195 Changebridge Road, Montville
MINUTES OF THE
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2010
Mr. Maggio present Mr. Karkowsky present
Mr. Sandham present Ms.
Mr. Lipari present
Mr. Lewis present
excused Mr. Canning present
Mr. Visco present Mr.
Speciale1 (alt#1) excused
Mr. Tobias (alt#2) present
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Chairman Karkowski introduced and welcomed Meghan Hunscher, P.P., new Principal Planner for Montville Township.
Reports from Board Liaisons:
Open Space Committee – Mayor
Sandham reports the Township has closed on Starkey property including a check
for $2.1 million from Morris
County. 50 acres
PMISC10-36 F S Transportation, Inc – 28 Bloomfield Ave – B: 170, L: 16 –
office (1,500 s.f.) for transportation company – hours of operation 7am-4pm
Mon-Fri – 3 employees – no outdoor storage – no commercial vehicles – no
Motion to approve with standard conditions: Maggio; Second
by: Visco; Roll call: Unanimous
PSPP/FC09-09 Pinto Management Group – 147 Changebridge Rd. – B:131, L: 18 –
Prel/Final Site Plan – variance – approved 7/8/10 – eligible: Karkowsky,
Canning, Nielson, Visco, Lipari, Sandham, Tobias
Motion to adopt made by: Canning; Second by: Tobias; Roll
call: Karkowsky, Canning, Visco, Lipari, Sandham, Tobias
PMSP/F03-23 Passaic Valley Estates – 20 Passaic Valley Rd. – B: 82.05, L: 70 –
request for extension of approvals to 10/27/11
Motion to grant extension made by: Lipari; Second by: Sandham;
Roll call: Unanimous
Minutes of August 12, 2010 - eligible: Karkowsky, Sandham, Nielson, Lewis,
Hines, Canning, Visco, Tobias
Motion to adopt made by: Canning; Second by: Visco; Roll
Subcommittee Master Plan Minutes
of August 11, 2010 - eligible: Deb Nielson, Gary Lewis,
Motion to adopt made by: Canning; Second by: Visco; Roll
Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $405, $135, $33.75,
Omland Engineering – Trust for: $67.50, $592.50, $1,316.25,
Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $120, $105
Burgis Associates – Masterplan: $3,750; $67.50; $641.25;
Trust for: $101.25, $776.25, $202.50
Motion to approve: Lipari; Second: Sandham; Roll call:
PSPP/FC10-07 RAILS STEAKHOUSE - 8 & 10
Whitehall Road – B: 96, L: 3 & 4 - Site Plan/Variances for development of
retail/apartments /restaurant site – Carried w/notice from 6/10/10 – Eligible: Ladis Karkowsky, Victor Canning, John
Visco, Gary Lewis,
Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, Jim Sandham, Larry Hines,
Tony Speciale, Alt, Larry Tobias, Alt #2:
Deb Nielson must certify to
6/10/10 meeting ACT BY:
Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq; Mark
Walker P.E.; James Stathis, Applicant; Hugo
Zavala (Valet consultant); John Desch P.E. (Traffic/parking expert)
Mr. Schepis Re-capped prior hearing status.
PE - previously sworn
Presentation resumed with continuing discussion of
stormwater management. Project is located above Towaco Aquifer. Mr. Walker
described the various project facilities to manage rate of runoff, infiltration
and water quality. 100% infiltration rate is required, project provides 200%.
Re: water quality requirements, project must have 80% suspended solids removal,
Township requires 90%; requirement is met through porous pavement and
redirection of other site runoff back through stormwater control facilities.
movement 2,427 yards (152-175 tandems) will be removed from the site via Whitehall directly to Route 202 towards Lincoln Park or onto Route 287 depending upon
final destination. Municipal Engineer has the right to establish permit
conditions which the applicant agrees to abide by.
Questioned the number of trucks daily, and were there plans to ‘stack’
tandems while waiting to be loaded. Walker:
Normally handled during the pre-construction meeting, at which times the
Board’s concerns can be expressed and shared with the parties on site.
Chairman Karkowsky: Inquired of Stan Omland the Board’s
role re: the soil movement. Omland: Amount of soil involved here is not
significant; Board has the right to see these issues dealt with, enforced by
Sandham: Safety is the issue…..this is a major Township
route. As long as the project sticks to the route agreed to, no issue. Township
does not want them on local roads.
Karkowsky: Can we limit times to 10:00 – 2:00? Omland: Be
careful to balance the times allowed to let the operation be complete as soon
as possible or restrict it which may extend the project times. Sandham: Get comments from Township Engineer.
Lipari: Appreciates Stan’s comments. This is an area of
concern, and wants assurances that people in that area understand what is
happening and people are protected. Karkowsky:
Concerned about multiple pre-schools in the area. Omland: No truck loading within the right-of-way. Schepis: Will get the file with Engineer’s
comments back to the Board.
Walker: Number of design
waivers (6): 1] Slope disturbance: Flat site, but filled on one end and
requires disturbance calculation. 15%-20% slope = 95.2% vs 50% allowed (1,949
sq ft); 20%-25% slope = 95.9% vs 33% allowed (1,946 sq ft); >25% slope = 75.9% vs 0 allowed (5,217sq
ft). 2] Disturbance >1’ of property within 5’ of property line
(retaining wall); 3] Unpaved parking
area: Valet parking area was proposed with pavers, but based on Board’s
comments, gravel pavers will be used instead; 4] Loading in front of a parking
space: (6) dedicated residential parking spaces. Deliveries will all be between
5:00 and 6:00 a.m.; garbage collection as well. Entire building has trash storage
within the building. 5] Parking located within 15’ of a multi-tenant
residential, wherein 6’ to handicapped space is proposed. 6] Signs should have uniform area and height,
details will be explained by Planner, Anthony Garrett.
Variances related to project: 1] Retaining wall 9.5’ in
height. Maximum height is 6’, but has 3.5’ high safety rail along top. 2] Light
pole height maximum of 12’, where 15’ is proposed. Consistent with 15’ fixtures
in train parking lot. 3] 12.2’ front
yard setback where 20’ is required. Very narrow lot, building shifted as far
east as possible to maximize use. 4] 9.7’ rear yard setback proposed where 30’
is required. Site backs up to railroad. 5] Height of 27.4’ proposed where 25’
is allowed, less than 10% above maximum. Garrett will discuss details.6]
Impervious coverage maximum is 50%. Original application went from 53% to 55.1%
in current form. To mitigate coverage, enhanced stormwater management features
have been introduced.
Burgis: Asked if Garrett will elaborate on the statutory basis for the
variances….Walker indicates he will.
Walker: 7] parking
variance: 95 required, 58 dedicated on property. To offset, valet service
created, plus street parking to be provided on Whitehall to total 95 total spaces.
Karkowsky: Can these spaces be used in the calculation or
are they off-site? Walker: They are off-site, but they do not
exist now. Sandham: How many parallel
parking spaces are included in calculation. Eleven
Walker: The valet service adds about 26 spaces. The only time
these spaces are needed are peak times for restaurant, which may differ from
retail. 35 spaces are required for retail, but many may be available for use by
restaurant patrons. Lipari: 84 spaces
provided without counting the parallel spaces on Whitehall. Is there testimony that the street
spaces are included in the site demand? Walker: A variance is
required, but the street spaces are part of the formula to reach 95 spaces. Schepis: The variance is for 84 spaces, does
not include any off-site parking, even though it is available. Karkowsky: How many spaces without valet? 58. Walker:
Without 6 dedicated residential, 52 non-residential spaces provided.
Lipari: The question is whether or not the variance is for
only having 58 spaces versus 95 required?
Burgis: The parking variance is for having 58 spaces, they are proposing
means to alleviate the shortfall by valet.
Schepis: Provided rationale and
basis for the variance and real-life effects of this type of parking
arrangement. Karkowsky: Parking demand
for restaurant calculated based on number of seats (144).
Sandham: Are the sidewalks fully connected between the
train station lots and the train station?
Yes sidewalk to connect, and site to be connected to train station
Omland: 58 spaces include gravel parking which may limit
the number of fully conforming spaces to 40. No seating plan presented needs to
be very tight to ensure seating and parking align. Asked Walker
current status of County approvals for Whitehall changes. Walker: County on board,
no final approvals received yet. Omland: Board cannot make applicant wait for
County prior approval, but any approval here must be conditioned on the County
Tobias: Asked if take-out service will be provided. Stathis: Take out may be provided to NJ
Transit riders. Walker could not answer. Tobias: Questioned
pedestrian crossing across Whitehall at high point and lack of
visibility. Crosswalk was added in response to Board professionals.
Burgis: Asked to describe the material to be used at valet
parking area. Gravel paver system, sub-base prepared similar to pavers, then
gravel pavers roll out like a mat, then covered with 1-1/4 inch stone. Smooth,
stable surface to walk on and drive on. Karkowsky:
Questioned why not porous concrete? Walker: Difficult to
modify later if site or uses change.
Omland: Who will be addressing propriety of street parking
spaces relative to sight access and closeness to site driveways. Walker: Mr. Desch will address street parking.
Chairman Karkowsky opened to public:
Abe Cohen 30 Woodshire Terrace: Questioned the parking and
use of NJ Transit parking lot. Lot is never
full, even on Friday and Saturday nights.
NJ Transit owns the lot and could change the parking
parameters at any time.
Motion to close public portion for this witness made by:
Lipari Second by: Sandham; Roll call:
Hugo Zavala (Valet consultant) - sworn:
Been in valet for 16+ years, experience with restaurants,
office building, banquet halls, etc. Reviewed
the site for valet parking system. Used Exhibit A-3 to explain. Will use 2
directional signs on sidewalk. 4-man staff, 1 at front entrance to handle
incoming and handle claim tickets, 2 drivers to take cars to lot, 1 lot handler
to park the vehicles. Traffic will be one way from middle driveway west to
minimize conflict. Claimed cars will travel out the far driveway onto Whitehall and then back
in via the center driveway. 44 total cars can be parked in the dedicated valet
area. All of the paved spaces will be
reserved for the retail shops.
Sandham: Questioned exiting lot out onto Whitehall Road to re-enter lot. Potential
safety issue, limited sight distance. Asked that traffic expert comment on
that. Lipari: Any similar restaurants in
this area? Zavala: Suppa’s Omland: Any banquet facilities? Timing of
valet services. Stathis: Based on demand. Most likely Friday and Saturday
Walker: Will modify plan to provide full height curb on westerly
end to keep vehicles within established parking area. Durable posts with signs
will be provided to demarcate the standard width spaces when no valet is
provided. Omland: Applicant should
provide means to contain cars.
Open to public : None
Motion close the public portion for this witness made by:
Sandham; Second: Lipari; Roll call:
John Desch P.E. (Traffic/parking expert) – sworn -Accepted
Investigated in March and April of 2010; prepared 5/28/10
report and supplemental report dated 6/10 responding to Omland comments.
Examined size of restaurants, number of stores and residential units, then took
normal expected traffic flows and superimposed on local roadways. Examined peak
times. Also considered growth rate.
Project traffic then added to calculation. Middle driveway
is turn-restricted. Traffic distributed among driveways, then levels of service
determined. All driveways result in generally favorable, other than Whitehall and Pinebrook Road.
(Level E and F). Does not feel the traffic for this development adds any significant
increase to that level of service.
Sight distances considered…current Whitehall speed limit is 45 mph. When lanes
are narrowed and parking provided, traffic will be calmed, and speed limit will
be recommended to be reduced to 25mph.
County seems to be in
support. Sight distance still calculated at 45 mph and is adequate.
There is a parking shortfall at the site. Shared parking
concepts discussed per the ITE Manual…..all data contained in his report
(Tables 6 and 7) for various time periods. Believes the restaurant will be able
to use some shared spaces at nearly all times, and restaurant parking will
never exceed 90. Valet is also a good approach to addressing that parking need.
Commented on concerns of exiting onto Whitehall…..very
non-busy time on Whitehall……not
a big concern. One-way circulation in parking lot is very important.
Discussed 3-year accident history (11 accidents). Only 1
Schepis: Asked about sight distances from most westerly
point (>500’ in both direction). Center driveway (with right-turn only restriction)
(>500’) if vehicle noses into travelway if parked cars exist; same for
Visco: Where are limits of proposed on-street parking to
the west. There is currently a left-turn lane onto Pine Brook. Questions
difficulty of exiting westerly driveway left across 2 lanes of Whitehall. Minimum required sight distance at westerly
driveway exists inside project site.
Lewis: Questioned lighting levels at crosswalks and
sidewalks. Additional study to be done Omland:
Suggests that written County status report on driveways, street parking, speed
limits, etc. would be very useful to the Board.
Sandham: Interested in consideration of full signal at intersection
because of the additional driver and pedestrian movements.
Carried to October 28, 2010. No further notice. Extension
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.