Planning Board 11-6-08 Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

7:30 PM Start

Minutes of November 6, 2008

No New Business to be Conducted Past l0: 00PM

ROLL CALL

            Mr. Maggio - present                           Mr. Karkowsky - present        

            Ms. Kull - present                                Mr. Daughtry - present

            Ms. Nielson - absent                           Mr. Visco - absent

            Mr. Lipari - absent                              Mr. Lewis - absent

            Mr. Hines - present                              Mr. Canning (alt#2) - present

                                                                        Mr. Speciale (alt#1) - present

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated

PUBLIC DISCUSSION

Chairman Karkowsky reminded members whose terms were up this year to send in their request for reappointment if they are interested to the Township Clerk.  Mrs. White indicated that she sent these forms out.

Mrs. White also asked if a subcommittee meeting can be set up to review both the possibility of White Castle going into the Wendy site, as well as changes Milan is anticipating.  Mr. Karkowsky and Mr. Daughtry are available next Wednesday.  Mrs. White will call Mr. Lipari, Ms. Nielson and Mr. Visco to see if she can firm it up. 

Mr. Karkowsky asked the status of the window sign removal since it doesn’t appear any of the window signage was removed.  He also indicated that there was a temporary sign on Rt. 46 for gym, and that Allenby’s has excessive window coverage signs for ‘going out of business’.  Mr. Daughtry indicated that the illegal business located in rear of gas station on Rt. 202 is going full force and hasn’t been removed.  Mrs. White will coordinate resolution with Mr. Petrillo.

PLANNING BUSINESS

  • Next Planning Board Meeting:  November 24th @ 7:30PM – Monday night
  • Update on Grant Application to Highlands/Resolution requesting extension of filing Housing Element w/COAH

Mrs. White indicated she forwarded a copy of the letter requesting the Township to go forward to them, copying the Planning Board members.  Mrs. White indicated she also forwarded the resolutions done by the Township Attorney since they were modified from the form they sent the townships to make sure that they will be acceptable to Highlands. They are scheduled for adoption by the Township Committee at their next meeting.  The grant application also needs this adopted resolution.  As soon as all data is complete, the grant application for initial assessment asking for $25,000 per Mr. Burgis will go forward.

Mr. Daughtry asked for confirmation on the opting in to preservation area since there has been some confusion on this.  Mr. Omland indicated a municipality has no choice but to ‘opt in’ as it relates to the area noted in Highlands as Preservation.  You are mandated under new regulations to opt in Highlands in these areas.  You have a choice on planning areas only.

Mrs. White indicated she has received some concerns about Kevah Konner and some the lands along Rt. 46 depicted on state plan as sensitive which is creating problems for redevelopment and/or new development.  Mr. Omland indicated that this is the corridor along the Passaic River.  What this township can do is advocate good ratables but that emphasis should be given to those property owners to be the front on this.  They should front the cost and the Township could support it along the way.  

Mr. Daughtry voiced concerns about making sure that there is some action taken on Rt. 46 as it relates to DOT, feeling that perhaps we should make sure we have some sort of master plan/jug handle.  Mr. Omland explained the DOT permit process.  Discussion ensued on whether or not there was a DOT permit for the pending application at BoA and how should we express our concerns on making sure the corridor is addressed at some point during this BoA hearing process.  Mr.  Daughtry asked we could further this from the Township level, noting there were letters sent to DOT in the past on the Board’s concerns.  Mrs. White indicated she also expressed this to several rezoning applicants and developers along this corridor.  The Planning Board asked that we send another letter reminding them of the need to address this corridor, and the township’s request for a sound reasonable development. 

Art Daughtry:  if you have Lowe’s before Board of Adjustment, and this application stands on its own with no consideration about access off of Rt. 46, and this is going on now, how do we get this addressed and how do we get involved in furthering our goals?  Stan Omland:  when they go to DOT, they will be reviewed for access, but yes, this application will be a stand alone review process.  The Township might want to monitor timing of access participation, and this is when this community would look at it to offer input.  Discussion ensued on how the Planning Board can interact with a BoA on this issue, and is it possible for a Planning Board to correspond with another board their concerns on an issue like the Rt. 46 corridor?  Mr. Carroll indicated he has no objection to the Planning Board indicating their analysis of Rt. 46, prospects for added improvement, and encourage Board of Adjustment to get documents on this area to the Planning Board.  Mr. Omland:  to limit DOT focus to one area would not advance this corridor in township, recommending new letters be forwarded on township’s concerns.

  • 2009 Tentative Budget for Planning Board

Submitted to township administrator and copied to Planning Board members.  No comments or changes suggested.

  • 2009 Tentative Planning Board Meeting Date Schedule

Submitted to Board members for comments, and no changes made. 

WAIVERS

None

RESOLUTIONS

None

                       

CORRESPONDENCE

None

MINUTES

            Minutes of 10/23/08 – Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John         Visco, Gary Lewis, Art Maggio, Russ Lipari, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale (alt#1) and Vic Canning (alt#2)

Motion made by:  Larry Hines

Seconded by: Art Maggio

Roll call: Unanimous

INVOICES

            Michael Carroll, Esq. – Trust for: $33.75, $641.24, $675, $810

            Omland Engineering – Trust for: $775

Motion made by:  Art Maggio 

Seconded by: Larry Hines

Roll call:  Unanimous

LOI/DEP NOTIFICATIONS

None

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, Gary Lewis  - Notice Acceptable                                                    ACT BY: 12/12/08

CARRIED WITH NOTICE TO 12/11/08

            PSPP/FC -08-03 – PINEBROOK INVESTMENT (Shoppes @ Montville) Block: 162, Lot: 3, 4, 6, 7 – Old Bloomfield & Rt. 46 – Notice Acceptable         &         Eligible voters from 10-6-08 – Ladis Karkowsky, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Gary          Lewis, Russ Lipari, Larry Hines, Art Maggio, Art Daughtry, Marie Kull, Tony           Speciale and Vic Canning                                  ACT BY:  1/9/09

CARRIED WITH NOTICE TO 12/11/08

Motion to carry the applications above noted to the dates as indicated with notice preserved and time to act extended made by: Art Daughtry 

Seconded by: Marie Kull

Roll call:  Unanimous

            PSPP/FC98-19-07-19 RBR Investments B: 160.02, L: 18 - 321 Changebridge        Road – amended preliminary/final site plan w/parking variance – Notice    Acceptable Carried from 9-11-08 Eligibility:  Art Maggio, Ladis Karkowsky,     Marie Kull, Deb Nielson, John Visco, Art Daughtry, Russ Lipari, Larry Hines,   Tony Speciale, Vic Canning                                 ACT BY: 11/13/08

Mr. Canning indicated he certified to missed meeting of 9-11-08 and is eligible to vote.

Present:   Rosemary Stone-Dougherty, Esq.

               Ben Guardiosi, Applicant

               Frank Matarazzo, PE

PMISC08-42 For Dancers Only – 321 Changebridge Rd. B: 160.02, L: 18 – dance school 5300 sq. ft.  – hours of operation 10am-7pm Mon-Sat – 5 employees – signage to be in compliance with approved theme

Mr. Karkowsky Concerns on skateboard use. 

Parking & traffic expert will testify this evening.

All board professionals and applicant’s professionals were sworn.

Since original application, applicant did revise the prel/final site plan where applicant will remove some of the existing building. 

Mr. Matarazzo reviewed the changes made:

A2 – Colorized version of site plan changes – Oct. 20, 2008 revision marked

Major change is removal of existing building on right side of building 7500 sq. ft.  In this area are some new parking spaces, sidewalk and some building entrances and new façade?  Reduced proposed parking in front of building from two rows to one row of parking with parking proposed on ROW side vs. building side.  By doing this, increased setback to Changebridge Road to 13.5 where 25 required. Also added a landscape berm and removed existing sidewalk across front of property and will be located in public ROW.  The plans also reflect revised lighting along Changebridge Road to comply with light theme.  Applicant also proposed underground detention for new impervious area in new parking area which was County request. 

Review of Omland’s report discussed.  Dumpster location discussed.  Would be located in rear of site and complies with solid waste ordinance.  This requires a separate recycling area. 

Applicant indicated he would comply with the approval of decorative street lights and would provide whatever increase in bond amount is required. 

Landscaping discussed for proposed berm.  Suggest that all parking areas not be visible to adjacent properties and goes hand in hand with hiring a landscape AIP.  Applicant will agree to comply with upgrades and will ask this be a condition of approval and will hire a Landscape AIP.

Art Daughtry:  lengthy discussion ensued on what real parking is needed since 175 spaces are being added, questioning what the real parking needs for this site are.  This subject deferred to later when traffic testimony will be presented.

Item 7 of Omland report discussed.  Applicant indicated that a revised floor plan is submitted this evening to resolve inconsistencies. 

A3 – marked in as colored floor space/tenants. 11/6/08 

Discussion ensued on creating new doors on new elevations.  Revised floor plan in colors discussed:  pink colors are existing units which will be used for retail uses.  Left front is highlight pink and is 4700 sq. ft. which are two units.  The other pink area would be left front which is 3800 sq. ft. 

Ladis Karkowsky:  are parking calculations adjusted to respond to retail?  Applicant indicated parking calculations provide for retail space. 

Item 8 of Omland report discussed.  Refer to A2 exhibit.

Sidewalk discussed with parking area within 10’ of building.  Sidewalk is shown to curb side with landscape area by the building side.  Applicants wants sidewalk along building. 

4’ wide strip landscaped area in front of existing sidewalk.

Along the front are 18 parking spaces.  Applicant will comply with remaining items of Omland report except applicant requests concrete vs. paver sidewalks.

Variances:

Building cover is non conforming – reduced but still exceeds maximum level

Impervious – 55% permitted – 71.25% and proposed 71.5%   Site plan chart is mislabeled and will be revised in future to reflect 71.5.  The difference is the elimination of portion of building on right side; removing pavement along right side and provide a sidewalk around site, and landscape aisles in this area; moving of both parking spaces closer to building away from Changebridge road; driveway opening on westerly side and reduced this to 30’ which was 40’ wide; removed existing sidewalk on site and came up to 71.5%; FAR requires 25% exist at 28.61 FAR reduction due to removal of building; parking prohibited in front yard near residential district due to parking area in front; parking within 20’ of street line; parking spaces required 135 existing and based on zoning chart 260 required, parking stall size 9x18’ where 9x20 required; design waivers – no curbing in western pavement; propose curbing for new driveway/parking area in front and curbed aisles in westerly front of building; not proposed curb along new edge of pavement on right side.  No curbing exists from front to the back to facilitate stormwater runoff.  There are a total of 8 variances and/or design waivers.  Found no engineering detriments.  Proposed impervious coverage will be properly graded to facilitate runoff. 

Elevation of new façade after demolition displayed.

New conceptual elevation marked as A4 – 11-6-08 as exhibit

Top exhibits show existing front and what will be northwestern side:  same features of existing building will be brought around.  Elevation shows that the applicant will intend to move the theme around side.

Art Daughtry:  on elevation, will you see cars parked along Changebridge road.  Plan displayed does not show parking along front which will be closer to Changebridge Road.

On new façade near demolition, grading shows a 50’ setback and a swale, what from Changebridge road blocks the parking spaces facing Changebridge Road.  There is no proposed landscaping.  This is a wetlands swale and this was one of Mr. Omland’s comments to screen these parking and applicant agrees to comply with this. 

Once demo is done, does it open the opportunity and put entrance on northwest corner?  If entrance was here, would have an entire staging to allow drop off of children, etc.  There appears to be an ability to have an entrance here. 

Mr. Omland discussed relocating entrance indicating and come in on the edge in the corner and what parking spaces you lose to the driveway, can be relocated.  Flooding exists in this area.  This site requires a flood hazard permit and other DEP permits.  Net fill credits may come from taking down building.  You can physically fill this corner and elevate this to the 174 elevation which might necessitate grading in parking lot.  Don’t want to build up site improvement costs but should look at this.  Mr. Speciale indicated this is the area that floods.  Weighing this against segregated access areas, and what type of pavement repairs are being done?  This would be done at same elevation in view of flood plain regulations.  Some will continue to flood but elevated areas won’t flood.  Under LOI must have the 50’ riparian buffer? 

Mr. Matarazzo discussed issue.  Mr. Omland did not expect disturbance of riparian buffer, but try moving this entrance as far as you can.  All the wetland buffers do have some ability of change.  The uses here are no longer industrial, and large area in back doesn’t have a function, and could be easily altered to get less pavement, area, closer to code, and possibly get more buffering. 

Ms. Stone indicated that that wouldn’t work in rear since applicant would see those types of uses in rear which would be more industrial vs. retail.

Mr. Speciale:  what of residents across street, if less water goes on parking lot, does more water goes into these lots?  Mr. Omland:  no, the volume which replaces water will be used to lift parking lot.  In a heavy flood, the corner of this site is under water.  Mr. Omland:  taking a large watershed and addition of this much will change so significantly, it won’t be perceivable.  

Mr. Omland:  requested applicant to soften the building requested and asked for clarification and plan revision to address back of building since back entrance may need a bump out and/or shifting of parking spaces.  Depict rear area to better work.    

On paver sidewalk vs. concrete, why?

A paver sidewalk can be done that matches sidewalk theme along front, but address nominal impervious coverage issue. Existing sidewalk will be concrete and new sidewalk will be paver. 

Will repair where needed and will top entire parking lot per Mr. Guardiosi.  Mr. Omland indicated if you are topping entire parking lot, and will have to be included in net fill.  Mr. Guardiosi:  when you originally torn out, have some credits coming. 

Ms. Kull:  isn’t there a way to do driveway in such a way that it is designed in such a way to direct vehicles in and out?   

Joseph Staiger Company –

Traffic Engineer, Craig Peregoy  - credentials given - sworn

Parking discussed.  Mr. Omland indicated that he needs one complete traffic report in order to respond to the testimony.  Ms. Stone:  It is the applicant’s position that the Staiger report of October 23rd is their final report.  The letter sent was additional information only and were additional parking counts submitted.  The applicant will not update the October 23rd.  Testimony will incorporate latest data.

Traffic expert discussed parking circulation, back up movements and report issued.  Entrances discussed:  ESA Hockey would go towards rear.  Discussion ensued.  Existing tenant discussed as it relates to skateboard entrance and use of building. 

Parking will be in rear and inner corridor will bring customers to the front units.  Path reviewed on plan.  Applicant proposed that the store will be in front but tenant and landlord will put door on interior and customers would come in thru the rear since drop off and pick up would be in rear.

Planning Board members liked idea of new door in rear and corridor to encourage back entrance.  Is this corridor going to be attractive, well lit, and/or back entrance type of corridor?  Corridor is 6’ wide and applicant indicated it will be well lit. 

Back entrance:  is the parking space blocking door?   Applicant agreed and will address this area and will make sure there are no spaces blocking entrances.  Mr. Omland asked:  Is there enough parking in back now?  There are 5 spaces next to door?  Traffic engineer feels there is adequate parking. 

Is there adequate lighting and will there be signage in rear for new tenants.  This rear entrance door will bring in for gym, retail, and skateboard customers.  Board felt to encourage patrons to use this entrance, and it isn’t signed, then there will be a problem.  Applicant agreed to install additional lighting and will make sure it is signed.   

Ratio of parking used was 1.27 per and was based on recreational uses.  That is fine for today but what of tomorrow, were concerns voiced by Mr. Omland.  Feel there is enough parking now, but what of change of tenants. 

Want to see more detailed landscaping plan.  Discussion ensued on front parking and creating a common driveway. 

Time for completion of construction discussed.  Board wants dates certain.  Applicant is not prepared to propose improvements in rear similar to the ones existing for front and for proposed new side elevation on the east and west side.  He will paint and refresh rear but not add the same architectural features.  Mr. Omland indicated the Board will need plans that reflect enough detail to reflect what is going on.  If they are going to mirror the quality and materials are the same, these comments must be reflected on an official site plan document and must be contained in file.  Applicant agreed.

Board members discussed the 4’ strip in front of building as lawn with concerns noted about traffic in front, and perhaps adding some shrubs and development of some curb cuts/walkways towards doors will ensure this area isn’t destroyed.  Applicant agreed.

Applicant was asked to come back with a cross-section of landscape berm for height and shielding and the enhanced landscaping plan; Mr. Omland and Matarazzo will discuss viability of relocating driveway on west closer to river and how this works and applicant will add a title block and date to conceptual drawings and will make those changes that Mr. Matarazzo agreed about, noting correction of parking spaces, impervious coverage calculations, breaks in landscaped area, areas in parking lots to be repaired with resurfacing, and consider putting something decorative over rear entrance with lighting.  

New tenant discussed for dance school.  This tenant would use rear entrance and existing parking on side and rear will accommodate this, and will put up a temporary sign and when building completed will install permanent lettering on this elevation.  Will use temporary sign in front and will change in future with applied lettering.

Board asked that the applicant to develop timetables and construction schedule.  Board polled and discussion continued on what conditions should be completed in order to allow this tenant to move into facility.

Discussion ensued since this is a tenant waiver and when going forward with a tenant, you are taking a risk.  At the end of day, you can’t legally get rid of tenant, but if you can require the applicant to increase his originally posted performance guarantee under a prior approval since the site isn’t completed. 

This can be a subject to condition of this waiver approval:  that the estimate be reviewed to determine new amount and that the bond be increased to deal with those improvements were they to be installed now.  We can also limit any future tenancy until the site plan issues are addressed and completed.

Ms. Stone noted the applicant is concerned on DEP approvals and the time it will take to get these documents in place.  Mr. Omland questioned if the applicant shouldn’t consider a phasing:  allowing one tenant and as part of phase l, require façade improvements, then as part of phase II, have site improvements completed.  Ms. Stone indicated applicant is requesting preliminary/final approvals.  Discussion continued noting that having phasing with date of completion in place doesn’t appear to be a problem with the approval process.

Applicant indicated he would agree to demolish and finish façade by Spring 2009.

Motion made by Art Daughtry to approve the waiver application For Dancers Only with a requirement for increase in bonding, that the applicant supply adequate lighting and handicap parking for the rear of the building to respond to this tenancy needs.  Phasing will be responded to as part of the follow up information required by tenant.  Seconded by:  Marie Kull      Roll call:  Unanimous    Mr. Carroll was asked to prepare a resolution memorializing this action of board. 

Applicant was asked to have traffic expert available for carried hearing to November 24th.  If this expert is not required, Mr. Omland will advise in advance after review of revisions to site plan are completed, including redesign of entrance. 

Motion made by: Art Daughtry to carry this application with notice preserved and time to act extended to November 24, 2008, seconded by Larry Hines

Roll call:  Eligible:  Ladis Karkowsky, Marie Kull, Art Maggio, Art Daughtry, Larry Hines, Tony Speciale, Vice Canning – Unanimous

Motion made unanimously by Art Daughtry, seconded by Larry Hines to adjourn.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White

 

 .  :

NEW BUSINESS

           

CONCEPTS

Wendy’s changing to White Castle and seeking a subcommittee meeting.  Confirm Wednesday at 8:30AM from subcommittee members.

Meeting adjourned unanimously in a motion made by:

Seconded:

Respectfully submitted,

Linda M. White

Secretary  

With explanation

With explanation

With explanation

With explanation

Certified to 10-6-08

Certified to 10-6-08

Certified to 10-6-08

Certified to 10-6-08

Certified to 10-6-08

Certified to 9-11-08

 

Last Updated ( Friday, 12 December 2008 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack