April 1, 2015

TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 1, 2015 The Township of West Orange Planning Board held a regular meeting on April 1, 2015 at 7:30 P.M. in Council Chambers, 66 Main Street, West Orange, New Jersey. Chairman Heller called the meeting to order at approximately 7:35 P.M. It was announced that notification of this meeting was given to the Township Clerk, and posted on the Township Bulletin Board on December 11, 2014 in accordance with the requirements of the “Open Public Meetings Act”. PRESENT: Jerome Eben, Gerald Gurland, Chairman Ben Heller, Jason Lester, Vice Chairman Ron Weston, William Wilkes II ABSENT: Robert Bagoff, Joanne Carlucci, Tekeste Ghebremicael, Lee Klein, Councilwoman Susan McCartney ALSO PRESENT: Paul Grygiel, AICP, PP, Acting Township Planner, Frank Russo, PE, PP, Omland Engineering, Township Consulting Engineer, Patrick J. Dwyer, Esq., Board Attorney, Robin Miller, Board Secretary, Debbie Dillon, Audio-Digital Transcription Service PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Heller requested all persons stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Robert Bagoff, Joanne Carlucci, Jerome Eben, Tekeste Ghebremicael, Gerald Gurland, Chairman Ben Heller, Lee Klein, Jason Lester, Council President Susan McCartney, Vice Chairman Ron Weston, William Wilkes I! ANNOUNCEMENTS The next Planning Board regular meeting will be held on May 6, 2015 in Council Chambers at 7:30 P.M. ADOPT MINUTES The minutes of the March 4, 2015 meeting were unanimously adopted. SWEARING IN Frank Russo, PE, PE, Omland Engineering, Township Consulting Engineer. Paul Grygiel, AICP, PP, Acting Township Planner.

RESOLUTION(S) PB-14-25/McKay Brothers, LLC Block: 84.01; Lot: 22; Zone: B-2 10 Marcella Avenue Conditional Use Site Plan to install eight antennas to existing tower and ancillary equipment within an existing building. DISCUSSION Mr. Dwyer noted there was a revision to the Resolution; page 4, paragraph 15. Vice Chairman Weston motioned to adopt the Resolution with revision as stated by Mr. Dwyer. The Board voted on the Resolution as follows: Motion: Vice Chairman Weston Second: Mr. Wilkes Bagoff: Absent | Carlucci: -_| Eben: - | Ghebremicael: Absent Gurland: — - Klein: -_| Lester: - | McCartney: Absent Weston: Yes Wilkes: Yes | Heller: = PB-15-02C/County of Essex/TBZ/Giraffe Exhibit Block: 163; Lot: 1; Zone: R-1 560 Northfield Avenue Courtesy Review Application for Giraffe Exhibit. The Board voted on the Resolution as follows: Motion: Vice Chairman Weston Second: Mr. Wilkes Bagoff: Absent | Carlucci: : Eben: - | Ghebremicael: Absent Gurland: : Klein: Absent | Lester: - | McCartney: Absent Weston: Yes Wilkes: Yes Heller: = PB-15-03C/County of Essex/TBZ/Café Renovation Block: 163; Lot: 1; Zone: R-1 560 Northfield Avenue Courtesy Review Application for renovations to existing café. The Board voted on the Resolution as follows: Motion: Vice Chairman Weston Second: Mr. Wilkes Bagoff: Absent | Carlucci: : Eben: - | Ghebremicael: Absent Gurland: - Klein: Absent | Lester: - | McCartney: Absent Weston: Yes Wilkes: Yes Heller: -

APPLICATION(S. PB-15-01/Reuven and ADI, LLC Block: 114; Lot: 110; Zone: MSS 222 Main Street Amended Final Site Plan with “c” Variance. EXHIBITS A-1: Reduced size (11”x17”) Site Plan Drawings, prepared by Rui Amaral, RA, revised through 3/31/15 (7 sheets); A-2: — Full Size Site Plan Drawings, prepared by Rui Amaral, RA, revised through 3/31/15 (7 sheets); A-3: _ Limits of Disturbance, Paving Calculation, prepared by Rui Amaral, RA (untitled, unsigned, undated, verbally identified during hearing); A-4: Color aerial photograph, color site photographs, and color surrounding area photographs, prepared by John McDonough, LA, PP, AICP, undated, (3 sheets). DISCUSSION Robert C. Williams, Esq., attorney for Applicant, addressed the Board. He described the property as a vacant building located in the Main Street Sub Zone; the Applicant proposed to convert the existing office building to retail stores on the first floor and two residential units on the second floor. He said that subsequent to the initial and second set of site plan submissions, the Applicant had received an additional memorandum from Frank Russo, PE, PP, Omland Engineering, (dated March 26, 2015); the Applicant would be addressing all comments; the most recent site plan revisions, (dated 3/31/15) had attempted to incorporate all comments. Rui Amaral, RA, was sworn in, stated his credentials, and was accepted by the Board to be an expert in architecture. Mr. Amaral described the existing conditions, (Exhibit A-2, Sheet 3); the property was a corner lot at the intersection of Main Street and Shepard Terrace, the front yard setback was approximately 20 feet; the property sloped toward the rear. The building was located in the middle of the property; the current parking was along the southern side of the property; vehicles entered on Main Street and exited on Sheppard Terrace; vehicles moved in a one-way direction. The building was currently vacant. Mr. Amaral described the existing conditions for the first floor and second floor, (Exhibit A-2, Sheet 6); current design for both floors was office use. Mr. Amaral said the proposed changes included two retail spaces on the first floor and two residential apartments, (Exhibit A-2, Sheet 1). He said the building front exterior would remain basically unchanged; the brick fagade was in good condition; the structure of the building was intact; he noted

ial apartments, (Exhibit A-2, Sheet 1). He said the building front exterior would remain basically unchanged; the brick fagade was in good condition; the structure of the building was intact; he noted the construction of the building was concrete. The existing front entrance would be removed; two separate storefront entrances would be installed. The existing first floor windows would be removed and replaced. The front of the building would be paved to accommodate the new first floor entrances. The driveway entrance would remain the same; the only change would be to provide parking spaces; there really was not any current parking. He described the proposed parking configuration including four angled parking spaces on the left side of the property; the location, size and container capacity of the of the trash enclosure; and three parking spaces located

in the along the rear of the property parallel to the driveway. In response to questions from Mr. Williams, he confirmed the parking proposal to be part of the revised plans submission. He did review Mr. Russo’s memorandum dated March 26, 2015; he acknowledged discussing the alternate plan; he did review the plan Mr. Russo sketched at the Tech Review meeting, (2/11/2015); he confirmed he discussed both plans with the Applicant. He confirmed the Applicant was willing to comply with whichever plan the Board desired. Mr. Amaral said the Applicant’s traffic engineer had determined the proposed plan was superior to the one suggested by Mr. Russo. Mr. Amaral summarized the plan revisions made in response to Mr. Russo’s memorandum, (3/26/2015); he confirmed the Applicant had addressed or complied with all comments except: Comment #3 — the parking plan would be as shown on the Applicant’s revised site plan dated 3/31/2015. Comment #4 — he confirmed the proposed area of paving would be 4,755 sq. ft., a Hudson Essex Passaic Soil Conservation District application would not be necessary. Comment #9 — there would be no foundation plantings along the Sheppard Terrace facade (north side) of building. Comment #12 — the trash enclosure would be 8’ x 8’ 8”. Comment #14 & #15 —a lighting plan would be submitted for review and approval by the Township Planner once the fixtures have been chosen. Comment #16 — HVAC unit would be located on the roof with appropriate screening; there was little space to locate it on the outside of the building. Comment #18a - an approval from Hudson Essex Passaic Soil Conservation District would not be sought unless the area of disturbance exceeded 5,000 sq. ft. Mr. Amaral described the proposed elevations, (Exhibit A-2, Sheet 5); the storefronts would have fabric canopies with signage, new glass entrance doors and new windows; the existing brick facade would remain. Changes to the rear elevation would include replacing and installing new windows, installing a new porch railing, installing new rear doors; the existing brick fagade would remain. The right side elevation would remain unchanged except for new windows; on the left side elevation the existing first floor windows would be removed and bricked; the second floor windows would be replaced; the brick facade on the right and left side would remain. Mr. Amaral gave a brief description of the

ting first floor windows would be removed and bricked; the second floor windows would be replaced; the brick facade on the right and left side would remain. Mr. Amaral gave a brief description of the proposed landscaping, (Exhibit A-2, Sheet 1), including new plantings along both sides of the front retail spaces, new sidewalk to front of building and new retaining wall along right side of property. With the exception of extending the grading to the driveway to accommodate the storefronts, the grading plan would remain unchanged, (Exhibit A-2, Sheet 2). He concluded his testimony. Mr. Lester asked for clarification regarding the location of the proposed HVAC unit and the design of the residential parking spaces to the rear of the property. Mr. Amaral said the HVAC unit would be located on the building rear roof; he opined the proposed parking was a better design than discussed at the Tech Review meeting. Mr. Williams advised the Board the Applicant's traffic expert was present to provide testimony regarding the parking plan. Vice Chairman Weston asked for clarification regarding the mechanical system, specifically the location of the condensers. Mr. Amaral said he could locate the condensers inside the building at the gabled ends of the front facade and cover the outside with grills. Vice Chairman Weston voiced concern about the air movement for the condensers; he opined the proposed design was unusual. He cautioned Mr. Amaral any approval would not include putting condensers on site; the applicant

would have to come back before the Board. Vice Chairman Weston opined that as a condition of approval, the proposed lighting plan must conform to Township ordinance standard; he said to make sure the mounted fixtures were cut-off type; he suggested Mr. Amaral consult the Downtown facade design standards for retail lighting. In response to inquiry from Chairman Heller, Mr. Amaral confirmed no new trees were included in the proposed planting list. Chairman Heller stated it was important for a property in the Main Street corridor to be properly landscaped; he recommended at least three (3) shade trees be added to the front of the building and three (3) shade trees to the north of the building. Mr. Amaral opined retail businesses did not like trees blocking storefronts. Chairman Heller said there was the opportunity for a shade tree to flank the right side of the building, one between the two storefront signs, and one to the south proposed landscaped area. He recommended red maples, two-inch caliber in size. Additionally, he opined there was the opportunity to landscape the triangular area adjacent to the rear of the property with arborvitae green giant, six to seven feet in height, four feet on center to create adequate screening. He asked for clarification regarding the proposed plantings along the rear trash enclosure; Mr. Amaral said the plan indicated Japanese barberry had been changed to hydrangea. Discussing the parking plan, Mr. Gurland opined the need for something other than asphalt in the triangular areas between the angled parking spaces. Chairman Heller suggested curbing with landscaping would be a better plan; Mr. Gurland opined curbing would be potential tripping hazard. Mr. Gurland asked for clarification regarding the removal of the tree located on the front of the property. Mr. Amaral said five trees had (already) been removed; the front tree was very large; it was not in bad shape; its removal was a visibility issue. Mr. Gurland stated he had a real problem with its removal. Referring to Sheet 2e, Mr. Gurland asked for clarification regarding the spread of foot candles in the parking area; he opined the plan indicated there would be almost no light shining on cars in the evening; the lighting was inadequate. Mr. Amaral said the lighting plan would be revisited; he would address the issue. In response to questions from Mr. Eben, Mr. Amaral

light shining on cars in the evening; the lighting was inadequate. Mr. Amaral said the lighting plan would be revisited; he would address the issue. In response to questions from Mr. Eben, Mr. Amaral confirmed the plan included the removal of the existing front vestibule; the setback would be increased 2 ft.; a variance was required for maximum front yard setback. Mr. Grygiel said the Downtown Redevelopment Plan required maximum front yard setback of 20 ft.; 22.6 ft. existed; the plan proposed 24.9 ft. Messrs. Eben and Amaral discussed the second floor renovation plan. Mr. Eben said the plans indicated the building had heavy interior walls; he asked were all second floor walls to be removed; he said it appeared to be a major wall going down the middle (of the interior). Mr. Amaral said the second floor interior walls would be removed; he identified the middle wall as masonry; it went the ground floor. The wall defined the two apartments; he was unsure if it would be wholly or just partially removed; however, it would remain on the first floor to define the retail spaces. In response to Mr. Eben’s inquiry, Mr. Amaral said the contractor would reuse the bricks from the former vestibule to brick the windows on the left side elevation to ensure continuity in the appearance of the facade. Mr. Eben stated the three parallel car spaces were next to an 18 ft. high wall; he stated that devoid of curbing there would not be space for opening a car door; had investigated the possibility of securing designated parking spaces from the lot across Main Street. Mr. Williams advised it would be a question for the property owner. Mr. Eben suggested eliminating the three spaces to create a landscaped lawn area for the apartment residents. He opined there might be a better plan; there

was huge parking lot across the street, or the residents could use the retail parking on-site after business hours in a mixed-use building. Chairman Heller asked if the Applicant would consider flushed curbing with ground cover, in the triangular area between the parking spaces on the south side of the property; he opined it would help capture area storm water. Mr. Amaral said soft curbing had been discussed with the engineer during the original plan; it had been discouraged due to snowplowing concerns. Mr. Eben asked for clarification regarding the landscaping area on the northeast corner of the property; Mr. Amaral said the plan indicated two small retaining walls with landscaping. He explained the grade went up at the northeast corner; to install the new sidewalk it would be necessitate excavating dirt approximately 4 ft. high. Mr. Eben suggested additional grading and aligning the raised window with the others in the retail space, (Sheet 5), and eliminating the second retaining wall. He asked for clarification regarding the design of the leaders; to where would they come down - to the quoins in the corners, and if they would run to the curb on Main Street. Mr. Amaral said the leaders would run to Main Street; the leaders would not cover the quoins in the corners of the building. In response to inquiry from Mr. Grygiel, Mr. Amaral confirmed the building signage would not be a backlit illuminated box sign, (Sheet 5). Mr. Grygiel asked for clarification regarding the south side parking; why had the Applicant proposed 10’ft.x19’ ft. spaces. Mr. Amaral said the traffic expert would answer the question. Mr. Russo asked for clarification regarding the site disturbance analysis; he stated that just the paving was included; there was also regrading and new sidewalks. Referring to Exhibit A-3, Mr. Amaral stated the area of disturbance was under 5,000 sq. ft. Mr. Russo opined he remained unconvinced; Vice Chairman Weston suggested revisiting the issue during deliberation. Mr. Russo opined a better installation plan for the HVAC unit would be along the Shepard Terrace side of the building with landscape screening, as opposed to on the roof or inside the building; Mr. Amaral agreed to relocate the HVAC unit as suggested. Regarding the proposed orientation of the dumpster enclosure, Mr. Russo opined a straight orientation would better facilitate the movements of

r. Amaral agreed to relocate the HVAC unit as suggested. Regarding the proposed orientation of the dumpster enclosure, Mr. Russo opined a straight orientation would better facilitate the movements of a garbage truck. Mr. Russo suggested changes to the proposed lighting plan; he opined the plan did not appear to meet Township ordinance; he opined two free standing lights with cutoffs in the parking lot for public safety would be a better alternative; one could be located behind the dumpster. Lastly, Mr. Russo asked if it was possible to increase the curve of the first parking space to accommodate additional landscaping. The Public Advocate and Public had no questions for Mr. Amaral. Joseph J. Staigar, P.E., P.P., Dynamic Traffic, LLC, was sworn in and accepted by the Board to be an expert in traffic engineering. Mr. Staigar confirmed he had reviewed and participated in the design of the proposed parking plan, (Exhibit A-2, Sheets 1 & 2). It was decided the best way for all vehicles to maintain the 45-degree angle would be to size the spaces 10’ft.x19’ ft. The three rear spaces