The West Windsor Township Council voted 4-1 to send a draft of the redevelopment plan for the 350-acre Princeton Junction train station area, as discussed over the past two months, to the Planning Board for a 45-day review, beginning Monday, January 5.##M:[more]##
The vote came on December 8, after council spent hours going over the language in the 62-page plan, which the council has worked on during a series of “marathon” workshop meetings throughout the fall. Earlier this month, the council came to a 3-2 consensus to include a base of 350 units in the plan and asked the township’s professionals to bring all the materials to the December 8 meeting for one last review before sending it off to the board.
The vote also came despite a plan proposed at the 11th hour by Council President Charles Morgan that would place only 76 housing units in the redevelopment area.
The Draft Plan. The plan being sent to the Planning Board is accompanied by a chart created by Township Planner John Madden that summarizes the number of housing units located throughout the site, including the affordable housing generated not only by market-rate housing, but also retail and office uses.
The chart shows 524 total housing units — 307 of which are market-rate and 217 of which are affordable — for the entire site, excluding the 47 affordable units generated by development on state-owned property, which township officials are assuming will be waived by the Council on Affordable Housing. All together, the redevelopment area is projected to have 220,”287 square feet of retail space and 840,”538 square feet of office floor area, as well as 200,”000 square feet of parking and other uses.
Now, the board will have 45 days beginning January 5 to review the plan before it heads back to council for public hearings and adoption.
The plan agreed upon earlier this month by Councilmen Will Anklowitz and George Borek and Councilwoman Linda Geevers sets up 10 zoning districts compiled from ideas discussed over the past year and the meetings this fall. It was an amended version of a proposal put forth by Heidi Kleinman, who, along with Charles Morgan, voted against it. Kleinman said that the small number of housing units would not be large enough to generate interest from developers, an opinion shared by Steve Goldin, CEO of InterCap Holdings, which owns 25 acres off Washington Road.
Kleinman had originally proposed 500 market units, with 160 affordable units, for a total of 660 — a plan she said was a compromise and reduction from Hillier’s proposal for 1,”000 units that caused public outcry and delayed the process for over a year. She said the plan as approved by the council majority would not be economically viable. Goldin — who had brought his own proposal for 935 units on his property that included his own Council on Affordable Housing obligations as well as the township’s COAH obligations in the redevelopment area to council this fall — has also criticized the plan, calling it a “smoke and mirror charade” that would never be built. Goldin has also submitted a plan to the Planning Board for a multi-use development on his property that requests rezoning for 1,”440 condominiums and 88,”000 square feet of office and retail space, along with a letter implying possible litigation.
In Madden’s chart, District 1, which is the 25 acres of property on Washington Road that is owned by InterCap, would contain 350 units — 280 would be market rate and 70 would be affordable units generated by those market units. It also includes seven affordable units generated by the 62,”250 square feet of retail in the zone, and two affordable housing units associated with the 7,”250 square feet of office space there.
District 2, which consists of the slim piece of property on Station Drive where the Chinese restaurant is located, is estimated to generate one COAH unit from the 9,”696 square feet of retail allowed in the district. District 3 is expected to generate three COAH units as a result of the 27,”377 square feet of retail area and the 45,”629 square feet of office space.
District 6 — which includes everything left and right of Vaughn Drive, including Mack Cali and properties owned by West Windsor — is zoned for parking and offices. The zone includes a limitation of three stories for offices and a hotel conference center with at least 100 rooms as a possibility. However, officials would allow up to five stories if the two top stories are used for the transfer of development rights from the Sarnoff Woods.
All together, officials are anticipating the total office floor area to be between 440,”538 and 570,”538 square feet. Of that, there is an estimated 94,”024 square feet of office space at Mack Cali and 43,”635 square feet at the Polychrome site, which generate 15 and three affordable housing units, respectively. Officials said these units were accommodated in the township’s fair share plan for the third round.
However, there would be between 250,”000 to 380,”000 square feet of office space with the transfer from the Sarnoff Woods in District 10, as well as public parking, which would generate between 44 and 67 affordable units. And 40,”000 square feet of retail near the parking garages would generate about four COAH units.
Planning Board Attorney Gerry Muller explained that instead of accommodating these units on site, the plan would be written in a way that states that the affordable housing generated by development on the state property to subsidize the parking should be waived by COAH.
“If there is a public entity that is building nonresidential space other than parking garages, they cannot build it unless they secure a waiver from COAH that there will not be growth share attributable to the township,” Muller said. “The whole purpose of this is to serve regional needs in terms of parking, and we shouldn’t be stuck with the growth share that comes from that public initiative.”
Officials said that it would be up to New Jersey Transit to seek the waiver and explain to COAH officials that the two initiatives are a clash of two state policies — to promote transit-oriented development and serve the regional needs of commuters, and to provide enough affordable housing for the state’s residents.
Madden said that the plan now assumes that Sarnoff officials will transfer over the development rights to the hotel conference center and some of the office approved by the township under Sarnoff’s general development plan. This will probably come with a revision of its plan to accommodate the affordable housing obligation for the remaining office and other uses on its site, as Sarnoff, under the redevelopment plan, must meet its nonresidential growth share on its own site.
“Since they have a huge land resource, I would assume it would be less expensive for them to take care of it, rather than to turn over millions of dollars to us to take care of that affordable housing obligation,” Madden said, referring to the new COAH rules, which state that instead of building affordable housing, developers could instead pay the towns a fee of 2.5 percent of what the cost would be to build those affordable units, and the towns would then have to take care of the obligation.
District 7, which includes everything currently on Route 571, from Wallace to Alexander roads, would generate 36 units — 27 of which would be residential and three of which would be affordable. It is estimated that there would be 53,”964 square feet of retail along Route 571, including 20,”673 square feet in the Rite Aid development. After deducting credits for the demolition of existing non-residential floor area, it is estimated that there would be six affordable housing units associated with the retail in that zone.
In District 10, officials are estimating a total of 91 housing units generated by the 270,”000 square feet estimated to remain on the Sarnoff tract if 130,”000 square feet is transferred to District 6. Of the 91 housing units, 70 would be generated by the remaining office space and 21 would be associated with the hotel conference center or other uses on site.
In addition to the housing chart, the Planning Board will also receive a map of the road structures for the redevelopment districts along with a series of maps for the required roadway infrastructure improvements for each. The plan also includes a description of each of the 10 districts, road and circulation maps, a map that shows only one building on the Rite Aid site, a parking garage on the east side of the tracks, an extended promenade to Washington Road, and depictions of Old Bear Brook Road with a cul-de-sac at Alexander Road so that here is no access on that location. A property ownership map. which shows which land is clearly owned by the railroad and other entities, and a developable land map, which includes contaminated land (since once it is remedied, it can be developed), is also included.
The council also got rid of the proposal to realign Scott Avenue with the exit for the train station, which residents of Berrien City had spoke out against at recent meetings.
There was some discussion about removing language that would allow for child daycare centers around the redevelopment area, and Geevers said she would rather see it taken out because she didn’t want to encourage families with children from moving into the area. However, Township Attorney Michael Herbert said there is a state statute that controls zoning for child daycare centers and calls for complexes where people who need child care facilities can have them available to them.
Morgan said he had heard from single mothers who told him they wanted to go downtown to the train station and climb on the train to head to Philadelphia or New York for work, who wanted a convenient place to drop their children off for daycare. “This is convenient to the train station,” Morgan said. “To me, it’s counter-intuitive to say no to childcare when there’s a demand for childcare for commuters.”
Ultimately, there were more members of council who wanted to keep the child care facilities.
Among other council discussions on the redevelopment plan was the council’s concern about the appearance of newspaper dispensers, as seen along Route 571 in front of the Acme. Council members asked whether they could prohibit the newspaper dispensers from being in that location or limit them in any way. While Herbert told the council that it could not prohibit them and that there were time, place, and manner rules under the First Amendment that applied, council did suggest prohibiting them in an active right-of-way.
Morgan also suggested they be incorporated into a kiosk or building designed specifically for the various newspapers. The council decided to go along with this idea and include language that prohibits free-standing dispensers, and that they must be incorporated into improved street furniture.
Morgan’s Proposal. After the council finished going through the document, Morgan proposed his own amendments. He said that the way he calculated the numbers from Madden’s chart, the redevelopment area actually could end up with 617 units. Using Madden’s numbers, however, “you have 217 affordable units, which is 41 percent affordable, which is way higher than any ratio of affordable to market than we’ve ever done before,” he said. “It’s just getting ugly in terms of what we’re doing to our affordable housing policy.”
Morgan then presented his own proposal,which included 76 total units — 16 affordable and 60 market-rate. In District 1, he suggested deleting the entirety of the provisions in the draft plan and suggested the current zoning applicable in District 1 remain unchanged. He suggested keeping District 2 the way it is shown in the draft plan, which includes one affordable housing unit generated by retail as well as the eight market units and one affordable unit generated by COAH for a total of 10 units.
He also proposed keeping District 3 the way it was portrayed in the draft plan, including three affordable housing units generated by retail as well as the 26 market units and four affordable units generated by the COAH “gross up” for a total of 33 dwelling units — seven affordable and 26 market-rate. He also proposed getting rid of the transfer of development rights from District 5 because “the 246 dwelling units associated with that TOD is unacceptably high.”
Morgan also suggested keeping District 4 the way it was proposed in the draft plan, including three affordable housing units generated by retail and the 26 market units and four affordable units generated by the COAH gross up for a total of 33 dwelling units.
He also proposed keeping districts 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in place as they are on the plan, but suggested changes for District 6. He suggested that District 6 be used to accommodate existing office development in the Vaughn Drive and Alexander Road area and prohibit further office development, except as necessary to serve as a receiving area for a transfer of development rights from the Sarnoff Woods portion of District 10 for a hotel conference center. “The prohibition of further office development in District RP-6 will avoid the traffic congestion generated by those offices as well as the large amount of affordable and market rate dwelling units that would be generated by those offices,” Morgan said.
Prior to the meeting, Morgan sent a memo to the council, saying he could not support the draft plan because “I will not support a change in the zoning for District 1 that includes housing as a permitted use,” Morgan stated. “Allowing even one dwelling unit opens the door for litigation that will result in much more housing than has been proposed.”
He stated in his memo that the COAH growth share mandate, coupled with the prohibition against forcing the developers responsible for that growth share to pick up the tab for the affordable housing that they generate, puts West Windsor and its redevelopment efforts in an “untenable position.”
“The only way that it is feasible to pay for that growth share mandate without imposing a burden on taxpayers is to get a developer to build another three or four market rate units,” Morgan stated. “But those four units generate another affordable housing obligation, which, in turn, must be supported by more market rate units. The only answer is to minimize the main driver of affordable housing in the redevelopment area — commercial office space, and allow housing only to the extent needed to cover the affordable housing obligation.”
Morgan said he voted against the plan earlier this month because “it was too much housing, and it was economically insane, and I did not believe it was something that this township should do either to a stakeholder like Mr. Goldin, or stakeholders like our citizens, who really don’t want it.”
He said he did his own telephone survey weeks ago when Goldin had suggested that his own numbers showed that 65 percent of the township wanted a transit village with something close to 1,”000 homes. Morgan said his own survey found that 68 percent of residents did not want even 350 homes, “which is really 524, which is probably more like 617.”
“Every time you look at the numbers, it gets closer to 1,”000, and I just cannot support that.”
The Vote. Morgan made a motion to include his amendments in the plan to be sent to the Planning Board in January. No one seconded his motion. Instead, Anklowitz made a motion to send the plan as the council had been discussing it along with the provisions and changes suggested by the township professionals and council.
Frustrated, Morgan said he felt the plan as proposed would not do the job in leaving a solid impression with COAH that the new regulations are not working. He also said that he went through the plan district-by-district to check the numbers.
He said 617 units, as he calculated from Madden’s chart, were too close to the 1,”000 units that caused controversy when proposed by Hillier.
He also pointed again to the tables he created throughout the process that he said would guide his decision-making. The tables depict red, yellow, and green stop lights, for various criteria and objectives for each of the surrounding neighborhoods, as well as the council’s guiding principles. For example, one goal would be to remediate traffic congestion in the area. Each criteria is given a red, yellow, or green light for the effectiveness to which the plan would resolve that issue.
“It’s a big red light, folks,” Morgan said. “There’s not one single green light here next to any single one of our principles. I want to know how many people on this council have sat and tried to align the provisions of this plan against the principles we thought were so important. It’s an ugly picture, and we are not doing what we said we were going to do. This is vote not for 350, but this is a vote for over 600 housing units, and probably close to 1,”000 as we address the gross up issue.”
Morgan placed red lights next to most of the principles, including that the redevelopment project would be tax positive, that it was scaled appropriately, that the affordable units were visually and geographically integrated with market-rate housing, that the neighborhoods around the redevelopment area would be preserved, that the size, scale, and esthetic design would be consonant with the nature of the township, that it would create an iconic and active public place for the West Windsor community, and that input from all key stakeholders was taken during the process.
Morgan placed yellow lights next to the rest of the principles, including providing more parking for West Windsor residents, remediating traffic congestion, and that the effects of the redevelopment plan on the school district would be mitigated. He also included a list of his reasoning behind each of his yellow or red lights.
When Geevers responded that Morgan could have shut down the redevelopment process after the May, 2007, election when he and Anklowitz and Borek were elected on a slate against the 1,”000 homes proposed by Hillier, he said he disagreed his proposal would shut redevelopment down.
Said Geevers: “We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars now to come to this. For the past two months, we have been sitting elbow to elbow, trying to work through the issues district-by-district, and we spent hours tonight, and then, all of a sudden you have your other plan. Maybe we should have started with that.”
Regarding the draft plan in Anklowitz’s motion, Geevers said, “If this passes, the process continues on to the Planning Board level, where there will be another set of eyes to review it. I expect the Planning Board will do their usual due diligence in carefully reviewing the plan. I expect to get comments back from them.”
Kleinman said she was ready to vote yes “to send this to the Planning Board.”
After the 4-1 vote, with Morgan voting against the plan, Kleinman clarified her position. “I support the excellent work of our professionals in crafting the redevelopment plan to reflect mine and my fellow council members’ opinion,” she said. “The resolution tonight stated that the plan should be forwarded on to the Planning Board. The wording chosen allowed me to vote for this resolution since it did not say whether I supported the plan. I have definitely have not changed my opinions from last week. I still do not believe that the number of housing units that the majority of council have included in the plan provides an economically viable project which will interest the development community to enter in to a public private partnership with the township. I will have the opportunity to explain my perspective at the Planning Board meetings in the future.”
After the meeting, Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh responded to comments from some residents, who said they felt that a financial impact analysis of the redevelopment plan was still needed. Hsueh said that a financial impact analysis is not needed at this stage, and that financial studies had already been conducted by Hillier and InterCap throughout the process.
Hsueh said that when it comes to site-specific implementation, financial analyses will be done to ensure there is no negative effect on taxpayers. He also said that he has met with financial consultants, who told him it was too early to get involved, he said. “You do that when it comes to implementation,” of the plan, Hsueh added, pointing out that the plan is still in draft form. “The market changes every day,” he added. “You have to have a site specific analysis at the right time for the right location.”
Once a plan is approved, Hsueh said his first step will be to start negotiating with the state and county.
Consulting Contracts for Redevelopment Work. In other redevelopment-related business during the meeting, the council approved changes to three contracts for the work its professionals have done on redevelopment.
The first professional services agreement is with Planning Board attorney Gerry Muller’s law firm — Miller, Porter, Muller & Gaynor — for his work associated with the redevelopment plan. The contract, originally approved earlier this year, is separate from the contract for his other Planning Board duties and only relates to his work on redevelopment. The amount of the increase in the contract is $28,”500, which will be charged to the redevelopment bond ordinance.
The next professional services agreement is with Urbitran Associates, traffic consultant Gary Davies’s firm. The amendment for work associated with redevelopment increases the amount he is paid for his work by $35,”000. This is the second amendment. The first amendment to his contract came in March, when the township increased the amount by $18,”000. All together, Davies will have been paid $73,”000 for his work.
The last professional services agreement is with Maser Consulting, P.A., for township planner John Madden’s work associated with redevelopment. The amendment to the agreement increases his contract by $26,”000. This is also the second amendment for his contract. In March the council approved $15,”000 to be added to his contract. All together, Madden will have been paid $41,”000 for his work on redevelopment.
