TOWNSHIP OF MONROE ZONING BOARD COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

Transcription

1 TOWNSHIP OF MONROE ZONING BOARD COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING July 31, 2012 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairwoman Carol Damiani who led the Salute to the Flag. Chairwoman Damiani read the Sunshine Law as follows: In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, it is hereby announced and shall be entered into the minutes of the meeting that adequate notice of the meeting has been provided by the following: Posted on the bulletin board of the Office of the Township Clerk, Municipal Complex and remains on file at that location; Communicated to the Home News and Tribune on January 6, 2012 and the Cranbury Press on January 6, 2012; filed on January 6, 2012 with the Deputy Municipal Clerk at the Monroe Township Offices and remains on file for public inspections, and sent to those individuals who have requested personal notice. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vincent LaFata, Dhaval Patel, Marino Lupo, Mark Klein, Joseph Gurney, Betty Schneider, Len Zivin, Henry Sloan, Stanley Teller, and Chairwoman Carol Damiani. Also present for the board were Mark Rasimowicz Engineer, Patrick Bradshaw Attorney, and Mark Remsa Planner. Damiani: Betty Schneider will be a full voting member. A motion to approve the June minutes is made by Mr. Klein, seconded by Mr. Zivin and approved by all board members present. BA Carried to next month s meeting PAULO & FERNANDO MATOS BA THE VERDE GROUP, LLC Represented by Bob Smith. The application before you is a mixed use project; we have been here before for the use variance. We are here for the preliminary site plan approval. We had proposed a mixed use of commercial, residential, and open space. Just to refresh your memory, we were proposing the concept of a day care center of 11,000 sq. ft., a village commercial mixed use of 41,915 sq. ft., but tonight we are asking for 33,500 sq. ft... We asked for permission to do a bank with drive thru for 3500 sq. ft., a gas station with a convenience store for 5,496 sq. ft. and a fast food restaurant with a drive thru for 3910 sq. ft... All those uses remain the same and the same size. Residentially we were asking for 153 housing units, including inclusionary COAH housing, and as part of this application you may remember that the Verdi Group will be donating to the town acres for open space along the Millstone River. My client and his professionals have met with the towns professionals to accommodate the needs of the neighbor s as well as any concerns that the professionals have. In June we had a final review by the Monroe Township Environmental Commission for site plan review. As a result of that meeting, the Monroe Township Environmental Commission issued a letter which was read into the record and is exhibit A-25. I would also mention that we are seeking 4 bulk variances with regard to loading areas, buffer width, parking, and free standing signs. As we go through the application we will describe those requests and why they are appropriate. 1

2 Mark Lescavage is sworn in and accepted as an expert witness in the field of engineering. I am the site engineer on this project. Referring to exhibit A-26, which is the site location map as a reminder. You see the area to be developed, the area to be dedicated as open space. The area to the left of Applegarth Rd. will be referred to as the west tract, and that consists of 3 lots; block 4 lots 10, 11.1, and The leg of the red area to the east of Applegarth Rd. is block 6 lot 37 and we will refer to that as the east tract. To the southeast on the red portion is block 5 lot 15.1, and that area is going to be developed as a storm water management area. Those are the properties involved in the application. The total area of the property is 38.6 acres which is including the acres of open space. It is wholly in the HD district of the township. What we have is a commercial portion of the project which is the southern end of the west tract. There are 5 buildings proposed at that location; specifically starting at the southwest corner fast food restaurant and drive thru. At the southeast corner we have the convenience store and gas station of the project. Heading to the north we have a bank with a drive thru, moving further north we have a day care center. Moving to the west, the building shaped as an L that is our village commercial building which is 33,500 sq. ft. What you see to the north of this tract is the residential portion of the project. There are 80 townhomes and just south of the townhomes between the L building and the last southern end of townhouses is an apartment building which we are currently proposing 31 COAH units. Smith: so in summary we have a total commercial floor area of 57,406 sq. ft. which is a reduction from what we originally proposed. We have a total of 153 residential units. Lescavage: that is correct. There is on the east tract, 47 townhouses so all together 153. What has changed since the use variance approval is; we rotated the fast food restaurant to the east 90 degrees. At the time of the use variance there was a concern of the proximity to the western property. At that time we proposed 77 feet off set in the side yard. We increased that to 107 feet in our initial submission of the preliminary site plan. Also at that time we shifted the northern entrance of the project onto Applegarth Rd., further south roughly 30 feet and this was to gain better site distance along Applegarth Rd. Those 2 changes were made; we then submitted new plans and went through the technical review committee process where we received input. We made further changes based on that input, specifically with concern to the side yards of the townhouse areas. In certain areas we had less then 5 feet from the side of the town house to a travelled way and our solution to that was to reduce the boulevard which were initially was 56 feet in width and had an 8 foot median. We reduced that to 48 feet in width with an 8 foot median and we put a 12 foot lane in each direction which is sufficient for the traffic and an 8 foot shoulder/bike lane to add to the transit oriented portion of the project. This allowed for less impervious coverage and it also increased the separation of the townhomes from the parking drive to a minimum of 8 feet. We also added some parallel parking to the east tract along the looped portion of the project which is at the south end. This was to alleviate the concern of parking issues blocking the road for a potential fire lane. We also added an emergency access to the east tract from Bentley Rd., strictly to be used for emergency vehicles. We were able to utilize the existing driveway that services the residence that is currently on the property so we have a minimal amount of disturbance in that area but it will allow an emergency vehicle to get in and out. The flex building was reduced from 41,915 sq. ft. to 33,500 sq. ft. and this was to accommodate some additional parking that we felt we needed. The apartment building was previously a 26 unit building with 16 COAH and 10 market rate units; we are now indicating that as a 31 unit building to satisfy the inclusionary requirements of COAH. The most significant feature that we added is regarding the storm water was the 3 wet ponds that were indicated in the environmental commission letter. We added those ponds; one to the southwest of the western tract, 1 large L pond at the southeast end of the west tract, and also the offsite pond which is across the street in block 5 lot We added that both because the soils in the area can accommodate the 2

3 wet pond and the amount of tributary area that we have, but also to put into play the rainfall harvesting of the project which is to be used as an irrigation system for the landscaping on the project. So it is an excellent re-use and capture of the storm water on the property. The other change was the cul-de-sac at the northeast corner of the townhouse being replaced with a hammerhead. Zivin: around these wet ponds, are proposing and fencing or grading, especially around the McDonalds? Lescavage: It is discussed in the engineer s report and it is something that we would agree to. Gurney: Is there something there about a bus pick up station, a bus into New York? Lescavage: yes, there are 2 bus shelters proposed on the project. One on the west tract to the north of the entrance road and one to the south of the eastern tract entrance. Both of those have sidewalk and crosswalks. Gurney: where are the cars going to park for people that are on the bus? Lescavage: it is really for the residents of the project, there is no lot for it. Smith: There are 2 park and rides in close proximity to this for township residents. Klein: the entrance into the center from route 33, are you going to be able to get from the State approval for a right turn lane where the break down lane is. Up the road a ways, we have a problem with Renaissance where if they went into the breakdown lane they got a ticket. If you go to slow down to enter into Renaissance you can get hit in the rear. To avoid that I m asking if you can get prior approval to have that right turn lane put in. Lescavage: we do have a traffic engineer who will testify. Smith: can you discuss the professional s reports? Can we comply with the recommendations in those reports? Lescavage: I think we can. I need to clarify a few sections. With regard to the Planner s report; the variances requested are for loading areas for the fast food restaurant, the bank, and the daycare. The indication is that these uses will only have 2 deliveries per week with very short intervals and so would not need an area dedicated and would ask for relief. The Quick Check has a loading area in the rear of the building. It is 12X80 which is compliant with the ordinance. In terms of the village commercial building, because we don t know the tenancy of that building yet, there may be a need for a dedicated loading area but at this point in time we would defer that to final. With regard to the free standing signs; there are 3 variances associated with the signs that we are asking for. One is the number of free standing signs, 1 is allowed for the project and we are proposing 4. The sign area, which is 50 sq. ft. plus 10 feet more for each use on the property so I think we have a minimum of 6 uses which would allow 100 sq. ft. so we are proposing 411 sq. ft. so that would be a variance. Also the setback; I think the ordinance calls for 75 feet which seems excessive, but we are proposing 5 feet for 3 of the signs and 3 feet for the 1 sign on Route 33. We think it is appropriate because of the amount of frontage on Route 33 we have 700 feet. To have only 1 free standing sign we think is not appropriate given the frontage. On Applegarth Rd. we have 1200 feet along that area. Also, because this is a mixed use project, we feel that we need a sign on each side of the residential to indicate where those 2 specific uses are and we 3

4 feel that along Route 33 obviously we need a sign and also another sign indicating where the commercial is along Applegarth Rd. These signs would also accomplish a more safe circulation through the site. We are also seeking relief for buffer width; it is the same width since we started the project. We feel that it is appropriate, what we are providing because of the amount of plantings that we are putting in. We are putting in berming on the north and central end of the Applegarth Rd. area. As you have seen from the Environmental Commission Report, they feel that we did a good job in meeting the intent of the 100 foot requirement. We have an average of 73 feet. Smith: we are also requesting some design exceptions, would you address them please? Lescavage: the maximum driveway width is indicated at 35; we have somewhere around 90 feet on Applegarth Rd. and 150 feet on Route 33. It sounds like a lot but all of the driveways are bifurcated in that they have a 1 right in and a right out 2 different areas going in and out. Also, these are under the jurisdiction of Middlesex County for Applegarth Rd. and NJDOT for the Route 33 entrance so we must comply with the highway access management code. We feel that they comply with the code. With regard to the landscape islands; I believe it was indicated as 6 feet. We do have several islands that are 4 feet minimum. We feel that it is appropriate at the locations that we are proposing them. There are no sidewalks along those islands or anticipated foot traffic in those areas. We feel that the bulk of the comments on the site plan we can accommodate, with regard to the Planner s report, with revised plans in moving ahead for final. There were 3 items that I wanted to discuss; specifically item 8D on page 5 with regard to the restrictive left from the McDonald s exit drive. I am going to defer that to our Traffic Engineer. Under item 9C and D on page 6 with regard to providing a 15 foot setback for the 31 unit affordable housing building in the front area to accommodate some plantings. Because we don t have architectural plans for that building we would like to defer that comment to final. We are not sure that 15 feet can be accommodated but we can certainly do better that I believe 5 ½ feet proposed. The reason why there may be an issue getting the 15 feet is that if you look at the plan, the last row of townhouses just to the north of it I believe is between 25 and 29 feet back to back. If we were to add another 10 feet separation that would really reduce the separation between those buildings. We would defer that to final. Regarding the berming with the buffer on Route 33 and Applegarth Rd.; we did provide a berm where possible along Applegarth Rd. The exception is the areas where we have the wet pond, which because of the constraint where the pond is and the property lines; we could not do the berming. However, we think that in the case that the wet ponds are a feature of the project and we did adequately landscape around it, we feel that we meet the intent of providing berming. Smith: those are the only concerns in Mr. Remsa s report? Lescavage: correct. Smith: let s go to Mr. Rasimowicz s report. Lescavage: We can comply with most of it but there are a couple of clarifications. With regard to item 8D; specifically improvements to Bentley Rd... Mr. Rasimowicz asked for widening and curb and sidewalk along that area. In our plans we show just curbing to the street and no widening. This was done after some concerns of the residents of Bentley Rd. who did not want to invite traffic along that road. We are not opposed to that other than the fact that we were trying to accommodate the residents. We would ask that we don t do the improvements but we are at the Board s pleasure. Item 8H will be deferred to our traffic engineer. Item 8N; it is excel and deceleration lanes and we will provide as long as we can get it approved through NJDOT. Item 8R regarded a requirement for a certain 4

5 amount of landscaping within parking areas that have more than 20 vehicles. We feel that given the way the project is designed, several of the uses have parking around the building because of the nature of how they function and that the opportunity to provide sufficient landscape isles to get the 10% really isn t available for most of the project, with the exception of the village commercial building which you do see that there are those islands associated with that building. However, given the fact that the overall project is 41% impervious coverage where 60% is allowed and the layout we feel is adequate, we would ask for a design exception for that requirement. Item IX is dedication that the interior pond slopes need to be 4 to 1 as opposed to 3 to 1 proposed. We feel that it is adequate given that the best management practices for wet ponds allows 3 to 1. We feel this is adequate and we are putting fencing around it. Rasimowicz: the board is in receipt of my review letter; I have no objection to the relief requested. Bentley Rd., as far as the improvements there I agree not to do those roadway improvements with the exception of the obvious radius at the corner and the curb transition to the existing road. With regard to road improvements along the dedicated property that is near the bridge, I would agree that in that case that the road improvements not be installed there as well. It is land dedicated to the Township. As the applicant indicated it is adjacent to the County Bridge and I know some time in the future the county will be doing improvements out there on that bridge and the area of the dedicated land. As far as the remainder of the property along the retail area and the townhome area; full frontage improvements will be provided? Lescavage: yes Rasimowicz: I have no objections to the waivers; you have put the arguments on the record. With regard to the emergency access on Bentley Rd., for the surface I prefer the top soil over the stone pad. It is less inviting for someone to try to drive in. Again, we will defer that to the fire district for their comment. I do not have an objection to the 3 to 1 slope in the basin. The village retail sq. ft. has decreased from 41, 000 to 33,000 but the footprint hasn t changed. Can you clarify on that? Lescavage: the footprint is 21,915 sq. ft. and initially the 2 nd floor was almost as large. That has been reduced to get to the new reduced number. Rasimowicz: garbage collection for the apartment building, the townhomes and day care? Lescavage: the day care center I would defer to final when we can talk to the actual user as to whether it is required and if it is we will provide. The townhomes we plan on curbside pick up. The apartment building we will also defer to final. Rasimowicz: hours of operation for this site? Lescavage: I don t think we have a restriction at this point, so it could be 24 hours. Rasimowicz: okay. I believe the applicant has agreed to all the remaining comments in my review letter, other than the items being addressed by the traffic engineer. Remsa: there are 2 check list waiver items that need to be addressed: they are minor in nature and I think they can both be provided as a condition if you so choose to approve this site plan. One is a 5

6 requirement for providing the location of the structures and uses within 200 feet of the site. Do you agree to provide that as a condition of approval? Lescavage: yes Remsa: the other item is the tree removal plan; they have provided an extensive landscape plan so that would substitute for the replacement plan but the tree removal plan would normally be required at this point. That can also be something that you provide as a condition. Lescavage: yes Remsa: moving on to the affordable housing units; I m glad to hear that the applicant is providing the 31 units, because that will help Monroe Township address its affordable housing obligation. I also want to stress that that number may be reduced if in fact the new state requirements provide for a bonus for rental units. We don t know right now. In terms of the variances; I am also glad to hear they are going to be looking at the loading for the large L shaped building and deferring it to final. I am fine with that. Also, I would agree with the applicant that the loading is really not necessary for the other uses; the bank, the child care center. They are providing for the Quick Check and the McDonalds has its own unique operation. In terms of signage; the HD zone sign requirements are really for the large scale industrial that is why it is 75 feet back. It doesn t really contemplate this kind of development. The Master Plan does for the overlay that is recommended and the pending ordinance that will be in affect relatively soon. So the signs that they are proposing, and it is monument signage, will be in keeping with the intent with light that shines onto the sign. The design exceptions have been addressed. Other items will be address by the traffic expert. With regard to the site engineering, I think we have covered it from a planning perspective. Patel: Mr. Rasimowicz, regarding the basin slope is it the municipal ordinance that is not to exceed 4 to 1? Rasimowicz: municipal ordinance is 4 to 1; the residential site improvement standard is 3 to 1. What we look at is from a stand point of maintenance. Maintenance on a 3 to 1 slope is a little tough but they have wet ponds so there is no grass cutting inside the fence area. Patel: thank you. Regarding the loading for the McDonalds, you are saying that they are only getting deliveries twice a week? Lescavage: yes Patel: is the Verde Group going to own it or do you have a franchisee coming in? Lescavage: it is Corporate owned. Patel: do you have it in writing that they only have deliveries twice a week? Lescavage: no that is only talking with the representatives from McDonalds. Patel: so it could increase to more than twice a week if necessary? 6

7 Lescavage: I think they have a pretty good handle as to when the deliveries come and for this size store this is what their normal delivery is. Patel: where will the truck stop to make its delivery I mean the rear entrance would be where they are entering. Lescavage: what they typically do, they would come around where the drive thru is, they would go around the bypass and they would stop just south of where the drive thru would be. They would make their delivery and they would come back. For the amount of time, 20 minutes twice a week, we feel it is appropriate. Patel: so you have enough space there for the drive thru lane as well as the pass by lane for any cars and trucks stopped there? Lescavage: that is correct. Patel: thank you Gurney: Does the Verdi Group have firm commitments yet from the McDonalds, the Quick Check and the Bank? Smith: depending on how the board would like it, I have talked to the principal of the Verdi Group who says, Yes we do. If you would like him sworn in he can give testimony under oath. Todd Oschner is sworn in as the owner and applicant. We have corporate guarantees from McDonalds as well as Quick Check. They will both be corporate owned stores. John Rea is sworn in and accepted as an expert witness in the field of Traffic Engineering. A traffic study has been prepared and submitted to the board dated May 30, As Mr. Lescavage indicated the 2 roads on which we have frontage; Route 33 and Applegarth Rd. are under the jurisdiction of the NJDOT and Middlesex County respectively. The way the access system has been set up I think is very sound and logical and will provide safe and efficient traffic flow. We have a right in, right out driveway from and to the west bound lanes of Route 33 at the approximate mid- point of the property and lining up with the boulevard that serves as access to the various uses. We have 2 driveways on Applegarth Rd... One is a driveway located approximately at the mid-point of the Applegarth Rd. frontage. That driveway will permit right turns in, right turns out, and left turns in only. Left turns out of that driveway will be prohibited. The remaining Applegarth Rd. driveway is a flow way intersection connecting the 2 townhouse projects at the north end of the site. We are anticipating signalizing that intersection of course the signal will have to be approved by Middlesex County, but it is our intention to provide it at that intersection not only to serve the townhouses, but to serve traffic generated from the mixed use development project that wants to return to the north on Applegarth Rd. We are limiting left turns at the mid-point driveway so we want to bring all of the traffic up to the north access where we are going to signalize the driveway. As far as the parking is concerned; I do believe it is well distributed throughout the site. As Mr. Lescavage indicated before we have a Quick Check located in the lower right hand corner of the site. Adequate parking has been provided around that store. The bank just to the north will have adequate parking around its operation itself. The Daycare operation will have 40 parking spaces to serve its operation and in my experience of a daycare center this size they will require parking spaces. We are providing 40 which will be adequate based on my experience. The McDonalds 7

8 will also have its own self contained parking area and a drive thru window that will function acceptably for their anticipated peak parking usage. The only area that is in question that I had to do a little bit more work on and provide some information to Mr. Remsa and Mr. Rasimowicz, is the area where there will be shared parking between the apartment building and the L shaped retail building which will have retail on the 1 st floor and office on the 2 nd floor. There are 3 different uses in this area. What I needed to do in this area where there are 184 parking spaces, I needed to do a shared parking analysis using the methodology that the Urban Land Institute lays out. Essentially what happens is you go through an hour by hour parking accumulation analysis for both a week day and weekend day, particularly a Saturday. You prepare a matrix of how much parking each one of the 3 different uses generates during each peak hour and then you sum it up and see what your total parking demand is anticipated to be. I will tell you that I did a very conservative analysis, using conservative parking ratios for the 3 different uses. Again, in the area that we are talking about there are 184 spaces that need to be adequate for those 3 uses and in going through the study I came up with the following numbers. The peak parking accumulation on a week day will occur at approximately 2pm with a total of 163 cars parked in that area. The peak parking accumulation on a weekend occurs at 2pm and 3pm with a total of 151 cars anticipated. So based on the shared parking study I am very confident that the 184 spaces that have been provided will be more than adequate. As far as they DOT process is concerned; Mr. Klein asked about the acceleration and deceleration lanes, we will be applying to the DOT for those lanes, but ultimately the decision is up to the DOT. I have a feeling we have a pretty good chance of getting those lanes because there is already a 12 foot shoulder along the west bound travel lanes of Route 33 and normally the DOT only requires 13 feet so we are probably going to have to widen the shoulder by another foot, maybe a little more to meet the DOT s standards. We will apply though. As far as the curb cuts and access points to Applegarth Rd. are concerned; they are under the jurisdiction of the County. My expectation is they will have their engineer s at the planning board review our plans. They will meet with us and we will accommodate and take care of any comments they may have but based on the location of the curb cuts and the general geometry that has been provided on Mr. Lescavage s plan, I don t see any reason why we can t obtain Middlesex County approval for the location of those curb cuts. As far as the width of the curb cuts is concerned; I think we require some waivers or variances I m not sure which. Again, the Route 33 access has been designed in accordance with the DOT criteria. It s going to require a curb line opening wider than 35 feet in order to get the separate right turn in and right turn out movements to be made safely and efficiently. Trucks will be using that entrance, so the plans as they have been prepared right now I think they are pretty close to what the DOT is going to accept. There may be some minor modifications the DOT always likes to take a red pen and mark the plans up. I expect that it will happen but it will be minimal changes and you are going to see the curb cut approved in the general location where it is and with the general geometry that has been provided on the plans. As far as the townhouses are concerned; adequate parking has been provided for both the east tract and the west tract in accordance with the residential site improvements standards. We have checked and double checked and we meet the requirement. With regard to the Applegarth Rd. intersection with Route 33; on our plans you will see there is a widening along the entire Applegarth Rd. section on the west side of the road where we have property frontage and along the east side when you have townhouses and it is my expectation that DOT will welcome the addition of a separate dedicated right turn lane which we will be providing at that intersection. Right now you have a 2 lane approach to the intersection, we are going to widen that out to a 3 lane approach. We are going to divert the existing curb lane, which is for a combination of through movements and right turn movements. We are going to turn that into a separate through lane and a separate right turn lane and that should help alleviate some of the congestion at the intersection. That basically summarizes it all. 8

9 Smith: In Mr. Rasimowicz s letter (item 8DD) and in Mr. Remsa s letter (about the parking variance) were both comments deferred to the traffic engineer. You have done an extensive analysis, is it your professional opinion that this site has more than enough parking spaces for the uses proposed? Rea: absolutely, yes I do. Smith: In Mr. Rasimowicz s review letter (item 8H), regarding the entrance to the townhouses. Rea: the short boulevard entrance that Mr. Lescavage has provided there is not in response to try to comply with RSIS or any kind of a traffic issue. It is more of an aesthetic issue that we felt it would look a little bit nicer if we mirrored the boulevard on the left side with something on the right side that gave it a little more of a grander entrance. The look that we have here is called the multi-family access cul-desac in the residential site improvements standards. They permit up to 1,000 daily peak hour trips on a multi-family access cul-de-sac just for the single point of access. That is what is permitted without providing a divided boulevard. We have 47 townhouses in this area and they each generate 6 trips per day based on the RSIS, so if you do the quick math it is a little bit less than 300 total trips per day which is well below the threshold that is permitted from the RSIS for a single point of access for a multi-family access cul-de-sac. We believe that there is no traffic reason to extend the boulevard into the 1 st access point. There is no reason we have to do that in order to comply with the RSIS. Again, the boulevard was put in for aesthetic reasons thinking it would be better visual entrance to that community of 47 homes. Having said all of that, I think we can sit down with Mr. Rasimowicz and work something out with him and hopefully satisfy him. We might be able to extend the existing boulevard a little bit further. Smith: and you would have it worked out by the time of final? Rea: yes Smith: the last item that I have is from Mr. Remsa s report (item 8D) regarding the southern driveway. He recommends closing the median in the main road to require right turns only. The McDonalds has a 2 nd driveway further north from the aforementioned driveway. The 2 nd driveway provides left and right turns in a safer location. Signage advising drivers entering the southern driveway from the site that they have the choice of exiting onto Route 33 or taking the other driveway access to other parts of the development. Rea: Mark has some good points, as always in discussing this driveway. It is relatively close to the Route 33 access and we have taken a good hard look at that in order to see what we can do in order to eliminate most of these potential conflicts. What we have decided to do here, and it doesn t show exactly on this exhibit, is instead of making the entrance at the Quick Check a two way entrance with entry and exit movements is to eliminate the exit movement and made it an entrance only coming into the Quick Check from Route 33. You will have to exit at one of the other access points. I agree that there are some concerns in this area and one of the ways we thought to address it to eliminate that exit movement at the Quick Check. The McDonalds at the other side of the island, I don t see why we can t permit an exit only and we will sign it, double sign it. There will be pavement markings indicating a one way, but we feel the exit from the McDonalds at that location is appropriate and safe. I think that cleans the area up from a safety perspective and it will work acceptably. Smith: and by the way, I believe the plans have been changed to reflect that. 9

10 Remsa: so you have eliminated 2 movements in that area to ensure the safety? That was my concern, too much going on so this is better. Zivin: when you did you r calculations of the parking for 184 area, what stores did you use in that shopping area because depending upon what stores are there will determine how many parking spaces are required. Rea: correct we used, according to the Urban Land Institute, the general retail rates. What I can tell you is that for the weekday, the Urban Land Institute recommends a maximum parking ratio of 3.8 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. for general retail space which would include some restaurant space. We used for 4 for the weekday. For the Saturday peak hour, the Urban Land Institute recommends using a peak parking ratio of 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. and we used 5. If anything, we are on the safe side. Gurney: since the patrons and trucks who want to go out have to go left onto Applegarth, they have to drive through the housing area. I have a concern about safety in having trucks and cars going through the housing area. Rea: well, the only way to make a left turn to go back north on Applegarth is that last intersection which is going to have that traffic signal. Left turns are going to be prohibited other than that. It is a small part of the housing area; it is mostly the commercial area before they get just too where the traffic signals will be. Smith: the thought was that with the boulevard you were eliminating much of the concern that you would have with just a small 2 lane roadway. Rea: yes certainly, there is a 12 foot travel lane and an 8 foot shoulder/bike lane so it is easily wide enough to accommodate that traffic. I think that at the end of the day it will be mostly passenger vehicles, people who live north of the site that are going back up Applegarth Rd. There may be some delivery trucks that use that that are going back to the north. It can accommodate some limited level of that activity. I still think most of the truck traffic, for the McDonalds and Quick Check is going to come on and off Route 33. Klein: when you calculated the parking where the townhouses are, did you leave room for visitors? Rea: yes Klein: what did you guesstimate as far as that? Rea: well the RSIS requires in your parking calculation that in addition to the driveway and garage combinations you have to have 0.5 on street parking spaces for every unit and we have provided that for both sections. Klein: the part that I don t understand is that when they want to leave Quick Check, according to this they would have to go around, out the back and then take that up to the boulevard to make a left. Rea: yes, from here (looking at the traffic circulation slide)if they wanted to go back to Route 33 they could make the left and come do that, or they would go up to Applegarth if they wanted to go north. Or if they wanted to go back to the east on 33 they would come out and use this driveway. 10

11 Damiani: the gas stations, is there going to be diesel trucks that go in? Rea: not the high speed diesel trucks, we have diesel for diesel pickup trucks and such it is a slow speed pump. The large over the road trucks will not come in here; it would take them 45 min to an hour to get filled up. They will go to the high speed pumps. Rasimowicz: with regard to the shared parking, you took into consideration the apartments? Rea: yes Rasimowicz: with regard to the McDonalds, Quick Check, and the bank I am not seeing them listed on the trip generation? Rea: yes, and the reason is if you go to page 2 on the study; what we do in accordance with the DOT s methodology, is take all of the retail area, including the ground floor of the village building, the bank, Quick Check, and McDonalds you sum all of the square footage up and use the shopping center rate. That is the mandatory way according to the NJDOT. Rasimowicz: thank you for clarifying. Remsa: with regard to the diesel trucks, is it possible to put a sign up there that says no trucks? Rea: yes PUBLIC: Phil Levy 92 Kings Mill Rd. (Not completely audible holding the microphone to close) What is the builder s objection to extending the island to prevent the left turn into McDonalds from Route 33? I have witnessed where there are no left turn signs that people make the left hand turn. It is a dangerous situation because the entrance is only one way. The other question has to do with the northern boulevard entrance (inaudible). Concern about the fire trucks entering. Rea: it is not the developer objecting to extending the island in here. The island has been extended from what was originally proposed and now it comes in pretty deep into the site to the location of the 2 curb cuts. We understand the concern and I can only tell you that the way we have configured this with the entrance and the exit on from the McDonalds I have no doubt that it is proper, it is safe, it will function. There is no impediment to sight distance in that area. We think it effectively distributes the traffic for all those uses in a proper and safe manner and there won t be any issue with it. Leonard Gross 225 Valencia Dr. It is nice to hear you are going to get an acceleration/deceleration lane. We are still waiting for 2 years for ours. Regarding traffic; you are improving half of the intersection. The traffic that goes east on Rt. 33 that will make jug handle to get into this development, there are already issues at that intersection. Will anything be done on that side of the road? Rea: yes but by another applicant. There is an approval for a shopping center on the southwest corner of Applegarth Rd. and Route 33. They will be doing the improvements on the south side of the intersection; we will be doing them on the north. There will be a mirror image of the improvements. 11

12 Gross: regarding the 20 acres on the other side. I know that there is a proposal for an art center/community gardens. Is the Township prepared to go along with that or is that just a wish that Mr. Oschner has laid out on the table? Remsa: like any application that has dedicating open space it always is subject to the approval from the receiving end, in this case the Township Council. Gross: so the town has no decision on what it is going to do with the property it could be left fallow? Remsa: it does not get decided here so it is another process. Esther Gregory: I believe there are no age restrictions for the townhomes or the apartment building that is there? That is 80 townhomes and 31 units for the apartment building. My concern is that they are zoned for Oak Tree and Applegarth School and we are pretty much at capacity so how are we going to handle that. Secondly, the town should require sidewalks throughout the township and they are asking developers to add sidewalks in which I appreciate. The biggest concern is what the speed limit is on Applegarth Rd. for the 2 bus stops that they are proposing as well. Rea: they are not going to be school bus stops. The shelters that are going to be provided are for transit busses so that if anybody from the townhouse wants to take the transit bus they will have a bus and a stop. Lillian Augustine 113 Rossini. The issue of the traffic concerns with Butcher Rd. and the jug handle; we were told previously and I don t know if it was Planning board meeting or not; that when we attended meetings because of the shopping centers coming in we were told that the township would insist that before anything was done that the jug handle would be addressed no matter what side of the road construction was going to be developed on. I believe that is what we were told. I am asking this panel of zoning board people who approve variances, who probably had to give a variance for Monroe to be built, to consider that fact that you have residents there. When you are building on this side, and those trucks have to come down, there is no way that those people will be able to get the trucks down and around that side of the road. I m begging you to please consider that we have 4 entrances and exits before we get down to the jug handle turn. It will be horrendous for us! Please put some pressure on to have that section of the highway corrected before these people are allowed to make the improvements that you want to see on the other side of the road. Rasimowicz: the applicant across the street who is required to do those improvements actually has an application back before the planning board seeking an amended preliminary and final. That has been submitted and should be agendized I would assume within the next month or two. An approval of that moves that improvements along on the jug handle. Smith: It is my understanding that they have already received their NJDOT access permit which means that they have already taken that big step and are further ahead than we are. Joe Masoni we are the neighbors directly on the southwest corner of the project. We are a 2 story professional building. Regarding the border property line between our 2 properties; the plan looks like it has significant landscape but I want to make sure the width and height of the berms including the plantings are going to be adequate screening for our needs. Number 2, we think we should have a fence along that property line for numerous reasons. One, we think that it will be a deterrent for people 12

13 walking on our property. Two, we have a concern that there may be some kids hanging out and we are the property right next store. There could be garbage blowing. We think we need a significant barrier there. The other question I have; there is a large existing tree line along that property line which is mature and beautiful trees. We want to make sure those trees are going to remain. Lescavage: we do not have a fence proposed; we are at the board s pleasure for that. Masoni: I understand the town wants to keep everything open and green so I could recommend possibly one of those aluminum fences which blend into the landscaping and it keeps the beauty and deterrent. Oschner: we met with these neighbors twice. The original plan had a much less intense planting area adjacent to their property line. They also had concerns in the beginning about the location of the McDonald s and we took care of that. They also had some concerns with some of the sidewalks and drainages area, etc. What we tried to do in lieu of putting a fence in is supplemental plant the existing tree line that is there. They have a large deciduous tree line that works very well from about 20 feet up, so we added evergreens and additional deciduous trees. We would not be adverse to putting a fence in. We would put it directly on their property line, but right now I believe the intent that we put in landscaping wise would be a better asset as opposed to the fence. We would be willing to put the fence in and remove some of the landscaping or whatever combination the town planner would address as a condition of final. We would recommend that the fence not go in the buffer area which is the 60 foot section from route 33 back and it would be a fence that would be low maintenance and aesthetically pleasing. We would only run it to the back side of their property line. Masoni: we did meet with Mr. Oschner and I want to say that he has met with us and has been agreeable and has made significant changes to this plan which definitely helps us and I wanted to make sure I acknowledged that. Regarding the acceleration/deceleration lane; how far down does that extend? Rea: the DOT will only permit us to construct the widening along our property frontage so it would extend to the property line. Masoni: behind the McDonalds there are 6 or 7 parking spots that was, as of the last meeting, going to be employee parking spots. Is that still the intention? Lescavage: yes it is Masoni: signage; will there be golden arches or large signs going up? Remsa: there are going to be monument signs, the low signs. Masoni: okay great, thank you Bonnie Lacina 46 Bentley Rd. Concerned with the traffic backing up during rush hour past Bentley Rd. from Applegarth Rd. If you will be allowing left turns out concerned it will cause more of a back up. Rea: I understand what you are saying. It is basically something that happens every day from about 4:30 to 6:30 pm. It is related to a lot of commuter traffic getting off the turnpike at exit 8A, they are probably not Monroe people. They live in western Monmouth/northern Ocean counties and they are getting off 13

14 at exit 8A because that is where the car and truck lanes end. During the rest of the week it is not an issue. The bottom line is; one of the 1 st sketches and concepts we had was an exit coming out directly opposite Bentley Rd. We went to extreme trouble and a lot of extra work to make sure that we didn t line up an access with Bentley Rd. because we heard the concerns of the people who live there. Because left turns are going to be restricted to certain driveways, we are doing everything we can to prevent our people from using Bentley Rd. to get back out to route 33. The other thing I will say is that the DOT believes that when the turnpike improvements are done a lot of the people getting off at 8A will continue down to exit 8 or 7a to Route 33 or 195. We are doing everything we can to minimize our impacts. Rasimowicz: it is a dedicated left turn off of Applegarth Rd. so they would be able to bypass that. Esther Gregory: is there another phase to this? Lescavage: it is being left at this point to maybe extend at some point in the future. Gregory: for the residences, what would be the bedroom sizes? Lescavage: all of the townhomes are 3 bedrooms; the apartment building is up in the air. It will be a mix of 1, 2 and 3 but we don t know the mix yet. Gregory: okay, just concerned with how many kids we are bringing to the area. Steve Banom 165 Applegarth Rd. Concerned with traffic that happens in the morning not only in the afternoon. When I leave for work I am stuck at the traffic light for a long period of time. I understand that you are dedicating a left hand turn, straight lane, and right turn lane which will greatly alleviate the traffic that we have in the morning and rush hour in the afternoon. But now you have 120 townhomes and at least 2 cars per household. I m not sure how widening the road is going to help the traffic situation at all when you are adding 250 plus cars coming in and out of the development not to mention the commercial area. Would you like to comment? Rea: with regard to the townhomes, there might be 2 cars per unit but the reason why it works is because those people don t all leave for work in the morning at exactly the same time. This has been proven by studies done by the ITE, and the DOT accepts these studies. The people that leave for work in the morning do not all leave at the same peak hour. I can assure you that the peak hour of traffic that I have modeled in my traffic study has been reviewed not only by the board s professionals but it will be reviewed by the DOT professionals and the Middlesex County professionals. There is no way that I could make something up here that they won t accept. This is all accepted data that is published and accepted by all those agencies. That is all I can really tell you. I know it sounds like a lot to you but to a traffic engineer the reason that a mixed use project like this works is because of the off peak hour traffic generation from the mixed uses. Banom: disagrees. Questions the traffic light and the distance from route 33. Questions the left hand turn lanes and going through the residential area. Rea: One of the reasons this type of mixed use works on a highway such as Route 33 and major county roadway such as Applegarth Rd. is because a lot of the traffic is pass by traffic. It is traffic already on the roadway passing the site. 14

15 Eileen Blum 135 Murano. Concerned with the traffic also. Asking the height of the rental buildings? Smith: we do not know the height yet it will depend on the Council for Affordable Housing. I am being advised that it may or may not be rentals. Glen Borsek 59 Bentley Rd. My biggest concern was trying to minimize the traffic on Bentley Rd. and Mr. Oschner and Mr. Rasimowicz worked with me on. I appreciate their efforts. I would encourage trying to restrict the flow even more. I just want to make sure that the tree lines along the north, south, and east sides of the east tracts will be staying either totally intact or significantly in tact? Lescavage: yes it is Damiani: okay, anybody else, one more Michelle Arminio I think the open public meetings act says you can t do that. I think you can t restrict comment Madam Chairwoman. Damiani: go ahead, because I need to take a break. It has to be different Arminio: no, the open public meetings act says anyone can come up and speak on whatever matter they choose. You cannot restrict comment. Bradshaw: the point is, we can say that if you are making the same comments that someone has made before you just simply say, I agree with that person and save that time and don t make the same comment again. That can be done. Arminio: I would respectfully disagree with you. Bradshaw: I can show you the case law after. Arminio: okay, that would be great. I would like to ask are their sidewalks throughout the whole development? Residential to all the commercial? Lescavage: yes Damiani: this is preliminary Arminio: does that mean they could ask for waivers for final? Lescavage: we submitted final plans and it does show sidewalks throughout the development. Arminio: so you can walk through all of the areas, okay. Remsa: there are not only sidewalks but extensive crosswalks. Esther Gregory: you mentioned before about a bridge? 15