Passaic County Tables Developer’s Application

On Thursday April 7th the Passaic County Planning Board reviewed the KV Realty Application for Paterson Avenue Redevelopment.   

Detailed information about the application can be accessed in the following five documents:

1) KV  Drainage Report – Hydrologic & hydraulic calculations to support the design of stormwater detention facilities & water quality control features for the redevelopment

2) KV – Property and Various Land Use Maps 

3) Packet – Proposed mixed-use redevelopment (KV Phase II) – development review

4) Survey Map 

5) Traffic Impact Study

The application was withheld by the Boards and it will require an additional hearing by the County Planning Board. 

The KV Realty application will be re-scheduled for a Planning Board hearing once the County receives a complete response to the comments from the applicant, along with updated plans.

A letter dated April 8th to the Little Falls Planning Board from The County of Passaic, Department of Planning & Economic Development specified that approval of the application had been withheld pending receipt in an acceptable form of the following:

  1. The name and address of the applicant and the owner must be noted on the cover sheet.
  2. The applicant must submit application fees and a final plat for the proposed major subdivision, which shall be reviewed as a separate application.
  3. All variations in the right-of-way width of Paterson Avenue must be noted in the correct location.
  4. The right-of-way lines of Paterson Avenue and Main Street must be clearly indicated on the plans in order to avoid any encroachment into the County right-of-way.
  5. The sidewalk, which must be a minimum of five (5) feet in width, shall be dimensioned on the plans. The plans must include details for the proposed pavement treatments and any proposed streetscaping.

  1. The Township must pass an ordinance establishing the proposed one-way southbound traffic flow along Paterson Avenue. A concurring resolution from the Passaic County Board of County Commissioners shall also be required, as Paterson Avenue is a County roadway.
  2. The following comments pertain to the proposed mid-block crosswalk:
    1. a)  The crosswalk must be established by a Township Ordinance, which will require a concurring resolution by the Board of County Commissioners.
    2. b)  The crosswalk must use a continental design.
    3. c)  ADA-compliant curb ramps must be installed at both ends of the crosswalk.
    4. d)  The applicant shall install an advance warning sign, and an additional sign at the crosswalk.
    5. e)  The required 25-foot zone of “NO PARKING” must be established in advance of the crosswalk.
  3. The typical section of Paterson Avenue shall be re-designed to provide for bicycle compatibility. At minimum, there shall be a 7.5-foot parking lane and a 16-foot roadway (which could accommodate an 11-foot travel lane and a 5-foot bike lane). A wider roadway could accommodate a fully buffered bike lane.
  4. The following comments pertain to the proposed entrance-only driveway along Paterson Avenue:
    1. a)  The applicant shall construct a raised driveway apron (see attached detail), with sidewalk carried across the driveway. The crosswalk striping shall be removed. Detectable warning surfaces shall still be provided.
    2. b)  A ONE WAY sign shall be installed.
    3. c)  Two (2) DO NOT ENTER signs (R5-1) shall be installed instead of the proposed NO EXIT – ENTRANCE ONLY sign.
  5. As part of the earlier approval for the recently constructed portion of the site, on-street parking was installed on Main Street across the street from the Lincoln Avenue intersection in accordance with a plan approved by the County. However, the parking does not comply with the approved plan – three (3) spaces were installed that are either within the Lincoln Avenue intersection or are within 25 feet of the crosswalk. This is in violation of State Statute. The three (3) spaces must be removed.
  6. As per the recommendation in the traffic study, a traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Maple Street and Main Street. The applicant must submit signal plans. The signal shall be owned and maintained by the Township.
  1. The applicant must submit a tri-party jurisdictional agreement for the proposed signal. This would be entered into by the applicant/owner, County, and Township.
  2. The applicant must submit construction plans for the Paterson Avenue/Main Street intersection, showing curbing, signing, striping, drainage, and utilities. The following signs shall be installed:
    1. a)  Two (2) DO NOT ENTER (R5-1) signs, one on each side
    2. b)  A two-faced ONE WAY sign.
  3. The applicant must submit construction plans for the proposed roundabout at the intersection of Paterson Avenue and Maple Street.
  4. The applicant must submit detailed engineering plans for all proposed buildings, including those being renovated.
  5. On sheet 4, there are notes stating “meet existing pavement” at each end of Paterson Avenue. It is not clear what is being proposed for the pavement. The typical section must show the details of either resurfacing or full-depth pavement reconstruction.
  6. The plans must include a profile of Paterson Avenue for the entire affected area (the one-way section). This will determine whether only resurfacing is needed or full-depth pavement reconstruction.
  7. The plans must include cross-sections of Paterson Avenue every 50 feet, with proposed building elevations, to show proper sidewalk slopes from the buildings to the road.
  8. All drainage structures must be shown on the same plan as the grading.
  9. A trench drain must be installed at the end of the entrance driveway.
  10. There are no pipes shown connecting into drywells #2, #3, or #4.
  11. Drywell #2 proposes an overflow into a parking lot – this is not acceptable.
  12. The following note is on Sheet 5: “Approx. location of pipe to be relocated to Paterson Ave ROW, existing size and location is to be ascertained at commencement of construction”. There are multiple notes relating to drainage and utilities stating approximate locations and specifications to be determined during construction. This must all be determined during the plan review process, not during construction, and indicated on the site plan.
  13. The County reserves the right to make further drainage comments once complete drainage plans are submitted.
  1. The applicant shall clarify if any existing aerial utilities are being relocated.
  2. On the landscaping plan, a table must be provided for all proposed landscaping within the County right-of-way. 
  3. Grate details must be provided for all proposed plantings within the County right-of-way.
  4. The applicant must submit any available architectural plans
  5. The applicant must submit copies of any required NJDEP permits.
  6. The applicant must provide the Corridor Enhancement Fee of $17,275.00 payable to Passaic County.
  7. It is strongly recommended by the Board that the applicant and County staff hold a technical meeting prior to plans being re-submitted.

3 thoughts on “Passaic County Tables Developer’s Application”

  1. Relieved to see that Passaic County requires much preparation before this redevelopment is approved . The changes to the streets with a roundabout is especially concerning. Roundabouts have been deemed dangerous & this area is densely populated with traffic . Residents are dissatisfied with the high level of construction proposed . Ratables are necessary but not at the expense of quality of life in a small community .

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  2. “Roundabouts are a safer alternative to traffic signals and stop signs. The tight circle of a roundabout forces drivers to slow down, and the most severe types of intersection crashes — right-angle, left-turn and head-on collisions — are unlikely.

    Roundabouts improve traffic flow and are better for the environment. Research shows that traffic flow improves after traditional intersections are converted to roundabouts. Less idling reduces vehicle emissions and fuel consumption.

    Roundabouts generally are safer for pedestrians. Pedestrians walk on sidewalks around the perimeter and cross only one direction of traffic at a time. Crossing distances are relatively short, and traffic speeds are lower than at traditional intersections.”*

    *More info about traffic circles at http://www.iihs.org

    Thank you.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment