Memo To Green Township Planning Board From Desiree L

memo to: green township planning board from: desiree l. dunn, secretary date: 5-29-14 subject: may 27, 2014 plan review (trc

Memo
To: Green Township Planning Board
From: Desiree L. Dunn, Secretary
Date: 5-29-14
Subject: May 27, 2014 Plan Review (TRC) meeting - Minutes Memo
Application #PB 1407: Cedar Peak, LLC - Preliminary Site Plan
Property: Bl 31, L 1.06 (Airport Road)
Notes / Minutes: The meeting was called to order @ 4:16pm on Tuesday,
March 27, 2014 to review the subject application for completeness.
Board Secretary, Desiree L. Dunn, conducted a Roll Call, finding TRC
members, Laszlo Raffay, Jason Rittie and Scott Holzhauer in attendance
with Watson Perigo substituting for Mayor Daniel Conkling. Also
present: Board Attorney, Lyn Aaroe, Esq.; John Miller, Board Engineer;
and, Board Planner, Jessica Caldwell.
* At the beginning of the meeting, the Board Attorney gave his opinion
after consultation with J. Rittie, Esq. that the TRC is not a public
agency that would constitute a quorum of the Board and thus the
48-Hour rule for Public Notices and although advertised as a courtesy
and by precedent, because the TRC is not empowered to take official
action. Thus, the TRC's advertisement of the earlier time for the
earlier commencement of the meeting that appeared same day was
sufficient.
Representing the Applicant: Megan Ward, Esq. and Allen Campbell, P.E.
DISCUSSION: Ward identified the project and turned the presentation
over to Campbell.
Campbell described the proposed 88,000 sq.ft. Warehouse building, its
utility and that it would essentially represent a "cookie-cutter" of
the Oak Run building. Although on a separate lot, it would be for
common use by all tenant / owners of the development. He described the
amount of office space, relative to warehousing and the parking
required / provided. He described how the building would have a garage
door in front at grade level to make it easier for vans and pickup
trucks to access the facility and eliminate the 4ft. ramp for a
loading dock. Specific details offered regarding storm water
management would be evaluated later during technical review; The
access drive directly to the loading docks as a "regional - type
warehouse facility", plus shared access to all buildings occupying the
master development; Traffic flow; Fire suppression; The appearance of
the building; Actual parking, parallel parking and banked parking;
Plan is to have water tank embedded in the foundation similar to Oak
Run.
Board Chairman requested clarification that there would be 42 spaces
actually constructed.
Board Planner requested clarification about parking and size of
spaces, as well as number of loading docks as well as dumpster area.
Discussion ensued regarding employee spaces, ADA spaces, and banked
parking. Number of loading docks undetermined but specifics will be
provided for the Board.
Campbell offered to have an individual Site Plan sheet colored for
presentation to the Board. Discussion continued about garage doors at
grade in front and back. Campbell described that garage doors serve in
lieu of loading docks. "Ramps are problematic because they have to
stick out 42 feet." Good for fork-trucks, vans and pickups. Board
members recalled and Campbell concurred that a facility of this size
would likely have trucks have the ability to turn-around inside.
Board Engineer requested clarification about the meaning of "secured
storage" and how it would be different from a self-storage facility,
something the Ordinance, although flexible, would discourage.
Discussion ensued offering specifics that it referred to secure access
if needed by the tenant and would not be used for individual storage.
Board Attorney requested clarification of office space. Specifics
offered regarding 32ft. height and 2250 sq.ft. size, at grade. The
purpose would be specifically for support of the warehouse with no
mezzanine proposed.
Board members questioned the racking system. Campbell offered examples
of other warehouse facilities and their heights which show this to be
comparable.
Board Planner questioned who would be utilizing the building.
Discussion ensued with specifics offered regarding hours of operation
and only as scheduled or by appointment. Hours of Operation is
discussed in the Environmental Assessment and page 3 or 4 of the Site
Plan.
Board members questioned landscaping and buffers to which Campbell
explained where although 25ft. if required, 50ft. of existing trees /
vegetation to be preserved surrounding the site, as shown on the Site
Plan; The likelihood or Natural Gas serving the area; and,
Architectural plans for the building.
Board Engineer stipulated the points brought out in his 5-22-14
Completeness Report including the technical recommendations
preparatory to a Technical Report for the Board meeting on June 12th.
Board Secretary instructed to send the application to the
Environmental Commission and the Fire Chief for input.
Board Chairman polled TRC members and the consensus was that a
recommendation could be made to the Board to deem the application
COMPLETE. With no other aspects of #PB1407 to discuss, he concluded
the meeting @5:07 pm.
*Approved 6-12-14: Holzhauer - YES; Rittie - YES; Perigo - YES; Raffay
- YES
2