| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fyi
Joined: Thu, Aug 9 2012, 9:19 am EDT
Posts: 889
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
anon-0493
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat, Aug 22 2015, 8:33 am EDT Post subject: Re: Redevelopment Plans - updated 8/20/15 |
 |
|
These pictures and the whole scenario is unbearable, offensive, and inappropriate for our town. We should not let it happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-np42
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Aug 22 2015, 8:38 am EDT Post subject: Re: Redevelopment Plans - updated 8/20/15 |
|
|
| anon-0493 wrote: |
These pictures and the whole scenario is unbearable, offensive, and inappropriate for our town. We should not let it happen. |
Can you be more specific? And what alternative would you suggest, including how it's paid for? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-7r9n
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Aug 22 2015, 10:17 am EDT Post subject: Re: Redevelopment Plans - updated 8/20/15 |
|
|
The property owners have a right to sell. The master plan calls for inclusionary development. The planning board is over seeing the process based on the schedule. So they are negotiating with the developer for the best outcome. Better that then low end town homes that look ugly.
I would love for this to be preserved, but it makes no sense. The town can't buy it for farmland so no grants are available. No one will buy a park so the town can't buy it and flip it. So the town would pay millions to buy, remediate and tear down buildings. This when we have affordable housing and other expenses.
I just think my taxes can only take so much so I'll trust the planning board. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
publius-494q
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Aug 22 2015, 9:07 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Redevelopment Plans - updated 8/20/15 |
|
|
I think that the plans look pretty nice. Better than whats there right now.
Especially, some nice retail space with offices or living space above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
neighbor-617n
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Aug 24 2015, 10:08 am EDT Post subject: Re: Redevelopment Plans - updated 8/20/15 |
|
|
As a neighbor to this site, the plans look like a nice concept!
A few concerns/comments:
1. whats the height of the tallest commercial building?
2. Looking at the South Main Street view of the residences, they appear to be very long. what is their street side demension? how do they compare in size to the houses across the street? maybe they should be smaller.
3. A Cafe on the corner with outdoor seating is a nice idea. Do we get any control over the tenant mix? we should. A 7-11, a walgreens, or some other typical highway use would not be appealing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-4p41
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Aug 24 2015, 10:29 am EDT Post subject: Re: Redevelopment Plans - updated 8/20/15 |
|
|
From what I understand this is concept, no details on height or density are agreed upon yet.
I don't believe 7-11 is a permitted use. There are a list of things that cannot be allowed in the zone such as fast food or drive throughs.
They said at the resident meeting that they did want to look for a pharmacy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-np42
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Aug 24 2015, 9:11 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Redevelopment Plans - updated 8/20/15 |
|
|
| anon-4p41 wrote: | From what I understand this is concept, no details on height or density are agreed upon yet.
I don't believe 7-11 is a permitted use. There are a list of things that cannot be allowed in the zone such as fast food or drive throughs.
They said at the resident meeting that they did want to look for a pharmacy. |
Here's the language about what is permitted there in the current master plan. The final ordnance from the Township would have been governed by this but may be difference. As part of the re-deveopment, this could change.
"Retail and service establishments, including personal service businesses and specialized and convenience retail, including banks and financial services, bak- eries, delis, beauty shops, nail salons, tanning salons, laundries, drop-off only dry cleaners, takeout food, and clothing and shoe repair; but only on the ground floor of buildings along the south side of Old Trenton Road, and with frontage onto said road, and in accordance with the minimum tract size and minimum frontage requirements on Old Trenton Road, as articulated below." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-6s9s
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 25 2015, 5:28 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Redevelopment Plans - updated 8/20/15 |
|
|
I was the one posting above about not believing 7-11 to be a permitted use. Based on the information above it appears I was wrong (I'll pause for people to catch their breath that someone posting here would say they were wrong.)
I think the biggest issue is whether they would conform to the area. For example, they won't be able to have a huge sign saying 7-11 and i believe there are hours to follow and they would have to lose corporate branding to an extent. Also, i am not sure if the size is conducive as i see a more cafe or restaurant oriented area in the large space. The smaller space seems too small.
It is a fair concern though and I would hope people voice that concern at the planning board meeting. Years ago we did have a Cumberland farms on Main St where the Chinese restaurant is now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-0592
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Sep 1 2015, 4:49 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Redevelopment Plans - updated 8/20/15 |
|
|
| Will the developer be responsible to pay for an addition to the School when in a few years classes are overcrowded? Do we really need all this commercial space, when businesses downtown struggle to stay open? By the way nice to see all the construction on Station road. Can't wait for the warehouses to open, and have all the extra traffic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-2s5s
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Sep 1 2015, 7:04 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Redevelopment Plans - updated 8/20/15 |
|
|
| I bet you can't wait for your property tax to go down either from the new rateables. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-0265
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Sep 1 2015, 7:19 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Redevelopment Plans - updated 8/20/15 |
|
|
| anon-0592 wrote: | | Will the developer be responsible to pay for an addition to the School when in a few years classes are overcrowded? Do we really need all this commercial space, when businesses downtown struggle to stay open? By the way nice to see all the construction on Station road. Can't wait for the warehouses to open, and have all the extra traffic. |
Lets say the PB does not get a lower density and we have 60 homes. The average home has just over 1.5 kids. That means 90 kids. But lets say we get two kids which we don't average in the bigger homes. Then we have 120 kids. Both would add far fewer kids then we had at our peak.
In terms of station road that development will reduce our taxes so no complaint here.
In terms of down town. If a successful business like Claires goes in they will do well. If the business is one no one wants it will not do well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Majority-0482
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Sep 4 2015, 2:33 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Redevelopment Plans - updated 8/20/15 |
|
|
| anon-0265 wrote: | | anon-0592 wrote: | | Will the developer be responsible to pay for an addition to the School when in a few years classes are overcrowded? Do we really need all this commercial space, when businesses downtown struggle to stay open? By the way nice to see all the construction on Station road. Can't wait for the warehouses to open, and have all the extra traffic. |
Lets say the PB does not get a lower density and we have 60 homes. The average home has just over 1.5 kids. That means 90 kids. But lets say we get two kids which we don't average in the bigger homes. Then we have 120 kids. Both would add far fewer kids then we had at our peak.
In terms of station road that development will reduce our taxes so no complaint here.
In terms of down town. If a successful business like Claires goes in they will do well. If the business is one no one wants it will not do well. |
according to the school web site http://www.cranburyschool.org/ourpages/auto/2012/6/12/48471647/2015_2016%20User%20Friendly%20BudgetR_.pdf we have 780 children being educated in Cranbury. According to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cranbury,_New_Jersey Cranbury has 1320 homes. This means the number of children per home is about .5 or.6 . 60 homes would then give us at most 30 children. This too would add would add far fewer kids then we had at our peak and we finally get the area cleaned up environmentally and made safer for the children which are here instead of the abandoned buildings and other unsafe hazards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-42n2
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Sep 4 2015, 6:25 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Redevelopment Plans - updated 8/20/15 |
|
|
I have a friend who is a realtor and sold us our first home in West Windsor before moving here. The selling point for us in West Windsor (Toll) was that they averaged just under one child per home so our daughter was likely to have kids around. We moved here because we wanted a single family home and could not afford a nice one in WW after taxes.
So even using West Windsor numbers we'd have at most 60 kids. I am not sure we'll even see that as I understand these homes are 700k. So I don't think we'll see more kids here then in lower priced homes in WW. We're special, but not that special to pay a premium. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-0592
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Sep 5 2015, 8:51 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Redevelopment Plans - updated 8/20/15 |
|
|
| anon-0265 wrote: | | anon-0592 wrote: | | Will the developer be responsible to pay for an addition to the School when in a few years classes are overcrowded? Do we really need all this commercial space, when businesses downtown struggle to stay open? By the way nice to see all the construction on Station road. Can't wait for the warehouses to open, and have all the extra traffic. |
Lets say the PB does not get a lower density and we have 60 homes. The average home has just over 1.5 kids. That means 90 kids. But lets say we get two kids which we don't average in the bigger homes. Then we have 120 kids. Both would add far fewer kids then we had at our peak.
In terms of station road that development will reduce our taxes so no complaint here.
In terms of down town. If a successful business like Claires goes in they will do well. If the business is one no one wants it will not do well. |
I guess you weren't here in the late 90's when all the warehouses were built on Half acre rd. Taxes did not go down, nor will they now. In a year or so the town will have to hire a new police officer in order to deal with the added crime warehouses bring to the town. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-0592
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Sep 5 2015, 8:52 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Redevelopment Plans - updated 8/20/15 |
|
|
| anon-0265 wrote: | | anon-0592 wrote: | | Will the developer be responsible to pay for an addition to the School when in a few years classes are overcrowded? Do we really need all this commercial space, when businesses downtown struggle to stay open? By the way nice to see all the construction on Station road. Can't wait for the warehouses to open, and have all the extra traffic. |
Lets say the PB does not get a lower density and we have 60 homes. The average home has just over 1.5 kids. That means 90 kids. But lets say we get two kids which we don't average in the bigger homes. Then we have 120 kids. Both would add far fewer kids then we had at our peak.
In terms of station road that development will reduce our taxes so no complaint here.
In terms of down town. If a successful business like Claires goes in they will do well. If the business is one no one wants it will not do well. |
I guess you weren't here in the late 90's when all the warehouses were built on Half acre rd. Taxes did not go down, nor will they now. In a year or so the town will have to hire a new police officer in order to deal with the added crime warehouses bring to the town. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
