August 7, 2013

Mr. Sutherland discussed the utility plan; he said that the NJ DEP. had approved it. He described the existing conditions; he indicated the Applicant had not contacted the utility company; but had confirmed that utilities were available to the building. Mr. Sutherland said the fire suppression system would meet code requirements. Mr. Russo said there were no hydrants in the vicinity; one was needed. Mr. Sutherland said there were two water mains on Central Avenues. Mr. Sutherland discussed the lighting plan; it would include decorative lighting on Central Avenue, Mitchell Street and the parking lot; there would also be path lighting along the parking lot. He noted the Redevelopment Plan did not have specific requirements; there would be foot-candles for the entire lot. Mr. Sullivan stated that a foot-candle analysis could be included as a condition of approval. Mr. Sutherland discussed the landscaping plan; there would be shade trees along Central Avenue and Mitchell Street; there was not too much room, but the plantings would be where there was enough green space; there would be extensive shrubs (over 1,400), and grass along the West Orange side of the channel. All plantings would be water resistant (folerable); there was a six-feet low flow channel, the idea was to make the area a natural setting; the plan did not include railings. With regard to the parking area, there was not enough room for sidewalks around the perimeter. In response to the Omland memo comment #5, Mr. Sutherland said the mean elevations were 174.75; regarding comments # 6 and #7, Mr. Sullivan said he had spoken to Mr. Glen McCarthy who advised there was an easement. Mr. Sullivan said the Applicant would be responsible; Mr. Russo asked how the City of Orange had addressed the issue; Mr. Sutherland said Orange did not raise the issue. Regarding comments #9, #10 and #11, Mr. Sutherland said there would be revisions to the parking plan but there really was no room for a pedestrian sidewalk in the parking lot. The entrance to the building would be on Central Avenue. Mr. Sutherland said the lack of a sidewalk was common in shopping centers (parking lots); it would not be an issue with the proposal. Regarding comment #12 - treatment of culvert headwalls, Mr. Sutherland said the NJ DEP did not ask for information; the Applicant would comply with the Omland recommendation on Ceniral

h the proposal. Regarding comment #12 - treatment of culvert headwalls, Mr. Sutherland said the NJ DEP did not ask for information; the Applicant would comply with the Omland recommendation on Ceniral Avenue. In response to Omland memo comments #13 and #14, Mr. Sutherland said that Central Avenue was a wide street. The plan was to make a traffic common area for someone to get picked-up or dropped-off; creating easy egress and eastbound entry in to traffic on Central Avenue. In response to question from Mr. Russo, Mr. Sutherland indicated that Central Avenue was a county road and the plan would need county approval. In response to Omland memo comment #15, the retaining walls would be of textured concrete. In response to comment #34, Mr. Sutherland said that the Applicant had considered pedestrian safety along the stream; it was up to the Board to determine if a railing was needed for the three-hundred feet area barrier. The plan was for public access along the stream; benches and trash containers would be installed along the stream walkway. Mr. Sutherland said the Applicant agreed to comply with comments #36 and #37. Referring to Mr. Grygiel’s Planner’s Report dated July 26, 2013 regarding parking, Mr. Sullivan said the plan was a little vague but he believed the Applicant honored the plan by creating additional parking spaces in the Deco garage. WNAPLANNING. BRD\WPMINUTES\204 3\8-7-13 Minutes.doc 7