Simsbury, CT - Planning Commission Minutes

Chairman John Loomis called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. at Eno Memorial Hall, placeCitySimsbury, StateCT. The following members were present: Secretary Ernest Gardow, Susan Bednarcyk, Gregory Piecuch, Ferguson Jansen, Charles Houlihan, Brad Mead and Mark Drake. Also in attendance was Hiram Peck, Director of Community Planning & Development, Howard Beach, Conservation/Inland Wetlands and Zoning Compliance Officer, and Emil Dahlquist, Chairman, Design Review Board, as well as approximately 10-15 other interested parties. Commissioners Mead and Piecuch left the meeting at approximately 9:40 and 10:05 p.m. respectively.

Commissioner Houlihan raised a point of order by suggesting that the motion should be voted upon before beginning to address its merits or getting into a detailed substantive discussion regarding the draft. Chairman Loomis disagreed, noting they were into the discussion period. Commissioner Houlihan noted the 3/8/07 draft was a result of a special private caucus in which not all of the members of the Commission were invited to attend. Chairman Loomis noted all members of the party caucus were invited to participate and the focus was specifically on the Northern and Southern Gateways, and that discussion would entirely be in order at this point.

35-foot roof height and retaining Route 10 as a 2-lane highway, but his objection to including metrics or percentages beyond that. He prefers to go with the 12/12/06 draft and agreed with the recommendations contained in Hiram Peck’s 3/12/07 memo. However, he would be hard-pressed to put metrics (other than the 2 mentioned above) in the Appendix and would rather keep them out of the document entirely.

Commissioner Drake noted the language in the 3/8/07 draft that deals with ratios of building width to height was confusing, especially for a layperson. He indicated that if the Commission is going to the form-based concept metrics are necessary to give some dimension to that. Use-based regulations already have such definition. He relayed the opinion of his business partner, who is a licensed architect, that metrics are necessary and provide definition while still allowing for creativity.

Commissioner Houlihan suggested there is an existing context of statutory authority. Adopting form-based zoning is a recommendation from this Commission and is not sufficient to change the statutory nature of the responsibilities that have been delegated to it. The metrics are the province of the Zoning Commission. Planning’s job is to recommend a future of what the Town should look like. Attempting to encroach on Zoning’s purview takes away a good deal of the validity and impetus of form-based zoning, oversteps Planning’s bounds, and will do the Plan a disservice. He was disappointed that the 3/8/07 draft did not incorporate Hiram Peck’s research and recommendations (i.e., eliminate the size of the buildings, percentage of uses and details to the greenbelt). Planning’s job is not to micromanage the design of any kind of proposal that might come in. He advocated describing Planning’s vision in prose. The percentages of uses are confusing, which as proposed, will essentially create a residential development in the Southern Gateway and will not realize its commercial potential.

Commissioner Mead expressed his approval of the 3/8 draft. He noted his great regard for both Mr. Peck and Mr. Dahlquist, referring to them as different visionaries for different purposes. He expressed his strong opinion that the Planning Commission’s job is to represent the town and that most of the town is for some form of metrics to exclude the possibility of a Big Box store in either the Southern or Northern Gateways. He noted the issue still becomes for each Commissioner who do they represent and whether there is a conflict of interest among any of them that would preclude them from representing the people of this town.

Commissioner Piecuch believes there is a general consensus and appreciation among the Commissioners regarding the POCD not being a regulatory document and that the regulatory document is the Zoning Regulations. From his perspective, it is about representing the residents but it is also about understanding the various roles of the Commissions. Citing the Fuller Treatise, he noted the Planning Commission ‘does not have the legal authority to enact regulations which amount to or conflict with the Zoning regulations or to infringe on the statutory powers of the Zoning Commission’. In Commissioner Piecuch’s opinion, there was a misunderstanding after the 11/3/06 POCD draft that the Planning Commission was proposing a regulatory document with the detailed charts, the transect map, and words like ‘maximum’ and ‘shall’. The work between that draft and the 12/12/06 draft focused on how to explicitly define the vision without putting them in the form of Zoning Regulations. He clarified that the 12/12 draft was explicit and included numbers, albeit not in regulatory form. Numbers were used to talk about coverage limits, densities, and mixes of uses. He stands by the 12/12 draft which, in his opinion, included the necessary specifics such as the desired type of building disposition (i.e., smaller human-scale development akin to Simsbury Town Shops) and cited specific square footages for existing developments in town. He suggested that was an approach that made sense and worked to build consensus. To the extent that the Commission does want to get into the debate about such issues as ratios of building heights, Commissioner Piecuch suggested following the advice of Mr. Peck and has put together an alternative incorporating those suggestions.

Commissioner Bednarcyk again cited the Regional Planning Association’s “Building Livable Communities” handbook that the POCD should contain a clear expression of a community’s goal of future development, areas of improvement and assets worth preserving. It should reflect the values and best thinking of the community’s residents. Local citizens should participate in developing the vision. Further, although the zoning authorities are required to consider the master plan of a municipality, they are not under any mandate to render decisions consistent with the plan. Towns need to compel zoning authorities to look at the master plan and require that zoning be in harmony with the planning mandates of the town. Commissioner Bednarcyk commented that the Planning Commission works for the townspeople. The best way to clarify the vision is by the use of metrics. In her opinion, the rescission vote that happened between Christmas and New Year’s was incredibly disruptive.

Chairman Loomis noted that the 3/8 draft provides a basis for moving forward on the central issues of Northern & Southern Gateways only. Other special areas such as Weatogue, placeWest Simsbury, Tariffville, Center Zone and addressStreetWest Street still need to be addressed in terms of consensus. At this time, there are really only 2 relatively unformed and emerging parcels of scale in both the Northern and Southern Gateways with no well-defined context for either. In his opinion, it is the Planning Commission’s job to define that context, with as much clarity and specificity as the context requires (i.e., greenbelt, scale, etc.), setting policies, guidelines and standards. He does not believe that role should be delegated to either the Design Review Board or the Zoning Commission.

Mr. Peck referenced his comments at the previous meeting as well as his memo since that meeting, both of which he did not believe were all that helpful to the Commission. He disagreed with Chairman Loomis, noting the responsibility for the clarity and specificity does belong with the Design Review Board. He still stands by the recommendations he provided previously in order to come to a compromise. He suggested that if the Plan is not adopted shortly, all of their work will have been for naught. The POCD will not regulate what happens in the 2 areas of main concern, but rather serves as a recommendation to the Zoning Commission. If a proposal should come in tomorrow for either of those areas this draft would not even have the effect of a recommendation. Chairman Loomis disagreed, noting that until the POCD is approved, the intent of this emerging draft POCD will be referred to by various boards and commissions.

Citing a noted architect as well as a speaker from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Emil Dahlquist noted the need for a wide community agreement on the vision for the town and that the vision requires detail. He complimented the Planning Commission for their noble, forward-looking endeavor and encouraged them to work together to come up with a language that satisfies everyone. He does not believe they are that far apart. Further, the Design Review Board is looking for guidance from Planning and the Plan before working on the next set of Guidelines.

Chairman Loomis noted the intent of the 3/8 draft was to go from what had been deemed too specific and move towards something that was more generic and less numeric but still expressive in terms of the vision. It tried to meet many of the objections that have occurred since 11/3/06 and devise language without losing specificity where critical. Hiram Peck’s recommendations were of a different order and not consistent with where the 3/8 draft was trying to move. Contrary to Mr. Peck’s opinion, the 3/8 draft came out of a belief that establishing policies, guidelines, and standards is part of the Planning Commission’s mission.

Commissioner Jansen confirmed that all Commissioners had read Mr. Peck’s memo, especially pages 3-5. The Commission then went through the 3/8 draft page by page. Mr. Dahlquist explained the changes to page 3 and the introduction of Form Districts as another attempt to resolve some of the concerns that have been raised regarding the Gateway areas. The attempt is not to create a parallel zoning regulation, but rather to introduce form-based language into the discussion where mixed-use development would be possible. Chairman Loomis cited the last sentence on page 4 as a good summary of what the intent is for the Gateways (i.e., opportunities for a type of mixed-use that should complement the pre-existing conditions and be site-specific). Commissioner Jansen pointed out the similarities with the recommendations on page 4 Mr. Peck’s memo.

With regard to page 6, Chairman Loomis noted the 2 concepts of Village District and Traditional Neighborhood Design that are intended to work together in the Northern Gateway. Commissioner Jansen commented he agrees with what is said here in reference to the property owner’s rights, but noted it is countered later on in the document when it comes to the Southern Gateway. After discussion regarding the village district concept, it was agreed a side bar would be used here for further clarification. In response to Commissioner Houlihan it was agreed to change the wording on page 5 to reflect the previously agreed-upon boundaries for the Northern Gateway (i.e., not all the way to the placeCityGranby border).

Commissioner Piecuch commented that it was his understanding that what Planning was operating in was the framework set up in Future By Design (FBD) that went across a spectrum (i.e., natural, rural, residential, hamlet, village center, town center areas). Even though these 2 green-field sites need more detailed treatment he would rather keep it so that all of the village centers, both existing and proposed, fall somewhere in that form category spectrum. In his opinion, it would fit back into the big picture better and retain the necessary link to the FBD section. He would also prefer to keep the language from the 2/7 draft on form, character and context, which in his opinion was easier to read and understand. Mr. Dahlquist explained this new language was a way to deal with the concern of singling out the parcels.

Commissioner Houlihan questioned whether the Plan was speaking in code with references such as Village Districts and Traditional Neighborhood Designs. If the desire is for a vibrant mixed-used development, it would be better to articulate with some detail the vision for that development rather than rely on terms that carry other baggage. Chairman Loomis agreed it is the Commission’s obligation to clarify (i.e., through illustrations or side bars). Secretary Gardow referenced previous suggestions of using a glossary. Commissioner Houlihan feels Policy 1 and 2 are too abbreviated and a clearer vision needs to be sketched out. Mr. Dahlquist noted the need to reference village districts in the Plan if it is even to be considered down the line by the Zoning Commission.

Commissioner Houlihan disagreed with the percentages listed on page 8 under Functional Areas for the Northern Gateway, indicating the residential percentage is too high. The commercial percentages are too low to build the necessary commercial tax base of the town and he finds the mixed-use area percentages confusing as to how they relate to the commercial and residential concepts. Again, he emphasized Mr. Peck’s recommendation to eliminate the percentages. In his opinion, a creative developer should be able to come in with different packages and handcuffing in terms of use is antithetical to the interests of the town. Commissioner Jansen agreed. Commissioner Bednarcyk referenced and paraphrased an EDC piece that was submitted for the budget process which indicated one of the EDC’s goals was to bring development that residents desire or want. She suggested further that the percentages give guidance and eliminate guesswork.

Mr. Dahlquist completely disagreed with Commissioner Houlihan. He noted what is important to mixed-use is finding the delicate balance to make it a viable community. The percentages listed are based on work by Randall Arendt as well as the book ‘Codifying New Urbanism’. They are for guidance purposes and helps to build in flexibility for the business owners. Commissioner Houlihan noted the real issue is that the Planning Commission, who are not developers, should not specify what is best for a particular site or a future project. Simply state the desire in prose for a vibrant mixed-use development with these particular elements and let the developers come back with a proposal that will work for all elements. Mr. Dahlquist noted if you keep backing the specifics out of the plan then you no longer have a vision.

Commissioners Mead and Houlihan discussed whether or not Big Box development should remain an option in either Gateway and what exactly defines a Big Box development. Commissioner Houlihan suggested things should be kept open. He admitted he is not sure how big is too big but indicated that size itself may or may not be the key component. The workability of a proposed plan is something that will be judged when an application is received. There is a need for business development that is consistent with the town. Commissioner Jansen suggested that according to SHARE Big Box development cannot happen if Route 10 is retained as a 2-lane highway. Commissioner Mead noted this is not really a debate about the POCD, but really the first battle on how the Southern Gateway gets developed and has not been time wasted.

Moving on to page 9, Commissioner Piecuch referenced longer, more extensive language he drafted on 12/19 with regard to front façade ratios that spoke more to what the goal was as opposed to how to accomplish that goal. He agreed the building width to depth ratios on page 9 were confusing and regulatory in presentation. The same goal being sought was also expressed back on 12/12 with examples like Simsbury Town Shops of desirable smaller human-scale development. His concern is also that under these new ratios this very type of project that has been held up as an example could not be reproduced. He prefers the approach worked out with Zoning and Mr. Dahlquist and Town Staff in December to cite examples of desirable development, describe them in details, giving numbers if necessary, and using that as a way to describe the vision rather than coming up with the implementing tool.

Commissioners Piecuch and Houlihan raised issue with Commissioner Mead bringing the River Oaks project into the discussion when he asked if it would be consistent with the vision in the 12/12 draft. Commissioner Mead agreed with not referring to River Oaks as an application has not even come forward yet, but emphasized that the issue is Big Box and it is legitimate to ask whether such a development would fit into the 12/12 vision. Chairman Loomis noted he understood Commissioner Mead’s point, but that it is hard to separate one’s response from an imminent application.

Commissioner Houlihan suggested deleting the reference to a satellite library under Civic Uses on page 9 in light of the extensive amount of money being spent already on updating the main library. Commissioner Jansen suggested deleting all of the existing examples of community buildings. In Mr. Dahlquist’s opinion, the examples have some value in communicating typical types of community buildings. Commissioner Houlihan also raised a question as to the term ‘visible building sites’ and it was agreed clarification is needed that the buildings don’t necessarily have to be visible from the main thoroughfare.

Chairman Loomis noted the ratios for building width to height are for guidance purposes only but do need to be illustrated and exemplified so as not to give the impression that the buildings can only be square and not rectangular. Commissioner Drake emphasized the advisory nature of the Plan and the attempt is to get at scale. Commissioner Piecuch agreed, but disagreed with it being presented in a regulatory form. Commissioner Houlihan cautioned against hiding square footage caps within a ratio. Commissioner Jansen reiterated his concern about not knowing what the exact square footage numbers should be and suggested dealing in magnitude to allow for design flexibility and creativity.

Mr. Dahlquist stressed the importance of creating variety and scale and how much that matters in terms of what a community village looks like. There is a difference between a 5-story 50,000 sq. ft. building and 5 different buildings of 10,000 sq. ft. each. In his opinion, references to existing buildings within town (i.e., Simsbury Town Shops) do not work because they eventually could be torn down. Rather, the vision should be grounded in sound, tested proportional relationships. He also clarified that the Konover project has not entered his thinking since he started with the Commission along this path 4 years ago.

In order to give some counter-balance, Commissioner Piecuch also read an excerpt from “Building Livable Communities” (BLC) which talks about the process for developing a plan not being mysterious, complicated or highly technical, nor should it be too encyclopedic or too encompassing. In his opinion, there is a role for planning through the POCD. There is a role for the Zoning Commission to deal with the regulatory scheme. And there is a role for the Design Review Board in terms of its site plan review and the Design Guidelines. From his perspective, this is not a scenario in which one Board has all the power or one Board’s document is going to be the end-all and be-all. All along he has wanted to achieve the alignment of the Boards and, in his opinion, the 12/12 draft was able to do just that.

Chairman Loomis noted that if the Commission were not trying to go toward form-based thinking they would less likely be addressing many of these issues in the way they are, particularly where the context is largely undefined. The Northern and Southern Gateways require a different kind of outlook with some specificity. The form-based approached, together with some specificity, gives a picture of an outcome. Commissioner Piecuch responded by suggesting Chairman Loomis’ statements are predicated on the assumption that the Planning Commission has the authority to determine the outcome and, ultimately, it doesn’t. Commissioner Piecuch sees a standoffish position toward the Zoning Commission, who ultimately does make those decisions, which does not serve what Planning is attempting to do. Commissioner Bednarcyk read an additional excerpt from BLC which encourages an effective plan to be site-specific (i.e., identifying development limitations, etc.) Commissioner Piecuch suggested the 12/12 draft did that, but also avoided giving the false impression that the POCD is a regulatory document and the Planning Commission ultimately is the decision-maker, and it did not take a standoffish position towards Zoning.

Commissioner Houlihan “loved” page 10. Commissioner Jansen likened the suggestion to locate parking around the sides and rear of the buildings to Evergreen Walk and noted how well that works. Page 11 addresses Secretary Gardow’s concern about the tobacco barns. He liked Chairman Loomis’ suggestion to preserve the barns ‘to the extent possible’. Commissioner Jansen suggested the barns don’t necessarily need to stay where they are, but could be moved and incorporated into an imaginative development.

Commissioner Bednarcyk commended Mr. Dahlquist’s re-working and emphasis on the preferred strategy for the Southern Gateway being office/industrial. Commissioner Jansen preferred Mr. Peck’s suggestion to simply state that the buildings should be screened or set back sufficiently and similar to the Hartford Life property, rather than dictating the placement of the buildings to the rear of the property. Commissioner Houlihan agreed. Commissioner Mead noted the attempt is to ensure preservation of the scenic vista.

Mr. Dahlquist confirmed for Commissioner Piecuch that page 15 is structured similarly to that of the Northern Gateway. However, Mr. Dahlquist noted that for the Southern Gateway, Policy 1 (village district) and Policy 2 (mixed-use/hamlet) are to be taken together. Per Commissioner Houlihan’s suggestion, it was agreed to clarify the use of the word ‘alternative’ as these policies are already in the Alternative Strategy section. Commissioner Piecuch suggested unifying them into a single policy here, as well as in the Northern Gateway (page 6). On page 16, Commissioner Houlihan suggested not using the word ‘view shed’. Commissioner Houlihan questioned the use of the word ‘single-loaded parkways’ on page 17, again cautioning against the use of coded language. He also objected to, again, going beyond the planning function and telling developers what should or should not be done. Mr. Dahlquist, again, noted these are for guidance purposes only.

On page 18 Commissioner Houlihan reiterated his same concerns regarding the regulatory nature of the percentage of uses and ratios of building height to width. Commissioner Piecuch suggested, though, that the Land Use Policy Map does state in broad terms the recommended uses of property throughout town. In addition, the Statutes enable the Planning Commission to weigh in on both the general density and the general uses of property in the Plan, and therefore he is not pushing to take those percentages out. Again, regulatory concerns were raised by Commissioners Houlihan and Jansen with reference to the prescribed ratios of opposing buildings. Commissioner Drake disagreed with Commissioner Houlihan using Evergreen Walk as an example, emphasizing that is not a mixed-use development and that these ratios, along with the other metrics, are necessary to try to convey this new idea or entity with some definition. Commissioner Houlihan again reiterated his objection to this area being predominately residential. Commissioner Piecuch stressed again simply using language to say what the Commission wants to accomplish (i.e., narrow lane widths, wide pedestrian sidewalks, minimal setbacks, etc.) and not how to get there. It was agreed to re-look at the language and possibly add sketches in order to clarify.

After discussion with regards to how to proceed with a vote without viewing the text with the proposed changes it was agreed that Secretary Gardow would withdraw his motion and Commissioner Bednarcyk her second. Commissioner Jansen and Piecuch stressed there are issues that have still not been resolved. Commissioner Piecuch voiced concern that he would not be available on 3/27 should the vote occur then. Chairman Loomis did not want to go on record committing to only having the regular members vote on matters. Commissioner Piecuch noted if it comes time for adoption and all the regular members are there then all the work done so far would be for naught. Commissioner Bednarcyk suggested finding a time to meet again when all Commissioners are available. Chairman Loomis suggested the week after 3/27 could be a possibility to take this up again.

Chairman Loomis proposed to work with Mr. Dahlquist, Mr. Peck and members of the Commission to rework this draft. Commissioner Piecuch offered to work with Chairman Loomis and Mr. Peck, as was the case through mid-December. Chairman Loomis suggested at that time it seemed they were working toward a common purpose and that has since changed. In his opinion, the 12/12 draft is inadequate. Commissioner Piecuch clarified that his offer is to come up with something new that represents a middle ground.

Commissioner Jansen responded to Commissioner Mead’s earlier comments regarding representing the taxpayers and possible conflicts of interest. In Commissioner Jansen’s opinion, all of the Commissioners are working for the taxpayers and, personally, he has never gained a nickel from anything he has voted on over the years. If a conflict exists, Commissioners recuse themselves. Until proven otherwise, the atmosphere and attitude is that the Commissioners are here to do what’s best for all of the citizens of the town.

Hiram Peck noted the ordinance for retention of expertise for large land use applications was presented to the Board of Selectmen (BOS) on 3/12/07. After some brief discussion regarding concerns held by the Town Attorney as to the enforceability of the broadly-written ordinance, the BOS tabled the issue for 2 weeks. In the meantime, Mr. Peck will work with the Town Attorney to work through his concerns.