INCLINED TO DENY – Historic Preservation Commission chairman Pat Shimalla told representatives from J.H.T. Properties that he was initially inclined to deny their application for a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission at the June 15 meeting. The Township Historic Preservation Advisory Commission again declined June 16 to endorse a proposed retail center on a Route 27 historic site, saying the design still does not fit the character of the area. Commission members told representatives of J.H.T. Properties that their revised plan for a small retail center and restaurant at 3017-3021 Route 27 – a site that once housed Somerset County’s first courthouse – remained too closely modeled on a modern strip mall to win Commission support for a Certificate of Appropriateness. The developer needs the certificate because the property falls in an historic zone. The panel stopped short of an outright denial, instead sending the applicants back to redesign the building's architecture. "Strip mall architecture will not be appropriate," Commission chairman Pat Shimalla said, reading directly from the panel's recommendations issued after the applicants' previous appearance in April. "This is strip mall architecture. Not appropriate." Shimalla said the plan before the Commission was nearly identical to the one submitted at the prior meeting. "You just went and did your own thing and brought it back again," he said. "It does not address anything about architectural compatibility with the site." Commission member Nancy Hohnstine echoed that view, telling the applicants' attorney that the proposed design was "not consistent with the historic structure that was demolished a year ago." She urged the project team to think of Nassau Street in Princeton as a model. "If you could make it softer," she said. "This looks like Legos, or it looks like modular things that were just, you know, storage trailers that were just backed up.". The site carries a complicated history. An historic building previously stood on the property but was torn down without authorization by the prior owners, who were assessed fines. Shimalla said he was not certain whether those fines had been paid and whether the matter resolved with the township. Attorney John DeLuca, representing J.H.T. Properties, said the matter had been settled. "The site's vacant," DeLuca said when asked to describe the current state of the property. He said the fines and demolition matter had been addressed with the township. Shimalla said the Commission bears no jurisdiction over the demolition itself. "We cannot approve or disapprove whatever you did with the demolition," he said. "It's already done. We didn't levy the fines against you. That's the town." DeLuca objected early in the meeting to what he characterized as the Commission relying on written comments from former Commission chairman, the late Andrew Burian, who, DeLuca said, had not seen the current plan. "I unfortunately have to object to this Commission relying on the comments made by Andrew that were passed down, because Andrew's never seen this plan," he said. Shimalla replied that the Burian’s recommendations -- calling for architecture that referenced the historic character of the surrounding area without creating a "faux historic appearance" -- remained valid as general guidance. "He gave examples of what the architecture would be appropriate in that area," Shimalla said. DeLuca also argued that the Commission had not reached consensus at the prior meeting that the building's facade was unacceptable. "There were multiple Commission members that said they had no problem with the facade," he said. "The only comment that they made was that maybe you should change the material so that it doesn't have grain in it and it doesn't collect dirt." Shimalla disputed that characterization. "You were told that the last time at the last meeting," he said, adding that the architectural incompatibility had been listed as the primary concern in the panel's written recommendations. Project architect Bill Feinberg said the team was willing to redesign the roofline and facade to incorporate more traditional elements. He described a possible approach in which a gabled front element, roughly five feet deep, would be added to give the appearance of a pitched roof while maintaining a flat roof structure behind it for functional reasons. "I would go down that road if you say that's okay," Feinberg said. "What I ended up doing is putting a gable in front, okay? To give us some relief. And these are a little high-pitched, but I can bring back an example, and we can do that." Feinberg cited technical constraints that made a full gabled roof impractical. The building, roughly 86 feet deep, would require a roof pitch of less than 3-in-12 to stay within height limits -- below the 4-in-12 minimum pitch that shingle manufacturers require to warranty their products. "Manufacturers of shingles won't let you put a roof that they guarantee a warranty when it's less than 4 on 12 pitch," he said. He also raised the issue of rooftop mechanical equipment. "We have to deal with rooftop air conditioners," Feinberg said. "They're not going to let us put them on the ground, they're not going to let us even put them behind the building." Commission member Anthony Gamin, participating by phone, suggested the team consider surrounding the roof with a parapet wall and incorporating dormers with traditional windows and shutters to conceal the equipment. "Maybe you could surround the roof with a parapet wall, which is sort of a mansard look, or a slight slope and dormers coming out of that with windows that are 6-over-1 and a couple of shutters on them," Gamin said. Feinberg said he could work with that concept, using brick, stucco and cementitious siding elements to create a gabled appearance along the front facade. "I think I could start to soften this up and get you in the direction you need to be in," he said. Hohnstine pushed for an architectural style that evoked a downtown commercial streetscape rather than a suburban shopping center. "We don't want to have that strip mall across the street," she said, referring to an existing commercial development on Route 27. "That one across the street is ugly, ugly, ugly." Feinberg sought to clarify what specific historic style the Commission had in mind. "What I'm hearing is, you want a historic replication or homage to a colonial architecture," he said. "You know, there's Queen Anne, there's all kinds of historic styles that you can go through." Commission member Glenn McParland urged the team to consider the history of the site itself in shaping the design. "Bringing elements of a courthouse, you know, I don't expect columns and what, but consider what the property was originally, and what was lost there," McParland said. The original Somerset County courthouse plaque and a stone donated by the Daughters of the American Revolution, which had stood on the property, were discussed as possible elements to incorporate into a historic marker on the site. Project engineer Jeffrey Haberman said the applicants had met with the Township’s Technical Review Committee since their prior appearance and had revised the site plan to address some earlier concerns, including adding a substantial landscaping buffer along the Route 27 frontage to screen parking and soften the view from the road. He said the two-building layout – one planned as a 7,000-square-foot restaurant and one as separate 15,000-square-foot retail center – and the placement of parking in both front and rear of the property were driven by township stormwater and traffic requirements. "You have to keep back,” he said. “You have to put stormwater facilities on this site. You have to put parking in the front." Haberman attributed those requirements to township code and feedback from the Technical Review Committee. Commission member Susan Carroll said the submitted materials were also missing required documentation. "We need to see what the properties are. We need a tax map. That's part of the application," Carroll said, noting that the panel needed to understand the relationship of the proposed development to neighboring residential properties on Orchard Street. Commission member Bob LaCorte said he had no objection to some parking in the front and urged the Commission to give the applicants clear direction rather than sending them away without guidance. "I would suggest right now that you tell them exactly what you want so this is not bouncing back and forth," LaCorte said. By the end of the meeting, Shimalla agreed to withhold a formal denial motion and give the applicants another opportunity to return with a redesigned submission. "We don't want to deny you from building anything or to do anything," Shimalla said. "Our intention is just to make sure that we're putting a square peg in a square hole and the things fit, and it's representative of the nature and historic value of the area." He told the applicants the architecture must be addressed first. "If you don't answer that first question, it really doesn't make a difference how many bushes you have," Shimalla said. "It doesn't make a difference how many parking spots you have. It doesn't make a difference about anything, because you didn't do what is required for that location in the architectural design." Shimalla also encouraged the applicants and the property owners to visit other commercial properties along Route 27 that the Commission had cited as appropriate models. "I'm talking to the owners," he said. "So you understand the feeling of what ... because you might look at it and may want to do something different with it." The Commission noted its recommendations are advisory, and the applicants could ultimately proceed to the Planning Board without Commission approval. However, LaCorte noted that the Planning Board typically expects to see Commission input before reviewing applications for historic sites.
The Franklin Reporter & Advocate Eight Villages, One Community
