Planning Board Subcommitee Minutes 2-12-09 Print E-mail


8:30AM Start



Mr. Karkowsky - present        

Ms. Nielson - present                          

Mr. Lipari - present     

Mr. Visco - present     

Also present:  Stan Omland, PE


            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

Finalized 2/11/09

Last Updated ( Monday, 20 April 2009 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack