December 4, 2024 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes

Wine replied there are different designs options. They are going to work with the county about how they want it to be designed. e Ms. Kapferer asked if the crosswalk is going to be at Ashwood Terrace. Ms. Clark said they haven’t definitely set a spot and they would have to work with the county to make sure they are not disrupting the bus stop. NO PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS PUBLIC QUESTIONS Susan Lenczyk at Eagle Rock Avenue asked what were you referring to as “unique” when you testified the site has unique features. Ms. Clark said in terms of the major unique feature that comes from a design challenge, it is the topography of the site. It has led to limitations and necessities in how they grade and enter the site at a pedestrian and vehicular egress level. Susan Lenezyk at Eagle Rock Avenue asked why a shadow study has not been done. Ms. Clark said a shadow study is not required in the township code nor was it requested, Susan Lenezyk at Eagle Rock Avenue asked is it not true that the standard for a setback for a commercial property along main street to a residential property is much different from the standard of setback between residences; she said is it not in fact out of character with the norm. Ms. Clark said its not out of character. Susan Lenezyk at Eagle Rock Avenue asked Ms. Clark to explain how is it an appropriate building envelope when the permitted lot coverage s 60% but the proposed building would cover 82% of the lot; she said how is that appropriate for the B2 zone. Ms. Clark said as previously stated, the B2 zoning does not contemplate alternative bulk standards for the conditional use. Susan Lenezyk at Eagle Rock Avenue asked for whom do the benefits outweigh the detriments. Ms. Clark said she believes there are improvements that benefits the neighborhood as a whole. As previously explained, the pedestrian crosswalk is a community benefit; the commercial space, which is a public space, is a community benefit; the additional storm water measures that they will be implementing, where they will retain rainwater on site and then slow released into the larger city system and it creates a benefit to the community. Sandra Thorney at 2 Park Drive South referred to the comparison of the site with a building from a mile away and asked why did you not compare a building within the exact proximity of the proposed building. Ms. Clark said the

Drive South referred to the comparison of the site with a building from a mile away and asked why did you not compare a building within the exact proximity of the proposed building. Ms. Clark said the objective was to make a comparison, specifically with a mixed-use typology. Sandra Thorney asked do you consider the buildings across the street a mixed use. Ms. Clark said she analyzed those buildings for the purpose of the commercial space. Due to some board members wondering if the size of the commercial space would be sufficient, Ms. Clark used the buildings in the immediate area to compare. Sandra Thomey asked would you say this proposed building looks like any other building or house to the left, to the right, up and around Park Drive North, South, and West. Ms. Clark said the point of comparison for this is not the residential properties in Park Drive; the zoning is for commercial property so they are looking at the commercial character along the main street corridor. The homes behind the corner property are a completely different zoning use and scale of buildings. Sandra Thorney asked what is the setback that is being asked for related to the house that is adjacent to the proposed building. Ms. Clark said it varies since the property line is not straight. The tightest point is a little over 8 feet and the widest point is 13 feet.