MONTGOMERY — The 32-unit residential portion of the Montgomery Promenade that was highly criticized by the Planning Board during its Jan. 28 meeting received the board’s approval Monday.
The 16 age-restricted duplex houses will occupy both sides of an approximately half-mile street near the pedestrian-friendly shopping center component of the Montgomery Promenade.
The shopping center, which received final approval from the Planning Board late last year, is located near the southwest corner of Route 206 and Route 518. It will include 325,000 square feet of retail space and a central plaza. The only portion of the project that has not yet been presented to the board for final approval is the development of free-standing commercial lots that will be located on the outskirts of the shopping center.
The Planning Board’s disapproval of the initial design for the residential component of the project had centered on what was described as the vast amount of color options for the houses’ siding, the addition of brick gables to some of the unit models and general busyness of the residential streetscape. These aspects of the streetscape were not included in an updated version of the artist’s rendering that was presented at Monday’s meeting.
Two additional unit models were incorporated into the streetscape, adding to the possible combinations of units to be used in each duplex. A new limitation on siding colors that allows only white, beige and tan to be used on the exterior of the units was another change the Planning Board favored. To achieve the continuity the township requested, the architect gave all units white trim and matching roofs.
The Planning Board’s only unresolved issues regarding the residential component of the project relate to the locations of the utility lines, setbacks of wrap-around porches that are part of some of the unit models’ designs and privacy fencing designs.
Although Mayor Cecilia Birge, who is a member of the Planning Board, voted in favor of the application’s approval, she expressed her disappointment during and after the meeting over the lack of energy-saving design elements.
”I was encouraged by the energy efficiency that they had talked about, but in the meantime, I wish that they had done more given today’s environment where there are so many different green options available,” she said, following the meeting. “I think they really choose to do a little more than the minimum to promote sustainability on this part of the site.”
The design itself also fell short of the Planning Board’s expectations, according to Mayor Birge.
”I am not entirely thrilled by the design,” she said. “It’s not the cookie cutter look that we were accustomed to seeing in 1990s in Montgomery and that’s a good thing. It’s got some individuality; however, we’re still not seeing the kind of little villas we envisioned.
”I was pleased to see that the plan looked less messy and less tacky, but it’s still disappointing that it didn’t present the kind of sophistication that we expected from Madison Marquette,” Mayor Birge added.
During the same meeting, Madison Marquette requested a waiver from meeting the township’s asphalt thickness requirements in the parking lot of the shopping center portion of the project. The applicant’s engineer requested the township allow it to pour less than six inches of asphalt to save a “significant” amount of money; the savings was not disclosed. The applicant’s engineer claimed that Madison Marquette would be able to create a parking lot of equivalent quality to one with six inches of asphalt by applying a thicker sub-base.
The Planning Board’s engineering consultant, Kevin Becica, said she could not approve the request during the meeting. Members of the board said until Madison Marquette’s engineer was able to convince Ms. Becica that their proposal would be sufficient that they could grant the waiver. The Planning Board tabled the hearing and Madison Marquette representatives said they would meet with Ms. Becica to further discuss the issue.
