PB-19-04/Prism Capital Partners, LLC

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