February February 7 order 632 this ADV time location and the extend agenda such meeting proly posted in public place preserve such simar announcement on January 34 anded to in the West from January 30 2024 filed with the township January 30 2024 Mr Patel Mr Lao Mr Shel here Mr panc Mr Bag yes Miss Barry Miss appet councilman Whitfield mayor moratte yes Vice chairman hberman here chairman C there he is Mr Lao um we have um first thing I [Music] [Music] like okay hearing none moving on uh ordinance referral 202 for apprend the use and in air requirements one District you [Music] wanna they lower down good evening everybody uh for the record this is Dave Novak with BR Associates the pat of planning consultant uh tonight we were referred ordinance 20243 which deals with the r And1 District uh there are some uh a number of changes proposed for the district however the big change to the district that's being proposed with this ordinance deals with the affordable housing component of that District which is something that we really don't approach or have seen all that often but essentially one of the permitted uses in the R1 district is affordable housing as an integral part of a mixed use plan development subject to a number of Provisions so what the R1 district has done in the past is that it has allowed for affordable housing uh specifically 100% affordable housing developments in conjunction with some sort of other commercial development that has resulted in exactly zero affordable units produced um it is not part of our settlement agreement it was not part of our housing plan um so in it's often led to a lot of confusion as well to its interpretation uh Sam has gotten a lot of phone calls from developers who are looking at whether or not it also allows for inclusionary developments which it does not so since it's something that has not produced affordable units uh and is something that is uh not part of our settlement agreement to produce affordable units uh it was determined that it would be an easier and cleaner fix to eliminate that confusion and remove that component as a permitted use other aspects of the ordinance are being amended there's just very minor things for example um taking out the phrase branch franch bank is just doing banks nobody really knows what a franch bank is anymore uh convenience retail just changing that to retail so just some minor updates making it more of a modern ordinance identifying as a commercial mixed use development as well but again uh the Crux of this is removing the affordable housing component as one of primitive uses and I should have backtracked in case nobody knows or somebody does not know this the R1 district is our research office manufacturing District it's located along Route One primarily and encompasses a good portion of the Carnegie Center office development and I can just add to that there's about six Parcels that are in the rom1 um and they have already have approvals for about 1.2 million square feet of office space so there's no there may be properties undeveloped but all those properties have approvals on them right now in your1 recommend and find that it's substantially consistent and find that it's substantially consistent with the master plan El that motion Mr laa yes Mr shakel yes Mr Bag yes councilman Whitfield yes mayor marate yes Vice chairman hberman yes chairman C yes Mo okay next order application 2222 continuation December 13th 13th yes 13th yes [Music] um I may just to indicate on the record that this is continuation of that hearing the board already took took jurisdiction and continues to have jurisdiction before you start I just that meeting to V tonight thank you Mr chairman for the record I'm Henry Kent Smith I'm with Fox Rothchild appearing again tonight on the applicant Eastridge UDC on the proposal before this board that involves a quick check uh convenience store with fuel service at the corner of Southfield in 571 or Princeton heightstown Road as well as a proposed restaurant pad at State four we are seeking preliminary and Final on the Quick Check only and preliminary only on the restaurant furthermore we are seeking a lot consolidation and subdivision as part of this application uh on December 13th we presented our operations testimony through Mr Hutch we have also presented our site plan engineering and Architectural testimony uh as part of that hearing there were numerous comments raised by both the board professionals as well as this board uh at the December 13th hearing we then took Liberty to do the best that we possibly could to address those comments both from the board professionals and from this board and that resulted in a resubmission of the uh site plan application on January 17th uh we have received reports on the revised submission set from the board's professionals and are prepared to address those tonight uh what I do want to do to start tonight is have both Mr kunsman and Mr Young Who are the site plan engineer and professional architect uh just present briefly a summary of all of the plan changes that we made in our resubmission just so the board knows what we did and how we've approached it once they have concluded updating the board on the revisions made to the plan uh then I will present Mr Dean our traffic engineer and Mr MCD our professional planner uh who will then uh testify at which point then Mr chairman I will have concluded my direct presentation so with the board's Indulgence I would have Mr kunsman and Mr Young i' remind you both you remain under oath confirm that please good uh so Mr cman you made plan revisions that were submitted to the board on January 17th correct cor could you please just identify those uh plan revisions to uh the board and then update the board on what was done in response to the comments received and the revisions that you made I need microphone yes yeah we're recording it all yeah do do use microphone and since there's only one member of public can you just move it up front so we can see it closer yeah yeah we again for the board's information we have everything now posted electronically on the boards I have the paper boards in case there's a glitch but what is shown Mr hunman confirmed this what is shown on the plan exhibit the paper is what is shown on the screen that's correct okay and if you would just then identify for the sure I going to mark this exhibit A9 the A9 is what I had Jerry I I I had stopped at A8 a so I think A9 is the correct okay this is the site layout plan exhibit prepared by bowler dated February 7th 2024 so this is a colorized rendering of the site plan um that was submitted as part of our resubmission to the um to the board and we made a few based on comments that we received from the last hearing um just one thing I want to clarify or provide additional information on with architect is information about the generator which is located Southwest of the um convenient store so we did submit a detail which is included as part of our site plans which provide additional information um what the generator will look uh look like sir and I believe there is some question questions in regards to the specification and the noise level of the generator we have confirmed the specification as Matt mentioned it's been provided on the drawings the generator is being provided with a sound enclosure with that sound enclosure the manufacturer specification state that at a distance of 23 feet from the enclosure there will be a decibel level of 71 DB so therefore when the distance doubles to 46 feet the decel level will drop to 65 and 65 is an important number because I believe the West Winds are noise ordinance for a receiving commercial property 24 hours a day and a receiving residential property line between 700 am and 10 pm 65 DB is the cut off that's at the property line of the receiving property our decel level at 65 is in compliance at less than 50 feet away from the generator Ator and as stated in previous testimony at the last hearing when the generator is tested that will be during the day between the hours of 7 AM and 10 pm I need to go back a step I'm looking at site layout plan c301 which I think yours the colorized version correct yes okay can you tell me exactly where the generator is sure I'm G to point it out right now it's not labeled it's not if that's it it's not lab it is Follow Follow The Line yeah so the arrow is pointed to the generator next to the enclosure just pointed out on the plan sorry to the southwest of the rear corner to the southwest of the rear corner of the Quick Check building oh okay the leader line is so far away from the so F I found it now thank you very much for K on theator you guys find you find it Michael kilowatt off the generator I have to off the top of my head I can't answer that I believe it's 125 or 150 KW I'd have to confirm that you bear with me I can provide that well I think Mr kman is gonna go ahead and and and look that up um thank you while you're doing that Mr cman um the plans that were revised and resubmitted um those plans also are revised to address I'll shut up because looks like sorry so were you able to answer oh I I was pass off the all okay so while while Mr Young's looking at this and Mr cman in revising the plans did you also then address the recommendations and comments from the professional staff yes we did and you've had an opportunity then to review the revised staff uh reports on the plan resubmission yes I have and is there anything in those reports that causes you any concern that we wouldn't agree to abide by no there's not okay um and let's go ahead then and continue one of the concerns the board had was related to the lighting on the property um and uh have you revised the plans to reduce the lighting level uh yes we have please through then with the board the provisions made for light okay just one last thing I just want to talk about before I go to my next plan is that we did Revis also the Landscaping there was a comment about the shrub proposed so we did swap out the Cherry Laurel to Shamrock and Barry Holly to remove that concern is very happy I'm happy Mr chairman I want on the record that it's a rare day that I see Mr Don bursky with such a clean before it they did it wonderful okay this is um do I need to Mark A a plan that was you would this is the the revised plan correct so this would be A10 yes A10 details the so this is the lighting plan can you give reference to a lower right what sheet number you're on uh C 705 thank you and this is the lighning plan prepared by bowler dated January 12 2024 so um from the last hearing we were asked about our Ling levels especially underneath the gas canopy so with that we have revised our lighting package to reduce the light levels quite a bit so underneath the gas canopy um the new average of foot handles is 31.8 three foot handles um where uh previously under the gas can B we had U sorry had this from number 47.1 foot candles so with that it's an 18% reduction of the foot candle value we're providing under the gas canopy we also reduced the lane levels in the gas parking or in the parking lot as well for the um restaurant or yeah the restaurant parking and also the convenience store um with that reduced lightting levels the average in the parking area is 3.6 foot candles so that is a a reduction of 12 and a half% from what we previously proposed um we still do require a waiver for the um maximum foot candles provided within the parking areas due to the standard being 0.5 foot candles we've also reduced the parking levels uh within the drive aisle or the driveways lighting sorry sorry we reduce the lighting levels within the driveways as well um where we reduce from 4.8 foot candles the 3.2 foot candles with that we do have to request a waiver for the minimum foot candles in a driveway required by the code U which requires three foot candles where we have two foot candles proposed with this though we are providing um you know safe adequate light levels within driveways which meets industry standards as well I'm sorry can can you go over the numbers for the driveway driveway uh the driveway the maximum decrease from 4.8 foot candles to 3.2 foot candles thank you and overall for our uh facility we are providing you know comparable lighting levels to what is in town as well so we reviewed um G or other gas stations within West Windsor and determin that the light levels where we're proposing is very comparable to what's existing in the township um and um then the last revision that you made related to the reduction in the size of the monument sign Mr Young is going to testify on the revisions made to the facade signs as a project architect but I just want Mr kunsman to Mark and and identify for the record the reduced I just have one question while we're on lighting um will there be glare produced underneath the canopy the light fixtures for the gas canopy are recessed and point downwards so there will not be glare no glare so going to the next exhibit going to be A1 yes what sheet is that that's the next so a11 this is signage elevations exhibit prepared by bowler dated February 7th 2024 this was not included as part of our application but I do have it on the screen and on the board next to me so this plan or exhibit shows that we reduce the monument sign um size for the quick check on princeon heightstown road from 100 square feet to 80 square feet so uh where the leader is point1 the ESS on the Princeton heightstown Road has been reduced from 100 square feet to 80 square feet additionally we have U reduced the sign size the monument sign size for the restaurant on princ Town Road to 48 square feet which is cod compliant and so um while we're still on the topic of signage I would like Mr Young to now address the board relative to the modifications we made to the canopy and faade signage and I be mat the you can just toggle to the next sure there you go this was like a separate handout the last was a all right so Mr Young if you would mark this will be exhibit a12 sure data of course yeah you're right this is sheet R1 building and gas canopy rendered elevations prepared by GK architect dated January 23rd 2024 we've made two revisions to the building and fuel canopy signage first on the building facade the north elevation we've reduced the sign size from 86.01 square feet down to 46.7 square feet as a result the letter height has been reduced from 33 in down to 28 in and the Q logo on the right hand side of that sign was 56 in now it's 46 in so I believe we've eliminated a waiver for the square footage however we still require a waiver for the letter height on the fuel canopy facade the Quick Check sign we've eliminated the Q on the right hand side of that sign so the letter height is now 17 inches and this brings us into compliance in regards to letter height and as a result of eliminating the Q from that sign the square footage has also been reduced from 22.6 square feet down to 17.75 square feet I would like to point out one additional change we made not in regards to the signage on the fuel can canopy but in regards to a design comment one of the board members had at the last meeting we've added a cornice to the top of all four sides of the fuel canopy it's the same cornice that you see on the top of the building it's just scaled down the height of this cornice is 16 inches so it increases the overall height of the canopy from three feet to 4 feet 4 inches and one last thing before I hand the microphone back to Mr gunsman in regards to the board member's question about the size of the generator it's 125 kilow so then uh the last concern that was raised by the board on December 13th rela to signage related to the what I call the decals but they're actually part of the multi-product fuel dispensers so the board inquired and we will be requesting additional design waivers to the extent necessary for the proposed decal uh that's on the fuel pump so Mr cman if you would this will be marked 8 813 so this exhibit 813 gas pump s exhibit prepared by bowler dated February 7 2024 um so this elev or this exhibit shows two elevations of each fuel dispenser so you have three product fuel dispenser on the left and on the right you have the diesel dispenser there are total of eight uh three prog dispensers on the left and two uh diesel dispensers and the signs that are um that we're proposing include a quick check sign on the top of the dispenser which is 1.55 Square ft and the sign on the bottom is 6.7 sare F feet so each fuel dispenser on both sides will have these signs and if you could then just refer back to Mr Young we had the the the canopy elevation shown that also showed the uh fuel product dispensers correct So yeah thank you yes that's correct the what you see in terms of those is to scale correct that's correct so that is the vision of that facility with that proposed signage that you would see in real life yes the size of the signage you see on the pumps themselves is correctly proportionate in regards to the size of the fuel canopy and the building what I find interesting is that uh most often at service stations the diesel is green except if green is the predominant color of Quick Check you know you're you're going for an color with the yellow uh for the diesel uh indication correct yellow is I thought was green no okay I'm wrong so um just in conclusion just so that there is no confusion there are a variety of State mandated decals that go on gas pumps that are required by state D and bus Bureau underground story all those regulations so those are just State mandated de you'll actually see a couple of them on there about you can't Pump Fuel yourself that kind of stuff so with that then I have concluded the testimony regarding the resubmission and again to confirm for the record we will agree to all comments and recommendations made by staff in their latest reports reviewing the January 17th resubmission and would so agree to that as a condition so and unless there are any further questions Mr chairman from the board to these Witnesses I can then proceed to the next witness any anybody like to ask questions of the witnesses right now and mo to our okay don't see any so we we have our um did we did we have traffic did we do traffic last week no this is where I my next witness is the traffic engineer okay so Mr chairman if I may I would call Mr Dean thank you mat thank you yeah probably so Henry has he been sworn in uh Gary I don't think you were sworn were you I don't believe I was there's your item you swear affirm the testimony about to give would be the truth yes I do just want to affirm please State your full name and spell your last name Barry Dean D an so Mr Dean if you would I believe you probably testify before this board on on more than one occasion is that correct I have um I think the most recent appearance before this board was for the rehabilitation of the former Acme shopping center on Princeton Heights down road that now I believe has a specialty food uh vendor in there but I was also the traffic consultant for the artist Senior Living facility um just up the road here off the circle those are the most recent you've been doing this a long time hav not as long as you close to it um and you are still licensed professional engineer state of New Jersey correct yes and by way of background I'm a graduate of Lehigh University in civil engineering I've been actively engaged in the practice of traffic engineering a municipal Consulting for traffic related matters since 1983 uh my license is current and in good standing and I've been qualified as an expert before roughly 450 maybe 500 different planning and zoning boards well they're only 5 68 minutes P that's why I said planning and zoning boards I haven't hit them all yet but uh and in Superior core but so Mr chairman I'm submitting Mr Dean yes sir okay all right so the request Mr Dean did youtake an analysis of the application for the board tonight that is correct what did you look at well before we even got to writing a report that was submitted uh working with the applicant and the entire professional team we realized that access to the site was going to be of critical concern either for the community or for the county so recognizing that Princeton height down road is under County jurisdiction we worked at the time with George fallet who was the County engineer and Jeff lamero who I believe is familiar to this board uh formerly with Aurora who was in the position of the County Traffic engineer and we reviewed all the uh the means of proposed Ingress and to the subject site and we looked at traffic volumes on Princeton height down road we evaluated the operation of the traffic signal we looked at site distances and those of you who are familiar there is a very lengthy um eastbound left turn lane across the site Frontage I'm pointing to the exhibit but I'll step away from it this is the exhibit we marked as A9 correct I have no idea no A9 yes yes thank you um and looking at it we felt maybe it's a little longer than it needs to be and because both uses tend to cater to what Traffic Engineers call passby Traffic that's the kind of trip we make as drivers I don't want to say impulsively but generally you notice your fuel gauge I'm running low I need to get gas I'll stop in because I'm on my way somewhere else and other than Saturday morning running out of gas in the lawn mower rarely does someone make a special trip to a gas station so with the higher volume of traffic on Princeton heightstown Road and recognizing the characteristics of both uses which are generally catering to passby traffic we felt uh directing that traffic in with a left turn lane much like the T Tuttle Dental practice to our West would be advisable we work with Mr fallet we work with Mr lamero we looked at stacking at the light and we came up with a design and they were satisfied through that process however there was a change in County Administration and we now have a new engineer and that engineer did not necessarily well he didn't agree with his predecessors and so even though we had developed a scheme and submitted plans to this board staff work through TRC the county delivered this edict that we would this site would not be permitted direct left turn Ingress at all so that sent us back to the drawing board with new plans we then re-evaluated the functions of the intersection now I'm starting to get into our traffic study and once we had but before you get too far along loan you did then do and submit a traffic study and Analysis to this board as part of this application correct I submitted two one was in 2021 for the original plan and then one was an addent in June of 2023 and both are sign and seal by you yes and that is the work product of your office with regard not just to the conclusions but all the underlying analysis that is correct and so once that pivot occurred with the county and and the access was you know it was told to us how it would be one of the other elements of our with the county is because the site would not have direct left turns in that traffic coming westbound would need to be accommodated on South field and the county asked us to evaluate the turn lane in front of CVS which is just to our East as a result of that analysis we agreed as part of the county it's not reflected on the plans but that the applicant would be providing a minor restriping of that turn lane for more capacity what's the current capacity of that turn lane and what will the new capacity be right now I believe it's 150 and we're lengthening it I'm sorry I I me quantity of cars that would help me understand it better seven okay and we're increasing it to eight roughly so we're we're compensating for the fact that again we can't have our customers conveniently turn left into the site with that and and again to Mr kenith we submitted our traffic report um it's been reviewed by staff it includes counts as a traffic study would do during our typical weekday rush hours in the morning and in the afternoon we also looked at Saturday and one of the reasons for Saturday is uh these uses tend uh to attract some traffic obviously but the restaurant would as well and that could be a peak time of op so we looked at all three of those peak hours generally speaking traffic studies don't look at midday hours simply because traffic conditions are most concentrated during our commuter rush hour so because and on conclusions were that that that the intersection would negatively impacted during peak hours logically if it works when traffic is most concentrated at off peak times when there's less traffic it will continue to operate uh efficiently and then as part of our effort uh working uh with Mr kunsman we review the internal circulation looking at you know the design of the islands and radi for vehic types that would be attracted we obviously have deliveries to the Quick Check consisting of articulated tractor trailers that are tankers but also traditional tractor trailers that deliver uh food beverages paper products and the like uh in addition to the smaller trucks we call them the vendor trucks which are single unit vehicles for uh some soft drinks potato chips things of that nature but the site is designed to accommodate all of that truck traffic and and obviously fire trucks as well which are slightly smaller so um we've reviewed all of that we've looked at the on-site traffic flow you will note even though a u a tenant has not been selected you will see a proposed stacking Lane that allows for counterclockwise flow around the restaurant building and we have designed that for nine total stacking Vehicles which exceeds I would say the industry standard of eight for the traditional I don't want to call them fast food but of that type of food service um we've also spent a fair amount of time looking at the conditions and alignment of mric uh you've seen the efforts undertaken there would be a dedication of property arising from this application to create a four-way intersection and I'm pointing but as you can see on the exhibit M mric continues in the lighter green tone and and doesn't align on the opposite side and again through recommendations principally with staff um that design was undertaken at the loss of a little property but to create a uniform four-way traditional intersection if we could stay on the mcettrick lane for a moment and matth you might need to jump in here too could you please go over um in in its entirety all of the changes planned for the full length of mric Lane just about to cover that so excellent question mric Lane and there was some uncertainty as we were going through the various TRC meetings megri Lane is two way there's no question of that the reason I draw that conclusion is because there's a stop sign at either end so and in researching the ordinance and we now have learned I think staff has also that the old alignment of megri I'll call it behind CVS or south of CVS used to be one way the section for this particular property in the Tuttle dentist office was two-way the proposal and it's off the exhibit but board members who are familiar mric intersects Princeton Heights toown Road at at a a call it a bend in the road and an elbow and it doesn't come in at a traditional 90 Dee intersection so it it looks and it feels and quite frankly it's used today even though it's two-way it's used as basically an an exit ramp almost from Princeton Heights toown Road to get to Southfield The Proposal is to formalize what has been that practice and so the intent is to keep it two-way on the south side of the site improved widened curved right now it's a little bit more than a car Lane and a half in width there are no curves you know it's not a traditional roadway it looks more like a path um so all of that cartway would be improved as part of the site and then uh through signing and very conspicuous pavement markings the little stub section just to the very my directions are wrong West will be we are proposing that it be designated for one-way traffic flow that will require governing body ordinance adoption and I'll say official action by the council but but that is this applicant's proposal mostly because working with police and staff nobody felt the the little section that everyone thought was one way should be two-way so we are now I'll say rectifying or remedying that there there may be a no and I know it's in uh Mr Mass's latest memorandum to remove the stop sign at the I'll call it end of mric I don't know that this applicant can do that because it's in public RightWay but if we work through the logistics of what the governing body allows this applicant will pull the sign out and give it back to public works so it'll be one way in from correct so so it will function as e found traffic only up to the Tuttle driveway and and that's where it transitions the additional signage uh to uh inform drivers of these changes on mric Lane is that part of the application it is okay clarification question on that uh uh the Tuttle property is not part of the application yet these changes have impact upon the Tuttle property at mric l so my question to the applicant is uh coming out of the Tuttle driveway where uh there'll there'll be do not enter signs going to the right uh I would like to think that at the Tuttle driveway there needs to be a directional sign one uh of of saying you can only make a left turn basally exiting traffic going towards going towards Southfield is that part of of you providing that to the Tuttle property as part of this application because of the changes at MRI Lane sure the good news is sure you're saying yes you agree to that the good news is in in looking at our counts no one ever came out of the Tuttle driveway and turned right however functionally it because uh egress from the Tuttle driveway on the Princeton heightstown side one can only go east that if a uh user of the Tuttle property wants to go back towards Princeton Junction they would need to go down to Southfield Road go up to the highway and make a left correct yes so that's why I'm saying there there I would think there has to be some additional signage upon leaving the Tuttle property because of the changes at mcgetrick Lane is that part do you guys so Mr hobman let me just clarify so we know exactly what because what I envisioned is as you are leaving the Tuttle driveway onto megri you're looking doe South there would be a one-way sign go that way because we have the do not turn left then you want the one and the answer is yes the answer is yes the answer is yes what the need is there because persons won't know otherwise so and and as part of the package what we would be submitting is a sign and RightWay proposal for signage to the council because this has all got to be reviewed by Township Council the township council's got to make the decision um but we would certainly agree that we would do the installation in conjunction with our project but it's got to be approved by Council uh another another question about MRI Lane and uh Gary you haven't touched on it yet uh can you talk about the need and the reasoning for a rumble strip down the entire middle of mcettrick Lane we I did not propose that bowler has a a Affiliated firm that handles traffic engineering I don't have the background and Genesis of why that was needed I think uh hopefully everyone understands what they are there's a scoring in the pavement surface um so that if a vehicle drifts from a lane it it creates a sound that vibrates through the wheel and causes people to sort of wake up I I I we can put it in We cannot put it in why is this more beneficial than just having good striping on the pavement I I don't have an answer for it because I didn't design it but Matthew can you address this it may have been part of the review letter that we received I would to verify I'm not sure if it was but if it's not then we can revise it for um well it's part of the Atlantic traffic and design submission sure part of the application is there any harm in having yeah feel it's safer there because everybody's used to going one way that One Direction so now there's something that leats you up and you're on the wrong side of the road exactly you know what the great thing is is the township C in the end makes the decision because it's their road so we will make a proposal however the council acts we will Implement I mean I think generally it is a safer safer yeah to use especially at night it's going be up in 24 hours don't forget yeah in case you feel as fall asleep in that two seconds you go from that stop sign now a as to your question about the signage on Tuttle we are not here we don't have the right to encroach on that property all of the signage all of the signage will be placed and I've I've enlarged the exhibit hopefully you can see the right away it will be within the right I I get that I understand that if you've ever been on that road you'd never want to make a ride out of totle property back probably not that's why was no [Music] traffic it is a makes a lot of sense that you don't go that way right it it is a very lightly Tri travel the road I mean there are 44 cars at night that use it in 22 in the morning per hour so it's you know one car less than a car a minute so it's it's a path so going back to the rumble strips um uh yeah I understand my colleagues uh Expressions on this but uh will there also be some distinctive striping on the same it's the the uh submission by Atlantic doesn't actually indicate striping it only indicates Bumble strips so I'd like to know if if there's I mean maybe they're just maybe say dark in the dark color just to show its different can you can you answer that there there is and I'll do one more zoom if I can what what you will see is we call it a Gore area it is a transition from a double yellow line that creates uh it it it essentially I don't want to say forces it's just paint but it directs traffic that if it ever winds up traveling westbound onagri into the Tuttle driveway and then at the west of that there would be do not enter signs oneway signs and the like so you you will see the attempt in the gore area is to direct that traffic to the right into the Tuttle driveway you'll see preceding the driveway or just to the east an arrow that alerts motorists we a lane use control Arrow so that traffic knows turn right in Tuttle driveway if if there's something else I mean this is just paint so I mean we can but but is the rumble strip length painted is that also have painted lines yes there would be a center line correct and and the way they are cut they're painted and then cut afterwards so that the paint remains okay sometimes they're done the other way but regardless there will be a center line and and again it's up to the town after that to maintain it whether whether you like the rumble strips and agree with their efficacy you know we'll leave it but the proposal is to initially install them so before we go further let's go back to the internal site um because you had described the circulation on site um but we are requesting a design waiver for the number of parking stalls because we exceed the number of parking stalls under the ordinance uh inclusive of the it's 52 physical stalls inclusive of three EVS with credit would make 55 spaces under the ordinance that would that would include the EV uh charger uh credit and the ordinance only permits uh 42 uh do you have an opinion with regard to the the appropriateness of that uh requested waiver H having done enough work for not only quick check but their competitors like Wawa and 7-Eleven and the like um I I generally like to defer to the person that's investing the money to develop the site and wants to run a su store I I will say that the standard in the industry for gas with convenience is 50 spaces around the building there will be shifts of employees so there's a little bit of overlap whenever they arrive in the part um but the general objective is we don't want people waiting for a spot and if if it were designed exactly with the ordinance requirement and someone comes in at lunchtime we don't want them waiting in an access aisle or encumbering any of the circulation around the fuel dispensers waiting for one of the spots right at the front door we want to ensure that there's plenty of parking around the building I think the relief we're asking for is what eight or maybe 10 spaces the total number of physical spaces is 55 or 42 are required uh excuse me 52 were 42 are required so 10 more physical spaces but three of them are EV so we get the credit and that gets added on to it here's my take on the EV a well-intentioned bit of legislation from Senator Smith the the reality is if a site needs 10 parking spaces and with an EV credit you only have eight well what do you do with the other two cars that need to park so I understand that credit has an incentive towards large scale shopping centers employment centers as a as a as a means to entice owners to put the equipment in but but on a site like this that is catering to individuals except for the employees who are in and out within the span of five minutes the EV charging equipment offers no meaningful benefit to those individuals so now but however uh there is UN and this is unusual for a convenience store like this there is seating so one could have a dining experience while one's charging one's car that is correct my only take on that is with a level two charger which is what is required the charge rate on that is roughly 15 or 16 miles per hour and so and the time it takes to eat a sandwich you're putting seven miles in your tank so to speak it's probably not enough to even have gotten to the store so yeah but they get a nice place to park that they do that no that nobody else is gonna use right see the perks of having an electric car yeah your comment your comment is appropriate but you have a daily there and if you put Tesla charges there I stop at Wawa every time and you have Tesla's in quick check in Robinsville I just went and took a pictures I showed him that you put it that a lot of people will just stop there and you will your daily business will increase I I do work for Tesla and I've also owned the one so I'm very familiar with charge rates uh the cost to put in Tesla equipment is extraordinary because it's 480 volt and 300 to 400 amp service and the Transformers and Equipment are very expensive I don't believe quick check is willing to underwrite that if there were a need and Tesla decided that they wanted their equipment in this facility that would require additional equipment that doesn't exist and we'd have to come back to the board for an amended site plan approval that's the only quick check I saw that has Tesla in Robins mostly waas have it corre cheats have it wi Che doesn't have it and and the industry is evolving it seems almost daily you know there's more and more people adopting the charging port standard Etc so at facilities like this yes there is a little bit of an inducement to have a charging stall and it may attract someone for lunch we can't discount that but in terms of the practicality of the credit they're Phantom spaces they don't exist I mean you can't put a car in a credit space so so with that going back to now the overall Ingress egress and circulation plan in your opinion based on your review the total circulation uh plan as proposed is safe efficient and meets required standards for site distance Etc yes thank you for that we we've spent a lot of time again working with staff looking at things like tanker truck circulation which you know at the onset of a project seems like almost an afterthought quite the contrary that dictates a lot of the site design and where the tank Fields lie so that it doesn't affect uh on-site circulation but in my opinion I think what you see is a very conventional uh design for the fuel pump dispensers located in the front the convenience store call it behind from the customers perspective if one were to come in from 571 and similarly with the fast food it it allows for easy access to the front parking field or the north parking field closest to 571 and then sets up the uh counterclockwise circulation for the drive-thru you'll see I'm pointing so forgive me but you'll see a lot of attention and effort went into developing the plans with stop bars and stop signs and uh probably overs signed and regulated but safety first so because of the nature of traffic we wanted to ensure that the circulation was was adequate and more than adequate trash circulation access to the dumpsters all have been taken in to consideration as well as the access points on myric it's it's an unusual site in that it's surrounded by roads on three sides so it does come with some challenges relative to setbacks and things of that nature but you know my compliments to the design team and I'm not you know part of it but I mean they really did The Lion Share of making this work and and I think it's an exceptional design from the traffic engineering perspective so Mr Dean after all of the travails that we experienced with the Mercer County uh engineering department do we have our Mercer County planning board approval for our driveway access that's almost a legal question I'll say yes I think somewhere in the file I have a letter acknowledging approval I think it's subject to you know probably some easement and other paperwork but yes in principle we have that full approval okay now um given the circumstance imposed by the county relative to the elimination of left turns from Princeton heightstown directly into the site um did you evaluate the proposed Monument signs that we are requesting design waiver relief in particular the sign that will be located on Princeton High heightstown Road relative to the function of that sign on traveling Public's notification of this property on five on princ I did yeah as as you've heard this evening the applicant has listened to the concerns and has uh contracted the size the proposed sign of the uh freestanding ID sign it is a little unusual in the in the service station business in that it is a monument sign most often service station signs are higher and visible and for a very simple reason is that by and large this is the most unique land use where a customer makes their decision to patronize the store either a because of brand or B more importantly price it is a very competitive business and unlike CVS by way of example who can advertise something on sale gas stations can't do that so we as drivers and consumer consumers make our decision to purchase based on convenience but also price and if quick checks prices were through the roof well that would affect their business so that information needs to be roadside and conspicuous so a driver can safely decide this is the station I wish to visit and I need to decelerate and turn and wait for the light the challenge we have is twofold first is without left turn Ingress customers have to know and we understand it will be regular visitors but there will be some who are unfamiliar who happen to see it for the first time that getting that information to the driver well in advance of Southfield is critical and I don't know which board did it but when CVS was approved there was a burm constructed in front of CVS with and now the trees are starting to mature and they have a canopy and I think it presents a very nice streetcape great for Aesthetics horrible for traffic in that it that Improvement and you can see it just to the right of the exhibit there's a cluster of trees what you can't see is the burm in front of the site that affects a driver's visibility to that critical information and we're disadvantaged because the sign is already lower so the way we can compensate for that is to have that information at an appropriate letter height now how do we get to that letter height well there are some certain design and traffic engineering standards that relate to safety and in particular signs the first thing I need to discuss briefly is a term called decision site distance it's a very technical term but what it means is as drivers we perceive something whether it's a toll plaza an exit or a site we'd like to visit we perceive that bit of information and we start our decision-making process of I want to slow down I want to turn on my signal because we are a multi Lane Road on Princeton heightstown Road somebody may have to move from the curb Lane to the center lane and then ultimately to the left turn lane all of that is going on at roughly 75 feet per second because the speed limit is 50 miles an hour that's if you're traveling the speed limit realistically we know it's probably a little bit higher so it's critical to convey that information to the motorist so they have enough time and that decision site distance on a Suburban road is about a thousand feet so as we start to look at that distance back across CVS or in the other direction we would like to have a clear unobstructed line of site that information that's affecting people's decision to get to the site the Federal Highway Administration publishes sign standards for Highway Safety the old rule of thumb used to be one inch of letter height for every 50 feet of visibility because we have an aging population and vision isn't as good as it was that's been now reduced to one inch per 30 feet of sight distance that yields a recommended letter height for somebody to see a sign and start to execute a maneuver of close to 30 in if we had proposed 30inch letters for this site I think this board would have some real trouble with it what we've proposed are 16inch letters for the critical price information so roughly half the size of what the Federal Highway would recommend but there is some logic to the speed of the road it's not a one size fits all because we don't need letters that are 30 inches tall on a 25 M hour our road they can be much smaller and that's what we have on Southfield but on Princeton heighton where we do have people traveling at speed and recognizing I'll call it the hardship imposed on this applicant by restricting those left turns I would submit that there's a compelling need for better visibility for The Unique nature of this use CVS doesn't needed some of the other signs that were on the uh exhibit that was presented we have the McCaffrey's Market right with a coffee shop and an orthodontist and UPS customers can look that up they know to get there they need a little bit of wayfinding but it's not that impulse traveling by the site making the decision to stop in and so in my opinion there is an enhanced need for safety um because of the nature of the use but also because of the spec conditions unique to the site that warrant a little bigger sign to make it safer and all I can say is to a traffic guy there's no such thing as a sign that's too small but as a community I understand you need to balance safety and messaging with Aesthetics and and in my opinion I would say we have we we have achieved that objective and one last aspect that I forgot to get to um when we are talking about the parking field for the proposed quick check and the additional parking stalls this quick check has two primary ent ent es correct yes there's there's a I'll call it a primary entrance obviously on Princeton heighton Road right in right out and then a secondary also right in right out on Southfield so even though it's a actually I know was because I forgot about metric oh I was I was about I was gonna help you out and then I would call it a tertiary means of Ingress and egress that is unrestricted on mric but it's somewhat unique and that corner properties typically you know we we we want people to make a left they're inclined to do it as motorists these aren't divided highways however balancing site development and the applicant has agreed um both of these main access points I'll say have been voluntarily Twisted arm restricted to right and write out normally they wouldn't be but so then with regard to the internal parking field you have two ways to enter the proposed quick check the one to the north facing Princeton height Town Road no the building itself I'm now I'm sorry and then there's also an entrance on the southern end of the proposed Quick Check does that from a just a basic traffic circulation and design having two different entrances into a store does that impact where and how much parking it's it's a fairly common design feature feature uh for this type use in that with a limited number of parking spaces and again forgive me I'm pointing to the north side of the building right up where the fuel dispensers are um you want to have additional parking on the other uh perimeter sides so that people can get in and a lot of these stores Wawa doing it they have dual entrances with handicap parking on both sides to spread that parking out in this instance because our traffic originating from the south on Southfield would come in and turn on mric having that parking on the south side of the building in in a good concentration keeps that traffic away from the fuel dispenser so that's the rationale behind that our loading and and call it back of house if you will is featured on the Westerly side of the building where we have the trash enclosure in the loading zone but we have parking on three sides of the building again to to better or more uniformly distribute customer parking that only goes into the building and you have reviewed the Aurora traffic analysis prepared U for tonight's meeting we we have uh and again in addition to our traffic report we have submitted multiple responses to the various Aurora you know critiques of the plan request for additional information and yes I do have the one that was most recently issued I believe let's see it's January 23rd that if I'm not mistaken principally pertains to the discussion we had about the signs and what are we doing at the other end of metric but but there's no in other words there's no other aspect of the report that would cause you we take I take no exception I it's been very thorough but it's it's been a good process and and I think very thoroughly vetted um I just have a question for you with regard to the signage um so you're basically indicating that the reason for the I guess s 12 foot in height the 100 square foot sign is because of the birming uh on the other end plus the Restriction in terms of left turn now when you take a look at the Valero station across the street their signage is almost 11 feet in height I think it's 10 10.9 48 square foot height and the pricing is I think 20 square foot or 16 actually square foot so you're basic you could not live with something of that nature on this site from a safety standpoint I I I would submit that as far as traffic safety and and just to clarify we're proposing an 80 square foot sign it was 100 I'm sorry we've now shrunk it okay um so to answer your question though that that Valero sign to me is Antiquated and less effective um than the one we're proposing which features for example LED letters whereas the Valero has changeable manual type letter so it's it's modernized and I I I would feel more efficient for nighttime visibility so in my opinion it's appropriate but the Valero sign doesn't have this CVS burm right that we do and the curve of the road it's off the exhibit but princ and heightstown Road does curve somewhat too so a driver's uh perspective or view of the site is really limited until that're they're almost at the turn lane and and then it gets to be too late to jump across three lanes on heightstown road at 50 miles an hour great at our last meeting I think one of the things that was brought up um was people people did not want to see tractor trailers coming in there to fuel uh certainly you have to have them in there to deliver so in the way that we have this design are you comfortable with the fact that tractor trailers could not Traverse that site and fuel adequately also have diesel vehicle that is a truck I find the dispensers are very slow I have 38 gallon tank I sit at that pump for a very long time to fuel tractor trailers that have 100 plus gallons go to truck stops literally because the diameter of the nozzle at a diesel dispenser at a truck stop and they have two one for the saddle tanks under the tank so they often can fuel on both sides they are probably five times faster than the dispensers at a I'll call it a retail fueling station such as this so it's sort of like fighting a fire with a garden hose it might work but it won't be very effective so that's the rational behind the capacity of those nozzles if if a landscaper wants to come in and he's got an F350 and towing is good sure he can come in and use the diesel I'm not talking about tra Traer trailer coming in I've done can they actually get in there physically it's it's an it's very challenging to get in there physically um I don't know for example we've designed it to accommodate the fuel delivery so if we can get that truck in but but but it's a little different because that truck is coming in to the north side of the canopy whereas to fuel and I don't know are there diesels on every island just okay so so it makes it you know while the truck can get into to the islands I don't think they could get into that dispenser to fuel their so it's it's highly unlikely that's that's why these are designed it this is why I said it's an exceptional design effort because you want to design it for the delivery trucks but you don't want to design it so that it becomes a truck stop and there's enough on 295 so would it also be helpful to put a sign prohibiting uh tractor trailers from fueling we would agree to do that yes thank you that's actually common that's fair so I also have a a signage question on the on the detail sheet uh there is an indication of the the international Universal no left turn sign which is the circle with the slash through it and the left Arrow that's what c902 my question is um there is the indication on the uh site plans uh at the three ESS points from the site where one can only where there's the arrow and the word only right turn arrow and the word only would there also be at those three locations the universal no left turn sign I'm thinking about situations like in Winter where you really can't see this the the road mark yeah I I I will say if they're not there they should be so we we will endeavor as part of resolution compliance if we're so fortunate to ensure that those no left turns and the primary reason is a visibility and B enforcement because part of what will come from this is it's great to put a sign up and it's great to design it with a pork chop but if there's no teeth behind it as far as enforcement then we I'm G to be the real pessimist here um I I know people are still going to make left turns from those areas despite your signage efforts I it's inevitably going to happen and I'll tell you why um daily I'm on Highway 31 between 295 and the traffic circle at in in hopel Township and along that part of State Highway uh every turn onto Northbound 31 needs to be a right turn only until you get to the traffic circle okay there might I think there might be a roundabout connection at Den now road but my point is that even in our best efforts uh there there still might be problems with uh drivers wanting to make the left turn like especially the Southfield entry on can thinking to to get to to the light I'm just warning you on that uh but you've made I you do have you have made your best efforts to try to control that thank you thank you Mr chairman if there are no further questions then I would call my last witness Mr McDon yeah just a quick question I don't mean this be a snarky question but um a lot of work w a lot of work Jack and others um were you involved with all Ying Scotch Road lawrenville one North and Baker Bas Ro for in how Township I and are those Wawas I don't believe I want the baker's Basin is Where Mrs G used to be right that site yeah I'm not going to thank [Laughter] you I feel that by the way the little road that comes from Route One as you're heading north North band that goes back behind the McDonald's and goes out Greenberg drive for beatric geinberg Mrs G all right so then just so I understand typically historically for gas station what's the percentage breakdown between repeat customers and new customers that's so I would it depends on the time of day and day of the week think about you know we drive to work and there are I'll say habitual migration patterns to and from at during those peak hours I I would think probably close to 80 85% are habitual regular users then we get to the midday people who are traveling to meetings or they're in sales calls not regular business commuters who who don't live in the area and so then that percentage of uh I'll say non repeat customers comes up and then you get the weekends where you know if relativ visiting and weddings and you know there's it that probably drops even lower where you have more people who are unfamiliar with the environs so I unfortunately I can't give you that answer other than peak hours because we've actually on behalf of Quick Check years ago studied the people that come in we interviewed them hey are you here just to buy gas or are you going somewhere else and it's like oh I'm on my way to work and it's 85% so that's where that if not a little bit higher so if there are no further questions then I will call Mr McDon thank you for your time tonight Henry is jumping this morning need to be all right Mr MCD raise your hand for you swear we affirming testimony about to give be the truth yes I do so so want to affirm please say your full name and spell your last name sure hi there everyone my name is John MCD that spell MC capital d n o and I'm the project planner so Mr McDona if you would be so kind to please provide this board with your uh learned experience professional licensure experience in the field of planning Etc sure thing my education comes from here in New Jersey and ruers um I testify as a professional Planner on a nightly basis throughout the state of New Jersey including here many times before planning board zoning board um that license is current it's in good standing I've also testified and uh am nationally certified as an aicp under uh our amican through certified planners that is also current and in good standing for the record I'm also a landscape architect although that's not my capacity this evening so in competition with Mr Dean how many professional how many planing boards and zoning boards you testified in front of how many did Gary say I don't I honestly don't know I I don't count right yeah a lot pretty much County more than half Mr chairman I'm submitting Mr McD's professional planner uh Mr mcdunn to request the applicant did you undertake an analysis the applications before the board tonight we did and can you please describe what you looked at in preparing your testimony for tonight well we conducted a standard planning analysis which is really four parts we look at the existing conditions we look at proposed we look at your zoning ordinance your zoning criteria and the relief that the applicant is seeking and the criteria that would go with that relief and we have well founded and established criteria as the board well knows it's not really a question of whether one likes the application or dislikes the application it's a matter of how the application Stacks up with your ordinances and the criteria for any deviations or departures from those requirements and are you um particularly aware of the uh zoning process and rezoning process relative to the specific property yes I am um again we have landed in what is now the b2a neighborhood Business Center Zone District where which is distinguishable from your B2 Zone in that it permits fewer uses but the two uses that are before you are specifically permitted in the district here that being the convenience with fuel sales and that being the restaurant compar with the drive-thru with or without the drive-thru as permitted now you also reviewed the application design standards as applied by or as stated by West Wister Township in their site plan design ordinance I have yes and I've reviewed the application not only from a youth standpoint but from a bulk standpoint and this application top to bottom complies with your bulk requirements there are many and they are all there to protect the public interest and the general welfare the lot area the frontage the floor area the building height the coverage the cues the access all of the setbacks all comply top to bottom so um we are though requesting design exceptions from the site plan design ordinance correct yes and those standards relate more to the appearance or the design of the development as opposed to its mass its scale and its intensity and the township has determined that signage is regulated under the site plan design standards and not under the zoning ordinance directly that's correct although there is a reference in the ordinance to the site plan design standards as it relates to signage correct uh yes there is okay so if you would be so kind to walk through with the board the design exception relief being requested tonight and I would like if you could just introduce the concept of the legal standards and planning standards in particular that one must demonstrate to secure a uh design exception from a planning perspective so we'll turn to uh Mr Cox in his L use handbook that we planners always referred to which is Chuck full of cases but I I like this book because it does establish a legal framework for that which planners work within we go first right to the statute in terms of what the statute says with respect to design exceptions and this is quoting 40 55 d-51 littleb and it says the planning board when acting upon applications for preliminary site plan approval shall have the power to Grant such such exceptions from the requirements of the site plan or for site plan approval as may be reasonable and within the general purpose and intent of the provisions for site plan review and an ordinance adopted pursuant to this article meaning the ml if the literal enforcement of one or more of the provisions of the ordinance will in exact undue hardship because of peculiar conditions pertaining to the land in question that's what the statute says so from a planner's perspective then how do you view it in terms of the standard of relief from a planner's uh Viewpoint for these design exceptions so we'll go back to again the Cox book and on page 330 he says waivers must be reasonable under the facts and he quotes the or he cites the Gallo court that a waiver is no more than an acknowledgment by the board that the condition of the property is satisfactory and meets the requirements of the local ordinance so again we're looking at reasonableness here and undo hardship so um if you could then walk through each of the design exceptions that we are requesting in conjunction with this application and provide your opinion relative to the appropriateness of the uh relief being sought and the um practicality um relative to that compliance and what is being furthered relative to the request so we're going to take this in buckets because there are interrelated design exceptions and there's generally three buckets of relief that the applicant is asking the board to move on first are your parking related exceptions second are your signage related exceptions and third are your lighting related exceptions and I think and the rest of the team gave a good foundation as to the reasonableness for all of these three buckets but we'll we'll take them one by one uh the first related to parking you've got the parking Supply which is an overs Supply here you heard Gary talk about it you heard Matt as well you heard the operations testimony we're looking for relief for the equivalent of 55 spaces where 42 would be the maximum allowed that's an over parking Supply the nature of issues caters to convenience and to ease of access and comfort we tend to park like we sit and if you look in the ordinance in the audience here we have maybe two pairs of people sitting next to each other and another dozen or so spread out people tend to seek out space in a parking lot especially of a land use of this nature where ease is essential and convenience is essential to the nature of the use so that's why it is good planning and certainly reasonable if we can hit the other design parameters and the bulk parameters particularly with respect to lock coverage which is substantially met here that that enhances and makes the nature of the use better so we think that uh again is a justifiable relief for customer convenience nature of use and the overall coverage compliance bear in mind we're going to keep coming back to undo hardship which is the requirement for a design exception the undue hardship here is on the public strict or literal enforcement of the ordinance and not providing for these exceptions would compromise safety we're going to talk about that a lot as we go through the signs would compromise comfort and convenience and also when we get to signs as well we'll talk about how it would compromise customer familiarity brand familiarity meeting customer expectations for this particular user and this particular use so again that relief pertains to the first part within the first bucket of parking parking Supply we've also got the parking location in the front yard that's a challenge related to practically any use of this particular piece of property with its triple Frontage on three roads and we've given you a plan view here to illustrate that yeah just for the record so that because I don't know if you have a paper one of that I do have paper copies of the board okay with that or should I we'll take copies 14 thank next time thank you I did for the record A14 is it's simply two slides and they're going to show what the property looked like back in December before we were here for the last hearing so you're looking at uh two Vantage points of the subject property the first page is a view looking to the north and again you get a sense of in the center of the photograph the semi-triangular shape of the property with its triple Frontage in the foreground you just heard Gary talk about it uh mric Lane on the right hand side you've got Southfield and then in the background you've got Princeton heightstown Road um as you've just heard we're surrounded by a variety of uses we've got the shopping center across the street to the right we've got or to the east East from this Vantage we've got the CVS shopping center caddy Corner you're looking at the Valero we've got Farmland in the foreground residential Beyond so again we're at a core here where we're predominantly commercial in in nature um related to again the parking location in the front yard the plan has been laid out in a design Solution that's very common um I call it the figure eight from a circulation standpoint where you've got the ring around the convenience door you've got the ring around the fueling component and they meet in the middle which is a very logical balanced design a practical difficulty related to any use of a property such as this avoiding parking in the front yard when you're essentially completely surrounded uh by roadways and then the second view is just the reverse view we're now looking at Princeton height heightstown in the foreground uh in the far corner you've got the CVS and then you've got the shopping center in the lower left farmland and of course the physical condition of the property which you heard about last time the poor condition of the property the multiplicity of abandoned and vacant buildings here boarded up this proposal is going to unify the site um again provide for service uses along a service Corridor both food convenience and fuel all nicely knit together and I I think the project has been well planned welld designed and at this point well vetted as as well in terms of where the applicant and the application has landed so that goes towards the parking Supply and the parking location we've got also got relief related to the driveway separation uh for those two driveways that you've heard along Princeton heightstown Road uh 112. n ft where 200 feet would be the minimum that's required again as you've heard the test testimony of the design engineer that that meets a reasonable level of safety standard and provides convenient and safe access efficient access God bless you for for the uh customers and will not create a dangerous condition uh that design is intended to function safely for the testimony likewise we've got the multiple access points along a single roadway which is not permitted also goes towards the overall intent of a permitted use that's being delivered here for convenience safety and expansive Frontage along the property the driveway width at 30 ft where 24 would be the maximum allowed is to accommodate the Turning movements of the vehicles that would come onto this site so it will promote safe circulation and safe turning movements and then the fact that the parking lot is not completely lined with a with a curbed Edge we've got the flush treatment along the front of the building and around the building is also for customer convenience for safe and efficient access to the building uh it is a planning goal to provide for a variety of uses according to the needs of all New Jersey citizens and this certainly does provide uh clear and safe access without having that curb or that tripping Hazard along the front of the building so that all goes towards the parking related relief and we think based on the testimony clearly that standard that I read to you at the beginning providing a sense of reasonableness and also exacting and undo hardship if strict or literal enforcement of the ordinance was imposed would certainly again create an undue hardship on Public Safety compromized convenience and customer familiarity with this particular brand signage related exceptions moving on to bucket number two you heard about the number of building signs again Oliver's testimony the fact that we have two entrances one on the back one on the front perfectly logical to demarcate the entrance points on the building as reasonable and appropriate for that relief the number likewise the number of ground signs relates to the number of access points whereas building signs DeMark entryways into the building the roadside signs demarcate entryways into the site itself and again that provides for clear and safe site identification the ground sign the primary ground sign or the central gr ground sign um in the interest of creating hierarchy here and defining what would be the primary entrance into the site at the center location uh has landed at 12.6 feet where four would be the maximum that's allowed again we think that's reasonable in creating variety um and in comparison to the other signage that's in the area as well a reasonable blend the ground sign area the one sign has landed at 80 square feet and again looking at the comparison of other signs in the area which range from the Valero at 40 square feet to those shopping center signs which exceed 100 square feet I think the applicant has landed again based on the interaction with the board at a at a good spot to provide effective balance as Gary said of clear and safe identification of the site avoiding sudden stops sudden turns clear and safe visibility and not compromising Aesthetics so it is a a good balance there the canopy sign letter height logo is going to be at 17 in where 8 in would be the maximum that's allowed it's a very nice integration with the building with the canopy itself and is not going to be overbearing in the context of the overall presentation and then finally the fuel pump signs are not permitted but we see this as providing a unifying element to the site it's common throughout your community here and it identifies this brand as a fuel retailer much like it's a convenience store retailer as well that all goes towards the signage related exceptions and also hit that standard of reasonableness and exactly undo hardship that if relief were not granted or exceptions were not granted that would create a compromise of safety and U convenience so the opinion that you just rendered relative to the safety you're relying then on Mr Dean's test relative to his analysis of the letter height and sight distance I was here for the full duration uh we planners tend to use resource materials as well that Echo a lot of what um what Gary just talked about with the federal uh Highway uh Authority as well and the letter Heights and the the formulas that were used there we planners have the same books so you concur then with Mr I do yes last bucket belief um goes back towards Matt's testimony relating to the lighting uh the average illumination at 5.6 foot candles uh where 0.5 would be the maximum that's allowed again we're trying to provide for Effective balance what's unique about this land use is that the point of sale occurs Outdoors so it makes good common sense to have the area well lit that canopy is what I'll say throws off the average illumination and we think that is necessary for safety purposes especially when we do have point of sale the maximum illumination at the property line 3.2 foot candles where one would be the maximum allowed that's also related to the driveways or the access points and is certainly reasonable from a Safety Stand likewise the minimum alumination at the driveway intersection uh is going to be at two foot candles where three would be the uh minimum that's required again again falling back on the testimony of Matt from a design standpoint that the overall lighting plan will be safe will create a safely illuminated situation without creating objectionable glare on uh adjacent properties that goes for the three buckets of relief I think there were actually a couple of others out there yeah so let me let's just cover them the uh other design exception relief relates to the buffer separating two commercial uses in our subdivision line down middle of the property uh separating quick check from the proposed restaurant we will request and uh ask the board to Grant a 10 foot buffer as opposed to 25 fet as required by the ordinance in the area of where the drive-thru Lane curves through into uh the area between the canopy gas canopy and the restaurant so with regard to that yeah that's also reasonable relief from a landscape standpoint adequate space to provide for soft Edge which is one of the intense buffer and again it is primarily related to the internal site the applicant has loaded this site from a planting standpoint your professional has I'll say endorsed it um it feels like wherever Matt could get a circle he put a circle in there so it is very very heavy and will be robust from a from a landscape standpoint so I think the overall intent to provide adequate buffering or soft edges met and then the last issue is that the proposed restaurant does not at this juncture uh show a loading zone designation um and that would require a design exception for the uh uh proposed restaurant which is very common for for this use the qsr type land use that deliveries are made off peak we see this with many of the top brands and providing for a separate loading space unlike the uh with the the quick check uh would be unnecessary and inefficient so then uh with regard to the overall relief being requested by the applicant your planning opinion relative to the appropriateness of that relief sure I believe the test is met as I said this is a site that has been well planned it's been well designed and I think now where we've landed it's well vetted to the extent that all of your bulk controls are met this is not overdevelopment uh this is not over intensity of devel velopment as well um it's not going to create overcrowding or the like hits all the main marks these exceptions are certainly lower order exceptions related overall design we think they meet that standard of reasonableness for all of the reasons that have been given on the record and also the fact that as I said for all of these it would exact undo hardship on the public compromising safety convenience and and customer familiarity with the brand just reminding the board again taking you back to the Cox book the court noted that a waiver is no more than an acknowledgement by the board that the condition of the property is satisfactory and meets the requirements of the local ordinance from a planning standpoint this project has been designed in accordance with sound planning principles site planning principles with your ordinance with respect to access circulation parking raiding drainage Landscaping lighting utilities and and the like so all all the Mar here notwithstanding the relief and the relief are exceptions these are exceptions are waving the requirements as applying to this particular it's not approving a variance it's different it's an exception so with that said I have no further questions for Mr mcdna anybody okay so Mr chairman at this juncture I have no further direct testimony to provide to this board and uh would now defer to how the board wishes to conducted so now we'll hear from our Prof good evening everybody again for the record David Novak with bur's Associates the board's planning consultant we have I SW you guys say no I don't think so either if you could raise your right right hand do you swear or affirm that testimony about to give would be the truth yes so sworn or affirmed yeah just say your names David Novak n ovak with Burgess Associates the board planning consultant quaz MC civil engineering consult to the okay so we had prepared a memo dated January 31st 2024 just wanted to provide two clarifications to that memo because it might be a little confusing uh the first is on page two table one we identify a required minimum lot area of one acre and then for proposed lot 2.01 and 2.02 we identify 9,284 and 5967 respectively that would be square footage not Acres uh both of those lots are in conformance with the minimum lot area requirement of the b2a district one acre is equal to 43,560 square feet um the second clarification uh regards is in regard to the measurements for the signage we summarize the changes to the dimensions of those signs if one was to uh mult multiply those Dimensions you might end up with areas that are greater than what was identified that's largely because the Township's regulations don't include the base of signs within that sign area requirement so you it's not a strict multiplication process in terms of when you're measuring the total height and the width of the sign otherwise I'll be somewhat brief um just wanted to provide a little bit of a brief planning background on where this site is and and uh the master Planning and Zoning history behind it so this was a new Lanes category and a new zoning District that was recommended by our 2020 land use plan element of the master plan uh this site used to be located in the P1 District which is a professional office District the site that is essentially caddy corner from it was located in an r1c District so when the master plan looked at this area it looked at the existing development pattern it looked at this intercession which was was predominantly a commercial one and devised the zoning to reflect that existing commercial development pattern so that was the Genesis of the p2a district uh I did review this application in relationship to the bulk standards of the b2a district and I would agree with the applicants planner uh those bulk requirements that are established by the b2a district as it relate to lot area lot Frontage front yards rear yards side yards FL area ratio Improvement coverage Building height and drive-through standards are in compliance with the b2a district's standards uh the applicant uh had several uh experts identify the design waivers that are required uh regarding parking and circulation signage and lighting I would agree that those should be treated as design waivers uh while I understand there is a reference in the b2a district to those regulations uh they would have to be specifically identified in the zoning District or zoning regulations for us to treat them as C variances those regulations are not located there they're located in the site PL setion therefore I would agree it's appropriate to treat them as design waivers um I'm not too sure if the board has any questions for me specifically on any of those individual waiver requests I can go through them if you'd like or just directly answer your questions oh I have a question on page five regarding Max letter um I believe the appied that they were that would be I believe the uh height of the letter height in the canopy is that what you're referring to C top Monument sign oh that's the wall signage sign um so the applicant had reduced the the letter height I believe of the uh wall signage um section 2-32 A2 A4 establishes a maximum letter height of 18 inches uh each sign has a letter height of 28 inch that deals with the wall signage the 17 you heard before I believe there's one reference to the monument signage uh and another reference to the canopy signage so 28 in is the height they're asking for on their correct no the 28 in is the letter height of the wall signage wall perhaps can the applicant bring up that exhibit so this is exhibit a a12 so Oliver again just go through the lettering height on the facade and then you want the lettering height on the mining correct Mr chairman sure yeah so Oliver if you could do that and then Matt you could do the uh Monument sign thank you Henry that's correct for the building sign the height has now been reduced to 28 inches for the letters and the Q is how big one second hold on and and the the Q the 20 Ines up for the quick check about the Q the Q which is on the far right that is now 46 inches it was previously 56 I it was previously 56 in now it's 46 in just just like the Quick Check lettering was previously 38 in now it's 28 in okay thank you it turns the mind sure so referring back to exhibit a11 for the 80 square foot Monument sign the LED pricing letter height is 16 inches and that relates back to the testimony regarding the speed limit and site visibility um and that was where the discussion of the 30in sign should you apply that formula from the a FHA applies yes Mr Dean testified to that David you have something in number N9 sign antip of sign illumination business a 24hour yes uh that question was more towards uh daytime elimination so um well since it's an LED sign I those letters will be lit during the day is there any lighting with the Quick Check component of the sign your in terms of the monument yeah internal alumination of the Quick Check portion not necessarily the gas prices yeah yes it's internally backlit okay and will that side be backlit during daylight hours too I don't I don't believe so but it it may be but and the LED lighting I'm assuming is based on a a brightness setting so are those LED lights identifying gas prices brighter during the daytime than nighttime it would be a consistent light level consistent one level okay sometimes you see it pull away sometimes the lighting actually gets brighter during the daytime I know that kind of sounds contradictory but LED lighting typically needs to compete with sunlight during daytime hours nighttime obviously does not uh but the applicant has indicated that it would just be one setting it it can be increaser in day not making that recommendation it was just the question f um question regarding your um 9 C height of the sign 127 and 78 above four feet above grade do what's grade here we know what the grade in this area is fin it's just finished grade so not not we're not looking at sea level elevation which is looking at or elevation above sea level which're is looking at grade okay so it's like not like on top of a BM or something like that no no no um no just finished grade no no no burms Dan got his friend with the CVS does does um I don't know if you the one for D does the 12 fo7 fo sign does that rise above the burn so someone can see it I know whoever want answer that Dan you remember how tall that burn was at the CVS I can answer that now or in my testimony whichever way you want to do it I could answer it now or in testimony whichever way you prefer okay okay so David anything else in in your report that stands out that we we think that you think we should focus on not toer over to Dan again uh but but I will uh there are additional regulations regarding accessory structur specifically the proposed generator and Transformer um they are allowed within front yard areas provided that there's adequate Landscaping so when we get the dance review memo let's just make sure we touch upon that um so if they are adequately landscaped no waiver would be required okay Jerry yeah David on your um your memo page four under walking in circulation paragraph six I take it at this point they are not seeking that waiver no I believe they are so for propos lot 2.02 there are5 parking spaces required propos lot 2.02 they provided 45 physical spaces but due to the EV legislation but Henry never mentioned no no no I think we're talking about two different things I think we're talking were you CH you were referencing item six on page four which is the number of parking spaces not the monument sign no that's what I'm talking about the number of parking spaces on the restaurant restaurant okay well I had stipulated compliance so that would require the elimination of two parking spaces then we will stipulate compliance on the restaurant site in Conformity with the parking requirements of your ordinance and just so the boort understands that they had hit the nail on the head when it comes to physical design 45 spaces were required and 45 physical spaces are are proposed but due to that EV legislation the required EV parking spaces actually get counted twice so they really have 47 parking spaces with that bonus but as the applicant stipulated if they were to remove two parking spaces then they would be in compliance so you g down to 43 plus 2 EVS that gives you to 45 right is that right I thought it was 41 physical and two EV physical that makes 43 physical 45 total 43 Park they would need right right 41 41 41 plus two EVS get you to 45 yes 41 yes 41 I know what we're doing now 41 regular parking spaces with two EV parking spaces plus the bonus of two spaces 45 y that gives you the 45 requir to no lab okay I understood okay any other questions for David NOP okay I'm gonna go I'm gonna jump to Dan now a lot of stuff going on Dan okay thank you good evening so I have a report dated November 29th 2023 uh there's five points that I've made in the report I'll kind of summarize and highlight the the points of for each um comment and answer the questions and then highlight any potential conditions that could be imposed and the first comment talks about existing and proposed landscape in terms of trees overall number uh they're removing about 175 existing living trees uh planting about 65 new trees Which is less but the new trees will be uh set in um a location that is appropriate um fits the space uh and is more sustainable uh some of the existing landscape has some serious problems with it um and is in locations that are not you know going to work with commercial development um they are pro proposing to Reserve 18 existing trees um I'm a little suspect that some of those may not make it when it come right down to it and so I would suggest as a condition there'll be a condition for an on-site review of existing tree removal to be approved by Township staff as part of the before construction is initiated um have issues that nope we agree okay thank you so I I believe the proposed landscape will mitigate ultimately the loss of trees on the property and there will be no impact on the community uh the second comment it deals with the landscape design that they're proposing uh it meets the standards and guidelines offered by the township codes for this location and the level of Redevelopment that's proposed the buffering of the accessory structures I believe is adequate um and will will diminish the visibility of those elements particularly from offsite I have heard the testimony regarding the impact of the offsite landscape upon the signage and I I my viewpoint is that I appreciate the Traffic Engineers admiration of that landscape to focus the views towards the sign because that's what it's actually doing it's not blocking the sign in my opinion be uh because it's off the road but what we'll do is well Focus the motorist from distractions that can occur off the road towards the signage at a level that's appropriate keeping the rise down on the road where a monument sign will locate and that's why a monument sign is appropriate the distance requires it to be larger the fact that there you have to make that decision when you get to the red light means you need to see that sign from a distance and therefore I think as he indicated is it balances uh the Aesthetics as well as the function and I agree with that testimony um the third comment deals with a kind of a technical Point um actually you can see it on the the the smaller image on the right that's on the screen now uh there is the bottom point of this property uh on that image if you go directly down and across the end the road at that point that is a residential zone so the bottommost point to the exact opposite Point angle of the properties is commercial to residential and at that point they're indicating that they need to have a landscape transition buffer in that location um and um so but that use on the residential zone is the Public Works garage from a practical point of view there never will be residential uses there and therefore there really is no practical need for a buffer and on top of it they will be relocating mric and creating um more separation at that point so I have no objection to whatever waiver or variance or whatever waiver it would be that is required for that location based upon that that the landscape they will have a landscape strip that meets the code standard in that location I think there has to be a 10 foot wide landscape strip and they will have that and I believe this board has the discretion as to whether to Grant any relief for that when that condition occurs um comment four um talks about the one waiver that's necessary from the design of the storm waterer Management areas with the new regulations requiring infiltration of storm water uh it becomes more and more difficult to Divine Design basins that um fit into the landscape in terms of shape um they are now required to be planted that in a man manner that fits them into the landscape better but their shape tends to become more geometric whereas the code requires that the grading form be a little bit more informal organic or organic to kind of make it look like an existing Wetland element um so they need a tech a waiver from 291 P4 for that and I have no objection to that I think the landscape that they're proposing will mitigate any waiver relief that's needed for that and the last comment was with the Green Building checklist um and it just ask that the the the gas canopy has great potential to someday include solar PV which I don't think is proposed but they I believe they were offering to design it structurally and with utility connections so that in the future that could be added if it is appropriate and we did agree that we would run the conduit that would enable future installation so that's a potential condition um from my notes from the previous meeting on December 13th I had a couple things that I thought might be potential conditions one is we had talked about someone had talked about the potential of having a walk connection from mric along the driveway into the site and whether that could be accommodate it or not um and if it could be that could be a condition to do that and include that with any site plans modifications I don't think it's very much it's a pretty short section uh we we did not revise the plan to include uh connection from a gric lane at the driveway for quick check or uh the restaurant uh there is proposed connections from Southfield Road and Princeton heightstown Road those two frontages okay but we did not propose a connection um as we felt that that narrow Point down there at the bottom would be the where you would might need to connect it where they yeah right above the word mcet yeah just right there was the only spot you would need it because then once you get on site you can get up into the left to the restaurant sure just with the Restriction of the loading zone in the back with the trucks potentially circulating back there and directing uh people that are walking from you know Southfield Road uh towards the North or from the intersection of Princeton heightstown Road and Southfield Road most of the pedestrian traffic would probably come through uh the centralized driveway on Southfield Road so that's why we didn't close it okay will there be sidewalk on mric or no we do have a sidewalk that extends along the FR site possible show linkage to the restaurant from the because the way you're directing people through the quick check gas beot people looking to Poss par walk get come get right there you got it P we thought that right here at the back of the drive the drive-thru links a problem I think in the loation so if the four agrees that could be a condition okay Dan I'm not sure I fully understand they're already proposing or there already is a sidewalk on mric correct so this it's just the connection mric to the to the restant the back of the the beginning of the drive-through lanes for the restaurant okay and that lot do does have wiggle room in terms of impervious coverage so that would not trigger any additional varant the other thing I picked up from that was crosswalks at Southfield Road with that was that A9 that's up there now if you look at the very bottom right of A9 you'll see there's an existing crosswalk of Southfield Road at the existing corner of mcettrick and Southfield which with the realignment of Southfield that would become a midb Crossing which we wouldn't want so we would with the realignment of mric we would need to fix that um and move that crosswalk up to the new intersection so that everybody weing side connection take that cross and basically move that up right right that just comes with the realignment of the intersection so that could be a condition as well oh okay realignment of the Southfield crosswalk along on with the realignment of mcer that's all I have if there's any questions and again the sidewalk from G to the restaurant how far up does it go how far yeah it would be from mric to the the the back or the beginning of the drive-thru leans for the restaurant approximately 40 feet if you were to look at the front yard set back line about 40 foot a sign y thank you Mike thanks Dan uh my name is quazi Miss I'm down traffic consultant I'm referring to the memo that I issued on January 23 2024 uh apparently the applicant has had engineering comment except one which which is shown on page 808 basically what happened is in on December 2023 the m c has revised one of the signs it's called van accessible plaque the new naming is s r78 and the size is 12 by6 if you could please revise plans accordingly to reflect that we would agre okay so that's one and in addition to that would like to I'm going back to page two of report I would like to refer some key issues here as we talked about the mric the that we recommend the township to change the coding 16857 to convert the two two-way to oneway operation and and I included a thank you bless you and included a figure on the second third page of that memo as you can see how that's going to be lay out the oneway ebound between princ and hon to the turtle Dental Center and from there to tway so we recommend the township to change the code to reflect that and also on page four of f we recommend to remove move that stop sign to take appropriate measures so that to because this it's a oneway ebound there's no need for a stop sign so that needs to be removed page three and the next two pages page five and six those are the same uh drawings that we received from the applicant we I included that those into there then on page six of the applicant has requested one variant and a total of seven waivers we are in favor of that because that's not going to be adversely impact the traffic circulation on traffic operation so that being said that that's all I have so we are in favor of those all VAR one variance which is number section 2 200-202 point2 the no loading space remaining ones are the we were page six and Page seven a total of seven waivers we are in favor of that that's all I have could we go back because you said something at the outset of your testimony I I unfortunately was writing down the the prior condition and Henry agreed to that what was that what was the what was the first first thing You' recommended by way or condition uh re revise the revise the coding the revised the cording it's on page 208 the first Council one way right oh yeah yeah right yeah that's the one y subsection 168 d57 question any questions Yeah question any of the waivers that you have listed on page seven you have any issues with any of those waers no okay um now the stop signs getting removed do we um is there going to be a do not enter sign somewhere or you just gonna I don't know if if sign kind of works way back into the one way or how how you handle that you have a no right turn com out Tuttle but what about the two-way traffic is it going to be so Mr cman that when you are heading westbound on the gri and you get to the restaurant access driveway I thought we were proposing a sign on the other side of the driveway before you get to Dr tuttles that would indicate that this is now reduced down to right so for example that yeahi let me just you were pointing where was uh I'm pointing is right next to thep yes that's right to do not enter I I just don't want designed to impede people that want to make a right into the Tuttle it would be on the other side Dr T great any yeah I just have this is on your page eight the first bullet um talks about a variance being necessary with respect to loading Sam maybe you can [Music] can number eight page eight of eight page six of eight no it's page eight P page eight of nine and this is the December one uh memo uh when you say a variance is necessary in first bullet with the variance of section 200-2 202.5 yeah yeah Sam let me if you raise your right hand Sam you affirm that testimony you and may give has been and will be the truth so Wonder it's your Sor okay understood thank you good evening Francis gik we prepared a memorandum originally from November 30th with the revision issued on January 31st based on the new drawings uh essentially the applicant has agreed to comply with the recommended conditions and Technical comments in in the memorandum um the only uh thing that I I saw in the revised plans that wasn't discussed tonight was concerning the lighting plan uh that Mr kunsman had had talked about one of the things that I think is worth noting is there's a big bold note on the bottom right of that plan that talks about lights directed towards residential uh properties will be deemed dimable um and that they'll work with the township staff should any problems occur and I think that's worth worth noting um that uh after installation if if we get any comments or complaints at the staff level we can work with the property owner to work with specific lights directed towards those Residential Properties to to to dim what we can what's the closest residential property uh actually occupied uh would be further to the south in the heatherfield development and there would be that big distance yeah several hundred feet at least there's a tree line Boulevard and a BM that's also landscaped before so if anything it would be possibly a second floor bedroom that may look out over something like that so okay does the op have any problems with what we agree that that would be a condition yeah but but other than that the the other testimony of the licensed professionals at this meeting and the earlier meeting and Mr Hutchinson's testimony has addressed any questions or any required testimony I asked for in my memorandum so at this time I really have nothing further to offer or raise all the other lighting they recess they focus down yes issues with you know no no they're they're taking taking advantage of the LED technology the the recessed full cut off fixtures the canopy lighting as you heard was was recessed I I checked the details since that wasn't um completely obvious by the plan so went on the manufacturer's website and confirm they are are flat FLH Mount so yeah no concerns okay Francis could you uh amplify the point three 3.09 about title 3 9 can you explain that a little more please 3.09 sure so title 39 would be a request that the property owner would make to the township uh normally through my office the Community Development Office uh in which case we would work with the approved plans for the projects the tra and there's a Code section in the traffic code the subsection relating to um traffic regulations on on private property that allow the police to come on site and issue citations for things that don't comply whether it's um no left turn movements uh parking in nonp parking spaces which are basically cross-hatched the yellow diagonal lines if people choose to park there and it's a problem um there there are other uh instances uh throughout the township where this is done in commercial properties within uh private residential neighborhoods and apartment complexes it's relatively um I don't want to say routine but where there's a a big potential for enforcement problem s we recommend it as uh in advance rather than waiting for problems to happen and then have delays with getting this through Council of several months um not a council's problem but uh in getting the mapping from the uh property owner prepared and working with the police and working with them to agree on certain things get it in front of Council on their meeting schedule and get ordinance adopted it it takes two Council meetings and then there's a waiting period so having it done and in place up front at about the time the property opens has it more immediately enforceable should problems and as you mentioned in your report you you recommend that this be a condition if there's favorable action by this board correct yes and the applican has no problem with Francis proposing uh we have no problem it's just in terms of the timing of the completion of the title 30 n process that we would just ask the CEO be conditioned not the building permit because it does as Mr guz appropriately pointed out require Council action and review by the police department it does take a little bit of time um and it really doesn't take effect until the property is occupied gr that makes sense right yeah I have no problem I don't think it needs to be related to a certificate of occup see it all any questions any um just want to read into the record uh Chief Lynch sent the memo dated November 18 2023 um have you seen Lynch's memo I don't know Matt I don't think I have but I don't recall seeing it okay is there is there another com we're gonna get you a copy um this is I only your copy right now [Music] your um if you go on the website right now I'm gon give you my copy but is it November 18th November 18 yes TI okay so just read the development commercial Mi compris one 5 52 f Che convenience Indo outo seting an eight pump fueling station and uh it eight pump fueling station or eight stations I think more more pumps right um the there are eight multi-product dispensers each has two pumps got okay um access appears adequate I'll summarize Water Supplies appears adequate um a lck box to allow immediate access by the fire trk shall be the front of each building is that acceptable yes the position of the depart connection supp sprink system shall be at the front of building is that yes shall the number of trees inity to the building asri as long as Mr dilki says it's [Music] okay radio coverage building emergency respond you're okay um by instruction officials conduct a radio signal strength survey you're okay that yes most and chief that all originally CED concerns [Music] address comment I want to make is that for a quick check they don't require a fire department connection because there is no sprinkler system required for the building but the restaurant may require it and it's part of that approval for the restaurant we will agree to that if it's needed so what he's saying is as system shall be the front of each building you're saying one the restaurant is required to have it not a convenience store that's correct if the restaurant is required because we're only going for preliminary approval I'm not sure if yeah we're it's very preliminary so we're not sure if fire department connection or sprinkler system will we require for that restaurant right right okay preliminary for the restant that's fine okay um that concludes our professionals any questions before I turn it over to the public okay uh anybody from the public wish to speak regarding this application please step up St name and address and uh my name is Kevin Moore I'm with the firm of Stevens and Lee and I represent a property owner in the township g&b Business Associates Inc and I just have some questions first for Mr pman are you familiar guess I gotta walk around this right minutes I'm gonna allow you more time than that thank you probably about 15 minutes all right thank you Mr kman you're familiar with the storm water management report this one that your office prepared yes and I'd like to enter this I mean it's a part of the submission but for the record it is the stormw management report prepared for ER UDC West Windsor LLC block 47 Lots 2 through six Township of West Windsor Mercer County New Jersey it was last revised November 2023 uh and all I did was I'm put blue and green tabs in certain parts of the report because it's not numbered and I have one copy and Mr kunsman has the other and I also just highlighted a couple things in yellow so I'd like to have that entered into the record I guess it would be exhibit o02 I knew but thank you for the help Mr cman um does the storm water run off from uh most of the impervious surface on the site flow directly into the site storm water management system yes and when you calculated the storm water runoff rates for the site did you use a weighted surface coefficient combining impervious impervious surfaces with a single time of concentration the um the program that is used is hydrocad and they have a setting which separates impervious and perious so you didn't separate do those calculations separately you didn't use a weighted average great okay um my second question is um there are seven uh areas of porest pavement uh in your storm weather system correct I was to verify with the count but they're designated as pwn pp1 through pp7 in that report flipp into the chart that would provide the information what can you repeat your question I said there are you have seven um areas of porest pavement uh and they're designated as ponds pp1 through pp7 in your storm water report is that correct no uh there are four Forest pavement areas modeled in the storm water report Forest paper it's tough to read see I'm confused just if you go to on that green [Music] tab walk right over there with him yeah I don't want to invade anybody's personal space we had harassment training at work and it makes you scared to come out of your office um here we have pp1 sure and here we have pp2 and pp3 sure okay and then here we have pp4 and pp5 okay and pp6 and pp7 okay so there may be a different chart in here for other calculation purposes I was referring to trying can yes there are seven Forest pavement areas okay thank you and then um with respect to um Pond pp1 um how what percentage of pond pp1 did you use for storage area 40% voids okay thank you and is that also true with respect to PS pp2 and pp3 yes uh what about with pond pp4 I ask question help things up is what you're trying to get at you're saying that perious coverage the well what in my engineer's review of this uh with respect to Pond pp4 pp6 and pp7 the report takes 100% credit for the storage area even though they have gravel as well gravel voids as well so that the storm water storage is not sufficient get say that the entire site is not storm water compant the right this aspect of it is not compliant and that would affect the storm water design yes the pp5 does have 40% void and I'm just verifying pp4 six and seven uh our plan does show 40% voids I'm just verifying well five does have the 40% but I'm talking about four six and seven okay 4 not compant that make site not comp [Music] yes well I'm not an engineer and unfortunately my engineer is uh the Bernard's Township planning board engineer and he had to be in Bernard's Township tonight so if the board views this is important which I think it is I would request that this meeting be uh adjourned to the next meeting strictly for my civil engineers testimony no I'm objecting for the record just so you know that that I wasn't given the opportunity just to preserve the record obviously to people tonight but it's it's common to give Curtis to other professionals when they have conflicts any researching any other issu yeah there oh but there also for uh uh Mr uh kunsman but I do have questions for Mr McDon if you'd like I could address the questions for Mr McD duner and let the record also not I'm being a little rushed on my questioning and timing I'm just doing it for the recordes I'm G to let you go over because I think it's important to hear your testimony and and your the first examination of our witness but um you know you know can't go online not good evening Mr McDon good evening um I like it better when you're on my side but uh fair is fair that's right you had referenced in your testimony three buckets of design exceptions correct that's because there's a lot of them aren't there I just find it's easier for a board the process if I show relief being interrelated I mean you can confirm this but I count 20 I didn't count the number so you're not sure of the number you testified about the legal support for them but you're not sure number I never count the number of uh deviations or relief that an applicant seeks because I know of no legal state standard that certain threshold so I don't count then um and I'll argue that there is a threshold but well but I'll get to that that's not for my questioning of you um Mr kman uh Mr kman Mr mcdna um you were referring to undo hardship uh before as one of the standards for granting the exceptions yes the standard is disjunctive there's an or clause in there you have to show one or the other well thing you have to show is either um impracticability or undo hardship but undo hardship isn't it undo hardship relating to The Peculiar conditions of the property isn't that what the statute says yes and I read that into the record I did read that okay but I didn't see any connect I I saw some hardship but I didn't see any hardship that was particularly connected to the property if I if I didn't make it clear I had the exhibit up there hardship to the public in terms of safety convenience and customer expectations familiarity based on a regular-shaped piece of property with extensive Frontage multiple access points multiple Vantage points that all points to the relief the applicant is seeking related to the positioning of the parking and the signage relief that the applicant is seeking okay thank you and then um you also mentioned uh Mr the Cox treaties at uh in that section that you were referring to was 23-8 it's the pages 334 and 335 correct it's in the 20 23 version 2023 they claim the 2024 is out but I haven't gotten it yet either um now in looking that would you fair to say that the Cox treaty bases its conclusion that waivers must be just must be reasonable under the facts from garal Burling in Township yeah yes I can read it into the record again the right of a planning board to wave or Grant exceptions from certain requirements was recognized in Galo versus Burlington I can give the site if Council needs it waivers must be reasonable under the facts the Gallo Court noted that a waiver is no more than an acknowledgement by the board that the condition of the property is satisfactory and meets the requirements of the local ordinance that's why we often call it a waiver you're waving site plan now have you actually read the gell case itself it did yes it doesn't really say what M the Cox treaty says it says does it I thought it actually I and I read that particular part because it says here the right of a planning board to Grant or wave Exceptions there is a line in that the court case is about many other things but it does reference that the the right of a planning board this is right from the court case itself to waiver Grant exceptions from certain requirements was recognized and uh must be reasonable under the facts and then they actually took a direct quote from gal that's that quote I read at the end but interestingly in that quote what gella was actually about was waiver of site plan approval as a whole when you got a change from one conforming use to another other and that's what that quote was ins support of are you aware of that well that can be a a fact specific analysis but the the quote says what the quote says but the quotes out context that'll be for me I go by the okay um that concludes my questions for Mr MCD I do have one legal argument I don't know if Mr kunsman is ready uh and we can deal with his test testimony and then I've got about three minutes of legal argument Mr inform sure so we can revise the storm water report and the calculations to make sure that there is 40% void ratio provided if it hasn't been um we can either do that by enlarging the stone section or U there's other ways do it too with the above ground Basin water quality would not be impacted by enlarging the stone section enlarging the Basin or providing other means okay so so as a condition of approval you're willing to amend your s Management calculations to make to that's correct okay but couldn't that site redesign the storm order management would uh require some revisions but the the site as a whole with regards to the curb layout things like that not before you start Francis you you your testimony and your report you you basically said that the store M manag been reviewed by this office without the being compli with Town sh and therefore um and you stand by that right you reviewed all the calculations so yeah TP typically um for most sites that there's um we don't double check every I that's dotted and P that's cross we spot check uh main main things and as was pointed out the first three Forest pavement areas were were fine so in spot checking we obviously didn't come across the three that were in question but I will say to the board um that in the design of the details for the outlet structures for these porest pavement areas the areas of porest pavement sit at a much higher elevation than the pipes that let the water out of these so if as Mr kman says there's a need to revise the design and the calculations that there's additional room to make the stone beds deeper and still work with the rest of the downstream structures and the pipes that are already designed so as as I sit here um the amount of water that I see based on the numbers on the detail sheet is is not a great depth of water being stored for these different storm events so if the stone beds need to be made deeper to account for the 40% void ratio I I still think the system will fit within the same footprint okay when viewed from a bird's eye view just that the amount of stone would be made deeper and some of the the orifice elevations may change upon rerouting but it it would not result in a significant redesign so what I'm hearing is that the the site itself is not be a big change no vision to make some trenches a little bit deeper add a little Stone to to get into yeah it could be more than a little bit but it it should all based on my engineering judgment on the service it'll all look the same we won't correct all all the issues that the board discussed related to parking and layout and lighting and Landscaping and Road alignments and driveways uh would would all stay the same we're only talking about the changes to the construction details okay okay Mr Mo okay um Peril was underneath it yes it does and uh doesn't chapter 12 of the New Jersey DM d be best management practices require uh that soil per permeability testing in the most hydraulically restrictive soil horizon a minimum of 8 feet below the Bas in sand lir yes it does Bas 2 does not extend 8 feet below uh as 2 sand layer we refer back to the storm water sure so soil modeling which is the restricted for infiltration was observed at 75 in so we do comply with the um chapter 12 and also the NDP BMP manual two feet of separation is required from base and bottom to the Seas high water table which we are providing okay great that concludes my questions for Mr cman and then I just have two minute maybe less argument and that is uh the applicant has uh asked for a tremendous number of design exceptions I count 20 Mr mcdunn didn't count but he knows there are quite a few and I would argue that if the board grants all those waivers it's tantamount to uh board amending the site plan ordinance which the board lacks the authority to do it's kind of analogous to granting so many bulk variants is that it's tantamount to a rezoning so I just make that argument and that the board lacks the authority to grant that number of uh design exceptions it's sort of analogous and Mr meller is familiar with this case it's sort of anal analogous to judge loi's decision in get to be my age you got to write everything down in um Greenberg deing Board of the municipality of Princeton where 17 actually 17 bulk lances were granted Andi held that was equivalent to the resoning and the board could not do it now I recognize this is a site plan but I think it's an analogous argument and an analogous issue and that concludes my argument I'm saying it's an analog yeah I I I don't think it is standard for variance relief is much more stringent than uh for waiver and that is exception really I mean I read about that case in the paper it was variances and substantial change the thing this is not I don't think again I'm not a lawyer but this is nowhere like that that's it thank you thank you okay um is there anybody else from the public wish to speak on this application please step up the microphone I think yeah again yeah I do have two things we also got a report dated November 30 2022 was um to Francis from Geo Trek and I guess that's the municipal surveyor and they had a couple of then everybody get that report yes yes yes okay I mean there are a couple of very minor um conditions uh that are listed on page two um and I think those should be incorporated um and the second do we need some cements between the two yes Lots yeah yes you do so be subject to preparation and yeah there will be a comprehensive cross access and storm water management because the storm water can't be fully segregated so that that those easements will allow for the interconnection quote unquote of the functionality of the property in addition the county uh has required a dedication correct yes so there will be a dedication to the county okay than um a motion to close the public hearing motion a motion second second all in favor say I okay anybody this um any questions any discussion I think the applicant has um really come a long way since December in uh meeting many of our concerns or most of the concerns that we had it's particularly what I had I think uh this last minute um engineering issue I think the applicant's response to it would be appreciated where he' go back redo the calculations if design is needed redesign is needed then that should occur and uh as Francis had pointed out it probably won't affect overall design of the site just above ground anyhow right so I think that should be a condition of any approval yeah that's going to be a condition the Africans already agreed to uh calculations make sure management forms to the ordinance and um the redesign as Francis pointed out not impact the overall site plan what is if does just for the sake of well if it does they'd have to come back in for additional revision yeah thank you so they're in agreement with coming back for revision I saw a lot of over there if needed need if needed yeah but I I'm betting on France's expertise that that will not happen well under what circumstances would they have to come back um if it's more than construction details Francis I would say if it affects something that uh was provided under testimony or is is a you know um results in a deviation from a design standard we would agree in other words if the modification creates a new design exception we obviously would have to come back or if it exacerbated a design exception that had been granted we would be coming back because we would be warranting additional relief but the the underlying issue is that our engineer Mr guak I am confident will be able to work this through in a manner that doesn't create any further problems okay with that um anybody have any other questions any comments everybody's okay with signage lighting monuments right I didn't hear any anything make S I mean they they reduce the size of signs they reduce the letter height they still have the burm to consider when com down to 571 so um I thought it was good good compromise anyway okay I'll I'll entertain a motion to approve PB 22-2 with all the conditions that Jerry's been taking notes on um I hear a motion to approve yes and and and with the waivers um yes and with the design wavers that they've asked for okay and that's that's preliminary um preliminary final subdivis subdivision preliminary final subdivision preliminary Final on the Quick Check preliminary only on the restaurant right I'll I'll second then so motion by an second by Allan please pull the rooll Mr Lao yes Mr chel yes Mr B yes councilman Whitfield yes mayor morate yes Vice chairman hberman yes chairman car yes motion Carri approve board members our next meeting is going to be March 6 it'll be for the Chick-fil-A Sam are they going to give samples out no so moved multiple Lanes LAN have