Planning Board

MINUTES PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MADISON REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 7, 2012 A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Borough of Madison was held on the 7th day of February 2012 at 7:30 P.M., in Room #140, Hartley Dodge Memorial, 50 Kings Road, Madison, NJ. The meeting was called to order by Planning Board Chairman, Steve Tombalakian Mr. Tombalakian requested the reading of the Public Meeting Notice. Ms. Boardman read the following statement in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. “Let the minutes reflect that adequate notice of this meeting has been provided in the following manner: At the reorganization meeting of the Board held on January 3, 2012, the Board by Resolution adopted a schedule of meetings. On January 4, 2012, a copy of the schedule of meetings was posted at the bulletin board at the entrance to the Hartley Dodge Memorial, was sent to the Madison Eagle and the Daily Record, and filed with the Borough Clerk all in accordance with the “Open Public Meetings Act”. The following roll call was recorded: Present: Peter Flemming, Sr., Tom Johnson, Michael Kopas, John Forte, Astri Baillie, Steve Tombalakian, Jeff Gertler, Dr. Vincent Esposito, and Mayor Robert Conley Absent: None Excused: None Also Present: Vince Loughlin, Esq., Planning Board Attorney Frank Russo, Board Engineer Susan Blickstein, Board Planner Frances Boardman, Board Secretary Approval of Minutes: Copies of the minutes of the January 17, 2012 regular meeting were distributed to all Board members for their review prior to this meeting. Corrections were noted in a phone conversation with Astri Baillie this afternoon. Motion to approve the minutes as corrected was made by Ms. Baillie, seconded by Mr. Flemming. The following roll call was recorded: “Aye” – Mr. Johnson, Mr. Forte, Mr. Flemming, Ms. Baillie, Mr. Gertler, Mr. Tombalakian Mayor Conley, Dr, Esposito and Mr. Kopas “Nay” - None “Abstain” - None Planning Board February 7, 2012 Comments by the Public: Mr. Tombalakian opened the floor to the public for anyone who wished to be heard on any matter not on this evening’s agenda. There was no public present at the meeting that wished to be heard. RESOLUTIONS FOR MEMORIALIZATION Case No. P-09-08 Extension of Time for Resolution Compliance Andrew & Joann Lee Block: 701, Lot: 2 194 Rosedale Avenue Resolution granting the Extension of Time for Resolution Compliance to Andrew & Joann Lee on property located at 194 Rosedale Avenue, Madison commonly known on the Borough of Madison Tax Map as Block 701, Lot 2. The draft resolution was sent via email to the Planning Board members and its Professionals for review prior to this evening’s meeting. There was a brief discussion regarding the extension of time in the resolution of 180 days when the request was made for 120 days. The eligible voting members decided that 180 days as defined in the resolution was acceptable. A motion to approve the resolution was requested. The motion was made by Mr. Flemming, seconded by Mr. Forte; the following roll call was recorded: “Ayes” – Mr. Johnson, Mr. Forte, and Mr. Flemming “Nays” – None “Abstain” –Mayor Conley, Ms. Baillie, Mr. Gertler, Dr. Esposito, Mr. Kopas, and Mr. Tombalakian NEW BUSINESS – CASE NO. P 11-05 Preliminary & Final Site Plan with Variances Stangle Group, LLC Block 1801, Lot 9 14 Elmer Street Mr. Samuel DeAngelis, Attorney for the Applicant began by giving a brief overview of the application presented to the Board this evening. Planning Board February 7, 2012 The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structure on the site and construct a mixed-use building with two first floor commercial spaces and four one-bedroom residential units on the upper two floors. Two variances are required for this site; off street parking and fencing within five feet of the rear property line. The applicant had gone before TCC with a concept review prior to making the final revisions to the plans and presenting them for a preliminary and final site plan. Mr. DeAngelis will present three witnesses this evening. Mr. Andrew Clark, Engineer, 37 Girard Avenue, Chatham was sworn in; Mr. Clark gave his qualifications, he was accepted as a witness by the Board. The following exhibits were marked: Exhibit A-1 – Site Plan Sheet 2 of 9 Existing Conditions Exhibit A-2 – Site Plan Sheet 3 of 9 Proposed Conditions Exhibit A-3 – Site Plan Sheet 4 of 9 Lighting Plan Mr. Clark began with the existing site showing a multifamily home, with non delineated parking in the rear, shed and patio. There is no formal storm water management on the existing site. The proposed site shows a narrower building then what exists now, a formal parking lot with curbing and stripping. The rear of the parking lot will be filled in along the west end of the curb line which will tie into the box culvert in the rear. A drywell system is proposed to capture the roof runoff. Ms. Baillie asked about the culvert and whose property it was on. Mr. Clark stated that it was a municipal culvert; there is an easement in the rear of the property, close to the boundary line. The conditions of the culvert were discussed, it was stated that it was a concrete box culvert but no inspections on the box or its integrity have been done. Any work that is to be done with regards to the culvert should be directed to the Borough Engineer, Bob Vogel. Mr. Russo asked if it was possible to relocate the pipe and modify the inlet. Mr. Jensen a neighboring property was asked if his property tied into the culvert; he answered yes. Mr. Russo’s memorandum of January 13, 2012 was discussed; Mr. Clark stated that all requirements from this memorandum would be addressed. The applicant was still waiting to hear back from the Electric Department regarding the transformer. The placement of the transformer was discussed; Mr. Clark would like to see it placed directly behind the transformer that is already on site if there is significant space. The sizing of the water and sewer connections would need to by addressed with the Borough Engineer. Once known; the specific elements will be put on the plan. Free standing lights in the parking lot were the next topic, and it was recommended that the lights be placed on a timer and that the cut off time be set for 10:00pm as was recommended at the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting for the bank on the corner. The applicant stated that he would be amenable to this condition. LED fixtures were recommended, as they can be specifically aimed and control spillage. Planning Board February 7, 2012 Storm water management was discussed; this design was done without the benefit of a test pit. Mr. Tombalakian asked about the high water table, Mr. Russo said he was not aware of the table level. There was no pitting on the Fulton Bank application. Mr. Jensen was asked about the water level, which he stated was very high. Mr. Clark stated that he would conduct a test pit and certainly look into the water table. Details would be discussed between professionals regarding the operations of the storm water management. An Engineer’s Estimate would be provided. The landscaping plan was not prepared but there are some concerns about putting in a shade tree. Ms. Baillie stated that the plants that are recommended on the site plan need shade in order to survive; they also need lots of water. It was recommended that the landscape plan be revisited. A site fence is proposed, however the applicant will need to clarify the fencing, material, the height of the fence, and the delineation of the fence along the property. The lighting plan was discussed; the lighting that is proposed is 3 building mounted fixtures, 2 on the west side of the building and one in the rear on the north side. The plan also shows a free standing 15 foot pole in the parking lot, however; some places are exceeding the .1 foot candle spillage at the boundaries. Mr. Russo suggested an alternate LED fixture would control the output and the foot candles better, Mr. Clarke will work with a lighting specialist and analyze the possibilities. Mr. Tombalakian asked the Board if they had any further questions of Mr. Clarke. Mr. Gertler asked Mr. Clarke if the 18 foot driveway was mandatory. He replied that 30 feet is required, but not many properties have that width, the closest is the Fulton Bank site. The 18 foot drive is a comfortable width for two cars to get passed each other. Mr. Gertler suggested that perhaps decreasing the size of the driveway could move the building over six feet and put windows on the right side of the building. The ability to turn around in the back of the building was also discussed. Seeing no further questions from the Board of Mr. Clarke, Mr. Tombalakian opened the floor to the members of the public for questions. Seeing none he closed that portion of the hearing. The next witness was called. Mr. Joseph Staigar, 17 Treemont Drive, East Hanover, NJ. He was sworn in and accepted as an expert Traffic Engineer. Mr. Staigar began his testimony stating that he had conducted a parking study on Friday, October 14, 2011 and Saturday, October 15, 2011. The peak parking demand on Friday was between 12:00pm – 2:00pm and again from 6:00pm -9:30pm and Saturday from 12:00pm – 2:00pm and again from 6:00pm to 8:30pm. Mr. Staigar stated that the parking in the area is generated by the restaurant and retail uses. A minimum of 66 vacant spaces were observed during the time of the study on Friday lunch time, 90 on Friday evening, 135 Saturday noon time and 112 vacant spaces on Saturday evening. Office and residences have a different parking pattern and are compatible since they do not peak at the same time. The RSIS states that seven parking spaces are necessary for four one bedroom apartments, and eight parking spaces are necessary for the offices which are a total of 15 however; statistics have shown that a reduction of 30% on parking demand is prevalent when near mass transit. Planning Board February 7, 2012 The shared parking will handle 70 to 80 % of the parking demand for this site. There will be some spillage but there is available parking within 200 feet of the site. Mr. Staigar discussed the width of the driveway, stating that 18 feet is a functional minimum for the width, but you could neck it down to 16 feet. There is opportunity to neck the driveway down to 12 feet and still have a functional one way flow driveway. Mr. DeAngelis had no further questions of Mr. Staigar; Mr. Tombalakian asked the Board if they had any questions for Mr. Staiger. Mr. Russo asked how solid waste is to be handled at the site. A narrow driveway may be problematic for a private hauler and also for emergency services having adequate room to reach the back of the building. The Board suggested that Captain Lou DeRosa be contacted and his thoughts shared on the minimum driveway size as well as comments from the private hauler. Ms. Blickstein stated that there are a wide range of uses in the CBD-2 zone that may create more of a parking demand on this site, such as a restaurant or a medical office. Mr. DeAngelis stated that his client does not propose either use at this site. Ms. Blickstein asked if there was a concern with retail in the space creating more of a demand on parking. Mr. Staigar stated that retail would create more of a demand especially on Saturday but he has no real concern since his study showed an overflow of parking within walking distance to the site. Ms. Blickstein questioned restrictions that may be placed on the tenants regarding parking spaces. Mr. Staigar stated that this must be worked out, and will be dependent upon the users and tenants of the building. Ms. Blickstein suggested that a condition of the resolution state that parking would not have any restrictions. Discussion regarding parking continued. Mr. Tombalakian asked the Board if they had any further questions of Mr. Staigar, seeing none he open the floor to the public, seeing none he closed the public portion. The Board took a five minute recess at 9:25pm. The meeting resumed at 9:36pm with all members present, and the hearing on the Stangle Group application continued. The next witness was Rui Amaral, 40 Ella Street, Bloomfield, NJ, Architect for the applicant. He was sworn in, gave his qualifications to the Board and accepted as an expert witness. The following Exhibits were marked: Exhibit A-4 – Sheet A4 Rendering of the Project. Exhibit A-5 - Sheet A2 Ground Floor and 2nd Floor plan. Exhibit A-6 – Sheet A3 3rd floor plan. Exhibit A-7 – Sheet A1 Elevations Exhibit A-8 – Material list Exhibit A-9- James Building on Main Street Exhibit A-10 – Original Site Plan presented at TCC Planning Board February 7, 2012 Mr. Amaral began by briefly describing the plans for the project. The first floor will be occupied by two retail spaces with the main entrance in the front of the building with the rear entrance being primarily a fire exit. The second and third floors will consist of two one bedroom apartments; the main entrance for these apartments will be in the rear of the building. The building is on the property line, however if the building is moved in three feet, the right side would be able to mimic the left side and the offices would have more space. The material board was discussed with the Board at length. The roof shingles, vinyl siding and hardy board were shown to the Board members. Awnings are proposed for the front of the stores. Mr. DeAngelis stated that the applicant had met with Sign and Façade numerous times and had done a walking tour of the town focusing on the façade of the James Building. Mr. Gertler stated that the building has no structure, no essence and no form. Mr. Robert Fonseca, 29 Alma Avenue, Madison, NJ applicant was sworn in and expressed his concerns that were received from the Sign and Façade Committee. He stated that what the Board is suggesting was done on day one. Mr. Flemming stated that the Board and Committee’s were here to guide not design the building for the applicant. It was suggested that the front facade be revised and simplified and that the application come back at the March 6, 2012 with the façade elevation revisions. Also the minimal width of the driveway should be discussed with the fire department. Ms. Boardman asked for correspondence from the Sign and Façade Committee for this application for the case file. Mr. Tobalakian opened the floor to the Board for questions or comments. Dr. Esposito stated that he feels that the front façade is adequate and that the Planning Board should be able to move on things in a timely manner. The applicants are spending an excessive of money on professionals and wasting a lot of time on revisions. This application is being carried to the March 6, 2012 Planning Board meeting without further notice being required. OLD BUSINESS - There was no old business before the Board this evening. PLANNING DISCUSSION – • LED Price Signs – Gas Stations This discussion item was carried to the next meeting of March 6, 2012 CORRESPONDENCE – There was no correspondence to discuss this evening. Planning Board February 7, 2012 Since there was no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Tombalakian made a motion to adjourn the regular meeting at 10:50 P.M.; seconded by Mr. Johnson. A voice vote of “aye” was heard by all members present and carried. Respectfully submitted, Frances Boardman Board Secretary