December 26, 2012

Concluding six years of discussion and dispute between Princeton University, the governing bodies, and citizens of the town, the Regional Planning Board December 18 voted to approve the University’s $300 million Arts and Transit proposal. Borough Mayor Yina Moore was the only member of the Planning Board to cast an opposing vote.

The approval allows the University to begin planning construction of the 22-acre complex in earnest. “We hope to start the early stages of the project as early as February, if not, then certainly by March,” said Bob Durkee, University vice president and secretary, late last week. “This is a multi-stage process and things need to be done in sequence, so the sooner we can get started clearing the site and working on the utilities, the sooner we can eventually get to the new buildings.”

But a group of citizens opposed to the project will likely file an objection to the Planning Board’s decision. Representing Walter Neumann, Christopher Hedges, Dorothy Koehn, Anita Garoniak, and Marco Gottardis, attorney Bruce Afran said in an email last week, “The Planning Board decision represents a failure to consider the greater needs of the community and an abandonment of any balance in our governmental dealings with the University. In contrast to the AvalonBay project, the Board virtually rubber-stamped the Arts project, raced through the application, asked virtually no questions as to this massive development and entered its resolution on three hours notice in a clear violation of state law. The approval is almost certainly illegal and subject to reversal by the courts and an appeal is being considered.”

Three lawsuits over the project are already pending in the courts. Those represented by Mr. Afran, along with other citizens, have expressed opposition to the part of the plan that requires moving the Dinky train terminus 460 feet south of its present location. Some residents at the meeting pleaded with the Planning Board to vote the proposal down, saying the relocated station will remove an important gateway to the town and make it difficult for those with disabilities to reach the new station. They also complained that the University has not listened to their comments.

But Princeton University Architect Ron McCoy said the University has taken complaints from residents into account over the past few years and studied alternatives to the plan for the Dinky move. None of those alternatives work, he claimed.

Concerns were also raised by citizens about traffic safety and environmental issues. But Planning Board member Julie Nachamkin praised the plan for its walking paths, landscaping, reduction of impervious coverage, and energy efficiency. “And it brings the community to an area of the town where no one spends any time,” she said.

Board member Peter Madison said he is looking forward to the implementation of the plan. “I have lived here for 33 years and have seen a lot of changes, and just about all have been very good,” he said “Unlike someone who sees this as the glass half empty, I see a lot of potential here.” Mr. Madison added that while the existing rail line will never be extended through the campus to Nassau Street, a new light rail line could come in with an alternative route and stops added between Carnegie Lake and Route 1. “I don’t see this as a negative thing,” he concluded. “I understand there are trade-offs.”

Brian McDonald, who heads McCarter Theatre’s Board of Directors, was enthused about the project, specifically for its plan to turn the existing Dinky station buildings across from the theater into a restaurant and cafe. “Better parking and a dining options are two of our patrons’ greatest concerns,” he said. The eateries could help bring additional revenue at a time of struggle for arts organizations.

Before casting the lone vote against the proposal, Borough Mayor and Planning Board member Yina Moore suggested approving only the arts portion of the plan. As a transportation expert who once worked for NJ Transit, Ms. Moore said there has not been enough research done on the moving of the Dinky. Board members Marvin Reed and Janet Stern cast their votes for the plan “with regret.”

Mr. Durkee said the filing of an appeal against the Planning Board will be “another example of imposing costs on the community because the community will then have to defend the process. I think it will be an easy process to defend, because the Board has worked very diligently on this project. There is little likelihood that the appeal will make any headway at all, but it will cost the community money to defend against it.”


December 5, 2012

Arguments for and against Princeton University’s plan to move the Dinky station as part of its $300 million Arts and Transit plan continued at a meeting of the Regional Planning Board last Thursday. The board is hoping to wrap up discussions of the final site plan for the project before consolidation goes into effect on January 1.

Opposition has been expressed not so much for the plan itself, which would bring a complex of performance, rehearsal, and other spaces to the campus, but for the relocation of the train station some 480 feet south of its present location. The Lewis Center for the Arts project would turn the existing station buildings, opposite McCarter Theatre, into a restaurant and cafe.

Attorney Bruce Afran, who represents a group of citizens opposed to the move, spent much of the meeting questioning officials about such issues as pedestrian safety and traffic impact. The opposition maintains that the University does not have the legal right to move the station because of an easement that allows public transportation access over its land, and that the plans for pedestrian crossings in the area are unsafe.

But Board member Peter Madison said it was not the Board’s job to rule on those points. “We have an application here that is in full compliance with the legal zoning,” he said. “If it is, I don’t see that I have an alternative to turning this application down.” Mr. Afran disagreed, saying the Board was not limited to the question of zoning compliance, and could deny approval if they feel public safety is at risk.

Among those testifying against the proposal were planner and University transportation professor Alain Kornhauser and local architect Michael Landau. Mr. Kornhauser delivered a power point presentation in which he said the project could proceed without moving the Dinky terminus. “Princeton University can even extend Blair Walk without moving the Dinky station or the tracks,” he said, adding that traffic flow and pedestrian safety would be compromised by the proposed plan.

Mr. Landau said that the design for the new Dinky station by architect Rick Joy keeps it “hidden from the public.” He cited New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s decision to give in to public pressure and cancel the New York Marathon after Hurricane Sandy as an example to be followed. “Why can’t we accommodate the public?” he asked, saying it wasn’t too late for changes to be made to the Lewis Center plan.

Earlier in the meeting, University Secretary and Vice-President Bob Durkee took issue with statements made at the previous Planning Board meeting by a member of the public. “We were chastised for not listening to the community,” he said. “I can tell you that we have listened … and the design reflects that.” Mr. Durkee added that other proposals were studied in detail, and that the project is consistent with the master plan.

Members of the public testifying in favor of the project included Peter Crowley, president and CEO of the Princeton Regional Chamber of Commerce; David Newton, vice president of Palmer Square Management; and former Township Mayor Phyllis Marchand. “The plan you have before you complies with recently adopted zoning,” she said. “I think it is your obligation to move ahead.”

There will be further opportunity for public comment at the Planning Board meeting scheduled for December 19, at which there is expected to be a vote on whether to approve the plan.


November 14, 2012

Determining that an ordinance to designate Princeton Borough’s Morven Tract neighborhood a historic district is in compliance with Princeton’s master plan, the Regional Planning Board Monday made passage of the controversial measure look increasingly likely. The ordinance now returns to Borough Council to be considered for a final public hearing and vote.

The proposal has been a source of contention among residents of the stately western section neighborhood for more than six years. Those in favor of the designation say it will protect the neighborhood’s architectural and historical significance. Those opposed contend it will place unnecessary restrictions on making certain alterations and repairs. A group of 51 properties, bounded by Bayard Lane, Hodge Road and Library Place, would be affected by the designation.

Some members of the Planning Board urged that acting on the proposal be delayed until after consolidation goes into effect, which is what the Historical Preservation Review Committee (HPRC) recommended earlier this year. The Borough and Township have different ordinances, and a new, merged entity will be created after January 1. “It’s only fair to property owners to know how restrictive it will be,” said Marvin Reed. “We don’t know what the details will be.”

Board member Gail Ullman said the Board should think about the measure as it benefits the whole town and the master plan, not just the neighborhood. “What we’re considering is a designation that will long outlast any of the residents,” she said. “How will such a designation play out over the years in the whole town? Will it keep that neighborhood beautiful? Will it inform future residents?”

Mr. Reed and Board member Julie Nachamkin were the only ones to vote against the ordinance’s consistency with the master plan. Ms. Nachamkin proposed advising Borough Council to delay acting on the measure until after January 1, but that suggestion was rejected by a 5-4 vote.

As has been the case at most every meeting on the subject, several residents of the neighborhood expressed their views on the designation. There will be more opportunity for public input when the matter comes before Borough Council, at a date that has yet to be announced.

The Board also recommended that the Borough survey neighborhood residents to determine the amount of support for the designation, since both sides of the issue continue to challenge each other’s figures on the question.


November 6, 2012

Hoping to have their say, residents opposed to AvalonBay Communities’ plans for development of the former University Medical Center of Princeton site turned out in force at the Thursday, October 25, special meeting of the Regional Planning Board. But there was no time for public comment at the hearing of site plan applications, as the Board took on the complicated issue of jurisdiction.

The standing-room-only meeting began with a response by Board attorney Gerald Muller to a nine-page letter from the attorney for the group Princeton Citizens for Sustainable Neighborhoods. The letter says that AvalonBay needs to have one of two site plan applications it submitted approved by the Township Zoning Board of Adjustment rather than the Planning Board, because it involves a section that is zoned commercial.

“It is my opinion that the [Planning] Board does have jurisdiction,” Mr. Muller said in response to the letter. “I don’t believe a use variance is necessary.” Rob Simon, the attorney for the citizens’ group, argued otherwise. Asked by Planning Board member Bernie Miller whether he has dealt with this type of issue before, Mr. Muller said, “This is very unusual.”

AvalonBay, which is under contract to build a 360,000-square-foot complex of 280 rental units where the old hospital building stands, had requested two site plan applications: A minor application for the parking garage, a portion of which lies in the Township, and a major application for construction of its new buildings, which would be in the Borough. Representatives for AvalonBay were asked to combine the applications into one, but they declined.

The deadline for the Township application was about to expire on October 26, while the Borough portion expires December 15. Mr. Muller expressed concern that the Township application could be legally eligible for automatic approval if the Board didn’t act on it by the end of the meeting. The Board then voted to consider both applications rather than just the one for the Township portion.

The letter from the citizens’ group also asserts that there are environmental issues that AvalonBay has not sufficiently addressed. The Planning Board meeting came a day after a meeting of the Princeton Environmental Commission, which voted to recommend that the Planning Board consider hiring an environmental engineer to determine whether sufficient testing has been carried out at the former hospital site. More soil and groundwater testing, either before or during construction was also recommended.

Planning Board member Marvin Reed commented during the Thursday meeting that AvalonBay’s application is “deficient.” He recalled chairing a special task force in 2005 on whether the hospital should expand at its Witherspoon Street location or move to a new site [the hospital moved to new headquarters in Plainsboro last May]. Mr. Reed said there were numerous meetings involving hospital administration and members of the community, and that the hospital agreed that at least two parks would be established at the site, similar to Hinds Plaza outside Princeton Public Library. While AvalonBay’s plans do include one public and one private courtyard, they do not reflect those original plans, Mr. Reed said.

“I submit to you that somewhere along the line, the good will of the medical center seems to have disappeared,” he concluded, to applause from the audience. “The proposal we’ve seen today is a very scaled-back version, particularly in the way to bring people together. That’s what we should try to achieve.”

Mr. Reed then handed copies of documents for the proposed park to AvalonBay Senior Vice President Ron Ladell, Mr. Simon, and Mark Solomon, who is attorney for the medical center.

Mr. Ladell, attorney Ann Studholme, and Jeremy Lang of Maser Consulting, which carried out studies for the development firm, testified at the meeting about the minor site plan. Also speaking were members of the Princeton Environmental Commission and the Site Plan Review Advisory Board, each of which recommended certain limitations to AvalonBay’s plan.

Testimony on the minor site plan was not complete by the end of the meeting, and Mr. Ladell ultimately agreed to extend the deadline to November 15, which is the date of the next Planning Board meeting.


October 24, 2012

Princeton University’s controversial arts and transit proposal was the topic of the Regional Planning Board’s meeting on October 18. This was round one of the discussion, which will continue on November 1 and allow members of the public an opportunity to voice their opinions about the project.

What makes it controversial is not the ambitious arts complex, which most members of the community favor. It is the aspect of the plan that involves moving the Dinky train station 460 feet south and turning the existing buildings into a restaurant and cafe. Planning Board and Borough Council member Jenny Crumiller’s frequent criticism of the move caused her to recuse herself from the proceedings last Thursday, a move which elicited debate at the start of the meeting.

Ms. Crumiller recused herself under the doctrine of “pre-judgment,” and on the advice of planning board lawyer Allen Porter. She expressed regret that she would not be taking part in the discussion. Planning Board members Marvin Reed and [Borough Mayor] Yina Moore questioned the decision. “I don’t know how we can be engaged in the public process as public officials or volunteers without the clash of opinions,” Mr. Reed said. His statement was applauded by members of the audience.

Attorney Bruce Afran, who represents members of the community opposed to the Dinky move, also protested. He suggested that the board take a vote on the question, but they did not. “This process taints the record very severely,” he said, eliciting more applause.

Once the University’s presentation got underway, details of the project’s four interconnected arts buildings, landscaping, new train station and Wawa buildings, traffic studies, sustainability, and other aspects were laid out. University Vice President and Secretary Bob Durkee introduced “a carefully engineered and highly integrated project,” saying it “attempts to address a number of community needs, as it also attempts to address one of the University’s highest priorities.”

Opponents to the move of the Dinky station fear that it will decrease ridership and cause the eventual phasing out of the service. Mr. Durkee said the plan “will enhance the Dinky experience and encourage more riders. The Dinky station is right in the middle of this plan and we have no intention to move it again,” he said. “More than half of Dinky riders are associated with the University, so we have a major stake in its viability.”

The four inter-connected buildings that are the core of the $300 million arts project were designed by Steven Holl, who called the effort “the most important project we have ever been involved in.” As described in detail by his colleague Noah Yaffe, the 139,000-square-foot Lewis Center for the Arts, which will include spaces for performances, rehearsals, and teaching, is “a very porous set of buildings” which will surround a new performing arts courtyard. “The space between the buildings is almost more important than the buildings themselves,” he said.

Matt Luck of Rick Joy Architects, which is designing the new train station and Wawa market and renovating the existing buildings into a restaurant and cafe, said the new building “is like the front porch of Princeton. It’s the first view they’ll have,” he said of those arriving at the Dinky terminus. The firm is trying to use local materials for every part of the new building. As for the new cafe in the old station building, he said very little work is planned. “I don’t even think we’ll have to repaint. When you have a resource like this, why would you mess with it?” he asked, causing more than one member of the audience to mutter, “Good question.”

Traffic engineer Georges Jacquemart said the project will create better traffic flow and a safer environment for vehicles and pedestrians. He estimated that the peak demand for parking spaces will not top 980, despite the fact that area venues could draw as many as 5,000 people if all were operating at one time.

Time was made at the end of the meeting for public comment by those who would not be able to return on November 1. First up was Emily Mann, artistic director of McCarter Theatre, which sits on the edge of the proposed project. Responding to questions she has been asked about how McCarter views the project, she described it as “an absolutely thrilling, exciting, awe-inspiring vision of what the arts can be.” She added that the project would be favorable even if it only meant that the train station buildings would be converted to a restaurant and cafe. As it stands, the project is a “gorgeous gift,” she said. “This is the confluence of arts, education, and community. It is a map for the future of this country and the arts in America.”

The only other speaker from the public was resident William Moody of Jefferson Road, who praised the arts project while expressing sadness that the Dinky would be moved as part of it. “Our ideas were not taken advantage of,” he said, complaining that the University did not listen to suggestions and reservations expressed by members of the community over the last few years. “Keeping the tracks where they are does not interfere with a single building you want to build,” he said. “Ninety-eight percent of what you want is fantastic …. I am really worried that this move is putting us into unnecessary jeopardy.”

The discussion ended at 11 p.m. It will continue on Thursday, November 1 at 7 p.m. at the Municipal Building, when more members of the public will have an opportunity to voice their views.


October 10, 2012

Princeton Borough Council’s unanimous vote October 2 to introduce an ordinance creating the Morven tract historic district comes after more than six years of efforts in support by one segment of the neighborhood, and vociferous objections by another. The latter was represented in force at the meeting last Tuesday, at which Mayor Yina Moore had to bang her gavel more than once to restore order.

The vote, which elicited boos and hisses, sends the ordinance off to the Regional Planning Board. After review, the measure will return to Borough Council for a final public hearing and vote. The proposed district is in the town’s architecturally distinctive western section and spans portions of Hodge Road, Library Place, Boudinot Street, Morven Place, and Bayard Lane.

It was last month that the Borough’s Historic Preservation Review Committee (HPRC) recommended that the designation be pursued, but also advised that Borough Council postpone acting on the recommendation until after consolidation goes into effect in January 2013. The Borough and Township have different ordinances, and the newly merged commission is expected to reflect elements of the existing two when it is formed.

Borough Council’s decision to take the first steps in considering the ordinance last week caused consternation among those opposed to the designation. Chief among other concerns voiced by residents of the district and some who live outside its boundaries were restrictions that would require them to go through a review process before making changes to the exteriors of their homes.

But Nora Kerr, chairperson of the HPRC, said this week that some of those concerns are unfounded. “The present Borough ordinance says that if any surface has been refinished in the past, you can paint it any color you want,” she said in response to statements during the meeting about paint color restrictions. Changes that require review in historic districts include construction of fences, adding light fixtures, changing or adding awnings, replacing windows, building additions, new construction, demolition, and changes in roof materials. Should a homeowner need to replace a slate roof with materials less expensive, “We try to be reasonable,” Ms. Kerr said. “For a roof, they’d have to come in for a review. But that happens very rarely.”

The restrictions apply only to exterior portions of a property that are visible from the public right-of-way. “People seem to think we would address issues that are interior, which we don’t,” said Ms. Kerr.

Council members Roger Martindell and Kevin Wilkes recused themselves from the meeting last Tuesday because of conflicts of interest. Mr. Martindell, a lawyer, cited legal work he had done for the principal of the firm that drafted a report for supporters of the proposal, while Mr. Wilkes, an architect, said he had a client who lives in the proposed district. Judith Scheide, a Library Place resident opposed to the designation, asked Ms. Moore to recuse herself. Ms. Scheide questioned whether Ms. Moore had met with supporters of the district when she was running for office and promised them she would vote for the measure if they voted for her.

“I did not make any promises to vote,” Ms. Moore asserted, adding that the mayor only votes if there is a tie. “That’s not true. I did not have a meeting with them.” Ms. Moore then warned Ms. Scheide and others in the audience that unruly behavior would not be tolerated. “I can tell you right now that this meeting isn’t going to be like the last one,” she said.

Once the public comment portion of the meeting began, several residents lined up to speak. Kim Pimley, who lives on Library Place, said that about 52 percent of those in the district do not want it to be designated historic. “We’re in the majority,” she said. “We do not want this. Do not over-regulate us.” But her neighbor John Heilner, who has been involved in supporting the proposal since its inception, questioned her figures.

Mr. Heilner, among the few who spoke in favor of the designation, has said that there are others who share his views but are afraid to voice them. Those who support the measure say that the neighborhood’s character is in danger of changing as homes are torn down and replaced with new ones that don’t fit in “This area we are talking about is the so-called treasured western section. It is the most beautiful, historic, most desired neighborhood in Princeton,” said Mary Heilner, adding, “The houses are from a graceful period in time, and are part of what makes Princeton so special.”

But most of the residents who spoke at the meeting were opposed to the designation. B.J. Booth of Morven Place said, “If you add a process that is not needed, you are adding another level of bureaucracy. You’re going to have people fleeing from these houses and it will be very difficult to sell.”

Nick Karp of Boudinot Street said, “Just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should. This isn’t going to be the Wild West if you don’t rezone. There will still be regulations.” Hodge Road resident Scott Sipprelle added that the neighborhood was “overwhelmingly opposed” to the designation. “Put this process to an end,” he urged Council.

Mark Solomon, the attorney for those against the designation, commented, “You’ve heard the people speak. We have, at every step, voiced our opposition … government should not go where it is not required to go.”

Following the lengthy public comment portion of the meeting, Council president Barbara Trelstad, a former resident of the western section, said she is concerned about preserving its character. “A house was torn down on Hodge five years ago, and replaced by a new, modern house,” she said. “There are a couple of others on Library Place. Tough economic times have stemmed the tide of larger tear-downs and huge McMansions going up, but still …”

Her concerns were echoed by Council member Jo Butler, who said she used to live in a historic district in Philadelphia and wished her Princeton house was located in one. “I don’t think the historic designation process is that onerous,” she said. “Trust me. The new government does not want to deal with this.”

Ms. Trelstad, Ms. Butler, Heather Howard and Jenny Crumiller then voted to introduce the ordinance and send it to the Planning Board for review. The audience made their displeasure known.


September 26, 2012

After hearing presentations from members of the design team charged with creating Princeton University’s $300 million arts and transit neighborhood, the Regional Planning Board of Princeton’s Site Plan Review Advisory Board (SPRAB) voted on Monday, September 24, to recommend approval to the planners with certain caveats. Should the Planning Board follow this advice, construction could begin on the first phase of the project this coming spring. The Lewis Center for the Arts, its centerpiece, would be projected for a 2017 opening.

The plan has been a source of controversy among local residents because it involves moving the Dinky train station 460 feet south and turning the existing station buildings into a restaurant and cafe. The project has been opposed by the organization Save the Dinky, and is the subject of two pending lawsuits.

Several university consultants and employees were on hand for the meeting in the Township municipal building. University Architect Ron McCoy led the presentations, which included input from
architects Steven Holl, Rick Joy, and landscape architect Michael Van Valkenburgh. Mr. Holl, designer of the Lewis Center building, said he sees the project as a “middle gateway” to Princeton, “a place where the community and the University can join.” Having worked on the design since 2007, Mr. Holl said, “We’ve improved, improved, refined and improved, and I’m really excited about where we are now.”

But SPRAB chairman Bill Wolfe expressed several concerns about the project. “Despite being very enthusiastic about the quality of the design, I am very, very unhappy with the overall plan,” he said. The concept of the transit center as a gateway to the town and university is not sufficiently grand, he felt. “This is where important scholars from all over the globe first set foot in Princeton,” he said. “In this site plan, the most important public space to the University and the town should be the transit plaza. But it doesn’t yet look it.” Mr. Wolfe was also disappointed that the proposed arts center was not designed to be closer to McCarter Theatre and that University Place does not run straight to the transit plaza.

Mr. McCoy said the University “has been at this for years,” and had many conversations. “We’re very confident that the solution we’ve arrived at is a good compromise,” he said.

Among the features of the plan described by Mr. McCoy and the design team were parking for Dinky riders, a transit plaza at the new Dinky station site for taxis, jitneys and buses, and enhanced public areas with art that has yet to be determined. A traffic circle at the intersection of Alexander Road and University Place will improve flow, Mr. McCoy said.

The arts complex will include a black box theater, a dance theater, music rehearsal hall, and two studios, to serve the University during the day and be used for public performances at night, he said. Bluestone walkways, green roofs, enhanced plantings and underground wiring and utilities were also detailed.

Trees to be planted will have high canopies in order to keep the buildings “filled with light in winter,” said Mr. Van Valkenburgh when describing the landscaping. The commuter parking lot will be divided with trees. The University Place Green, a major part of the project, will have landscaping modeled after the trees in front of Nassau Hall.

Mr. Joy’s firm will design the new station and renovate the historic Dinky buildings with the assistance of Princeton-based Mills + Schnoering Architects. “This is a great opportunity to give some of the most historic buildings on campus to the community,” he said of the old station building, which will be turned into a restaurant. “We’ve maintained and honored the presence of the original building, and sort of snuck in our addition on the back side,” he said of a planned addition.

SPRAB member Joshua Zinder, who is an architect, suggested that the canopy on the historic building be kept. “The removal of the canopy is too bad,” he said. “That structure, with some clever landscaping, could be the east/west gateway. It’s a big part of the historic character of the station.” Mr. McCoy acknowledged that the canopy was “a difficult issue,” but a new canopy will be built. Mr. Zinder also recommended that a material other than stucco, which is planned, be used.

SPRAB included these comments, as well as those from Mr. Wolfe, with the recommendation to the planning board.


April 25, 2012

Princeton Regional Planning Board concluded last week that developer AvalonBay’s request for increased density in the rental complex they hope to build at the site of the University Medical Center at Princeton conflicts with the master plan. Their 9-1 decision not to endorse the proposal was sent to Borough Council, which was to consider the zoning ordinance at its meeting last night, after press time.

The Planning Board’s vote came at the end of a four-hour meeting April 19, packed with residents of the neighborhood surrounding the hospital site. Most were opposed to AvalonBay’s request. While some welcomed developer Ron Ladell’s announcement, midway through the meeting, that the company was withdrawing its request for fewer affordable housing units in exchange for higher density, they still registered concerns.

“I am proud to announce that the request to reduce the affordable percentage from 20 to 17.3 percent is being withdrawn,” said Mr. Ladell, who is AvalonBay Communities’ senior vice president. “We are happy to provide 20 percent at the increased density of 324 units that will result in 65 affordable on-site units. This has never been done in Princeton. It would set a precedent both in Princeton and throughout the state.”

AvalonBay is under contract to buy the hospital site. They plan to demolish the seven-story building and build rental apartments. Market rate units, including studios to three-bedroom apartments, would have rents from $1,600 to $3,200 per month.

Resident Joe McGeady told the Board that the master plan’s provisions for retail, a playground, and other public areas should be retained and the zoning should not be changed. “A great opportunity is slipping through our hands,” he said. “The plan has minimum open space on Witherspoon. The town deserves better. I would hate to see us miss this chance and settle for the ordinary because an ordinance that is inconsistent with the master plan was allowed to pass through the planning board.”

Borough resident Alexi Assmus said the original number of 280 maximum units for the 5.6-acre hospital site, arrived at after numerous public meetings, was “a big compromise on the part of the neighborhood. The compromise was made in order to allow the hospital to sell the site for a higher price than if the rezoning had required a much smaller number of units. A smaller number of units would have been in keeping with the neighborhood character of single family houses.”

Raising the number of units after a contract has been signed “is bad business and is unfair to the community and to the numerous other potential buyers who are eager to redevelop the property,” Ms. Assmus added (see letter on page 10).

Some in the packed meeting room spoke in favor of the request. Borough Council President Barbara Trelstad said the extra density proposal was smart growth, serving working people who could otherwise not afford to live in Princeton. “The average home in Princeton costs $453,000. A down payment of $90,000 is significantly out of reach for most working class folks,” she said. Ms. Trelstad added that AvalonBay’s plan for usable front porches “puts eyes on the street.”

Also in favor was Sandra Persichetti, executive director of Princeton Community Housing. “Over 500 families are waiting for an affordable apartment,” she said, urging the Planning Board to take action. “We hope people learn from the past that endless conversation is not in anyone’s interest,” she said. “We do not want to see abandoned buildings and blight at the site. The project is acceptable to us as long as it is built in a timely fashion …. I urge you to think about those living in substandard conditions who don’t have a home to go to tonight.”

Grace Sinden, a founding member of Sustainable Princeton, said Princeton Borough should require or promote the idea that the developer adhere to the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design [LEED] standards rather than Energy Star, which AvalonBay prefers for this development. “Energy Star applies to household appliances and light bulbs,” she said. “Municipalities do not value it as highly as LEED.”

Representing the Site Plan Review Advisory Board [SPRAB], member Bill Wolfe cited concerns about the scope, style, and design standards for the complex. “SPRAB would prefer an open development, more in keeping with the neighborhood,” he said, adding that a possible compromise would be to make open space at the rental complex more accessible to the public. The “monolithic floor plans” could be broken down to vary story heights and lessen the mass, he said. “SPRAB believes LEED is applicable and should be recommended,” he said, adding that the Board is “emphatically opposed to the density bonus.”

Board member Bernie Miller said he had concerns about the lack of retail in AvalonBay’s plan. “It makes the development less inclusive,” he said. Mr. Miller also said that the figure of 280 was arrived at after careful negotiations with neighbors. “I have difficulty supporting a higher number even with the offer of providing a 20 percent affordable set-aside,” he said. “If we can’t invoke LEED standards, but perhaps if the developer stood up and said he would volunteer …. I wonder why he is not stepping forward and saying he will volunteer.”

The only member of the Board to vote in favor of the request was former Princeton Borough Mayor Mildred Trotman, who lives in the neighborhood of the proposed development. She said she had no problem with the increased density idea, and added that AvalonBay is exceeding open space standards as well as other issues. “The more I look at this, the more I think the impact on the community will be minimized compared to what is there now,” she said.

At the meeting, the Board did endorse some of the developer’s requested zoning changes including installing signs, adding a leasing office, allowing some loft apartments, and adjusting an internal lot line.

 

April 18, 2012

Controversial zoning changes proposed for AvalonBay, the developer of the apartment complex planned for the 5.6-acre site being vacated by the University Medical Center at Princeton, are on the agenda of tomorrow night’s public meeting of the Regional Planning Board. Following the Planning Board’s review, the zoning amendment will be sent back to Borough Council, which is expected to vote on it at a public hearing on April 24.

Currently under contract to purchase the hospital site on Witherspoon Street, AvalonBay wants zoning amended to allow for increased density of apartments to 324 units, up from the approved number of 280. But the developer does not want to increase the number of affordable housing units beyond the 56 that are already required. AvalonBay is not seeking to increase the allowable size of the complex, and is conforming to the height and setbacks originally established for the 280 units.

Weighing in on the issue this week, Councilman Kevin Wilkes, who is a candidate in the June 5 primary for the Democratic nomination for mayor, said he thinks AvalonBay should be allowed to add more units, but only if they include a 20 percent affordable housing threshold in their plans.

“The hospital is moving out in five weeks and we’ve discussed this eventuality for eight years,” Mr. Wilkes said in a printed statement. “Now the Princeton community is faced with the consequences of this departure. The first purchaser of the hospital main campus walked away from the deal they negotiated as local residential sales prices plummeted. When a new developer emerged, AvalonBay, they indicated they wanted to build new rental housing at the site and remove all but one of the existing institutional buildings on the site. They have put forth a proposal that is mostly in conformance with the zoning standards that we passed in 2006 for the redevelopment of the site except for two significant changes,” he said, referring to the request for more units and a reduction in affordable housing units.

Ronald S. Ladell, Senior Vice President of Development for AvalonBay, said this week that the company wants to build 324 units and 17.3 percent COAH -[Council on Affordable Housing] eligible units. “We’ve also offered nine additional workforce housing units, so they’re not COAH-eligible. And that’s what the ordinance says,” he said.

For the past several weeks, residents of the neighborhood surrounding the hospital have protested the increased density request as well as other aspects of AvalonBay’s proposal for the site. Many of them voiced their views at the April 10 meeting of Borough Council. More than 100 have signed an online petition opposing the plans.

Mr. Ladell said many of their claims are unfounded. Regarding comments about a lack of access to open space, he said the complex will have a park fronting it on Witherspoon Street. “We exceed the requirement for depth of open space into the site by over 100 percent.”

He also addressed complaints about the proposed complex’s “monolithic” appearance and uninspired architectural design. “Monolithic? Eyes of the beholder,” he said. “The entire streetscape is stoops and patios. The setbacks far exceed the requirements. There are three types of facade treatments. There are architectural elements. We’re eager to get to the point of talking about design standards, but we’re still at the ordinance point right now.”

To concerns that the rental complex will not adhere to the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design [LEED] rating system, using the system known as Energy Star instead, Mr. Ladell responded, “We’ve had great success with LEED in high-rises built in a non-combustible manner. But in New Jersey, nearly all of our communities are wood or stick-built, and Energy Star has been a tremendous success in sustainability and reducing the carbon footprint. We plan on using an environmentally sustainable program and our preference would be to use Energy Star.”

Mr. Ladell said assertions by neighborhood residents that the rental complex will house 1,000 people are “completely inaccurate.” He added that AvalonBay has submitted reports of a traffic study, concluding that the difference between having 280 and 324 units is one additional vehicle every three minutes during peak time. “That’s what we see the impact to be, which we view as not significant,” he said. “The increased density is very beneficial to the community in many ways, without any detriments.”

Touching on the issue of traffic volume in his statement, Mr. Wilkes said, “As long as the traffic studies indicate that the additional units will result in a negligible increase in traffic, we should support the variance for additional units but we should hold firm on our requirement for the 20 percent set aside of COAH marketable rental apartments.”

If AvalonBay were to conform to the 20 percent affordable housing standard, 65 new affordable rental apartments would be included in the complex. “Princeton can then elect to apply those 65 affordable apartments to its earlier affordable housing obligation under the state’s COAH, for which Princeton could potentially receive double bonus credits for a total of up to 130 credits,” Mr. Wilkes said. “Or, the town could apply those new units to COAH’s Third Round ‘growth share’ obligation, which would meet a very large percentage of that obligation.” Both scenarios represent “significant gains for our community and would be in line with Princeton’s longstanding tradition of progressive affordable housing policies.”

“Princeton has a long tradition of hospitality to the needs of those who rent and we should be accessible to those who are not sufficiently wealthy to be able to purchase in town,” he continued. “This community provided affordable housing to its residents long before other municipalities were talking about it. In addition, supporting our position requiring a 20 percent affordable share will embolden us to hold firm with future developers who come before us seeking to redevelop significant portions of our existing residential fabric with new replacement housing.”

Mr. Ladell said that no private developer has ever built 20 percent affordable housing, “or even 15 percent. Some have been as low as two percent affordable set aside.” His response to the 20 percent suggestion is that rental communities are only required to do 15 percent. “Our proposal is to exceed the 15 percent by nine units, then exceed it again by nine more for workforce housing, which is deed-restricted and income-limited for 30 years,” he said. “Some members of Borough Council are supportive of workforce housing. Five years ago when the ordinance was adopted, the governing bodies and staff wanted to write an option for workforce housing.”

The Planning Board meeting Thursday, April 19, will be held at the Municipal Building starting at 7:30 p.m.


March 21, 2012

Princeton Borough Council last week passed a resolution to send a proposal to the Regional Planning Board nominating the Dinky station for inclusion in the Borough’s historic preservation plans. Borough resident Anne Neumann and Township resident Kip Cherry, members of Save the Dinky, requested at the March 13 meeting of the Council that the station be considered for such designation.

“We want it protected under local laws,” said Ms. Neumann. The station has been listed as a landmark on the state and national Registers of Historic Places since 1984. Ms. Cherry echoed Ms. Neumann’s request that the Dinky station area be considered by the local Historic Preservation Committee as a Historic District. “This includes the freight station, platform, canopy, catenary, and the associated tracks, with a focus on the fact that this is an operating station,” she said. “I should add that this station anchors what I understand is the shortest scheduled train line in the U.S.”

Ms. Cherry added that listing the station as a historic district would prevent it from being converted to another use. Princeton University, which owns the land on which the station sits, plans to move the station 460 feet south to a new facility as part of its $300 million arts and transit neighborhood. The University has proposed turning the existing station across from McCarter Theatre into a restaurant or cafe.

A zoning change was approved several months ago to allow the University’s plans to proceed.

Henry Chou, the Borough’s assistant municipal attorney, said that the train station is listed as a historic site in the list of designated sites that will go before the Planning Board later this year. The Master Plan Subcommittee is working to bring the proposed historic districts in the Borough into compliance with municipal land use law, he added.

The attorney for the University said he was “disconcerted” to hear about the request from Ms. Neumann and Ms. Cherry. “We didn’t get the courtesy of a copy of that letter,” said Richard Goldman, of the firm Drinker, Biddle & Reath. “The record of getting copies of things is difficult,” he added, referring to the fact that Ms. Neumann is among the plaintiffs in two lawsuits against the University and the Borough, which have yet to be served to them. “It is being proposed to you by people who are litigating both the University and the Borough to try and block the implementation of the zoning that you adopted. It seems that you ought not to be in such a hurry.”

The next meeting of Borough Council is Tuesday, March 27.


March 7, 2012

Following four lengthy meetings spanning the past three months, Princeton’s Regional Planning Board last Thursday approved the Institute for Advanced Study’s proposal to build faculty housing on land it owns bordering the historic Princeton Battlefield. The Board voted unanimously for the plan, which was amended with modifications suggested at a previous meeting by historians James McPherson and David Hackett Fischer.

But Bruce Afran, attorney for the Princeton Battlefield Society, which vigorously opposes the plan, said the organization will appeal the decision. “The Planning Board was really just the opening skirmish,” he said Tuesday morning. “The main fight to preserve it is only just starting.”

Mr. Afran said he is preparing to challenge the Institute in light of a 1992 settlement agreement in which they gave up the right to build on the land bordering the Battlefield. In addition, he will ask the Department of Environmental Protection to reopen a letter of interpretation about the existence of wetlands on the site. “It is smack on top of wetlands,” he said, claiming that two separate surveys, in 1990 and 2011, indicated that this was the case. “This is illegal under state and federal laws and we will go to court on that.”

Christine Ferrara, senior public affairs officer at the IAS, said Mr. Afran misinterprets the agreement between the Institute and the Township. “Especially according to one member of the Planning Board, who was involved at the time of the settlement, his interpretation is incorrect,” she said. “Now, the colleagues on the Board have concurred. It is very clear-cut, in our view.”

Numerous residents of the neighborhood surrounding the IAS have spoken in favor of the plan in recent months, while Battlefield Society members have said it will desecrate the site of General George Washington’s counterattack and first victory against the British in the January 3, 1777 Battle of Princeton. The 15 faculty homes, eight of which are townhouses, will be located on seven acres, with an additional 10 acres adjacent to the Park to be preserved as public open space.

“Every vote in favor of the Institute’s plan is a vote against American history,” said William Tatum III, a scholar at the David Library of Washington Crossing, Pa. Battlefield Society member Brian Kovacs echoed Mr. Tatum’s views, calling approval of the proposal “misguided reasoning” and “an act against our heritage.”

Among those sympathetic to the proposal was Didier Fassin, the Institute’s James D. Wolfensohn Professor of Social Sciences. “This is an intellectual community, and to build an intellectual community one needs proximity,” he said, referring to the Institute’s preference that its scholars should be housed on site. Homes in the surrounding neighborhood have become too costly for faculty members, the Institute has said.

Mr. Afran’s claim about the existence of wetlands is based on a survey commissioned in 1990 by the IAS when it wanted to build housing on a different section of its property. That survey showed wetlands in the area where the housing approved last week is to be built, he said. The same person who did that survey was hired by the Battlefield Society last year. She found the same evidence of wetlands, he said.

“The Institute knew about these wetlands all along, but they concealed it,” Mr. Afran said. “The wetlands feed right into the Stony Brook and Lake Carnegie and our drinking water supply.”

The approved housing is to be built behind a buffer zone. According to the plan’s modifications, that buffer will be moved away from the edge of Battlefield Park and put directly behind the homes, shielding them from view and maintaining open space. The amendments also call for a path to be installed through the Institute property, with interpretive signage at the northern end about the Battle of Princeton; providing public access to the buffer zone; and reducing the size of one of the houses.

Before voting, members of the Planning Board expressed sympathy with both sides of the issue. But ultimately, the Institute plan won out.

“So many times, objectors who come before us have financial gain [as their purpose],” said Janet Stern. “Here, we have passion and zeal, and I’m wrestling with a lot of it …. Given that the Institute does own the land and that it does have the legal right to build …. I would support the application.”

Peter Madison said the application had to be viewed not just from an emotional point of view, but from a legal standpoint. The Battlefield Society would likely appeal a vote in favor of the proposal, he said. “But I believe if this application would go to court, I think the application has a much stronger case. So I will vote in favor.”

Mildred Trotman said, “As sympathetic as I am to supporters of the Battlefield, given all the information we have been given and the history of this project that goes back years and years, I feel confident supporting it.”

In a written statement, Institute Director Peter Goddard said the IAS was “immensely pleased” to have received approval. “This plan not only enables us to maintain the essential residential character of our community of scholars, but it will also enhance the Princeton Battlefield Park, which the Institute helped create and expand. We plan to work with others to promote the improvement of the interpretative materials in the park so that visitors might gain a greater understanding and appreciation of the Battle of Princeton. We look forward to partnering with local, state and regional bodies to that end.”

Mr. Afran said yesterday, “The hurdles against the Institute are immense at this point.”


February 8, 2012

DESIGN FOR THE DINKY: Princeton University has selected architect Rick Joy of Tucson, Arizona to design the new Dinky station that will be situated south of the current terminal. The controversial move is part of the University’s Arts and Transit neighborhood on the western edge of campus. (Rendering Courtesy of Beyer Blinder Belle, Michael VanValkenburg Associates, and Steven Holl Architects)

An architect known for his work on buildings in the desert landscape of Arizona has been selected to lead the design of the new Dinky train station. Rick Joy, whose Rick Joy Architects is based in Tucson, will collaborate with Steven Holl Architects and Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates on the project, part of Princeton University’s $300 million Arts and Transit neighborhood planned for the western edge of the campus.

The controversial move of the Dinky station, which some hope can still be prevented, would relocate the terminus some 460 feet south of its current location. The redevelopment plan calls for the current Dinky station to be turned into a restaurant or cafe. Mr. Joy is also charged with designing a new building for the Wawa convenience store, currently located on the corner of University Place and Alexander Street.

The University plans to present its plans to the Regional Planning Board sometime this spring. Zoning changes for the project were approved late last year by both the Borough and Township, and those changes have been challenged by a group of residents in a lawsuit.

Along with the hiring of Mr. Joy, the University made some modifications to some of its original plans for the parcel. In a letter to the Planning Board on February 2, University Vice President and Secretary Bob Durkee wrote, “These modifications allow us to meet zoning requirements, but they also respond to some community concerns about whether the site will be sufficiently open and accessible to members of the community. The relocation and reorientation also respond to community interest in making sure that the site can accommodate possible future mass transit options by introducing greater flexibility in the area.”

Durkee added that the new plans will improve walking paths from Forbes College to the campus and provide a greater sense of connection between the transit area and the arts buildings in the first phase of the project. Traffic patterns will be significantly improved, he wrote, as will short-term parking options in the plaza and the station building. The design “reserves the possibility of a later-phase building at some point in the future on the site between the Holl buildings and University Place,” he wrote.

Mr. Joy founded his firm in 1993. He received the 2002 American Academy of Arts and Letters Award in Architecture and in 2004 won the National Design Award from the Smithsonian Institute/Cooper-Hewitt Museum. He has been a visiting professor at Harvard Graduate School of Design, Rice University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Among the projects currently listed on his website is Le Massif de Charlevoix, a $230 million tourism and recreation project in Quebec, Canada containing a train station, lodging units, public square, boutiques, restaurants, and cafes.

February 1, 2012

Princeton Township Deputy Mayor Liz Lempert is the first local official to announce her candidacy for mayor of a consolidated Princeton in the upcoming Democratic Primary election on June 5.

“The next few years offer a great opportunity to show how we can continue to build on the consolidation of our two municipalities — Princeton Borough and Princeton Township — and remake ourselves into a Princeton that will be stronger, more vibrant, and even more extraordinary than before,” said Ms. Lempert. “I want to make sure consolidation works well for all residents. If we do it right, we’ll be a model for others — a fitting role for a town with such a renowned history.”

Ms. Lempert was an early proponent of consolidation. In announcing her candidacy for Township Committee member in 2009 she noted that “this is … an opportunity to look for smart ways to save money, improve efficiency, and think big. I’d like to work with the other members of the Township Committee and Borough Council towards consolidation, affordability, sustainability, and open government that encourages citizens to participate and contribute their ideas and knowledge.”

Ms. Lempert’s current departmental assignments include membership on the Environmental Commission; the Traffic Safety Committee; the Joint Sidewalk and Bikeways Committee; the Flood and Stormwater Management Committee; and the Citizens’ Finance Advisory Committee.

She is also the mayor’s appointee to the Regional Planning Board, and a trustee of the Joint Transportation Fund.

She serves as well on the Friends of the Princeton Public Library’s executive board, and is a founding member of the grassroots public school advocacy group Save Our Schools-N.J.

The Stanford graduate traces her interest in local government to her work as co-chair of Mercer for Obama, a 3,500 member grassroots group that campaigned for Barack Obama’s election as president. “I helped to build a network of volunteers, many of us new to the political process and eager to make a difference,” she said.

“What I enjoyed most about the Obama campaign was finding meaningful ways for people to contribute that took advantage of their special skills, expertise, and interests,” she added. “The experience taught me how to direct a large and diverse group of people in a collaborative way.”

Ms. Lempert and her husband, Ken Norman, have lived in Princeton since 2002. Their youngest daughter attends Littlebrook Elementary School and her older sister is at John Witherspoon Middle School.

A north California native, Ms. Lempert worked as a producer and editor for National Public Radio’s environmental news show, Living on Earth, first in Cambridge, Massachusetts, then Boulder, Colorado, before settling in Princeton. “My experience as a journalist trained me to find information quickly, assimilate differing points of view, and be open to listening — skills I’ve found useful on the Committee,” she commented.

“I wholeheartedly endorse Liz for mayor,” said Township Mayor Chad Goerner, who recently announced that he would not run for the position. “She has a strong record on Township Committee — from her leadership on preserving the Princeton Ridge to holding the line on the budget. Liz makes sure that she listens to all sides of an argument, but when push comes to shove, she knows how to make decisions and get things done.”

In addition to the enthusiastic backing of Township Committee members, Ms. Lempert has drawn support from officials and residents in the Borough. “Liz is the right person at the right time,” said Councilwoman Heather Howard. “She has the ability and temperament to bring together Borough and Township and lead during this critical period.”

“Liz cares about our community,” said Claire Jacobus, former chair of the Human Services Commission and longtime Borough resident. “When there was an effort to eliminate local services for the least fortunate in our town, Liz worked tirelessly to make sure that didn’t happen.”

Following a nearly four-hour hearing in front of the Regional Planning Board last Thursday night, the future of the Institute for Advanced Study’s proposal to develop faculty housing on land adjacent to Princeton Battlefield Park remains undecided. Based on testimony from witnesses, opponents of the plan now say that less than half of the site could be legally built upon, while proponents disagreed.

Though billed as an opportunity for the public to comment, the meeting was dominated by legal arguments and examinations by attorneys representing the Institute and the Princeton Battlefield Society. The Battlefield Society opposes the project, saying the land should not be disturbed because it was the site of General George Washington’s counterattack and first victory against the British during the 1777 Battle of Princeton.

The Institute wants to build 15 residences for faculty members on land that it owns next to the Park, behind a buffer zone of deciduous and evergreen trees. The project would sit on seven acres and permanently preserve 60 percent of the tract as open space. But a witness examined by Battlefield Society attorney Bruce Afran said that the IAS has a legal right to build only six houses on the property.

Russell Smith of Hopewell Valley Engineering cited setback rules, wetland buffers, and various restrictions that might apply to the zone, stating that the IAS neglected to take them into account before presenting their plan. “The end result of that [analysis] produced six buildable lots,” he said, “six dwelling units that could be built in this cluster.” Cross-examined by IAS attorney Christopher Tarr, Mr. Smith admitted that the analysis was based on his interpretation of Princeton ordinances, which differs from the interpretation of the project’s designer, architect Robert Hillier [a Town Topics shareholder].

This was the third meeting of the Regional Planning Board in three months to be devoted to the housing proposal. As with the previous meetings, there was a capacity crowd of supporters for both sides of the issue. The Institute wants to build the development because housing in the neighborhood of Springdale Road and Mercer Street has become too costly to purchase for faculty. The housing cluster would include seven single-family homes and eight townhomes, as well as a new road and stormwater retention basin.

Before a grilling by Mr. Afran about the concept plan, Mr. Hillier called the project “a good way to plan, a good way to preserve green space, and, frankly, a good way to encourage clusters.” He used examples of previous clusters he has designed, including The Glen, which contains more than 50 percent green space, and Pond View, which protected its neighboring wetlands.

Among those to speak against the housing plan was Glenn Williams, a senior historian with the U.S. Army Center of Military History and a trustee of the Battlefield Society. “It is not the intention of historic preservation to save every blade of grass on a battlefield,” he said. “It is the intention of historic preservation to save the historic acreage of a historic battlefield.” A battlefield is “a classroom, a laboratory,” he continued, adding that the National Park Service has designated the Princeton Battlefield as a “priority one” for being endangered.

Residents who spoke in favor of the plan included architect William S. Greenberg, a former chairman of the Township zoning board. “I urge you to reach beyond the rhetoric and make your determination on the merit” of the proposal, he said, adding, “It isn’t a particular piece of ground, but what occurred there.”

The next meeting of the Planning Board to be devoted to the housing proposal is February 16.

January 25, 2012

Designs for a residential community on the site of the former Merwick rehabilitation center and its neighboring Stanworth complex were presented to the Regional Planning Board on Thursday, January 19. This was a concept hearing, so no vote was taken. Residents of the surrounding neighborhoods were given an opportunity to comment, and several voiced concerns about safety and already existing runoff issues.

Princeton University is developing the site off Bayard Lane for faculty, staff, and their families, with 20 percent devoted to affordable housing available to low-and-moderate-income local residents. Those units would be spread throughout the complex rather than isolated in one section, developers told the Planning Board.

The plans call for the existing Stanworth homes to be rebuilt and expanded. The University built the complex in the late 1940‘s to house faculty and staff. The adjacent Merwick site, which the University purchased in 2010 from Princeton Healthcare System when it was announced that Merwick was moving to Plainsboro, will be all new construction. The old building was recently demolished.

The Georgetown Company of New York City is the developer for the project, and Torti Gallas and Partners of Maryland are the architects. Sustainability and the maintenance of existing trees and green space are key features of the plan. Architect Lawrence Antoine said the challenge and design directive was to try to mix the different housing into a cohesive form. “We will pick up some of the massing standards of the existing Stanworth,” he said. “There will be similar massing in different-sized buildings.”

The first phase of the project is expected to begin with the nine-acre Merwick site. Plans call for 128 units within two-story townhomes, two-story multifamily stacked units, and three-story apartment buildings. The University expects to open the complex in the fall of 2014. The 17-acre Stanworth site, which is Phase 2 of the construction, will include the redevelopment of 198 units in two-story townhomes and two-story multi-family stacked flats. The existing 154 units will be demolished, and the new construction will be on the footprints of the old, when possible, in order to preserve as many trees as possible.

Previous to that, Stanworth will house graduate students who will vacate the Hibben-Magie complex while it is being redeveloped. Stanworth will then be emptied for construction, with faculty and staff scheduled to move in during the fall of 2016.

A large, wooded area would back up to homes on John Street. It is on that street, and on Leigh Avenue, that drainage problems already exist. “It’s a pretty serious problem,” said resident Hendricks Davis. “Indeed, a river runs from it and through it.”

Edgar Lampert, vice chairman of the Georgetown Company, acknowledged the problem and said all of the piping on the site will be replaced. “But still, there are challenges with the runoff to Leigh Avenue,” he said. “Our consultants are looking at that.”

Plans call for the main entrance into the housing complex to be the same as it was when the rehabilitation center was there. Traffic in and out is estimated to be approximately 21 percent less, according to consultant Georges Jacquemart. But residents of Cleveland Lane, which is opposite the entrance road, expressed doubt at the figure and concerns about safety.

“It’s a dangerous intersection,” said Debbie Morrison, who lives on the street. “I was hit by a car there in 2009.” Her husband Jack Morrison urged the developers to consider installing a flashing walkway. Other residents of the surrounding neighborhoods suggested such considerations as widening the sidewalk on Bayard Lane, minimizing exterior lighting, and making sure that future redevelopment plans of the YWCA and YMCA are kept in mind.