|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
7:00 PM Start
195 Changebridge Road, Montville Municipal Building
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2008 - Monday
No New Business to be Conducted Past
l0: 00PM
ROLL CALL
Mr.
Maggio - absent Mr. Karkowsky -
present
Ms.
Kull - absent Mr. Daughtry - absent
Ms.
Nielson - present Mr. Visco – present
Mr.
Lipari – present Mr. Lewis - present
Mr.
Hines - present Mr. Canning (alt#2)
– absent
Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - absent
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Stated
STATEMENT OF
COMPLIANCE
Stated
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION
No public
PLANNING
BUSINESS
Presentation by Morris County
Planning Board on WSP/State of NJ legislation/mapping
Christine
Marra & Virginia Michelin, County Planning Board discussed the Revised
Water Quality Management Planning Rules, NJDEP Wastewater Management Plan for Morris County. Ms. Marra explained the change in approach,
noting each county is designated as a WMP entity, that each municipality
becomes stand-alone Chapter, noting the County works and coordinates with
municipalities and sewer authorities, that the County must also consult with
regional planning entities and water purveyors, and that sewer and septic are
addressed under this new approach.
Service Area mapping reviewed with Ms.
Marra highlighting the NJDEP ‘sewerable’ areas map which removal of parcels of
land area that are at least 25 acres in size that have either one of the
following: 330’ C1 buffers, wetlands,
Threatened Endangered Species Habitat 3, 4 & 5, Natural Heritage Priority
Sites. That future growth must be equal to or less than the remaining capacity
of the sewage treatment plant. This future
growth is based on maximum build out using current zoning for non-urbanized
municipalities as well as population projections and future non-residential development
for urbanized municipalities. If maximum build-out exceeds remaining capacity,
the township must: reduce sewer service
area, change zoning, eliminate Inflow and infiltration, or expand capacity of STP which requires
anti-degradation analysis.
Ms. Marra continued with review the presentation discussing the
general service area and septic, noting township must calculate everything
outside of a sewer service area, must calculate future growth on vacant and
undeveloped properties using current zoning and calculating maximum build out,
must run nitrate dilution model with applicable standard for nitrate using
HUC11 or HUC14 to determine maximum septic density and maximum number of future
septics. The general service area
indicates that the nitrate dilution model applied reviewed.
For outside of Highlands
Region: NJDEP Statewide Standard (2.0 mg/L)
For Highlands Planning Area: choice is Highlands RMP Standards or NJDEP
Statewide Standard. For Highlands Preservation Area: must conform to Highlands RMP and NJDEP
Highlands Rules (25 acre non-forested and 88 acre forested). Presentation ended with a series of questions
and answers from County Planning Board staff.
Planning Board noted their appreciation to the County for this
presentation, understanding their task in reviewing the County’s final mapping
based on data sent by Montville
to them for further review.
Amendments re: Soil Movement/Height/Lot Size/Fill –
rescheduled to October 23, 2008 meeting
Regular
Meeting Follows…
Mr. Lipari
asked about the post office in Towaco, indicating the problem with their garbage
and recycling bins not being enclosed.
Can they be regulated? Mrs. White
indicated that they are tenants in many cases, not owing land outright. Mrs. White will ask Mr. Petrillo to investigate
and address. Mr. Carroll indicated if
there was no cooperation in clearing up this issue, that a quick call to a
congressman may help get this addressed.
Mr. Karkowsky asked that the zoning officer meet with each postmaster to
have this solid waste issue addressed.
Gary
Lewis: in light of this presentation
this evening, he questioned if the Planning Board shouldn’t recommend to the Township
that we inventory any lots in the sanitary sewer area based on the information from
the County presented, made our own analysis on a sampling and determine what
actual impact should be. Deb Nielson:
The governing body will be asking to see this also. This is an important map and will be a
blueprint for development and/or lack thereof for the future. This map should be reviewed, indicating that
she saw at least one municipal owned property that the community has plans
on. We need to look at this and make
sure.
Deb
Nielson: the issue of opting into Highlands,
the difference in formulas that can be used discussed. If we opt out, we can
use more liberal numbers. COAH
regulations are another issue. Mr.
Burgis: there was an order to direct all
of these entities (COAH, DEP, Highlands) to
get together and resolve the conflicts between agencies. Michael Carroll summarized Highland’s
and objectives of proposal of Highlands’ and
what were COAH’s involvements. Governor
at that junction didn’t know what to do at that time. 114 say if there is an argument between COAH
and Highlands, Highland’s
rules win as it relates to adversely affecting water. If you opt in, 114 govern and you wouldn’t be
subject to COAH’s reg. He feels we may
see even stronger regulations on preservation of water in the future.
Gary
Lewis: equally troubled as it relates to
some developments that require sewer extension permits. If April deadline is not sufficient to
fulfill this task, and how many water/sewer permit plans are on hold, noting he
feels these projects may not go forward.
It is almost equivalent to a sewer treatment ban.
Russ
Lipari: DCA newsletter reviewed with
board members. Mr. Lipari indicated that
this was out on the website relative to COAH, reading several of the questions
about ‘taxes’ being raised, explanation of a spending plan, questioning if we
shouldn’t be looking at these areas now in view of release of monies from
government. Michael Carroll indicated
under this new federal law, there are new monies coming in but giving of these to
and is based on town’s foreclosures, etc., doubtful Montville would receive
these funds noting that he felt these funds would go to those areas where foreclosures
exist. The article also indicated there was
no correlation school child and COAH doesn’t create any more children in the
community.
Ladis
Karkowsky: did we get served on Windsor Drive yet? He explained we did not receive any notices
yet, and it is probably working on service.
Mrs. White indicated not service received at this time.
WAIVERS
None
RESOLUTIONS
None
CORRESPONDENCE
None
MINUTES
Minutes of 9/25/08– Ladis Karkowsky, Larry Hines, Tony
Speciale (alt1); Vic Canning (alt2); Marie Kull, Gary Lewis,
John Visco, Russ Lipari
Motion made by: Larry Hines
Second: Gary Lewis
Roll call:
unanimous
INVOICES
Omland Engineering – Trust for: $135,
$270, $1,417.50 (Montville
Residency),
$135 $101.25, $101.25
Burgis
Assoc. – Trust for: $530, $60
Anderson
& Denzler – Trust for: $405
Motion
made by: Art Maggio
Second: Larry Hines
Roll
call: Unanimous
LOI/DEP
NOTIFICATIONS
None
PSPP/FC -08-03 – PINEBROOK INVESTMENT (Shoppes @ Montville)
Block: 162, Lot: 3, 4, 6, 7 – Old Bloomfield
& Rt. 46 – Notice Acceptable ACT
BY: 1/9/09
OLD BUSINESS
PSPP/FC07-02
– San Dol Korean Presbyterian Church Site plan, 356 Changebridge Road, Block 160, Lot 3 - Notice Acceptable & carried from 8-13-08 – Eligible: Victor
Canning, Larry Hines, Marie Kull, Art Daughtry, Deb Nielson,
Ladis Karkowsky – Notice
Acceptable ACT
BY: 10/24/08
Carried
with notice to: October 23, 2008
NEW BUSINESS
PMS08-13 Old Bloomfield Ave.
Properties (Rosania Design) –
Minor Site Plan – 78 Old
Bloomfield Avenue
– B: 173, L: 8 - Renovation of existing building, signage and tenancy approvals
· PMISC08-39 R. Buzzelli Heating and A/C – 870 s.f. office/storage - 6
employees – hours of operation 7am-4pm Mon-Fri
· PMISC08-38 West
Essex Car Care
– 3,200 s.f. automotive repairs – 2 employees – hours of operation 7am-7pm
Mon-Sat
· PMISC08-40 Capasso Plumbing &
Heating – 1,400 s.f.
office/warehouse - 3 employees – hours of operation 8am-5pm Mon-Sat
Carried
with notice to: October 23, 2008
PSPP/FC05-02-08-07
MONTVILLE RESIDENCY – Preliminary & Final Site
plan – Block: 160 Lot: 4 - 17 Hook Mountain Road ACT BY: 11/18/08
Carried with notice to: October 23,
2008
PSPP/FC -08-03 –
PINEBROOK INVESTMENT (Shoppes
@ Montville Block: 162, Lot: 3, 4, 6, 7 – Old
Bloomfield & Rt. 46 – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 1/9/09
Present:
Steven
Schepis, Esq.
Represented he
is the contract purchaser’s attorney for the Pine Brook Motel site and that his
client is under contract for All Brite Car Wash, and owns the two buildings
next to Suppa, and also entered into agreement with Park Center IV for shared
parking and access coming in off of Bloomfield Avenue.
No changes to
Suppa site, modification of parking aisles/entrance. Project involves merging 3 lots and would
have access both from Rt. 46 and Bloomfield
Avenue. DOT
will allow one way in and one way out access.
This site developed an entrance toward east and exit on west side on Rt.
46, as well as ingress and egress on Bloomfield
Avenue.
Mark Walker,
PE sworn in
Sworn and
credentials accepted
Professionals
of the board were sworn.
Displayed on
easel was a proposed condition which is a colored rendering of site plan which
has been enlarged reflecting surrounding area.
A1 marked in 10-6-08 Colorized site condition
A2 – existing
site plan conditions colorized marked in 10-6-08. Grey area depicted is pavement area. Mr. Walker reviewed the existing site and
existing variances on the overall tract.
The proposal
is to removal all structures and constructs a lifestyle mall and will consist
of 57,400 sq. ft, and will have 12,000 sq. ft. of restaurant; 281 spaces on 3,
4, 6; signage will be pylon and two smaller signs on Bloomfield Ave. As part of development and state regulations,
there will be a stormwater management plan and new connection for sewer and
water. An existing sewer and water
easement runs thru the middle of this site which will be relocated.
On Suppa’s
site, they will keep the existing building.
There are two different pavement colors shown, explaining same. Ingress/egress was changed.
Ladis
Karkowsky: a valet plan exists on Suppa’s site. They valet park on this property. When done with this plan, there will be 20
more spaces on Suppa property which will be an enhancement. They stand alone on this site, and increased
parking on their property as part of this development. There will be a cross easement on this site,
and will indicate shared spaces.
Mr. Omland
asked if parking capacity will be discussed at a later date. Applicant indicated they would.
Access
elements of this plan discussed. Site
will have 2 ways in and out on Old Bloomfield.
Rt. 46 will have one in center and another in existing location.
Vehicle
delivery discussed. Old Bloomfield Avenue
is easier to address, as well as garbage pickup in this area also. Applicant
will have enclosed dumpsters as well as enclosure of all of the recycling
areas. Have employee parking spaces
depicted. Handicap ramps discussed.
Pedestrian
movement discussed. There will be 4’
landscape strips in this area with river Rock stone, and anticipate a lot of
foot traffic in these island areas.
Stepped the building up and there is a need for a series of steps that
take up to the first parking area, and have a small change in elevation up to
main area of Suppa site. He indicated
that they connected two sites by traffic movement. He also added in a sidewalk along Bloomfield Avenue.
As to water
quality, drainage, prepared soils investigation on this site to make sure that
the soils were permeable and to make sure water table wasn’t too high. An infiltration system was designed. The system is smaller than what is seen in
this township due to amount of impervious coverage that already exists on this
site. Have a large disposal bed on the
southwestern side of building under the parking lot. Even though received benefits of impervious
coverage, have infiltration chambers from roof areas. This system manages runoff requirement and infiltration
requirements. With respect to water
quality, what is being proposed, is that from the shared parking bay (19
spaces) all the way to the west, all of this area will be collected in storm
drains and inlet down to exit on southwesterly corner, and will have a
mechanical water treatment device. This
will help meet 80% of suspended solids.
Looking at the grades, located in flood hazard area, which is at 177.5,
and the site drains to this area an due to these improvements, there is a
stream encroachment permit required.
Confident it will be received.
The flood hazard area was depicted on exhibit displayed (around 5% of
tract) and is mostly on car wash property, but does go into lot 4 and 6. Building elevation is at 181 and flood
elevation was 177.5, and building does rise to elevation of 185, there are 3
step elevations.
This site has
a relatively mild slope, and in starting this design, worked on this with
architect, reduced this distance of elevation down. When you view this building, you won’t see
the building stepped significantly, but it does create an issue relative to
building height. Architect will speak to this height issue.
Minimum
distance is 10’ existing is 0 and proposed 3.7’; to property line is 10’ exist
at 0 and propose 2’ on easterly and in agreement with lot 7, no setback to
property line; to building, requires 10’ existing is 0, proposing 2’ on
easterly side of building in area designated as employee parking; with respect
to lot 7, parking minimum distance to building currently is 5.5’ where 10’
required; westerly side of suppa, propose 1.2’ to access aisle; requirement
that there be no loading in a front yard.
On Bloomfield Avenue,
proposing to do unloading and garbage pickup; requirement of lots 3,4 and 6,
have 281 spaces provided with a ratio of 1 for every 204 sq. ft. and this type
of use is 1 for 200’, would need 287 parking spaces, and this is 6 more than
what is proposed. 281 parking spaces are
only those spaces shown on this site, and not the shared parking with adjacent
property which is 19 more spaces. With
respect to lot 7, 263 parking spaces required where 104 is required, and 84
currently exist (Suppa’s); building coverage for lifestyle mall is 30% and this
is 30.8%; impervious coverage: 84.7’ proposed is 88.8%; impervious coverage for
lot 7 is existing at 69.7 and proposed to go to 79.7%. Signage variances: 38 signs where 19 signs are allowed. There will be 19 on Rt. 46 and 19 on Bloomfield Avenue.
The
architectural plan on Bloomfield
looks like the front of the building and is a theme that was established. 3 freestanding signs where none allowed at
entrance of center of site, and at easterly and westerly ingress/egress sites,
and details are in plan. Mounting height
exceeds 8’ since they are on high portion of building. Lettering height exceeds 18”, and there is a
variety in the signs vs. one monotone unit to create a definite style to add to
architectural character. Maximum
building sign area is 50 sq. ft., some of tenant space will be larger and in name
of good architecture, one sign that is 76.5 sq. ft., and testimony deferred to
their ar4chitect. Building height
allowed 30’ and will need a variance at 32.9’ based on average grade around
building. Front yard setback on Bloomfield Avenue,
and in a way to dress up the building, put up some awnings which will be in
setback. The applicant also seeks a
design waiver for the inlands.
Mr.
Burgis: will applicant give rationale
for variances. Mr. Schepis indicated
they will be back.
Gary
Lewis: show one story retail. Are there plans for mezzanine in these
units? Mr. Schepis: building is only one story, but there are
appurtenances like clock towers, but architect will review these features. Mr.
Omland indicated that the taller the interior space, the more lightly
for better tenants.
If a tenant
chose to put a mezzanine, the applicant would be subject to an amended site
plan. Mr. Omland: there is a 12,000 sq. ft. restaurant shown,
but each tenant will look at each tenant as they come back. The developer needs to know this.
Proposing 19
tenants, but they may get a larger tenant so it may be fewer tenants.
Mitch Abraham,
Esq. represents lot 2 – Mr. Walker will be back for additional testimony
confirmed by Mr. Schepis.
Mr. Montoro –
architect – sworn
Credentials
given and accepted
Renderings and
plan elevations displayed. This was
conceptual elevation to create a streetscape.
Concerns were raised at that time about the Bloomfield Elevation. This front was used for the entire facility
to make to this design is to emulate a lifestyle mall, but an upscale mall that
has been successful. Instead of making
one façade, made Bloomfield Avenue
nice also.
Initial
concept drawing marked in as A3 dated 10-6-08
Photograph of
similar facilities marked as A4 – dated 10-6-08
Colored
rendering marked in as A5 – Colored rendering Shoppes @ Montville dated 10-6-08
Copies of the
colored renderings were distributed to the Planning Board members. The idea of the Bloomfield Avenue side and the front on
Rt. 46 should feel like the same center.
Rendering of A5 and original concept was meant to have the same feel,
streetscape, sidewalk, pedestrian creating the same feel for both sides with
canopies, lighting, but with a service side, you have to have facilities to
keep trash and garbage from going all over the place. Part of this is to have enclosed decorative
dumpster area to have wrought iron gates open for air.
Actual plans
shows 19 stores, but could be less or a few more depending on the tenant
mix. 12,000 designated for restaurant
space. Design is to keep transition
easier for residents.
Mr. Omland
asked: What differentiates a lifestyle
mall vs. a regular strip mall design?
The architectural plans is truly
what will be built, but articulation of rooflines, jutting, etc. are all
representative of what will be built
which objective is to dress it up to bring in nationals. This is the product that will be constructed
if approved. What are the demands of
this type of facility vs. the mom/dad type of retail uses? Ask that the Board hear more about the
uniqueness of this property to grant relief.
Mr. Montoro indicated that the retail type of shops really doesn’t need
height and/or have alternate materials and/or dumpster bring in designs. It is intended to make this the type of mall
that people will shop at. If you spend
this money on this type of center, and you bring in designs, they don’t care
about this and are not presented this proposal explaining the difference in
storefront designs. This is a center
that will bring in national retailers in.
Now you have to do something even more special in view of today’s
economic times. You have to stand out
with colors, vitality, shapes and shadows and a feel that makes shoppers want
to come here and make retailers want to be here.
Tom Maoli,
Applicant – sworn
Represented he
is a member of the LLC. Have been in
discussion with Starbucks, had discussions with Morton Steakhouse and also had
conversations with a high-end day spa and also talking with Learning Express, a
high end toy store.
Deb
Nielson: is there a maximum on a retail store? Mr. Maoli:
not proposing a cap today, but are looking for some kind of cap, but may
be near 8,000 sq. ft. If you could have
one large box, like Trader Joe’s, should there be a limit so the vision
represented could be realized. Putting
in a maximum or minimum, the success will be economic. Couldn’t do more than 19,000 sq. ft., but
wouldn’t go below 10 for total number of tenants thinking 2,500 sq. is a
smaller store size. Also, as to a large
anchor, you need more depth, which this site doesn’t have.
Gary
Lewis: asked applicant to explain
process with different facades? What
comes first, the tenant and/or façade?
Mr. Montoro explained how it would work, but look would be maintained as
to what is presented. Same thing
happened at Tice’s. This site is
smaller than others he worked on.
Russ
Lipari: what is the smallest lease? Mr. Montoro indicated different styles due to
depth, reviewing Tice’s and Rt. 10.
Mr.
Maoli: as to what comes first, tenant or
façade. Had an overwhelming response to
tenants wanting to be in the center and one of the issues is that they don’t
want to commit until there is legal rights at this level. Ladis Karkowsky: are you going to build this site? Mr. Maoli indicated that they will begin
construction without having all tenants.
Exhibit A6
discussed. The plans Planning Board 7 –
9/19/08 are contained in architectural plans - Colorized architectural
plans. Mr. Montoro explained about the
heights due to roof and requirements to get the look, instead of large parapet,
it was meant to maintain exterior elevations.
On bottom,, the green line is the average grade is above floor level and
as building starts to clime, it goes above the average mean grade, and when
going to the right, it is submerged in the ground. Red line was roof; yellow line is 32.9 over
average grade. Height of the 32.9 is
well above roof, it gets closer until average grade is close to the roof. Only areas in variance with height are the
point of the building on PB8 on Bloomfield
Avenue side.
It is only the portico that is in variance since to drop it down any
more would not look good.
Mr.
Omland: how many feet are in violation
of total length: 600’ with 5’ in height
which is in violation of height, except parapets exceed but do not exceed more
than 10’ above height requirement of 30’.
Signage
discussed. Materials that will be used
will be real brick, stone, some plaster, colored canopies, cast stone, sills,
mixture of colors and materials, shades and shapes. Roof will be slate like look on certain
sections.
Adjacent
property owner voiced a concern and Mr. Schepis indicated there is no
improvements on this property, and that the site note indicates saw cut at the
property line and appears to be some improvement on Azarian Property, but
should a waiver be filed, would remove this encroachment but if they don’t and
don’t receive appropriate improvement, will saw cut at property line and not
proposing improvements on adjacent property line.
Inlet shown on
A5 and to affirm, property line will be fenced.
Fence on property line on lot 2 halted from encroachment.
Carry to
November 6th with notice preserved in a Motion made by: Deb Nielson seconded by Russ Lipari
Roll
call: unanimous
CONCEPTS
None
Meeting
adjourned unanimously in a Motion made by:
Russ Lipari
Seconded by:
Larry Hines
Respectfully
submitted,
Linda M. White
|
