PENNS NECK AREA EIS MEETING REPORT Meeting Description: Penns Neck Area EIS Consulting Parties Workshop Date: March 4, 2003 Location: West Windsor Senior Center 271 Clarksville Road West Windsor, New Jersey Prepared by: Voorhees Transportation Policy Institute Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey INTRODUCTION: Jon Carnegie, Senior Project Manager, Voorhees Transportation Policy Institute (VTPI), called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 PM and welcomed the group to the third meeting in a series of workshops organized for Penns Neck Area EIS Section 106 consulting parties and interested members of the public. Mr. Carnegie reported that the purpose of the meeting was to gain input on potential means of avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating the potential impacts to cultural resources documented in the DRAFT Cultural Resources Effects Report, which was distributed to the consulting parties in January 2003. STATUS REPORTS AND UPDATES Mr. Carnegie reported that a new alternative was recently added to the list of alternatives to be considered in the DEIS. He indicated that this new alternative would include all of the components of Alternative D except it would eliminate the ESC road. Because it eliminates the ESC road, this alternative would have fewer impacts on area archeological resources. He also reported that the project team is looking at reengineering the ramp configuration for Vaughn Drive Connector (VDC) road alignment 3 in order to avoid potential impacts to the small archeological site located within the alignment of the ramps. Finally, Mr. Carnegie noted that a full presentation on potential impacts to cultural resources was presented to the Partners' Roundtable on January 29, 2003. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES Aqueduct Mills Historic District Mr. Carnegie briefly reviewed the potential adverse impacts to this resource, including the potential destruction of the dry laid stone wall located adjacent to the Route 1 travel lanes at the corner of Route 1 and Mapleton Road. The following comments, questions and issues of concern were shared and boarded: * The alignment of the Route 1 widening could be shifted to the east to avoid impact to the stone wall. It was noted that shifting the alignment to the east may result in greater impacts to the Millstone River and associated wetlands. * The Route 1 bridge over the Millstone River in this location serves as a gateway to Plainsboro, West Windsor and the Aqueduct Mills Historic District. As such, effort should be made to ensure that the bridge replacement design reflects the character of the existing bridge structure on the southbound lanes of Route 1. * The stone wall could be relocated to the west. * Consider designing the elevation of the Route 1 Millstone River Bridge to accommodate passage of pedestrians and bicyclists under the bridge. It was noted that the high water table in the area would most likely preclude this option. It was also noted that elevating the bridge may result in additional adverse effects to the district. Aqueduct Mills Historic District Extension Mr. Carnegie briefly reviewed potential adverse impacts to this resource, including increased noise and visual intrusion resulting from increased traffic through and proximate to the district under some alternatives. He also noted that several of the alternatives result in less traffic in the district and this would have a positive effect. In response to a question, Mr. Carnegie confirmed that in all of the action alternatives except the C and G-series alternatives, Lower Harrison Street would become a cul-de-sac at Route 1. The following comments, questions and issues of concern were shared and boarded: * The lighting used on any of the proposed interchanges located in the vicinity of Harrison Street should be designed to minimize potential night-time light impacts on the district. * Impacts related to increased traffic proximate to the resource could be partially mitigated by creating landscaped/treed buffer areas to shield the district from visual intrusion from the interchange and west-side connector (WSC) road. * The WSC road will serve as a gateway to the Princetons and West Windsor. As such, it should be designed with sensitivity to this context. Road width should be kept to a minimum and street trees should be provided to reflect the historic neighborhood scale of both Lower and Upper Harrison Street. Covenhoven-Logan-Silvers House Mr. Carnegie briefly reviewed the potential impacts to this resource, including its potential destruction under the A and B-series alternatives, potential auditory and visual impacts under the D and F-series alternatives, and potential visual impacts under Alternatives E and G.1. He noted that the C-series alternatives and Alternatives G and G.2 would not impact this resource. The following comments, questions and issues of concern were shared and boarded: * Give preference to those alternatives that do not result in the destruction of this resource. If destructive impacts are unavoidable, consider relocating the house. * Impacts related to increased traffic proximate to the resource could be partially mitigated by creating landscaped/treed buffer areas to shield the house from visual intrusion from the interchange and west-side connector (WSC) road. This approach is preferred over noise barriers which could result in additional adverse visual impacts. * The WSC road should be designed with sensitivity to the setting of the house. Road width should be kept to a minimum and street trees should be provided along the road to reflect the historic setting of the homestead. * The DOT should seek to partner with the property owner to preserve the homestead if it remains in place. D&R Canal Historic District Mr. Carnegie briefly reviewed the potential impacts to this resource. He noted that traffic will increase at Alexander Road, Washington Road and Harrison Street crossings of the district under all of the alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative. Increased traffic at these locations would result in auditory and visual impacts on the district. He noted that compared to the No-Action alternative, all of the action alternatives except C.1 and G.2 would decrease traffic at the Alexander Road crossing, all of the action alternatives except B and B.1 would decrease traffic at the Washington Road crossing, and all of the action alternatives would increase traffic at the Harrison Street crossing. He further noted that the B-series alternatives will introduce a road running parallel to the canal between Harrison Street and Washington Road. These alternatives will result in traffic-related auditory and visual intrusion in an area of the district where it does not presently exist. The following comments, questions and issues of concern were shared and boarded: * Give preference to those alternatives that avoid impacts to interior portions of the park/district (e.g., avoid longitudinal impacts from constructing the WSC road between Harrison Street and Washington Road). * The introduction of landscaped berms in the vicinity of the canal park/district would constitute an adverse impact and is not desirable. * Potential impacts resulting from increased traffic at the park crossings could be partially mitigated by providing traffic calming and other enhancements at the canal crossings. Specific suggestions included: - Redesign the existing crossings and construct appropriate treatments such as abutments, stone neck-downs and other physical queues to slow traffic down and put drivers on alert that they are approaching an area with high pedestrian activity; - Installation of textured crosswalks at the canal crossings; - Installation of park amenities such as benches and plantings in the vicinity of the crossings; and - Installation of historic markers, with interpretive text where they are not presently provided; * Enhance access to the park/district by providing pedestrian/bike facilities between the park and any new roadway facilities. * Partner with Princeton and West Windsor to provide enforcement of posted speed limits. Penns Neck Baptist Church Mr. Carnegie briefly reviewed the potential impacts to this resource. He noted that all of the action alternatives except the B-series would shift the alignment of Route 1 to the west. Potential adverse impacts to the church include temporary construction related impacts. He also noted that those alternatives which include Route 1 in-a-cut would have a positive impact on the church due to significantly reduced traffic noise and visual intrusion. Although potential adverse impacts to the church would be primarily temporary, the following suggestions were made in the spirit of enhancing the use and enjoyment of this resource: * Beware of potential construction impacts and ensure that all means possible are employed to ensure the structural integrity of the church is not damaged during construction. * Move the alignment of Route 1 and the frontage roads (if included in an alternative) as far to the west as possible without adversely affecting other resources. * Develop a road/interchange design that recognizes the importance of the Washington Road intersection with Route 1 as a gateway to West Windsor and Princeton and highlight the Penns Neck Baptist Church as one of the more distinctive structures in West Windsor Township. Specific suggestions included: - Design the frontage roads as tree-lined neighborhood-scaled streets. - Provide landscaped/treed buffer areas between travel lanes and the church. - Covering Route 1 with a landscaped park/plaza in front of the church (e.g., as suggested in Alternative D) would significantly enhance the church setting. - Increase the "green-to-cement" ratio to enhance the church setting. - Provide design treatments such as fencing, lighting, signage, traffic signals, etc. that compliment the neighborhood setting of the church, especially if Route 1 in-a-cut is constructed. Princeton Operating Station Mr. Carnegie briefly reviewed the potential impacts to this resource, including its potential destruction under the A, B, C and F-series alternatives. He noted that the D, E, and G-series alternatives would not impact this resource. The following comments, questions and issues of concern were shared and boarded: * Give preference to those alternatives that avoid destruction of the structure. * If destruction can be avoided but access is severely limited by an interchange ramp encircling the structure, adaptive reuse of the building for a low traffic use should be explored (e.g., as a storage or archive facility for a museum). This would be preferable to demolition of the structure. Washington Road Elm Allée Mr. Carnegie briefly reviewed the potential impacts to this resource, including the potential destruction of one or more trees under the B-series alternatives and alternatives C and G.1. He noted that the A, D, E, and F-series alternatives and alternatives C.1, G, and G.2 would not impact this resource. The following comments, questions and issues of concern were shared and boarded: * It was noted that part of the historic significance of this resource relates to the location of the trees along Washington Road, one of the primary road corridors leading into and out of Princeton. As such, traffic increases on Washington Road may not constitute an adverse impact on the resource. * Give preference to those alternatives that do not impact the Allée. * If impacts are unavoidable, minimize the number of trees affected. If feasible, move the potentially impacted trees to another location. If relocation is not feasible, replace the trees to ensure the long term integrity of the resource. * The following suggestions were made in the spirit of enhancing enjoyment of this resource: - Partner with Princeton University to enhance /expand on-going tree preservation and maintenance efforts. - Provide drainage improvements along Washington Road to mitigate the damaging effects of pollution from roadway runoff and limit salt application during winter months. - Lower the speed limit along Washington Road. - Construct a linear path along Washington Road to increase safe access to this resource for pedestrians and bicyclists and to provide a link to the Allée from the Penns Neck neighborhood and the D&R Canal. David S. Voorhees House and Pennsylvania RR Historic District Mr. Carnegie briefly reviewed potential adverse impacts to these resources, including visual impacts to the David S. Voorhees House and the potential destruction of the Princeton Junction Hotel, a contributing resource to the Pennsylvania RR Historic District. He noted that these impacts only occur under those alternatives that include a Vaughn Drive connector (VDC) road and if VDC 1 is constructed. The following comments, questions and issues of concern were shared and boarded: * Give preference to VDC 2 and VDC 3 which avoid impacts to these resources. If destructive impacts to either resource are unavoidable, consider relocating the house and/or Hotel. * Impacts related to increased traffic proximate to the resources could be partially mitigated by creating landscaped/treed buffer areas to shield the structures from visual intrusion. * The VDC road should be designed with sensitivity to the setting of the house and district. Road width should be kept to a minimum and street trees should be provided along the road to reflect the historic character of these structures. * The DOT should seek to partner with the property owner (NJ TRANSIT) to preserve the Princeton Junction Hotel if it remains in place. Participants suggested making the Hotel property available to a business interest at low or no cost to provide an incentive to restore the structure and reuse the property. Sarnoff Historic Designation Mr. Carnegie reported that the State Historic Preservation Office had rendered an informal opinion that the Sarnoff Corporation facility was eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. He noted that consultation with the SHPO was on-going. He also presented a graphic showing the proposed boundary for the site, which included a significant portion of the Sarnoff property. Although the potential impact of the alternatives on this resource has not been determined, the following comments, questions and issues of concern were shared and boarded: * Increased traffic on the periphery of or through the Sarnoff property may not have an adverse impact if the east-side connector (ESC) road is designed to ensure that the corporate campus context of the site is maintained and highlighted. * Provide markers interpreting the historic nature of the Sarnoff facility and highlighting the technological innovations that occurred there. * Consider what impacts may accrue from private actions on the site. For instance, how will construction according to Sarnoff's approved General Development Plan effect the historicity of the site. Conclusion Mr. Carnegie thanked the participants for their input and reported that another Consulting Parties Workshop does not appear to be necessary, although a similar workshop may be needed at a later stage of the EIS process. The meeting was adjourned. 7