PB-19-04/Prism Capital Partners, LLC

\ ASSOCIATES Chairman and Members of the West Orange Township Planning Board September 6, 2019 Re: Prism Capital Partners, LLC (PB 19-04) Our File No. VWRPO115.01 Preliminary & Final Major Site Plan with Page 5 “C’ Variances and Tree Removal Permit Application Review #1 9. The Existing Conditions Plan (sheet 1.0) and the Overall Site Plan (sheet 2.0) show that the property consists of lots 15 & 17 whereas the Boundary Survey and Tax Map sheet 44 identify the property as lot 15. This discrepancy must be resolved. 10. The Demolition Plan (sheet 1.1) shows an existing monitoring well that is to be removed. In addition, it states on the Demolition Plan that decommissioning of the monitoring well is to be performed in accordance with NJDEP requirements and coordinated with the Environmental Engineer prior to any demolition work being performed. The Applicant should address the Board regarding the reasons why a monitoring well was installed at the site and if there are any remaining areas of environmental concern. 11. The Site Plan (sheet 2.1) must be revised to show the dimensions of the proposed buildings including the bump out on the side of Building 10. 12. The Site Plan (sheet 2.1) must be revised to dimension the setback from the common property line with adjoining lot 18 to the bump out on the side of Building 10. 13. The Site Plan (sheet 2.1) must be revised to dimension the width of the proposed sidewalk from Babcock Place. 14. The Site Plan (sheet 2.1) must be revised to dimension the depth of the proposed driveway parking spaces. 15. The Site Plan (sheet 2.1) must be revised to label the point where the proposed 4 ft high aluminum fence transitions to a 4 ft high black chain link fence. 16. The Site Plan (sheet 2,1) must be revised to provide a handicap ramp where the proposed sidewalk along Babcock Place intersects the proposed driveway. 17. The Site Plan (sheet 2.1) includes a list of Site Key Notes. The list includes an item for Concrete Brick Pavers (S8B). The plan must be revised to identify the locations where concrete brick pavers are proposed. 18. The Site Plan (sheet 2.1) shows that a 6” rolled concrete berm is proposed in front of every other building. The length of the proposed berm must be dimensioned on the plan. In addition, the Applicant should address the Board regarding the purpose of the tolled concrete berms. 19. The Site

y other building. The length of the proposed berm must be dimensioned on the plan. In addition, the Applicant should address the Board regarding the purpose of the tolled concrete berms. 19. The Site Plan (sheet 2.1) shows that a mail box cluster is proposed adjacent to the entrance drive. Therefore, a mailbox cluster detail must be added to the plans. In addition, the proposed location of the mailbox cluster must be approved in writing by the West Orange Township Postmaster. Ԥ:\Wast Orange\Planning BoarciVWRPO1 15.01 - Prism Capital Partners, LLC MjSP\Review #1 09-05-2019.doc

XX ASSOCIATES Chairman and Members of the West Orange Township Planning Board September 6, 2019 Re: Prism Capital Partners, LLC (PB 19-04) Our File No. VWRP0115.01 Preliminary & Final Major Site Plan with Page 6 “C" Variances and Tree Removal Permit Application Review #1 20. The Site Plan (sheet 2.1) shows that a handicap accessible parking space is proposed at the site. The Applicant should clarify if this parking space is proposed to be van accessible. If so, then it should be noted as such on the plan. 21. The Site Plan (sheet 2.1) shows that a 4 ft high chain link fence is proposed along the Columbia Street frontage of the site. In addition, the Chain Link Fence Detail on sheet 6.0 shows that privacy slats will be installed in the fence. Section 25-8.4 in the Land Use Regulations states that solid fences are only permitted in the rear yard and on the side property line up to the rear line of the applicant's house whereas 4 ft high fences which are not more than 50% solid are permitted anywhere on the property. Therefore, the plans must be revised accordingly. 22. It states on the Area and Bulk Requirements table on the Site Plan (sheet 2.1) that the property has an area of 7.03 acres whereas it shows on the Boundary Survey that the area is 9.040 acres. Therefore, the table must be revised accordingly. 23. It shows on the Grading Plan (sheet 3.0) that the retaining wall along the westerly side of the site adjacent to Columbia Street will vary in height from 5 ft to 12 ft. The Applicant should address the Board regarding the feasibility of terracing the wall to soften the visual impacts. 24. The Grading Plan (sheet 3.0) includes callouts which state “Wall Profile A — Refer to sheet C-3.4” and “Wall Profile A — Refer to sheet C-3.5". We note that sheets C-3.4 and C-3.4 are not included in the plans that were received by our office. 25. The Storm Drainage Plan (sheet 3.1) shows that a scour hole is proposed at the point of discharge from Storm Manhole 1. In addition, sheet 6.3 includes a Scour Hole Detail. We note that the scour hole information shown on sheet 3.1 does not agree with the information shown on the detail. These discrepancies must be resolved. 28. The Storm Drainage Plan (sheet 3.1) shows that 12” HDPE pipe is proposed for the stormwater collection system to Storm Manhole 1 while the discharge from Storm Manhole 1 will be 15” RCP pipe.

ed. 28. The Storm Drainage Plan (sheet 3.1) shows that 12” HDPE pipe is proposed for the stormwater collection system to Storm Manhole 1 while the discharge from Storm Manhole 1 will be 15” RCP pipe. We note that Section 5:21-7.3(f) in the RSIS states that no pipe size in the storm drainage system shall be less than 15 inches in diameter with the exception that a 12 inch diameter pipe may be used as a cross-drain to a single inlet. Therefore, the plans must be revised to comply with the RSIS requirements. 27. The Storm Drainage Plan (sheet 3.1) shows that Stormline D will be 12” HDPE Pipe whereas the Storm Sewer D profile on sheet 3.2 shows that 8” pipe is proposed. This discrepancy must be resolved. 28. The Utility Plan (sheet 4.0) shows that two (2) sanitary drop manholes are proposed. Therefore, a sanitary drop manhole detail must be added to the plans. ‘§\West Oranga\Planning Board\WRPO116.01 - Prism Capital Partners, LLC MISP\Raviaw #1 09-08-2019 doc

ASSOCIATES Chairman and Members of the West Orange Township Planning Board September 6, 2019 Re: Prism Capital Partners, LLC (PB 19-04) Our File No. VWRP0115.01 Preliminary & Final Major Site Plan with Page 7 “C" Variances and Tree Removal Permit Application Review #1 sae: 29. The Utility Plan (sheet 4.0) shows that a cleanout is proposed at the westerly end of the proposed 8" sanitary sewer main. For maintenance purposes, the cleanout should be replaced with a manhole. 30. The Utility Plan (sheet 4.0) shows that the two (2) sewer laterals from each building will tee together prior to entering the sewer main. It is our recommendation that each sewer lateral be run directly to the sewer main. In addition, a cleanout should be provided on each lateral prior to entering the sewer main. 31. The plans must be revised to include a profile of the proposed sanitary sewer main. 32. The Utility Plan (sheet 4.0) shows that a new electrical pole and overhead electrical line are proposed to provide extend electrical power to the site. As stipulated in the General Standards and Prohibitions section in the Second Amendment to Downtown Redevelopment Plan, all utility distribution lines and utility service connections from such lines shall be located underground. Therefore, the plans should be revised accordingly. 33. The Photometric Plan (sheet 4.1) shows that the level of illumination in the surface parking lot and in front of buildings 7 & 8 will be as low as 0.0 foot candles which is unacceptable. The plan should be revised to provide a minimum level of illumination of 0.5 foot candles in these areas. 34. The Photometric Plan (sheet 4.1) should be revised to include a note which states that shields or cutoffs shall be installed when necessary to prevent glare or the spillover of light onto adjacent residential properties or public streets. 35. The light pole details on the Photometric Plan (sheet 4.1) shows that the single head light fixture will be 17 ft high (204.00") while the double head light fixture will be 18 ft high (216.36"). We note that the Landscape, Lighting and Open Space section in the Second Amendment to Downtown Redevelopment Plan states that “On-site lighting fixtures shall be in scale with the size of the project’. \t further states that “pedestrian scale lighting of no more than 15 ft in height is encouraged”. The Applicant should provide

n-site lighting fixtures shall be in scale with the size of the project’. \t further states that “pedestrian scale lighting of no more than 15 ft in height is encouraged”. The Applicant should provide testimony to the Board to demonstrate that the proposed parking lot lights comply with the intent of the Redevelopment Plan. 36. The Typical Sidewalk Detail on sheet 6.0 must be revised to specify the use of Class B concrete having a 28-day verification strength of 4,500 psi as stipulated in the RSIS. 37. Sheet 6.0 includes a Chain Link Fence Detail which specifies the installation of 2-3/8"@ corner posts, 7/8"@ line posts and 2” x 2” mesh. It is our recommendation that 3"@ corner posts, 2-1/2"@ line posts and non-climbable mesh be installed for safety reasons. 38. The Typical Storm Manhole Detail on sheet 6.1 must be revised to specify the manhole frame and cover that is proposed. s1 Orange\Planning Board\WRPO1 1501 - Prism Capital Partners, LLC MjSP\Review #1 09-08-2019.doc

XX ASSOCIATES Chairman and Members of the West Orange Township Planning Board September 6, 2019 Re: Prism Capital Partners, LLC (PB 19-04) Our File No. VWRP0115.01 Preliminary & Final Major Site Plan with Page & “C” Variances and Tree Removal Permit Application Review #1 39. The Storm Cleanout Detail on sheet 6.1 shows that a 15” roof drain pipe is proposed. However, it shows on the Storm Drainage Plan (sheet 3.1) that the roof drains will be 6” PVC. This discrepancy must be resolved. 40. Sheet 6.2 includes a Connection to Exiting Sewer Structure detail. This detail shows that a doghouse manhole is proposed over an existing sewer main whereas the Utility Plan (sheet 4.0) shows that a connection is proposed to an existing manhole. Therefore, the detail must be revised accordingly. 41. The Sanitary Sewer Clean Out Detail on sheet 6.2 shows that a 15” roof drain pipe is proposed. The detail must be revised to reflect the proposed sanitary sewer installation. 42. Sheet 6.2 includes a Sanitary Sewer Capping Detail. This detail references both RCP storm pipe and sanitary pipe. The detail must be revised to clarify if the work is proposed on the existing sanitary sewer or the existing storm pipe. 43. The Precast Sanitary Sewer Manhole and Lid detail on sheet 6.2 must be revised to show that the words “SANITARY SEWER’ will be cast integrally into the manhole cover. 44, Sheet 6.3 includes a 6” Rolled Concrete Berm Detail which shows the width of the berm to be variable. Therefore, the Site Plan (sheet 2.1) must be revised to dimension the width of each berm. 45. Note #3 on the Retaining Wall Detail on sheet 6.3 stipulates that the guide rail must comply with the PADOT standard detail which is incorrect. The detail must be revised to reference the NJDOT Standard detail. 46. The Retaining Wall Detail on sheet 6.3 must be revised to show that the guide rail will be located furthest from the face of wall as shown on the Site Plan (sheet 2.1). 47.\t shows on the Typical Water Service Connection Detail on sheet 6.3 that the water meters will be installed in a meter box in front of each unit. Therefore, the Utility Plan (sheet 4.0) must be revised to show the water meter boxes. 48. It shows on the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (sheet 5.0) that the total area of disturbance will be 1.09 acres. As a result, the project is classified as a

o show the water meter boxes. 48. It shows on the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (sheet 5.0) that the total area of disturbance will be 1.09 acres. As a result, the project is classified as a Major Development. In addition, the Drainage Area Maps show that the impervious coverage at the site is being reduced by 41 sf. Therefore, water quality measures are not required. 49. It shows on the Landscaping Plan (sheet C-7.1) that llex Meserveae ‘Centennial Girl’ is proposed at the front (street side) of the surface parking lot. In addition, the Plant Schedule shows that they will be 6’- 7’ high. The Landscape, Lighting and Open Space section in the Second Amendment to Downtown Redevelopment Plan states that ‘§:\West OrangaAP anning Board\VWRPO1 15.01 - Prism Gapitel Periners, LLG MjSP\Raview #1 09-06-2019 doc

XN ASSOCIATES Chairman and Members of the West Orange Township Planning Board September 6, 2019 Re: Prism Capital Partners, LLC (PB 19-04) Our File No. VWRP0115.01 Preliminary & Final Major Site Plan with Page 9 “C" Variances and Tree Removal Permit Application Review #1 “Landscaping shall be maintained with shrubs not higher than four (4) feet, except where a taller buffer or visual screen is required, and with the branches of shade trees no lower than eight (8) feet at anticipated maturity”. Therefore, the Applicant should address the Board to demonstrate that a greater height than 4 ft is required at this location. In addition, a note should be added to the plans stating that the shade tree branches will be trimmed as necessary to provide the required clearance at maturity. 50. The Landscape, Lighting and Open Space section in the Second Amendment to Downtown Redevelopment Pian states that “All street frontage within the Area shall be landscaped with appropriate street trees planted at an interval of 25’-40' depending on species and shall be no less than 2 ¥% inch caliper’. The Applicant should address the Board to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. 51. The Traffic and Parking Assessment Letter Report demonstrates that the proposed development will not significantly impact the operations of the adjacent roadway network and adequate on-site parking will be provided. 52. The headings on Table 1 in the Traffic and Parking Assessment Letter Report under Weekday Morning Peak Hour and Weekday Evening Peak Hour must be corrected to read Enter — Exit — Total. 53. The Hydrology Report uses the NRCS TR-55 method to calculate the existing and proposed condition peak flows. The worksheets show that a minimum time of concentration of 10 minutes was used which is incorrect. The TR-55 method requires a minimum time of concentration of 0.1 hour or 6 minutes. Therefore, the Hydrologic Report must be revised accordingly. 54. The Drainage Area Maps show that the soils at the site are primarily URDUNB with a very small area of USDUNB soils. The Custom Soil Resource Report in the Hydrologic Report shows that USDUNB soils are Hydrologic Soil Group A while URDUNB soils are unranked. The Custom Soil Resource Report also shows that URDUNB soils consist of sandy loam and loamy sand which fits the description for Hydrologic Soil Group A. However, the worksheets

NB soils are unranked. The Custom Soil Resource Report also shows that URDUNB soils consist of sandy loam and loamy sand which fits the description for Hydrologic Soil Group A. However, the worksheets in the Hydrology Report are based on the soils at the site being Hydrologic Soils Group D. This discrepancy must be resolved. 55. As stipulated in Section 25-29.10(b)(1) of the Land Use Regulations, the design engineer shall prepare a maintenance plan for the stormwater management measures incorporated into the design of a major development. It further stipulates in Section 25- 29.10(b)(4) that the maintenance plan and any future revisions shall be recorded upon the deed of record for each property on which the maintenance described in the maintenance plan must be undertaken. Prior to recording, the form of the deed must be approved by the Planning Board Attorney and our office. ‘S.\West Orange\Pianning BoarcVWRPO115.01 - Prism Capital Partners, LLC MjSP\Review #1 09-08-2018.doc