Daniel A. Harris, Princeton
To the editor:
AvalonBay confronts significant challenges in responding adequately to strictures and proposed conditions for approval which the Planning Office and the Site Plan Review Advisory Board have issued.
For Building 2, the Planning Office asks why AvalonBay cannot “incorporate a longer two story facade facing Witherspoon Street” (Borough Code 17A-193B.a.3 [see also c.1: “Building facades along public streets should relate well in . . . scale” to the neighborhood, “characteristically two and three stories in height”]). SPRAB’s Report (citing 17A-193B.c.3) states that the many “large span sloped roofs . . . and related plan shapes . . . are entirely out of scale” with Princeton’s sloped roof forms; it recommends cutting dimensions in half (see also Planning Report, p. 7). Furthermore, SPRAB requests a welcoming, public opening in Building 2, with pedestrian access to a proposed plaza on the new street. SPRAB notes that AvalonBay, while initially resistant, has made encouraging moves towards this goal (section 25). Holly Nelson rightly emphasized that “The public benefit of an open archway would be big” (SPRAB meeting, 6/19/13): it would create a new linkage halfway “crossing the site”a primare goal of the 2006 Master Plan. Remember April 2012, when AvalonBay’s architect said the smaller courtyard of the monolith could not be made public?and then opened it, with a public archway to “a meditative space.” The benefit here is far greater.
AvalonBay’s response should be to redesign major parts of Building 2: shear off the front of the top story of Building 2 (currently 4½ stories) and introduce a public-access archwayboth, moves to achieve neighborhood connectivity. Many believe that AvalonBay, coached by elected officials and municipal staff, has genuinely sought to comply with Site Plan Standards in Borough Code for the MRRO zone. Yes, but still the PEC brands Building 1 a “monolithic, gated community” (section R.1). AvalonBay must accomplish more.
For Building 2, AvalonBay can either eliminate some apartment units (20?) or develop smaller apartment modules. The first gives AvalonBay justifiable corporate pride in a better design for an inclusionary development, with a marginally higher percentage of affordable units than Princeton Code requires. The second option echoes AvalonBay’s original desire to build 324 units in the same space, with smaller units. When the Planning Board denied that variance, Anne Studholme (AvalonBay’s attorney) said, “Too bad for Princetonsmaller units mean more affordable units.” Reduced scale for Building 2 won’t affect the design of roofing where solar power can be installed. Both SPRAB (section 11) and the PEC (F.1-4) seek to require photovoltaic power-which will reduce utility costs for tenants with limited financial means, among others.
AvalonBay, by burnishing a reputation scarred by corporate litigiousness, can participate in a better compromise than it has yet proposed-one in which each side feels that it has lost less. AvalonBay will have done more to gain “Princeton” for its “portfolio.” Princeton itself, despite the monolith of Building 1, will gain a better neighborhood streetscape and improved public access, as well as 56 units of affordable housing.
Next Planning Board hearings are July 11, 18, 25, 7:30 p.m., municipal buildings.
Daniel A. Harris
Princeton
