Design Review Board
Special Meeting – Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Main Meeting Room, Simsbury Town Offices – 5:30 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Dahlquist called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Kevin Gray, John Stewart, Charles Stephenson, John Carroll, Mark Naccarato, William Gardner, Anthony Drapelick, and Rick Schoenhardt. Also present was Mr. Hiram Peck, Director of Planning and Alison Sturgeon, Commission Clerk.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
There were no alternates needed for this meeting. Chairman Dahlquist invited the two alternates who were present to join in the discussion during this meeting, although they would not be able to vote. If there is a decision made at the end of this meeting, the vote of the alternates would be reflected in the motion as an amendment to the motion.
III. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE
a. Continuation of 8/14 meeting on application of Konover Development on proposed Planned Development District (PDD) zoning regulation amendment.
Chairman Dahlquist stated that they would not be hearing any comments from the public as part of this meeting. This meeting is devoted to discussing the issues, which were raised at the last meeting. The Planning Commission will be meeting on September 11, 2007 and the Zoning Commission on September 24, 2007. The motion made by the Design Review Board tonight will be submitted to these Commissions for their review at these September meetings.
Chairman Dahlquist stated that they would be discussing the PDD text amendment prepared by Konover Development dated June 5, 2007. He stated that it is the Design Review Board’s charge to evaluate this text amendment based on the presentation of information by the applicant and to evaluate the content within that document to determine whether it is consistent with this Board’s vantage point and consistent with their design guidelines.
At tonight’s meeting, this Board will be focusing on the content and objectives as laid out in the June 5, 2007 draft. Chairman Dahlquist stated that it is not the intent of this Board to write a PDD, but to merely evaluate what is before the Board. They would not be deciding whether a mixed-use development for a PDD would be appropriate for the Town of Simsbury. Chairman Dahlquist handed out a draft framework to the members to use as a guideline toward evaluating specifics in the June 5 Konover Development PDD text amendment. Along with the draft framework, Chairman Dahlquist typed up Draft Comments by topic to stimulate conversation and discussion amongst the Board members. There was also information circulated by Hiram Peck, which is a draft of suggested language that might be used in their
recommendation to the Zoning Commission. Mr. Peck stated that he went through the minutes of the last meeting and picked out individual comments and put them together in this memo.
Chairman Dahlquist stated that in the past, the Design Review Board has viewed mixed- use type developments and they have identified three broad categories: content, performance objectives, and form objectives. The Board used the Draft Comments, written by Chairman Dahlquist to discuss these topics.
Chairman Dahlquist read the Intent and Purpose portion of the Draft Comments to the Board. Commissioner Schoenhardt feels that there is a problem with trying to draft a PDD, which will be applicable to different sites. He believes it is good for Simsbury to have a regulation that acknowledges the concept of a PDD and establishes general principles, although beyond this, there needs to be a description of the requirements for a specific site. Many of the comments and questions from this Board regarding dimensional standards and specific criteria will vary upon where this would be in Town. Commissioner Schoenhardt stated that he feels a regulation needs to be formatted which will require specifics for a site along with the conceptual plan. Chairman Dahlquist stated that on page 3 of the proposed PDD, it indicates
that a PDD may be located anywhere. Commissioner Schoenhardt does not feel, at this point, that they can establish criteria for a specific mix of uses for the PDD because it will vary from site to site. Chairman Dahlquist stated that this issue is not referred to in the proposed PDD and this Board should only evaluate what is in that document.
Regarding Public Participation, A.6. of the Draft Comments, “There are no provisions for any public participation.”, Hiram Peck stated that on page 5 of the proposed PDD, it is required that the Zoning Commission hold a public hearing.
Commissioner Stephenson stated that the proposed PDD lacks a clear vision statement of intent and also lacks the metrics by which the project being submitted under its jurisdiction can be tailored to be respectful of where in Town it is to occur. He also feels that the proposed PDD fails to achieve language, and fosters objectives of clear and fair analysis or judgment of any project submitted.
Commissioner Carroll stated that this proposed PDD clearly lacks some of the issues that this Board has been discussing for a long time. If the objective is to write a regulation that describes the concept of a PDD, then in that document, the general requirements for all PDDs should appear and become the regulation under which all applicants would be required to adhere to. Commissioner Carroll feels that, prior to writing this proposed PDD, the Zoning Commission should pick out certain parcels of land within the Town of Simsbury, which could become a PDD. Then criteria could be written for each of these sites with different requirements because of its location, character, size, etc.
Chairman Dahlquist continued to read the Applicability Section of the Draft Comments. Commissioner Gardner questioned how appropriate scale and design merit be determined. He stated that there is a great deal of subjective language throughout this proposed PDD.
Commissioner Stephenson questioned if the PDD was an overlay of the existing zone or if it replaced the existing zone. Hiram Peck stated that if the Zoning Commission were to decide to accept a PDD on a particular parcel, it would replace the underlying zone.
Commissioner Stewart believes that the one thing that is missing from this draft is the ability to allow an applicant to look at this PDD, if adopted, and determine what the process is to get to a meeting where something can be presented that moves the project to fulfillment. At the last meetings, the applicant stated that various determinations would be made as to how to define certain topics and issues. Commissioner Stewart questioned if this would be done in the Zoning process or prior to that process. He feels that there are many holes in this proposed PDD in addition to a lack of specifics.
Regarding the Draft Comments, B.2., The Location Criteria, Commissioner Stephenson stated that under the current Zoning Regulations, each zone has lot coverages. He questioned if a PDD would become a vehicle by which anyone can automatically increase the density of a particular site. Chairman Dahlquist stated that the current Zoning Regulations have many areas, which require a lot of metrics, such as setbacks, building height, coverage, etc., which this proposed PDD lacks.
Chairman Dahlquist continued to read Section C., Uses and Use Areas of the Draft Comments, which stated, “There is no range of general complementary uses stipulated supplementing the prohibited uses.” Chairman Dahlquist stated that this is important for the viability and functioning of mixed-use developments to have particular percentages based upon the type and character of mixed-use
developments. There is nothing in the proposed PDD, which stipulates any kind of relationship to percentages.
Chairman Dahlquist read Section D., Dimensional Standards, stating, “There are no benchmarks useful for determining compliance with the regulation.” He stated that benchmarks are good for the Town and for the developer, although, there are little, if any, benchmarks in the proposed PDD. Regarding overall project size, Chairman Dahlquist stated that the draft does not acknowledge that PDDs on a one-acre site would differ from a one hundred-acre site. Regarding coverage standards being excessive, he also stated that as of right, 60% is being proposed with an increase to 75% if agreed to by the Zoning Commission. He feels that this is very excessive based on current standards throughout the Town. Regarding D.8., which states, “Changes in lot coverage or building floor area are excessive at 2.5%
requiring a new Mast Plan Application.”, Chairman Dahlquist stated that any changes made to the approved plan, which are less than 2.5%, do not have to go through site application analysis. Hiram Peck stated that the applicant’s intention was to state that the 2.5% referred to the change in size of buildings within the approved maximum. Although the language regarding this may not be clear, it is what was represented. The Board agreed that this language was not clear in the proposed PDD.
Chairman Dahlquist continued to read the rest of the Draft Comments. He also read Hiram Peck’s memo dated August 28, 2007, which were comments and concerns raised by the Board at the August 14, 2007, meeting.
Commissioner Gardner questioned what the next step in this process would be. Chairman Dahlquist stated that the Design Review Board would need to make a motion to accept the proposed PDD as presented, accept it with modifications, or to recommend not accepting the proposed PDD at all. Hiram Peck stated that along with a motion, it would be helpful to also state the reasons for the motion.
Commissioner Gray motioned that the Design Review Board finds the Planned Development District (PDD), dated June 5, 2007, incomplete and generally inconsistent with the objectives and standards contained within the Guidelines for Community Design. The Design Review Board recommends to the Zoning Commission that this application not be approved as presented. This recommendation is based upon incomplete information and/or insufficient detailed outline as follows: Draft Comments and additional comments 1-6 of Hiram Peck’s memo dated August 28, 2007.
Commissioner Gardner seconded the motion.
Commissioner Carroll stated that the minutes of the August 14, 2007 and August 28, 2007 meetings of this Board should be included in the submission to the Zoning Commission. This would allow the members of the Zoning Commission to read everything that was discussed regarding this proposed PDD.
Commissioner Gray amended his motion to include the minutes of the August 14, 2007, and August 28, 2007, meetings with the submission of the recommendation.
Commissioner Gardner seconded the amended motion with all in favor. The alternate Commission members, Commissioners Drapelick and Carroll, if given the chance to vote, would have voted in favor of this motion.
Commissioner Gardner motioned to adjourn the meeting at 6:30 PM. Commissioner Gray seconded the motion, which was unanimously passed.
Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________________________
Kevin Gray, Secretary
| 
