MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CRANBURY TOWNSHIP CRANBURY, NEW JERSEY MIDDLESEX COUNTY APPROVED MAY 7, 2008

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CRANBURY TOWNSHIP CRANBURY, NEW JERSEY MIDDLESEX COUNTY APPROVED MAY 7, 2008 TIME AND PLACE OF MEETING The regular meeting of the Cranbury Township Zoning Board of Adjustment was held at the Township Hall (Old School Building) Main Meeting Room, 23-A North Main Street, Cranbury, New Jersey, on April 10, 2008, at 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Dale Smith, Chairperson, of the Cranbury Township Planning Board, called the meeting to order, and acted as the Chairman thereof, and, Josette C. Kratz acted as Secretary of the meeting. STATEMENT OF ADEQUATE NOTICE Pursuant of the Sunshine Law adequate notice in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act was provided of this meeting s date, time, place, and agenda was mailed to the news media, posted on the Township s Bulletin Board, mailed to those requesting personal notice, and filed with the municipal clerk. MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lehr, Mr. McCarville, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Shea, Mr. Smith PROFESSIONALS IN ATTENDANCE Harvey Moskowitz, Planner; Cathleen Marcelli, P.E, Township Engineer; Rachel U. Doobrajh, Esq., Acting Board Attorney; Richard Guinta, Court Reporter; Josette C. Kratz, Board Secretary MINUTES Mr. Smith announced these minutes were expanded per the Board s discussion last month. Upon a motion duly made and seconded the minutes of February 6, 2008 and March 5, 2008 were approved unanimously.

2 Page 2 of 10 APPLICATION ZBA (formerly American Properties Application ZBA ) Rolly s, LLC Block 6, Lot Route 130& South River Road Application to change original approval(s) REPRESENTATIVES: Darren Dapas, Esquire Lanfrit & Tullio. LLC Walter Bronson, P.E. Pickering, Corts & Summerson, Inc. Roland Baader, Applicant Rolly s, LLC Alfredo R. Trevino, Architect Chris Zinna, Applicant Rolly s, LLC Mr. Dapas introduced himself, and briefly described the project. The property in question was Block 6, Lot 14.03, located on both South River Road and Route 130. The property was in the Highway Commercial (HC) zone. The property had an approval history; originally purchased and approved as a Marriot Residence Inn with a restaurant. Later the restaurant property was subdivided away from the Marriot Residence Inn s property, of which American Properties now owns (the restaurant). American Properties then further went on to receive an approval for both a restaurant and another separate building with its intention to construct a bank. The Applicant (Rolly s, LLC) was now seeking an approval to add onto the exterior of the existing restaurant a walk-in freezer and walk-in refrigerator, in addition, a paved area that would allow for outdoor dining seating. The Applicant was requesting numerous waivers and variances, as well as the necessary approvals. The Board permitted outdoor dining in the HC Zone with the exception of the required site plan approval. There were variances for floor area ratio (FAR) (increased to.078) and for the earthwork removal restriction (145 CY from site). They (the Applicant, a.k.a. Rolly s, LLC) were requesting variance waivers (all existing and previously approved) for the parking setback to property line, parking setbacks to the building, and the driveway width. In addition, they would be seeking waivers from the requirement to receive outside agency approval for potable water service (water service is existing and flowing) and for the same reason PSE&G s approval. Finally, they were requesting a waiver in relationship to the necessary NJDOT approval. They asked that the ZBA not make approvals conditional for CO as part of this application, but Applicant would comply with anything that the NJDOT requested. The reason being it takes six months to receive an approval from NJDOT. The Applicant believed there would be minimal changes to the property, if any, that would be required by NJDOT. The Applicant requested allowance to apply for building construction permits for both walk-in boxes prior to the adoption of a final resolution. All witnesses and Township professionals were sworn. Mr. Baader explained that his restaurant would make homemade pastas, pastries, cakes, gourmet sandwiches, burgers, and pizza at very affordable prices. The intent was for a restaurant where Page 2 of 10

3 Page 3 of 10 people could eat two or three times a week and everyone would be happy. They would use mostly locally grown produce, with an emphasis on fresh ingredients. The restaurant would have both a sit down dining area inside and outside, in addition, a deli market area where people could buy prepared items and takeout. The peak hours where expected to be lunch and dinner. The maximum number of employees would be 15. The walk-in units would be self-contained with a compressor. The doors would be part of the actual restaurant walls. The outdoor dining area would comprise of stone pavers with the intent to develop a rustic look with tables and umbrellas. Originally, they had planned to install a fire pit, as part of the outdoor dining area, that idea had since been omitted. They would provide ambient outdoor music, no louder/higher than 59 decibels, of jazz and easy listening type music. The Applicant was currently working on the interior of the restaurant. They could open the restaurant without a need for the large capacity walk-in refrigerator and freezer on the exterior, but for sake of convenience, they would much rather utilize the area as a dry storage area. If the Board did not grant permission, they would have to install temporary indoor storage boxes. Mr. Smith asked the Applicant to place on the record the hours of operation. Mr. Baader said the hours of operation would be Monday through Thursday from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., Friday and Saturday from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., Sunday 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. The outdoor dining area was originally intended to be used Monday through Saturday 11 a.m. to 10 p.m., and Sunday from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. The Board questioned why they were not requesting a.m. outdoor dining. Mr. Baader explained that the Applicant did not know if there would be a public demand. Mr. Smith explained, if approval was granted for the requested hours. The Applicant would have to come back to the Board for Approval in order to amend those hours. Mr. Dapas indicated that the applicant was providing approximate hours. Certainly, if the Board was amenable to expanding those hours to allow for breakfast outdoors, though it was not considered at this time, they would certainly like the option in the future and perhaps adding the possibility to also utilizing the area until closing. Mr. Dapas explained the intent of the Applicant was to be open in May and normally it takes at least a month to formalize a resolution. They were trying to avoid having the Construction Department not allow permits until all outside agency approvals were granted and the resolution memorialized. Mr. Smith question if the intent of the Applicant was for the Board to waive the requirements ofnjdot. He indicated that he did not believe the ZBA had the authority to waive it. Ms. Marcelli, deferring legal opinion to the attorney, felt the Board could not waive any outside agency approval. Mr. Dapas agreed the Board could not waive an outside agency approval, but could waive the condition of receiving final sign off upon receipt of the outside agency approval. The outside agency approval is one thing and the Township approval was another. Mr. Dapas added to the argument that the site plan was not affecting new traffic flow, was no adding any additional Page 3 of 10

4 Page 4 of 10 parking spaces, they were not changing the layout, nor adding more people than originally approved. They had already submitted information to NJDOT and were awaiting NJDOT s comments. Under these circumstances, he felt the Board could waive the condition of approval on the condition of NJDOT approval. Mr. Marcelli mentioned the Construction Department generally does not issue a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) until the Applicant had received all outside agency approvals. Mr. Dapas felt the Construction Department would consider issuance of a CO for those areas that have been previously granted approvals. The NJDOT had approved the existing inside area. Ms. Marcelli told the Applicant this Board did not do it that way. Mr. Smith knew, that in some cases, the construction official had asked if we approved an application and could proceed with issuance of permits prior to the Board finalizing the resolution. That had not been an issue. However, he felt the Board was not in a position to control the Construction Department procedures to what it would and would not request. Mr. Dapas agreed, the Construction Department fell under the jurisdiction of the International Construction Code and any CO that would be issued would be determined by code by the Construction Official. The Applicant was asking the Board to waive the condition of sign-off for receipt of approval from NJDOT, there may be a way they could work with the Construction Official since ultimately he would take the responsibility of the issuance or non-issuance of the CO or TCO. Mr. Trevino recited his credentials and was qualified by the Board. He explained the interior design. The building was already designed for the future fit-out and had not changed. They changed the foyer, the waiting area, and seating area to make it more open. They would have a stone interior wall separating the bathrooms and kitchen area from the public s view. The entrance to the deli would be separate from the restaurant dining area. They intend to put the office area and dry storage area where the walk-in boxes were originally approved, in the interior. He calculated the amount of proposed outside dining area at 1,296 SF. The main dining area was 1,354 SF and smaller area was probably 192 SF. This gave them 2,742 SF divided by 40 SF per parking space which was 69 parking spaces, plus 8 parking spaces (2 employees per space) for the employees which came to 77 total parking spaces. Mr. Moskowitz asked what percentage or SF of the interior was to be used by the deli as opposed to that of the restaurant. Mr. Trevino thought it would be around 15%. Mr. Moskowitz asked if a customer might call in a sandwich order and arrive to the deli area to wait. He asked if the preparation of the deli sandwiches/food was separate. Mr. Trevino answered the food would be prepared in the kitchen. The intention of the front deli area was for display and the public would not actually see the deli food preparation. Mr. Smith mentioned he felt the compressors on top of these outside walk-in units themselves could be ugly. Mr. Trevino explained they would be placing the compressors on the existing roof, which had a roof screen. They had no intention on putting them directly on top of the walkin boxes. Page 4 of 10

5 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Marcelli requested a design detail of the walk-in units placed on the signed plans submitted for signature. Final sign off would be determined if everything was built in accordance to the approved signed plans. Mr. Smith asked why, if the Applicant had an 8 FT high refrigerator box, they would not have an 8 FT high fence to hide it. Mr. Trevino said that 6 FT was the standard. He felt the landscaping and smaller fence was an actual creation of scene rather then an appearance of a wall. Mr. Smith then asked why the installation was only on the western side. Mr. Trevino said it was the area mainly seen by the public. Mr. Smith questioned on the parking spots to the side of the building. Mr. Trevino said they wanted to keep those spaces reserved for employees. Mr. Smith commented that was somewhat atypical. The fence could have been extended along the southern side. Mr. Dapas said the sidewalk, already installed, precluded them from that option. Ms. Marcelli asked about the two windows on the side of the building. It was explained that the windows would remain on the outside, but would be sheet rocked on the inside. Mr. Bronson, gave his credentials to the Board. EXHIBIT A-1 EXHIBIT A-2 EXHIBIT A-3 EXHIBIT A-4 EXHIBIT A-5 Interior Floorplan Entitled Rolly's an American bistro - color rendering without any title block information Overall Site Plan dated Jan. 7, 2008 last revised prepared by Pickering Corts & Summerson Landscape & Lighting Plan dated Jan. 7, 2008 last revised prepared by Pickering Corts & Summerson Landscaping Comparison Plan dated Jan. 7, 2008 last revised prepared by Pickering Corts & Summerson The Board accepted him as a professional. The project site is Block 6, Lot that consists of just over 2.41 acres located on South River Road and Route 130. The restaurant that was the subject of this application was previously approved at 3,800 SF. There are no changes to the plan except for in the immediate area of those three items. All of the site circulation on site was identical to what was previously approved. The grading was identical to what was previously proposed with the exception of leveling out the area for outdoor dining. There was a small retaining wall to the east and the storm water management remained identical. They shifted the landscaping onsite. They have not deleted any plant material from what was previously proposed. Mr. Bronson continued, with the exception to the right, the rest of the landscaping was almost identical. Mr. Bronson reviewed the staff report issued by Ms. Marcelli of Hatch Mott McDonald, dated April 10, Mr. Dapas, referring to Item A.7, with regard to soil removal, hauling routes and Page 5 of 10

6 Page 6 of 10 destination, asked if the Applicant would comply with that requirement. It was agreed they would. Mr. Dapas asked if they would comply with the exception of Item B.1.d, regarding the outdoor fireplace to be shown on plans, of which as testified was no longer a part of this application. The Applicant agreed to comply with Items in Section B as stated and Section C. Regarding the report from Andrew Feranda of Shropshire Associates, LLC, dated April 10, 2008, Mr. Bronson reported that he would amend the plans to reflect what those comments were. They amended the plans prior to their final submission to the DRC. He said Mr. Feranda was concerned that cars pulling out to the stop sign at this location would have insufficient site distance of traffic coming in off South River Road. We had agreed on a 25 mph limit, which according to NJDOT, means a stopping distance of 150 ft. The fireplace would have been located within that site triangle so they eliminated that and pulled back the modular block freestanding retaining wall that was 36 high and the plantings within the area are mostly ground cover and low shrubs or grasses. The length of the site triangle from the stop bar to the center of the road was slightly short of 150 ft. There is plenty of opportunity for someone coming in to the site that might see a car starting to come out at that stop sign to slow down and stop. He felt the amended design alleviates any concern and provides a safe environment for motorists. Mr. Bronson felt that perhaps Mr. Feranda did not have all of the information available regarding the parking area. The seating area, deli pick-up area, and the outdoor seating area total 2,742 SF that gave the count of 69 parking spaces that the Applicant was dedicating to the patrons of the restaurant and deli, and 8 spaces for the employees. This amounts to 77 spaces, which already exist on-site as part of the original approval. Mr. Moskowitz indicated he had spoken with Mr. Wayne Johnson (of the Applicant s engineer s firm) yesterday about the landscaping. It was difficult to differentiate between the original landscaping approval and proposed on the plans submitted. The previously approved landscaping was shown as lighter weight lines but did not indicate if the intent was to retain locations or eliminate. He felt that they needed some heavier plant material in the corner to provide additional shielding of the units. Mr. Bronson offered to sit down with the Township s professionals and work something out. Mr. Moskowitz implied that was minor compared to the area where elimination of plant material took place in front of the building. Mr. Bronson disagreed with its elimination. Mr. Moskowitz explained that there was an 8 FT sidewalk in front of the building. Assuming there was a 2 FT overhang, there would still be 6 FT of sidewalk more than adequate for pedestrian travel. He felt there was enough room for plant material. The Applicant could insert more plant material in that location rather than installing additional paving block. The landscaping would add character to it. Ms. Marcelli brought up the point that the Applicant was asking for a FAR variance and changing to outdoor seating, yet the Applicant was not giving the site any additional landscaping. The landscaping was a good plan; however, they could move the gold junipers to the front of the building and maintain the remainder of the landscaping. She also felt an addition of some shade trees along the access isle would be a benefit. Page 6 of 10

7 Page 7 of 10 Mr. Smith asked about the combined area between both uses and how many parking spaces there were. Mr. Bronson answered that there were 86 spaces around the bank and the restaurant. Mr. Moskowitz asked if the Applicant had spoken to the bank about it. Mr. Dapas said that they modified the seating to meet the 77 spaces to avoid using the bank parking spaces. Ms. Marcelli felt the deli, the restaurant, and the bank at lunchtime would be an intense use for the site. It is their problem and they will or won t be successful depending on whether their patrons are able to find parking. She felt Mr. Moskowitz s point was well spoken and correct. The parking calculations worked correctly, but lacked parking to accommodate the deli, which the professionals presumed would be very successful. She suggested, at a minimal, the Board consider if parking becomes a problem and patrons start to park in the access isles, that no parking signs be installed by the Applicant at no cost to the Township and enforced. Mr. Smith said he felt the turnover of deli patrons would be much higher than the restaurant and this intensified the need for parking rather than reduce it. Mr. Dapas said the point was well taken. He felt the parking situation for this use was unique on many levels. Not only was the actual layout unique, but also the use of the restaurant. Although there would be more patrons using the deli, the average stay would be much shorter and turnover quicker. The outside dining area would most likely not be used more than six months of the year. Therefore, for the other six months, seating would be taken completely out of the equation. This was a worst-case scenario. Ms. Marcelli asked if there was anything in either lease referring to the parking arrangement. Mr. Dapas answered, Was anything in their lease? Yes. Was there anything in the bank s lease? He did not know. Mr. Smith opened the floor to the public for comments. Having no public present he closed the floor. Mr. Dapas added that dinner patrons were expected to come from the Marriott, which was presumed to be a walking crowd. Lunch, on the other hand, was expected to come from local businesses, so they expected car traffic. Mr. Smith asked about the restaurant s delivery schedule. Mr. Baader said that deliveries were expected on Tuesdays and Fridays at 6 a.m. They would receive deliveries at the side door. Mr. Smith voiced he felt the Applicant could do a better job shielding the walk-in unit on the south side. It looked awkward to have the 6 FT high screen wall come down and dead end and see the backside of the unit. Mr. Dapas said his clients were amenable to changing it. It was not a matter of not wanting to, but a feeling the design was adequate. Mr. Chris Zinna, was sworn as a partner with Applicant. Mr. Zinna said he would do whatever the Board recommended to shield the walk-in unit. Mr. Smith suggested that an 8 FT high decorative fence on both the west and south sides. That way there would be no gap where all the trash blows in. Mr. Moskowitz added that they had already offered additional landscaping in the area. Page 7 of 10

8 Page 8 of 10 Mr. Smith asked if they intended to use the outdoor patio heaters. Mr. Baader said that they would, not so much to extend the season but to make certain days a little better. Mr. Lehr said this was a dual use facility with respect to the parking. Once the bank closes for the day patrons are likely to park at/in the drive-through teller area because it is closer to park there than to park on the west side. The Applicant meets the requirements, although operationally there are some issues. Ms. Marcelli mentioned the Board had made it conditional on past applications that parking would be in assigned spaces only. If it becomes a problem and patrons start parking in the drivethrough isles and isle access the Zoning Officer can issue a zoning violation. One would hate to see a million no parking signs go up, but as a condition of no parking permitted in assigned spaces, if it becomes a problem a violation could be issued. Ms. Marcelli brought up the issue of excavation and removal of soil. This was mentioned in the report. Soil must be trucked outside the limits of Cranbury. Although one may seem like they are doing a nice thing for residents within Cranbury by giving them your access material, which is not permitted. Soil must be removed out of Cranbury, or must receive approval from the Board prior to removal of the soil. The Applicant is only permitted to remove 145 CY. If the Applicant feels comfortable with that, everything is fine. We are seeing that the amount comes to 175 CY, apprising the Applicant to be aware that she could not administratively approve. If the Applicant does not feel comfortable with the number, throw in some fat on that number and request an additional waiver. In addition, she wanted the Applicant aware the Environmental Commission (EC) in Cranbury was very aware of issues. EC received copies of all violation notices from Freehold Soil. She was out there tonight and noticed the number of violations issued. Applicant must be sure its soil erosion measures are restored as soon as possible before any work is continued. Mr. Dapas indicated the Applicant had agreed to speak with the property owner regarding the putting a sign at the drive-through indicating no restaurant parking. Mr. McCarville asked about bus and tractor-trailer parking. Mr. Baader said there would be no oversized vehicles parking on this lot. Ms. Marcelli said that there would be tractor-trailers stopping to pick up a sandwich or stopping to eat. If oversized vehicles parked along that access isle, with this condition if the Board entertains it, would be a violation notice to the restaurant owner. Mr. Dapas suggested installation of no parking signs along the driveway where there was potential of oversized vehicle parking; not as a requirement, but allow for installation if the Applicant finds there is a need. Otherwise, if the Board feels necessary that they should be installed from the start, the Applicant was willing to comply. Mr. Smith summarized the conditions: 1. The Township Planner, Engineer, and Traffic report, and 2. The additional landscaping around the building: the west, south west corners, front, and modifications by the walk-in coolers on the south side conditioned upon the approval of the Township Engineer, and 3. Only designated parking spaces be utilized, and Page 8 of 10

9 Page 9 of If necessary, no parking signs are installed with approval of the Township Engineer. Mr. Shea asked about the NJDOT issue. It was Mr. Smith s understanding that the Board did not have jurisdiction to waive condition of approval. He felt the Construction Official would speak with our professionals and maybe something could be worked out amongst them. He felt the units had no impact on NJDOT at all. Ms. Doobrajh felt the resolution could be crafted to indicate that they could apply for the permits necessary to install the walk-in units, but as far as a waiver of NJDOT s approvals, the board certainly could not do that. Whether or not NJDOT does not act kindly and precludes the Applicant from getting their CO, the Board could not control that. Ms. Marcelli indicated to the Applicant that the sooner they submit their revised plans with the details of the refrigerator, freezer, revised engineer plans and landscaping back to the Board and the Professional s office for review and preparations for the performance guarantees, engineering estimates, etc. Sign off on the site plans would be the first thing that the Construction Official looks for before issuance of any permit. Those plans would not be signed off on until all conditions of the professional s reports and items discussed tonight have been met 100%. She would not recommend a permit being issued otherwise. Mr. Shea motioned for the approval of the application with the mentioned conditions. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. VOTE ROLL CALL AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: INELIGIABLE TO VOTE: Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lehr, Mr. McCarville, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Shea, Mr. Smith None None Mr. Hebert, Ms. Kemp None MOTION CARRIED ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING There being no further business, on a motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was thereupon adjourned 9:30 p.m. CERTIFICTATE OF SECRETARY I, the undersigned, do herby certify; that I am duly elected and acting secretary of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and, that the foregoing minutes of the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, held on April 10, 2008, comprised of 10 pages, constitute a true and correct copy of the minutes of the said meeting. Page 9 of 10

10 Page 10 of IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name of said this May 7, /jck Josette C. Kratz, CPS Page 10 of 10