A development that would place 100 housing units on Palmer Square North along Paul Robeson Place has hit another snag, prolonging the building process that first received approval from the Regional Planning Board nearly 16 years ago.
The plan, which would build 19 townhouses and 81 apartments, most of which are designed to be flats, was declared incomplete for the fifth time last week by the Princeton Borough Engineering Department.
The cause for the delay this time is minor, however. Some dimensions of the parking spaces in the planned development are missing, said Borough engineer Carl Peters last Wednesday, explaining that the plans provided by Palmer Properties did not indicate if they were big enough to match up to the Borough's standards.
It is not major, he said, but it is "stuff that makes a difference.
"It's a big application; the biggest we've seen," Mr. Peters said, adding that the development plans, which were designed by Hillier Architecture and Minno & Wasko Architects and Planners, also sought a 14-space variance. "There are some things that have been added, but they are only added from one review to the next because Palmer Square has made changes for their own reasons.
"That introduces new problems," Mr. Peters said. But this last problem, he added, is really about parking space dimensions. "If they give us what we asked for, then we can move ahead."
David Newton, vice president of Palmer Square Management, said that the parking dimensions have been approved by the Planning Board, however, and that those dimensions were included in contingencies that led to the approval of the Arts Council of Princeton expansion.
Mr. Newton said that after Palmer Square and Princeton Borough arrived at an agreement on including an affordable housing component in the development, it was the opinion of the developer that the project would progress with some alacrity: however, "that hasn't proven to be the case" Mr. Newton added.
But Mr. Peters said that careful review now will, in fact, preclude a more drawn-out process in the future: "I don't see this as saying 'we're going to look the other way and not enforce regulations.'"
"That's not doing my job," Mr. Peters said.
In January 2005, Palmer Properties appeared before the Planning Board to outline revisions in the plan that had taken place in the 15 years since initial approval. Those changes addressed issues like parking, façade changes, and the affordable housing element, which would place 10 low- to moderate-income units in the development. At that time, David Daines, an attorney who worked with the original 1990 ad hoc committee in assembling a building application, said the affordable element would remain in tact in a final construction proposal.
As far as the entire project moving forward, both Mr. Peters and Mr. Newton said they were optimistic that the application would proceed smoothly. Mr. Newton said he has successfully worked with Borough staff in the past and based his optimism on that past experience: "There are going to be many, many more issues as we move forward, and I'd like to see this thing move on.
"I'm sure we'll be very happy once this application is deemed complete," he said.
If the Borough signs off on the plan, Palmer Properties has to again appear before the Planning Board's Site Plan Review Advisory Board, and the full Planning Board, Mr. Newton said.
And while both the developer and Borough staff concede that the causes were minor, it is yet another chapter in the long-running story of a tract of land that had long been slated for development.