Senior citizen housing proposal held for review of parking, sidewalks, buffer areas
By: Lea Kahn
The developer of the proposed Carriage Walk senior citizens housing development, proposed for the former Lawrence Drive-In site on Route 1, will have to wait until next month to find out whether township planners approve of the plan.
The Planning Board listened to more than three hours of testimony Monday night, but decided to delay action until its May 15 meeting to give the applicant time to iron out some issues. This week’s meeting marked the continuation of the April 3 public hearing on the application.
Several Planning Board members expressed concern about the number of parking spaces, the location of sidewalks along the perimeter of the property, and variances for buffer areas between the proposed development and neighboring parcels.
Westminster Realty Corp. wants to build a 212-unit age-restricted development on the 15-acre former drive-in movie site, which is bordered by Route 1, Allen Lane and Glenn Avenue. The entrance is proposed for Allen Lane.
As an age-restricted community, one of the residents in each unit must be at least 55 years old. No children under 18 years old are permitted to live there. The units are for-sale and are not rentals.
Of the 212 units, 43 will be set aside as affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households. The affordable units — nine one-bedroom units and 34 two-bedroom units — will be spread among the five buildings.
Architect Robert Ring said three of the five buildings will occupy the central portion of the tract. They are designed to resemble a pinwheel, with wings radiating off the entrance lobby, he said. They will contain 54 units each.
The pinwheel-shaped buildings will have parking stalls on the ground level, Mr. Ring said. There are six units on the ground level, also, he said. The rest of the units are located on the second and third floors.
The two remaining buildings, which contain 25 units each, are located along Allen Lane, the architect said. Parking is provided in parking lots. The five buildings have common rooms, where residents may gather to socialize, he said.
Westminster Realty Corp. Principal Jeffrey Freirich told the Planning Board that 182 of the 212 units are two-bedroom units because that seems to be the preference of married senior citizens. They tend to want to be alone at night, he said, so it was decided to offer them the option of two-bedroom units.
Traffic engineer Harvey Yesowitz, who was hired by the applicant, told the Planning Board that the proposed development will not generate much traffic. During the morning rush hour, there will be 52 trips into and out of the development. In the evening rush hour, there will be 66 trips into and out of the development, he said.
The number of parking spaces generated some debate. The initial plan showed 308 parking spaces, but the applicant has eliminated 25 spaces — nine spaces are permanently eliminated, and 16 are being “banked.” They will be built if there is enough need for them.
The plan reviewed by the Planning Board Monday night showed 283 parking spaces. Mr. Yesowitz told the planners that abiding by the ratio of 1.3 parking spaces per unit will yield 276 parking spaces — which he claims is enough parking, based on studies of similar developments he conducted.
Mr. Yesowitz told the planners that studies of similar senior citizens housing developments showed that the number of cars owned by residents declines as they age.
Planning Board traffic consultant Charles Carmalt agreed with Mr. Yesowitz that the number of cars owned by senior citizens declines as they grow older. But women may want their own cars as they age, Mr. Carmalt said.
Mr. Carmalt suggested that the homeowners association may be able to regulate the number of cars owned by the residents, so there won’t be households that own two or three cars and that take up all of the parking spaces.
The Planning Board also objected to the proposed buffer yard setbacks on the southern and eastern borders of the development. The township’s Land Use Ordinance requires a 50-foot buffer on the southern border and a 25-foot setback on the eastern side, adjacent to the retail shopping center on Route 1.
The developer is seeking a 46-foot variance on the southern boundary line, between the subdivision and the Lawrence Branch of the Mercer County Library and the Lawrence Senior Center. A 14-foot variance is being sought on the eastern boundary.
Mayor Gregory Puliti, who sits on the Planning Board, objected to the 46-foot buffer variance. But planner Creigh Rahenkamp, who represents the applicant, said buffers are used to protect competing land uses. The smaller buffer is acceptable, he said.
The Planning Board and the applicant could not agree on the location of sidewalks along the perimeter of the development. The applicant wanted the Planning Board to accept the existing sidewalk on the north side of Allen Lane, opposite the development.
But some Planning Board members wanted the applicant to build sidewalks along the frontage of the proposed development, between Route 1 and the driveway entrance on Allen Lane.
The Planning Board also discussed requiring the developer to install a sidewalk connection to the Lawrence Branch of the Mercer County Library System along the Route 1 frontage of the development.