West side project to be scaled down
BY MELISSA KARSH Staff Writer

Rendering of a project proposed for Drs. James Parker Boulevard.

RED BANK - It's back to the drawing board for an application seeking bulk variances for a mixed-use townhouse development on Drs. James Parker Boulevard.

After a brief straw poll among members of the borough Zoning Board of Adjustment left more questions than answers, the applicant, James Parker One & Two, agreed to submit a revised site plan to the board.

The board took the nonbinding vote to give the applicant some direction for revising the project.

The applicant was seeking approval to subdivide the property fronting Drs. James Parker Boulevard and Willow Street into two lots and to build an addition to the roof and garage of an existing building on one of the lots.

Also on the lot, which fronts Willow Street, the applicant proposed constructing a mixed-use building with a salon on the lower floor and three apartments on the upper floor.

On the other subdivided lot, the applicant proposed building six, three-story townhouses each with a garage and driveway on the second lot.

"I think your site is just too tight for the number of units that you have," said Zoning Board Chairwoman Lauren Nicosia.

The application sought "d" variances for density for the number of townhouses, 10 units per acre being required and 16.9 units per acre proposed; and for the three apartments above the salon, since the zoning ordinance permits no more than two, according to Borough Engineer Richard Kosenski's May 29 review letter.

At the Nov. 1 meeting, the applicant proposed limiting the number of apartments over the salon to two, thereby eliminating the need for one of the "d" variances and reducing the number of townhouses from six to five, alleviating some of the density concerns.

The applicant's attorney said a "d" variance for density would still be required but with the change in the number of dwellings, 14 units per acre would be the new proposal.

While some board members indicated that they would be more apt to approve the application with these changes, others, like Nicosia, indicated that they would still vote against it.

"You make a persuasive case for the redevelopment [aspect]," said board member Josephine Lee to the applicant's planner Daniel C. McSweeney after his presentation. "It isn't persuasive [enough] for the kind of development the project requires."

McSweeney argued on behalf of the applicant that most of the variances sought are for existing nonconforming conditions.

"Many of them [variances] are existing conditions, which would not be exacerbated," said McSweeney, although he did admit that the space was tight.

Board attorney Marc Leckstein asked the applicant to consider consolidating the two properties into one in order to have a common control of the properties.

McSweeney countered the negative comments with what he said were some of the positives of the application. He said the application would bring less traffic and noise and would have less of an impact than other uses that would be permitted in the BR-2 zone.

"The character of the area is clearly one of mixed use," said McSweeney. "[The application is] consistent and compatible for the character and zoning in the area."

He added, "Essentially what we are doing is improving an old, tired, underused site. [This] represents a better overall plan than the previously approved uses on the property."

The existing structure, located at 103 Drs. James Parker Blvd., is the site of DWF Flooring and most of the applicant's experts were also involved in that application, including engineer Elizabeth M. Waterbury and architect Leonard V. Martelli. Another structure that currently exists on the lot is an abandoned, two-story building, according to Waterbury.

McSweeney also said that the new application would provide an aesthetic improvement from what is currently there and make the property a better fit with the character of the neighborhood.

"The benefits of granting the variances outweigh [the negatives]," said McSweeney. "[The applicant] is essentially providing for the market redevelopment of the site and the adaptive reuse of an old building."

Principals in the project are Michael Milano and Gregory Vocaturo.

The application was also seeking a list of "c" variances for each lot.

For the townhouse lot, a "c" variance was required for: front-yard setback, 25 feet required and 15 feet proposed; side-yard setback, 15 feet required and 10 feet proposed; and for passive recreation area, 1,500 square feet being required and no active or passive recreation area being proposed, according to Kosenski's review letter.

"I think the biggest thing that was in the report that my client was concerned about was the comment concerning the recreation," Waterbury said before the applicant suggested minimizing the amount of dwellings on the site and therefore increasing the space for some deficiencies like recreation space.

Waterbury said there would be some room for passive recreation on the southern side of the property where plantings are proposed.

She said with the plantings that are currently proposed, there would be 900 square feet of passive recreation space, which would still require a variance for a deficiency of 600 square feet.

"If this was located in a different zone, which along James Parker Boulevard is becoming more and more residential, in the residential zones the amount per square foot is considerably less," she said.

Waterbury also said with the addition of deciduous trees instead of the plantings, the amount of passive recreation space on the south side could be increased to 1,500 square feet.

The "c" variances for the salon lot include a variance for parking, 23 spaces required and nine spaces being proposed.

Nicosia repeated her belief that there is not enough room on the site for what is being proposed, throughout the meeting.

"It just seems like not a lot of area there. If you had fewer units, you would have a little more space for parking and units," she said.

Other "c" variances required for the salon lot include minimum lot area, 10,000 square feet required and 7,750 square feet provided, according to Kosenski's review letter.

"I believe the board should carefully consider the multitude of deficiencies with the proposal, including no backyard, limited parking, no recreation area, as well as other items," Kosenski advised in the letter.

The revised application will come before the board again Jan. 3 and will include minimal re-engineering.