There is some concern being expressed around town recently that the proposed Fieldstone redevelopment project to go on the Town Centre East triangle will have parking on Chestnut Ave., Park Ave. and Centre St. I do not see how Centre St. parking can be an issue. Those few spaces have been given away to stores and apartments above so many times that telling the Fieldstone residents they will be able to park on Centre is the same as telling them they will have a full moon every night to light their way.
Park Avenue? That is a different story. Fieldstone proposes to widen Park Avenue to especially create 14 spaces. The 14 will replace the existing 4 spaces which no one in his right mind would park in overnight because the road is so narrow. Widening the road is a great idea. So is adding ten more spaces. And the trump card is the possibility that another ten spaces could be added to the other side of Park after it is widened. So we could end up with 24 usable spaces both day and night.
Chestnut Ave? My bet is that Chestnut along the triangle would be full every night whether or not there are enough spaces for every Fieldstone resident inside the triangle. Why? Two reasons. The first is because 2-car families have to park behind each other, bumper to bumper. I did a midnight walk a couple of weeks ago to sample parking on Chestnut Ave on both sides of Centre. I noticed along S. Chestnut between Alexander and St. Peter's Chestnut parking lot, that 2-car families having a single-width driveway (all of them) park the second car in the street rather than behind the first car in the driveway. So, projecting that behavior, I predict that the Fieldstone condo owners facing Chestnut Ave. will opt to put their second vehicles on Chestnut rather than stack park their 2 cars one behind the other in the triangle. Instead of saying, "Honey, would you move your car? I have to leave early this morning" he will peck her on the cheek and whisper, "Gotta go. See ya tonight late." He then runs out the front door instead of the back door.
The second reason comes from seeing west of Centre towards Alexander that N. Chestnut residents park on Chestnut across from their houses filling the street even though the Boro parking strip on the R/R right-of-way 30 feet from them remains empty. So if the Fieldstone residents living in the condos facing Cruiser behave in the same way, Chestnut Ave will fill first because it is more convenient to come and go from the front door.
What's the big deal with the Chestnut parking complaints anyway? Only 5 cars park there at night now, mostly down at that triplex near Gilmore.
Let me note that a primary recommendation that the TCE Selection Committee passed on to Council was to use the earning from the sale of the PNC parking lots to finance the acquisition of the Verizon parking lot for public parking.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Parking for TCE
A commenter brings up the question of parking for TCE, and as I scour the news for anything to take a break from the merger talk, I thought that it would be good to promote his or her comment to a discussion thread:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
A related story is parking for the PNC bank that we own (with liquor license). A couple of months ago Fieldstone asked if Merchantville would take back the parking lot next to the bank on the smoke shop side because the ground was found to be contaminated from a prior cobbler shop. Decontamination is expensive but necessary if a building is to be placed on that property.
The Department of Environmental Protection says it is okay not to decontaminate if the lot remains sealed with macadam.
To me, taking back that lot for parking for future use of the bank sounds like a solution offered in heaven. Apparently not says a plurality of council members because they blocked the give back using the argument that it is esthetically important to have a solid row of buildings along Centre. "In-fill" they call it.
I call it "Full-of-It".
What's in a name? A rose by any name would smell as sweet.
That lot might provide parking for employees of the "Bank", but what about customers of whatever future business occupies it ?
"what about customers of whatever future business occupies it ?"
When I wrote "taking back that lot for parking for future use of the bank" I was not thinking in terms of "bank" being a bank. PNC is gone and no other bank will replace it.
I meant what you said ... save tdhe lot for "whatever future business occupies it."
The amendment to the Fieldstone Agreement for developing Town Centre East is on the Oct 11 Planning Board agenda. Variances are needed for selling the EMS building (as opposed to moving it), the purchase of Lot 5 (House in a Day), responsibility for environmental assessment costs, demolition deadlines, and storm sewers to be run under the parking lot for the train station.
Some residents have raised concerns over limited parking in the redevelopment plan but that per se is not in this request for variances. Possibly public discussion will not be allowed on parking. I don't know.
Of interest to me are the amendments on purchase credits and PILOTs. As I add up the numbers we will be eating our hats and a good bit of parking lot asphalt in the financial deal. Tell me what you conclude.
Fieldstone will pay Merchantville $675,000 for all ten lots in the triangle plus an additional $50,000 (minus demolition cost) for the EMS building. That is not a cash sum; the amendment allows various "credits" against a PILOT we will give Fieldstone.
Let's add it up. Lot 1 we own. It is a large strip along the R/R right of way that runs from the back of the white elephant medical building On Centre St. down to the EMS building. Lot 1 is assessed for $119,500 which might be about half of its market value. Subtract $119,500 from $675,000.
Next, the parking lots owned by PNC (Lots 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15) were assessed for $157,200. The Boro paid $950,000 for the bank and those lots. We floated a bond for $1.1 million to cover legal costs and something else thrown in at the last minute. If you figure that land runs about 20 percent of any property's cost, then the parking lots would be worth about $200,000. I'll use that number as being more current than the assessments. Subtract that amount from the $675,000. The Boro paid $325,00 for Lot 4 which is 9 E. Park Avenue --a lot of money for a small building half gutted which had been purchased six years ago for half the selling price. Subtract that amount from $675 K. Lot 5 which is the House Built In A Day has yet to be purchased. Fieldstone will buy it and then subtract its cost from the $675,000. It was assessed for $74,000 in 2000. My guess is that it will sell for $150,000.
When all the purchases and credits are added and subtracted, Merchantville owes Fieldstone reimbursement of $79,000 out of the $675,000 which we don't collect to begin with. Fieldstone's obligation is to pay Merchantville $50,000 in cash up front.
You might ask why am I concerned. Three reasons. We lost about $60,000 in tax revenue from the privately-owned properties in the triangle. We owe $1.1 million for a bond to purchase the bank properties plus we paid $325,000 for Lot 4. We are offering a five year tax abatement of 85 percent of future taxes. Now we will spread out the sale price --which is minimal-- over 5 years as a takeback on taxes we gave away.
The second reason is that the Borough, now short of cash, is not moving forward on the recommended purchase of the Verizon parking lot for our public parking use. We are going to have a parking shortage because we bought and flipped other properties without getting reimbursed for our outlay.
The third reason is that due to the parking shortage, Fieldstone will take down the hundred year old oak tree that shades the tip of the triangle in order to create one more parking space on Park Avenue. A centennial tree for a parking space. Where is our sense of value?
Rejecting the amendments will not solve any of the above. It would just make it more difficult for Fieldstone. That would not be in our best interest.
Sorry, wrong again.
The Amendment to the Fieldstone Agreement I referred to above will not be addressed by the Planning Board on Oct 11.
Council Resolution 11-94 relating to the Fieldstone redevelopment will be examined.
Go ahead, Cruiser. Tell the blog world how I'm known to be frequently wrong.
Fieldstone asked to postpone its request for a variance re: parking to a future meeting.
As long as the blogspot is quiet --not a leaf is stirring, not even an anonymouse-- let me add to my concerns over what I construe as "errors" in the Town Centre East redevelopment agreement.
By the way, Fieldstone asked to "suspend" its request for a parking variance to give itself a chance to reexamine its entire redevelopment proposal. So now there is nothing awaiting a Planning Board hearing.
Back to the redevelopment agreement which I may comment on because I live within 200 feet of the project and am disqualified from voting on TCE (or keeping my mouth shut). In looking through the Amendment to the Fieldstone agreement I notice what appear to be errors that our Boro one might best address.
1) According to the tax record and CES survey of the triangle, the EMS building is located on Lot 1, not on Lot 9 as both the Agreement and the Amendment repeatedly state.
2) Lots 11 and 15 (bank parking lots) are listed in the tax records as having an assessment value of zero. That appears to be an error. The Fieldstone Agreement price for the redevelopment property --$675,000-- was based on the total of the assessment values of all the lots, except for Lot 4 which carried a sale price. Therefore, Lots 11 and 15 are giveaways because of the assessment-records error.
3) The Amendment addresses a timeline for the demolition of the buildings on Lots 4 and 5 but not for the EMS (on any lot).
4) Fieldstone is responsible for environmental assessment costs on Lots 2, 6 and 11. Lot 2 is completely covered by the PNC building which itself extends onto Lot 6 approximately five feet. Lot 2 is not part of the Fieldstone purchase. Lot 6 is part of the purchase but left unresolved is the five feet of bank building sitting on the purchased lot. Not incidentally, Lot 6 has the contamination that could be forgotten if the lot were left alone for parking for the bank building.
5) Fieldstone is responsible for abatement of contamination in the railroad bed on Lot 9 only, not on Lots 6 or 11 which may be contaminated or on Lots 1 and 15 which are under the same railroad bed. The Boro would have to pay for contamination abatement on the other lots.
6) Fieldstone is to be given a credit for the full purchase price of Lot 5, not for the difference between the assessed value and the purchase price. Such a credit would make Lot 5 free to Fieldstone (in addition to Lots 11 and 15) because the assessed value of Lot 15 had been included in the $675,000 price.
With the convoluted credit being given for the EMS building and the full purchase credit for Lot 15, the Boro could give back more than $79,000 off of the $675,000 purchase price which is 42 percent below market values according to the State and includes prime Lots 11, 5 and 15 for free.
Cruiser assures us to trust our local officials. Maybe we need to reconsider trusting what Cruiser says.
k.t.b.f. seems to have some valid concerns. I hope he will inform us as to the response from our elected representatives and appointed officials when he presents these questions in a public forum.
Post a Comment