Project's first-floor residences opposed
Scaled-down project calls for 12 units where seven are permitted
BY LAYLI WHYTE
Staff Writer

An architect's rendering of the South Beach project.

RED BANK - Red Bank RiverCenter has voiced concern about the proposal for a residential only development proposed for the corner of Monmouth and Pearl Streets.

In a letter to the Borough Zoning Board of Adjustment, RiverCenter Executive Director Tricia Rumola addressed the concerns of RiverCenter's Visual Improvement Committee (VIC), stating that it is not in favor of residential use on the first floor of a building fronting on Monmouth Street.

"While residential use is permitted on the first floor in this zone," the letter states, "it has been VIC's opinion that the requirement for retail on the first floor currently in place on Monmouth Street east of Maple Avenue, be continued on the west side as well in order to maintain the retail corridor to support the economic viability of surrounding businesses."

The application for the South Beach development heard at last week's board meeting, calls for 12 residential units, consisting of two, two-bedroom units and ten, three-bedroom units.

Each unit would have two levels, and the building would be four stories, with one unit on top of another.

Rumola, who spoke at the meeting on behalf of VIC, conceded that first-floor residential units are permitted in the zone,

However, she said the RiverCenter Special Improvement District recently was expanded down Monmouth Street west of Maple Avenue, and it is important to keep the retail corridor intact.

"The retail corridor down there is

being eroded," she said. "We're trying to build retail down Monmouth Street to continue the arts corridor and continue the retail corridor."

Borough Engineer Richard Kosenski said that a mixed use is permitted in the zone, but that a variance may be required for mixed-use because of the density proposed for the development. Rumola also wrote a letter addressed to the mayor and Borough Council, stating RiverCenter's preference for first floor retail use along Monmouth Street, Bridge and Shrewsbury Avenues.

"The bottom line is that retail is critical to the long-term vitality of the street noted above," the letter states. "Retail creates pedestrian interaction, and invites customers to window shop, browse, sit at cafes, and creates a sense of place and community. We must look at this as a long-term, key element in the continued livability of our town."

The original plan for South Beach called for 14 units, but at a February hearing, several Zoning Board members voiced concerns about a lack of open-space. The applicant subsequently scaled down the project, removing two units, adding an additional 1,500 sq. ft. of open space to the property.

Rumola's letter to the zoning board stated that despite these changes, the project appears to be a very dense use for the site.

"According to the zoning ordinance," the letter states, 'the allowed density of 14 units per acre is far exceeded by this application."

The property, located at the northwest corner of Monmouth and Pearl streets, is about one-half acre, which would allow for seven residential units, almost half of what is being proposed.

Project principal Anthony Busch Jr. said that if the density was decreased any more, the project would not be economically viable.

"Economically," he said, "we're at a threshold point. At this point we could not reduce it any more. We're at the end of the spectrum of economics to make this a viable project."

Busch said that the project is now very close to meeting the open-space requirement of 25 percent, offering 24.04 percent open space, and that the project would have 41.8 percent lot coverage, where a maximum of 45 percent is permitted.

The project, now that it has been reduced, does not require any variances for parking, and Busch said that residential use brings the lowest traffic impact of any type of development.

Gordon Gemma, the attorney representing the applicant, asked that the vote on the application not be taken at last week's meeting because there were only five eligible voting members, and since five affirmative votes are required for "d" density variances, the applicant's preference was to have at least seven members voting.

Instead, the vote was carried until May 3, and during that time, some board members will have to listen to the tapes of previous meetings in order to be eligible to vote.