EX 1 PB 98 11 Highview at West Orange Resolution Adopted See Last Paragraph

See Drainage Reference on last page Pe sounnnae TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE . . 66 Main Street, West Orange, NJ 07052 : wo : PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT a onan JOHN F. McKEON Tel: (973) 325-4110 Mayor Fax: (973) 325-6359 SUSAN BORG ALA. Planning Director September 16, 1998 Stephen Geffner, Esq. Gallo, Gefiner, Fenster, PC 411 Hackensack Avenue Hackensack, NJ 07601 RE: PB-98-11 / Highview at West Orange Prospect Avenue Dear Mr. Geffner: Enclosed please find a copy of the resolution that was adopted at the September 2, 1998 West Orange Planning Board meeting. In addition, please submit eight (8) sets of plans for signature. Signed site plans are required prior to the issuance of Building Permits. If you have any questions, please let me know. Yours truly, Migdalia Wagner Planning Board Secretary Enclosure ce: Mayor John McKeon Police Chief James Abbott Fire Director John Ryan Thomas Biondi, Construction Official Director Leonard Lepore, Municipal Engineer Kim Ragoni, Zoning Officer Kevin Dillon, Tax Assessor e:\networki\planning brd\wp\correspo\PB-98-1 res

PB 98-11 RESOLUTION of the PLANNING BOARD TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE, NEW JERSEY for Approval of a Major Subdivision Submitted by Highview at West Orange, L.L.C. for Vacant Land Known as Lots 2, 3, and 4 in Block 107. WHEREAS, an application for preliminary and final site plan approval and requested variances and for major subdivision approval has been made to the Planning Board of the Township of West Orange ("Board") by Highview at West Orange, L.L.C. ("Applicant") on lands known and designated as Block 107, Lots 2,3 & 4 as depicted on the Tax Maps of the Township of West Orange; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before this Board on June 3, 1998 with regard to this Application; and WHEREAS, the Board heard and considered testimony by the Applicant; and WHEREAS, the Applicant, appearing by its attorney, Gallo Geffner Fenster, P.C. (Stephen A. Geffner, Esq., appearing), has complied with statutory requirements of publication and service of notice and has submitted proof that there are no taxes due or delinquent with respect to the subject premises; and WHEREAS, complete application has been filed, the fees required by ordinance have been paid, and it otherwise appears that the jurisdiction and powers of the Board have been properly invoked and exercised. NOW, THEREFORE, does the Planning Board of the Township of West Orange make the following findings of facts and conclusions of law with regard to the Application: 1. The Applicant provided adequate notice of the Application and hearing in accordance with the statute. 2. The application for preliminary and final site plan approval and for major subdivision approval as set forth in Application No. PB-98-11 dated March 3, 1998. The application is also depicted on plans entitled "Highview at West Orange, L.L.C., Prospect

Avenue, West Orange, New Jersey" prepared by Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., dated March 23, 1998. The following documents, submitted with the aforesaid application (collectively "Reports"), were also considered by the Board: a. Environmental Impact Statement dated March 23, 1998 prepared by EcolSciences, Inc.; and b. Traffic Study dated March 23, 1998, prepared by Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. co Report of Lake Management contained within the Environmental Impact Statement dated March 23, 1998 prepared by EcolSciences, Inc. d. Ordinance adopted amending and supplementing Chapter 25 of the Revised General Ordinances of the Township of West Orange dated October 7, 1997. es Developer’s Agreement between the Applicant and the Township of West Orange dated November 25, 1997. £. Prior Resolutions of the Planning Board of West Orange depicting the earlier history of the site. g. Brochure depicting the history of Crystal Lake prepared by John M. DiMarzo, RE, dated April 22, 1996. h. Steep Slope Analysis prepared by William Lothian, P.E., dated March 23, 1998.

i. Written ‘comments of Susan Borg, Planning Director, in correspondence of April 29, 1998. 3. The Board considered the following exhibits (collectively "Exhibits" were marked into evidence at the hearings: Al A6éa A8a&b A8c 8d AVa&b Alda&b Alla&b Al2 Al3 Al4 Al5 Al6 Al7 Townhouse Courtyard Court Elevation Clubhouse elevation Playhouse Floor Plan Playhouse Front Elevation Project I.D. Sign to Guardhouse Alternate Project I.D. Sign to Guardhouse Right Side Court Elevation Site Plan (03/23/98) Site Plan Previously Approved Site Concept Plan Close Up Site Plan Grading Plan Utility Plan Traffic Comparison Easement Plan Rezone Plan Original Subdivision Plan Townhouse Courtyard Office Building ) which The Application, Plans, Reports and Exhibits are incorporated as findings of fact of this Board as set forth at length herein. 4. In accordance with the provisions of the Developer’s Agreement, Ordinance No. 1462-97 was adopted by the West Orange Township Council creating both an OB-2 and RC zone for the Highview at West Orange, L.L.C. property. Pursuant to the Developer’s 3

Agreement and the Ordinance, the Applicant’s property is to be utilized for mixed purposes including 150 townhomes, a 100,000 sq.ft. office building and an amphitheater to be erected on land to be donated to the Township. 5. The Applicant’s proposal was explained by Stephen A. Geffner, project attorney; William G. Lothian, licensed professional engineer and traffic engineer; Edward Blake, AIA and professional planner; Michael S. Friedman, registered ecologist; Joseph Gurkovich, P.E; and Marshall Tycher, one of the principals of the Applicant. As To The Subdivision 6. Mr. Lothian testified and described the plans he prepared in connection with this application. 7. The Applicant intends to subdivide the property into three lots as more particularly set forth in the plans attached and as set forth in Exhibit A15. 8. The Applicant intends to construct one 100,000 sq.ft. office building on Lot 1.03. The Applicant intends to build a gated townhouse development, consisting of a total of 150 units in clusters on Lot 1.01 and 1.04, The Applicant intends to construct a playhouse/amphitheater to be known as The Oscar Schindler Center for the Performing Arts on Lot 1.02 to be donated to the Township. As To The Site Plan 9. Mr. Lothian described the general concept of the project. He explained that the townhouse project will be a gated community allowing access to both the residents of that community and to the residents of Eagle Ridge way. In addition, there will be a club house and related amenities for use by the residents of the townhouse development. 10. Mr. Lothian testified with regard to the entire mixed use development, its internal roadways, its access routes to each of the subdivided lots and future hotel site. He described the removal of Eagle Ridge Drive, location of the wetlands and the restriction and hardships imposed upon the site by the wetlands, topography and the slopes. 11. Mr. Lothian also testified with respect to traffic impact emanating from the site. He described the location of the entry road and signalization. He testified that the application would have minimal traffic impact during both peak and off-peak hours particularly when compared to the previously approved application. 4

~~ 12. Mr. Lothian described the on-site parking and the potential for a future parking deck for the office building, which he thinks will be unnecessary, and the parking for both the office building and the performing arts center. 13. Mr. Blake, the licensed architect retained by the Applicant, described the architectural features of the office building. He further testified to the exterior appearance for both the front and rear elevations. He described the use of brick, stone and glass creating a beautiful facade which will compliment the adjoining townhouse community. He responded to the concerns of the Planning Director particularly with respect to the rear elevation which is somewhat skewed toward Prospect Avenue and Route 280. He described parking size and location of stalls and the location of the building in the lowest portion of the site and some 20 feet lower than the nearest townhouse. He further described that all roof mechanical equipment will be hidden from view in all directions by architectural screening. He also testified to the material to be used on the exterior of the townhouses as brick and vinyl and in keeping with a classical style of architecture. 14. Mr. Friedman testified both as to the constraints that the wetlands places upon the development and to his study and management proposal concerning Crystal Lake. He indicated that the townhomes had to be placed as set forth upon the site plan as a result of the significant wetlands on the property. He did, however, indicate that there would be substantial benefit to the development as a result of the existing green space and undisturbed foliage. He described in detail the Lake Management Proposal which is set forth in the Environmental Impact Study but which essentially calls for a maintenance program, aeration, annual draw down so as to clean the lake perimeter from foliage and debris. He also commented with respect to the Developer’s Agreement to create a $200,000.00 fund for the perpetual maintenance of Crystal Lake. As To Landscaping 15. Mr. Gurkovich testified as to the extensive landscaping proposed by the Applicant. He stated that the Applicant proposes to plant numerous shade trees as well as ornamental and flowering trees and evergreens, shrubs and bushes throughout the site. 16. Mr. Gurkovich testified with particularity relative to the area adjacent to the office

hade trees as well as ornamental and flowering trees and evergreens, shrubs and bushes throughout the site. 16. Mr. Gurkovich testified with particularity relative to the area adjacent to the office building parking and the nearest townhouse cluster. He stated the Applicant will plant 5

2 rows of trees on both sides of the zone line in order to provide a significant buffer to the neighbors. In response to the Directors request. the Applicant agreed to the review of the landscape plan with her and to provide for reasonable modification of the proposed plan throughout the site where necessary. Particular attention was paid to the rear elevation of the office building and the area surrounding the playhouse. He further testified that within the office building parking lot the lanes would be terraced as a result of the slope. There will be planters placed at the ends of the parking stalls containing large shade trees and grass and to permit for a two foot overhang from the stall into the landscaped area. 17. Mr. Gurkovich further testified with respect to the lighting throughout the site and recommended 175 watt metalhalide lights on fifteen foot high decorative poles. However, the Township Engineer, Mr. LaPore, had some concern about the type and style of lighting if the Township were required to replace them when damaged. It was, therefore, agreed upon by Mr. Gurkovich and Mr. LaPore that they would work together to provide for appropriate lighting on the site. As To Planning 18. Mr. Gurkovich was qualified as a licensed planner and provided extensive testimony with respect to the several variances that are required in connection with this application. The requested variances are as follows: Section Required Proposed 25-5.6B Parking Spaces in OB-2 500 parking spaces 400 spaces 25-5.5D Setback from Accessory Use in OB-2 75° buffer between zones (rear) 40° 25-5.5D Setback from Accessory Use in OB-2 75° buffer between zones (side) 17’ min. 25-5.1 Impervious Coverage 50% max 53.73% 25-5.1 Building Height in R-C zone 35° max 38.5” 25-5.1 Front Setback in R-C zone 30° 10°8" 25-5.6A Parking Stall Size 9°x20’ or 10’x18’ 9°x18’ w/overhang 25-5.6A Front Yard Parking not permitted front yard parking 25-5.9C2g Identification Sign 40’ from property line I’ from property line Mr. Gurkovich testified to each of the requested variances both generally as to all variances and with specificity as to some. He testified that because of the constraints upon the site of the wetlands and of the topography and as this was a mixed use application with all 6

of the requested variances on the interior of the site, that would, in effect, create a special teason due to the hardships imposed upon the applicant on this particular site and to allow for all of the uses which were requested. In addition, as a result of the adoption of the Developer’s Agreement and the Ordinance, the lot sizes were fixed as was the density and location of each of the proposed uses. With respect to the parking surrounding the office building, there were four (4) variances required. As to the number of parking spaces, Mr. Gurkovich testified that in his experience in a general office building, one parking space for every 250 feet of gross space would be more than sufficient. He indicated that the request complied with the ordinance in that the plans provide for an alternative of a parking deck if the same should become necessary. With respect to parking in the front of the building, because of the size and shape of the building, its proximity to the wetlands and the inability to provide parking on the southwest portion of the property because of the state’s ownership of that area, a large portion of parking would have to be to the front of the building. He did, however, describe that the parking lot would be approximately 20 feet below the nearest townhouse, that there was extensive landscaping both at the border of the two uses and throughout the parking lot utilizing large and dense trees and providing adequate protection for all. With respect to the size of the parking stall] proposed, which is going to be 9°x18’, there would also be a two foot overhang from the front of the car into the landscape area and he again described this necessity as a result of the location and area permitted for parking and that would afford substantial protection to the surrounding areas and as a result of the overhang, allow for the vehicle to be appropriately situated within the parking stall. With respect to the impervious coverage for the office building, it is proposed that there be 53.73% wherein the ordinance allows 50% as a maximum. Mr. Gurkovich looked at the overall site and found that overall amongst all the uses there would be less that 50% impervious coverage and would fit within the statutory requirements. He further testified again as a result of the constraints upon the office parking and in order to achieve 400 parking spaces, there was a

ious coverage and would fit within the statutory requirements. He further testified again as a result of the constraints upon the office parking and in order to achieve 400 parking spaces, there was a slight deviation above the ordinance maximum to that which is proposed. With respect to all of the other variances that would be required he said that due to the constraints upon the site and that every effort had been made by the entire design team 7