July 2, 2014

across the Jandscaped area in the front; it would come up to the handicap isle and provide access to the building. In the rear parking area there would be a concrete curb. There would be landscaping added to the top of the retaining wall to help screen the views of the building; there would be substantial landscaping, arbor vitae and evergreen trees. Mr. Ursprung said he had reviewed both the Omiand memorandum dated June 18, 2014 and the Township Planner’s memorandum dated June 16, 2014; he said the Applicant would agree to the majority of comments; a few needed clarification. Regarding the building signage; the maximum area permitted was 96 square feet; the Applicant was proposing 116.74 square feet; the maximum height allowed was 2 feet; the Applicant proposed 3.3 feet. Regarding the freestanding sign; the Applicant was proposing to reduce the width of the sign from 10 feet to 6 feet; which was the same width as the base of the monument. Council President McCartney said she was at the Technical Review Meeting (June 19, 2014), it was discussed that the building would be non-sprinkled; the Fire Official asked about the location of the fire hydrant; the paving of the parking lot up to the existing Karl’s property was also discussed at Technical Review. Mr. Ursprung said he had visited the site and identified the location of the fire hydrant; it was right in front of the building; the tot would be paved up to the property. Mr. Gurland said that the landscaping plan showed plantings along the east side of the project; Mr. Ursprung said the landscaping was increased along Main Street; he said the landscaping that was provided along the west side, facing the church was substantial and would provide very good screening of the proposed building. Mr. Gurland asked what type of trees would be planted and what was their size; Mr. Ursprung said there would be dark green arbor vitae, six to eight feet tall; also Atlantic White Cedar, six to eight feet tall. Mr. Eben said the plan was for 36 parking spaces, but the requirement was for 30. He opined he would like to have the parking reduced and the landscaping increased; he suggested making a peninsula with two isles; he said it would put an island in the middle of the parking lot to separate the two buildings and create more landscaping. Mr. Ursprung said it would be possible to do, but he did not recommend it;

s; he said it would put an island in the middle of the parking lot to separate the two buildings and create more landscaping. Mr. Ursprung said it would be possible to do, but he did not recommend it; approval from the City of Orange would be required; AutoZone wanted to keep all improvements within their own property. Mr. Eben opined it was one lot, one property; Mr. DeVito stated they were separate lots; the Karl’s store and lot was located in the City of Orange. Mr. Eben stated AutoZone was not the property owner; just the Applicant with a land lease; but the property owner also owned the Orange property. Mr. DeVito said two separate entities owned the lots. Mr. Eben stated the new proposed AutoZone driveway entrance/exit was about 25 feet to the east of the existing Karl’s driveway; he stated a variance would be needed; two driveways less than fifty feet apart were not permitted: Mr. DeVito said there might be cause for a variance except for in this case because the existing driveway was in a different municipality. Mr. Gurland said he wanted to clarify for the benefit of Mr. Eben’s question regarding property ownership, that it was discussed at the Technical Review meeting that there were two separate legal entities that owned the properties; however, the principal (owner) in each entity was the same person. Vice Chairman Weston inquired if in order to have the drive isles function property had access from the adjacent property been addressed, was there an easement agreement; Mr, DeVito said the Applicant had contacted the adjacent property owner who had agreed to give AutoZone access across the property; he was in the process of obtaining written documentation. Vice Chairman Weston advised the easement documentation should be a condition of approval; Mr. DeVito agreed. Vice Chairman Weston stated that there were more variances requested than discussed; (1) the accessory use setback, (2) the minimum side yard, (3) the maximum lot coverage, and (4) the signage. He requested the Applicant 7-2-14 Minutes Approved