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 16th 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.
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.
|