March 5, 2005

WITHERSPOON STREET
MEETING
TRANSCRIPTS ¬

2005 ¬
May 21*
Street Design and
Land Use Options
Part I
Part II

April 16
Schematic Scenarios

March 5
Vision/Concepts

February 16
Report on Findings
To Date

January 15
The Findings of the Neighborhood Workshops

2004¬
December 18
South Workshop

December 11
Central Workshop

December 4
North Workshop

November 13
Open Town Meeting

March 5, 2005
Vision/Concepts

Present: Berit Marshall, Joanna Kendig, Mary Bonotto, Barrie Royce, Marvin Reed, Yina Moore, Michael Mostoller, Gail Ullman, Wanda Gunning, Michael Floyd, Fannie Floyd, Jim Floyd, Ricardo Bruce, Charles Alden, Dana Smith, Gail Johnson, Berit Marshall, Virginia Kerr, Sue Tillett, Scott Sillars, Matthew Hersh, Andres Reinero, George Cody, Heidi Fichtenbaum, Jeff Furey, Antonio Reinero, Hendricks Davis, Sheldon Sturges, Robert Geddes, Shirley Satterfield, Mary Ellen Marino, Dennis Stark, Jamie Laliberte, Gene Imhoff, John Vidulich, Dennis Stark, Jennifer Potash, Karen Jezierny, Holly Nelson, Kevin Wilkes, Mike Littwin

Yina Moore:Welcome. We are here today to conduct a community review of the outline by the Witherspoon Street Corridor Study Advisory Committee. We shared a little bit at our February 16^th evening meeting about what was being considered. We have, since then, had another meeting to go through the structure and the content of those parameters. Now the parameters, as originally constructed were to guide the design process, which is something that is in progress. It is not something that is concluded. It is in a ‘bubble-diagram’ form, which Michael will share with you later. It is not a pre-conceived list. It was discussed within the context of the conversations we have all had about Witherspoon St, first and foremost. But it recognizes, in both the timing and the urgency, the recent decision of the Board of the Hospital and the recent publication of the final report of the Healthcare Task Force. It is recognizing that, as we look at the North section of the street, the Central section is going to have to have an additional look at this site as a specific property in addition to all of the street issues and neighboring land uses.

Yesterday, the Advisory Group was still updating this by email. It begins with an introduction and lists 6 roman numeral areas of concern. I will read it:

“The principles outlined below have been gathered from numerous meetings and public working sessions attended by a broad spectrum of the Princeton community. Princeton Future has facilitated these meetings, and a smaller group volunteered to consolidate ideas and put them into the form of a set of parameters. The advisory committee held additional meetings to analyze details of the site, zoning, design, and development options. With the concurrence of the community, we hope that these parameters will be considered seriously by all parties who hold authority and have an interest in the future of our community.”

Any discussion about that paragraph? What we had hoped to do by reviewing these items is to incorporate feedback and to put in anything that has been left out. Just as a note, they were developed using all of the comments in the 4 WSCS meetings that preceded the Advisory Group meetings.

Jim Floyd: Just a question. Is the definition of the word ‘community’ applied narrowly? geographically? Or, is it the community of Princeton.

Yina:It is the community of Princeton.

Jim Floyd: I would hope we could insert that in something final.

Yina: OK. We have a hierarchy of local, surrounding neighborhoods.

JF:This affects the entire Princeton.

Joanna Kendig:That raises the thought: How do we get to the groups beyond those that are coming here? Are we expecting letters?

YM:Yes, that is one of the important things. The next paragraph:

“The hospital site on Witherspoon St, as well as other hospital-owned properties, has evolved in service to the host community for over 75 years. The needs of the general public have been well served in the current locations of the hospital. Growth within the hospital’s market area, trends in medical service delivery, and the desire for growth potential are all Medical Center needs that may well exceed the capacity of the Princeton community to provide or endure. It is time to reconsider the needs of the community and the use of the hospital properties for the greatest benefit and service to the citizens of Princeton.”

Here there is a distinction, when others may use ‘community’, particularly when the hospital references the ‘community’ in terms of its ‘market’, which is Princeton and a few other towns. This is very specific to Princeton. Which includes the Township and the Borough! Any further comment….?

Barrie Royce[Chair of the Borough Zoning Board]: Let me make a comment which is going to be unpopular. But let me make it anyhow. It is a wonderful piece of property. I think, as Bob Geddes pointed out the other day, We don’t own it. The people that own that piece of property indicated, in a mailing I got yesterday, that they needed to make money by selling it for what they call ‘appropriate development’. If you do a back-of-the-envelope calculation that means they want to end up getting something in the order of $700,000-$1,000,000 an acre for the piece of property we’ll just call the hospital, not including Merwick which is a separate issue.

Yina:Let’s talk about ‘appropriate development’…

Barrie : I don’t know…The point I am trying to make is that I think there is truth in what you have said there but it has to be counter-balanced against the ‘truth’ that someone else sees in terms of their needs for continuing to provide to the Princeton community and the surrounding areas a modern appropriate medical center. We need to be aware of this, if not, we deceive ourselves.

YM:We understand that.

Mary Ellen Marino:I haven’t been a part of all of these negotiations/discussions. I would counter that if we are speaking as citizens, and therefore as potential policy makers of the political units of Princeton Boro and Princeton Township, then we can establish by our zoning and adjustment requirements what it is we think should be there, if they feel they need to go. And that could effect their price for their property, or should.

JF:Well said.

Michael:It is also instructive in the way we have come to frame our citizen response. That property has been a tax-free property for 85 years in trust for use by the community.

JF: Zoning variances consumed properties that were tax-paying properties. So don’t say that it has been there for 85 years in that context. All of you got this hospital mailing. I think, really, what you are talking about is precisely what is stated in the last sentence in the first page. And this is where you either become conspiring, or objective. It says: ”identifying and securing desirable zoning is key to the success of selling the existing site”. And it kind of sounds like, it started out as a series of zoning variances that allowed the hospital to do that expansion. And it is kind of strange, that here we sit, and we are going to find a way to enhance the beneficiary of something that was detrimental to the community. For once, we are on the same page!

Yina: Let’s go the next paragraph:

“The community meetings revealed and elevated concerns about the social, environmental, and economic fragility of the street and adjacent neighborhoods. Our preliminary work suggests that it is appropriate at this time to present guiding principles for the future of Witherspoon Street in the presence of and absence of the hospital. We recognize the benefit of several community meetings held by the hospital over the past years and the recent report by the Healthcare Task Force. The following parameters for redevelopment of the hospital site are offered to establish a framework for discussion and planning for Witherspoon Street, the adjacent neighborhoods, and the community.

End of Introduction”.

Jamie Laliberte: May I ask a question? These points are based on nthe hospital moving. I think we need to see what is going to happen in the next three to five years when the hospital stays. There concessions being proposed today that will greatly effect what goes on. For example, if the town fathers decide to make a variance to allow 35,000 SF of additional space, what does that mean to us in the next 3-5 years? And what happens to those building when the hospital does vacate?

YM: That is why the last line does not just jump to the future but recognizes the present condition as well.

“I. The hospital site must be considered within the context of the local neighborhoods and community. The current density of development [height, bulk, square footage, FAR,, etc] on the site is a result of concessios and accommodation given to the hospital. The current limits would not have been approved for any other occupant of the site. Therefore both municipalities should insure that redevelopment of the site is done at greatly reduced densities, including more compatible building heights, FAR, bulk, square footage, etc.”

Any comment?

Michael Floyd: I of course agree with it.

Yina: Because Mike wrote it.

MF: I am dovetailing off of the comment that was just made next to me. During this interim period, it is absolutely frightening that the Healthcare Task Force is considering additional accommodations and concessions that will have a negative impact on the neighborhood.

Mary Ellen Marino: Is there any chance we can convince the hospital not to leave?

Yina: That train seems to have left the station.

Barrie Royce: The Healthcare Task Force did very little in fact. It suggested three scenarios that might be lived out. And it said that the Planning Board and the 2 Municipal governments, the people that have to make the decision, need to take these situations into account. One of the things, which the hospital thinks is implausible because it doesn’t take it far enough out into the future, is that the activity could indeed stay on an expanded version of the current site. And that has got some stuff. The other one is, exactly what they want to do, that they move away and this piece of stuff still stays there. And essentially, then there are 2 scenarios: if someone wanted to come in and put another hospital there, the zoning runs with the property, not with the owner, and it is zoned for hospital. It doesn’t need to be changed. The most important thing, decisions which the Planning Board and so on need to make, is that, if they do move out because they can arrange the financing, that land becomes available for other uses. One of the hidden evils, if you like to look at it that way, is that it was stated, and you need to say so if you disgragree with it, is that there is a grandfather clause associated with existing buildings, so that if they are used for something on that site and the building is retained, then that is a use that is countenanced as being a permissible use with the same footprint. So there is a lot of really important issues to be dealt with from a planning point of view. And let me just make a comment: In terms of the immediate expansion of the hospital, that was deemed necessary by the Task Force if the hospital is to function for the next 2-3 years. And if that doesn’t happen, they will move out in a different way.

Sheldon: That is Professor Royce who is chair of the Boro Zoning Board.

Joanna Kendig: Does the short term require zoning varinaces?

Barrie: Yes..it requires an action by the municipal government. It is not a spot zoning suggestion.

JK: OK. Zoning varinces are subject to public reaction and input?

BR: All of this is subject to public reaction and voices. That is why we are here!

Hendricks Davis: Has the hospital proceeded to the Planning Board with its request for this additioanl 35,000 SF? Does anyone know? Is there anyone here from the hospital that can speak to that? And what the need is?...I guess not. It seems to me that 6 years is a very short period of time in some ways. Again, I can’t tell the hospital how to do its planning, but it must be a critical need that they have to invest so much money into this 25,000 SF. And then, a few years later, to leave!? I think, though, I am not supporting that at all. If I were the board of trustees of the hospital, I would be looking at that very carefully. It doesn’t hold with their desire to re-locate the whole operation. Perhaps a better way, would be to build whatever piece that is required on the new site, as soon as it can be determined. I don’t think any of this should be predicated on the hospital’s need to generate capital on the sale of that property, number one. And number two, it really is the responsibility of the Regional Planning Board and the Municipal governments to determine how that site is re-zoned. And the primary consideration should not be the hospital’s need to generate capital. It should be a consideration of what the basic needs are of the entire community. And that should be the primary consideration.

Michael Floyd: The hospital hasn’t asked for these accommodations, and yet the Healthcare Task Force, in recommendation #2, has made the statement: “The Regioanl Planning Board and Borough Council should expedite amendments to applicable zoning restraints to accomodate short term needs”. They are already saying they should have it, and they haven’t even asked for it. What about the neighborhoods?

Michael Mostoller: I think, and I’ve only had a chance to skim read through it, there is an accumulative effect to items 1 through 6. I think we should keep on it.

Yina: The next one is very short. Simple but complex.

II.“At all hospital properties, only full tax-paying uses should be considered and no payment in lieu of taxes [PILOT} negotiated.”

Jim Floyd: Would that imply, then, that the university could not be a part of some acquisition?

Yina: This is probably where we need more definition. It is not the use necessarily. Use is not the only attribute of taxation. It is the owner’s status. The owner’s status, in the case of the university on many properties, in many cases exempts them, as well as their uses. This statement could affect..

JF: My question: could it preclude the university?

YM: Right, it could preclude... but it could also preclude things we may not want to have precluded...When you say non-tax-paying uses, we’re talking about property taxes here. We are not talking about, necessarily, their tax status. It could be a daycare center, a center for non-profits. We need to clarify. That was not quite the intent..it is not the uses in all cases, it might be the entity as well as the use that entity might provide. I want it to be discussed. It seemed to be so short and simple that on further analysis, it is not that short and simple. If what you are saying, it is believed that regardless of a university proposal for use, if that is not desirable, then that needs to be stated. Because that could be housing...or, other uses. Housing, when we go further, happens to fit under a preferred use for the site.

Karen Jezierny: In the context of university uses, we, the university, typically pay full taxes, not payment in lieu of taxes, on other than undergraduate dormitories....on housing that is used for anything other than undergraduate dormitories. I think you are right. It is not necessarily the owner, it is the use that should be contributing to the property tax rolls. I am a little uncomfortable with eliminating PILOT bcause you might eliminate some owners who might be enormously beneficial to the community, whether it’s a non-profit organization that runs a day care, or other service providers.

YM: Right. I am looking for suggested re-wording that expresses preferences for the site rather than eliminations.

Hendricks Davis: Are those properties on which the university pays full taxes on on the Boro tax rolls as a matter of law? Yes. That’s good. The other thing to say is that I believe some colleges and universities have the capacity to develop properties that do produce ratables. Some universities actually develop in a process of community development WITH communities that produce a range of housing options for people that are not necessarily a part of the university community. So it is conceivable that a college or a university, whether it is Princeton or someone else, might engage in such a development initiative with the community, if it so desired, or if it was part of its mission. I don’t know whether that is something Princeton University intends to do, or has the vision to do.

YM: This the time to establish the community’s vision for what it might be. Who would develop to the vision can take various forms...

HD: Right. I think as you go along here, there is a broad desire for the property to be developed comprehensively with it being an integrated part of the neighborhood and the community! So that not one particular use is allowed for..or that one particular use is disallowed.

Heidi Fichtenbaum: I just want to add that I am not really sure how to craft the language on this. My concerns from the little bit that I’ve read in these recommendations. I would concur very much who spoke about the 35,000 SF..whose hat was that pulled out of? I was at the recent Planning Board meeting, where Marvin Reed made his presentation and seemed to indicate that they may need this for a little fix-up project here and there. 35,000 is a gigantic fix-up project. It is about the size of the office building on Witherspoon & Henry. Once you give them the 35,000, they are not obligated to do it in tiny pieces. On to the tax situation. There is another recommendation which is also making us all think about the taxing ...many times developers are given a tax break to increase their profits. If we look at what our municipal budget is all about, the most significant portion is about our public schools in Princeton. So what I am ...I think we need language which limits profiteering at the expense of our children.

Mary Ellen: In calling for full tax payment on hospital property, you are going in the direction of giving the hospital this big-dollar value. Doesn’t that contradict what you said? There is a preference in the code to allow adaptive re-use, as you said.

YM: OK. Going to the next one...

“ III- All uses should be primarily residential. Planning must focus on the following considerations: [We accepted that as a recommendation from many of the community meetings...so the first line is the general and these are some of the detailed issues we just talked about.]

a.      Provision for a variety of residential types, unit sizes and resident populations.

b.      Any commercial or public accommodationns are to be in service to and supported by the surrounding neighborhoods and local community. [A small convenience store, a day care center, service-based non-profit, and teen or community center are some examples.]

c.       Mixed-use concepts should not result solely from a calculation or percentage formula, should not be applied site-wide, and must not undermine the residential quality of the street. For example, a 60/40 residential/commercial zone along Witherspoon Street, [the RB zone in the Boro for example] where all first floor spaces are commercial, is undesirable. [The RB zone could result in that kind of re-development. So that it causes us to think back to, while it is acceptable and there are conditions that should be preserved, there now may be zoning, even in RB definition, are not necessarily what would ensure that the preservation of the use as residential one would continue. The example was offerred by one of the Advisory Committee members that if the zone, Witherspoon St, or the hospital entire site, were to have RB zoning, it could be another Palmer Square. And that is not exactly the picture of what people are looking at...Next... ].

d.      Protection and preservation of adjacent residences, the affordable housing stock, and the residents and units represented by the BHA units on Franklin Ave.”

Barrie Royce: May I make a comment on C & D. I believe that, as underdesirable a 60-40 split in the Boro might be, it is very important for people looking at this space, to think about Witherspoon St north of the Boro line. It is commercial. As of right, people can come in and develop commercial space there. What happens on the hospital site will have an influence on the nature of the development that might come in. But I certainly think that if you are going to talk to the Planning Board seriously at this point, you need to worry about that aspect of things.

Yina: That is certainly why this is corridor study and not just a hospital study.

Barrie: That’s right.

Yina: We have done a workshop on Witherspoon St North which has resulted in some recommendations around the commercial nature of that section of the street. So you are absolutely right. Any other...? The whole point is to try to come to a consensus so that the study can be further directed in its design and implementation strategies in response to community wishes. The running rules..

Heidi: I do live down at that north end. What is interesting is that there is all kinds of zoning in place that gives you certain percentages, right? Then what you have to do is go out and look at what is really there right now. And how does that compare to what is on paper. And what people understand to be their town, their city, is what exists, not what is on paper which is just something that is imaginary to people. People think about Princeton the way it is...not what it could be. It is what they see every day. Although there are areas that are zoned business, people don’t necessarily recognize that as completely business. And there is still quite a residential feel down at that north end. I know there businesses that aree pressuring to have it more and more commercial, but we also have a public school down at that end. So my feeling is that we do need to look at that carefully. We need to actually reinforce the residential use of that area and not let it become overwhelmed by business and commercial uses. I feel very strongly about that.

Michael: All of us are catching up to one of the purposes of every meeting, which is to bring things into concordance. That has clearly come out in our meetings. And is already on the recommendations. That that reality of the kind of character of the street would be totally changed if the zoning were actually implemented. So we have recommended and would like to carry through in the sense that we recommend the exact language that the zoning should have in relation to what you just said. What we are hearing up and down the street, and why this is in context of what was heard is that the hospital is key to what would happen either walking from here to the hospital or from the hospital to the school. And that we want to maintain that as residential.

Joanna Kendig: He means, I think, that we will recommend changes in zoning in just about every zone along Witherspoon St. to adjust to the real meaning of what you are talking about. As to ‘C’, I’d like us to clarify that it means what happens along Witherspoon St is different in zoning from what happens on Henry ...and in the middle of the site it may be a little different, yet. Maybe we can overlay that concept onto the concern for mixed-use.

Yina; This is the inital drafting for parameters that will ahve greater detail both written and graphical. Let’s go on..

“IV. Plans should facilitate flexible site arrangements, multiple parcel configurations, and different developer opportunities.[I think it was stated at the first workshop that the site does not have to remain in its current form and could very well have different developers and development opportunities]

a.      Objectives, policies, and implementation tools should encourage and facilitate diversity.

b.      Site options must be considered within the context and character of the surrounding area and its current zoning in the interest of both the community and property owners.

c.       Area context and zoning, in terms of separate parcels and in the aggregate must be considered.”

Jim Floyd: Is this kind of a philosophical codification of the reasonable expectancy of what will come out for that zone. Now let me be sacrilegious. Could this be applied any place, Library Place...?...conceptually?

Yina: It could, when you are talking about assembling parcels for development and how zoning, then, would impact that assemblage, and how the physical form and use would be impacting the area. It could end up that if assemble a few properties on Witherspoon St, you build a big building.

JF: ..on Library Place? All I’m asking is this an overview that could be applicable to any part of town? I am wondering whether this is an overlay that is applicable to all? I would just like it to be understood that there may be some advocates for this kind of philosophy, which is a good philosophy, becoming the overlaying philosophy throughout the Princetons.

Michael Floyd: The zoning, the uses, the lack of variances, is all consistent on Library Place. It is on Witherspoon St, where many, many, many, many zoning boards have left many, many things go contrary to what the character of the neighborhood is, or was. Why across from Community Park, is it zoned business? It was probably zoned for some particular institution hoping they would expand down there. But that doesn’t happen on Library Place.

Jamie Laliberte: I agree with both of them. Again my concern goes back to what currently is happening...what is really reality. All of these words sound great and I would like to see it as general policy in Princeton. But if you walk Witherspoon St you see massive changes going on right now that are going to change the nature of Witherspoon St completely. If it is not stopped and looked at as a complete and thorough plan.

Hendricks Davis: The language here is very much like master plan language. That is, I think, a very good thing. So it does speak to the overlying philosophy. We are being encouraged as a community to really reflect on. I hope that this reflection is in service to the Planning Board. The Master Plan Subcommittee, the Zoning Boards and all of us. I think it is a good process and the language is resonating in that way for me.

Yina:

“V. The community should establish the preferred standard for street reconstruction, land use policy, and development along Witherspoon St.

a.      The pattern and scale of development should be considered in terms of a “small town” setting. For example, hotels, malls, office complexes, and CCRCs are developed in economies of scale that are large and inappropriate for this site . [Who defines ‘appropriate’ in this case? We may have the hospital defining the word in a way that is different from the community.]

b.      Incorporate open, public green space in all options.

c.       Develop the southwest corner of the hospital site [Franklin and Witherspoon] as an important public space, and as a resource and asset for the residents, the surrounding neighborhoods, and community.” The distinguishing fact in that is we are not talking about a regional facility. If you step out of the community into a larger market, the area could not bear the burden of the impact.

Gene Imhoff: Why are we being so specific on ‘c’? Why are we designing the site?

Yina: We are being specific about an intersection and area of the site that has both significance to the surrounding neighborhood and to circulation. A lot of problems have been identified about that particular zone of the site and how it might be further used...and it is along Witherspoon St as well.

Barrie: That is a piece of municipal property as well/

YM: No. This the north side.

Gene: I gues my point is, in general, if you are talking about master plan, this should state goals...say for green space, but it shouldn’t specify where it is.

YM: There are goals for facilities in the master plan as well.

Gene: You could make the argument that it should be something that draws people into the site from the Community Park school direction. You could make the argument that there is plenty of green space on the Boro Housing-Cemetery side of the street.

YM: You are right, Gene.

Michael M: What if we say: “Develop an important public space along Witherspoon St”

Joanna: Integrated into the overall development. I think the integration...

MM: It turns out that having tried some different design configurations...and Joanna has too...it wouldn’t necessarily have to go on this corner.

YM: I think the Advisory Committee should take this up.

MM: That might be something to discuss in terms of the design. It could say here, just like ‘B’ does not say where to put the green space, “develop an important public space along Witherspoon St”.

YM: If you look at elements of the master plan, there is open space, bt there are other elements that may address this. Not necessarily open space. It may be more of a public facility.

MM: I agree with that. We should have both ‘c’ and ‘d’.

YM: Then there specific locations which are often cited...areas or zones.

JK: I think what we are all aiming for is integration and a comprehensive vision for the site. Therefore being specific about one place goes against that. We don’t know yet. We want to say it is important....probably on Witherspoon St.

YM: So less specificity is requested in this particular section.

Hendricks: The humorous and landscaper-challenged response to Gene’s question is: “Because that is where the better light is...on the south side”

YM: Let’s go to the nxt slide, where there is specificity, I must say:

“VI-Planning of hospital properties should be considered in terms of community needs and desires. The following needs have been mentioned in the public meetings:

Senior and affordable housing

Public gathering spaces

Small-scale local service retail

Social service facilities

Additional properties that should be considered in conjunction with planning for the hospital site are:

1.      Harris Road houses, should be returned to single-family residences and individual ownership;

2.      Franklin Avenue parking lot, which might provide additional housing and public paths; and

3.      Merwick, which could serve as a possible site for a CCRC

Barrie Royce: Number three is a real outlier in all of this. You are talking about Witherspoon St. It is really not a sensible thing to do!

Jim Floyd: It is absolutely essential because we are talking about an institution and that is part of that institution! I think it is absolutely appropriate. We have avoided it because it may arouse some ire across the road. I think it absolutely a part of this whole context!

Barrie: I think it is a wonderful use. But we don’t want to confuse Witherspoon St with either Library Place or Merwick.

JF: That was the intent of my question earlier on. Whether those factors we discussed are also applicable to the Library Place folks.

Barrie: Everything is applicable.

JF: No it isn’t. You folks don’t interpret that as zoning members though. That is the point I am trying to make.

Michael Floyd: Actually, I see a consistency here. This is about the hospital and the hospital site. The Healthcare Task Force did a report on the site and you mentioned Merwick!

Barrie: Over my dead body! [Laughter]

YM: if it is a total expectation, it should not be only at this site. The hospital owns other properties. They make decisions that they don’t want to run a nursing care/re-hab center such as Merwick anymore. They are willing to say that right now as a matter of fact. There are other properties. They should look at all of them. This should not be considered the big cash windfall site.

Joanna Kendig: Mr. Royce is concerned about whether this belongs in this particular study. In my view, it is ‘yes’ and ‘no’. It is essential that other sites have the same kind of thinking. Perhaps lumping it in with the Witherspoon St study is confusing. To answer yours, as a John St resident, I am incredibly interested in what happens on Merwick, Stanworth and the Y. There are the same concerns for what is good for the neighbors, and the neighborhoods and the community should apply. And, of course, I start to jump up and down and saying “CCRC...300 units...100’s of cars going in and out...Wait a minute!” So I think that language of concern belongs in this document, but not directly applicable to that block on Witherspoon.

Barrie: If I may comment. I think you are right. The reason I make this point is that we really need to focus on what device we are going to give the Planning Board so that they take to the Municipal governments who are the decision makers, the right sort of stuff. I think if you are worrying about the hospital site, the more focussed you can be on that, and its impact, North & South of it, on the Witherspoon St development and consequently on John St and what the houses on the other side suffer from, the better the zoning changes are going to be able to negotiate. I agree with you that the Merwick is another important site. It could be one-acre lots for expensive homes, or it could be something entirely different. And if the University is thinking of doing something with Stanworth, and I don’t think they are, and if the Y is thinking about doing something, looking at that part of the town which is very important, and potentially very fragile, entry that could be destroed just like that. I just think it is better to deal with that separately. ..With a slightly different focus.

Bob Geddes: It seems to me there are a number of issues we should think about. Jim Floyd raised...that kind of issue. First of all, we are concerned not only with development which has to do with the hospital site, but with conservation. It is just important to think of historical conservation, in the next few years, as of development. Now, having said that, sitting next to Wanda here, the historic preservation movement has been extremely successful in Princeton and elsewhere in the country with respect to buildings, streets but no so much, at all, with respect to the human dimension of it, the preservation of neighborhoods...or the preservation of streets. What we are faced with, here, is a preservation, looking backwards, and development looking forwards combination. Having said that, I am very sceptical about zoning as the way to work on that in the public interest. I am sure there other ways it can be done, other than through zoning. I believe what we need is help from very knowledgable people. Mostly from the legal profession, but also from the planning profession whose work has been on the conservation as well as the development of areas. Just as we get, as I understand it there will be a consultant for the hospital to think about its future, we need that kind of professional help on how to conserve and develop the area. I wish Jim were still here.

JF: I wouldn’t leave when you are talking, Bob!

RG: I would. The issue of Witherspoon St is whether it is special or not, I know there are sociological and historic contexts in which you raise your questions, Jim. There are areas of this community which are unique. They should be looked at uniquely, for what they are and have been in the past. Witherspoon St deesrves to be looked at not as if it were just a part of Princeton, but as a very special part of Princeton. The institutions on it, the history of it , the variety of neighborhoods and uses. So I think a way can be found to plan its future as a unique place. When urban re-development started as a way of building cities after the Second World War, it went off the tracks with respect to the human dimensions of it. The notion of the re-development acts, as I understand them, is that there could be zones of a district that can be planned very uniquely. The only example of that, that I know of, that really succeeded, was Society Hill in Philadelphia. It was not done by zoning. It was done by means of illustrative site plans. The community got together and decided that that was what it wanted. It didn’t do it through zoning. I wonder whether we have come to the point where we need to have that kind of professional help. In fact Princeton Future, Michael & Yina, proposed in their first outline to have Norman Marcus, who is a specialist in the legal and planning side of conservation as well as development, work with the team. The more I hear today, the more I think we need the help. I wonder whether it would be possible to seek the financial help from the Boro to hire Norman, or someone like that, who can help us on these kinds of procedural questions.

Virginia Kerr: I’d just like to return to a previous topic. I think I have found a bit of an anomaly under item 5. I think I am worrying about too much specificity. 5a essentially says that a CCRC would be developed in an economy of scale which would be inappropriate for the site, which ...and then Merwick which, I believe is 9 acres, or 2 acres smaller, is identified as a possible site for a CCRC. So there is a contradiction there. And I think, at least if a CCRC is going to be mentioned, that the principle ought to be that if any CCRC is developed on either site, the economy of scale ought to be appropriate to the site.

Sheldon: I think that the Merwick site and the Hospital site, less its houses on Harris Rd, are just about the same size at approximately 9 acres.

Michael: It is the context. What was said there is a way of phrasing it so it works.

Yina: Right. Exactly.

Jeff Furey: I see a real conflict between the hospital and what we, the people, are looking for. They are looking for maximum income out of this property. We have to emphasize to the hospital: the hospital originally started for Princeton with land, and people gave a lot of money to the hospital for the community’s betterment etc. The hospital has become so successful that 70%, or so, of its patients are coming in from out of town. Particularly, to the east of us, I believe. Therefore, the hospital has to really realize that the next use has to be for the community. However they got to where they are now came from the community. The community will back them again. They have to say “Hey, guys, we were established for the community. We still are. We’ve made a decision.” It has to be emphasized a little stronger in the opening paragraphs.

Heidi: I’d like to go back to what Bob Geddes said. I think that is an interesting point. And I think conflicts and problems deserve multiple approaches. However, I am not in favor of discarding the zoning approach in favor of only taking this other tack. The reason is because of what happened with urban redevelopment. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So the problem is: what actually happened in the vast majority of cases.

Robert Geddes: I am not talking about urban redevelopment. I am talking about finding a new way.

Heidi: Right. I understand. I am just saying that that new way may be a good idea as an overlay, but I don’t think we can relinquish our efforts on zoning. And the reason I don’t think so is based on history and what has happened in history. It is not just this idealized problem we are trying to solve. There are many political and economic forces that come to bear and the people who live in these neighborhoods are not the people with the political and economic power in this town. We have to be honest about this. We have to see the situation for what it is and that is that there are people who are more wealthy, more powerful and more politically-placed in this community who do not necessrily share our vision for Witherspoon St. So we must use every tool in the toolbox, including new ones we might develop in order to secure the needs of our neighborhoods.

Michael Mostoller: Norman Marcus is a zoning expert.

Robert Geddes: Heidi, two things: that is precisely why Princeton Future exists. Precisely. It is the only way, have an open door and bring everyone together. And secondly, in being skeptical about zoning, I didn’t say ‘ignore it’. I am just saying there must be ways communities can be preserved, not just buildings.

Heidi Fichtenbaum: Right.

Jamie Laliberte: Could we go back to number 6? #1: Harris Rd houses ARE single family residences. The hospital is allowing them to fall down. That is an issue. It should say ‘must be returned to a neighborhood’.

Yina: So, the structures are still single family, but the uses are not.

Gene Imhoff: It could just say ‘residential use’.

Virginia: ‘individual use and single family ownership’. Just switch the two.

Yina: Thank you. Are there any other comments on anything we have discussed in this document?

Susan Hockaday: Can you talk about the next steps?

Yina: Let me answer Joanna’s question: What can we do to move this into a concurrence mode with the community? We’d like to put this into a document that can be endorsed by the community. Of course, there is a group present here. There is an Advisory Committee which drafted much of this. We really want to have it put on the airwaves, as we are doing with TV 30, in terms of this discussion. Perhaps it is developed into a petition-type of document. It is recognized that it is difficult for the community to attend the procedural modes that the zoning board and the planning board work with, in terms of meeting times, for discussion. There is supposed to be a meeting March 29th for theMaster Plan Subcommittee to discuss the Healthcare Task Report. Much of the work has been placed on the Planning Board. That is a public meeting. But it is Tuesday morning at 9 AM. We have to find other ways.

Joanna: May I suggest that we ask the Packet and the Topics to publish it with a PO Box for responses [PO Box 493, Princeton, NJ 08542]? And after the text, we say “this will be presented to whoever...Healthcare Task Force, Zoning Boards, Planning Boards, Township Committee, Borough Council, whatever.” That should get a lot of emails and letters which we can codify into a response. Hopefully, then we make it as public as...short of having it on a ballot somewhere. Does that sound like a reasonable start?

Yina: It certainly does. The other aspect is that we will make notice of meetings that you can attend if you are able to. Presence is important as well. Heidi and Miss Kerr were able to speak at the Planning Board the other night. So this is part of what we are doing with just this hospital piece. We are moving on with the Witherspoon St Corridor Study, and developing our matrix for the Central Area which is inclusive of the hospital. We are doing designs. We have originally scheduled a meeting for March 12 and Michael will tell you that is probably too soon to meet agian. So we will have to do a lot more communication by email and through TV 30. April 16th and the final meeting in May. We have done a lot of work on the input part of the project. Now we have to come back with not only the owrds, but some graphics which illustrate those concepts and options, and there are many.

Michael: Yes. This graphic summarizes in very generic form the fact that we wish the site to be primarily residential, that there is a public space.

That there is a green something or other, that it is divided up, and that it links itself with the rest of the street. That is diagrammatically shown here. We have also been working in trying to put in graphic form for the final report the initial results of our meetings about the whole street. The hospital of course has been the most moving of targets in this, in the sense that during our meetings on the street, they announced they were going to move! So we thought we have heard what we might be able to be doing today. ..the most significant aspect: about the hospital site, er-r properties, a better way of putting it. I am sure they see them as one. So at the next meeting, April 16, we will come in with more update on the whole street, into which we hope to show you some images of what the hospital site could be. Having sketched out some, and Joanna has sketched some too, we are convinced that there possibilities which can result from these parameters. If anyone would like to help with those visualizations, please get in touch with us to do so. So it is possible that there are a whole variety of approaches that we could suggest as images of what might happen. The WHAT Ifs we have provided in the past. So that it does not remain merely verbal. I do believe that we would also like to have initial zoning language that will address each suggestion. In the sense that it would show what the implications for the zoning of any design we might put forward. The Municipalities and the Planning Board are used to working with that and I think it is our responsibility to address that as well. So our next meeting is April 16th.
Joanna: I think it is not just our job to hold our public officials feet to the fire, so-to-speak, but also to talk with our neighbors. There have been maybe 200 of us coming frequently to these meetings. Kaffeklatsches on a block is another way to reach out. Also the website, is someone working on the website, as well?
Yina: Yes, much of this is on the website [www.princetonfuture.org], and while you’re on it there is an email address to send email to make a comment. That is probably the best mode.
Sheldon: The good thing that is happening in this town as we all get to be more participatory is that TV 30 is coming to life on this project. Beginning this Wednesday at 10 o’clock at night the Princeton Future meetings are in primetime so that you can spend the hour before you go to sleep watching these meetings—all of them in a row..1 hour/week from now until the summer! It might be wonderful way to end your day... listening to each other...Thank you for coming.