It seems West Windsor may finally have the linchpin project that will transform its downtown area from “Plywood Junction” into a revitalized business district. After four lengthy meetings — the last of which was held on January 12 and ended after 1 a.m. — the township Planning Board approved an application for the renovation of the former Acme shopping center.
That hearing featured a heated exchange in which the developer threatened to withdraw his application if he was not granted waivers for the signs he wanted to place on the 13.5-acre site located at the corner of Alexander and Princeton-Hightstown roads.
Ultimately Cyzner Properties, which purchased the Windsor Plaza shopping center in May, 2010, was able to retain the sign for Route 571 as proposed. The developer was also granted the right to use a 20 percent smaller version of the same sign on Alexander Road.
Despite high tensions during the process, West Windsor officials viewed the outcome as a positive step. “Hopefully, this shopping center renovation will serve as a catalyst for future development within the redevelopment area,” said Planning Board chairman Marvin Gardner after the application was approved, 7-0.
Tenants in the currently dilapidated shopping center also pleaded with the board to allow the developer to place two monument signs — one on the Alexander Road side and one on the Route 571 side — that stood at a little more than 13 feet and contained two columns of 10 names, which would allow each of the tenants in the newly renovated shopping center to have their businesses displayed. The signs required waivers for height and size, and only one sign of that nature was permitted on the property.
“This is a time where the town has the capability to prove that they’re not anti-business,” said Irv Cyzner, owner of Cyzner Properties. “I’m not going to spend this kind of money if it’s not done the right way. This place needs signage like that.”
The exchange came well after the Planning Board listened to an hour-long presentation from Richard Crawford, a legislative consultant with the United States Sign Council, a Bristol, PA-based association dedicated to providing an educational resource for the sign industry. It is the largest association of independent sign shops in the world.
Crawford testified about his research as a member of the USSC, which included studies about the various sizes and dimensions of signs and about their impacts on drivers. “Motorists need to be able to use a sign, make a decision, and perform a maneuver,” he testified. Based on factors like speed limits, time, and distance, he justified the size of the sign, its height, and the lettering used by Cyzner in his plans.
“If I were designing it, it would be taller and larger, but the design that has been proposed is acceptable at minimum,” he said.
But the Planning Board’s professionals disagreed, and at one point Planning Board Attorney Gerald Muller questioned whether Crawford, who was not a licensed traffic engineer or planner, was overstepping his area of expertise by testifying on traffic safety as it relates to signage.
Planning Board members questioned whether it was necessary to even list all of the tenants on the sign — one reason for the sign’s larger size.
John Madden, the township’s planner, and Ted Ehrlich, the township’s traffic engineer, said it was not possible for a driver to read all of the tenant names on the sign and make a decision to come into the shopping center in the time it took to drive by the center.
Ehrlich said he drove the Route 1 corridor as far away as Edison and did not notice any signs that contained all the vendors’ names. In addition, Planning officials said that the speed limit on Alexander Road was only 25 MPH, while the 40 MPH speed limit on Route 571 would probably be lowered by the county to 35.
Planning Board members also asked whether the signs with all the tenants’ names would have an effect on sales. “The idea someone is going to pick out one tenant in the time period he testified about is not going to happen,” said Madden. “Whether it’s going to generate business, I don’t see any evidence of that.”
Tenants disagreed. “I am surviving on the good help from West Windsor residents,” said Aljon’s owner Carlo Pugliese, who has operated his business and lived in town for 15 years. He said that while West Windsor residents know he is there, commuters through the area have no idea he is located in the center. Even his own neighbors in Windsor Ponds have asked him where his business is located and have told him they drove by the area, but could not find it.
“It is important to have a sign right on the road,” he added. “Anything you’re going to have in there is going to need all the help we can get.”
Suniti Chandani, who owns the Windsor Hair Design salon in the shopping center, said she bought the place seven years ago and commutes from 65 miles away. “I love it here,” she said. “But businesses are hurting.” She said that she has clients who have come to her through references, and others who come from far away as Connecticut, New York, and Washington, D.C. “I have clients that have followed me from Manalapan and Freehold but can’t find my location.”
Wan Pae, owner of the Bagel Hole, said that the plaza has lost some West Windsor customers because there is no longer a grocery store, and it is no longer convenient for residents to venture to the plaza for other needs. Therefore, he said, the shopping center needs commuters and nonresidents who pass by to patronize the businesses.
Greg Strawn, a resident of Sherbrooke Drive, also supported the signs. “You’ve got an outfit coming in here that’s trying to make a difference,” he said. “I think we should seriously err on the side of flexibility.”
Fisher Place resident Pete Weale criticized the Planning Board for having to hold multiple meetings on the issue. Cyzner officials “are probably not going to put up a 200 by 200 foot pink sign,” he said. “I don’t think the sign height is any higher than the Shell sign.”
He accused township officials of “beating up” developers who come to West Windsor. “Why are we beating up Cyzner Properties?”
Planning Board officials responded that much of the time during the meetings was consumed with expert testimony and presentations from Cyzner’s consultants.
Resident John Church said he felt most of the business that was going to be generated was local. “People are very quickly going to get familiar with what is in the plaza,” he said. “It’s not necessary to have an enormous sign.”
The board’s professionals tried to come up with their own alternatives, but Cyzner remained firm in keeping his signs as proposed. “It’s the sign that has to be approved for this development to work,” said Cyzner’s attorney Frank Petrino, who then requested that the board take a straw vote on the sign issue before the application proceeded.
“We don’t want to go beyond tonight,” Petrino said. “We want to know how this signage issue would proceed.” He testified that there was a possibility that Cyzner would withdraw his application to renovate the site if the vote indicated the board would not permit the signs as proposed.
The board took a recess, and Planning Board members dispersed to consult with their professionals. The meeting re-opened after 10 p.m., when the board indicated it would not take a straw vote and instead, wanted to proceed with the application.
Petrino then requested a continuation until March. “Between now and then, we’ll tell you how we want to proceed,” said Petrino.
Board members said they did not want to come back in March and said they wanted to finish the application then. Some said they wanted to compromise.
Visibly and audibly frustrated, Cyzner responded, at one point pounding his fist into the table. He said he had been compromising since the beginning of the process. “I cannot continue to pay all the experts,” he said, adding that accepting smaller signage would lead to an unsuccessful center and “revolving tenants.”
“From a business standpoint, we can’t be building as fancy as this to have revolving door tenants,” he said. “All we’re asking for is that the tenants have a shot of surviving. It’s not going to move forward if it’s not done right.” Cyzner said the idea of having a corner lot is that traffic comes from both sides. “Everything we’ve done here is compromise. We’re going into the fifth meeting. How patient can someone be?”
When Cyzner indicated he would compromise on the size of the Alexander Road sign, board members jumped on the idea, and eventually the two sides agreed that he would keep his sign as proposed for Route 571 — a little over 13 feet high with 20 total tenant panels, with two columns of 10 tenants each. The same would be the case for the Alexander Road side of the road, except that the size of the sign would be reduced by 20 percent. The sign on Route 571 would be a total of 103 square feet, while the Alexander Road sign would be reduced to approximately 84 square feet.
Most of the other larger issues were tackled at previous meetings, although the board spent the remaining two hours going through other conditions on the site before voting.
Plans for the site, where Starbucks has already signed a letter of intent to move, include the reduction in square footage from 59,500 to 58,055 square feet. Two back loading areas will be demolished to make way for a circular road connection around the site for deliveries that would lead out to a proposed new driveway connection to Alexander Road, across from Harris Road.
The plans feature a facelift for the shopping center that includes a cupola on the side of the building closest to Alexander Road. Plans also included increasing the number of parking spaces from 311 to 342.
The suggested circulation reconfiguration would permit trucks to enter through the second driveway on Alexander Road, head behind the shopping center’s main building, and leave through the Route 571 main entrance. One of the biggest areas of concern for nearby residents was the possibility that trucks, as well as other traffic, would leave through the site and head straight across onto Harris Road, creating dangerous traffic conditions.
Ultimately, it was decided to allow the proposed driveway, but that there would be signage posted directly across from that area of ingress and egress on the corner of Harris Road, which will prohibit trucks from entering Harris Road. “There is already an ordinance that is in effect that makes it punishable,” said Gardner. “We didn’t have to craft it. It can be enforced.”
The other contentious issue throughout the hearing was the issue of trails through the Acme woods. The township’s professional consultants agreed with the developer that creating trails through the Acme Woods would not be feasible due to environmental constraints and liability issues, and the board allowed the developer to leave the Acme Woods the way they are.
Cyzner did indicate, however, that in the future, if the township wanted to acquire the woods, he would consider talking with township officials.
After the meeting, Gardner said he was pleased that the board examined all the issues closely that were raised by Cyzner, the township’s consultants, and the public. “The necessity for holding several meetings dealing with these issues arose because the developer requested a considerable number of waivers that needed to be thoroughly vetted by the consultants, both on the developer’s side and the township’s side,” he said.
“The applicant, in presenting its testimony, took considerable time in spelling out its position at the initial hearing,” said Gardner. “More than three hours was devoted to the developer presenting its plans and outlook for the center. The applicant’s sign expert’s presentation consumed nearly two hours at the last hearing.”
He said the board needed to give the developer and the public “ample opportunity” to express their views so that everyone would be comfortable with the decisions that were made. “I strongly urged that the developer move as expeditiously as possible to renovate the center and suggest that all governmental entities involved in the process cooperate fully in this endeavor,” Gardner said.
