A concept plan for a mixed-use development that would include a mix of modest-sized stores, personal and professional services, corporate suites, market rate-residential units and Project Freedom, which provides affordable housing for people with disabilities, on the 46.21-acre Maneely site off Old Bear Brook Road was presented to the Planning Board for review on June 25.##M:[more]##
Maneely Princeton LLC, which owns the site, is looking to have the site placed into a new Planned Mixed-Use Neighborhood/Affordable Housing (PMN) District. West Windsor Planning officials have been working on a draft of the ordinance that would change the Master Plan to include the zone. The last draft was updated in August, 2006. The zone would set forth requirements for the creation of a village-style center that is pedestrian-friendly with a mixture of uses.
Residents and Planning Board members expressed a variety of concerns during the meeting, although a formal Planning Board hearing has not yet been scheduled. Some residents listed concerns about the impacts to the environment, including stormwater runoff, and the change of character of the area, including the view of the project from their homes. Still, some residents and Planning Board officials said they felt it was important to work on bringing Project Freedom into the township as soon as possible.
The Maneely site is located on Bear Brook Road and Old Bear Brook Road, adjacent to the Estates at Princeton Junction, and across from Windsor Haven. The concept plans propose that 15 acres of the site be preserved, including the detention areas. A majority of the preserved land corresponds with the greenbelt area, flood plain, and wood line. Plans also call for 51 townhouses, 46 apartments, and 60 Project Freedom affordable housing units on the site. The non-residential component of the site is proposed to include 202 hotel suites with a 7,”800 square-foot business center and a 3,”200 square-foot fitness center, as well as 11,”000 square feet of office space and 40,”000 square feet of retail space.
The plans also show a main street area, with on-street parking, bikeways, and large sidewalk area with street trees to encourage alternate travel modes. The plan also includes a roundabout at the intersection of Bear Brook Road and Old Bear Brook Road that would serve as the main entrance to the entire site.
Township traffic consultant Gary Davies has said that a roundabout serving the private development as the main entrance is not a policy he would recommend, although project officials said the design of the entranceway could be reconfigured at a later time.
Of the 46.21 acres, Maneely has proposed to provide 10 of the acres for the non-profit municipally-sponsored affordable housing development known as Project Freedom. Both the 10 acres set aside for the project and the 15 acres to be preserved meet township policy guidelines in the land use plan, according to a memo sent from township planner John Madden to the Planning Board regarding his review of the plans prior to the meeting. He also states in the memo that Maneely’s concept plan conforms to the township’s Master Plan, “except for the location of the plaza.”
For the concept plan to fully comply, the “plaza” would have to be centrally located and consist of at least 5,”000 square feet. The concept plans show an activity lawn adjacent to Project Freedom, and at another space located along the southwest corner of the property, but those pieces are not centrally located, nor are they associated with retail, which would require a waiver.
Drawings show Project Freedom to the located on the eastern portion of the site. The 60 affordable housing units would be divided among 10 buildings with six housing units each. The plans also show a Project Freedom Community Center building. To the center of the site, drawings show nine buildings with 22 hotel suites each. To the immediate west of those buildings is the roundabout and entrance, surrounded by four retail buildings — two of which show the apartments located on the second and third floors, and two of which show apartments located only on the second floor. To the west of that are the townhomes.
The development of the site would generate the need for 41 affordable housing units under the state Council on Affordable Housing’s proposed amended rules. Therefore, Madden said in his memo, of the proposed 97 non-municipally sponsored dwelling units, 20 of those units must be provided for low or moderate-income households.
Under the proposed amended COAH rules, credits and bonuses would be provided for family rental or permanent supportive housing units — which would give the township two credits each — and for affordable housing units that are built within one-fourth to one-half a mile from a transit stop, which would give the township 1.33 credits each. Because Project Freedom has units that would fall into the permanent supportive housing units category, the project could generate as many as 120 credits.
And if the additional 20 units required to be set aside for affordable housing as a result of the development of the site are family rentals, West Windsor could receive a two-for-one credit bonus up to 40 credits — or it could receive up to 26 credits because those units would fall within a half-mile of the train station, regardless of the type of unit.
A drawback is that despite the bonus credits allowed for under the proposed COAH regulations, those regulations also proposed a bonus credit cap, which is 25 percent of a township’s growth share.
Madden also stated in his report that it is possible for the Project Freedom site to accommodate at least three or four more buildings with six dwelling units each, which would add an additional 18 to 24 affordable housing units, which would generate 1 to 2 credits a piece, depending on whether West Windsor reached its bonus cap.
Jim Hartling, with Urban Partners, of Philadelphia, who analyzed fiscal impacts of the project to the township and school district, said the townhomes would probably sell for around $540,”000, in today’s market.
Using a methodology created by officials at Rutgers to determine the amount of school children generated by the site, he said that the 222 new residents estimated to move in would add about 22 new school children between the ages of five and 17 to district schools. On the other hand, using the methodology compiled by Stan Katz, the school board’s de facto demographer, he said estimates show that those 222 residents could add between 25 and 25 school children, he said.
Looking at the $66 billion project as a whole, he said he expected at about $284,”000 for the township and $945,”000 for the school district. With regard to expenses, the project could cause the township to need to expend about $335,”000, and the school district to expend between $257,”000 and $356,”000.
Still, subtracting those expenses from the expected revenue would leave the township with about $49,”000 extra in revenue each year, and the school district with between $589,”000 and $688,”000 a year. “This is at full development using 2008 prices,” he said. The numbers did not include the affordable housing units.
Tim Dougherty, the executive director of Project Freedom, said that in most cases, Project Freedom residents do not have children. He said out of the 137 units he has at another Project Freedom site, there are only six children living in the development.
Madden said the site’s location within close proximity to the train station and with its own retail uses would be beneficial for these residents, as well as residents on this west side of the track. “This side of the track does not have a neighborhood center,” he said.
Steve Decter asked whether the location of the housing and retail within close proximity to the redevelopment area would be too competitive for the retail uses set aside for the train station area. Madden said the redevelopment project is envisioned to be more of a town center area, with retail uses that would be more upscale.
There was some concern over whether the retail should be mostly limited to residents of the development. Board member Diane Ciccone said she felt the site would serve residents of the immediate area, but she didn’t like the proposal to put the project Freedom units all the way at the back of the site, farther from the train. She also said that there were a lot of parking lots on site that should be reduced, and that the proposals looked “just too dense.” She said she didn’t want to see any of the buildings on site reach more than three stories high, and the 60 percent impervious coverage should be reduced, she said.
Board members, including chair Marvin Gardner, also said they were concerned about traffic circulation issues and the estimated 4,”000 square foot retail stores. He also said he was concerned about the longevity issue, and wondered if those staying at the corporate suites for a a whole year, for example, as they work on projects in the area for their companies, would bring their families, including children, with them for that time. He also reminded Maneely officials that the Planning Board has a very consistent track record of not approving of three-bedroom units, which was proposed for the townhouses. Board members also said they were concerned about safe pedestrian connections, and Maneely officials said those specific plans would come later as officials move more toward a formal presentation to the board.
Some residents encouraged the board to continue working toward bringing the project into the site as soon as possible because of the benefits to the Project Freedom residents and because it helps solve some affordable housing needs in the township. “If they want a loaf of bread or some milk, they won’t have to travel so far,” said Florence Cohen, the chair of the township’s affordable housing committee.
However, Debra Lemeshow, who is the president of the Windsor Haven homeowners association and a former Planning Board member, said she was “counting on the board to help us mitigate the stormwater runoff,” problems that have existed at the development for a while now, and pointed out that her development mostly consists of two-bedroom units and still generates a significant amount of school-age children.
Resident Alison Miller, said she is glad to see the site finally come before the public, but listed a number of concerns. T township barely provides senior housing consisting of for-sale attached units, which she said she would like to see on the site. “We don’t have an opportunity for older people who want to downsize.” She also said she didn’t like how the corporate suites were described as having amenities exclusive for its patrons, and suggested that the corporate suites were more suitable in the redevelopment area next to the train station, rather than in this development.
Many longtime residents of the area voiced their concerns. Holly Kelemen said she was concerned about the stormwater management impacts, and the possibility that the greenbelt could be harmed if some trees had to be removed. “The west side is a jewel and should not be treated as an end-all to West Windsor’s problems.”
Gay Huber, deputy municipal clerk, but speaking as a resident of the neighborhood, said she didn’t mind the townhouses or Project Freedom, but she felt that the project would ruin the rural character of the area. “Preserve it as farmland — what it’s been for over 100 years,” she said.
Gardner said he felt that “Project Freedom is a noble initiative, which allows people with special needs to live with dignity,” and that he’d like to see township officials work to move toward finding a site for it “as expeditiously as possible.” He did mention, though, that there are two other sites in the township that could possibly serve as a home for the project.
Gardner asked township professionals to act on reviewing the plans using the input from board members and the public. “We haven’t even scratched the surface,” he said.
Master Plan Adopted In other Planning Board business, the board adopted its Master Plan re-examination report on June 18. The report suggests potential revisions to the Master Plan and development regulations.
“We went through the new things we were seeking to accomplish, followed by bold-type specific changes we recommend,” said Planning Board Chairman Marvin Gardner. “This basically looks to the future.”
All of the changes listed in the report are not officially adopted, Gardner emphasized. “We will direct the staff at the appropriate time to do a study and come up with some proposals relative to each of these items that we suggested need to be addressed. In the event we feel these proposals under discussion have merit, we would move to amend the Master Plan.”
