GLEN ROCK PLANNING BOARD Minutes of the June 1, 2017 Regular Meeting. The regular meeting was called to order by Chairman Bob VanLangen at 7:30 p.m.

Transcription

1 GLEN ROCK PLANNING BOARD Minutes of the June 1, 2017 Regular Meeting The regular meeting was called to order by Chairman Bob VanLangen at 7:30 p.m. In attendance were Harold Knapp, Kristine Morieko, Greg Toro, Ken Hrasdzira, Scott King, John Thielke and Gino Reina. Mayor Packer was absent. Also in attendance were Stuart Levitch, Borough Engineer, Ed Snieckus, Borough Planner and Stuart Liebman, Esq., Board Attorney. The Secretary called the roll and read the Sunshine Statement from the Open Public Meetings Act. Old Business: Block 188, Lot Harristown Road Applicant: SS Glen Rock, LLC Applicant requests preliminary and final site plan approval for construction of a self-storage facility in the D Industrial zone and any variances and waivers that might be needed in connection with this application. Mr. Liebman noted there are six voting members present this evening. Mr. Meese stated this is a continuation of the May 4 th meeting where the following requests were made: A request was made to work with the revised building elevation to try and add additional glass elements Review the building in context with a massive study, essentially the bulk of the building as it relates to its surroundings Complete a shade study to determine if the height would shade the neighbors Detail the security measures Revise plans to including lighting and landscaping changes previously discussed Address comments from the Police (dated May 25) and Fire (transmitted May 29) Departments Mr. Petrillo, who was previously sworn and is the architect for this project, was called upon. Mr. Petrillo addressed the request for additional window/glass elements. Mr. Petrillo presented Exhibit A-16 which proposes the southeast and northeast elevations, dated May 15. Exhibit A- 17 will be the same elevations in CADD form. Exhibit A-18 the northwest and southwest elevations, rear and proposed left elevations. Exhibit A-19 will be the same elevations in CADD form.

2 Page 2 of 11 Mr. Petrillo explained how colored building tiles were added to add vertical significance and break up the building massive. Additionally shade awnings were added and a graphite film to imply glass. Exhibit A-20 and A-21 both show a perspective view from Harristown Road, dated May 15. These exhibits were put together to give an understanding of the entire scale of the building. A- 20 shows the westerly side of the building; A-21 shows the easterly side of the building. Exhibit A-22 is the massive study which was taken from a Google Earth aerial. This shows how the footprint and massive of the building fit in with the surrounding buildings. A-22 also shows the ten mechanical units and in terms of scale they are much smaller than the mechanical units of the neighboring building. Exhibit A-23 shows the front elevation and A-24 will be the back and right side elevation, both exhibits dated June 1. Mr. Petrillo commented they initially looked at a 10 setback; however ultimately decided on a 20 front setback. A 20 side setback was also included in an attempt to address the neighboring properties concerns. Exhibit A-25 is the perspective from Harristown Road, dated June 1 with A-26 the same perspective. These exhibits show how the building was initially presented and then with the revised setbacks. The importance of the 20 setback, when viewed from eye level at the property line, the fifth floor becomes setback and out of eye sight. A 10 setback the fifth floor was still visible. Additionally, the main parapet at the entrance was dropped from 61 to 55, a reduction of approximately 10%. The main parapet wall (sides and front) has been dropped from 56.3 to 44.4, just over 20% of the side wall has been reduced in height. Exhibit A-27, dated June 1 showing the massive study. This shows the easterly and westerly sides of the building being brought in 20, additionally the front wall was brought in 20 except at the main entry point which was kept at full height. The fifth floor is essentially being reduced by 8,730 square feet. There is no setback at the rear of the building. Ms. Spiller asked how this new square footage affects the building structure variance request. Mr. Petrillo replied it is reduced from to Mr. Hrasdzira clarified if someone were standing on Harristown Road and looking directly at the building, it would not appear to be five stories tall. Mr. Petrillo replied that is the intent.

3 Page 3 of 11 Mr. Petrillo summarized that the main parapet at the entry element has been reduced to 55 from 61. Additionally, the side wall parapets have been reduced from 56.3 to The square footage on the fifth floor has been reduced by 8,730 square feet taking the total building square footage from 146,680 to 137,950 square feet. The building coverage was reduced from to Mr. Snieckus asked if the elevator mechanicals will be the same height as the air conditioning units. Mr. Petrillo replied we estimate those mechanicals to be 4-5 in height and believe they will be out of sight. Mr. Snieckus asked if the building signs were made larger. Mr. Petrillo replied they remain the same size, noting they may appear larger due to the other changes to the plan. Craig Giametti, Esq. (representing 139 Harristown Road, MSO) - Mr. Giametti asked for a comparison in massing with the building to the left. Mr. Petrillo replied the footprint and height is slightly smaller. The building to the left does not directly face the applicant s as there is a slight angle, the increased setback and landscaping. Mr. Giametti asked if the trees between the buildings are deciduous. Mr. Petrillo stated he believes the majority of the trees are deciduous. Mr. Giametti asked if the trees depicted on the rendering are currently present or simply trees placed on the rendering to obstruct any view. Mr. Petrillo replied he believes the trees were placed not as an intended obstruction but rather as to emulate the tree line between the two properties. Mr. Bulgar added he actually measured the tree line, and subsequently lowered the tree height, so there would be a reference to what could be seen of the building. As far as the elevations, Mr. Bulgar stated the applicant s proposed first floor is being reduced by 3-4 from the existing so our first floor will be close to MSO s first floor. Mr. VanLangen clarified under the existing conditions, the MSO building is 3-4 lower than the applicant s. Under the proposed plan the applicant s will be lowering their building 3-4 so the first floor of both buildings will be at the same elevation.

4 Page 4 of 11 Mr. Petrillo referred to A-4 showing where the majority of property drop off occurs. The original proposal was built up 3-4. Mr. VanLangen asked what the elevation difference would be from an office on the second floor of the MSO building versus the second floor of the applicant s. Mr. Bulgar replied his best measurement of the MSO building would be 24 versus 44 on the applicant s. Mr. Giametti asked from an architectural and design standpoint, is there anything that would prohibit this building from being reduced in size. Mr. Petrillo replied Mr. Bulgar may be able to answer this in more detail; however this is what was designed while working with the client and what works for the site. Ms. Maggziaa, Esq. (representing an objecting neighbor) questioned if the reduction in floor area reduce the number of storage units. Mr. Petrillo replied yes, however what that exact number is has not been determined. The average storage unit is 100 square feet so mathematically it most likely means a unit reduction. Sanjiv Ohri, 131 Fairmount Avenue - Unfortunately, Mr. Ohri could not be understood. There were no further questions for Mr. Petrillo from the Board or anyone in the audience. Mr. Meese recalled Mr. Bulgar and asked him to review the specific security measures of the building. Mr. Bulgar stated they reviewed the requests and concerns of the neighbors and Board. The following measures were agreed to be incorporated into the applicant s security. Low-light mega-pixel security camera system Remote monitoring of all security cameras, internal website and mobile phone access, 24/7, 30 day storage on PDF Customer security access through a key card. The key card is tied to customer license plate numbers Increased levels of lighting focusing on neighboring properties Increased fencing along the back of the property Burglar/security alarm tied into the local Police

5 Page 5 of 11 Mr. VanLangen questioned how we can be assured that someone doesn t bunk up at the facility. Mr. Bulgar replied they would eventually be picked up on the security cameras. Additionally, the County Canine unit would make random inspections. Mr. Meese also noted that if there is a breech in the lease there are severe monetary fines. Mr. Meese also commented that at the end of the day an employee will confirm that all units are locked. Mr. Hrasdzira asked what type of lock is used on each unit, i.e. padlock, key pad. Mr. Meese replied the customer is given the option of using their own lock or renting a key lock from the facility. There has to be a lock on every unit that is occupied. Mr. Meese noted that it is written in the lease that the facility owner has the right to cut the lock if they suspect any illegal activity. At this time, a sample lease was read to the Board. Mr. VanLangen asked if the facility is required, by law, to give advance notice. Mr. Meese replied no. Mr. Liebman asked what the ventilation is like in the units. Mr. Meese replied they are climate controlled. Ms. Spiller asked where the restrooms are located. Mr. Meese replied they are on the first floor, they are not readily available. Mr. VanLangen asked if the building has 24 hour access. Mr. Meese replied, no. Mr. Meese addressed a May 25 letter from the GRPD where they asked for public safety access, which the applicant fully agrees with. Additionally, they have asked for public safety communication which the applicant also agrees with. The Fire Department requested fire lanes be present around the entire building.

6 Page 6 of 11 Mr. Bulgar replied they have discussed this with the Fire Department and will comply with this request. Mr. Bulgar presented Exhibit A-29, dated May This is a Sketch Up study showing if the proposed building will shade out the existing neighbor to the south or the north. This study is computer generated and will show the exact location of the sun at any given time of day. During the summer solstice when the sun is at the highest this study shows that there is no shade projected on the building to the south or north. During the winter solstice, when the sun is at the lowest, again the study shows little or no impact on the buildings to the north or south. Mr. Bulgar noted that the existing tree line will actually cast more of a shadow than the proposed building. Exhibit A-30, dated May 2017, shows the enhanced landscape rendering of the proposed site. Mr. Bulgar commented the purpose of this revision was to provide enhanced screening between the proposed building and the buildings to the north and south. This was accomplished by providing a continuous evergreen line from property line to property line. This was in addition to the already present plantings. Mr. Bulgar presented Exhibit A-31, photograph looking south toward the MSO property, dated May 29, Exhibit A-32, photograph looking south toward the MSO property taken from the south side of the existing building. These photos give a good idea of the existing tree-line buffer. Mr. Bulgar explained the proposed landscape plan. They have come up with a planting pattern which alternates large species of arborvitae and black pine, which will provide the quickest and most dense buffer. Additionally, a 5 tight-mesh fence will be added along the south property line and placed in between the existing tree line and the proposed tree line, hiding the fence to the eye. Mr. VanLangen asked how wide the property is where the buffer plantings would be planted. Mr. Bulgar replied it is 23 to the south and 25 wide to the north, which is just on the applicant s property. The existing tree line is on the neighboring property. Mr. Bulgar noted there is 3-6 on the neighboring properties. Mr. VanLangen clarified that it is close to 30 between the two properties. Exhibit A-33 entitled lighting plan with a revised date of May 18, The purpose of this revision was to provide increased lighting and a level of security between the properties. The light poles are now equipped with two panels of LED lights instead of just one.

7 Page 7 of 11 The throw of light goes about 4 further than originally proposed; however the new tree buffer and fencing actually reduce the lighting that carries over onto the neighboring property. More light is concentrated up to the property line, but not going over the property line. Mr. VanLangen commented there appears to be plenty of lighting in the front of the building; however what is the lighting in the back of the building. Mr. Bulgar reiterated the Engineer s testimony which stated the lighting met the town s requirements. Ms. Spiller asked if the applicant would be receptive to tweaking the lighting 6 months after a Certificate of Occupancy is received. Mr. Bulgar replied they would not have a problem with this stipulation. Mr. Bulgar commented he believes this application is the epitome of good planning for a variety of reasons. It redevelops an underutilized piece of property and an obsolete office use with a modern permitted use. The building fits within all setbacks and building height limitations within the zone, even more so now with the reduction of the building mass. Additionally, the impervious coverage is reduced by 13.5% thereby increasing the surrounding green space. The street and surface drainage have also been improved, both on site and off site. This application substantially increases the landscape and subsequently the landscape screenings. The parking setbacks are increased between the neighboring properties from 6 to 23. Other than the fence height no other variances are required. The number of driveways are reduced from four to two. Mr. Bulgar also noted that there are several purposes of the land use law that are advanced by this application, most notably the efficient design of this land. In other words, a different use would have a much larger impact on traffic, impervious coverage, drainage, landscape buffers and municipal services. Mr. Bulgar believes the merits of this application stand on their own and the variance requested should be granted as there is no adverse impact on the property. Mr. Bulgar also believes they have demonstrated a genuine willingness to work with the Borough and their neighbors by addressing their concerns. Mr. Reina asked what the total number of units would be. Mr. Bulgar replied they originally had proposed 1,142 units; however with the building reduction we will lose between 70 and 90 units. Mr. Snieckus clarified if the number of lighting fixtures needed to be increased.

8 Page 8 of 11 Mr. Bulgar replied no, they simply doubled up the number of panels. We are increasing the wattage inside the housing unit. Mr. Snieckus asked what the total number of trees added would be. Mr. Bulgar replied there are 25 additional trees on each side for a total of 50 additional trees. Mr. VanLangen asked if there were any questions for Mr. Bulgar from anyone in the audience. Mr. Giametti (representing 139 Harristown) - Mr. Giametti believes the Board cannot put forth a vote this evening as the revised plans have not been available to the public for ten days and the public has not had ample time to digest the revisions. Additionally, there have been approximately 17 exhibits presented tonight. Mr. Liebman replied exhibits can be presented during the course of the hearing as well as revisions to the plans. The Board can still act as opposed to a new application submission. Mr. Liebman noted it is at the Board s discretion if they feel they have had ample time to review newly presented information. Mr. Meese commented they would have no objection to holding off on a vote in order to give Mr. Giametti time to review the revisions. Sanjiv Ohri, 131 Fairmount - Mr. Ohri commented the pixels should be adequate, as well as lighting, for clarity of any person who needs to be identified. There were no further questions from the Board or audience for Mr. Bulgar. The Planning Board will hold a special meeting on June 29 th at 7:30 p.m. The scheduled July 6 th meeting will be cancelled. New Business: Block 238, Lot Prospect Street Applicant: King Farmers Market, Inc. Applicant requests minor site plan approval for the addition of a shack, box baler and shed at the rear of the building as shown on site plan.

9 Page 9 of 11 Anthony Davis, Esq. noted his appearance on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Davis commented this is one of several properties the applicant owns. The nature of the business is fresh fruit and vegetables. As a result, the business creates a fair amount of cardboard boxes. Mr. Davis noted this is an existing building with an existing loading dock. There is a small addition being added to the loading dock along with a small shed which is within the setbacks. Mr. Liebman swore in Dustin Suh, 100 Palisade Road, Ft. Lee. Mr. Suh is the owner of this Kings Market. Mr. Suh provided a document (Exhibit A-1 Decibel graph) from the company providing the proposed baler which shows the noise level to be similar to a conversation level (59 decibels). The cycle time for a baler with boxes inside is 90 seconds and empty it is 50 seconds. It takes approximately 10 minutes to load the baler. Mr. Suh estimates the baler would need to be run 3-4 times a day, or 45 minutes of baler time. Mr. Suh noted this can be adjusted to be respectful of the neighboring homes. Mr. Suh noted the employees are cognizant of not overloading the baler to stress the machine. The baler would not be run during the weekends. Mr. VanLangen asked how large the baler is. Answer was inaudible. Mr. Knapp asked what is being used currently. Mr. Suh replied they received temporary approval to use a baler. Mr. Liebman noted the applicant has agreed to not operating the baler on the weekends. Are there stipulations for hours of operation? Mr. Suh replied the business is open from 8:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m.; however hours of operation are flexible. The Board suggested the baler operate between 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Mr. Suh agreed. Mr. VanLangen asked theoretically if a buffer could be built around the baler to dampen the noise more. Mr. Suh replied it would not be very beneficial as the buffer needs to be open at both ends for circulation of air. The Board suggested a six-month trial use and if the noise is a problem it would be revisited at that time.

10 Page 10 of 11 Mr. Liebman swore in Mr. Chung, Edison, New Jersey. Mr. Chung is the licensed architect for this application. Mr. VanLangen asked if Mr. Chung is aware of the dock on this property. Mr. Chung replied this is a pre-existing dock that is not in the easement area. Unfortunately, Mr. Chung s testimony was inaudible. Mr. VanLangen asked if there is concern that the baler would encroach upon the easement that is present. Mr. Davis replied in doing the calculations with the figures presented the baler would not be encroaching upon the easement. Mr. Davis noted the loading dock was pre-existing. Mr. Davis referred to Exhibit A-1 which shows the existing loading dock. Next to the loading dock the applicant is proposing a small shed to enclose the forklift that would be needed to unload the delivery truck. The baler would be next to the loading area on ground level. The baler, shack and shed are all within the required easement area. Mr. Liebman noted it appears the applicant s survey may not be totally accurate. The Board needs to be able to state that the new improvements would not encroach or be within the drainage easement. Mr. Davis commented that it appears the dock was simply hand drawn on the survey as it shows no measurements. It appears that the shed extends a foot past the dock. Mr. VanLangen commented a condition of approval should be that these improvements have no impact on the easement. Mr. Davis addressed several concerns in Mr. Berninger s letter of May 30, 2017, one being is there any disruption or hindrance to the traffic flow in the rear of the building which may be caused by the proposed improvements. Mr. Suh replied there would be none as the truck currently accesses the area without any problems. Councilwoman Morieko clarified that the back alley (where the loading dock is located) is only for delivery trucks and not public traffic. Mr. Suh stated that is correct.

11 Page 11 of 11 At this time, Mr. VanLangen asked if there were any questions or comments from anyone in the audience. Mr. Liebman swore in Benjamin Melnicki, 29 Garvey Place - Mr. Melnicki disagreed and stated the baler is extremely loud. Mr. Melnicki noted that the entire area between Garvey and Woodland is a significant flooding area. Bottle King did not use the loading dock. There is other vehicle traffic behind the building and is a massive parking area. This applicant has created a significant decline in maintenance since the purchase of this property. Mr. Melnicki strongly disagrees that this is a minor request. Mr. Liebman swore in Varun Mehta, 19 Woodvale - Mr. Mehta asked how long the baler will run and how many times during the day. Mr. VanLangen replied earlier testimony stated it runs for 10 minutes, 3-4 times a day. Mr. Hrasdzira asked if the forklift being used is powered by propane. Mr. Suh replied yes. There was considerable discussion regarding the timing of the delivery trucks. Mr. VanLangen suggested that the sound study be conducted on this property and then a determination can be made if adjustments need to be made. Councilwoman suggested the sound study be done on both a weekday and weekend. Mr. Liebman swore in Michael Lee, 218 Gaynor Place - Mr. Lee commented that the baler has been used since the beginning. Mr. Lee questioned if the Market could do business without a baler. Mr. Liebman noted that would be a decision of the Zoning Board. Mr. VanLangen summarized, and the applicant agreed, to carry this application to the work session of July 31 st and regular meeting of August 3 rd. This will give the applicant ample time to get a sound study completed and results obtained. As there was no further business before the Board a motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Councilwoman Morieko, seconded by Mr. King and passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Spiller Board Secretary