Township of Montville

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building

MINUTES OF JUNE 14, 2007

6:30PM Workshop Minutes

TOWACO CENTER STUDY

ROLL CALL

Mr. Rosellini – entrance noted               Mr. Karkowsky – present       

Ms. Kull - present                                Mr. Daughtry – present

Ms. Nielson - present                           Mr. Visco - present

Mr. Lipari - present                              Mr. Lewis - present

Mr. Speciale (alt#1)- present                Mr. Hines - present

Mr. Witty (alt#2) - present

Also present:

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated

Mr. Burgis summarized prior master plan and the grant application.  The Taylor plan didn’t include residential component, and this element must be included in accordance with this grant program. 

The amount of store space and amount of parking in the plan are not consistent.  The plan displayed shows 120,000 sq. ft. of non-residential, and this would generate 500 parking spaces.  On plan, there are a total of 205 parking spaces. 

Deborah Nielson:  is parking in accordance with our ordinance?  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  used standard designs for parking.  Property standards in some instances are not consistent with common practice, elaborating on some of the parking standards and RSIS standards for parking.  The end result of all of this, the area that was prepared for main area, which suggests 120,000 sq. ft., in Burgis factor, you will get 50,000 sq. ft. of non-residential space.  One of the items is two-story with 3 stories in rear.  Made certain assumptions of how much can be developed. 

As to residential development, showing 13 ½ acres, with 1/3 in wetlands, difficult to come up with residential density, and what was done is to say that one is entitled to have 1 dwelling unit for 1600 sq. ft. of non-residential netting 30 units.  This does not mean that the dwelling unit would be 1600 sq. ft. but for purposes of calculating have ratio of 1600 sq. ft.  

Two additional issues:  scale of this exhibit, building measures 40’ in depth.  Talk 60 to 80’ depth for storefronts, and this was another factor to pushing back some, and building should take some more space.

Finally, COAH needs must be addressed, and residential development will generate COAH obligation that a potential developer has to meet, this could be a simple way to address obligation.  Ladis Karkowsky:  we have a credit; new numbers will come into play.  Mr. Burgis:  Suggest that COAH’s second round obligation will be bumped up.  For a number of reasons:  down adjustment when COAH made assumption that a certain number of units become available to lower income.  Pricing hasn’t gone down.  Also more specifics in formula might be changed reducing our credit.  COAH petitioned court for extension on court action. 

13 + 15 acres in remaining study area, plus 11 acres on other side of Rt. 202 near train station.  Ordinance discussed. 

Broke up into two zones:  TC1 zone area and all other is TC2 with most significant is that in TC1 allows multifamily residential since Planning Board does not want a lot of residential and should be acceptable to state.

Identified uses on page one and page two which coincides with Taylor ordinance.  Focus:  items 8 and 9 as to offices above grade at retail to encourage pedestrian friendly environment.  Would prohibit offices at grade and would encourage retail on grade. 

Principal uses on TC2 same, but not residential and would allow offices at grade.   If you have retail everyone, looking for more retail.  Have a study area that is very long so consider office in TC2.  Impact would be traffic volume if all retail vs mix. 

Drive up was prohibited in prior study.  85% of bank applications has drive up aisles even in down town areas.  Gary Lewis:  opinion is that there are number of banks in township and all have drive up facilities, if focus of this is pedestrian traffic, don’t believe drive up windows are appropriate since you want people out of cars.  Where you are promoting traffic close to street, you are introducing potential for conflict that isn’t needed.  Don’t think a bank would suffer without a drive up where there are drive-ups in other part of townships.  Think this was appropriate for this zone: get people out walking around in this zone.

Art Daughtry:  existing bank only has a walk up.  Deborah Nielson:  doesn’t know what the market is as to drive up businesses like Starbuck’s, pharmacy uses, etc.?  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  is familiar with certain banks but for most part he is not familiar with other uses like those mentioned in this type of center.  Marie Kull:  discussed strip mall on Baldwin, which is all walk up.  Russ Lipari:  Denville is good example and there are no drive-ups. Ladis Karkowsky:  the concept is to encourage people to walk up.

Mr. Burgis reviewed the recommended bulk requirements summarizing ordinance draft:  i.e. lot width increased from 50 to 60’ since every lot is mostly 60’ and most storefronts are about 20’ in dimension, and this is reasonable design.

Front yard setback was 5’ and 10’, and increased this to 10’; front yard remains the same however footnote talks about where you are farther than 150’ from Rt. 202, footnote kicks in.  Talked about minimum and maximum.  10’ is min. and 25’ is maximum front yard setback.  In rear of site, there were three buildings that are more than 150’ setback, and where there is area, then you can have larger setback.  You need closer front yards to allow for parking. 

Gary Lewis:  Rt. 202 frontage would accommodate café or sidewalk activity incorporated along frontage.  Mr. Burgis: yes

Altered side yard dimension:  from 0 to a minimum of 10’.  It is a long strip and if you have one unbroken wall, it would be too much.  This way you have some landscape amenities or an outdoor café in the alley’s.  This allows a 20’ dimension to allow outdoor seating. 

Building height was a straight 3 story 35’.  Rear portion in this plan would allow 3 stories to allow 35’ overall. Now two story in front with 3 story in rear along main road.

Coverage factor reduced, indicating this coverage from prior master plan was reduced.   Allowed 60% building:  Reduced this coverage.  If market is private, per Gary Lewis, and joining lots is encouraged but not achieved, have you put so much control on someone seeking development individually? Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  made numbers more restrictive since this would serve to encourage people to talk to neighbors to create more comprehensive designs with 2-3 lots.  Can increase numbers slightly, but don’t want to increase coverage and have 40% coverage with 75% impervious.  Should be somewhere in this range.

Art Daughtry:  our grant monies didn’t address residential component, so if we work with just this component, and in order to be compliant with grant, what about providing residential component:  recommend 1 d/u for every 1600 office/retail use, amounting to 30 overall.  You want to strike a balance per Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP.  Art Daughtry :  these 30 units would be within the TC1 zone.  This would be our residential component.  Art Daughtry :  what about parking, but using more realistic parking, we are only at 50% at what you would expect.  Mr. Burgis:  comment offered in ordinance, and about applicant having to prove parking arrangements and that they are entitled to reduction in parking.  This is where we see this number adjusted.  Storefront calculated are not included.

Russ Lipari:  we need additional parking, and part of this was to go to NJ Transit and try and work something out, and were helpful in this respect.  This and the Township Committee would feel it would be appropriate, that we go forward with this.  Art Daughtry:  how out of whack the numbers are from prior study.  There are several properties that want to partake in parking.  If swim club property was included in plan, some of the controversy would be taken out.  We are trying to develop area, and we need to make this site work.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  when you look at 120,000 sq. ft. being served by only 200 spaces.  Linda White:  municipal parking lot came into play at that time.  Impact ordinance and parking lot should be considered as part of the master plan.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  you have 70 parking spaces that are used in NJ Transit area.  Those 70 spaces in addition to spaces mentioned are available for commercial spaces.

Russ Lipari:  without swim club and town’s parking lot, can you discuss this in right depth?  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  can amendment this at a later date.  After this is adopted, it will come back for some amendment. 

Deborah Nielson:  there was a residential component in the beginning, and it was withdrawn.  If this isn’t part of the final document, do we have to pay grant monies back.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  don’t know answer on grant, but language is explicit for grant to design mixed use residential development. 

Deborah Nielson:  ratio of 1 residential for 1600 sq. ft..  If bonus is given for offsite parking, this resale space could go to 60,000 or 70,000 and result in more residential units, and in General people didn’t want explosion, and would ask that we cap a maximum amount.  Marie Kull:  still interested in knowing where residential goes?  It goes above offices?  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  to address this issue, this document indicates that once a floor is established that is what you have.  Gary Lewis:  every transit development, if not in established down town, it has to have a residential option above in order to get developer to consider.  There must be some on site residential option.  Marie Kull:  retail, etc. in this office, you don’t have to have a residential component.  Opposed to this.  Ladis Karkowsky:  part of problem is grant is mixed use. Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  in document, there is architectural guidelines to encourage a quality project, façade design, materials, rooflines of buildings, canopy and there is a lot of detail.  Ladis Karkowsky:  as part of residential, residential must be part of existing use/buildings.  Deborah Nielson:  proposal for luxury apts., how do you determine?  You can control by size.

Russ Lipari:  using 30, take a handful of age restricted, would control schooling, not saying a lot, but some can be that way.   Gary Lewis:  more than 2 units, must be accessible, eats up square footage and per Gary Lewis, end up with less viable floor space and this controls some of the scale of residential. 

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  did studies of similar developments, found that there be mostly one and 2 bedroom and as to school impact, one for every 10-12 units, might et a few more kids, under age of 5 and this is consistent in these standards. 

Lighting and parking standards discussed.  Issue of parking:  page 8, which reflects design standards for different types of uses.  These conflict with current ordinance, suggest we look at these standards and amendment current ordinance.   This may be appropriate time.  These are scaled down for this intensity of use.  Addresses a good portion of what could be provided. 

Did not include an FAR requirement.  If you can’t meet FAR, the entire application goes to Board of Adjustment.  This is a Planning Board document, and this should be what we control.  Gary Lewis:  what about if over 30 units?  This would be a Planning Board. 

Michael Carroll, Esq.:  you can find a way to get a use variance, and discussed litigation/referrals.

Deborah Nielson:  Taylor Report talked about sizes, notice stalls aren’t addressed.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  did not alter current parking stalls.  Front yard parking is prohibited.  This plan eliminates backing out.  This allows parallel parking.  This is on site parking in front yard.  He support only parallel parking on Rt. 202.  Did staff study loss?  About a 2:1 lost. 

TRACT 2

Deborah Nielson:  childcare uses?  Elder Care?  Is it an oversight in this area?  In all non-residential zones, obliged to put in childcare.  

Signage:  Page 7 – will do a new sign ordinance and pull this in. – makes a reference to current code.

Bicyle Parking:  provided this also.

Gary Lewis:  can there be a credit for sustainability in design?  If township is going to undertake something to recreate this area, one chance, and curious to see number of new structures with long life (parking credit not being considered) perhaps a credit in terms of buffer requirement and/or coverage requirement, use sustainable practices.  Gary Lewis:  elaborated that it incorporates energy into new construction to make sure building is not a burden in view of energy supply.  By meeting certain standards, it may be up to 60 to 70% less of a burden on the environment.  In projects of this scale, it is getting play.  Consider giving percentage with green building.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  one of the thing we may want to do is to make statement in master plan text to deal with in the future.  Michael Carroll, Esq.:  may not have a choice since legislators are looking at this:  if not insist but encourage such as solar energy and it will be done by legislators. Gary Lewis:  make a statement to put in master plan and should be generic.  Larry Hines: not significant monies. 

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  supplied master plan text and made minor modifications based on ordinance. 

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  all of the amenities are mentioned in the ordinance.  Awnings were taken into consideration.  Consider overhangs with coverage in bad weather.  Send draft ordinance, and minor adjustments based on this evening to state.

Tony Speciale:  cut back coverage from 60 to 80% down to current proposal.  If you go to other areas, those percentages are higher.  Will these cuts eliminate a ‘charming downtown’ section if it is cut back?  This makes it a little more restrictive, and ability to have outside dining.  Concerns about outside dining.  Look to bump up numbers a little bit but don’t go beyond 75%.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  thinking of more side yard spaces for outdoor dining.

Looking towards June 28^th.  Put master plan on website. 

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  state cut time period.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  we will need to do some tweaking.  Suggest only the Master Plan put on web.  Russ Lipari:  need to have some sort of explanation.  Need to understand this is proposal to be acted on at June 28^th.

Art Daughtry:  agree with principal and look at the ordinance

Deborah Nielson:

Ordinance under review follows: 

ORDINANCE NO._____

TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE

COUNTY OF MORRIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND, SUPPLEMENT AND REVISE THE CODE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTVILLE, CHAPTER 16 ENTITLED “LAND USE CODE”

BE IT ORDAINED by the Township Council of the Township of Montville, County of Morris, State of New Jersey, that the following amendments and revisions are made to the Revised General Ordinances of the Township of Montville, Chapter 16 entitled “Land Use Code”.

Section 1.  §16.40.020 Zoning Map is hereby amended to rezone properties within the Towaco Center Study Area to the Towaco Center Core (TC1) and Towaco Center Transitional (TC2) Zone Districts, as set forth on the accompanying map.

Section 2.  §16.44.090 Principal Building is hereby amended and supplemented by the amendment of Subsection A and the insertion of a new Subsection D as follows:

A.        In all zoning districts, except for the TC1 and TC2 Zone Districts, only one (1) principal building may be erected on a lot except for related buildings forming one (1) principal use in the same ownership and limited to the following:

(1)        Public or institutional building complexes;

(2)        Research, industrial, manufacturing, office, or retail shopping complexes;

(3)        Multifamily dwelling complexes.

D.        In the TC1 and TC2 Zone Districts, more than one (1) principal building shall be permitted on a lot.

Section 3.  Chapter 16 is hereby amended and supplemented by the insertion of a new Section §16.78 entitled “Towaco Center Zoning Districts”.  This section shall read as follows:

§16.78.010      Purpose.

A.  Purpose.  The purpose of the Towaco Center Zoning Districts is to encourage the development of a mixed-use transit-oriented area containing compatible residential and commercial mixed land uses in a compact design which enhances and complements the Towaco Train Station area.  This area shall be planned pursuant to the recommendations of the Towaco Center Master Plan.  It shall incorporate an integrated and compatible design with respect to the relationship and location of buildings, parking, circulation, walkways, landscape amenity, and buffer features.

§16.78.020      Permitted Uses.

A.  Principal Uses in the TC1 Zone.  Permitted principal uses in the TC1 Zone are as follows:

(1)        Retail stores.

(2)        Personal service establishments.

(3)        Eating and drinking establishments.

(4)        Banks.

(5)        Instructional studio spaces including dance, artist, martial art, music and related studios.

(6)        Museums, art galleries and libraries.

(7)        Child care facilities, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-66.6.

(8)        Professional, financial and medical offices above at-grade retail or other principal permitted uses set forth in Subsections A(1) through (7) above.

(9)        Multi-family residential dwellings above at-grade retail or other principal permitted uses set forth in Subsections A(1) through (7) above.

(10)Public/governmental/institutional uses.

B.         Principal Uses in the TC2 Zone.  Permitted principal uses in the TC2 Zone are as follows:

(1)        All principal permitted uses in the TC1 Zone, except that:

(a)        Professional, financial and medical offices are not required to be located above at-grade retail or other principal permitted uses set forth in Subsections A(1) through (7) above.

(b)        Multi-family residential dwellings are specifically prohibited.

C.  Accessory Uses.  The following accessory uses are permitted in the TC1 and TC2 Zones:

(1)        Off-street parking and loading designed in accordance with §16.78.050.

(2)        Outdoor cafés associated with and on the same lot as indoor eating facilities such as coffee shops, restaurants, ice cream parlors, bakeries and cafes.  Outdoor cafés shall be designed in accordance with §16.78.040C(1).

(3)        Fences and walls, designed in accordance with §16.44.200.

(4)        Signs, designed in accordance with §16.78.040A(5).

D.  Prohibited Uses.  Any use or structure other than those uses or structures permitted in Subsections A, B or C above are prohibited.  In addition, and notwithstanding the above, the following uses shall be specifically prohibited in the TC1 and TC2 Zones:

(1)        Drive-up or through windows in connection with any business.

(2)        Bars or taverns not associated with a restaurant.

(3)        Cabarets and dance clubs.

(4)        Adult entertainment uses.

§16.78.030      Development Standards.

Area and Bulk Requirements.  The following area and bulk regulations shall apply to all uses permitted within the TC1 and TC2 Zones:

^a  Required for development within 150 feet of Route 202/Main Road right-of-way, provided that: (1) where a building has been constructed in accordance with this requirement, and

(2) where there is sufficient lot depth to provide for buildings beyond 150 feet of the right-of-way, additional mixed-use development may be permitted in the area beyond the aforementioned 150 foot dimension in accordance with all other area and bulk requirements.

^b  Provided that a building may have a height of 3 stories and 35 feet if:

(1) the building has its primary frontage on Route 202/Main Road

(2) existing topography provides a minimum 8 foot decline in elevation from Route 202 extending northward to the rear of the lot, and

(3) only the rear (north face) of the building may be 3 stories/35 feet, whereas the building’s Route 202 frontage shall be no more than 2 stories in height.

^c  Permitted in the TC1 Zone only.  

B.  Buffer Requirements.  There shall be established along any property line that is contiguous to a residential zone district a minimum buffer area width equal to ten percent (10%) of the lot depth, up to a maximum of forty (40) feet. The buffer area shall be landscaped and may include fencing, as determined appropriate, to provide screening of parking areas from the adjoining residential district. No building or impervious surface shall be permitted within the buffer area. Grading and earthwork shall not be permitted within the buffer area except to enhance the integrity of the buffer, such as the creation or supplementing of earthen berms. Existing vegetation should be preserved in the buffer area where practical.

C.        Public Open Space.  Public pedestrian open space or plazas shall be provided in conjunction with any development that involves at least 10,000 square feet of gross floor area.  Open space shall be provided at a rate of fifty (50) square feet per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.  The design of open space and plazas shall be in accordance with §16.78.040C(2).

§16.78.040      Design Standards.

Unless otherwise regulated herein, deviations from the following standards shall not be considered variances, but shall be considered deviations from the township site plan and subdivision ordinance and shall therefore require design waivers.

A.        Architectural Guidelines.

(1)        Façade Design.

(a) Horizontal articulation between floors. Each façade should be designed to have a delineated floor line between street level and upper floors. This delineation can be in the form of a masonry belt course, a concrete lintel or a cornice line delineated by wood detailing.

(b) Vertical articulation. Each building façade facing a public right of way must have elements of vertical articulation comprised of columns, piers, recessed windows or entry designs, overhangs, ornamental projection of the molding, different exterior materials or wall colors, or recessed portions of the main surface of the wall itself. The vertical articulations shall be designed in accordance with the following:

[1] Each vertical articulation shall be no greater than thirty (30) feet apart.

[2] Each vertical articulation shall be a minimum of one (1) foot deep.

[3] Each vertical projection noted above may extend into the required front yard a maximum of eighteen (18) inches in depth.

(c)        Fenestration.

[1] At least thirty percent (30%) of the first floor building frontage shall be clear window glass permitting a view of the buildings’ interior. This percentage shall be calculated within the area of the building façade that is located between three (3) feet and ten (10) feet above sidewalk level.

[2] A minimum of forty percent (40%) of the front door shall consist of glass in order to maximize the visibility of the store interior.

[3] Recessed entries are encouraged to create additional design articulation and amenity, improved pedestrian element, and provide shelter for sidewalk patrons.

(d) Orientation.  Unless otherwise shown on the Towaco Center Master Plan’s concept design, all primary façades shall be oriented toward the public right-of-way so as to provide a continuous, varied and attractive landscape.  

(2) Materials. Exterior building materials shall be classified as either primary, secondary or accent materials. The façade shall be designed in accordance with the following:

(a) The primary material shall cover at least sixty percent (60%) of the façade of the building.

(b) Secondary materials shall cover not more than forty percent (40%) of the façade.

(c) Earth-toned materials and wall colors are encouraged.

(3) Roof Lines/Building Height.

(a) The top of all buildings must be capped by a cornice or sloping roof element.

(b) An additional five (5) feet in height for ornamentation such as parapets and cornices is permitted. This additional height is only permitted along a maximum of sixty six percent (66%) of the façade to encourage a varying roof line.

(c) In addition to Subsection A(3)(b) above, each portion of a building that provides cornices and similar appurtenances for ornamental purposes, such elements may not be more than thirty (30) feet in length each.

(d) All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view by use of parapet walls.

(4) Awnings and Canopies

(a) Canopies and awnings are encouraged at the ground floor level.

(b) Buildings with multiple storefronts: all awnings or canopies shall be designed of compatible material and shall be uniform in color, shape and design.

(c) Awnings and cornices shall be designed with a minimum vertical clearance of seven (7) feet and shall not extend more than six (6) feet from the face of the building.

(d) A maximum number of four (4) colors, inclusive of black and white, are permitted.

(e) The lettering on the canopy shall be limited to the name of the occupant only, which shall be included in determining the color and other sign calculations. The lettering shall have a maximum letter size of nine (9) inches and occupy a maximum of seventy percent (70%) percent of the valence area.

(f) No awning shall be erected or maintained so as to obstruct access to any fire escape, window or door.

(g) Awnings and canopies are permitted to encroach within the front yard setback.

(5) Signage.

(a) Roof signs are prohibited in the district.

(b) For multi-tenanted buildings the signs shall be designed with uniform area and height.

(c) Except as required above, all signage shall meet the regulations of §16.76. Any proposed sign that does not meet the requirements set forth by this chapter shall require variance relief. In the event that these new standards conflict with existing standards set forth in §16.76, this section of design standards supersedes.

Streetscape Design Requirements.

(1) All properties along Route 202/Main Road shall comply with the following requirements:

(a) Buildings setback between ten (10) and twelve (12) feet from the curb line shall have a minimum sidewalk width of five (5) feet and a landscaped planter with a minimum width of five (5) feet.

(b) Buildings setback between twelve (12) and twenty (20) feet from the curb line shall have a minimum sidewalk width of twelve (12) feet, inclusive of a four (4) foot minimum landscaped planter separating two four (4) foot wide sidewalks, one of which is adjacent to the building and the other adjacent to the curb.

(c) Landscaped planters must be at least two hundred and fifty (250) square feet in area.

(d) A combination of perennials and shrubs and similar material is required in proposed planters.

(e) Streetscape amenities such as benches shall be incorporated as part of the planter design.

(2) All properties along streets other than Route 202/Main Road shall comply with the following requirements:

(a) There shall be no parking located between the building and the right-of-way.

(b) Landscaped frontage buffer areas shall be provided between the building and the right-of-way.

(c) Frontage buffers shall be designed in accordance with the following:

[1] Shall be planted with a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, grasses and perennials, and incorporated with berms, mounds, rock formations or combinations thereof.

[2] Frontage buffers shall be equal to the street setback requirement and shall be shown on the landscape plan.

[3] In addition to the required street trees, frontage buffers shall require a minimum of ten (10) shrubs for every thirty (30) feet of frontage.

[4] No building, structure or accessory structure, parking, or loading areas shall be permitted in the front buffer area.

(3) Street trees shall be provided along all public right-of-ways in accordance with the following standards:

(a) Streets trees should be located at a distance of forty (40) feet on center. The exact spacing and planting location shall be evaluated on a site-specific basis and adjusted to reflect the location of buildings to minimize potential obstruction and visibility impacts on wall business signage.

(b) Trees shall have a minimum caliper size of three (3) inches at time of planting.

C. Pedestrian Circulation Design: Outdoor Cafés and Open Space.

(1) Outdoor Cafés.

(a) Outdoor cafés shall be located on sidewalks, plazas, and courtyards immediately adjacent to any eating and food establishment. Such facilities shall be provided in a manner that pedestrian circulation or access to store entrances is not impaired.

(b) The area occupied by the outdoor café shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the total floor area of the restaurant itself.

(c) The operation of an outdoor café shall be located such that there is at least four (4) feet of clear and unobstructed passageway between the tables, chairs, and barriers and street trees, bike racks, lampposts, sign posts, and any other fixtures or obstructions.  The approving body may require more than four (4) feet to protect public safety if they deem necessary because of site-specific conditions.

(d) A minimum of six (6) feet of unobstructed sidewalk area must be available for pedestrian circulation.

(e) The area occupied by the outdoor café must be located at least ten (10) feet from any driveway and parking area, must be set back from the curb line of a street intersection at least fifteen (15) feet, and must maintain motorist sight distances as identified elsewhere in the ordinance.

(f) A screen visually separating adjacent private property from the proposed outdoor cafe area must be provided.  The screening may include landscaping, screen walls, and or fencing materials or any combination thereof.

(g) Umbrellas, awnings, canopies, and heating units are permitted in outdoor café areas.

(h) Amplified music and live entertainment is not permitted in outdoor café areas.

(i) Outdoor café areas shall not be entitled to additional signage.

(2) Public Pedestrian Open Space and Plazas.

(a) The design should include features such as decorative lamp posts or lighting bollards that comply with the lighting standards set forth in §16.78.040E.

(b) Pedestrian open space and plazas shall be minimally twelve (12) feet in dimension.

(c) Low-lying vegetation shall be provided along the walkway.

(d) The walkway surface should be compatible in style, materials, colors, and details with other site improvements and or the public sidewalks. Brick pavers, textured or stamped sidewalk are encouraged.

(e) Plazas or courtyards adjacent to parking lots shall utilize decorative, landscaped and effective protective devices to prevent injury from vehicles that inadvertently enter into the pedestrian area.

D.        Landscaping Requirements.

(1) General.

(a) A landscape design plan shall be required for each site. Each design shall incorporate three or more of the following: trees, shrubs, hedges, ground covers and/or grasses as part of the overall landscape plan.

(b) Automatic irrigation systems are mandatory components of said plan.

(c) Perennial and annual flower beds shall be incorporated into the plan.

(2) Parking Area Landscaping.

(a) Parking areas with less than ten (10) spaces shall be screened from the street with landscaping but no interior parking lot landscaping is required. The street screening shall comply with the general requirements in Subsection D(1) above.

(b) Parking areas with ten (10) or greater parking spaces shall be screened from the street with landscaping and interior lot landscaping shall be required in accordance with the following:

[1] Each parking row shall include a curbed landscaped island with at least one (1) shade tree and shrub plantings.

[2] A minimum of three (3) shrubs for every parking space shall be planted along the perimeter of the parking spaces.

[3] One (1) shade tree shall be provided for every ten (10) parking spaces.

[4] Street trees shall be provided along all right of ways at a distance of forty (40) feet on center.

(3) Recommended Plant Material:

SHADE TREES

BOTANICAL NAME                                                             COMMON NAME

Acer Rubrum ‘Var’                                                     Red Maple Varieties

Carpinus betulus                                                                     European Hornbeam

Fraxinus pennsylvanica ‘lanceolata’                                      Green Ash (seedless)

Gleditsia triacanthos ‘inermis’                                               Thornless Honeylocust

Koelreuteria paniculata                                                          Golden Rain Tree

Platanus x acerifolia                                                   London Plane

Quercus rubra variety                                                             Red Oak

Sophora japonica ‘Regent’                                                     Regent Scholartree

Tilia cordata ‘Greenspire’                                                      Greenspire Littleleaf Linden

Zelkova serrata‘Green Vase’, Village Green’                                    Green Vase Japanese Zelkova

ORNAMENTAL TREES

BOTANICAL NAME                                                             COMMON NAME

Acer ginnala ‘Flame’                                                  Amur Maple

Acer griseum                                                               Paperbark Maple

Amelanchier x grandiflora ‘Autumn Brilliance’                                 Serviceberry

Cercis Canadensis                                                      Eastern Redbud

Cornus kousa ‘Chinensis’                                                       Chinese Kousa Dogwood

Malus ‘Var’                                                                 Crab Apple Varieties

Prunus ‘Newport’                                                       Newport Plum

Prunus serrulata ‘Amanogawa’                                             Amanogawa Cherry

Prunus x yedoensis                                                     Yoshino Cherry

Pyrus calleryana ‘Aristocrat’, ‘Chanticleer’, ‘Whitehouse’               Pear Varieties

SHRUBS AND GROUND COVERS

BOTANICAL NAME                                                             COMMON NAME

Abelia sp.                                                                    Glossy Abelia

Clethra.                                                                       Summersweet

Cotoneaster                                                                Cotoneaster

FothergillaForsythea sp.                                                        Fothergilla

Juniperous ‘Var’                                                                     Juniper Varieties

Ilex Crenata                                                                Japanese Holly

Ilex Glabra                                                                  Inkberry Holly

Pinus Mugo`                                                                Mugho Pine

Potentilla Fruticosa                                                    Dwarf Potentila

Prunus Laurocerasus                                                  Cherry Laurel

Spirea sp.                                                                    Spirea

Syringa                                                                        Lilac

Taxus sp.                                                                     Yew

Thuja occidentalis Emerald Sentinel ‘Spiralis’                                   Spiralis Eastern Arbovitae

E.         Lighting.

(1) General Site Lighting Requirements.

(a) The township standard lighting fixture shall be utilized in all pedestrian areas such as walkways and plazas. In addition, this fixture shall be utilized along the Route 202/Main Road right-of-way.

(b) All outdoor lights shall be decorative fixtures not exceeding twelve (12) feet in height.

(c) The maximum lighting intensity (footcandle) at any point on the subject property line shall not exceed five tenths (0.5) footcandle.

(d) All lights shall utilize color corrected lamps. The use of high pressure sodium lights, fluorescent, or mercury vapor lighting is prohibited. Use of minimum wattage metal halide is encouraged.

(e) Maximum permitted wattage of fixtures is limited to 250 watts.

(2) Lighting Standards.  The required lighting levels (in footcandles) for properties in the district shall be as determined in the table below:

(3) Storefront and Façade Lighting.

(a) Lighting should be directed toward the storefront, and should be shielded and recessed to prevent spillage.

(b) Wall mounted lights shall not be located higher than the second floor.

(c) No lighting is permitted on the roof structure of a building.

(d) Use of floodlights is prohibited.

§16.78.050      Off-Street Parking Requirements.

Number of Parking Spaces. 

(1)        The minimum number of off-street parking spaces required shall be as shown in the table below:

(2)        Parking requirements may be reduced, at the discretion of the approving body, to account for shared parking among uses.  A parking study shall be submitted by the applicant demonstrating that there will not exist substantial conflict in the peak hours of parking demand for the uses for which shared parking is proposed.

(3)        The approving body may permit, at its discretion, any parcel to reduce its parking requirement in the following manner, according to New Jersey Transit’s publication “Planning for Transit-Friendly Land Use”:

(a)        Office uses: 5-25%

(b)        Other non-residential uses: 10-15%

(c)        Residential uses: 25-30%

B. Parking Area Design.

(1) Location. Front yard parking shall be prohibited. Off-street parking spaces shall be limited to side and rear yards.

(2) Setback. Parking spaces shall be setback minimally five (5) feet from side and rear lot lines. Where parking abuts a single-family residential zone, the minimum setback shall be ten (10) feet. A landscape buffer shall be provided adjacent to the property line shared with the single-family residential zone.

(3)        Access Drives.  Access drives onto Route 202 are discouraged.

(4)        Shared Parking Arrangements.  The use of combined driveway access and parking is encouraged.  All designs for shared parking arrangements shall include a provision for drive connections, including necessary easements, between adjoining lots.

(4)        Parking Area Landscaping Details. See §16.78.040D(2).

(5)        Other.  Notwithstanding the above, all parking and loading facilities shall be designed in accordance with §16.28.030B(7).

C.        Bicycle Parking.

Bicycle parking facilities, including racks, lockers, or another adequate method, shall be provided at the minimum rate of one (1) bicycle rack space for every ten (10) automobile spaces.  Lots with less than ten (10) spaces shall provide a minimum of one (1) bicycle space.

Bicycle parking facilities shall provide a safe environment for the user, particularly with respect to lighting and automobile circulation. Recess before convening to Regular Agenda

TRACT 3

8:00 Regular Agenda Schedule

ROLL CALL

Mr. Rosellini – present                          Mr. Karkowsky – present       

Ms. Kull - present                                Mr. Daughtry – present

Ms. Nielson - present                           Mr. Visco - present

Mr. Lipari - present                              Mr. Lewis - present

Mr. Speciale (alt#1)- present                Mr. Hines - present

Mr. Witty (alt#2) - present

Also Present:

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP

Frank Russo, PE (for Stan Omland, PE)

Michael Carroll, Esq.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mrs. White noted that the Quick Chek application is filed at Board of Adjustment.

PUBLIC DISCUSSION

Gary Lewis:  are you aware of the Supreme Court decision on redevelopment.  Michael Carroll, Esq.:  elaborated.  Indicated it is based on one property owner and you can’t do it to one.  What was printed is a narrow opinion.  Focus is different.

Secretary announced carried hearing:

FMSP/F06-15 S. Development – Major Subdivision – 80 Hook Mountain Road – Carried to: July 12^th with notice preserved in a Motion made by: Marie Kull, Seconded by: Larry Hines  Roll call vote: Unanimous

PLANNING BUSINESS

Update by Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP – GI auto site – Rescheduled to July 12^th, 2007

Linda White indicated that since we had to finalize Towaco, she asked the planner to finalize this report for the July 12, 2007 agenda.  Residents advised to come to this meeting to hear this report.

Rezoning – Avila - GI Auto site:  Continued Presentation by Boswell Engineering, Inc. – request for expansion of retail zoning from I zone

Present:  James Kelly, Esq. & Kevin Boswell

Mr. Kelly indicated that this is a new discussion with board and in accordance with the Planning Board policy, noticed all on the 200’ list and others that were interested from prior hearings.  Linda White indicated that public notice is not a requirement, and that this notice was complete.  Mr. Kelly summarized what has happened on site since last appearance before planning board.

Kevin Boswell:  rezoning request.  Prior request was for aged restricted active adult.  Had reported that since January 06, was working on a 400 unit condo development.  During course of meetings, went to Mayor and Council and asked for rezoning to be entertained.  It was not originally entertained since there were open issues from a prior court action previously entered into.  On May 7^th, recent photos of site were taken and reflect that the area in question of concern for enforcement was dividing line, noting they achieved compliance. 

Area in question related to lot 31.  Based upon compliance with court order, the request was remanded to Planning Board for further discussion.  The applicant was also requested to meet with DOT as to access point for Rt. 46.  On 2/9/07, he met with DOT officials, and was told that they would be opposed to any access off of Rt. 46.  Minutes can be supplied on this hearing.

The active adult project evolved to this board, and Planning Board asked again to get access from Rt. 46.  In late 2006, there were difficulties as to project in considering connection fees by code and offsite utility costs, but this wasn’t being discussed at board at that time.  In early 2007, applicant met with head of DOT and others at Trenton and presented a full access application along Rt. 46 and was informed based on frontage that this would be something DOT would review.   They could do two things:  one would it be conceptual, which would get early approvals, but actual process would require further detail designs in a separate application.  At this time, other parties contacted him to use the site in a retail manner.   Property is currently zoned B4 with lots numbers 30 and 31, and e rest of property being I1A.  Breakdown is that lots 30 and 31 constitute approximately 40% of property with balance of site constitutes about 60% of property with about 37 acres in total.

Due to access and Rt. 46 alignment, this site candidly laid out for a retail use orienting directly on Rt. 46 and would like to amendment earlier request from aged restricted to a new zone to revise split zoning to provide for a consistent zoning of B4 and intend to come in with a site plan immediately following this which would be consistent with B4 zoning.

Mr. Kelly:  out of sync due to planner’s report that this request is not going to be ready until July 12^th meeting, but thought it is important to open up dialogue since access is an important issue to this site.  Was able to secure conceptual entrance from DOT, and last time we had information it would not be permitted.

Marie Kull:  where would access be?

Mr. Boswell explored this:  would begin at end of lot 33 where billboard is, come around and would be generally oriented at lot lines with lot 31 with full widening to either one or two locations.  Would either terminate at bridge area and/or widening could continue down to Chapin Road and provide for work at this location as well as west of Chapin Road.

Gary Lewis:  is this a DOT decision?  Mr. Boswell: first alternative is almost textbook as how they make a widening for access road on Rt. 46.  Are in discussion with one particular retailer with a commitment who expressed to see this go further with larger improvement.

Deborah Nielson:  proposal for access, which is across from Home Depot?  Mr. Boswell depicted it on aerial, noting it would be opposite the inland that exists between Rt. 46.  It is a divided road.  Public that travels east on Rt. 46 can get back to site can make a u-turn.

Note:  John Rosellini entered.

Discussion continued on access to site?  Mr. Boswell:  have a site plan to demonstrate this, but not prepared at this time to explore with Planning Board.  If a full widening would take place, it would work extremely well, but this is discussion of access and site plan application.

For purposes of this application, applicant is requesting retail with alternate means of ingress to this site as clarified by Deborah Nielson.

Gary Lewis:  concept on prior zone change request limited prospective developer to the cleared area occupied by current facility (less).  Is this application equivalent to land area previously considered?  Mr. Boswell:  upland area is about 20 acres and original age restricted housing project was limited to around 15-16 acres.  Current would be to have 16-17 acres of improved area with removal of some of the area around it and this would be related to stormwater management and floodplain requirements.  Would make sure access would be above flood plain as well as buildings and parking around building would be above floodplain, and wouldn’t have same mandate as in prior request.

Substantially same amount of disturbance, but would be more impervious.

Art Daughtry:  you are asking that our planner look at this, is all this property owned by one individual?  Mr. Kelly:  owned by two individuals involved in salvage operation and both are subject applicants.  Frank Nemeth owns single-family home Lot 28 and Rene Avila and wife owns the remainder of tract.  Mr. Burgis:  applicant has gathered a lot of information and would want these exhibits.

Mr. Boswell:  request that the zone line that stops right on lot on Chapin Road known as lot 2, B: 178, and it would appear that the board may also want to look at this lot which would be isolated and may be better suited for a B3:  this lot is not part of this application.  If you don’t look at it now, it may be considered as a spot zone.

Ladis Karkowsky:  what is the estimated percentage of impervious?  Mr. Boswell:  parking lot pushes up amount of coverage.  As to property itself, it would be less than 40% but more like 30% covered.  Deborah Nielson:  concerned about contamination on site, what are requirements for retail and/or other use vs residential.  Is it less and/or different?  Mr. Boswell:  this is decision of DEP.

Have additional samples been analyzed?  Mr. Boswell:  yes.  The sampling done was monitoring wells by Bell Environmental.  Went back in and recreated monitoring wells and did take additional samples.  Are working on a clean up of the property.  There is auto salvage on going on this property, and source of any potential contamination is eliminated.  Are diligently pursuing it, nothing is overdue, but to come back to retail use, it would be a cap on top of it.  Not sure how this will be done:  whether it is capped or taken off site. 

Russ Lipari:  what size building anticipated?  Mr. Boswell:  have Lowe’s interested that is about 160,000 sq. ft. and they would look for a retail type element associated with their use, approximately 50,000 proposed on site like:  Bed Bath and Beyond or a small high end supermarket upscale.  Lowe’s does not want small tenant use.  Their demand to applicant:  3 tenants on entire site.  Russ Lipari:  asked if he was familiar with Paterson site?  Mr. Boswell:  is, and this use would be similar in design as to designs and another lane and service road inside facility.  It would be similar to Riverdale area.  Lowe’s has committed to this site, and owner also indicated he only wants one or two other tenants.

Ladis Karkowsky:  Chapin Road?  Is it also considered for improvement?  Mr. Boswell:  Rationale for extension of this improvement down to Chapin Road would be to improve and have secondary on Bloomfield Avenue.  It is still under consideration. 

Mr. Burgis:  reviewed total square footage: 215,000 sq. ft.  Mr. Boswell:  did an analysis of what would fit o this property as to what maximum capacity is.  He indicated he would have a lesser FAR and there would be extensive improvement along Rt. 46. 

John Rosellini:  what is the comparison to Home Depot?  Deborah Nielson:  116,000 on 13 acres.  Mr. Boswell:  became concerned with setback from adjacent properties, recommending residential home be purchased.  Indicated their intention would be to remove house and create buffer consistent with prior plan.  John Rosellini:  talked about John Street Park and moving it out.  Talked about a cul de sac and assume this comes under site plan application.  Applicant needs to know up front what the township needs up front, since the township had at one time proposed a cul de sac at Maple Avenue.  Understood it would be closer to Old Bloomfield Avenue.  Deborah Nielson:  talked about amenities, and this hasn’t been firmed up and there are no details.  She summarized some of the items.  They also talked about upscale street lighting along Old Bloomfield.

John Rosellini:  applicant is asking for rezoning, we should look at these things.  Art Daughtry:  feels this is wrong forum at this time to get that far into it.  Did meet with applicant and everything was presented and talked about at that time. He feels the message should be that the professional planner consider this as part of a big box application.  This is for planning purposes only.  There will be a lot of discussion, whether it be Lowe’s and/or Wegman’s, it’s up to planner to recommend his feelings on this request and report back to Planning Board. 

Mr. Boswell:  when we indicated we believe it would be not practical to get to Rt. 46, he indicated he was candid and was told that by DEP.  When he met with major access division in Trenton and presented ideas of widening along Rt. 46, then property took on different life as to uses that made better sense as B4 use. Any type of application on this property would require Board of Adjustment filing.  Would like a zone that permits him to come before this board.

John Rosellini:  what of detention basins?  Mr. Boswell:  would be required to meet storm water and water quality basins, etc

Opened to public…

Art Webber:  can be built on this lot now for certain things and uses and for a town to rezone, it has to be for the community benefit. He does not feel a cul de sac at Bloomfield Avenue would not be a plus for the neighbors.  Coming across where new highway is proposed, this is suicide to cross their now if you try to get off Chapin Road.  Asked for confirmation that the single-family home is going to be demolished as testified to.  Confirmed by Mr. Boswell.

Retail is denser than housing due to cars, etc.  Before rezoning, shouldn’t there be a concrete thing that has to be done.  Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  the request is B4 which involves a whole variety of uses.  It may be that the board considers a new zone district requiring more specific designs.  Mr. Webber summarized that he felt Housing is less intense and feel it is better.  If neighbors aren’t benefited, leave GI there.

TRACT 4

John Swager, Bloomfield Ave.  Think it is good that there is a possible access on Rt. 46.  Oppose secondary access near Bloomfield Avenue.  Any access will directly impact this avenue that is heavily traveled now.  Street is secondary to Rt. 46 and rush hour time it is busy.  The bridge existing is 12 Ton, and this bridge may need to be rebuilt.  If you have access off Rt. 46 granted, isn’t it possible to reconsider homes? 

The other point:  if you put up a big box, reflective light disturbs neighbor.  He hears the trucks idling and this is noise to them.  Don’t want anything down Bloomfield.  Amenities:  consider reflecting what is considered.

Susan Jeniec: Harold Terrace.  Thinks we should get junkyard out of community, would like to see something done here.  Would like to see this approved for retail.  Think retail is awesome.  Think it is a good asset for revenue and don’t have to travel far to upgrade homes. 

Sylvia Wailert – Adamary St.  We don’t need any retail.  Will lower this value.  Property value will not go up.  Sees more children up and down streets.  Building will cost problems with traffic.  Water wasn’t tested and wells in area should be tested.  Tiffany is upgrading but there is difficulty in making left.

Closed to public

Ladis Karkowsky summarized.  Linda White reminded the residents that the planner would be presenting his report on July 12^th and to remember to put this in their calendars, no new notice will be sent out. Draft report will not be released until Planning Board reviews it at July 12^th meeting. 

Mr. Burgis indicated his report will take all uses into considering, including the status of the need for age restricted housing in the State. 

Ordinance Amendment: to allow reduction in impervious coverage if pavers used – Rescheduled to June 28^th, 2007

Sign Ordinance & Streetscape –Rescheduled to July 12^th, 2007

Height Ordinance & Marotta Rezoning Ordinance – Referral from Township Committee for final recommendations  -

Planning Board recommended adoption as drafted.

Industrial zones I1 & I2 – cost proposal for study of increase of retail use from Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP.  Cost proposal estimated not to exceed $1,200.  Art Daughtry and Deborah Nielson asked that Linda White correspond with Township Committee about the need to appropriate additional monies not to ‘exceed’ $1,200 for this study.  Planning Board supported motion unanimously. 

Update:  Kevah Konner site; subcommittee meeting 6-19-07; 6-26-07 – Linda White indicated that she noticed should there be a quorum.

WAIVERS

None – all rescheduled to subcommittee meeting on June 19^th at 8:30AM

RESOLUTIONS

None

CORRESPONDENCE

None

MINUTES

Minutes of 5-24-07 – Roll call: Ladis Karkowsky, Deborah Nielson, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Leigh Witty, Marie Kull, Art Daughtry, Tony Speciale, Larry Hines   

Motion made by: Larry Hines 

Seconded by: Marie Kull

Roll call vote: unanimous

INVOICES

Burgis Assoc. – O/E for: $210; $240; Trust for: $90, $300

Omland Engineering – O/E for: $240; Trust for: $60, $90, $630, $60, $60, $480, $90, $270, $60, $660

Michael Carroll, Esq – O/E for: $60; Trust for: $120, $30, $150, $90, $60, $30, $60, $240, $450, $30, $90

Motion made by: Larry Hines 

Seconded by: Russ Lipari

Roll call vote: Unanimous

LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS

None

OLD BUSINESS  (Ms. Nielson left meeting at this time)

PSPP/FC06-25 SHARPE HEALTH & FITNESS – Indian Ln. – B: 32, L: 24.1 – Development of a 10,500 sq. ft. health and fitness center on a 2.3 acre site located on cul-de-sac at end of Indian Lane East located in Industrial zone within the Critical Water Resources Overlay District; variances for a front-yard setback of 50’ where 75’ is permitted; a building mounted sign variance for 19’5’ where 5’ is permitted; maximum impervious coverage of 57.3% where 55% permitted – Notice Acceptable & Carried to: from agenda of 4-26-07 & 5-10-07 & 5/24/07 w/notice        ACT BY:  6-15-07

Present:  Steven Sharpe

Located in I1A zone, which allows a health and fitness center use. 

Testimony offered by:  Ms. Michele Giel

Michael Carroll, Esq, swore the board professionals.

Mr. Carroll swore Ms. Giel.

Credentials given.  Explained the operation proposed.  Fitness will have spinning, step classes, cardio equipment, weights, chiropractic, skin care, nail care, natural products will be used.  Café for members:  protein, wraps, and nutritional items.

Mix of uses and how they operate:  health and fitness will be total body wellness center and will address skin and total body experience.  Roll call vote: would be director of spa section: hair, skin and nail (all natural).  Group fitness director would be on site for all different levels.  Members would have access to all members; other services would be available for another fee.  Must be a member to access this site.  Club H in Hoboken offers all of these services.  Located within Hackensack, Beyond Spa, and Can Do Fitness in Edgewater and Summit area.  Doing this for about five years.

Ladis Karkowsky:  how is membership work?  It would be month-to-month membership?  Would have to give 30-day notice.  Would there be guest privileges?  Will products be offered for sale?  This service is for members only.

Mr. Burgis:  can outsiders come in? Mr. Schepis & Mr. Sharpe: It is not open to the public. 

Tract 5

Russ Lipari:  how many times can a guest come with a member?  Mr. Schepis indicated:  can come in and try out services once, but they want membership fee.

Gary Lewis:  is witness operating this facility?  Is she testifying as a representative expert in other industries?  Mr. Schepis:  she will be facilities director.  Gary Lewis:  is she representing that this testimony is binding on applicant?  Mr. Schepis:  guests would be permitted as indicated, and this would be clear in anything the board approves.  Selling products would be part of members’ only memberships.  Gary Lewis:  one of the things that needs to be explored:  fitness, nutrition and hair/nail/skin.  In terms of number of people that members that can enter this club, there are subsets that will use some of these elements, and another set that will be doing the entire membership.  The applicant should explore parking based on member structure, facility layout and logistics, what are the peak numbers, giving example:  i.e. 20 going in nutrition with 30 in hair/skin/nail, need to hear what the potential maximum might be for use of this facility.  Mr. Schepis:  what is concern?  Mr. Lewis:  would go to what is necessary to run operation, as to impact on sewer/water and occupancy usage. 

Mr. Schepis:  Only considering one type of membership?  Mr. Hines asked:  will there be extra services above and beyond.  Membership gets you in the door.  Ms. Giel:  there will be a massage therapist also.

Art Daughtry:  make sure fire truck can access this area.  Mr. Schepis:  adequate ingress/egress can be provided.  Mr. Russo:  have the applicant’s engineer supply moving turning to ensure turns can be made.   Mr. Schepis:  Fire department has reviewed and approved. 

Applicant asked for the number of employees at a maximum shift.  Mr. Sharpe indicated it would be 15 employees.  Applicant was asked: What is maximum membership?

Mr. Steve Sharpe sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq., owner & applicant

Membership:  looking for 500 as a membership.  As people come in on a daily basis, a lot will need an appointment to come in. 

Jim Cutillo:  sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq. 

Renderings reviewed. 

Would be 10,500 sq. ft. facility.

Deviations for signage discussed:  Signs proposed are earthtone.  Size of letters conform to town ordinance (12”) and letters on sign are 6”.  Montville Health and Fitness Center:  size of letters on building is 12” high.  Letter on bottom is free flowing and is proportionate.  Architectural rendering and scale is a prospective.  Letters protrude off building.  Lit from landscaping shining up.  Freestanding sign:  meets sign ordinance. 

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  freestanding sign does not meet code.  Engineer will testify to it.  Applicant was asked to address need for freestanding sign. 

Height ordinance:  new ordinance should be reviewed to make sure this height meets the new proposed code.

Marc Walker, PE –sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq. 

Marked into evidence:  A1 – artist rendering

Site plan marked in A2 – aerial photo of site and surrounding area

A3 – colored rendering of site plan entitled rendering with a date of 5-24-07

Testifying as engineer

Described surrounding neighborhood at end of Indian Lane East., reviewing wetlands and flood hazard area lines.  Reviewed size of lot and existing lot configuration.  Lot is longer and narrower than code requirements.  Proposing to develop two stories on a 5700 sq. ft. with no basement.  Proposed 70 parking spaces relate to one space for 150 sq. ft. of building area for health and fitness center.  Two way access on westerly side of building with larger parking area providing on site and due to constraints, provided access around building, with one way access back up to Indian Lane East.  Original permits for DEP do not have access around building which is a better design for health and fitness center.  Delivery trucks, not a tractor-trailer type of truck anticipated for delivery.  See no issues with this.  There is also no issue from Fire Prevention officer who reviewed this site plan.  It was testified that it would seem more logical they would fight fire from cul de sac.  Feels vehicles would be able to pull in and back out. 

Provided in depth stormwater management and has DEP approvals for stream encroachment and wetland permits.  Stormwater collects and discharges into stormwater system.  Elaborated on the stormwater management system.

Spoke to Vincent Uhl relative to providing infiltration.  Met all requirements of stormwater and water quality, infiltration requirements and reduction from the site.

Variances:  reduced size of site and increased setback that come with map recorded April 30, 1982 from a subdivision.  Cannot meet required 75’ setback today.  Proposal is to construct building 50’ from cul de sac.  Location designed for visual impact due to cul de sac bulb sitting out, is 50’ off but would require front yard setback.  Trying to develop and keep structures away from constrained areas.

Impervious coverage:  calculated it as 35% of site of total lot area reflecting to the footnotes in zoning ordinance that requires different requirements in aquifer. Apply factors of wetlands and area shrinks and compare reduced lot area and impervious coverage, calculation comes to 57.3% where 55% required.  101,235 sq. ft. With reduction of wetlands, etc., subtract 40,000 bringing lot area down to 64,000 +/-, coverage increases to 57.3%.  Existing platted lot, allowable is 55%.  Close to meeting this requirement.  Need variance for this.

Deviation from setback between parking areas and sideyards discussed.  Non-conforming area is mostly along the westerly side.  With neighbor to west, setback from parking is 10’ and this site mimics this on this site plan. Site plan has a parking spaced on the left adjacent to east that is 10’ from property line.  Lot when originally considered was designed for 10’ setbacks with current code requiring 25’.

Freestanding sign:  propose to locate on northern section of site was for people traveling down Indian Lane east would get a view of the sign. This site does need a variance for freestanding sign.  Applicant is proposing 65.9 sq. ft. setback. 

Joseph Burgis, AICP, PP:  cul de sac requires only one sign per building.  Site doesn’t mandate drive by signage.  Mr. Schepis elaborated for freestanding sign. 

This property is located within the Township’s CWR prime district.

Westerly parking lot discussed.  This design doesn’t allow a K-turn.  Discussion ensued on ways to mitigate:  you can shorten up last parking space instead of 20’ deep, would know it isn’t a parking space, but can turn it around.  Gary Lewis:  applicant asked to talk about how you control parking along opposite curve?  Depressed curve at end of row of parking and transition, noting stopped from using this area?  Should have something here as well.  Should be signage to prohibit parking along this area and/or striping.  Spaces on easterly portion at 90 angle going into a 20’ island.  Flow is such that people will come into site and will move around lot and walk to the front of the building.   Can sign it to make sure parking area is depicted.  Make it at a slight angle, to 18’, will lose spaces and further increase parking on site.  Concerned on westerly side not easterly side.

Mr. Burgis continued:  comments on landscaping improvements.    Site and surrounding area is primarily landscaped on easterly side.  Planting shade trees along there is an issue, and asked if they can locate existing trees and come up with a plan that reflects plantings and Landscape AIP can meet on site.  All other comments will be incorporated.

Mr. Russo:  prime aquifer – more enhanced stormwater controls:  on groundwater recharge.  Mr. Walter:  think he will meet increased CWR requirements.  Health Dept involved along with Vincent Uhl.  Agreed to add a storm ceptor and before exit goes into detention basin, will add storm inceptor.  Factors solids and captures oil and grease and rises it to the top and will comply with Board of Health.  Will comply with Uhl report.  Plans for chemicals on site and testimony indicated all natural.  Will develop a plan.  Will be using salt in parking lot feeling there is nothing better in this regard.  Will need a waiver from that aspect of report.  Town well is 300’ away from site.  Drainage proposal is to run thru storm system.  Discussion ensued between engineers on non-structural stormwater, water quality, and engineering? 

Linda White:  asked for clarification on drainage.

John Rosellini:  some of these things should be coordinated between professionals before a Planning Board meeting.  The professionals should coordinate all reports and work out these site plan issues outside Planning Board since these issues are engineering related issues.  Should look at Uhl’s recommendations, should see what needs to be done with stormwater with Planning Board engineer and coordinate before coming to the Planning Board. 

Gary Lewis:  voiced concerns about testimony offered this evening and the need to respond to these concerns before coming back to the Planning Board and to make sure these items are updated on maps.  In view of the prime acquifer, the maintenance manual should be developed now for review and have this documentation to professionals in advance so that this issue can be reviewed now.  The applicant was advised that the board professionals are to have copies of all of their reports and to make sure inconsistencies are reviewed and resolved prior to going forward.

In a motion by Larry Hines, Seconded by: Marie Kull the board Carried this application with notice preserved to the July 12^th agenda of the Planning Board.  Time to act extended on the record by applicant’s attorney.

Roll call vote: John Rosellini, Marie Kull, Russ Lipari, Tony Speciale, Leigh Witty, Ladis Karkowsky, Art Daughtry, John Visco, Gary Lewis, Larry Hines  

NEW BUSINESS

PMSP/F06-15 S. Development – Major Subdivision – 80 Hook Mountain    Road, Block 164, Lot 8.01, R27A zone – 3 lot subdivision consisting of existing home/lot and two new lots existing lot/home with two new - Notice acceptable                                            ACT BY:  9-15-07 

Carried to: July 12, 2007 w/notice preserved

Motion made by: Larry Hines 

Seconded by: Marie Kull

Roll call vote: Unanimous

CONCEPTS

None

Meeting adjourned unanimously in a motion by Russ Lipari, Seconded by:  John Rosellini.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda White

Secretary