MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

March 23, 2006

Chairman Mike Lightner read the Open Public Meeting Advertisement Notice: Adequate notice of this meeting was given to the Citizen and the Daily Record, was posted with the Borough Clerk and on the Bulletin Board, and was made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.

ROLL CALL:

Pl. Bd. Present: Nix, Selver, Pitcher, Melikian, Batty, Gormally, Webb, Shaw, Palmer, Lightner Absent: Dunn Also Present: Attorney Peter Henry, Engineer William Ryden

REVIEW OF MINUTES: The amended minutes of the January 26 meeting were approved by voice vote.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: (carried from January 26)

WEBER HOMES Fanny Road & Morris Avenue

Bl. 88, Lots 17.01, 18, 19, 20 Appl. #06-220

Major Site Plan R-AH

Attorney Roy Kurnos, representing the applicant, reviewed the January 26 hearing. Kurnos said that tonight’s hearing would include reports from traffic engineer Gordon Meth, landscape designer Regina Cassorla, and David Minnow with design changes. Regarding the issue of building height, Kurnos drafted a revision to the ordinance and sent it to Attorneys Peter Henry and Marty Murphy. We won’t discuss it tonight because Mike Lightner said it is a Council issue now, so we prefer to move on with the “nuts and bolts” of the application. Steve Shaw said it is on the next Council agenda. If there is a synopsis from the Planning Board, it might be helpful to carry that back to Council. Peter Henry stated that the applicants said they will comply with new revisions and concluded they could not comply with the current height ordinance with the buildings on a slope. If the ordinance is not modified the application would need to go to the Board of Adjustment. Sandy Batty asked why the FAR was an issue. Peter Henry said that if the basement is considered to be the first floor, some elevations will be the full 3 stories which impacts the floor area. If you change the ordinance, those provisions won’t apply. We can’t design around the ordinance. Henry said we could use the logic that a unit in one of these buildings is a home and do the measurement according to that. The ordinance requires measurement of a building; if that is considered to be a unit in this design, it complies with ordinance. Kurnos said that in measuring grade, the ordinance says you measure from the existing grade, not from the finished grade.

Chairman Lightner asked how the Board feels about this; is there disagreement?

Steve Shaw asked, when the height ordinance was rewritten, were we envisioning application to single family residences or townhouses? Sandy Batty said that maybe these structures are too large; the ordinance may not apply. If we change it to a unit, each unit may be too large. The floor area ordinance is designed to restrict mass in proportion to lot size. Lightner - we have to deal with whether we have an issue for variances or not. Should we be proceeding when there is a need for a variance? Joan Nix said that this is requiring a variance for grade plane, not floor area. Lightner said that we are looking for feedback from the Board on how we want to proceed.

Kurnos said that even if you read the ordinance in our favor and do the measurement from the finished floor of that unit, I know the history of this ordinance and when it was adopted, there was discussion about its impact on this development. None of this is binding, I was just doing what I was told at the time, i.e. limit the volume of single family homes in this community, it didn’t apply to this project. Lightner said we don’t know whether it applied or not. Kurnos said he sent a letter to Mr. Henry, I don’t think floor area is an issue, the crux of this case is how you measure height. His opinion is that it is preferable to handle this as an amended ordinance, not to send it to the Zoning Board because the height could exceed the limit by 10%. Lightner asked Henry, considering the applicant’s request to amend the ordinance, can we proceed with other aspects of the application? Henry said that they could comply with the ordinance, or go to the Zoning Board and get their interpretation. Lightner said we should not make that decision. Henry agreed that it is not for this Board; this is an ordinance dispute, on how it applies on given land, and that is for the Zoning Board. Gormally asked if floor area is impacted, it is not just a height definition.

Henry - it is not just height; the heart of it is where will you start counting from, should you be counting from the old, original grade? Kurnos - as I read the ordinance, the townhouse is a dwelling, not a building; we have attached dwellings and should measure each attached dwelling. I would like to proceed. Sandy Batty said that Council is dealing with a certain piece of property, with housing popping out of the ground. There was no idea of the impact of this development when the ordinance was crafted. Lightner - the design element will impact the marketability of units; these issues are created by the design. Kurnos said it would be difficult to design the way this ordinance reads. We designed this as every townhouse standing as its own; with basements and story above grade, one home is one structure. We need to clean up the site, so we don’t know what the preexisting grade is; where do you count that from? Lightner - I understand why it states existing and not proposed grade; builders have a habit of moving soil to create a grade. Bill Weber - because of the soil removal and fill, we deal with the same issues, existing grade as opposed to old grade. Lightner – the big issue here is interpretation of the ordinance; should we go ahead with other aspects of application? Henry - the Board has to be willing to proceed or it could become meaningless. Lightner suggested a canvass of the Board.

Board response: Shaw - go ahead; Gormally - go ahead, there is enough to discuss. Henry -

they can get an interpretation unless Council amends the ordinance. Joan Nix - or they could amend their design. Kurnos - we will not be doing that. Nix – is concerned about other things coming to us in the future.

Henry - the key to an affordable housing zone, if you want to expand or adopt other areas, you may want to come back and revisit that decision and maybe change it again; this proposal is key to an affordable housing zone.

Palmer - that is why they got higher FAR approval, to meet the affordable housing.

Henry – it is geographic, not project driven. Webb - each project generates its own plan for affordable housing. Lightner - should we proceed? Henry - Council will decide on its own if that is a good route to take. Lightner – then it is OK to proceed.

Attorney Kurnos introduced traffic engineer Gordon Meth, of the firm Greenman-Pedersen, Inc., who presented his credentials and was qualified by the Board as an expert. Meth gave an overview for the Board, describing his visits to the site at the intersection of Morris Avenue and Fanny Road. He commissioned traffic counts on Saturday and during the week, conducted follow up visits, and did analyses to determine traffic operations to create the Traffic Impact Study dated February 8, 2006 and submitted to the Board. They also checked with other towns that would add traffic growth. Lightner - are you assuming that there would not be other projects in this area that would impact traffic? Meth - we did not find any such project to add any more traffic to this area. We asked Boonton and Mountain Lakes. Fanny Road is a collector road. Lightner – growth is likely to happen in Boonton Township.

Meth – let’s discuss what we found in the existing case. Fanny Road and Morris Avenue has a 4-way stop sign that was changed when the County finished the bridge. Meth described the method of measuring Level of Service (“A” is best, “F” is worst.) During peak hours, LOS C is considered good and is usually the target for new construction. With the exception of the morning eastbound approach on Fanny Rd., every movement during peak hours was rated C or better. Fanny has 3 times the traffic of Morris Ave. The Boonton Police Department reported 3 to 4 accidents during 2005 and said this is typical for any intersection. He feels this intersection works well as far as traffic safety.

Meth said you might consider a traffic signal. It has to comply with a strict set of 8 different warrants during peak hour volume; none of the existing warrants would comply today, so a traffic signal would not currently be warranted at this location. It would greatly outweigh the delay as it is today. Under that guidance, you live with a few minutes of delay in the morning.

Paul Selver - isn’t there a way to time the signal during peak hours? Meth - the rules have changed; Title 39 regulates traffic laws in New Jersey; flashing still introduces delay; a traffic signal could potentially cause more of a delay. Heavy traffic is confined to one peak morning hour. The entire intersection is located in Boonton. Meth estimated what amount of traffic this project could be expected to generate. With 40 age restricted units, the primary person has to be 55 or older so there are not likely to be school aged children. Meth reviewed the site traffic and trip distribution analyses detailed in his report.

Armen Melikian asked what Meth learned about cars making a left turn from the condos onto Fanny Road. Meth - 700 feet away from the stop sign, it would take a backup of 30-35 cars to start to interfere with that driveway; they would have no problem making a left turn.

Gormally asked if we should make Fanny Road one-way. Meth – it’s only a problem one hour each morning; it would be too restrictive for the residents if it is one-way. It is 600 feet from the YMCA driveway; if we only had the Morris Avenue entrance, we have a way around it.

Sandy Batty referred to the 2007 Build Levels of Service chart and asked whether traffic could cut through the development to avoid the intersection delay. Meth – decreasing the speed of a road helps regulate how people drive; keeping a 15 mph design can help discourage people to make a cut-through. Lightner – in spite of what you may do to prevent cutting through, they are still going to do it. Kurnos – that would be a police responsibility. Gormally - do we need to have 2 driveways? Kurnos – yes, from an engineering standpoint you need two. Batty - is this a private road? Yes, it is a private road, but you give the police entitlement. Webb - have you thought about any other traffic control? Kurnos - this is a private development; it is illegal to take a short cut under Title 39. If it is an issue for the people living there, they will have the ability to come up with their own enforcement development. Lightner – you know the cut-through is going to happen, so you can put emergency access off Fanny Road. Bill Ryden - did you mean eliminate? Lightner – yes, put a chain over it. Ryden - what problem do you think is going to happen? Lightner - people are going to cut through to avoid the back up. Meth – it is still not going to affect our results. Lightner - you still have the safety issue going more than 15 mph through this development. Meth – it’s really only one hour a day; it might not be unreasonable to have that entrance closed one hour each morning. Shaw – it is an issue; maybe they could put up cones. I think the benefit of having 2 accesses at all the times outweighs the problem of cut-throughs unless it is unsafe. Lightner - I think people will use it all the time, regardless of the delay. Kurnos - has seen this issue in other areas; this is a police power issue; there will be a condo association and they can control the gate. Certainly this is something the association can handle, not within the power of the Planning Board. Henry – the application before you will include a private road, which may include a potentially dangerous situation. The Planning Board should be involved if it raises a safety issue. The developer should design a way of dealing with it, but in the long run, it will be an issue for the association. Lightner – once an issue has been identified, it would be prudent for you to say how things should be done. Kurnos - that’s why we recommend a speed limit of 15 versus 25; we will come up with some solution to the cut-through problem. I will talk to the Chief and see what he has to say. Lightner - there are other times that there is a back up there, not just in the morning, for example, during activities at the ‘Y’.

Ryden asked if the trip generation numbers came from RSIS. Meth - it gives you daily trip numbers, daily traffic is in and out; RSIS has very low trip generations in it. Ryden - could you do a comparison? Meth – yes, I could prepare such a table; however, I don’t think it is going to change anything. Ryden – it’s our obligation to look at this; how about on site issues, larger vehicles, emergency vehicles. Meth – emergency vehicles will have no problem accessing the site, moving trucks will be OK; parking and aisle spaces are appropriate. Ryden - is there a response from the fire department? Yes, there was one handwritten report from Dec. 19; fire trunks can pass each other on the road.

Palmer – were there no turns to the west, on Fanny Road toward the Y and Del’s Village? Meth - based on my own inspection in the area, going left up Fanny Road is a non-work related destination; based on experience in this area, the pattern is to the south and east; there is a small amount of traffic to the north or west, not where the center of activity is for work.

Ryden - back to the fire department report, there are enough questions that we should authorize a technical meeting for the applicant and the department. Meth could respond or attend the meeting. Lightner - I would prefer the applicant to do a written response; Meth agreed to that.

Ryden - regarding reduction of the mph from 25 to 15 in a residential development, this Board does not have that power; Mr. Walker needs to apply through RSIS. Shaw - doesn’t the town have to endorse that? Ryden - that issue needs to be resolved. Lightner – can we make that a condition of approval? Henry - you can determine if you think it is appropriate, that kind of reduction in speed and road design is a non-diminimus exception.

Ryden – before you decide the diminimum exception we need to hear from Mr. Walker. Lightner - if we say we favor a design for a safety issue, what would you do differently? Ryden - you have to redesign the geometry of the road and sight differences. Kurnos - Walker is going to walk you through this, you will either accept or reject. Shaw - have you done counts to ITE? Meth – no, not built yet, applicants had tabulated 10 age restricted developments in NJ very similar to what is proposed here; trip generations are the same.

The Board took a 5 minute break.

Kurnos introduced Regina Cassorla to describe the highlights in the changes in the landscaping plan. The revised plan is dated February 9.

Cassorla reported: after meeting with the Shade Tree Commission, we changed the trees planned along Morris Avenue and have introduced other varieties of trees. We also removed the fence along Morris and Fanny. The location of the infiltration system is now clearly into the basin. The access trail was introduced. We eliminated the island because of the fire code.

In response to questions about the access path, Cassorla said that it is going to tie into this area as requested in the previous hearing; we are not sure where it is going to come from, but we relocated some plant material; it’s a gap, mulch path that can tie into a future Borough path. Regarding an area to walk dogs, Cassorla thought there was space in the back and a lot of lawn area on the Fanny Road side. The main internal road is for walking, no outdoor benches are planned for residents, but we can introduce a bench or park area if needed.

Joan Nix asked how you would get to the wetland area. Cassorla - we cannot design anything for that area, you have driveways to get to the back of the buildings.

Shaw - so people are going to walk up and down the road? There will be curbs but no sidewalks.

Gormally - can you utilize the wetlands for any purpose? Ryden – no, you can’t.

In response to the detention basin, there is an issue with safety; we will ask Marc Walker more about that.

Cassorla described the lighting plan. 33 fixtures are being introduced, the pole height is 15 feet, and each fixture is 15 inches. We spaced them 50 feet apart to give enough lighting throughout the community. Most of the lighting is contained within the community; a few shorter fixtures of solar lighting will provide back lighting.

In response to a question about technical testimony on the adequacy of street lighting, Kurnos said that Mr. Walker is capable of doing that. Gormally - what are the standards? Ryden – from RSIS for sections and parking areas. Lightner – can we tell from the plan that this is being met? No, this is just aesthetic. Gary Webb asked what we are responsible for. Henry - standard street lights; this is private road with a private electric bill. The Borough will hear about that for reimbursement requests. Sandy Batty asked if this will always be owned privately. Henry - I suspect that there is no way for anyone to address that question; they will have an association deal with it. A private or public road has to be built to the same standards; street lighting is different from site lighting. Lightner - the standard for the amount of illumination is low around town. Ryden - that is why we need to hear from Mr. Walker about those site lights and illumination. Lightner asked if the illumination would affect the houses across the street. Ryden – we need to discuss this.

Melikian pointed out that our ordinances require phosphate free fertilizer. Steve Shaw asked if the wall is part of the landscaping. Ryden – there is a setback variance issue about that. Kurnos said there is no real standard with regard to lighting for a development but we are happy to reduce the number in accordance with safety. Lightner – is there a need for more or less lighting at different points, parking more, roadway less? Gormally asked if there is any lighting connected with landscaping around perimeter of property. Cassorla – no.

Webb – regarding the developers agreement, could that agreement include calculations of private services that the Borough would provide? Henry - you might be establishing it at the get go; I suspect you could do that, but I’ve never really seen it; there are no real numbers yet. Webb – it must come down to formulas, so we easily could work it out and be agreed upon. Henry - I know of no reason why you couldn’t do numbers yet. Kurnos – Minnow will testify to the variance required for the stone wall.

Kurnos introduced David Minnow, a licensed planner and architect. Minnow - the areas we need relief from are the entrance structure and signs; they are typical understated residential entranceways but they are in setback areas. They are typically granted by Boards; in my opinion these signs will be appropriate. The purpose is to identify the project, not a street sign. Minnow - it’s a great planning feature, to create a pleasing entranceway to the community. Lightner - I understand that places have these sign, but why do we need them? Minnow - some sub-communities get known by that designation. It’s a positive to the community. In response to Lightner’s and Batty’s concerns that other areas in town do not have signage, Minnow said signage is valuable to the people living there and this area is different from other parts of town. Lightner - you are asking for a variance, that puts the burden on you to justify this. Minnow - I just know this is a positive, it is important to identify with. It may look imposing like this, but when you see the planting included, the sign area is a small part of the plan. I have not done a multifamily development like this without identification. We did a similar project of 100 units in Far Hills, a community of large single family homes; that project has signs. Palmer - it is one of the gateways to our town, the sign doesn’t fit our town; it is a very different look. Minnow asked if stone pillars would work. Selver - they don’t have signs. Shaw suggested the concept of a pillar similar to what we have in front of our houses, with no permanent signage, but maybe a sign during the marketing stage. Minnow - we can consider that, so the sign would only be temporary. I’ll photo some of them and come back to the next meeting to discuss it.

Minnow – the last time I spoke about a better roof than originally designed (Exhibit A12), it might be better to have a complete roof as you see in town, to try to maintain a height in the zone, considering the proposed height ordinance. Lightner - we have not seen the proposed ordinance. Minnow - we are taking the pitches up to a peak; the exhibit shown today, A14, dated 3/23/06; the previous exhibit shows a short roof. Lightner – this looks more massive. Minnow - very rarely do you see a building the way we are showing you in this elevation. The roof is always pulling away from you; instead of chopping the roof off taking it up to the ridge, Exhibit A15, 3/23, shows 2 cross sections of the multi-family building, and a cross-section of the town home. The bottom diagram is the townhouse; the multifamily structure is closest to Fanny Road, looking downhill. The highest elevation is going to be on the backside of the town homes. He clarified that the taller of the two buildings is the town homes. The parking garage is tucked into grade. Batty – so, the total height is more than the maximum of 35 feet? Yes, we got a sense from you last time that you would prefer to see a better looking roof. Lightner - design wise, yes, and the concern would be the impact the excessive height would have. Nix – I don’t see a hardship in this situation; you can drop the plate height; we need a compelling reason why this needs to be taller and bigger.

Minnow - if you look at your historical buildings, all above 35 feet, we are not trying to do something crazy; we are trying to make them look better, so now we are back to looking at a new height ordinance with the governing body. Palmer - what is the frontage? At that height, 40 feet from the road, it is not typical of our town. Minnow – in A14, you are seeing the affordable building; without the planting in front, it will look like the multifamily building. Lightner -

Despite our older homes, an ordinance is now on the books that houses do not exceed 35 feet; you are asking for a lot in terms of the height variance. We have 3 choices, you go to the Zoning Board, the ordinance can be changed, or you redesign the units. Minnow – we calculated the average grade to the mean height of the roof. We felt we were conforming. Lightner – the compromise was to change the design.

Minnow – in an affordable housing community the developer is subsidiary, there are some compromises made here. I don’t think we are asking for a lot, we are very consistent with residential height standards in the state. You can’t change this into a community for scale and size. We are trying to reach a compromise to do this, we are asking for normal height requests. Batty – I’d like the fire dept to look at this; 35 feet might be an issue. Minnow – this is no different than other homes, very much in keeping with the height of your family homes. Lightner – we can’t decide this issue tonight. Henry – these would be fully sprinkled homes, including the multi and affordable units. Minnow referred to Exhibit A16, a new elevation showing the town homes with the rear elevations facing wetlands; the only change is in the roof (A3 showed a cutoff roof); we just completed the pitch on that; again the worst case would be right here, because of the grade.

Shaw - to clarify the ordinance that the applicant wants Council to consider; it is exempting the RH zone, it is not a new ordinance about mean elevation. Henry - there are a handful, four different things, all limited to this property.

Minnow - the last thing I show you is the floor plans for the affordable units, Exhibit A17, 4 drawings. This is how the building is laid out. In the one bedroom units, the square footage is 754 sq feet. In the two bedroom units, 981 sq feet. A20 shows the 3 bedroom units with 1126 sq. feet, above the minimum requirement for COAH.

Palmer – our ordinances 245-22 and 23 specify bedroom distribution and 245-26 states that affordable units shall not be grouped or clustered separately from market rate units. Could you address this? Minnow - I think we started on that issue; the ordinance was constructed around that plan, that was our starting point.

Kurnos - we talked about this when we were doing the ordinance. We were not obligated to adhere to the ordinance because of age restriction. Henry - that does not mean that COAH can have the Borough change its ordinance. I don’t think there is anything in Fusee that alters that general requirement. It sounds like they need an ordinance and that is one you can grant. Batty – considering the exclusionary aspects, we didn’t want to have all the affordable units in one building. Webb - I know we did not discuss this with Council.

Kurnos referred to Section D, Nov 8 agreement between the Borough and Renssalear, no more than 4 of the COAH units should be age restricted. Selver - that does not deal with the location of the units. Kurnos - the agreement was subject to COAH approval, it took a long time to get it. Lightner – the issue is what is not in the agreement, a requirement that COAH not be segregated from the other units. It sounds like we have issues that need to be resolved. That is up to you as an applicant on what you decide, if you want relief then you can ask for it. Lightner – we have a number of issues that need to be raised; I suggest we adjourn and continue at the next meeting on April 27. Several Board members will not be able to attend that meeting. Batty - we won’t have that ordinance passed by 4/27. The application was adjourned to 4/27 unless you hear otherwise.

Carried to April 27:

ROBERT KLINGENBURG Appl. #05-217

DISCUSSION: Stormwater Management Plan

Gary Webb said that we are close to the deadline. Peter Henry - we need a resolution and a public hearing. Gary will provide a copy, the element sets up the goals of the stormwater plans. Ryden - it gets reviewed during the regular master plan updates. Steve Shaw thought we did a thorough job with the Environmental Committee, Ray Rogers and Bryan Marshall. Webb - the plan was developed by Bill Ryden and Mark Prusina, the commission insisted on that and did a review, we sat and compared notes. Shaw - didn’t realize we needed to update the master plan. Gary will provide the stormwater management plan, they got the master plan element. Ryden – we were compelled to do the master plan element on your master plan cycle. Batty – it does seem our plan doesn’t go into detail on the philosophy of how to deal with stormwater, I felt our plan didn’t emphasize that enough. Ryden - you don’t have any choice here, the solids, the rate are all proscribed by law, and all those details are there.

Ryden – there are two elements to the new regulation, nothing that goes back to looking at your system, you don’t have to reinvent your existing system.

OTHER MATTERS: Sandy Batty referred to the King of Kings property and the master plan. Would the Planning Board consider a revisit of that particular problem, do we have that same need since we have the Weber project?

Henry - at the master plan level you are not doing zoning, you look at the master plan for long range planning if you don’t like what is in the master plan. Selver – this is a new set of facts, whether it is an appropriate use of land. Webb - when we were looking at King of Kings, with the steep slope ordinance, it was designed to impact the residential zones, but leaves out the cluster ordinance. I suggest the ordinance committee look at that, if the intent was to apply to all zones. Sandy Batty referred to the Rumson decision. Can we now go back to the old ordinance, take out critical areas, slopes, wetlands, and find a minimum lot size?

The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m.

.

Respectfully submitted,

Diane Hertzig & Marge Jackson