We have a full house. How miraculous is it? Thank you folks. Thank you folks. Looks like everybody missed planning board. Everybody's here. >> The September 3rd, 2025 regular planning
board meeting called to order. This is to advise that the notice of the time, date, location, and to the extent known agenda of subject meeting was prominently posted in the public place reserved for such or similar announcements on August 19th, 2025 and transmitted to the Times to
Princeton packet in West Windsor and Plainsboro News on August 19th, 2025 and filed with the township clerk on August 19th, 2025. Please call the role. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes.
Mr. Lavaro, >> yes. >> Mr. Shaktau, >> here. >> Mr. Panco, >> Mr. B, >> yes. >> Ms. Barie, >> yes. >> Miss Applegat, >> yes.
>> Councilman Whitfield, >> here. >> Mayor Marte, >> yes. >> Vice Chairman Hobberman, >> here. >> And Chairman Cart, >> here. Um, we have a quorum. Thank you. Okay.
At this time, I'd like to open up to the public. If you'd wish to speak on non agenda, non-pending items, please step up to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. Okay. Hearing none.
uh minutes from 2021 and um we'll do well minutes from May 2025, May 21st, 2025 and June 25th, 2025. Are there any amendments or changes other than typos? Anybody?
>> Motion to approve the minutes of May 21st. Second. >> Okay. Motion by Curtis, second by uh Annis. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Okay. Um Okay.
>> I have to abstain. >> Yes. Allan is abstain. >> I >> Okay. Got you can see who can. Got it. Thank you. >> Okay. Um minutes from June 2000. uh June
25th, 2025. Any amendments, changes, explanations, context, uh other than typos? Anybody entertain a motion to approve the minutes from June 25th, 2025?
>> So moved. >> Moved by the mayor, second by >> Second. >> I'm sorry, Sue. >> Second. >> Yes, Sue. Okay. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Uh is abstain Allen and Rob. >> Thank you.
>> Minutes are approved. Thank you. >> Okay. Um next up on the agenda is the resolution PB21-10. This is the Carnegie Center West Corman Suites uh request for extension of approval.
Does anybody have um any issues with the request for extension? Anybody? >> No. Motion to approve the resolution for PB21-10 BXP Carnegie Center Carnegie Owner LLC.
>> Second. >> Okay. Um motion by Curtisanis. Uh please uh call the role for a vote. >> Missain Mr. Yes.
>> Sorry. But >> no, she um clean because I I wasn't there. >> Just flip over the back. >> Thank you. 21. >> Yes, >> Mr. >> Yes.
>> Mayor. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Park. >> Yes. Okay. Approve. uh resolution uh approved to extend uh performance suites PB21-
10. Thank you. Okay, next up is the application PV25-06 Princeton Executive Park phase three desa restaurant final major site plan northeast corner of metro road in US1
the applicant uh here and represented. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh >> you can raise that microphone. Can everyone hear me? Does it need to be a little higher? >> Saying in in advance, good evening. I'm Martina Bailey. I'm the board attorney this evening, but um I review the the uh
notice packet. It's in order. Um so the board has jurisdiction. >> Thank you. >> All short people here. >> I guess I do now. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Ron Shimanowitz from the firm of Hut
Shimanowitz and Pler here on behalf of the applicant Fogo Decha Kuriscaria LLC. We're before you tonight seeking final major site plan approval for the restaurant pad site known as phase three of the overall development. Uh in
addition to final site plan approval, we're seeking certain design waiverss. Just by way of real quick background, uh this board approved the overall development uh back in 2020. That included preliminary and final major site plan and subdivision approval for
phases one and two and preliminary major site plan approval for phases three and four. The overall development uh comprises 656 multif family residential units being developed as the lofts, 130 room hotel,
uh a 1,600 square ft retail space uh and a uh the restaurant pad which is the subject of tonight's application. Uh we were back before you in 2023 uh for an amendment. Uh we uh made some
modifications to the hotel approval uh to eliminate the rooftop and some other changes. Uh the uh applicant tonight, as I stated, is seeking final site plan approval for the restaurant pad, which
you have already granted preliminary approval. So with the final site plan request tonight, we're following the preliminary with a couple of uh minor changes. The main change is the buildings being rotated to face route one. There are some other modifications
which you'll hear about from our experts, but that's the essence of of the application. Um there are uh there is some signage that's being proposed uh both facade signage and a monument sign. Those signs uh implicate some design
waiverss in terms of sign area, letter height, and sign height. Um uh and that is that's really the essence of the relief we're seeking from you tonight. I I do have with me uh five witnesses. Uh each of them are
relatively brief. Uh so we hope to get through this pretty quickly just by way of preview for for the chair. I have with me James Telerico who is senior director uh senior director of development for the Briad group uh which is the main developer of the overall
site uh particularly the restaurant and hotel portion. Uh so he's just going to give a little background of where we're at with the overall development. Uh Matt Wells is a representative from Fogo as to operations of the restaurant. Sean Delaney is our site engineer from Bowman
Engineering. Uh Jeff Lynn is our licensed architect. He'll show you the architectural package. Uh and Julie Cob Keski um from Milo Bower and Carmen is our uh licensed landscape architect and uh that is who will be presenting
tonight. We do of course have the several review letters and are uh prepared to address them. And unless there's any other housekeeping or questions, I'm prepared to call my first witness. Why don't we swear all of your witnesses in at once? If anyone who's going to
testify tonight, you could just raise your right hand. >> It would be those five folks that I mentioned. >> Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you shall give will be the truth? >> Lovely. So sworn. And if as you come up, if you could just just introduce yourself again and um give us the
benefit of your credentials if you're testifying as an expert. >> Yeah. Big. You're a little bit taller than me. >> That's better. >> Sure.
>> My name's uh James Tyler Rico. I work for the Bri Group. Um we're also Bride Development LLC. Uh address is 78 OER Parkway, Livingston, New Jersey 07039. I am the senior director of development
and we are the owner of the application that's in front of you tonight. Uh we are leasing the demise premise for the restaurant which is the final approval we're seeking tonight to Fog Chia which they will present their uh
application for the modifications that they're making just for the restaurant pad. I was here previously. It's been a little bit. I know some of you and some of you look like new faces, but uh we received preliminary and final approval
for the hotel portion which we are planning to develop but has been I don't want to say derailed but somewhat been complicated with financing and we've pivoted some to try to get the restaurant going first at this point in time until we're able to secure final
financing for the actual hotel itself. Um which we do intend to build. Um but again the application tonight is for final approval for the restaurant. Um there are minor changes. Most of them are administrative but there are some design waiverss that they will present to you tonight. Um if you have any
questions for me as the uh owner's rep, I'd be kindly kindly answering any questions you may have. just which is involving what out there what's going on in terms of >> Sure.
>> Um the overall development is pretty much owned by Garden Homes which is developing all the residential um on both phases one and I believe it's phase four is it phase four. Um they also have
uh on phase three they own the retail portion of the development which is the two retail paths that were approved preliminarily along with our restaurant which is part of phase 3. So we're only slightly modifying a portion of phase 3.
What's been constructed to date by Garden Homes is their phase 2 development, which is their um which is their residential on the one side of Meadow Road. um along with the parking
easement which services our lot which is off premises but they've developed they've also installed all of the utilities that service our lot as part of an agreement we had with garden homes so that when we were ready to construct
our pad we did not have to go on their property. So, all of the utilities, um, there's some final paving that still needs to be done on the parking easement, which is currently being worked out, but everything for the most part that's necessary for access and
servicing our application has been constructed offsite. >> Uh, no. Thank you. Thank you. >> Our next witness is Mr. Matt Wells from >> uh I'm Matt Wells speaking on behalf of
Fog Desonne. I'm the vice president of construction. Um just real briefly, if you're not familiar with Fogo, um the the uh the concept is uh Sherasco, which is a a barbecue style rooted in Brazil.
Um it's a proteins cooked on an open flame. Um we we serve about a dozen protein different proteins including seafood uh as well as paired with a market table that has um quite a variety of seasonal vegetables, fruits, salads,
and things like that for offerings. Um we are uh relatively new to New Jersey. Uh this will be our fourth location in the state. We're extremely excited about this location. And this will be our first uh what we consider prototype building which we're building here uh
freestanding. We've converted a few uh locations but this is our first um our first groundup location that we're very excited about. >> I've been to the one in New Orleans and I've been to the one in Paramis. >> Great. >> And and in Brazil I've been to the real Chosy.
>> That's awesome. I have not been yet but that's that's great. Matt just a few operational questions came up in review. Can you pick those real quick? What if you propose the hours of operational
>> um hours of operation or 11 to 11? >> You expect deliveries? >> Deliveries are normally three to four days a week uh depending on volume of the restaurant. Um typically early morning hours. What type of truck?
>> Generally a box truck or similar. Yeah. >> What do you expect in terms of employees per shift? Total employees. >> Employees per shift is a is give or take 30. >> Um it really depends on restaurant. Yes.
With regard to the outdoor area that's being proposed for outdoor dining, will there be any uh music or performances or anything like that? >> There will it's generally just ambient music for for atmosphere. Um from time to time we'll do as far as any
performances, it's it's usually live music, maybe a a performer on a on a bar stool with a guitar or something similar. Um, it's not a full orchestra or anything by that means. It's it's more for experience uh to go with with
your dinner. >> Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. >> Um, in terms of the signage, both sid signage and monument signage. Uh, do you know what the hours of illumination will be for the signage is?
So the the hours we generally would go with especially on a a thoroughare like this would be it's it's all uh on a uh a program clock so we can program it to come on an hour before sunset so it's not burning too long. I would probably start with a 2 am shut off just to
capture as much traffic, but it's it's all adjustable for >> I have nothing further. Anybody can >> um Yeah, I have a question for you. I'm also familiar with Terrasco in Brazil and San Francisco.
>> How do you control the odor coming out of the out of the um kitchen, the smoke, >> the exhaust system? exhaust systems or >> we do they not for this location we would not. >> And why is that?
>> Um it's the the fan's going to be mounted on the roof and generally we see that the the exhaust fan is going to pull it to the roof and the air is going to dissipate the smell. >> All right. So you don't see that impacting the hotel or the residences? I >> I do not.
>> Okay. Thank you, >> Matt. How does the size of the West Windsor location compare to the other three that you have in New Jersey? >> Very similar. We're give or take depending on some of those were what we call conversions. So, we went into
existing real estate, but they're all uh about 8,000 to this one here. This give or take 8,500 ft². That's that's kind of our our sweet spot. When I say this, this one is what we consider our prototype. We're building the building, so we control more of the um overall
design. Whereas, if we're going into an existing, we look for a certain size, but then we're we get a bit more limited by the four walls. Um, but the the ones here are are comparable in size. >> Will there be any drive-thru?
>> No drive-thru. >> Okay. >> Anybody else? Um, nope, that's it. Thank you. is our professional engineer on site engineering said
you don't mind there was one item not so small show setting up Jim if you just explain to the board where the back regarding the treatment works approval >> yeah so on the treatment works approval. Um, we currently have a treatment works
approval for the project itself. Uh, the amount of gallage allotted for that originally was for the hotel and the rooftop restaurant that we had originally gotten approved. Currently, we're just building the restaurant. So, at this point in time, because all of the mains have been installed, we've
technically fulfilled the requirements of the gallage that's necessary, which this restaurant is under that overall gallage. So therefore, we're going to utilize the same existing TWWA and we're going to amend that TWWA
for the hotel when we're about to go under construction with that. So, I would ask that if this um application is approved that you could make a condition of the approval that we can utilize the existing TWWA because we're under the gallonage that's already been allotted
to us and the additional we'll get and we will not be able to file for a building permit until we have that updated TW TWWA for the hotel portion. It's slightly over what was allotted to us, but again, it it doesn't make a difference because gallons is gallons.
I hope I clarified that enough so people understood. If you have any questions, let me know. >> Thank you, >> Sean. This form would be the board benefit. >> Certainly. Uh my name is Sean Sen Delaney. De Ly,
a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. Licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. A graduate of NGIT in 1999 with a bachelor of science in civil engineering. have appeared uh before several planning and zoning boards uh throughout the thing. I appeared before
this board as a planner um during the last uh approval uh for the hotel and the the preliminary approval for the restaurant um on both I've done engineering uh and planning testimony planner since 2008. Um licenses in good standing. I'm a principal with Bowman
Consulting out of our freehold office. >> Okay. Thank you. Anybody get started out? So if you could describe the board what that exhibit is by the title that you can prepare and
we're going to mark that exhibit. >> Certainly. Uh day one is a site plan rendering of phase 3 child restaurant prepared by office dated uh 829 2025 depicting the restaurant site the
location where the hotel is going to go and some of the uh other improvements on an aerial map um for the property and surrounding areas. >> Thank you Sean. I'm going to turn it over to thinking board through set proposal and and particularly what the modifications were. surgeon. So, uh,
property is identified as block 9, lot 12.01. It's 4.13 acres in size. That hasn't changed. Zone PMN1 plan makes use of neighborhood as well. And as mentioned, this is phase three uh of the final for the restaurant. Um, the
project is an 8,4228 foot restaurant with,300 square feet of an outdoor seating area totaling 298 seats, 235 indoor, 63 outside. Uh, there's no change to the lot area width
or depth that was previously improved. Um, there's a slight modification to set back along route one based upon the new building footprint. um that that reduce remaining one and a half feet will bump out to 8.9 feet still comply with the orders though
coverage did increase by.1% due to uh some changes that I'll describe in a little bit um the original site was 74.3% approval the amended approval in 2023 was 72.1 we are at 72.2 two right now. So still
below what was approved on the original application that had all the solware design all the other improvements as well. So uh no no no additional improvements would be required uh for stroller calculations. Um
parking you know we reduced that um several times over the ordinance. We are now down as I mentioned sorry we're down to uh 274 spaces provided on the site where 266
count uh we make ready spaces proposed for the credits for those where 262 are required uh they there the front south side of the building the west side long group one and the north
side by far center the electric vehicle spaces were relocated for the north side of the front of the building suits in front of the hotel. There are some additional hotel ones that were proposed that are remaining on the east side of the hotel are shown here. And then some
handicap spots were located at the north side buildings. Um as well circulation to the site remains unchanged from the prior approvals. So circulating through the north, south and west side of the building access to the main drive out to Carnegie Center. that hasn't changed at
all. Um so um the improvements that were proposing so um other change that occurred there was a drop off area on the southern side of the restaurant
previously. Um that drop off side was actually fairly large. Um it was 20 ft wide about 110 ft long. That's been eliminated. There were some oversized sidewalks in that location as well. Drop off has been moved now to the west side of the building. As was mentioned
before, the building was rotated. So the front entrance now faces east through one to the west as opposed to the parking lot in the south where it was before. Um as mentioned the sidewalks additional sidewalks and interchanges
the restaurant on a previous footprint go entrance uh access point on the west side I'm sorry the east side that's been eliminated now take out the sidewalks out to the front both the north and south side to circulate and get to the entrance on the west side of the
building as well right now. No other changes to the parking lot, nothing in the south area, nothing in the north area. Um except the handicap striking essentially as that was just brought for the five handicap spaces that are required for the restaurant.
Getting into the required sub one sign being proposed along with one between the uh the bicycle p and the
rightaway line. That sign as presented was about 33.54 square feet under the 48 max permitted. It's 8 ft high. That's when we're asking for a waiver for that where 4t is permitted. Uh that's primarily because
the the existing vegetation along that the roadway up there, some shrubs are planted. We want to get the sign above those shrubs so they can be seen by motors coming in directional. In addition, there are three public building mounted signs located on the north side, west side with the main
entrance on the south side of the building facing the three major roadways. On the west side, um the max sign area of the post is 77.32 ft where 50 ft max is permitted and the letter
height we're looking at 18 18 in high. Um, we're anywhere from 22 and a quarter up to 38 in high. At 22 and a quarter is the the DE center. They're smaller. The tallest letter is the A
chow which is the little accent over the top and it's extended above it. Otherwise, the letters are all 30 in high on that facade. That's on the west facade facing uh the route one on the south facade now on this side down
facing the route one interchange once again 50 square ft required uh we are proposing again 77.32 square ft asking for a waiver and same thing on the building letter heighting but the height height of the letters um
I apolog I messed up what I talked about before was the south was The south side faces square footage are the same. On the west side, the heights are being too fast. Everything is the same.
They're both the same envelope of facads. Uh on the north side um each side uh 50 50 square foot match. We actually apply on that side. We only propose it to 49.88. So just under 50
square ft. The letter height also 18 max permitted. Um the DE in the middle complies they are 18 inches high. The uh the A with the accent on top is 30 and a quarter and the other lettering is 24 in high. So um the waiver for those two
points. I'd like to ask a little bit more about signage please. Um you mentioned the one monument sign on Highway 1 northbound. Correct. >> Yeah. Is that the only monument sign? >> Yeah, that's the only one we're
proposing for our property. >> Okay. So, um can you talk about wayinding? Uh how do I know how to get to uh the restaurant? And I'm going to make the assumption that that the hotel is in
place because that's going to be a bulk of a building. Okay, follow me on that one. Um tell me about wayfinding. If I'm coming down uh US Route 1 southbound to get to the restaurant way finding how's the in terms of how Fogo to Chow gets me
to where I need to go. Thank you. >> I do not know if any sign along any of the roadways for those kind of way finding signs along the DOT sign. >> Well, no. I'm actually thinking of Carnegie Center Boulevard and Meadow Meadow Road. Is there any directional
off of those two uh entryways into the site to get to to the restaurant? >> We didn't propose any additional signage. We were only permitted the one monument sign per code. Um in today's age with GPS, I mean, they both have their own
>> I'm not assuming that everybody has has that. >> I understand that. Um I think most people do, but regardless of that, we we don't have anything else proposed. Um, if the board's willing to entertain allowing us to put something additional, we could do that. But again,
we didn't want to ask for that additional design waiver because we didn't think it was necessary in today's age. >> I don't believe we have any unless we put it on our lot. Yeah, we we we have the same access off the ring road as as Garden Homes has for
that those those residents. We have access throughout that entire area. >> Can you point out the entrances where how do I enter the site? >> So, >> so well there's there's two ways. So, if you're if you're coming down Route One
into Carnegie Center Drive, you would then pull in off the off-ramp and then make a right onto this is now called Loft's Drive. So, you would make the turn into Loft Drive, and you'd be able to turn right in between this the shared access point and park within this
parking easement here, which is again on Garden Homes' property, but we have a perpetual easement for these parking spaces, as well as the parking that's here and the parking that's currently being proposed for this phase until we physically build the actual hotel
itself. I you have to go all the way around and about to get to the rest of the rest. >> Correct. >> And then on the flip side, if you were coming south >> southbound, you would get off at the metal road and then you would make the
right onto the ring road and then come in this way very easily access. >> Sorry. The Sorry, Curtis. >> No, go ahead. Go ahead, Michael. You're honorable. the the structure or or what
is that along Route One northbound. Is that is that trees a cement wall? I mean that what? Yeah, that >> here. Oh, this is this is under construction. This is all going to be landscaping. This is the bike path here. This is all going to be landscaping. >> That's a bike. >> Yeah, there there's a bike path around
the whole perimeter. The equipment approval that's installed that'll be installed. It's not done there yet. This is the service of our delights. >> Yeah. And that's kind of like the service road part of route one where you kind of know you're getting off sooner
onto Okay. Okay. And Okay. Got it. >> So, a scenario I envision possibly happening is uh a driver with family, let's say uh grandparents, uh elderly
uh persons in the car. Um, you get off, you get off at the Carnegie Center Drive exit going one northbound. You make the right turn into the site and then you make the immediate right turn uh into the first opportunity then.
Okay. Yeah. Follow your finger around. Follow it all the way to the entrance. Now, if I want to stop, if I want to drop off my grandparents, I I'm on the wrong side of the uh the the drop off. So, I could see I could see drivers
making the Uturn, you know, to to do the drop off. And I don't know if that's really desirable. Am I making sense? Oh, >> I totally understand that. I mean, again, we have to provide circulation around the entire development, which we have. Um, I think you run into that
dilemma in most situations in in development like this. So you're always going to have a drop off and it's always going to be one way typically on your drop off. So I mean we're providing this as as an amenity. We don't technically have to provide it. So we're doing it as
an amenity. >> There there's no entrance into the site >> off of Route One. >> Yeah. Like >> there's no access off of here. The only way you can get in is off of Carnegie Center Drive or Meadow. >> Like what's off your page? >> Do you have another Do you have the
other overall site plan? Yeah. I mean, it's off the map. It's off the picture. >> Yeah, that's what I thought. You get off in the brink into the residences and then you can go. Okay. That's what I thought. I
>> Yeah, there's no direct access into any part of the development off of Route One. >> Okay. >> Want to just grab the overall just through the two clips that you said. >> Yes, it was. This is
reference the overall phasing plan 4A of the submitted site plan set. >> Should we mark that A2? >> I don't know if we need to. It said the set. It's 4A in the completed set that was submitted as part of the application.
>> No, we have we have it >> I think. >> So this is the overall development that I spoke about in the beginning of the application. So you have phase two which is the residence, phase four which is the other residence which is owned by garden homes. Phase three which is the two retail buildings which owned by
garden homes. But the other portion of phase three which is the restaurant portion which is on our lot, the owner's lot and the hotel itself which is phase one. So again as we said earlier this is the hotel parking easement. This this
this parking and all of this parking is for our development exclusively. Um and again your question was in regards to access. So again, you'd have to come down Route One south, get off, get onto Meadow Road, and then you would
make the left off of Meadow into the Ring Road and follow it northbound and make the left into phase one. And going northbound, as we said, off of Carnegie, make the right. >> Got it.
Anybody anything else, Curtis? >> No, I'm good. >> Okay. Just with the monument sign. Okay, it's 8 foot high. And what is the total square footage of the sign? >> The total footage was calculated as 33.5 square ft. That's that's taken around
from here. itself the two the restaurant plus the hotel the logos is the rectangle that encompasses the letters right
>> so there's a ground port doesn't have any letters >> so you work with the 44 I think >> 48 >> 48 yes height of all the base is almost
What do you do when the shrubs uh block your letters? >> What do you do when the shrubs block your letters? Get the gardener out there to trim it. >> Maintain your trucks. >> Got it. >> I guess one more question on signage.
Could uh Dave Novak be sworn in, please? >> Sure. When Why don't we swear all of our folks in at once? Do you swear affirm that the testimony she'll give will be the truth? >> Say so. Thanks. >> So, David, >> you want this one?
>> Uh, David, my question to you. We are uh as part of uh tonight's agenda is the start of the draft sign ordinance >> that we're going to be looking at after this application. >> Yes. So my question to you is um would the
applica if if if the the draft sign ordinances that are being suggested to West Windsor Township are passed and adopted would these waiverss be necessary? >> Yeah. Yes and no. So one of the recommendations we're making in that draft ordinance is to eliminate the
letter height requirement or letter height regulation. Uh obviously if that was adopted then this application would not need a waiver from that. The waiverss for signage may or may not um I would have to calculate each of those
walls how far they are away from the rightway. Uh the monument sign would still require a waiver. I believe we're recommending a slightly taller height but not 8 foot. So it would get them closer to conformance but not 100%. >> What about the number of signs on the
building? Uh there there's no waiver required for that. They're good with that. Yeah. Uh one of the other recommendations we're making is regarding the number of monument signs as well. Currently the ordinance reads and I quote mon one monument sign shall be permitted for each provided that a
ground mounted project identification sign is not installed. Each frontage each driveway I it doesn't really say. Um, typically it's been interpreted as each frontage maybe, but we're uh changing that to uh specify it.
So, um, if the board was so inclined to suggest a monument sign along Carnegie Center Drive, that would be uh closer to conformance with what the draft sign ordinance has. >> In what way? In there would be an
additional Let me get the language up. because usually it's a singular monument sign. >> Yep. One of the recommendations we'd be making would be regarding >> monument signs for planned non-residential developments
would allow for uh one monument sign for each driveway entrance. >> Interesting. Thank you. >> Anybody do have one last thing and actually hope you can touch on it your question. Uh
what would happen I guess if the uh distance was measured in a different way. Um right now we're basing everything on the closest distance from the frontage. So that one would still be the waiver for the uh for the side area um because we just we for the
50 square max would hit the the front on that will allow us up to 88.2 but reduce that to 50. So on the side facing south side down to the interchange there that's over uh that was probably 400 ft
to that point. So with 120% of that lineage uh max of 100 square feet we allow 90 square foot sign on that facade uh based on the map the 75 footage on that that area gets to 90 square feet. So we would comply with the area if it
was measured to to the southern rightway line that point and then on the north of Carnegie drive same thing the we're over 265 ft that picks it the next requirement 120% of the front edge at
100 square foot max 81 free to front edge of the building there 97 would be allowed where we're at 49 compliant regardless of that side but we could go up to 97 square foot population was2 rightway lines on the adjacent roads the
south side is facing so we still need one on the on the west side facing one for the waiver southside would comply if that is the distance >> so what in intrigues me with this is um the below the hotel parking lot that is a developable site within their master
plan correct >> but but in relation to signage it's distant from the roadway, not including that there might be a building obstruction between the signage and the road with a possible development. You
see the lower rectangle there? Yeah. Pointed that one. That one. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, you know what I mean, David, on that one? Do you hear my point, David? >> Guess not. >> Do you understand my point, David? >> I Sorry. I was >> So, so the
whereas he said there's the 400 feet to the roadway. Mhm. >> Okay. Yet um you know there there could be a building obstruction as part of that 400 ft. Does that how does something like that work into the calculation for signage height or
consideration even >> at all >> in regard to the both the existing and proposed regulations. It would not right. So we don't account for the existing signage regulations or this draft signage regulation whether or not there's an obstruction there. But that
would be something within the board's purview as if there is a special case or special incident that would warrant a sign waiver or a slightly larger sign or sign at a different location due to those types of physical obstructions. So that's not something we necessarily
always catch in the ordinance, but that's why we have these applications and we can go through that process and you would have the opportunity to either grant or deny a waiver. >> I good. Okay. >> Okay. >> Sorry. Just one last touch on parking
asking for talk about that again. uh you know through the preliminary approval to the amended approval to disapproval. The total total provided parking has been decreased from the original um for that are still above the
required uh minimum uh for sorry the acquired required amount for the parking um of 262 spaces that I mentioned were 274 that credit to a two6
but we were um substantially more than we were over 300 when we started. um for them to redesign other changes that made the plans are getting closer and closer to that uh number. So I don't believe that these you know with any restaurant popularity it's never you know having
little extra parking is never a bad thing especially into start that process. So and then depending what uses go into the retail spaces down there too you never know how shar parking >> through there. So um we have reduced it significantly obviously since the
initial one where we were 50 spaces over now we're about 60 spaces over time >> okay >> I don't see any detriment I also don't see any detriment on the sign varian
you know that height the sign of the signs based on approximately the roads for distance and safety it's very similar situation we had the hotel we had the larger signs there also Will will the monument sign that's going to be above the landscaping is it going
to have the name of the restaurant then next right or with an arrow or something or like how will people know >> after we have application >> okay >> there's a the name of the restaurant up on top >> I I guess if you're in in that roadway I
guess the only way is So, okay, I'm in the right place. I guess continue on the road and bear right. And >> will there be another there won't be another sign on >> within the site? >> Not within the site.
>> The only sign on. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Right. the hotel. >> So, so if they bear right at they bear right on if they bear right there, how do they
know? Well, I I have to make another right into the >> I know GPS, right? >> That's so ugly. >> That's why the building sign is so important, too. [Music]
distance down a you see it and okay how do I get there >> right >> yeah it's divided yeah >> after the has been put on >> that's northbound you'd have to be on the service >> parking information where it's still
updated so people be found. >> Yeah, >> they can always pass it and make a U-turn. >> No, that's No, a very good point has been made that there is this the service road northbound between Meadow and Carnegie Center Drive.
>> Yeah. >> So, it's not like you and it's not like you can see the restaurant in the main lanes of Highway One and then make the decision to make the right at Carnegie Center Drive. They're not allowed to if you're on the main drive of Highway One northbound. >> Right.
>> Yeah. >> That's a good idea. S >> I >> Unless you want to grant us another one of those. We'll put one uh one of the other entry points. >> That's all. >> Okay. I have no business.
>> Anybody >> else any questions? Okay, thank you. >> Our next >> uh Jeffrey Lim. I'm a licensed architect. um been practicing for about 30 years now. I've got my architectural degree from the State University of New
York in Buffalo and uh currently uh hold about 38 license and been working with Fogo for over eight years now. >> I'm sorry, what's your name? >> Jeffrey Lim.
>> Thank you. every season [Music] paper being made. Okay. Uh so with this uh pretty close to um the mic please. >> Mr. Wells uh point out earlier the this
is pretty close to our prototype that we're developing. Um we do design this and tweak it you know depending on the the locality so it it fits in with the the site and um the surroundings. Um but
a lot of the changes in the practice you know we try and keep for the operations. So here's the floor plan we're looking at the proposed floor plan. Um as uh you see from the front this Yeah. speak right into it.
>> Uh just to walk you to the plan. Uh got our front entrance here that's facing uh Route One and uh we have an outdoor patio in this end and um have all the dining facing up front and the back house facing the back house towards the
hotel. There's a there's a bar area, right? >> Right. There's a bar area right here. >> Is it is the bar um circular or there's a wall beh There there's a wall behind it, but we have a glass opening so you could kind
of see the penration from each. >> Thank you. In the exterior seating area, is it uh typical practice for the restaurant to have exterior heating elements to extend the season of use?
>> Um we do have uh typically we have um heating elements but you know it it depends on you know how the severity of the weather. >> It depends on what >> the severity of the weather of course. >> Severity of the weather. Okay. So, are you installing heaters or not?
>> We are. Yes. >> How many seats did you say there were on the on the outside patio? Uh, we have about 63 on the outside. Interior city county about 235 interior. >> So in terms of the parking requirements um
captain basically the two were added together and then the parking uh count was established. Okay. want to continue to show the board issues, >> right? So this is some of the uh straight front
elevation. This is a the the the failure area side and the entry side on this side. Um might be easier to see it actually with more of the renderings. >> This is in our package, right? >> Correct. Everything in here is in the package.
>> Why Why don't we mark this uh A2? This will be exhibit A2. Um >> plan set. >> Okay. Uh plan set original date issue date 7125.
Um let make sure I have the the recent ones. Let make sure there's no other dates. 71 2025 and this is more of an enlarged uh version of the exterior for the front.
You got the front entry. You got the the the entry element signifying entrance and you have the patio flanking the front and the hotel doors back. Yeah. [Music] >> Correct. So, a lot of the materials on
here are all natural. We have um a lot of the materials that are found in the hotel. It's right here. We have some uh some brick, some ephas, and then natural looking woods. Um like a lot of these is like a stone. We have the
brick. We have ephus again stone and the brick. And we have natural wood along the underside of the openings here and at the back as well. >> Exterior insulation finishing system. >> Correct. >> Oh, this this side right here.
>> I'm just you use the acronym. I'm just explaining. Yeah. Yes. And again, as you're moving around the building, this is looking more towards the backside hotel to your left. And so, I mean, if we do,
you know, make making a lot of attempt to make sure the building fits in the site and it's not just some big box that you're going to just look at. No different directions. So even the backside we we try and you know keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep give keep more of the articulation and a lot of interest to
the building >> will there be a connection between the hotel and the building >> I'm sorry >> will there be a connection >> no >> between the hotel and building so they'll just have to walk around to the front >> that was originally proposed way back when and then when they revised it with
the hotel they limited that connection >> doesn't matter I just was curious if And >> it's a great question. No, we we secured an additional liquor license on top of the hotel one that we would that would
be born from it. So that that that liquor license will go to Fogo. >> I knew somebody was going to ask that question. Thanks, Sam. And now we facing the front of the building again. Right here's the front of the entrance and you see turning around by the exterior patio. And so you
again we're keeping the same materials along the all around building and you know keeping a lot of interest, different articulations, different heights. And so you you have a very interesting building and it's something that's you know depleting to look at and
it's all portioned correctly. >> Hey Jeff, >> so I appreciate the the premise of outdoor seating um but practically speaking sometimes it can be problematic. What's the distance from uh
that seat that you're right next to and route one? >> Uh which seating? >> Well, the closest to the road here. Yeah, that's about the >> It's about 70, I think.
[Music] the reference sake back to A1. The outdoor seating area through here is right off the the sidewalks. So, you're looking for about 8 ft from the handicap parking and then uh wraps around
wrap around the front here. So once again, you're probably looking at 810 at most at the closest point of the drop off area. He's talking >> to the road >> to highway [Music] >> from dining area to highway.
>> The right away it's about 85 ft. >> Basically when the pictures to home plate. >> What's next? >> From first base to 90 about 60.
>> My father always taught us you always go lower. You don't go high. But point me I'm just wondering about the experience. I have no experience with respect to judging. I'm just curious. You guys do this all the time. What's that distance when you're sitting
down in the bedroom really like? is going to be down to the rightway. Oh, Jimmy, could you just tell our our our company's I've probably developed 75 restaurants over the last 20 years
with with Briad. Um, it really depends. It's a it's a great question, but I feel that if it's a nice day out, people aren't too worried about local highway noise. Um, I think all of us from New Jersey are used to that for
the most part. I mean, born and raised here and a lot of, uh, a lot of restaurants that we had were even closer sometimes, you know, where it, you know, it can be unfortunate. You know, you try to screen it as best you can. you have your ambient music, but um you know the
people that don't want to sit outside, they sit inside. You know, it's really an amenity during the the summer months anyway. And if it's too hot, people want to sit inside or >> I I agree. I I love dining outside. I'll be honest, I'm just a little concerned in general. I wish the hotel were here to make this business even more
successful. >> Quite honestly, >> I think it will be. It's just, you know, it's unfortunately with economics and everything that's going on in today's world, it's it's been a little bit difficult. I mean, we we own and operate over, you know, 15 hotels. >> Pretty cool. >> So, >> I'm asking
>> Yeah. >> I'm just curious about what that experience is like being there. >> The cars are going to slow down around that area because they're heading into the restaurant. >> Maybe. >> Are BMS provided going to be provided along?
>> I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? >> Are there any BMS? >> That's it. We were just talking about that. Matt just said it himself. Um the restaurant actually sits probably five or six feet lower than the actual highway itself. So you still you have that you and you'll have the shrubs that
are also along route one that are going to be somewhat of a buffer. >> But no burning. >> I I guess you can consider it to burn because it slopes down from route one. >> That's not >> so I mean even if you pull it well technically it is because if you pull in head in you're still five six feet you
know below that. I I don't agree with you on that point, but certainly the shrubs will provide some kind of separation. >> Yeah. Well, the shrubs will be about 36 in, >> not noise, but depends upon the conversation you're having.
>> I wanted to person that does this all the time that that's not a concern to you. So, >> I actually I did a Zimburger in Morris Plains and it's right off of State Highway 202 and Route 10. I don't know if you know the area, but the the it's
now a Tommy's, but that outdoor patio was is five feet from the highway and it's packed all the time. >> Like a route one highway. >> Yes. >> Route 10 is jammed all the time >> and during during the good days that
that whole outdoor area is jammed with people. >> Thank you. So >> I I wanted to take just a little further and Robin, you sparked my mind. I'm just trying to anticipate the dining experience uh mid July
um uh towards the evening uh at the exterior with the combination of of of the heat and sunset. This is located on the west side of the building as well as
um the intensity of trucks on using Highway 1 all through 247. But I'm just saying there's a lot intense truck use on Highway One. Uh our we've we've seen how in West Windsor over all these many
years that how with every toll with every uh toll change uh on the uh toll roads that we get more more tractor trailers on Highway 1 going from 295 up to uh Route 18 and Turnpike to continue
northbound or southbound on 295. And so that that that combination does not seem pleasant to me. I mean >> you'll you'll sit inside >> best efforts in doing this. I get that. But I'm just thinking of the intensity
of trucks on Highway One. Uh as and and all the noise that goes with that. Absolutely. >> Well, again, I mean, I don't want to speak for >> and I don't I think your other FOGO locations don't I mean, I I'm thinking
Bridgewwater doesn't have this issue. >> I'm I'm not the applicant, so I don't want to speak on behalf of this. I can only speak to my my own restaurants that I've developed over the last 20 years. >> Respond your other FOGO locations. Do you have a highway one right next to it? >> We do not have a highway. No, we do not.
Um the I I I can speak from just standing out there today. I did drive by the site um previous to this and just wanted to um kind of stand there and just have just so I could see it. We were going to have conversations about signage and things like that. So uh fresh on my mind as of today, I actually
was um showing Jeff some pictures before we got here. Um I I think the elevation change is a bit taller than 5 foot. Um, and the only reason I bring that up is cuz I I kind of stood on site um with my back to where the front door I thought would be. Um, just kind of eyeballing a
little bit and I took a picture. We were showing it sitting in the room here and I noticed the the trucks that you're that you're talking about. I I think um on an iPhone where you can get a live photo the the car zooming by and I we caught a glimpse of the very very top of
an 18-wheeler. So I my point is I think that that barrier or that burm or whatever we're calling it is a is a touch higher at our front door um than than the 5t which is going to be a more natural barrier in my opinion. Um as far
as the July uh feedback I I mean that's something that we challenge I actually was at Bridgewater earlier uh just saying hi to the team and everything and the the topic of of heat came up. I mean, that's just something that we deal with everywhere where it's where it's a summer climate. So,
>> with me, it wasn't so much the the visual of the trucks, it's the noise of the trucks on Highway One >> and the closeness to the outside patio. >> Yeah. Absolutely. >> I mean, you don't have that problem with Bridgewater. You don't >> We do not. No. No. In the mall. I mean, you're you're inside a ring road and
you're you're well well removed from >> Eco 287 and 202 and 206 are right there. That's not the rest. I can tell you the uh the closest comparison I think uh this puts closer to the building the closest comparison anybody is familiar with the DFW area we have this building
that we've built there right on 635 635 is a much easier my opinion than Route 1 uh a little bit further this is maybe same distance to the service road and then you have the highway um but it's it's it's the closest comparable that I
that I can think of um I I think it's the I mean it's it's a real real concern. I I think >> I'll I'll quote the the chair in from past episodes and something like this. Let the market play out.
>> Exactly. If if people go d outside and the noise is too loud, they'll come back and they'll insist on sitting inside. >> It's like I beat you. I I also we also constructed a Zimburger
on Route One in Edison. So, same highway, outdoor patio, probably about the same distance from right where the Top Golf is. I don't know if you've ever >> It's got the same level of congestion. >> It's now Tio's. >> I don't know if you've been to it at that point, but that has the same thing.
Outdoor patio probably 80 feet from Route One and they do very well still. Certain people aren't bothered by it, some people don't. That's why again you get the best of both worlds. You have that option. There are other sheets you want to show
the board. Um, so this is a sheet that, you know, we've kind of added the the square footage. There was a a comment that came up, minimum requirements for square footage of the windows versus the facade. And so
we've put all the the square footage in here, the percentages, just to show that we're not in great compliance with that. Um, another uh topic that the point that came up, you know, how do we shield our our rooftop equipments? Um, and so we've
dashed them in. Uh we do all our designs in three dimension modeling and so all the mechanical equipments are all modeled and so we dash them in the exterior to kind of show behind where the equipments are. So anywhere from the street that you walk around they're all
shielded. >> You're right. >> Okay. and then this is more of a what I showed earlier was the elevations and this is more of an actual three-dimensional view of what you're looking at standing outside. So, a lot of we shielded we
dashed in a lot of the equipment kind of to show you in where they are to the building. or the last. >> That's last page. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I am a 2004 graduate of Penn State
University where I received a bachelor of landscape architecture degree. I'm currently licensed in the state of New Jersey and I hold the position of associate at Malo Malo Carman in Belal, New Jersey and I've appeared on similar applications
throughout the state. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Sorry. Can you >> spell your last name? >> It's K O B S K Y. Thank you. Okay. >> So, yeah, this is the sheet L2 of our
planet. [Music] >> Um, it is our It's our rendering in order to help detail um you plan for the restaurant site. >> Thank you.
>> I'll turn it over to you to summarize. >> Okay, I will be quick. Um so overall the landscape updates to the existing site plan were very minimal. Um, our changes focused on some minor adjustments to the buffer planting along Route One to
accommodate the um the the monument signage. And then uh we prepared a detailed landscape plan for the restaurant pad site and there were also some very very minor adjustments to the lighting layout to accommodate the um
revised curb lines for the latest site plan for the restaurant. Um so looking at our sheet L2 um you can see that um only the this planting that will be part of this phase. Um we did incorporate a secondary
planting list um just indicate the plant material that will only be part of this phase. Um and as I said we included just some some extremely minor shifts to the planting along the buffer. Um, we do have as as
was discussed earlier, there's some shrubs and trees along the buffer area. Um, we've maintained the same quantity, same species as was approved. We just shifted some of the species ever so slightly to match up some shrub materials that were better suited to be
um directly adjacent to the monument signage. Um, overall the quantities and general locations of all of the trees within the parking areas remain the same as well. Um it should be noted there is one tree
that we did notice um that will have to be relocated um but we didn't get that problem that um doesn't coordinate around with some changes to the um parking the accessible parking along the building facade. Um so then
shifting to the bigger Um so overall the the plant pallet includes a um diverse and hearty pallet of both native and adapted plant materials um to enhance the architecture
of the restaurant. We've incorporated evergreen um and flowering deciduous shrubs, ornamental grasses, and flowering perennials to create yearround interest. um around the the building. We've incorporated evergreen shrubs um
in certain locations to screen uh any utilities and we've also incorporated a lot of evergreen shrubs along the back of the the building to help screen any use um of that backup area from the hotel. Um
that's pretty much the gist of the the um landscape design. In terms of lighting, like I said, we um made some some very minor modifications just to ship um the lights that were previously approved to accommodate the the latest
curb lines. Um there was a waiver granted in the original approval for light levels and we're still maintain we're still staying within the realm of what was approved uh in terms of the light levels. >> Thank you, Gina.
Julie, um the uh green space between the restaurant and the hotel. >> Yes. >> Um what percentage of a day is that going to be within shade? >> Um it it would be shaded for a fair
amount of a day. Um everything we have located in there is something that that would tolerate. >> That's where I was going to ask that was my follow-up question. How how how much the choice of plantings that you you have for their or work in shaded
environments. Correct. Okay. Thank you. >> That is a presentation. Just one comment. We have been through the various review letters. the applicant has no problem with what's stated in those reviews. We will comply. I'm sure you want to hear from your experts. Uh
but I just want to make clear that the applicant has worked with your consultants and we're happy to satisfy the comments and the review letters. But that is our presentation today. >> Okay. Thank you. Um Rob, we want to question what translate
to >> in Portuguese. No fog. >> Okay. Um who wants to go first? David, you're sworn in. You want to go first? Oh, sure. Uh, good evening everybody. Um, again, this is David Novak with Burgess Associates, the board planning
consultant. We had a memo dated August 19th, 2025. Uh, the applicant addressed a lot of the comments already on our planning review. I just have one very minor insignificant question, but because it's my memo, I'm going to ask
it anyway. Um, just as a quick clarification. So, the site plan identifies that the restaurant will have a floor area of 8,428 ft. The architectural plan identifies a gross conditioned building area of 8,424
ft, but then an indoor table calculation of 8,428 ft. So, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a typo there or the gross conditioned building area really is four square ft less. Again, very nitpicky, insignificant, but And while the applicant is looking that
up, uh they address the signage comments we had as well as the operational information uh we requested. Uh the district requires a number of different architectural design standards. We reviewed those standards
against what the applicant was proposing and found that the applicant was addressing those standards. So we found that satisfactory and as of right now have no additional comments on this. >> Okay.
>> Dave, you had a comment about uh how the architectural elements of the restaurant relate to those of the hotel and >> they he did address that. Yes. So, uh, similar materials and colors, specifically the brick and the the coloring of, uh, coloring the brick, uh,
in that one rendering, um, that showed the side of the restaurant with the hotel in the back, you can see it a little bit better about how those colors will match up. And again, we don't want it to look exactly the same. It's just complimentary to each other. Okay. Um, who wants to go next? Franon
is always one in. Okay. Good evening. Francis Kuzzik, township engineer. We've prepared a report of August 28th. Uh similar to David's comments, there has been a lot of conversation that has
addressed a number of items in the report already. Um there are a few uh comments that that I'm okay with being addressed as conditions of approval. I'm not sure
that they're important enough that they warrant specific questions and testimony on the record uh by the applicant. Uh but one of the concerns that we've had with this uh project is um due to the phasing
and what's controlled by different entities in those different phases and basically trying to make sure that those improvements that are necessary to serve this use at the time that they're requesting a certificate of occupancy
are in fact complete. and operational and not going to delay or cause a problem at the time of a request of any certificate of occupancy for the project. So, uh in the report those comments 1.03, 1.04,
uh 3.02 O2 are all related to that and they've attempted in in the phasing plan to address um these certain things will be done uh in phase 1 A and then phase three will be done and then a portion of
phase 1B could possibly done with with sidewalk. But up until this this rendering, I wasn't clear exactly how much sidewalk in phase 1B they were proposing to do. So there's still a number of things that I think need to be
clarified, not necessarily for the board's purposes, but for for our purposes in the township between um Sam's office and my office at the time of inspection and request for certificates of occupancy.
Um, and I I guess I just like the applicant to understand that because of the different ownership and responsibilities, do they understand and agree that failure of completion of of all of phase 1 a may delay their receipt
of a certificate of occupancy? Whoever's comfortable answering that, I can answer that. Um, if you require a more detailed plan that shows exactly what's going to be constructed. We can definitely provide that. I can go even
further and give further testimony tonight if you'd like to put it on the record as well. Um, just so you know, as the owner, we're providing all of the site work minus the parking easement. The parking easement is being constructed by Garden Homes. We
understand that that has to be completed and functional in order for the CO to be granted for the restaurant. We also know that we have to develop the entire parking lot area that's being proposed on the plan that you had just referenced. Okay. Um and then we're
going to be seating the area where the hotel is at that point in time till we're ready to build that. So I can provide that plan if you want me to point out on on the site plan what's being proposed at this point in time. >> No, I think I think the colored that
first exhibit by Bovin um was definitely helpful. That's basically what you're going to see, >> right? And that that was a lot more I mean with landscaping obviously, >> right? Right. That was more understandable than than what some of the plans in the set have been. But uh
speaking of the parking easement, who's installing the light fixtures in the parking ement? >> They're installed already. >> Who's going to control? Well, who >> All of that lighting is controlled by Garden Homes. We pay CAM back to them. So we pay a maintenance charge which is an we pay a prata electricity bill back
to them. The owner does not the restaurant owner. >> Do you know what the lighting arrangement is going to be for the restaurant? Because only the hotel had the approval and the initial approval to have 24-hour lighting for security
purposes. Um I mean as of now I mean that entire we we can control the lights however you want them to be until we construct a hotel. So if you want them off at a certain time, it would be more tailored to how the restaurant closing time is and probably what an hour two
hours after closing >> for the employees, >> right? >> I I prefer not to turn them off at all honestly from a security purpose. But >> yeah, >> if it's a town ordinance and we're required to, then we'll work with you
guys how we have to. >> Well, yeah. Norm, nor normally the lighting's turned off except where required for security purposes. So, the board has previously approved applications showing lights basically lit dust to dawn, but that needs to be
part of this presentation during the meeting and just reflected in in the approval. Um, up until now, the original approval was the only one that talked about that and it was specific to the hotel, not nothing. >> I got for the restaurant. So, I just
wanted to make sure that was >> clear before um we we leave and the board does any action on this application. >> Um, let's see. So, you answered the question about that.
[Music] Okay. Um, >> yeah. Again, I think a lot of things can be addressed at the administrative level. Um, we talked about the lighting analysis.
We they talked about the parking waiver. That's it. Um, yeah, I I think I'm okay at this point unless the board has anything they want um illuminated more. Oh, um, one point
about what Curtis was saying about the uh the use of the drop off lane. I get this out. So if someone was to come in Carnegie Center, if they had a wayfinding sign at this driveway to direct them to this
driveway to make the right in, then they'd be lined up for that not coming in. >> But they've not requested that. But the board could uh make it a conditioned, >> right, that they work with the owner uh
if they need to get a lease agreement or notification. So, >> would the board be recommending another monument sign or an instructional sign? >> So, would the board willing, again, I don't know what they're proposing, but the maximum sign area for an
instructional sign is two square feet. >> What are we proposing? Let's check. >> No value. >> Square feet is a little small. Um, >> it's about the size of your laptop there. Yes. >> 24 by 36.
>> Yeah. >> Uh so in the draft ordinance uh we bump that up to eight square feet. Yeah. That's more in line with what people done in the past. basically doing.
>> Well, I think uh I think Fran was talking about one near Carnegie and one closer to that intersection with the three crosswalks. >> Yeah, I was just talking about the two internal driveways. >> Oh, okay. >> I wasn't talking about up there cuz by the time you come up here, you're going to see >> the restaurant. So, you're going to know
you're going to have to turn here anyway. So, it's just not using this driveway to use this driveway. So, you they're making the right and the right at the drop off. Yeah, majority of the parking is in that area, too. So, right. So, it kind of
makes sense. >> So, I say it would definitely benefit us for sure. Um, and I agree 100%. I I think the understanding was that one was allowed, so that was the request, not the not that we forgot the request or anything like that. So, It's allowable.
>> Yeah, this would be I I think what the board is saying is that they would be inclined to grant a waiver for what's called instructional sign. So these be kind of smaller than monument sign. >> Okay. >> Uh but proposing two signs in those locations just discussed with a maximum
sign area of 8 square feet whereas two square feet would typically be permitted just a smaller sign instructional internally focused sign to direct traffic going that way. >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh I think a little bit further south. >> So one and this one whether you do it on
this side or this side. Just advising people >> come down here. One down turn right here. >> Yeah. But if they come in that way they'd see this sign and turn here anyway.
>> So this is more to make sure people are coming in a line to use your drop off. So that people coming from the other entrance could you know know to make the left there >> off page here. >> You're twisting his arm. Ow ow ow.
>> We want you to be successful. >> Thank you very much. >> I mean is it is it are we allowed to request that additional monument sign instead of I don't think >> well they wouldn't be monumental. Sorry. >> Right.
>> And what do those signs what are they going to say? Like >> in the show with an arrow, right? You could do the logo with an arrow. You could do a logo with text >> that big. >> Finger or just the arrow?
>> I'm just kidding. Yeah. Yeah. Understand we're talking about the two different things. I think the reason monument came up again was is there is there a revision to what's already allowed that would allow another monument per facade? I think is
>> so be able to go on. >> Well, that would been my first question. What's the timing on that? Okay. Okay. Got it. Then we only need one direction. Yeah. Again, so that's that's all I had that I'd like to have had testimony from
the applicant about um unless the board has any questions for me about my report. >> I just have one question at the emergency services uh report and he's indicating uh fire lanes shall be created by the applicant. Are you going to be looking at that as well as the
fire marsh? uh typically only if he requests us to. I know that during the initial uh preliminary approval there was a lot of truck turning templates and testimony provided at that time. So I think they
he probably just personally wants for his use. >> So they'll have to work with the fire. U >> yeah, it'll it'll still be shown on the plans that come through my office for approval. So we'll take a look at it anyway, but it's really his jurisdiction to tweak. >> Okay.
Exactly. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Grant. I have a quick question. I'm noticing impervious coverage reduced from 74.3 to 72.2. Isn't Isn't that impervious coverage kind of isn't that
high in general? 72%. >> It it's it reflects the density of the overall project. Yes. >> Okay. So except even though it's if it was a residential area like if I was to pave over my backyard that impervious coverage would be too much but in this
case it's okay. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Right. Because you don't need a giant parking lot and other amenities like they need here for customers. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Um good evening everybody. Ed Snikas from Burgess Associates, the
landscape architect. We had prepared a review of August 26th, 2025. Much like uh Franage has provided, uh the applicant has addressed a lot of our questions during direct testimony. The one thing that I'm still trying to
figure out is exactly the the phasing lines that are on the landscape plans. I'm trying to make sure that it seems that the landscaping between the hotel and the restaurant at least in the service area for screening the shrubs are being included in this phase. I believe that's correct. It looks like
the applicant has confirmed that. Thank you. Um if we can clarify that on the plan just to make sure that's the case and I appreciate um uh Miss Keski, excuse me. I just want to make sure I pronounced that correctly is uh the adjustment of the uh trees within the one area of the parking lot which we had
noticed there was a difference. In addition to that, the board had provided in their discussions about the outdoor dining uh the shrub material along route one. Um one thing I would offer and maybe the landscape architect can look at this is maybe some more uh higher textured shrubs uh whether they be more
leafed shrubs instead of just ornamental grasses. I believe you have ornamental grasses there now. something to provide that visual separation from the road. If you take a look at that, that would be my recommendation just to add to what the board was discussing before. Uh the phase limits we talked about. Um
I appreciate the improvements to the uh landscaped areas clarified the discrepancy and we discussed the hotel area. Uh the applicant is adding a bench in front of the building uh for people who waiting waiting for the drop off and pickup.
that bench it's you provided a detail on the plan. It shows a backsided bench which I believe is what you're proposing compared to just a flat bench. So you're proposing a bench with a back and that that is what's confirmed. Okay. Thank you. And then also there's a bike rack that's part of this overall uh solution
as well. Um in the landscape plan just hearing tonight's testimony regarding the uh the shared parking area with the adjacent commercial space. Is the landscaping being installed now within that area or is that for a future phase?
The shared parking area. The shared parking area that's being uh >> Yes. Is the landscaping in that area being proposed? There's a there's a hatch pattern over >> that that that hatch pattern is it's going to be installed, but it's not going to be installed by the owner,
which is Bri Development. That's going to be installed by Garden Homes. They're in the process of doing all that. They should be paving that parking lot. Um, rough grading it probably sometime in the next few weeks. They're fixing some curbing now and then they're going to go in and base pave it. Then they're going to finish pave and then
stripe it >> once the restaurant is further along which will be sometime next year. So that entire parking easement area will be paved, curbed, striped, landscaped. >> Landscaped. Okay. >> And and and any grass areas. So it'll
it'll be completely finished. >> Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to understand the limits and responsibilities between the public. Uh with that, Mr. Chairman, that's all I have unless the board has some questions for me. >> Thank you. Anybody?
>> Okay. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Thank you, Chairman. Uh >> good evening. Good evening everyone. This is Fazy Misu, the traffic consultant uh township traffic consultant. Uh >> your mic on or something.
Thank you. >> Good evening. This is Quasi Massud, uh, Township Traffic Consultant. The applicant has addressed uh, most of our comments except a very minor one. We issued a letter August 22, 2025.
There was one comment that we had about the call outs for the stop signs. So that's a very minor comment. If you could address that in the site plan. >> Yeah, we'll we'll provide the update on the on the component plants. >> Yeah, that was the only outstanding comment we had except the fact that they
already addressed the signage comment. We had the parking comments we had. So everything looks good to me unless anyone has any question. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Um,
any other questions from a board? >> No. >> What's the expected time frame when it will be when it will be ready? >> I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? >> No, we plan to start site work very
quickly um within the next month or two. um depend we have we have everything out for pricing so that will start the site work once the pad is in delivery mode hopefully we'll be able to file our plans very quickly uh all the CDs are done completed by FOGO at this point so
um >> all the >> Huh well we have a >> no we well we have bonds posted and and compliance plans for the existing site work that's being done
>> yes that will will address accordingly. >> I hope that answers it. And I I would say I I don't know what your completed buildout anticipation is honestly. So >> we're waiting on him. >> So once entitlements are in place, they've done what they're doing. We're
about 26 weeks to build the building >> tomorrow. I know we're we have a power that's working. So everything's pretty. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh anybody?
No. Okay. Um, just a couple things. Uh, I'm going to read in to for the record the fire and emergency services from the fire marshall report. I'll paraphrase. Um, so regarding access, the applicant has provided composite drawing showing
adequate site access for emergency vehicles. Due to the limit limited access, no parking fire lane shall be created by the applicant along all curb areas to restrict curbside parking from the entire site. Site plan shows adequate number and spacing of fire
hydrants for fire protection water supply and these asking for a lock box to allow immediate access by the fire department shall be installed next to the sprinkler closet position. The fire department connection that supports a fire sprinkler system is adequately
placed as shown and uh the applicants address all concerns by the fire marshall. So anything in his report you're willing to do? >> All acceptable. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, next thing I'll do is I'll turn it over to the public if they'd like to ask
any questions regarding this application. Please step up to microphone, state your name and address for the record. Anybody? Okay, seeing none, um, close public hearing. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Does it have second? All in favor say I. I. Okay. Um, Any questions, comments, uh, deliberation? Anybody? Hearing? None. I'll entertain a motion
to approve PB25-06 with the recommendations, waiverss, comments. >> So moved. >> We make a vote. So, just to be clear, we're granting the board is considering granting four the four waiverss that
were requested as outlined, but in addition has recommended a second instructional sign um on that internal road at the second driveway um >> two instructional signs,
>> right? Two, okay, of eight square feet. Okay. It's a single waiver I think that we grant for for both. >> Yeah. And in addition to the conditions that were outlined in the the reports, there
was one additional request from the applicant that the um the existing TWWA the uh TWW approval uh be resubmitted and amended. Um
but I was going to ask Francis if you would comment on that. Yeah, I I think it's a little different than that. I think they're asking that the town act on this application and their building permit package under the existing TWWA
granted for the project, which is that's usually what we do. >> Yeah. >> So, it's we don't because they're reducing the flow or modifying the flow as as approved in that TWWA. If it was a big increase, we would require that they
amend it. But in this case, because of the elimination of the rooftop bar and the other changes to the seating, it's it's decreasing. So, it's it's not a problem to proceed under the original approval for the permit.
>> Any any other? >> Nope. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, now I'll entertain a motion to approve so >> AV25-06 with the comments, proposals, uh, recommendations
um, talked about. Moved by JICA, second by Allan. Please call the RO. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Vice chairman. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Good luck. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Mike, can we take five before we
>> Sure. We'll take a five minute break. Oh, right. Yeah, we're doing better than we were last. Well, after my wife and I came off of our I was having radiation and she was
coming in to the but we decided we're treat ourselves. Okay. Mediterranean and then goodness. >> So few days before playing
up then it started to occur. Facebook gave her all this pain to get off. So we we had no idea what we were taking this guy's word for like
24 days get out to the ship. She was the only person at sick. She loved it though. She was handicap. So I was going out seeing everything. I
was raised from breakfast to be brought to her and she back we have a friend German she said. >> So we go to the emergency First they asked us for insurance
took her scandals another position and he's going like this and this is not good. So he said we need to see and they showed up
with two doctors. How does the doctor really? >> Oh, no. He didn't. We didn't have them. But what they do is they put everything on a cure. >> I have all the X-rays. I have my
show. >> Yeah. teaching hospital. >> So we had a choice. They said you can heal at home where you could heal here. So we've already booked the hotel. She
closed this place. They had it in they had a wheelchair for us and we spent we was crazy. Then actually this month of August we were back in Austin. My daughter was hiking in Switzerland
with her husband. So they Germany was there. We have friends. So we >> everything came out nicely as opposed to
>> I'm glad I'm glad that >> Yeah, there was 100% went to therapy. >> The doctor here. Oh, so I'm waiting for the bill. >> So month and a half bill.
>> Wow. >> I'm good. So I told the doctors here $10,000 just a CT. It was like Friday afternoon
>> and nobody was around. [Music] So I know I've had experience doctors and they're good.
>> They're good. The whole health system, everybody's for frequently. One woman. We have a another she's on the Austrian border. She's a clothing has factory everything.
>> Oh, I know. I had to bring >> Listen, >> I sent you the site plan of Virginia. Did I not >> the Virginia Buckles? Did I send you that site? >> No, but I'm familiar with it. No, no, but the the the the site land it it would not work in West Windsor because
it's like one entry in, one entry out and because the nature, but it might work where they're at, >> but it wouldn't work here >> with only one one access. >> You went to the Virginia? >> Yeah.
>> March. No, I'm not. I'm in the right place. >> Go ahead. I'm sorry. I was gas. >> They don't >> Martin isn't so >> Rob is gone. >> I mean, I'm thinking I'm still thinking of the acreage around what's left. Bucky
needs like about 25 to 30 acres. >> No, they need 25 to 30 acres left over land. >> I don't know, but that's a >> but again but again Buckyy's in New Jersey and it's not >> and and I don't know if they'd like it
because it's not right on the interstate a little bit away from the interstate >> but but we have the highway one track. Yeah, the interest from not really the
people they're looking at as a desire. >> So very good. Okay, I get that. >> Which is an interesting perspective. The other thought is >> Wawa is doing what's called a travel center. >> Yes, I saw >> and you can see that you know that's a reaction >> Oh, I know.
>> No, no, but but but you have the loyal loyal followings got intense loyal following. I mean, we're even I have a coworker in Pennington who will go take go get lunch from the Wawa Yuing and that's not that
close, but they'll make the trip because we don't there's not Wawa in the Hook Valley. >> Let's get going. >> Do we need all her stuff still here? >> What about the mayor? >> Here she is. The mayor's done. >> Signage.
>> Uh entertain a motion to reopen to public session. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor say I. >> I. Okay. >> Back in public session. >> Yes.
>> And uh next up on the agenda is the draft sign ordinance. Um I have questions but did you you know but I'll open it up to my colle um and this was a nice segue into this
discussion tonight with that last application. Uh so we are working on some updates to the township signage regulations. So signage is always a fun thing to talk about. Um I did a quick count of the board. I think we have 12 people up there. Please don't check my
math. You can have 12 people look at a sign and get 20 different opinions. So, it is a fun thing to try to regulate because you are trying to balance a bunch of different items, uh, wayfinding, corporate branding, aesthetics, and sometimes even personal
taste. The township signage regulations are contained in four different sections of the ordinance. Right now, we have section 20-32. That's where we really see the most to work with our signage regulations that regulate signs and residential districts uh commercial or commercial developments
as well as planned non-residential developments. So the application we just had today was requesting waiver relief from section 200-32 and specifically dealing with non-residential plan developments. We also have sign regulations in section 200-152
that establishes some general sign regulations and regulations regarding temporary signs. We have regulations in section 200-258D that regulates signs throughout the Princeton Junction Redevelopment Area except for section 200-260
which regulates um signs specifically in the RP1 district which we're not touching because those sign regulations were approved pursuant to a settlement agreement. These recommendations that we're making um really try to do three things. one,
they try to do some basic house cleaning. So, there's some typos in the ordinance. Some things don't match up. We're trying to take care of that. The second thing is we're trying to match the reality of what we're seeing. So, we
took a look, by me, I mean my office working with Sam, took a look at a number of signage applications that had been submitted over the past several years and organized those based on what they were requesting and also were they commercial applications or non-residential plan developments. And
from there, we saw trends and like you saw tonight, some of the trends really deal with wall signs and monument signs and freestanding signs. The third thing that we're trying to do with these edits is to get closer to sign neutrality and content neutrality.
I won't go into the whole background of that, but there is a very important Supreme Court case Reed versus Gilbert. I'm assuming it's pronounced Gilbert because it's in Arizona. Maybe it's Gil Bear if it was somewhere else, but I want to say Gilbert. um where long story short the Supreme Court basically said
that talents should not be regulating signs based on their content sense until you start breaking it down. So obviously if there's a sign for a office right next to a sign for a retail establishment and they're both in the
same zone in the same street, it might make sense to have those signs have the same type of regulations based on area, dimensions, all that. that would be a contentneutral sign. However, when you start regulating signs based on what they're advertising, for
example, real estate signs versus political signs versus instructional signs versus directory signs. You're technically regulating those signs based on their content. So, it's really really tough to have a ordinance that is completely sign content neutral,
but we're attempting to get there at least in certain portions of the ordinance. So, those are really the three major aspects we are trying to balance with this draft ordinance. Um, so we can go through this section by section. It all depends on how the board really wants to address it. But section
one of this draft ordinance deals with sign regulations in residential districts. We honestly very rarely ever see those types of applications come up. So, that's mostly cleanup work. Uh, section two deals with signs permitted in non-residential districts. That begins on page two of the ordinance.
Section three deals with sign regulations for non-residential plant developments. That begins on six and that deals with the types of signs we heard about tonight. Section four deals with um sign regulations that are more general
throughout the township and really more um I guess in nature. Section five deals with other additional design details for signs. Section six deals with temporary signs. That's actually located in our zoning code.
And then section seven also deals with additional regulations regarding um signs and our redevelopment areas. So again, however the board pleases, we can go section by section, discuss different types of signs. I just wanted to give an overview remark. As most of my
colleagues know on this board as well as on the zoning board, I have often become the sign maven all the pecadillo concerns about signage. And I I really appreciate
the the care and uh concern that West Windsor has always done in regards to signage. And I'll give you a couple of examples. One example is I'm going to give you Edison, New Jersey. Now, Edison, New Jersey has a right aid when
it was right aid right on Highway 1. And the Edison, New Jersey write aid had the huge right aid letters all over it. Um, which communicated to me that Edison doesn't give a rip about signage size and and uh quantity of signs and stuff
like that. Many of us have traveled that section of Highway One in Edison, New Jersey, and you know how you are bombarded by all signs of shapes and colors and lighting and everything else. To me, that communicates a community
that doesn't give a rip about signage and signage controls. Um, yet I'm going to give a good example from West Windsor Township. So, at MarketFare, across the street from the site we were talking about tonight, there is a theater. And yet, the signage
for the AMC is just a small monument sign saying AMC Theaters. what we what it does not have and I don't know if it was part of the discussions way back when it's not like you have a listing of the 10 movies that are now showing at
that at that theater multiplex theater which would take up a sizable space on the highway. Um, so I I I loed West Windsor's efforts is to control the signage for like that particular use. So it wasn't, you know, like a billboard
size sign for the establishment. Um, and and again, when Market Fair came out with their new signage program from the Michael Graves office, you know, it was very tastefully done. >> The AMC app and they could see what movies are playing. They don't need to
see a business. Well, you know, but I'm saying that sign was probably long there way before apps, movie apps and stuff like that, Michael. But you're right. You one doesn't need to have have the the roadway >> big marquee signs anymore. >> Right. Exactly. Exactly. So, uh I'm very
appreciative of the efforts we've put in the past and I know we're going to do well in the future. >> Okay. I have one question. Uh do we have a definition section of the ordinance? >> We do. Yes. >> It's it's not part of this
No explain anything that we have here. >> Uh no uh we were not changing any of the definitions. So those definitions are established in section >> two. >> Yes. 200-4. >> That's my question. Yes.
>> The orders that proposing now would it cover more how much percentage like like 10 years? Okay. I more like more than 10 years. Mhm. >> The every time any applicant come they have some w for the sign does it cover
all the ws that we have we have so far and every time approve I I have any discussion not approving them. So when you this proposing will they cover all of the uh past 10 years or whatever maybe more
uh uh wavers and that we have approved so far. >> No no it wouldn't. So, and that's a really good question. So, what we try to do when we do these ordinance adjustments is to try to get closer to compliance, right? With the understanding that there's going to be
certain odd situations where a larger sign or a different type of sign or a taller sign may be warranted. So, for example, tonight is a good case study of that. In this draft ordinance, we're proposing a taller monument sign. Uh specifically, I think we are
proposing a monument sign of 6 ft in height. Let me just double check that. >> We we've turned down some uh signage. >> Oh, no, no. Uh five. So, yeah, we were proposing a monument sign tonight. They proposed an a sign of 8 ft
in height, but they had a justification for that due to the existing land or the proposed landscaping there as long as a proximity to Route One. So when we work on these ordinances, we try to get things closer to conformance with the understanding that we're never going to
quite get there. We can never really encapsulate everything because then what could happen is exactly what Curtis brings up where we do get those signs that are overly large like the right eight side in Edison. Um, so what this tries to do is capture some of the
trends that we're seeing, get people closer, try to eliminate some things that would typically require waivers. Like for example, one of the recommendations we're making in certain areas to get rid of that letter height restriction that would eliminated those waivers, but it wouldn't reflect all the waivers that have been granted. It
wouldn't cover all those. It would just get us closer to the mean. >> Um, nah, not even a percentage. uh >> they still will be expecting waivers. >> We'll we'll still we'll still get waivers, but it will certainly eliminate the need for a lot of waivers. For example, um we granted a lot of waivers
for instructional sign area. Right now, it's two square feet. I think if this ordinance was in place, obviously the waivers we heard tonight for instructional sign wouldn't have happened. The other ones I think we would have covered about 80% of all instructional sign waiver applications front of this board. Uh directory sign
things like that. We would cover probably 70 to 80% of those waivers as well. Yeah, monument signs always pops up. >> And regarding monument signs, sorry the on this application, right, they
requested a waiver because the landscaping is going to block the letter height if it was only five feet. Correct. >> Uh if it was only four feet, yes. >> So, can the ordinance be something like x number of feet above grade or something as opposed to 8t
monument sign? Because if you come with an application where there's a sixoot burm, well, they're going to want a 10-ft monument sign, otherwise you won't be able to see it on the highway. So, so maybe um it's a better reflection of the
ordinances to have x number of feet above grade. >> Is that a system before construction? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't know. That's that's beyond my Okay. >> And technically it's loud. >> It's really kind of the way we measure
the sign height, right? We measure it from the grade. The issue they have there is that they're proposing landscaping around the signage. And that landscape is gonna have a higher height than >> Got it. >> So >> I think it's better. >> Quick question. >> The explanation. >> Okay. It's hard to
understand. I'm not >> allow that pressure valve, right? And that's it kind of goes to your question as well. So when whenever we we saw this again too with the the Dutch neck study, we'll eventually see it again with the Barryian City study. We try to capture enough or as much as we can, >> but there's always going to be instances
where we can't cover everything. And that's where either you guys or the zoning board come in as a pressure relief valve, right? So you try to come up with these standards for everywhere. There's going to be certain situations where those they might not be as applicable or they might not be as um
they just might not make sense in that situation. So you guys or the zoning board act of that release valve to allow for a little bit of flexibility in those regulations. >> Quick question, maybe I might have missed it. like is it like a regular review for these kind of things or some
somebody complained and that's why we are reviewing the whole >> I got very tired of these signage regular no um >> just curious >> no uh this is something we started this summer so there's a little bit of a a lull in activity in terms of development applications as well so we will have
during the summer so we address that while there is a little bit of a >> I guess I want to make a comment slash question. Ask a question. Um, I guess the signage or you know the uh the reason why somebody might seek a waiver
would really depend on how the market might be evolving for retail/commercial establishments. Um, and also, you know, areas in the township which might be more um dense versus, you know, spread out. So, you know, because if if there's
a business who's who's going to set up shop there, they want to be seen. So if you know there's a higher density of retail establishments, you're more likely to be seen if your sign is bigger and therefore there would be a reason to seek a waiver because as you very well
said, you can't really cover everything um you know in the ordinance. >> Exactly. Yes. And that's actually already baked into your ordinance to an extent, right? because we establish signage regulations for commercial districts, but then there's additional signage regulations established for
those planned non-residential developments. And that's typically where you see those more dense types of commercial environments. So, if it was a, you know, a standalone building, not a part of a larger development, they would go by those commercial sign
regulations, which for the most part are a little bit more strict. The non-residential ones allow for a little bit more of a greater sign intensity with that understanding that you're going to be in a commercial environment, so you might need that slightly larger sign to better direct you where you're going. Um, so it is baked in a little
bit. We're trying to accentuate that a little bit more. Um, but also at the same time looking at the Princeton Junction area. So, one of the first recommendations I made was, you know, to get rid of those letter heights because we always see that. I remember the um
what's the chicken place there? Chick-fil-A application. They had to get a waiver from the letter height because they had that little stupid thing on top of the rooster head that was increasing the letter height. >> Also, with Chick-fil-A, they were uh to go to Jodica's point, they were farther off the road and behind the Waw Wa. Yeah. So, it's not like they really had
road visibility. >> Exactly. Yes. which one of the waiverss that they had granted was the additional freestanding sign out front onto um but for the Princeton Junction area because the township has been trying to craft a more intimate I'll call it downtown
environment there like where the Ellsworth center is and where the right aid is. I didn't eliminate that letter height requirement because typically in a downtown you might want to see smaller letters um trying to create a more cozy environment there. though all those factors play a role in how you try to
regulate science throughout an area >> like the new technology like I know like 20 years ago we needed to look at the signs I know I just somebody asked me how did you come here I said I just followed my >> I know it >> you didn't need that do you want to think about maybe we don't need big
signs >> so there's a there's a site in West Windsor above the what is that the right aid on Um, Princeton Heisttown Road, right? >> Walgreens now. >> Walgreens.
>> Walgreens. I'm sorry. Walgreens. Um, >> yeah, that vacant property that Yeah, there's Yeah, I mean, they haven't developed that area because of that side builds ability there. Um, so it is a very interesting dichotomy because these
things really do guide where everybody's going, but there still seems to be a dependency on those physical signs that really draw you into the area. One could be because this will get you to the general area of
what you're looking for, but while you're driving, you really want to see where that sign actually is. So presumably it'll get you in the location, but you want that physical sign to know this is exactly where I need to turn. >> I'm here. >> Yes. >> Kind of like I'm here. >> So tomorrow, um I'm actually sleeping
over in West Windsor tonight because I have zoning board hearing tomorrow night. Staying at a hotel because I'm a massochist. I decided to sign up for a uh CrossFit class down the road in somewhere on Route 1 at 6:00 in the morning. So I'll be driving there using my GPS and my phone to get there. But Lord knows I'm not going to know where
that spot is until I actually see the freestanding sign out front. Um, so this will get you to the general area, but I think signage still plays a very important role to actually drawing you in as well as attracting client base who might not know that they're actually looking for that business.
>> But DPS say you have your destination grow. But David, there's also the the the really crazy situation we have at the uh corner of uh Wallace Road and the Princeton Heightstown Road >> where you've got the Ellsworth sign. Now, you've got the Ellsworth sign, you
got Duncan in big letters, and then in very small letters listing 10 to 12 establishments. Yeah. >> At at probably not even 6 in high, you've got all these other establishments that you cannot read if you're going at a highway speed. >> No, that you're 100% correct. um those
letters are very small. I think that the ordinance was designed to really gear that type of signage to pedestrian traffic. So hopefully once Yeah. So hopefully once you get some additional residences there >> laughing at pedestrian and traffic. >> I know. I know. Pedestrian, let me
rephrase that. Pedestrian put traffic. >> Yes. Um This is why I love talking about signage. One of my favorite types of signs is uh neon signs and no town ever permits neon signs. I don't put it in the ordinance obviously, but I went to the >> on wild.
>> Oh, >> all right. Come on. Wildwood's clean up. >> All right. That's true. That's true. >> They'll have they have neon all over the place. >> I was at the sign museum >> and they revel in it. I was at the sign museum in uh Cincinnati, Ohio. Don't ask me why I was in Cincinnati. Uh but they had a separate neon area which was very cool.
>> Las Vegas has Oh yeah, the bone Yeah, the boneyard. Yep. >> But in terms of lighting technologies, a lot of those neon signs have been replaced with LED. >> I know. It's a shame. >> Sort of neon. >> Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I I just like that oldfashioned type of neon signage. >> Yeah. But then what happens when one
part of the neon goes out? Then it gets replaced. Then it turns into a horror movie when it starts blinking. >> Bates Motel. >> I had some questions, but we can I can Would you prefer me to go through my questions? Um or wait till you get to
the page where my question is located. >> I mean, does everybody have questions? If you have people have questions, then point it out. >> Okay. Uh, I'll let my colleagues go if they have questions first.
>> And you know what we'll do is we'll go page by page. Page one is dealing with residential signs. Nothing really changes in this one. This is just cleaning up the table in the ordinance. There are some codification errors. Uh, page two.
When it comes to residential signs, we are providing some additional standards for non-residential uses located in residential district. As of right now, there are no sign regulations for that. So, this is just establishing some controlling measures for a
non-residential use in a residential district like a house of worship, for example. It's one of the more common non-residential uses you'll find in our residential districts. >> Okay. I have a question on page three. >> On page three? >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Um, red letter four. Red four. >> Letters shall project a maximum of six inches. >> What does that exactly mean? Is that the lighting projection? >> No, that's actually the physical projection of those letters. So, if there are cut letters on a wall, they
can't go further past three dimensional letter instead of >> Exactly. Yes. maybe be more specific that you know I don't know how you how you could describe it because I you're talking about lighting and then it says project. I wasn't sure if you
meant it the lighting projects three six inches or >> checklist. >> No, I know. Okay. >> Um >> maybe it's just me. >> No, no, no, no. If what we can maybe change that is the depth of letters or the width of letters, something like that. >> Thank you. question you know on page two
wall signage what you are saying here that one sign permitted each face of the building then I say maximum two this normal building of four faces >> yes >> so you allow only on two faces now
>> yeah so right now we only allow for one wall sign per business and what this would allow is a wall sign for each frontage that faces a public or private street or parking area, but we don't want to necessarily allow for, you know,
signs, a multitude of signs. So, we're limiting the number to two. So, basically what this would allow for is if a if there's a freestanding commercial business and say it has surrounded by parking areas on three sides or four sides, right now they would only be allowed one sign. This
would up it to two. So, it's just a little bit more flexibility. So, so like in the Black Rockck building when they came before the board and we gave them the one sign facing, right? >> That'll be a little bit different because that is regulated as a
non-residential plan development. So, that'll be actually in the next section following this one. This is more of like a small scale business. >> Would would you allow a second sign for that building in in the new ordinance? >> Uh, you know what? They're already
allowed to have multiple signs. Oh, >> okay. >> Yes. >> I think they only have one, right? >> Yeah, they're only proposing the one on the front. >> Um, continue. I didn't have any. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we page two, three. >> We're on page three.
>> My next question is on page five. >> Uh, page three. Uh again, one of the recommendations we're making is regarding monument signs and groundmounted project tenant identification signs. Um based on the waiverss that have been
requested in the past, increasing the maximum memoria of a ground mounted project tenant identification sign from uh up to 65 square feet and then allowing a such one such sign at each driveway entrance. David with that the
ground mounting project tenant identification that's basically a freestanding sign. >> Yeah, exactly. It's a stantion sign that has the uh multiple tenants on there. Why do they call it that? I don't know. >> I unique for me as well. Okay.
>> Let's say the new standard is more flexible >> and somebody who already has approved application under the new standard is allowed say second as he asked >> can they just go ahead and put it or they have to still come back to the planning.
>> Sam I think they still have to come to the planning board for that >> if it was in a planned commercial development or if it's a commercial business. If it's if it's in a commercial develop have an overall comprehensive signage plan, >> right? But see that plan is approved.
Now the new ordinance makes it more >> have to come back. >> They will have >> and they'll probably get approved because it's under the new ordinance allows for it. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And that would be treated as a minor site plan, right? If it was if there
were no site plan application, if it's just a waiver for signage, center, they're the ones. >> So, so I'm just trying to understand. So, under new ordinance, a building, let's say of Black Rockck, would be
allowed under the new ordinance to put a second sign on the bed. >> No. Well, no, because Black Rockck would be considered a >> Just using that as an >> Oh, as an okay as a hypothetical. Yes. >> So, you're going to make them come before the planning. They just want one sign
that's conforming to the new ordinance, put it on the building, and you're going to make them come before the planning board with a new with the sign waiver requirement and application as opposed to like a fasttrack kind of something. But they don't need to be >> use the code that says with new plan
commercial developments, you don't need comprehensive signage. >> I I mean, but if they come before the board before the comprehensive signs, you know, signage development part of their overall site plan development and the only thing they're changing is, hey,
I notice you changed the sign ordinance and everybody's putting two, four signs on their buildings facing the public roads. I can I'd like to put another sign on my we're building. Okay. Um get a minor site plan development. Get an
hire a lawyer planning an architect landscape architect come before the planning if the board feels >> I don't I personally don't think they should have to >> change the code. It says they don't have to do that. >> I mean I I feel the same way. I mean it's a everybody, you know, it's a waste
of time, a expense for the applicant and a waste of our time that we're going to improve it anyway because it it would be the if that was the only thing on the agenda, it would be the fastest meeting in the history of West Windsor because it would be a 30-second thing. What What do you want to do? Put a sign on. Okay, it meets the crime. We're done.
>> I think it would be a wasted. Yeah. So would be more of an administrative administrative change like Michael's taking Michael's scenario >> administrative change as opposed to a board decision.
Sam is only one time. >> I just gonna add that the administrator be the one to decide that that is part of this comprehensive science project or plan that had been previously approved and then grant the the permit.
>> Well, it wouldn't have been because it it didn't have a second sign. >> Oh, right. But what I'm saying is part of >> it fits into the make sure that match >> that's what I'm saying. >> Yeah. So I think what we're saying is if
there's a application for uh a completely conforming sign no waivers required it's height size location >> new ordinance. Well, I think what the board is recommending is that if there's a completely conforming side to
>> this is only for existing commercial are already approved. No, he's talking about new applications. >> Oh, no. If it's new application, I'm not talking about new application. >> No, no, no. If it's new application, they have every they have to do everything else. I'm talking about
>> five years ago >> the building's built. we only allowed one sign, you know, 12 square feet, whatever it is. Um, and now we allow for a second sign or larger height. Maybe they want to replace their sign to
larger letters and more square feet. Maybe they want to put a second sign facing a different major road. They've already been everything's been approved. The only thing they want to do is conforming to the new existing ordinance that allows for either a second sign or replace their existing sign. And it's
the only change and it's important. >> Yeah. So for example, like tonight they got the approval for their sign the building. If this ordinance gets adopted and two years down the road they say, "Hey, you know what? We want another monument signed." And with the new ordinance that would be permitted, that could be something that's done administratively. >> Exactly.
>> Got it. I understand. >> Waste everybody's time here and expense for the applicant to hire a lawyer. Lawyers make too much money as it is. >> You know, I think we can all agree, >> right? [Laughter] Except for president,
>> of course. >> You see my You see my point? My point is that it's a waste of time, money, and energy to approve something that is going to take less than five minutes to like, oh yeah, it's performing. Okay, go ahead. Approve it. >> So, we have have to have them write it into the
>> I think so. >> We'll find a way to smith something with that. >> Okay. Yeah, sounds good. >> Good points, Michael. Thank you. >> Yeah, >> what page are we on? >> Page three. Backtrack though. I know. >> I'm sorry. >> We're on page three right now.
>> Okay. >> Anybody have any comments? >> No. >> All right. I I just have one comment. >> Mhm. >> This is a pet peeve of mine in terms of flags. I mean, I've seen the abuse of flags, American flags, used for advertising purposes. Prime example is
Route 202 uh near Flemington. >> Yep. Yep. >> And I mean there it's obscene. It really is. It's passed off as patriotic and it's total bulk. It's really advertising for the car dealerships. So I guess the question I have is I know
the height of the flag pole which will be 20 ft will limit to some extent the size of the flags. But then you have at five, you're basically not regulating the size of national flags. So can we
come to any terms on that? Uh put in a maximum size that would be fitting with a 20 foot high >> pole. So it would be to scale. >> I think the next one says maximum flag area is 20 square ft. >> No, it exempts.
>> It accepts national flag. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. you have an you have an oddity with your ordinance and this popped up I remember with the Chick-fil-A applicator >> uh exempts the West Windsor flag. >> Um yeah, obviously that's something could be done, right? Um the amendment to the
ordinance was designed to reflect the existing definition of flag in the ordinance. >> It's a very odd definition because it specifically excludes national, state, county, or municipal flags. >> Well, maybe we should include that. >> I mean that's, you know, I I I'm just >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> I' I'd hate to have >> that happen on Route One or whatever. >> Makes sense. I mean, if you put a 30 square ft pl, you're not more patriotic than 20 square feet. >> So, we just take >> some reason New Jersey case law that has actually
had to deal with flag size issues. No, >> I've never seen >> I would I would imagine so. And my thinking is that this may trigger a first first amendment issue, but I I would want to >> look into that unless David you're
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um >> we can definitely tag him on that. I'll take a look. >> First amendment is only for American flag, not for Wester flag or some private flag. >> I don't know how you could limit it to to American flags. But but again, this
is this it's a regulation of If it's a regulation of content, >> yeah, >> um it it's usually not permitted. You can't regulate content um under maybe very limited circumstances when a
regulation applies to all signs, but I think this this would be problematic for that reason. >> So why not then just eliminate five and keep it uh one through four? >> And we would have to uh we would also have to go back and amend the definition
of flag. you see just a new section in this orbit. >> After you take the >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I'm sure there's got to be something. I only fly the uh Jolly Roger myself. So,
>> and there's no size or height of flag pole for national flags. >> As of right now, no. It's completely unregulated. >> Are we allowed to restrict that or no? >> I think that's what Yeah, we're going to look into.
We're not um like you know the first I'm >> sure it does. Didn't someone come before the board recently that they're >> Chick-fil-A. >> Which one? >> Chick-fil-A. >> Put like on a 50 foot flag. >> Yep. >> We'll look at it.
>> Okay. >> See, I don't I don't see how it could be a first amendment issue. It could be because you're not limiting content. Aren't you just limiting? >> Well, I think what Martinez is saying is if you allow for a s like a corporate flag to be a certain square footage, but allow for a national flag to be another
square footage. Is that now regulating the sign area or the flag area based on whatever the content is explaining? >> Well, as long as they're the same size. >> Got it. >> Okay. >> I know we jumped around. Uh anything on
page four that had some changes regarding awning and canopy signs, uh directory signs, which was a the source of consternation for one of our applications recently
>> regarding just what's the difference between the flag the flag signage on 10 versus the one on five. H10. I know we haven't I'm sorry. Page page 10. No, page nine. Where did I just see that?
>> Yeah, 69 has the same paragraph. >> Yeah, it should be no change uh or no difference other than the blind side uh the flag signage regulations in the earlier section regulates signs and commercial districts. This regulates
signs and plan non-residential developments. >> Okay. >> So, I guess the same comment. >> It'd be the same comment. Yeah. Follow over. >> I mean, we uh on page four it talks about window littering, but uh there elsewhere in the document it deals with, you know, flashing signs and stuff like
that, right? Dude. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Flashing signs. It's always been a a concern to me at Windsor Plaza that some of the vendors, you know, have flashing signs for or like the gas station at Highway 1 and the Circle, you know, that that's they still have flashing signs.
>> Um, let me get that up. I believe that flashing signs are prohibited >> that you have that I think in later in the document as a exceptions or whatever. >> Yeah. Uh, signs which flash or are accented by flash or time indicators.
>> See highway lights that's prohibited throughout this. >> Yeah, we have a list with prohibitions. >> Exactly. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay, moving along. Um, we also on the bottom of page five added sign regulations for >> gas station.
>> You're not changing name plate signage. Still half a square foot. >> Which one? >> On page five. Mhm. I three you're living as it is half a square foot which is a very small area.
>> It is a very small area. I have never seen a name plate sign uh application yet. So we can increase it. I just >> exactly >> and three square feet or something.
>> Okay. >> Go watch it. I I haven't seen I haven't seen an application yet for >> coincidentally window size. >> Okay. >> So if someone came and said they wanted a um one foot square name plate sign we
probably we probably would approve it. but wasn't on here. >> Well, part of a of a part of a um overall application >> or maybe they just put it up without the benefit of approval. >> So, David, what this uh ordinance
distributions don't deal with because that and I don't see how they could. It's >> the the um strategically placed truck in >> not prohibited. Yeah, it is. It is a provision.
>> That is one of my signage. Uh >> so so you can place your business truck in the parking lot >> at at the road from both sides can be seen. >> I'm sorry. Say again. >> Exactly. I was going to say has that >> making an
Just because the guy's an enforcement agent. >> Okay. >> I like I like the piece, right? >> Yeah. No, I know. But I think Curtis, what you're talking about, you're talking about those vehicles that are specifically designed to be basically a moving billboard.
>> No. No. Oh, no. Say like a little delivery truck that when it's not in use or parked >> right at the roadway so that traffic on the roadway can see the signage upon. Okay. I was thinking >> on the top the basic, you know, signage
that that's on the truck. >> Got it. >> Liberty truck that can be seen on both directions. That's what you're talking about. >> And it really works because every time I see it, I pull in and get pizza. It's really >> But no, but so there's an a type of regulation on that. Is there David?
>> Uh there is a regulation regarding signage on vehicles. >> But no, but yeah, but that's I'm talking about the parking of the vehicle. So it becomes the sign. >> So >> that's beyond its origins. >> No, no. I mean under primitive signs, we have signs which are designed to move
either by mechanical other means. Signs which are portable, self-supporting without firmly embedded in the ground supported by another object or mounted on wheels. Signs placed on vehicles or trailers which are parked or located for the primary purpose of displaying said sign. this but it does not uh uh apply
to signs or lettering on buses, taxi or vehicles operating during the normal course of business. So if they're parking the vehicle out there for the primary purpose of just displaying the said sign, it would not be permitted. >> Would not be permitted. >> Would not be >> per Where are you with the document on
this? >> Uh that would be on page 10. >> Page 10. >> Yeah, page 10. Item two. >> I don't know anyone. I got it. >> Page four. >> I know. No, I I I did it because it was on my mind.
>> I wasn't following the sequence. >> No, that's okay. Um, yeah, page five, I had mentioned we added uh regulations regarding automobile service station canopies. Right now, there's no regulations for signs for gas stations
like that. So >> do we restrict the size of the site on the uh gas station canopies? >> We uh restricted it basically to the height and the width of the canopy. Uh we could come up with a percentage of it as well. Um I was just trying to follow
if you guys remember we had worked on a redevelopment plan for um along route one and uh basically we based those regulations on that concept plan for uh canopy signage. So in essence, Synokco could be written like >> across the Yeah.
>> Across the entirety of >> could be 50% maybe could be 30%. >> I don't know what what have we been approving >> the entirety or >> well the one that's in the pension redevelopment period would allow what
we're showing. >> Yeah. I'm trying to think of other gas station applications we planned. >> Sam, when Al Sinokco did put up new canopies, uh, you know, with with the blue and yellow so >> 30 years ago. >> No, no, but no, I I think they did the last five, six years. So, it looks like
a new canopy, you know. Uh, but but they they probably they didn't come before us, so I guess it met the it met the code. >> Well, keep in mind, when they when they redid the gas station 30 years ago, it was in the B2 district. And then when they renovated it was the BU overload
district. Now it's in a redevelopment district. So the sign regulations were all over the place. >> Yeah. But I don't remember that with the new canopy at the snow station even becoming an agenda. >> Well, it may have been compiance. >> That's my point. >> You know, I think I think what we had to
do is apply they that was a lot of back and forth. I think we had to apply the canopy regulations to that canopy, which sounds like it makes sense, but the township's existing canopy regulations are really geared towards canopies and awnings, like not really a gas station
canopy. Um, that being said though, we can certainly provide like a percentage of the extent of the the width of the the canopy. >> Think something reasonable. >> Yeah, I can do a little bit of research too. It all over the place with towns, but um I can find a percentage agree
Dave. We'll take a look. Uh following the next page, we have the regulations for non-residential plan development. Uh this begins on page six. One of the changes that we really wanted to focus on is how we regulate the area
of sides. >> Um, right now we regulate the area of sides based on the distance between the building to the nearest right ofway. This has caused a lot of conrnation because often times we'll get these applications where you
have a building where the backside might be 20 ft away from a right ofway, but the sign is located on a wall that's internally focused and further away from a private roadway or circulation aisle. Yet, because of that standard, they're
held to that more stringent requirement. So this also happens in Nassau Park, Nassau Pavilion. Businesses that might have frontage along that road that goes in the middle could be 30 ft away from that roadway. The signage is really facing the other way towards the parking
lot. But because of that regulation, the way it's written right now, the sign is only allowed to be 50 ft in size. So that's a waiver that we see pop up over and over and over again. It was actually popped up here again tonight. So the recommendation that we're making is
rather than measure it from the building the closest portion of the building to the right of way measuring it from the distance between the public and/or private roadway and the wall of the building to which the sign is to be attached. Um we're keeping the same
distances, we're keeping the same areas, um we're keeping the same maximum sign areas. We're just really revising the language for how we measure that rather it be the closest portion of the building to the right ofway, having it be the portion of the wall of which the
sign is attached and the distance of that to the nearest public or private roadway. And that'll hopefully solve that issue of those buildings that back up on the public rideways. your p page seven. I just a question.
>> Yeah, there we can go to page seven. >> Okay. Uh I think see from the top your ABC right? Uh it's not clear the maximum mountment sign height including the structure and
sign area shall be 5 ft above existing grade. You're talking bottom of the sign or top of the sign. >> 3C. >> Yep. Bottom to the top. So >> where that sign base hits the ground to the tallest portion of it. >> So the top of this sign, you're talking
5T grade. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Question regarding 5T. >> Yes. Should that be six feet? >> Yeah, it does. >> It could be. >> The only reason why I say that, right,
if you think about it, person just standing there. >> Mhm. >> You know, they pro if it's five feet, you know, maybe they're not going to I don't know, maybe it's too low. >> Six is good. >> It could be six feet. Could be eight, but
>> yeah, but I think >> 8t's a little big. >> Yeah, I think six feet. >> Yeah, six way is better. Now, would you like that changed for monument signs just in non-residential plan developments or also for monument signs in commercial districts as well? >> Do you have the same 5T for both?
>> Yep. >> We can keep it consistent. >> Should be six feet. >> I don't know. >> Six. >> Don't go by me. I'm just >> No, Each piece seems too short. >> Yeah, I was thinking. >> You mean if you're standing next to sort of looking down rather than just at it and rather than like eye level or
looking up slightly? Yeah, six makes sense. Yeah, maybe six. >> The the the letter height can be it doesn't it's not the tippy top of the monument anyway. So, it's it's adjusted, you know, downward according to grade, right? >> Mhm. >> I don't know. Just a thought. I'm
throwing it out to everybody. >> No, I mean, we've gotten um I think six is probably makes sense. I was going five just to be a little bit more conservative, but we've had applications for let's see 7.7 feet, 6 feet, 6 feet. So,
>> so if it if you're getting things for six feet, that eliminates all those waiverss. And then anything above that, well, in this case, it was 8 feet because of the grading issue, >> right? So, that I mean there's justification and it makes sense. Six
feet would eliminate a lot of waiverss. >> I would agree. And it kind of makes sense cuz then you're more looking eye level >> or up slightly. >> Yeah. No disagreement for me. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. That was uh page seven. So we can
increase >> page seven. >> And then you'd have to adjust it for the other. >> Yeah. I went Yep. I already made that note. >> Yeah. >> Uh page eight again. These changes that we made for awnings and canopies match the same that we made in the other
district as well. Uh H9, >> we're talking about a percentage for the >> Yes. >> Canopy and we're talking about the national >> Oh, well the uh Yeah. So the that percentage for the canopies would be for the gas station canopies on page nine.
and it'll do the same thing. Okay. >> Uh I'm going back one page to eight. >> Uh >> oh. >> Uh number six, uh D. That window lettering and signs shall have a professional appearance. Isn't that like a value judgment? I mean, that's >> subjective.
>> Yeah, that's my point, Mike. >> Uh it is. It is a Yep. I can't Yeah, we can definitely take I mean >> deal with it. I'm just throwing it out there. You don't want somebody just writing a crayon. >> It's usually left up the beneath that. >> How long has that been in the ordinance?
Has anyone ever challenged it? >> Oh, so it's always been there >> 50 years. >> It's not like you might It's not like you put it in there. >> I I think it I think it should stay. Tell you the truth, >> because you got some people out there
just totally >> It's very subjective. What What does it mean? has ever been we haven't had a pro if we haven't had a problem with it. Why? >> Yeah. No one's complaining about it. That's why we want to address it. >> Yeah. And Sam, how many applications have we gotten for window lettering?
>> Right. So, >> so if someone if if some um if somebody came before the board and the sign that the window lettering sign seem it had cartoon characters, we would say that's
not professional and say, "Sorry, we can't do it. It's not professional." >> Well, you know what? Maybe there's a different language we can use. Um rather than professional appearance, maybe something along the lines of shall be maintained in good order or something along that line. So you're not getting a a ripped up piece of cardboard in the
>> Well, that's the that's the thing that you're trying to prevent. You don't want somebody to come in with a ripped up piece of cardboard >> or masking tape and just >> masking tape putting it up because that really cheapens the appearance. >> Sounds like you guys are checking out my office >> back. Yeah.
>> Well, that's but >> but maybe something along the lines. >> I don't know why anybody would do that with their business, but you never know. But but I mean I can see the value judgment on this. I mean you think of the whole world of the of the last 10
years with you know mason the whole mason jar aesthetic with hay bales and live love laugh you know I mean I mean honestly is that professional appearance I again it's a value judgment. >> I don't know what you're talking about.
>> You know Rob was talking about >> we can take a look at it. Maybe it's something along the lines of maintained in good condition or something like that. That is a little bit more of a sterile language. Yeah. >> Yeah, we can follow up on that.
>> Uh on page nine, I already had the note. We will research and coordinate with uh Martina regarding flag signage. >> Yep. And then same thing with the canopy signage on the top of page 10. We'll look at a percentage that would uh be appropriate.
>> On page 11, you have one C to be to six feet also now, right? >> Oh, I bet I hit item C. Uh, yes. Well, that would be a discussion point with the board, right? So, this regulates the height of signs within residential districts unless otherwise established.
So, if you guys want to allow for a sixoot height, say for like a house of worship or for a nonprofit located in a residential zone, that would allow for a height of six feet there. >> Um, Go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
>> That's okay. Um on page 10, can you explain um number seven? >> It's gross. >> Before you explain seven, can you explain um four and five? >> New four or five or old four and five?
>> Four and five. >> Signs which flash. Starting with that one. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So these are signs that are prohibited. So signs which flash. >> Where does that where does it say prohibited? I don't >> page >> previous. >> No. So uh yeah. So this section
>> section is a prohibited. >> Yep. Prohibited signs. Yes. So four and five you cannot have any sign which emits odors or smoke or flashes. >> I missed the word prohibited. So I didn't realize that >> and then I'm sorry. Which one?
>> Seven. >> Number seven. Okay. Yes. So um this is language that deals specifically with where signs can be located in relationship to a sight triangle. This revises the language slightly. So
this section had originally tried to define what it considered to be a sight triangle, which is really when you pull up to an intersection, you look left, you look right, how far you can see, and whether or not that's obstructed or not. >> This section basically came up with its own definition and also referred to the
master plan. What we're recommending is that it just refers to section 200-57E and then 229A1. Both of those deal with sign or sight triangles. So really all it does is that it links it up to other sections of the ordinance that establish site triangle regulations.
>> So it's just >> it's not really >> Exactly. Yes. Yeah. So, the whole idea is to make it more um consistent with those sections so that way everything is everybody's kind of on the same page and the last thing you want to do is block somebody's visibility when they're making a left or right.
>> But what do they say? So, so we have an understanding of what this is saying really >> in terms of sight triangles. >> Yes. Uh yes. 200-57E um site triangles in addition to rightaway widths required for the full length of streets and wider
intersections as specified above. Site triangles shall be dedicated as follows. The area bounded by the rightway lines in a straight line connecting site points on a street center lines which are the following distances from the intersection of the center lines. Uh, one where a local street intersects
another local street 90 ft. Where a local street intersects a collector street or minor arterial 90t on the local and 200 feet in the collector or minor arterial or where a local collector or minor arterial intersects a
major or principal arterial street 90 ft back in the local collector minor arterial streets and 300 ft back on the major or principal arterial street. Those streets are classif. >> It makes it makes complete sense, right?
>> Yeah, there those those street classifications are in there. And then typically it's like an engineering analysis for what that triangle needs to look like. I'm I can't tell you. >> I mean, the whole idea is not to block the driver's view. >> Yep. >> And going into that, it's too bad we
don't have something with regard to vegetation because a lot of people do it. >> We do have it. All right. extend correctly. I mean, property though, you want to talk to him about that? >> Chocolate safety stat. He's been very busy this year. >> Okay. There's a lot of people that just
put the shrub. I mean, they're nice shrubs, but you can't see when you're trying to make a left turn. >> We had a case where um in one of my towns where somebody put up 10 or 12 foot shrubs on a joint property line because they hated their neighbor and there's no regulation against the height
of the shrub like that. So, it's like a wall. Uh page page 10. >> Yes. >> Uh revised number three. Uh mounted or portable search lighting. Now I know this is in the section of prohibited signs. Does that curtail
uh an event planner who's doing a special event at the high regencgency not to have search lights out in front on the evening of an event? >> It would prohibit it. Yes, they would have to get >> that's only >> Oh, no. These are the they're going more
like in a big circle and but but I' I've seen with the uh over the years that the only at the high recency >> technically they would require a waiver to do that. Um >> but have they ever applied for >> right
>> well I mean I but I'm not complaining about But I'm just saying I I know it happens in West W. >> Then I have to send my office around one night to >> then the event's over. >> It's done. >> Then they say what? Mike.
>> Exactly. >> They put it in the closet already. >> Let's Let's move on. >> Okay. >> Thank you. That was planning for their second wedding. They look for >> um page 11. This gets into more supplemental sign
regulations. >> Good luck with luck with this one. >> Age 12. We >> let's I recommend we stop 12 because section six plus temporary signs and then we go signs in the new development area and the temporary signs will
survive. >> Yeah. There's a lot of ch Yeah. So we can cue that up for next time. Um >> there's a lot of just to set the stage for that. >> Okay. >> We Yeah. Now we'll say
>> yeah this there's a paragraph on that towards the end of the document. >> We'll we'll save it for next time. >> That was good. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> But uh thank you. So I'm going to start working on some of these revisions. I will hold off though on sharing another
document until we have that other meeting. Talk about this that way it's all done in one. It's not super confusing. >> So Sam, this is an agenda item in two weeks. >> Yeah, >> it is. So the continuation for I think we should you mean the board.
>> I think let's let's have the call tomorrow and maybe if we yeah we can do I think that would >> and David one last question. Are there any leftover elements planning planning document elements that still need to be addressed?
>> Storm water and is there a time table on me? I I so I chat with Fran about that. He has a so I think Fran has another consultant that is going to be taking a look at that document because honestly a lot of it is
over typical planning stuff. Um so we did a little bit of a the bare bones of the plan and I believe the last time we we chatted he was going to send it over to his consultant to look at. So I don't have any time frame. >> Yeah. So, we're holding off. We're holding
off. >> Yeah, >> I get it. >> The last Yeah. And the funny thing is the last template that the DP came out for a solar management plan was back in 2004, I want to say. So, it's been quite some time. >> 20 years. >> Thank you.
>> Good meeting guys. >> Meeting adjourned. >> The next meeting is 17. [Music] Yeah, it's crazy stuff, >> you know. with >> well when you get into that case that big case of no matter
what they're used >> they are form of stealish >> even if