Borough Council seeks a general development concept
By: Nick Norlen
Characterizations of the potential redevelopment of the Merwick, Stanworth and YMCA and YWCA properties and the resulting impact on the Master Plan ranged from "a unique opportunity" to "Pandora’s box" during a meeting this week.
But the Princeton Borough Council has one more session to sort out the issues, including compatibility with surrounding areas and specific proposals, such as the inclusion of a parking garage.
In anticipation of the Regional Planning Board of Princeton’s October deadline to adopt and submit a Master Plan re-examination report, required every six years, the council held the second of three planned discussions about the future development of the three sites Tuesday.
The discussions were precipitated by the decision by Princeton HealthCare System to relocate the Merwick Rehab Hospital & Nursing Care facility to Plainsboro.
Although Princeton University has announced its intention to purchase the site, Community and Regional Affairs Director Kristin Appelget said Tuesday that the university doesn’t expect to have a site plan ready for another few years leaving the council to consider adopting new zoning standards without looking at specific plans.
But general recommendations have been issued.
At the first discussion June 12, Regional Planning Board of Princeton Director Lee Solow gave a presentation detailing potential goals many featured in the last Master Plan amendment such as pursuing a primarily residential use of the Stanworth and Merwick properties, allowing the expansion of the Ys, maintaining residential densities compatible with the John-Witherspoon neighborhood, and encouraging flexibility.
Those goals were discussed in more detail Tuesday.
Councilman David Goldfarb said the possibility of more residential units should be accompanied by improved traffic access.
"We’re talking about adding dozens, if not 100 additional units in this area, and if you’re going to force all of them to enter only into it out of Route 206, you are asking for trouble," he said.
Councilwoman Wendy Benchley said additional access could only be accomplished by condemning a house which council members said they would never do or providing another access point on Route 206.
But Mr. Goldfarb said "the answer is to try to get access through the Y property" by possibly reconfiguring the intersection of John Street and Paul Robeson Place.
In exchange, the Y could acquire possibility from the university the ability to build a parking garage on the Merwick site, he said, which could work because the lower grade of the site would allow the garage to be less conspicuous.
"And the Y would then gain its parking lots to do whatever the Y needs to do, and would get back more land than they gave up to build the roadway," he said. "I think what we need to say is that whoever develops this site has got to get access from a street other than 206.
Councilman Andrew Koontz cited concerns that a garage could become "the driver of the development" and said such a structure wouldn’t fit with the neighborhood.
But Councilman Roger Martindell raised the question of whether it needs to.
Although he said "conformity with the area is an option," he called the situation an "opportunity to serve the community and its parking needs" one that might not come again.
"There is enough sensitivity that we have in this community to the need for parking, that we should really give it some further thought," he said.
Both Councilman Barbara Trelstad and Mr. Goldfarb agreed that the issue should be explored further.
"I don’t know how we incorporate that into a zoning ordinance," he said of the garage proposal, "but it’s the kind of thing the Y should be discussing with the hospital so that we can come up with a plan that works for everybody," Mr. Goldfarb said. Borough Assistant Attorney Karen Cayci said she is still communicating with Mr. Solow about the legal ramifications of permitting, encouraging or requiring the developer to build a parking garage.
Also discussed during the meeting was how specific and strict the zoning amendments should be.
Mr. Golfarb said the only way to successfully govern future growth is with specific restrictions, such as percentage caps on certain housing types.
But Ms. Benchley likened setting specific requirements to "micromanaging," and encouraged the council to consider alternatives to planning to develop the three sites together.
"Unless it is easily legally done, somehow, to get these three properties together, we may be setting up a Pandora’s box for ourselves, where just no development can go on for five or 10 years while we work out this really complicated, multiple parcel master plan," she said. "I do think we need to keep a certain amount of balance here and not put so many restrictions on this property that we discourage not only the university, but any other developer from coming in."
Princeton HealthCare System attorney Marc Solomon agreed, stating that putting too many restrictions on the site could drive away the university, which he said will be very flexible.
"That’s going to mean that we have to take the property to the marketplace, and there is a high demand in the marketplace for as many million-dollar-and-up units as you can build," he said. "Please don’t take that as a threat."
Rather, he said, putting too many restrictions on the site would result in the opposite of the desired result.
"What you’re going to get is exactly not what you want," he said.
Although Ms. Appelget also urged the council to craft zoning that encourages flexibility, Master Plan Subcommittee Chairman Marvin Reed asserted that their task is "not rezoning it for the benefit of Princeton University."
He added, "It’s important that it first be zoned," he said, to create a "good neighborhood."
The final discussion on the issue is planned for September.

