DOCSLIB.ORG

SCHMITT REALTY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN June 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SCHMITT REALTY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN June 2018 SCHMITT REALTY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 1631 Paterson Plank Road Block 191 – Lots 15, 15.01, 15.02, And 15.03 Town of Secaucus June 2018 NEW JERSEY SPORTS & EXPOSITION AUTHORITY SCHMITT REALTY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 1631 PATERSON PLANK ROAD (BLOCK 191, LOTS 15, 15.01, 15.02, and 15.03) TOWN OF SECAUCUS JUNE 2018 Chairman John Ballantyne Vice Chairman Joseph Buckelew President/CEO Vincent Prieto Board Members Robert J. Dowd Michael Ferguson Armando B. Fontoura Michael H. Gluck LeRoy Jones George Kolber Steven Plofker Andrew Scala Anthony Scardino Robert Yudin Michael Griffin* *NJ State Treasurer’s Representative Redevelopment Plan Adopted by NJSEA Resolution No. 2018-26 on July 19, 2018 In Need of Redevelopment Investigation Adopted by NJSEA Resolution No. 2017-33 on November 16, 2017 In Need of Redevelopment Investigation Authorized by NJSEA Resolution No. 2017-21 on July 20, 2017 Schmitt Realty Redevelopment Plan – June 2018 Page | 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Redevelopment Plan Statutory Criteria .................................................................................................... 5 A. Requisite Plan Information ......................................................................................................................................... 5 B. Specific Plan Requirements ........................................................................................................................................ 5 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................5 2. Redevelopment Area Description .............................................................................................................................................7 3. Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................................................................... 12 4. Land Use ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 12 5. Population Density ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13 6. Known Contaminated Sites ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 7. Transportation Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................................. 14 8. Wetlands and Waterway Buffers ........................................................................................................................................... 14 9. Public Utilities ................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 10. Recreational Facilities .............................................................................................................................................................. 15 11. Community Services .................................................................................................................................................................. 15 12. Relationship to Hackensack Meadowlands District Master Plan and Regulations ....................................... 16 13. Smart Growth and Sustainability ........................................................................................................................................ 16 II. Potential Implementation Strategies ..................................................................................................... 17 A. Powers of Redevelopment Agency ....................................................................................................................... 17 B. NJSEA Involvement ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 III. Selected Land Use Option .......................................................................................................................... 19 A. Selection of Recommended Land Uses ............................................................................................................... 19 IV. Redevelopment Plan Standards .............................................................................................................. 20 A. Redevelopment Standards ....................................................................................................................................... 20 B. Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................ 20 V. Land Use and Bulk Standards .................................................................................................................... 21 A. Definitions ...................................................................................................................................................................... 21 B. Required Uses ............................................................................................................................................................... 21 C. Permitted Uses .............................................................................................................................................................. 21 D. Use Limitations ............................................................................................................................................................. 21 E. Bulk Requirements ...................................................................................................................................................... 22 1. Lot Size Requirements ................................................................................................................................................................ 22 2. Bulk Regulations ............................................................................................................................................................................ 22 F. Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................................................... 23 1. Parking and Loading .................................................................................................................................................................... 23 2. Utilities ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 3. Signage ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 4. Drainage ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 24 5. Minimum Lowest Finished Floor Elevation ...................................................................................................................... 24 6. Environmental Performance Standards .............................................................................................................................. 24 7. Architectural Design Standards .............................................................................................................................................. 24 8. Fences ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25 9. Open Space ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 10. Landscaping .................................................................................................................................................................................. 25 11. Pedestrian Circulation .............................................................................................................................................................. 26 12. Sustainable Design ..................................................................................................................................................................... 26 G. Additional Development Requirements ............................................................................................................. 26 1. Project Impact Assessment ....................................................................................................................................................... 26 Schmitt Realty Redevelopment Plan – June 2018 Page | 3 2. Traffic Impact Assessment .......................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wisconsin Avenue Extension Technical Review
    WISCONSIN AVENUE EXTENSION TECHNICAL REVIEW November 16, 2016 STUDY AREA RELATED TRAFFIC DATA Intersection Spacing: • Bluemound to Watertown Plank Road = 325 feet • Watertown Plank Road to Wisconsin Ave = 535 feet Evening Peak Hour Traffic: • Watertown Plank Road = 940 vph • Office Access (north) = 220 vph • Office Access (south) = 80 vph • Pilgrim Parkway = 2,410 vph • Bluemound Road = 4,640 vph RELATED TRAFFIC DATA Selected Peak Hour Traffic Movement Volumes: • Watertown Plank Road westbound left turn = 350 vph • North Shore Bank eastbound right turn = 100 vph • Ace Hardware driveway (2-way volume) = 110 vph • Pilgrim Parkway southbound left turn at Watertown Plank Road = 65 vph • Pilgrim Parkway northbound right turn at Watertown Plank Road = 380 vph • Bluemound Road eastbound left turn at Pilgrim Parkway = 645 vph Ayres Associates Field Observations: 1. Eastbound Bluemound left turn regularly backs into Bluemound intersection from Watertown Plank Road intersection (up to 4 cars) 2. Southbound Pilgrim Road traffic sometimes backs into Watertown Plank Road intersection 3. Traffic diversion observed on Terrace Drive 4. Terrace Drive right turn conflicts with eastbound Bluemound Road U-turns 5. Minor cut-through traffic observed in Bakers Square and Mobil parking lots WISCONSIN AVENUE ANALYSIS SCENARIOS Scenario Description 1 Existing Condition (no extension) 2 Extension with 2-way stop signs 3 Extension with traffic signals 4 Extension with removal of Watertown signals but allow right turns and northbound left A – with signals at Wisconsin
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Plan
    Appendix B: City of Fredericksburg Comprehensive Plan Transportation Analysis July 2007 prepared for City of Fredericksburg by in association with City of Fredericksburg Transportation Analysis Comprehensive Plan Appendix B: Contents 1 Transportation Overview.......................................................................................................B-1 2 A Multi-Modal System ............................................................................................................B-1 2.1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Ways ........................................................................................B-3 2.2 Roadways.........................................................................................................................B-7 2.3 Bus Transit....................................................................................................................B-12 2.4 Commuting...................................................................................................................B-12 2.5 Parking...........................................................................................................................B-15 2.6 Air, Rail and Bus Service.............................................................................................B-16 2.7 Movement of Goods and Services............................................................................B-17 3 Best Practices..........................................................................................................................B-17 3.1 Pedestrian
    [Show full text]
  • Order for Professional Services No. T3694 Design Services for Contract No
    OPS No. T3694 Design Services for Contract No. T300.489 Interchange 18E Express E-ZPass and 16E Improvements Page 1 of 34 April 23, 2018 To: ALL CONSULTANTS Subject: REQUEST FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST ORDER FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NO. T3694 DESIGN SERVICES FOR CONTRACT NO. T300.489 INTERCHANGE 18E EXPRESS E-ZPASS AND 16E IMPROVEMENTS The New Jersey Turnpike Authority (Authority) invites Expressions of Interest (EOIs) for a Simple project from engineering firms prequalified and eligible in the following Profile Codes Profile Code(s) Description(s) A250 Fully Controlled Access Highways A256 Toll Plazas (site, islands, tunnels, canopy) Attached (see Section I) is a list of all consultants currently prequalified and eligible to submit an EOI for the above referenced assignment. *Joint Ventures (*Firms interested in submitting an EOI as a Joint Venture must be prequalified as a Joint Venture with the Authority) that meet all of the Profile Code requirements are also eligible to submit an EOI. To qualify as a prequalified consultant, a firm must have on file with the Authority a current “Professional Service Prequalification Questionnaire” (PSPQ) package prior to submission of the EOI. A current PSPQ is one that has been on file with the Authority for no more than 24 months, or in certain cases for no more than 12 months. Only those firms who have been prequalified for the specified profile code(s) this project entails will be considered. Prequalification is not required for subconsultants. Prequalification is required however for Joint Ventures. The Authority shall be seeking participation of Small Business Enterprises (SBE) as subconsultants.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Committee Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2017
    Transportation Committee Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2017 Call to Order: The Transportation Committee meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Members Present David Ross (Courtland Supervisor), Tim McLaughlin (Chancellor Supervisor), Robert Fogg (Battlefield Representative), Marcie Parker (VDOT), Sean Nelson (VDOT), Dan Cole (staff), Doug Morgan (staff), Bonnie Jewell (staff) Others Present None Public Comment None Announcements 1. The task order for the Route 2/17 B Corridor Study was approved on February 23rd. Staff is holding a kick-off meeting for the project next week. Date and time has not yet been finalized. Staff will send out a notice early next week and include members of this committee in case those interested would like to attend. 2. Global Technologies will be holding a demonstration in Stafford (Route 17) on either March 28th or 29th on the Opticom Priority Control System which is a signal preemption system for emergency vehicles. Both the infrared and GPS systems will be demonstrated. A time and location will be determined in the next few days. Discussion Items • CMAQ/RSTP Project Submission: Dan Cole briefed the committee on an e-mail from Paul Agnello requesting new projects, limited available funding and the one project limitation FAMPO was seeking to impose. There was concern from Committee Members about the one project limitation. Mr. McLaughlin indicated that he would discuss the limitation with FAMPO. The Committee was shown several potential CMAQ projects. The Committee selected three projects and prioritized them. These included; 1) Roundabout at Old Plank Road & Andora Drive, 2) Turn Lanes at the Old Plank Road & Chancellor Road intersection, and 3) a southbound right turn lane improvement on Smith Station Road at the Courthouse Road intersection.
    [Show full text]
  • (LTA) Evaluation of the Baton Rouge Urban Renewal and Mobility Plan
    Louisiana Transportation Authority (LTA) Evaluation of the Baton Rouge Urban Renewal and Mobility Plan (BUMP) to Develop the Project as a Public Private Partnership (P3) October 20, 2015 – Final (With Redactions) TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 Proposal Overview .................................................................................................................... 1 Construction Cost...................................................................................................................... 1 Tolling ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Traffic and Revenue (T&R) ...................................................................................................... 2 Feasibility .................................................................................................................................. 2 Findings..................................................................................................................................... 3 1.0 CHAPTER ONE – State & Federal Legislation Summary ................................................... 4 1.1 Louisiana State Legislation .............................................................................................. 4 1.2 Federal Legislation ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Plank Road Study
    December 2010 PLANK ROAD STUDY Transportation, Engineering, and Development Business Group Acknowledgements City Council Mayor A. George Pradel James E. Boyajian Judith Brodhead Robert W. Fieseler Richard R. Furstenau Paul Hinterlong Douglas Krause Kenn Miller Grant E. Wehrli Plan Commission Michael Brown, Chairman Ann Edmonds Patty Gustin John Herzog Paul Meschino Timothy Messer Patricia Meyer Reynold Sterlin Janet Trowbridge Plank Road Study • December 2010 Page i Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND VISION STATEMENT . 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION . 2 2.1 East Sector Update . 2 2.2 Purpose . 4 2.3 Study Boundary . 4 2.4 Planning Process . 6 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS . 7 3.1 Existing Land Uses . 7 3.2 Existing Zoning . 7 3.3 Natural Features. 11 3.4 Infrastructure . 11 4.0 FUTURE LAND USE . 13 4.1 Summary of Community Input . 13 4.2 Future Land Use Considerations and Map . 14 4.3 Future Land Use Objectives and Actions . 16 4.4 Sub-Area Recommendations . 17 4.5 Supplemental Recommendations . 23 4.6 Implementation . 24 5.0 TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS . 25 5.1 Existing Transportation Network . 25 5.2 Summary of Community Input . 26 5.3 Master Thoroughfare Plan . 28 5.4 Transportation Recommendations . 31 Page ii East Sector Comprehensive Master Plan Update List of Illustrations and Figures PLANK ROAD STUDY SPOTLIGHTS 1. DuPage County Zoning . 9 2. Village of Lisle Boundary Agreement. 10 3. Stormwater . 12 4. Conservation Subdivision Design . 18 LIST OF FIGURES 1. City of Naperville Planning Sector Map . 3 2. Plank Road Study Area . 5 3. Public Input Process Summary .
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    I-95 Access Study New Access to I-95 between Route 3 and the Rappahannock River 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The George Washington Regional Commission (GWRC) and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) are evaluating the possibility of constructing a new access point or interchange with I-95 in the City of Fredericksburg between the Rappahannock River and VA 3 (Route 3). A new toll parkway would intersect with I-95 near the existing rest area and proceed west and tie into Route 3 near Gordon Road (Route 627). Located midway between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, the George Washington Region of Virginia is the scene of intensive growth extending back several decades, as it has become a bedroom community to Washington, D.C. and, to a lesser extent Richmond. Since 1960, the regional population has more than quintupled, from 60,000 residents to nearly 325,000 residents. This hyper growth has manifested itself in rapid suburbanization and has unduly strained the surface transportation system of the Region, taxing the capacity of roadway arterials and collectors alike. None of these roadways has been impacted as much as I-95, a national lifeline and a vital Regional arterial. Interstate 95 traverses the George Washington Region for about forty-seven miles, through the Counties of Stafford, Spotsylvania and Caroline, as well as the City of Fredericksburg. At various places along its course through the Region, I-95 fails from too much traffic and too little capacity. This failure adversely affects the nation as a whole, but it directly threatens the economic well-being and quality of life of residents in the Region.
    [Show full text]
  • Johnson County Whiteland Road Reconstruction
    TOWN OF BARGERSVILLE NEWSLETTER VOLUME 9 AUGUST 2020 HAWK Signal at Harriman Avenue and Old Plank Road Highlights of HAWK Signal: • Traffic is only stopped as needed • Flashes red when traffic is required to stop and yield to pedestrians • Activated through push buttons, that allow crossing one leg at a time On Old Plank Looking West HAWK Signal Overview As part of the pedestrian improvements project along Old Plank Road the Town has installed a HAWK signal at the intersection of Old Plank Road/Harriman Avenue/Short Street. HAWK is an acronym and stands for High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk, this signal is solely for pedestrians to be able to cross busy intersections safely. This is not a typical traffic signal, traffic flows as normal until one of the push buttons at the intersection is activated which then stops traffic as needed, otherwise the signal stays dark. Once one of the push buttons is activated the timing allows for pedestrians to cross one leg of the intersection at a time, then the push buttons must be reactivated to continue crossing the other legs. Please see the next page for a overview of the intersection. CrossRoad Engineers, PC Town of Bargersville 3417 Sherman Dr. 24 North Main Street Beech Grove, IN 46107 Bargersville, IN 46106 WM 18+00 19+00 B M H Y D 30+ 2-5c/14 00 H 2-3c/14 H W11-2, W16-7P 19+34 "A", H 18+71 "A" 29.9' Lt. H L W P V 18+60 "A", W 20.9' Lt. V t DI ee 5c/14 tr PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT SHOWN ACTIVATES S 3c/14 rt THE ASSOCIATED VEHICULAR MOVEMENTS SHOWN ho S EGV Short Street DM EGV DM 45' Mast Arm 3-5c/14 3-3c/14 R10-23 5c/14 E.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Sidewalk Master Plan Update City of Columbia, MO
    2012 Sidewalk Master Plan Update City of Columbia, MO Approved by the Columbia City Council April 1, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Columbia Sidewalk Master Plan Projects 2012 Revision 1. Introduction/Purpose 2 2. Summary of Completed or Funded Projects from 2007 Sidewalk Master Plan 2 3. History 3 4. City Sidewalk Policies 3 5. Additional Financial Resources 4 6. Sidewalk Priority Ratings Matrix Discussion 5 7. Other Pedestrian and Transportation Plans 6 8. Sidewalk Plan Projects Summarized by Street Classification 6 Overall Summary and Cost Estimates 6 Major Arterial Projects 7 Minor Arterial Projects 9 Major Collector Projects 10 Neighborhood Collector Projects 12 Local Street Projects 14 9. FY 2013 Budget Capital Projects (CIP) Individual Sidewalk Projects 16 10. Sidewalks to be Constructed as part of Future Street Projects 17 Appendix 18 Sidewalk Priorities Ratings Matrix A-1 Sidewalk Projects to be done in Conjunction with Future Street Improvements A-2 FY 2013 Budget Capital Projects (CIP) Individual Sidewalk Projects A-3 Out-Year Sidewalk Projects (1-10 Years Anticipated Timeframe) A-4 Map of 2012 Sidewalk Project Listing A-5 Map Key for 2012 Sidewalk Project Listing A-6 Ordinance 19747 - (Sidewalk Maintenance and Construction) A-7 Policy Resolution 48-06A (Sidewalk Variances) A-8 2012 Sidewalk Master Plan 1. Introduction/Purpose The Sidewalk Master Plan sets forth a public input process to prioritize sidewalk projects where gaps exist. The plan helps the City Council identify projects for which grant funding applications will be made and assists the Council in making capital budget decisions by identifying the most critical sidewalk improvement and construction locations throughout the City.
    [Show full text]
  • Road to the Future Introduction Man's Travel Began Millennia Ago with The
    Road to the Future Introduction Man’s travel began millennia ago with the first step of the first man in his desire to satisfy a basic need for food shelter, clothing or social interaction. From the fist step there evolved a system of transportation that still satisfies these basic needs. In order to understand our present need for transportation and predict the future needs it is informative to take a trip into the past to explore old transportation systems and how they have evolved in the past 6000 yrs. Of particular interests is how engineering and road building technology has developed and changed. The record for many of these developments is sketchy and in many cases requires extrapolation from observations of travelers that have recorded their experiences and are included them in the written record. The intention is to approach the subject in a chronological manner discussing each period to the extent possible from available records Some of the periods discussed are sparse in information related to the technology of roads and as a consequence will suffer in the length of the discussion. In all cases the intention is to give some feel for the engineering that was involved and the changes that have occurred. Obviously the modern era has much greater resources in terms of reference and documentation and these areas of transportation will not be extensively treated.. Land transportation and highways are the particular areas of interest. The many photos that are incorporated with the discussion help to illustrate the particular road being discussed. Citations in the various sections will allow the interested reader to pursue the subject in greater detail.
    [Show full text]
  • ARTICLE B Controlled Intersections; Street Traffic Regulations SEC. 10
    ARTICLE B Controlled intersections; Street Traffic Regulations SEC. 10-1-10 OPERATORS TO OBEY TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. Every operator of a vehicle approaching an intersection at which an Official Traffic Control Device is erected in accordance with this Chapter shall obey the direction of such Official Traffic Control Device as required by the Wisconsin Statutes incorporated by reference in Section 10-1-1 of this Chapter. Operators of vehicles approaching a stop sign shall stop before entering a highway as required by Section 346.46, Wis. Stats. Operators approaching intersections at which a yield sign has been installed shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles as required by Section 346.18(6), Wis. Stats. SEC. 10-1-11 SPEED LIMITS. (a) STATE SPEED LIMITS ADOPTED. The provisions of Sections 346.57, 346.58 and 346.59, Wis. Stats., relating to the maximum and minimum speed of vehicles are hereby adopted as part of this Section as if fully set forth herein, except as specified by this Section pursuant to Section 349.11(3)(c), Wis. Stats., where the Common Council has determined that the statutory speed limits are unreasonable, unsafe and imprudent and has modified such limits. (b) SPEED LIMITS MODIFIED. The speed limits are increased as hereinafter set forth in this Subsection upon the following streets or portions thereof between the limits designated: (1) Thirty miles per hour. Earl Street from Midway Road to the south City limits south of Terrace Avenue in the City of Menasha. (2) Thirty-five miles per hour. a. Airport Road -- that part which lies in the City of Menasha between Racine Street Road and Appleton Road.
    [Show full text]
  • MTA Metro-North
    Plank Road/Trail Assessment and Alternatives Report District: Metro County: Hennepin City: Minneapolis Date of Assessment: 01/08/2016 Prepared for: Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board Prepared By: Carl B. Osberg, PE WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The plank road and trails (58-foot wide and 600-ft long) were completed in 2003 at a cost of over $1 million. In 2010, the 24 foot wide roadbed portion of the plank road in West River Parkway was removed and replaced with concrete at a cost of approximately $470,000. According to City of Minneapolis data, the average daily traffic on the road is approximately 6,000 cars with 550 pedestrians and 1,000 bicyclists per day on the north trail. Although only eleven years old, many of the planks in the trail have warped and rotted and lag bolts have loosened and popped out. Concerns about the trail are the uneven surface, trip hazards, and maintenance demands. The intent of this report is to examine the existing condition of the plank trail and propose and evaluate alternatives for their maintenance, repair and replacement. Plank Trail Issues Common Issues on the Trails include: 1) Timber planks a. cupping and warping - tripping hazards b. gaps and joints - tripping hazards c. slippery surface especially when wet 2) Anchorage systems and hardware a. difficult to remove planks due to countersunk holes b. corrosion of bolts and non-standard sizes c. loss of connections – stripping of holes or loss of threads in bolts 3) Drainage system a.
    [Show full text]