The Maplewood Planning Board recommended the Dunnell Road Redevelopment Plan--with suggestions for limiting the bulk and mass of the project--to the Township Committee last night. This action clears the path for the Township Committee, which is expected to approve the ordinance adopting the plan on Monday night.

Opponents of the plan were not satisfied with the Board's suggestions and recommendation.

The plan allows for development of the site of the old police building on Dunnell Road as multi-unit housing. The plan--as submitted to the Planning Board--allowed for a building 50 feet in height (which appertenances and variances could take to 60') and up to 50 units.

The Planning Board is recommending something smaller to the Township Committee.

At the beginning of the meeting, Planning Board Chair Tom Carlson laid out several issues that needed to be answered before moving to public comments. Carlson wanted a clarification about the recommendations for 1.2 parking spaces per unit (the state recommendations are 1.8 per one bedroom and 2 per two bedroom unit), several engineering questions, the status of the current zoning and the impact of the Maplewood Village Alliance design standards on the plan.

Stuart Portney, the author of the redevelopment plan, explained that the 1.2 spaces per unit parking recommendation complies with accepted standards around transit-oriented developments. Portney said that fewer parking spaces encourage transit use, reduction of green house gases, and promote a pedestrian-friendly environment and compact land use.

Robert Bratt, the Town's engineering consultant, reviewed the heights of surrounding buildings (none exceeded 38.2') and showed maps outlining the property line, surrounding elevations and the location of the two sewer trunk lines under the property.

Bratt explained that the two trunk sewer lines--at 24" in diameter--were not insubstantial and that relocating them would cost, in his calculations, up to $120,000 each. The sewer lines cannot be built over. 

Portney explained that the Maplewood Village Alliance design guidelines had been incorporated into the plan where applicable.

Regarding a charge that the property was not zoned for business (NB) but for single-family housing (R-1-7) as argued in a memo submitted to the Board by planner Peter Steck, Carlson reported that the ruling by the Town zoning officer refuting the claim stood and that it was not "up to this Board to make an independent ruling."

Carlson then opened the meeting to public comments. The comments overwhelmingly objected to the size of the project. Many commenters were open to the development of multi-unit housing on the site but on a smaller scale; some commenters objected to the development of the site as anything other than recreational.

David Heumer was among the latter. Urging the Board to "reject this plan," Heumer said that the Town was in desperate need of more open space and asked the Board to be visionary. He invoked the action taken by the Town in the 1950s when leaders condemned a row of houses on Baker Street to make way for the construction of the library.

John Kaufman argued that the plan was "not a grand plan" and complained that it only considered the area in need of rehabilitation and not the entire neighborhood of properties on Dunnell Road.

Inda Sechzer talked about the historic nature of the building and the fact that it was "one of a set piece of buildings around the park." Addressing the issue of bulk and size of the building, she added memorably: "The fact that you can shoe horn a building into a site doesn't necessarily mean that you should do it." She received a loud round of applause.

Marvin Clawson, a local architect, caused a stir when he presented two renderings of possible buildings for the site, one at 50' and one at 35'. The compelling drawings showed an apartment building and a more modest row of six contiguous town homes. The town homes would allow for 24 units, said Clawson, with surface and single-car garages in back.

"This is a great opportunity to do something special, something different," said Clawson. "Like our forefathers before us, we can be visionaries."

When the Planning Board closed comments to deliberate, the conversation sounded promising for dramatically limiting the height of the building. 

Mayor Vic De Luca was the most staunchly opposed to amending the plan. "I think this plan is absolutely consistent with the master plan," he said.

John Branigan countered, "As much as I defer to Vic, I believe there are points not embodied in the current redevelopment plan"--these included historic preservation, the option of creating more public space, the impact on infrastructure, and sustainability. Branigan said his biggest reservation was that the plan did not respond to the "context of the buildings around it and their scale."

Said Nancy Adams, "I would like to see a more modest plan for size and bulk."

Other Board members echoed Adams' thoughts, including Lester Lewis-Powder, but De Luca urged the group not to limit height as he looked ahead to negotiating with developers. "We might need that extra height on the roof to do a sustainability measure" such as a garden or solar panels. 

Still, Chair Tom Carlson said, "I believe the builk requirements as put forward in this plan are way too much."

Ultimately, the Board recommended the following:

-Limiting the height to "all-in" at 50'. Said Carlson, this would keep the bulk of the building to no more than 42'. Under current zoning, the building could go as high as 60' with the addition of "appurtenances" such as chimneys. This recommendation, therefore, would be more restrictive than existing zoning.

-Stipulating a 25' setback from the sidewalk.

-Recommending the preservation of trees on the property when possible.

-Amending zoning for the surrounding properties to reflect the height and setback recommendations for this site.

The Board found that the redevelopment plan was in compliance with the Town Master Plan, with John Branigan as the sole dissenter. 

Still, when it came down to making recommendations, the language used by the Board seemed mild by opponents' standards. 

Said Carol LaRosa, "We all got to speak our piece and they all did what they decided to do a month ago."

Inda Sechzer was more philosophical: "Their intentions are quite good," she said. "But I'm very concerned with the 50' height limit." Sechzer said she felt that the language of the stipulation wasn't specific enough to ensure that the building would not be bulky.

Opponents of the plan will have another chance to express their views on Monday night at the Township Committee meeting. "It is the intention of the Township Committee to consider the ordinance in its second hearing and that requires a public hearing," said De Luca, who recused himself from voting on the recommendations. And then, added De Luca, the Township Committee will take action.