Montclair Planning Board hears plans for ‘scaled-down’ building – NorthJersey.com

At the podium, architect Fredrick Kincaid presents plans for the Lorraine Avenue project on Monday night, Feb. 6.(Photo: Mollie Shauger/NorthJersey.com)

After roughly three hours of testimony and questions from Montclair Planning Board members and the public, an amended plan to redevelop the former Warner Communications building on Lorraine Avenue will have to wait at least another month for resolution.

The developer, Michael Pavel, has been seeking approval for a mixed-use development at 237-249 Lorraine Ave., near the Upper Montclair Train Stationand within walking distance of Valley Road businesses.

There have been several hearings before the Planning Board and Historic Preservation Commission within the past year. Duringthat time, the board heard and approved a plan for a two-floor building consisting of 4,925 square feet of retail space on the first floor and 5,300 square feet of medical office or general office space on the second floor, along with 60 parking spaces.

MONTCLAIR: Yogi Berra Museum gets new executive director

HOUSING: Montclair board to hear revised plans for Lorraine Avenue

MONTCLAIR: Local organizations helping to draft sanctuary statement

The developer then amended the plans, increasing the second-floor office space by 3,671 square feet, ora 36 percent increase in building area. The second floor would contain general office suites.

On Monday night, Feb. 6, there was debate amongboard members, withat times,a confusing exchange over how Historic Preservation Commission recommendations should be perceived. In a January memo to the board, the HPC had labeled the proposed addition to the building as too intrusive in size and scale in the Upper Montclair Historic Business District, as board member Martin Schwartz pointed out at Mondays meeting.

In that same memo, the commission stated that it believes the proposed project does not meet the criteria under the HPCs Historic Design Guidelines, particularly in regards to rear additions. The HPC provided 10 recommendations or requests to the applicant before the Planning Board approves the project.

In an earlier memo to the Planning Board, the HPC stated that the building was "too large for the site and is not complementary to the [Upper Montclair]historic district.

About a dozen residents in attendance watched intently as Fredrick Kincaid of the architecture firm Jarmel Kizel in Livingston presented changes in architectural details, such as in the brick corbeling and brick color, which he said were meant to reduce the scale of the building, so it would not be a huge, monolithic structure. Changes were based on HPC and public recommendations, Kincaidnoted.

Kincaid saidthe size of the second floor was reduced slightly, resulting in about a 26-square-foot reduction in total building size since the last proposal.

Board Vice ChairJason DeSalvo commented that the revisions dont change the size of the building, alluding to the HPCs recommendations.

Board member Martin Schwartz asked Kincaid how the building fits in with the context of the neighborhood, referencing a section of the municipal code, which states, The arrangement of buildings and structures on the site shall be designed so as to create a harmonious appearance with respect to each other and with existing structures in the immediate neighborhood.

Montclair resident Nancy Katz addresses the board and applicant witnesses during the Feb. 6 Planning Board meeting.(Photo: Mollie Shauger/NorthJersey.com)

We kept the basic structure of the original building, responded Kincaid. Were keeping the existing building.

Kincaid, using pictures, pointed out other buildings that differ in size and style within the immediate neighborhood.

Schwartz asked Kincaid if the proposed addition meets historic design guidelines, which call foradditions to be made smaller and simpler in design than the historic building itself. Kincaid responded that the addition is not smaller than the original building in square footage.

However, Kincaid did say that the proposed design met other HPC guidelines.

But during the testimony, board member Anthony Ianuale wondered as to how much the historic guidelines applied, unsure whether the building itself was historic or part of a historic district. Ianualesaid the board should get more advice as to what guidelines then apply, and how to interpret HPCs suggestions.

Board attorney Arthur Neiss clarified that the boards decision is based on the municipalsite plan ordinance and zoning ordinance, but can weigh the HPC comments in its decision.

After some back-and-forth over the HPC comments,DeSalvo attempted to summarize the discussion, suggesting, What the HPC is saying to us is, We dont think you should approve it, from their perspective. Its too intrusive in size and scale. It doesnt fit into the neighborhood.

We could stop our deliberation right there and say, We agree, make it smaller, were not approving it, said DeSalvo, garnering a round of applause from the audience.

The board did not approve it that night. Another debate erupted over whether a waiver was required if the application deviates from design standards.The developer is not applying for a variance.

Schwartz argued that the waiver is required because the application doesnt meet certain municipal standards. In clarifying his points at the meeting, he told The Montclair Times, This is not a clear issue, because there are design and historic preservation standards referenced in the Montclair [municipal] code and Master Plan. The issue is, what is the weight of those standards as it relates to the neighborhood character, Upper Montclair Historic District and other issues impacting that area, in contrast to the zoning standards of height and bulk where there are no variances being sought?

Applicant attorney Neal Zimmerman has previously argued that the applicant complies with the zoning ordinance, and the design guidelines should not supersede that fact.

They [the HPC]recognize that the zoning ordinance prevails, Zimmerman told Planning Board Chairman John Wynn.

There was no decision at the meeting as to whether the application would require a waiver.

This is a legal issue which needs to be sorted out, Schwartz later said.

In response to a residents question, Wynn said that if a waiver was required, then it would still give the board the ability to say "no" to the application.

If theres no waiver required and no variance required, we have no choice but to approve regardless of what we feel and regardless of what the community feels, because it meets the municipal law standards that have been passed by the council, and are in effect for the town, Wynn said.

Braemore Road resident Jennifer Haughton put Kincaid on the spot, asking if he would want a building like the one proposedacross from his property, to which Kincaid responded he wouldnt mind living next to a "commercial area." Haughton then asked if he currently resides next to a commercial area, to which Kincaid said he lived a few blocks away from one.

In response to another residents question on lighting, Kincaid said lights would be designed in a way that theywould not shine into residential homes.

Nancy Katz of Upper Mountain Avenue asked whether the six HVAC units could be moved from the roof. Kincaid said its possible, but not the best option, as the units would work more properly and efficiently on the roof, where there is more air. Kincaid reiterated that his client is willing to screen the equipment.

Katz said the proposed building looks like a very large branch bank.

Im very passionate about the neighborhood, Katz said. This does not fit, period.

Another resident, Frank Rubacky, said the application should go back to the HPC to decide whether its an intrusive or harmonizing building. He said the Planning Board isnt qualified to rule on the application, and suggested the application be kicked back to the HPC.

Irma Macfarlane of Braemore Road was concerned that with the train tracks being so close to the buildings wall, sound would bounce back.

Its simple physics, Macfarlane said.

The whole point of being in Montclair was character, diversity of the residents and, hopefully, respect, said Mcfarlanein concluding her comments.

The application was carried to the March 13 Planning Board meeting, when it's expected the municipal engineer would present testimony.

Two other applications on Monday's agenda were also postponed to later dates. The applications were for a major subdivision at 44 Pleasant Ave. and a minor subdivision at 39 Alexander Ave.

Email: gray@northjersey.com

Read or Share this story: http://northjersy.news/2jZIOIW

Excerpt from:
Montclair Planning Board hears plans for 'scaled-down' building - NorthJersey.com