1,236.8
$946.3
$955.3
$1,069.4
$1,077.4
($152.6) $1,183.5
$1,180.2
$1,368.6
$1,474.0
$1,472.3
$1,468.9
Capital Outlay For Phases 5b and 5c
($465.0)
($445.0)
(1) Source: Audited & Unadudited Financial Statements of the City of Summit and Summit Parking Utility
(4) As of 1/1/2018 - Average $90 per space per month (1.1 oversell) / Increase $10 every 6 years
(2) From 50¢ to $1.00 per hour on 4/1/2017
(5) Additional revenue flows to Parking Utility in 2019 and 2021 to fund on-street pay-by-plate program (Program Items 5b and 5c)
(3) 430 space facility to open July 1, 2018 / Average $5 per space per day; Rate increase $1 every 6 years
(6) Requires verification from City
LEVEL G ASSOCIATES, LLC
34
TABLE 10
Run Date: 10/13/16
FINANCING WORKSHEET
REVENUE BOND FINANCING - TAX EXEMPT
2017 PARKING / FUNDING PROGRAM
SUMMIT, NJ
OPTION A
Garage Construction - Hard & Soft Costs
430
spaces
@
$25,580
per space
$10,999,400
Re-Striping / Add 100 Spaces Zone 2 / Misc Improvements
$1,000,000
Meter Re-programming & Pay Stations
$250,000
Contingency (5%)
$612,470
Land
$0
TOTAL DEVELOPMENTAL COST
$12,861,870
Financing:
Deposit to (net funded) Construction Fund
$12,765,406
Deposit to Debt Service Reserve Fund
$736,719
Deposit to (net funded) Cap Interest Fund (12 months)
$429,951
Issuing Costs
$505,400
Correction Amount
$2,524
$14,440,000
Estimated Par Amount of Bonds
$14,440,000
Annual Debt Service Payment
30 year issue @ 3.00%, level payment schedule
$736,719
35
Protected Document Content
Start your free trial to view the raw municipal bid documents and web text.
Unlock Full AccessDetailed Risk Breakdown
local preference
Evidence Detected
"...port the Department of Community Programs in developing and implementing a comprehensive permanent or temporary concession strategy that promotes local business and generates revenue that supports Village Green maintenance. Î Î Continue to support the programming of the Village Green that includes events..."
performance bond
No Flags Found
liquidated damages
Evidence Detected
"...olled for use by downtown employees or commuters who must purchase a pre-paid permit (and not pay the meter) or a general permit (and pay the meter $4 per day). The on-street parking time limit in the CBD core is mostly 90 minutes however, there are quite a few 3-hour and 5-hour limit on-street spaces co..."
Quick Actions
Contacts
Michael F. Rogers
City Administrator
hidden@email.com
UnlockExplore More
Timeline
First Discovered
Mar 19, 2026
Last Info Update
Apr 30, 2026
Start your 7-day free trial
Get instant notifications and full bid analysis. Existing users will be logged in automatically.
Start Free Trial