Borough of Point Pleasant Beach MINUTES
The April 5, 2007 Special Meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:35 pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the “Open public meetings act.” Present were Board members: Mr. Simon, Mr. Palisi, Chairman Moberg, Mr. Wolfersberger, Mrs. Tooker, and Alternates: Mr. Leonard, Mr. Reilly, and Mr. Reynolds
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mrs. Tooker to memorialize the minutes from March 15, 2007 Board of Adjustment meeting.
Vote: Simon, Moberg, Tooker and Reilly…………………………………………………………………………………………….……..…..Yea
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mrs. Tooker to memorialize the action and vote approving Application #2007-04-John & Marie Mercun; 409 Trenton Avenue, Block 78; Lot 5; Applicant replaced an existing fence with a code compliant pool barrier at a height of 6 feet that had been in the side yard area.
Vote: Simon, Moberg, Tooker and Reilly………………………………………………………………………………………………….Yea
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mrs. Tooker to memorialize the action and vote approving Application #2006-44 – Home Mark Homes, 604 Cramer, Block 91.01/Lot 12; Applicant wishes to construct a new single-family dwelling.
Vote: Simon, Moberg, Tooker and Reilly………………………………………………………………………………………………….Yea
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mrs. Tooker to approve the action and vote approving Application #2006-43 – Penny & Fred Ficociello, 1601 West Street, Block 178.04; Lot 7; Applicant wishes to demolish existing dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling with an in-ground pool.
Vote: Simon, Moberg, Tooker and Reilly………………………………………………………………………………………………….Yea
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Moberg to memorialize the action and vote approving Application #2006-42 Coastal Points Construction, 728 & 732 Arnold Avenue; Block 91.01;Lots 22 & 21. Applicant wishes to demolish two existing single family dwellings and construct a 4,830 square foot building with 3 retail units on the first floor and 6 dwelling units on the second floor and 6 dwelling units on the third floor for a total of 12 units.
Vote: Wolfersberger, Moberg and Reilly………………………………………………………………………………………………………Yes
Opposed: None
Leach Letter request to amend #2006-51 – Board considered Mr. Leach’s request to have garage measured from grade and recommends that Mr. Leach appear personally to discuss the matter.
Application fees increase
On a motion by Mr. Palisi and second by Mr. Reilly, that a recommendation of increased application/escrow fees proposed by Board Engineer Ray Savacool be recommended for approval by Mayor and Council.
In favor: Simon, Palisi, Moberg, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Leonard and Reilly
Opposed: None
Recommendation of fees approved
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to have Tom Leach reappear before the board to explain his request.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Moberg, Tooker, Reilly and Reynolds………………………………………………………………..Yea
Opposed: None
Application #2006-38 Railroad Square Partnership 413 Railroad Square, Block; 94 Lots; 13-19; Applicant wishes to construct 12 Condominium Units consisting of retail/office space on first floor and two level residential units on the second floor. Dan Popovitch, Attorney for applicant. John C. Amelchenko, professional architect, sworn. Existing conditions: Property located on Rt. 35 and McLean Avenue. Currently one-story commercial building that is currently 8,000 square feet. Design concept is to create a mixed use on site and bring downtown towards the Rt. 35 corridor. Colored rendering entered as exhibit A-3. A-5 – floor plan. This project will mark the beginning of the downtown area if you are getting off the train. There will be two buildings. Ground floors of each building will be dedicated to commercial or professional use. Access will be from Rt. 35 and McLean Avenue. 12 residential duplexes will be above the commercial uses. Residential units are accessed from Rt. 35. Height of structure will require a variance. Ground floor commercial use; 10 foot ceiling; 9 foot ceiling, 1 ft. of structure; 2nd floor; 9 foot ceiling, 1 foot of structure. When you add those dimensions it gives you thirty feet to roof deck and then we have added a parapet. The parapet allows you to step individual parapet lines for architectural value and allows a natural screen to locate mechanical units on roof. Those are the reason that we have exceeded the height criteria. A-4 entered, black and white elevation rendering. Building 1 height – 36 feet. Building 2 height 35.3 feet. Ray Savacool disagrees with curb grade. Buildings should be measured from frontage, which is Route 35. Building height is a D-6 variance if it exceeds the height requirement by more than 10%. Mr. Savacool clarified the regulations of the flat roof in the GC zone. Mr. Galvin stated that even if the applicant removed the parapet it would still need a height variance and that each case should be judged on its own merits and it is not viewed as a major problem. John Amelchenko stated that the colors of the building will be close to the rendering. (Stucco, brick, white) Balconies facing Route 3 are just for aesthetics Commercial space is 9400 square feet including the outside wall. 12 residential units and 12 separate commercial units proposed.
No audience questions
Charles Gilligan, Professional Engineer, credentials accepted. Almost a full acre to work with; Will tap into existing 6-inch water pipe under Kinmouth Lane. There will be a slight decrease from existing structure. Buildings will pitch from east to west. We will put manifold pipe in east to west with roof flow. Traffic flow will be from McLean Avenue. Road Opening mid-way on Kinmouth Lane. Discussed garbage with Mr. Meany. Garbage enclosure will swing out to Kinmouth Lane so garbage can be picked up on Kinmouth. Property will have 2 (3) yard dumpster in a 16 x 25 foot enclosure which will secure commercial and residential garbage. Mr. Savacool inquired what the enclosure would face. Charles Gilligan replied “Frankie’s, so it doesn’t have a big impact. That is how the commercial properties are serviced on Route 35 South. Dan Popovitch stated that the combined condominium/commercial documents would be submitted to the Board attorney for review. Charles Gilligan addresses the Engineers letter: Lighting; 4 existing poles, adding 3 poles and residential carriage lights and globe type lighting. Shrubs will be planted along Kinmouth Lane and 4-foot fence to prevent people from walking in planting bed. All parking will be for Railroad Square; there will be no more shared parking. 9 x 18 foot parking stalls with hairpin striping. Will comply with drainage ordinance.
Audience Questions
Robert Bryant-410 Richmond Avenue – Inquired where the new curb cut is going to be located? (CG – 65 feet south from present location.)
Victor Furmanec, Professional Planner, sworn. Credentials accepted. Exhibit A-13, Pictures entered taken February 12, 2007. Proposal is to demolish existing building and erect two buildings. Train station is located directly across the street. Neighborhood is consistent with what you find in GC Zone. Primary access to property will be off of McLean Avenue. Buildings are aesthetically pleasing. Ray Savacool clarified that residential use on the third floor in the GC zone is a recommendation from the Master Plan committee and has not yet been adopted. Dan Popovitch: Required variances; D-type variance for building height and feet (37 feet); building stories. Furmanec – special reasons; appropriate use of property; transit-oriented development (across the street from train station). More likely to be occupied by young professionals; this also reduces the need for parking by residents on property during the daytime. Character of building reflects more towards the town’s downtown area. Anticipating only a small number of school children. Mr. Wolfersberger inquired if the applicant had done a feasibility study on who would want to open a store in this location. We have enough tattoo parlors. It would look terrible if we have 3-story buildings and all the stores are empty. Mr. Palisi stated that he likes the concept but he has three concerns; liability (if the project fails we will have an abandoned building); Parking and then the intensity and the density. I will take a guess that they will sell for a decent price. They might take the train to work, but the reality is they will have cars. You haven’t convinced me about the negative impact.
Michael Huday, applicant, sworn. Certified Public accountant; Have over 200 business clients. (Retail, architects and law firms). Has been associated with property for approximately 15 years. Original health club had 800 members and did not have a parking problem. They controlled outside parking usage. The people they are going to concentrate on will rent 2 retail stores. He believes they will have a high end use; wants a unique shopping area. Michael Huday believes it will be an urban transit type thing. They will take the train and hop on their bike. Michael Huday is going to maintain ownership of retail stores.
Audience questions
Robert Bryant, 410 Richmond Avenue – Worried that there is already a significant problem with traffic on Kinmouth Avenue.
Dan Popovitch – Conclusion – Unique site; serves as a tie in to the downtown. Help to keep the downtown a viable area. Parking alone should not be the sole consideration of this project. This type of situation does not lend itself to swing sets. This type of development will have a limited number of children. If this were built it would be a substantial enhancement to that particular area and the whole downtown area.
Deliberations
Mrs. Tooker – When I first saw this I said “Wow” it isn’t very beachy, and then it started to grow on me over the last couple of hours. It really is different, but maybe the highway and train station and that whole area need to go a little urban. I think lately we have approved projects that do not have adequate parking. I think there is plenty municipal parking around. I would like to see some really neat stores. I love to shop in town. I think the people that buy these will be the train type and like to sit outside on a stoop. I think it is great.
Mr. Moberg – I looked around at we have done in the past and we have approved projects downtown without any on site parking. This project has 46 parking spaces. Most stores downtown utilize the municipal lot. I feel that the upscale 2 bedrooms/ 2 ½ baths will be a plus. The height of 36 feet does not have any negative impact in this area. It is not like it is going to stick out in the middle of a field. I do not have a problem with the project as presented.
Mr. Wolfersberger – Well, I am concerned about the number of units per acre. It does concern me that there is no green space but I can deal with that because of the location. I think it is beautiful and the mixed use is the way to go. I believe the height is 37 feet. Right now I am still weighing the positives and negatives. I do not think the parking is a factor. I am really looking for less density.
Mr. Reynolds – I also think the building is beautiful. I do not believe that parking is a problem. If we eliminated the second building it would open up the corner for recreation.
Mr. Reilly – I can see a bunch of plusses and a bunch of minuses. I like the concept of multiple uses. Architecture is incredible. My concerns are about the height, parking and the flow. Maybe that can get worked out. I am not convinced that people will park across the highway to shop. The viability of the businesses is another concern. Mr. Hudy has convinced me that he thought this through. Then my biggest negative is the term “unique site”. Just once I would like to get a land use attorney that does not use that term. I am leaning towards being positive on this one.
Mr. Palisi- Our role is to weigh the positives and the negatives. You have not convinced me about the parking. This is on a tough corner with tough access in the back. I think that is a real concern. The height should be a negative, but given the location and the beautiful architecturals makes that a plus. My other concerns are the viability, but Mr. Hudy has convinced me that it will be. I also think that this is such a beautiful project that you will attract the type of businesses that we want in town. Density is also an issue. Positives – I think this is a phenomenal use. That is a tough site. You look for something like this to stimulate an area for development. I think it is positive because it is aesthetically pleasing and it has come up with a solution for an eye sore. I like the fact of the 12-month lease component is something that you have agreed to. Where does that leave me? I like it, I know how I could love it, but I like it.
Deliberations Closed
Conditions
1. First floor of building is to be dedicated to retail or commercial use as permitted in GC zone.
2. The roof will not be accessed from within the building and be strictly limited to the use for mechanicals.
3. The architectural plan is to match the plan shown to the board at the time of the hearing and as rendered in A-3.
4. The plan will be revised to reorient the refuse area so the gates will open to Kinmouth Lane to give greater access to the municipal sanitation vehicles. The redesigned doors will not encroach into Kinmouth Lane when opened. This revision is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Engineer.
5. The condominium documents are to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s attorney.
6. If the town permits the applicant will develop the Route 35 frontage (including the 10 foot alley owned by the Borough) with pavers, benches and lighting consistent with the downtown theme. This plan is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Engineer.
7. Applicant’s Engineer is to confirm with the Board’s Engineer that the site does not require a site triangle easement.
8. The lighting detail will be provided to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval.
9. The applicant is to install a 4-foot decorative fence along Kinmouth Lane, which will be submitted for the review and approval of the Board’s Engineer.
10. Applicant is to submit their landscaping plan to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval.
11. The interior pavement detail shall be modified to provide for 1 ½ inch minimal hot mix asphalt surface course.
12. The drainage plans are to comply with Ordinance 2006-42 and be submitted to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval.
13. Condo documents will limit the rental of residential units to annual leases.
14. The Board hereby permits the combined use of commercial buildings only.
Motion by Mr. Palisi, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2006-38 with conditions.
Vote: Simon, Palisi, Moberg, Tooker, Reilly and Reynolds…………………………………………………………………………Yea
Opposed: Wolfersberger……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Nay
Application approved with conditions
