|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
8:30AM Start
SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES OF
JANUARY 12, 2009
ROLL CALL
Mr. Karkowsky - present
Ms. Nielson - present
Mr. Lipari - present
Mr. Visco - present
Also present: Stan
Omland, PE
BUSINESS
Discussion
re: proposed retail center - 223
Changebridge Rd. –
B: 138, L: 10.03
& 11
Present: Charles P Dietz, Architect
Glenn Beyer, Real Estate Consultant
Mike Lakhiani, Vice President
Sales
Joseph Mianecki, PE
Mr. Mianecki reviewed the proposal to develop an
approximately 15,000 sq. ft. retail store with 7 units proposed. There will be variances for more than three
units allowed as well as variances for 12,000 sq. ft. over required impervious
coverage requirements. The building
architectural reviewed. There was no
objection to the type of design proposed.
The finish is wrapped along side the elevation on Kramer. Parking will be in front, but most of the
parking appears to be in rear. If a
restaurant and/or eating and drinking facility come in, there would be parking
deficiency.
Mr. Beyer indicated type of uses proposed would be day spa,
coffee café, clothing stores, and smaller food markets. Ms. Nielson felt the building was oversized
for the lot and asked what size building could fit without variances. Mr. Mianecki indicated a 13,000 sq. ft.
building envelope would work.
Mr. Mianecki indicated that they were removing the easement
along the rear of this site to accommodate the development as shown. Concerns voiced as to whether or not this
removal would require this site (SSG&W office building site) to come back
to the Planning Board since the easement originally approved was part of the
overall site plan from a prior owner (Chopper).
Applicant will review this issue.
As to the parking lot in front, Mr. Omland indicated
applicant can soften the ok by addition of berming and more landscaping. Applicant will review. The front parking lot will use the
streetscape lighting, with commercial box lights in back parking lot.
As to drainage, Mr. Mianecki indicated there was mottling
and the dirt is clay. Drainage must be
addressed, as well as the fencing around detention facility. Fencing is shown on the plan. Sidewalks also provided along
Changebridge. Applicant also directed to
look at putting some amenities in the front (benches; waste containers).
Signage discussed.
Signage will be applied letters and applicant is requesting a
freestanding colonial type on the corner.
It appears variances will be needed for signage.
Applicant was advised that the DRC (Design Review Committee)
will meet and they assist developer with color
themes/signage/harmony/consistency and architectural aspects. Applicant if he chooses to stay with this plan
can begin their review at that level.
Mr. Lipari indicated that the applicant could either choose to go to the
entire Planning Board with a concept review of this plan, take the various
comments and recommendations, make some revisions and come back to the Planning
Board subcommittee or file for formal site plan review.
Discussion re: Soil Movement/Height/Lot Size/Fill
Mr. Omland reviewed various ways
you may be able to deal with the amount of fill and/or change of existing
grades, especially as they relate to pre-existing non-conforming lots. He indicated that you could possibly using
amend the current wording using ‘natural grade’ elevations, perhaps deal with
imposing wording that would require no walls and/or disturbance near adjacent
property lines reminding the members we talked about these types of buffers
years prior. You might even want to
consider the requirement of maintaining a buffer around property lines. Discussion ensued. Mr. Omland indicated there would have to be
some exemptions permitted (i.e. installation of fences). You may even want to consider requirement of
landscaping in front of retaining walls to further control issues with
visibility of walls to adjacent neighborhood.
The issue of the soil movement
ordinance discussed. Ms. Nielson asked
how many lots are really ones that would create a problem with the type of fill
and/or disturbance of slopes witnessed on some lots in the community in the
past. Mrs. White questioned if soil
movement shouldn’t be part of a board review requirement with a license hearing
being required at township committee level, dealing with some of the concerns
that appear to have happened on prior variance reviews. Should the Board also look at developing
wording to eliminate the existing code relative to ‘developing on existing non-conforming
lots’ and removing that section from the code, while looking at the other
issues raised this morning.
It was decided that Mr. Omland,
the township Attorney and Tony Barile
discuss the concerns raised and the various ideas offered and come back with
some additional input.
Discussion re: All-Brite
Car Wash Corporation – Changes proposed
Mrs. White indicated that the
existing owners have chosen not to proceed with the site plan originally
approved by the Board of Adjustment, choosing instead to do minor upgrades to
the existing building:
·
Repair existing flat
roof which is leaking in several areas
·
Put on new siding on
building in earth tones
·
Repaving existing
parking lot and restriping
·
Replace existing signs
with conforming signs that meet setback, size/height
It was decided that this minor
upgrading can be accomplished at the Planning Board level since they are not
increasing existing non-conformity, and are upgrading site. This filing can be a minor site plan filing.
Discussion re: Setting
joint meeting with Chamber Subcommittee on Signs – Subcommittee set February 26, 2008 at 8:30 for a meeting to
discuss the sign ordinance, requesting that the joint meeting of the chamber
subcommittee be scheduled sometime in March.
The subcommittee will firm up a date after the February 26th
meeting.
Discussion re: PMSPP/F08-12
Bornstein Subdivision - B: 139.06, L: 17 & 18 – 73 Horseneck Rd. & 15 Woodland Rd.
Mrs. White indicated that based on professional reports
received and the concerns raised on the way the lot line was adjusted, that the
applicant should consider their comments, and come in with alternate
subdivisions for the Planning Board to review and provide the necessary
variance notice to cover this review at that time. Mrs. White indicated she conferred with the
applicant’s attorney and they intend to do this.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda M. White
|
