The Township Council should demand that InterCap Holdings provide a fiscal impact study before voting on the two ordinances that would settle the developer’s lawsuit against the town and enable the construction of a development in the Princeton Junction redevelopment zone.
In addition, the council should add more retail to the area, limit the number of bedrooms in the housing units to two, eliminate the cross streets through the promenade, and require InterCap to fulfill any affordable housing requirements on site — based on present and future regulations, whatever they may be.
These were among the recommendations from the Planning Board, which spent nearly 11 hours over the course of two meetings discussing the ordinances. The board was charged with reviewing the ordinances from the settlement against the goals of the redevelopment plan for consistency.
If adopted as originally written, the ordinances would put into effect the redevelopment as negotiated. InterCap, led by Goldin, a township resident, had sued West Windsor over the redevelopment designation of the 350-acre area around the Princeton Junction train station, which included InterCap’s 25 acres on Washington Road.
Now the Township Council must decide whether to implement the board’s recommendations when it votes during a public hearing on the ordinances on Monday, March 7.
Between the two meetings on February 23 and March 2, the Planning Board’s specially-hired consultants changed their opinions on a key issue — the promenade, or “woonerf,” a feature that proposes vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists sharing the same road space.
Originally, the consultants said on February 23 that the concept would not work in a town like West Windsor, but later said they overlooked the on-street parking within the promenade, which would act as a traffic-calming measure.
They even took it a step further and said the “shared” concept would not be a true one because the parking would naturally separate the areas where people would drive from the areas they would bike and walk.
The board hired the outside professionals to avoid a conflict of interest and provide an unbiased review of the ordinances. They are being paid out of the board’s professionals’ budget.
In addition to their original concerns about the “shared concept” for circulation in the promenade, the consultants also expressed concern about potential traffic problems associated with cross streets perpendicular to the promenade, the density of the 800 housing units proposed in the plan, and the low percentage of affordable housing — all of which were addressed in the board’s final recommendations.
If the recommendations are accepted by council, they would essentially reinstate certain goals of the township’s redevelopment plan that would be deleted as a result of adopting the new ordinances. However, officials said, changing the ordinances would invalidate the settlement agreement between the township and InterCap and send the matter back to the courts.
In January the Township Council introduced the two ordinances in order to enact the settlement agreement adopted in November. The settlement calls for 800 housing units, retail, and infrastructure and amenity improvements on InterCap’s property at the Princeton Junction train station. The most notable is the 50,000-square-foot promenade that would provide a public area for residents and a “shared space” between cars, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
The first ordinance outlines standards as they apply to the InterCap property and identifies the areas of the redevelopment plan that will not be applied to the InterCap tract. The second ordinance guarantees that the terms of the settlement and redeveloper’s agreement will remain in place, even if the township’s redevelopment plan is struck down by subsequent litigation, should it occur.
Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg must hold a “fairness hearing” and then approve the settlement once the ordinances are adopted, a component of the agreement. If Feinberg grants approval, a development site plan application as outlined by the settlement would go to the West Windsor Planning Board for approval. If the board approves the application, Intercap will dismiss its lawsuit against the township.
“Our recommendations are not binding,” said Planning Board Chairman Marvin Gardner during the meeting on February 23. “The settlement agreement was very specific. I really question what we can change here. Later on, if the Planning Board denies the site plan, InterCap can continue litigation.”
While there were a number of concerns, Township Attorney Michael Herbert, who has been negotiating with InterCap on behalf of the township, explained to the board that many of the provisions in the ordinance were the result of over a year of negotiations and compromises with InterCap, which would not budge on certain issues.
Linda Weber, of the Philadelphia-based Brown & Keener planning firm, who was hired to be the board’s planner for the case, explained that she reviewed the ordinances for consistency with the township’s redevelopment plan.
Weber took the position echoed by some residents during council meetings — that a fiscal impact study be conducted and submitted before approval of the ordinances, but Herbert said that study “should not have to be a pre-condition of approval for this ordinance.” The fiscal impact statement would come during site plan approval.
He also pointed to projections made by experts who testified during the redevelopment finance subcommittee meetings a few years ago in the process. Those experts found that as few as .28 children would be generated by the development, or as little as one school-aged child for every four housing units.
Councilwoman Linda Geevers, who is also on the board, pointed out, however, that the redevelopment plan requires the fiscal impact study before any agreement is accepted. “I have to believe the developer has the information,” she said, noting that during InterCap’s privately-funded presentations to the public during discussions on the redevelopment plan, his professionals presented some figures. “All they have to do is update it.”
While Herbert tried to obtain fiscal impact numbers from InterCap, the developer would not provide them. Instead, he presented the board with estimates calculated in May, 2008, which estimated that the entire project would generate a ratable base of $400 million, from which the township could receive as much as $9.1 million in property taxes. This was based on calculating 800 units with an average price of $400,000 and adding the value of retail units into the mix.
Among Weber’s other concerns on February 23 was the density of 800 housing units that would be located on InterCap’s 25 acres within the redevelopment area.
While Herbert maintained that the township would be receiving a slew of amenities, including the promenade, road improvements, money, and mandated architectural features to ensure the development looked the way West Windsor envisioned, Weber questioned the validity of including specific and detailed architectural design standards as amenities.
Architectural standards, she said, were not amenities. Amenities are considered to be improvements that go above and beyond what is called for in the township’s redevelopment plan and add a “special, unique quality.”
The architectural designs, as described in the ordinance, were already included in the redevelopment plan, which specified only 350 units to begin. “Why are they so special to warrant the additional density?” she asked. She said though, that it’s “not to say that [density] wasn’t merited based on other reasons, like the traffic improvements — but certainly not the architecture.”
She also disagreed with Herbert’s position that the density of housing should be compared against the acreage of the entire 350-acre redevelopment area. Housing for the whole area would be limited to InterCap’s property, as the redevelopment plan does not call for housing on any other site. However, Weber said, “equally as important is the density of this particular tract because this is the neighborhood.” The quality of life for a neighborhood cannot be “averaged” throughout the entire site, she added.
“This is a very high density for this particular site,” she said. “There are issues that are only site specific and cannot be averaged.”
During the subsequent meeting on March 2, Weber said she did not feel the density was an “inconsistency” with the redevelopment plan. “However, I have serious concerns about it.”
She said that under the ordinance, the tract of land owned by InterCap would have 95 percent coverage of the land. If it turns out that Intercap cannot fit its 800 units into the site because it is already fully developed, she said, “those units are going to break into the promenade and retail.”
“I have no concerns about 800 units,” Weber added. “It’s the fact that the 800 units will all be squeezed in on this tract.”
Herbert disputed this, saying that the 95 percent coverage is specifically called for in the township’s current redevelopment plan and that the ordinances specifically state that the 800 units must fit within the four stories designated for housing. The 80-foot promenade “is guaranteed” in the settlement, he said. “If the developer cannot fit 800 units, that’s his problem.”.
Weber said she also recommended the board require InterCap to provide at least 10 percent affordable housing, as the 5 percent is less than what is typically required under COAH regulations.
The “woonerf” — the European design for the promenade area — may not be successful, Weber originally pointed out. “It relies on people being out there, and that function occurring frequently,” she said. “There may not be the density of people using it as such.” Because of this, drivers can forget that it is a shared road and will get into the habit of driving at faster speeds when no pedestrians are in the area, she said at the February 23 meeting.
However, during the March 2 meeting, Weber said she reviewed the plans further and overlooked that the promenade included on-street parking. “On-street parking has a proven track record of being traffic calming,” she said. “It appears to me that on-street parking would separate the area between the moving cars and areas where people would be walking, so it essentially becomes a sidewalk. It’s very likely that the bicyclists would also use that area.”
Because of this, “I’m close to almost supporting the shared road concept at this point,” Weber added, even saying the concept would be a “very attractive element of this development.”
One area where Weber did not waver was in her recommendation to remove the cross streets that run through the promenade — which were not included in the township’s redevelopment plan — because they interfered with the people walking on the roadway in the promenade.
Nicholas Verderese, of Manasquan-based KZA Engineering, the traffic engineer hired by the board for the case, echoed Weber’s concerns about the cross streets but also had a change of heart. Initially, he also thought the shared road concept would not work in West Windsor.
At the March 2, meeting, however, he said that “once you put parallel on-street parking, you’ve now changed it to what operates as a typical Main Street you would see in any downtown area.”
Because of the parking, it is essentially “the exact opposite of what a shared road concept is. I’m OK with the shared concept because I don’t think it is a shared concept once you put the parking in,” he added.
He agreed with Weber about the cross streets but also had other traffic concerns. He said reports he reviewed mention possible environmental constraints in the area where the Vaughn Drive extension, which lies to the south of the Dinky line, would be constructed. If that fails to be constructed as a result, “traffic could shift to the promenade or Station Drive area,” he said. “You want to make sure Alexander Road connects to Vaughn Drive before you provide extra connection through the middle of the promenade.”
He also said that he has worked with the Sarnoff Corporation, which has no urgency to move forward with its own plans on its site. Therefore, the connection to Route 1 through that site “isn’t going to happen any time in the near future,” he said. The only alternate, he said, is Washington road, which is already impacted by heavy traffic.
Verderese also examined traffic projections calculated by Gary Davies, the board’s usual traffic engineer, and agreed with his projections for the area. Changing the density from 350 units to 800 units would have little impact on traffic projections associated with the new ordinance, as the smallest portion of traffic is generated by a residential use, he said.
During the February 23 meeting, Weber and Peter Lange, the attorney hired to represent the board during its review, both expressed concern with the ordinance that upholds the zoning in the case that the township’s redevelopment plan is struck down. Lange said it appeared it was a way for the developer “to get in through the back door where couldn’t get in through the front door.”
Weber said that “if this ordinance were adopted and the redevelopment failed to come to fruition, this ordinance will not achieve the vision in your redevelopment plan.” She said she was “concerned about that ordinance.”
Herbert responded to the consultants’ reports, saying that there were a slew of amenities in the settlement plan, which are stated in the ordinances. Those include the 80-foot wide promenade, water features, provisions for a farmer’s market, and the architectural features, which were built into the ordinance. Herbert said that at times, developers will include low-cost materials in its design to save money, but that the ordinance now binds InterCap to providing those features.
In addition, because of the township’s financial constraints, officials requested that InterCap finance Davies’ traffic report. Under the agreement, InterCap also agreed to pay $2.7 million toward road improvements as well as reimburse the township $638,000 for costs associated with work done on redevelopment so far.
The agreement and the ordinance also includes a compromise on retail. Originally, InterCap wanted to include 350,000 of commercial office space, limited retail space, and buildings that were as tall as five or six stories. The township was able to negotiate the height down to four stories, get rid of the commercial office space, and include more retail — up to 70,000 square feet with a possible addition of 30,000 more. “We fought hard to get as much retail as we could,” said Herbert.
Some board members, however, were not convinced the retail component was enough. Planning Board member Robert Loverro, who works in real estate, said in his opinion, “the level of retail that’s identified is not sufficient to create the type of village” the township has envisioned, he said.
With regard to the density, Herbert said the 800 units was a number the township was able to negotiate down from 1,440 units the developer originally threatened. “We came up with 800 as a compromise; we pushed for lower.” The township also pushed for more than the 5 percent set aside for affordable housing (760 would be market and 40 would be moderate). But because of all the amenities the developer agreed to provide, it told the township that it was “economically unfeasible to have units above 5 percent,” Herbert said. “We’re receiving a great deal of amenities that are of great cost.”
Herbert said, though, that “there are ongoing discussions to try to get the developer to make contributions not at this site, but another site,” he added.
In addition, Herbert said he believed the housing for the whole redevelopment area — which is limited to InterCap’s site — needs to be considered.
Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh, also on the board, recalled Planning Board Attorney Gerald Muller’s earlier statements that even with only 5 percent affordable housing set aside by InterCap, the township would still meet its township-wide affordable housing requirements.
Planning Board member Martin Rosen suggested the board recommend to council that it make the design for the promenade an option, and not mandatory. But Weber pointed out that it was InterCap that wanted to used the shared road concept. InterCap was “very adamant in having it in the agreement, and I can’t help but wonder if this is a marketing” technique for the developer, she said, adding that it could be billed as the “first woonerf in New Jersey.”
Board members questioned the number of bedrooms the housing units would contain. Hsueh said that under the agreement, 10 percent would be one bedroom, 10 percent would be three bedroom, and 80 percent would be two bedrooms.
Weber, however, said she would need the actual square footage of the housing units, the number of bedrooms, and the number of total units to further assess the density and advise the board further. The information that could be provided was an average of 1,110 square feet per unit, which Weber said was not enough data to make any determinations.
“The number 800 [units] doesn’t strike me as being high for a transit village,” she clarified. “It’s the fact there are so many units on a very small portion of the site.”
Geevers maintained she felt the 5 percent affordable housing set aside was still too low — a concern shared by Weber. She also said she felt language should mandate that those units be put on InterCap’s site. She also said that if the COAH regulations mandate that the new development generates obligations as much as 10 or 20 percent, it should be the developer’s responsibility, and not West Windsor’s.
That recommendation ultimately made it to the final list, and the board decided to recommend that there be a separation of bike lanes, a walkway, and roadway within the promenade area. The board also recommended elimination of the cross streets in the promenade and the addition of retail to the site.
Over the course of the first meeting, officials worried they were getting into discussion of the strategy. This prompted an argument during the February 23 meeting between Herbert and Gardner, who called the settlement agreement “one-sided” in favor of InterCap. “We should not have been here,” Gardner said.
Gardner criticized the negotiation process, saying the township should not have agreed to attach the ordinances to the settlement agreement and should have brought the settlement agreement directly to the judge without getting into ordinances at this stage.
