Simsbury, CT - Design Review Board Minutes

Chairman Dahlquist called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM in the Auditorium of ENO Memorial Hall. The following members were present: Kevin Gray, John Stewart, Charles Stephenson, John Carroll, Mark Naccarato, William Gardner and Rick Schoenhardt. Also present was Mr. Hiram Peck, Director of Planning.

Chairman Dahlquist stated that there would not be any public input during the course of this meeting. The first public audience will be held on September 11, 2007, at the Planning Commission meeting and again on September 24, 2007, at the Zoning meeting. At these meetings, the public will be allowed to comment and ask questions.

Chairman Dahlquist stated that the only matter to be discussed at this meeting is the text amendment for the proposed Planned Development District Zoning Regulation as submitted by Konover dated June 5, 2007. Konover has withdrawn their site plan application and there will be no discussion on that matter at tonight’s meeting.

T.J. Donohue spoke before the Design Review Board on behalf of the applicant. He introduced Patrick Pinnell, Senior Design Consultant. In addition, he introduced Mr. Rick Chellman, an Engineer from Portsmith, NH and Shavaun Towers of Towers and Golde Landscape Architects. He stated that each of these individuals would be making a presentation on the policies and principles, which support the new zoning regulations to enable mixed uses in Simsbury.

Mr. Chellman presented a Power Point presentation to the Board regarding mixed uses and making better neighborhoods. He showed travel patterns and single land use areas and that there is usually not a road connection linking these. He discussed more perspectives in the design process. He stated that public policies, like the one we are talking about tonight, could make a big difference in a town like Simsbury. Mr. Chellman explained the importance of “park once”. This is when a person parks their car only once and patronizes many different locations.

Chairman Dahlquist asked the applicant to address what constitutes a PDD regulation and what the basic ingredient would be for a good PDD. Mr. Donohue stated that the PDD, which they have submitted for review, comes from concepts that were started at the Planning Commission, which was a regulatory scheme that would enable mixed use. This draft started from another draft that was composed by the Town Council for the Town Zoning Board.

Regarding the changes that were made between the original draft and the draft that is before the Commission tonight, Commissioner John Stewart asked why sidewalks and open spaces were taken out of the calculation for impervious surfaces. Mr. Donohue stated that they did this to make them consistent with the existing regulations. Sidewalks are not counted against coverage under the current regulations. Mr. Donohue then read Article 8, Section 8 of the Regulations regarding impervious surfaces, which specifically excludes sidewalks.

I. Intent – “The process creates opportunities for enhanced public participation and collaboration in shaping the design”. This has been deleted because they believe in full public hearings. Mr. Donohue stated that, with this particular development, Konover believes more in public participation than in private participation. This portion was deleted because they felt it was unnecessary, although the applicant has no objection to this statement.

1.c. – Mr. Donohue stated that “[add more standards]” was deleted because there was nothing there. Regarding technical design standards, if the land use agencies feel that this is something that the applicant should be working on, they would be willing to do that.

3. Prohibited Uses – “Prohibited uses which exist upon a site at the time of application may be preserved under transition of the site to its PDD use under terms to be established by the Zoning Commission which shall include that the use shall be extinguished within five years from the date of the PDD adoption.” This was added text. Mr. Donohue stated that on a site of scale and size, where there will be major investment, if there are existing uses on the site, there should be a time period to amortize those uses. He stated that the Town Council did note that perhaps this was inconsistent with State Regulations and Laws. Mr. Donohue stated that he would like more time to review this issue.

5.b. Lot Coverage – “Lot coverage shall not exceed 40% of the area of the PDD, except the Zoning Commission may permit up to 60% coverage if the applicant demonstrates, and the Zoning Commission finds, compliance with the standards of Article 10, Section M, of these regulations”. This text was deleted. Mr. Donohue read what was added in its place. “Lot coverage shall not exceed 60% of the area of the PDD, except the Zoning Commission may permit up to 75% coverage if the applicant demonstrates, and the Zoning Commission finds, compliance with the standards of Article 10, Section M, of these regulations.” Mr. Donohue stated that, currently, in this type of zone, you could get 40% coverage as of right. Under special permit, this coverage can be increased to 60%. He stated that this was added to the PDD because they feel that smart growth says that where you make your investment, you do so with a balanced approach for all citizens. This will put you in a position to maximize the use of infrastructure and take development pressure off of other areas of the community.

Mr. Pinnell stated that if the Town of Simsbury is trying to make a more dense mixed use, for example, walkable places, then this makes sense to add a performance measure and to consider the possibility of having more lot coverage. He asked the Commission to consider redefining lot coverage as both parking and buildings.

5.b. Open Space – “Open space shall be at least 20% of the development parcel and configured in larger, more usable areas, and shall increase by 1% for each 2% of increase in lot coverage above 40%”. This text was deleted. Mr. Donohue stated that there is no rationale for this in the Connecticut General Statues. There is nothing that allows any Town to require 20%. Mr. Donohue stated that the only exception to this is the Open Space Subdivision Regulations. He stated that this text was taken out because it is illegal.

6.a. Signatories – “…PDD and any sending areas for the transfer of development rights under Article 10, Section M”. This text was deleted. Mr. Donohue stated that they feel transfer of development rights make a lot of sense. The transfer of development rights is where a community identifies certain resources that they wish to protect and it also identifies other areas where it is willing to allow corresponding intensity. He stated that they do not feel that transfer of development rights should be within the PDD, although they do agree with it.

7.a. – “Provided, however, that nothing herein shall prohibit Applicant from submitting detailed plans for the proposed PDD at this or other step of the process.” This text was added. Mr. Donohue stated that this was added to recognize that the applicant should be able to give any information to any agency even if their purview and responsibility may be different.

9.b.(4.) – “Provide a phasing plan and guaranties insuring the completion of the PDD, including financial security and rights to succession to enable expeditious and orderly transition to subsequent developers if the applicant is unable to proceed”. This text was deleted. Mr. Donohue stated that this topic was reinserted below. This is for financial assurances; they feel existing bonding procedures are adequate.

Regarding eliminating guarantees for completion of the PDD, Commissioner Rick Schoenhardt questioned what assurances where in place to ensure that there will be a balanced development executed with each plan. Mr. Donohue stated that the phasing plan would be tied to the building permits. This would also be built in phases, which would be accepted and agreed as part of the PDD. This would be under the Town’s control. Commissioner Schoenhardt also questioned what else would be included in the regulation that might prevent a commercial section to be developed and nothing else developed. Mr. Donohue stated that the regulations call for 40 scale drawings, which are an absolute architectural control. He also stated that there would be more substantial language to the phasing plan, which would include the types of refinements to structure as to what will be constructed in different phases. They would also tie building permits into this. He stated that this is a control issue, which they fully expect to be in agreement with the Town on the manner in which this will be worked on.

Commissioner William Gardner questioned how design merit is judged that is consistent with the character of the Town. Regarding appropriate scale and building design and minimization of higher density for compact parking, Commissioner Gardner also asked how these are defined within a document and how someone would go about judging the question of design merit. Mr. Donohue stated that this is a significant challenge to this type of regulation. He stated that the Design Review Board has influence on color, materials used, design elements, shapes and sizes; there is no constitutional authority to allow a land use agency to have control or influence on these types of elements. This regulation started with the Town Council. If this Board’s recommendation is that there should be more detailed design standards that may be appropriate. Commissioner Gardner stated that the PDD should have some design standard that has quantitative design guidelines rather than subjective statements. This 06/05 document seems to be very subjective in terms of its defining merit. Mr. Donohue stated that they would like to work with Town staff on this matter.

Commissioner John Carroll questioned if the applicant would have written a different PDD if it had not first been started by the Town Council. Mr. Donohue stated that Konover controls the best piece of property in Simsbury. After listening to many agencies in Town, they heard that mixed use is something that would be a great asset for Simsbury in this particular location. He stated that the first test of passing the PDD was to see if Konover could move forward with the development of this land. He stated that this PDD passes the first test. The second test was to look at the PDD to see how it would work for other parcels in the community. This PDD creates a lot of discretion for Simsbury’s land use agencies. Mr. Donohue stated that he has a great deal of confidence in this PDD.

Commissioner Charles Stephenson stated he would like clarification regarding PDD General Requirements Item 2.a. Efficiency of land use and 2.i. Compact, higher density development with minimization of surface parking. He questioned if, for the higher density development, there was something in return back to the public domain in terms of the preservation of more space than would have been if gotten through the normal process of developing the land. Mr. Donohue stated that on certain occasions it would make sense to save space, but theoretically, there are other times when a public building or public sidewalks might make more sense in giving space. If this Town would like walkable communities, you have to keep density and have blocks and grids.

Mr. Chellman stated that the term open space, which is abstract, and specifying a percentage of open space for any given parcel is uncertain. He believes it needs to be specified what kind of open space, whether it be a civic space or natural space or an active or passive recreation space. In order to be useful in a PDD, they might want to consider a range of suggestions of kinds of space, which any given neighborhood would benefit from.

Commissioner John Stewart questioned what advantages Konover and the Town of Simsbury have in approaching this piece of property, instead of a PDD, as a simple special exception to a zone change. Chairman Dahlquist stated that they should not be talking about a specific piece of property. The question was changed to, theoretically, should it be a special exception or the PDD. Mr. Donohue stated that he does not believe that the special exception would allow the mixed use that Konover envisions. Everything Konover wants to do in a theoretical development is allowed in Simsbury, although they are not allowed to be done together.

Commissioner Mark Naccarato stated that of the sites in Simsbury that are eligible for the PDD status, these sites are rather contained; he does not feel that they will spur a different type of development beyond themselves. In looking at the sites themselves, Commission Naccarato questioned how the Town of Simsbury could establish some guidelines to determine what the appropriate density for a particular site in terms of construction should be. Mr. Donohue stated that in the regulations, the densities are high end, which is not what will necessarily be approved by a land use commission; that would be within their discretion. This would be different for every site.

Commissioner William Gardner questioned if one PDD would fit all applications or if each application would require its own PDD. Mr. Donohue stated that if a PDD were adopted, an applicant would submit something for consideration under the PDD. If the application is accepted as a PDD, then detailed drawings specific to the site would need to be submitted and the Zoning Commission would have the discretion as to making the zoning laws for that site. The goal is to have a uniform PDD that is refined to a specific parcel.

Commissioner Charles Stephenson stated that the Design Review Board is looking at a PDD because it is being presented as a better way to develop a piece of property in terms of mixed use, which the Town does not currently have. He asked for clarification if it would be possible to interpret the PDD as a tool by which one gains a higher density on a specific parcel than another could expect to get. He also questioned why it would be necessary to increase the lot coverage. Mr. Donohue stated that it would be a benefit for people to be able to walk and enjoy their surroundings, such as in the downtown area. To do this, an applicant may need to go to 75%. He stated that there are sites where you may want to push the density.

Commissioner Kevin Gray question what would happen after a development gets built and changes come along. He questioned how things would get administered afterwards when another applicant comes in wanting something else in that location. Mr. Donohue stated that he envisions absolute control as to the structures and the functions of the buildings. Commissioner Stephenson asked Mr. Donohue to tell the Board more about how one would determine what the appropriate density for a relative area or neighborhood in Town should be. Mr. Donohue stated that this is a question of market context. This would be easy to determine in the south end of Simsbury where, in 1950 there was nothing, and now, mostly all of the land is developed. He stated that the context in the south part of Simsbury dictates what the context is. He stated that the context in the north end would be harder to determine.

Chairman Dahlquist questioned what it was about this regulation that gives clear and unambiguous guidance to a developer as to what the expectation might be for Commission approval. Also, what a Commissioner would have to hold onto in this PDD regulation to make an evaluation that would render a fair and unbiased conclusion. He questioned where these standards and guideline are within this document. Mr. Donohue stated that there is significant discretion left to the Commissions in this PDD. He stated that they are willing to add related issues to the PDD if that is what the Commission wants. He would like the Design Review Board to look at what is being presented tonight. This is not a working group exercise; this is an application before the Zoning Commission. He stated that Konover’s commitment is to work with the Zoning Commission and the other agencies that have input in this process to get the best PDD possible.

Chairman Dahlquist recommended the Commission members take the information that was given tonight and put together comments prior to the next scheduled meeting on August 28, 2007. At this next meeting, the Design Review Board will take the opportunity to have an internal discussion to come up with a response to the PDD regulation that has been submitted. They will also make a motion at that point and a referral will be made to the Planning Commission.