March 5, 2014

would be a maintenance issue. Mr. Poskanzer said he agreed; he indicated the railings would probably be aluminum when installed. Mr. Wilkes asked how trucks would be making deliveries to the site. Mr. Poskanzer described the delivery plan indicating truck ingress and egress. Mr. Eben said the dumpster should be located directly in the back of the property; he opined that enclosed dumpsters were not maintainable. He said the back part of the three parking spaces in the front of the property were over the property line; he would like to see all three spaces eliminated in the front and have more landscaping. He asked for greater detail regarding the rear lawn area. Mr. Poskanzer said he agreed about the location of the dumpster. Regarding the three parking spaces, he said the reality of not having them in the front would be an issue for the Dunkin Donuts; he said there was a functional aspect of leaving the existing spaces for the ease of the Dunkin Donuts customers. Mr. Poskanzer confirmed the rear area was lawn. Mr. Eben said he would like to see some bushes or trees; it would be hard to maintain just lawn. He was also concerned about the lack of an interior floor plan; would there be a core toilet area or would each tenant have a restroom; and was there the possibility of a corridor for access to tenant space. Mr. Poskanzer said each tenant would have a separate restroom; a corridor was not planned; each tenant would have their own entrances; however, there was the possibility that two tenants might share a five-foot back door entrance. Mr. Grygiel commended the Applicant and Mr. Poskanzer for the revised plans; they had addressed all planning issues discussed at the Technical Review meeting. Referring to Omland Engineering memo dated January 10, 2014, Mr. Russo asked Mr. Poskanzer to comment on item #10 - whether the proposed structure would require a separate fire suppression system. Mr. Poskanzer said that the system was not required by building code but he would recommend it to his client if costs permitted. Mr. Russo asked Mr. Poskanzer to confirm that as per item #11, a Knox box would be incorporated into the building plans. Mr. Poskanzer confirmed that as discussed at the Technical Review meeting, the Knox box would be indicated on the final building plan; it would be inspected by the Fire Official as per code. Council President McCartney said

that as discussed at the Technical Review meeting, the Knox box would be indicated on the final building plan; it would be inspected by the Fire Official as per code. Council President McCartney said that her Technical Review meeting notes indicated that the Fire Official indicated the building did not need a sprinkler systern due to its size. Mr. Poskanzer confirmed that the structure was exempt because it was so small. The Public Advocate and the Public had no questions for Mr. Poskanzer. Anthony Marucci, PE, PP, Marucci Engineering Associates, LLC, was sworn in, stated his professional credentials and was accepted by the Board to be an expert in engineering. Mr. Marucci confirmed he had prepared the site plan dated December 13, 2013 and subsequently modified based on issues discussed at the January 16, 2014 Technical Review meeting. Mr. Marucci gave a brief overview of the pian which included a pedestrian friendly front sidewalk area; a modified parking area to accommodate better traffic flow; relocated refuse area to the rear of property; installation of a height limitation barrier in the area of the drive-thru; and although it was not indicated - a buffer area in the vicinity of Turtle Brook would be incorporated in to the plan as per the request of Omland Engineering. Mr. Marucci said the layout worked well because there was a counter-clockwise direction of traffic; there was a very long side line with plenty of room for stacking to get to the menu board then on to the pick-up window. He said he believed the plan accommodated all the requests made at the Technical Review meeting. All utilities currently existed; there were no extraordinary drainage or lighting issues to address. In terms of impervious coverage, the current application actually decreased NAPLANNING, BRD\WP\MINUTES(2014\3-5-14 Minutes.doc 4