Simsbury, CT - Planning Commission Minutes

Chairman John Loomis called the special meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Eno Memorial Hall Auditorium. The following members were present: Secretary Ernest Gardow, Ferguson Jansen, Susan Bednarcyk, Darren Cunningham, Brad Mead, Charles Houlihan, and Carol Cole, with Mark Drake arriving at approximately 7:30 p.m. Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Community Planning & Development, as well as other interested parties.

Chairman Loomis explained that the Planning Commission was preparing to do a referral to the Zoning Commission, as required by Statute, regarding the proposed River Oaks Planned Development District (PDD). The Commission intended on listening and dialoguing with the applicant tonight, holding a meeting on 9/11/07 for the primary purpose of taking public input. Their deliberations would be completed on the referral itself at a meeting on 9/18 in order to provide their referral to Zoning prior to their 9/24 public hearing. He explained that statutorily the Planning Commission serves in an advisory role with regard to any text amendment or zone change and will use the existing 1994 Plan of Development as their primary reference when making the referral. Commissioner Houlihan questioned the extent to which Planning could make recommendations or suggestions for modifications regarding the PDD. Chairman Loomis indicated that the Commission would primarily be dealing with the version of the PDD as provided this evening.

Attorney T.J. Donahue, representing Konover Development Corporation, expressed his appreciation for the role the Planning Commission has played in nurturing and developing the very mixed-use concepts embodied in the draft text PDD this evening through their exhaustive and comprehensive process of drafting their Plan of Development. Konover proposes this regulation to enable high-grade, sustainable, and balanced investments in those areas of placeCitySimsbury where infrastructure enables new Smart Growth patterns. Attorney Donahue introduced the panel of New England professionals that has been assembled to present the policies and principles which support a new zoning regulation to enable mixed use in CityplaceSimsbury.

Ms. Shavaun Towers, of the architecture firm of Towers/Golde, described her firm’s role on the design team as enhancing the public open spaces within this project. They are interested in developing places that reflect the New England character of placeCitySimsbury. She began by showing the various school districts in CitySimsbury, demonstrating the typical patterns of placeNew England development where there are numerous villages within a particular town. She provided examples and various levels of detail regarding the types of open spaces (i.e., streetscapes, sidewalk areas, outdoor dining, green open spaces, etc.) that might be used in a mixed-use development allowed by a PDD such as the one currently being contemplated. She explained the variety of components of mixed use, including residential, small to mid-sized retail, specialty market, narrow streets, and traffic slowing, all while providing a preeminence to pedestrian activity and the pedestrian realm.

The second member of the team, Mr. Rick Chellman, is an engineer from placeCityPortsmouth, StateNH. He described his experience, locally, nationally and internationally, with regard to Traditional Neighborhood Design. He noted that many of the best American examples of development in terms of sustainability and walkable places are found here in placeNew England. Unfortunately, many times the local regulations do not allow similar development to be done now. He provided examples of those types of developments, as well as the current types of development that tend to segregate uses and place the emphasis on driving as the mode of transportation. In his opinion, it is possible to build a new place that emulates many of the traditional ideas and create a unique urban sense of place. Although the concern with the PDD is its allowing greater lot coverage than traditional zoning, in his opinion, that enables the creation of that sense of space and emphasis on pedestrian activity. Mr. Chellman indicated the emphasis implicit in most subdivision regulations comes from back in the 1950’s where the street standards arose from the need to evacuate prior to a nuclear attack and clean up from a nuclear attack.

Mr. Chellman provided slides from placeCityPeoria, StateIL showing the development as it progressed from the 1920’s (emphasis on pedestrian activity) through to last summer (no pedestrian traffic, one-way streets, etc.). He noted examples from their zoning regulations that resulted in the change (i.e., emphasis on through movement of traffic). Mr. Chellman described the power of connected streets, which provide less reliance on each individual street (i.e., they can share in the function of providing circulation for both vehicles and pedestrians) and enables the ‘park once’ idea. He provided examples of the ‘parks a lot’ areas, where an individual will ride and park to each retail store, and described the difference between the two in terms of traffic activity. Providing specific examples of the two from placeCityPortsmouth, StateNH he noted that addressStreetMarket Square actually exceeds the desirable 5-minute walking radius and spans to a 10-minute radius. Individuals are willing to do so because of the environment that is provided there. Traffic studies revealed that the capture rates were very high and the area generated a third of the traffic in the peak periods as with the same use assembled in a suburban manner.

Since the proposed text amendment has such a broad application and could land anywhere in town, Chairman Loomis requested Attorney Donahue to cite the elements of the proposed PDD that will serve Simsbury’s long-term interest well. Attorney Donahue suggested the PDD will enable mixed use development, with the pedestrian-friendly traditional neighborhood design, in special and appropriate places to create development that as of today could not be built because the current regulations restrict types of uses to specific areas. In addition, he suggested that with 15% of land left for development in town, the PDD will enable creative and connected development in the infill and redevelopment areas. Further, on certain sites, this PDD will allow the development of parcels that can connect to all the other spaces, rather than the current Zoning patterns that call for buffering against any adjacent non-similar use.

Commissioner Bednarcyk questioned why the open space areas in the slides provided by Mr. Chellman were all paved rather than green. Mr. Chellman acknowledged both types of open spaces are important. In his attempt to address the lot coverage question, he indicated that in an area like addressStreetMarket Square you create a great sense of place. As you get more urban and less suburban you get better types of paving and more types of places or what he described as ‘outdoor rooms’. Each street then becomes an important public space linking with other public areas.

Commissioner Mead wished to clarify that this meeting was originally intended to hear about the River Oaks project but that application had been withdrawn on 7/30. He questioned whether the only activity tonight was to review just the concept of the proposed PDD and how it relates to the PDD the working group has been developing. Chairman Loomis confirmed the sole focus is on the PDD and that at one time this meeting was to include other elements of the original application. Mr. Peck confirmed for Commissioner Mead that, if in fact the PDD is approved, then presumably the River Oaks application would be resubmitted under that. In addition, the Zoning Commission will only be dealing with the issue of the PDD at their 9/24 meeting.

Commissioner Mead indicated he was a personal proponent of the PDD for these types of developments. However, he questioned the justification to increase the lot coverage from a currently allowed maximum of 60% through compensation measures to an extraordinary 75%, which in the proposed and now withdrawn application was to be done primarily with concrete and asphalt. Attorney Donahue noted that, although this PDD is not site specific, the 75% figure is considerably higher than was suggested in the previous site that had a preliminary application. He suggested that currently the 60% lot coverage achieved by special exception is done routinely. He suggested that the increase from 60% to 75% is not that great and that on certain sites in town (i.e., no wetlands, relatively flat areas with existing infrastructure, etc.) that level of coverage would be appropriate to take the pressure off of those areas that should not be developed. Pat Pinnell, planner and architect for the River Oaks project, suggested that if adequate water quality treatment can be accomplished then development should be considered. He also stressed that in order to create this sort of dense, walkable neighborhood there needs to be more buildings closer together with more people and more uses. Coverage does not necessarily mean parking but rather buildings occupiable by people. Attorney Donahue also referenced the broad and wide sidewalks used for such things as al fresco dining as shown in the presentation. He suggested those provide public open usable space and perhaps open space does not always have to be green.

Commissioner Mead questioned the applicant’s intent behind the removal of the statement within the proposed PDD that ‘the process creates opportunities for enhanced public participation and collaboration in shaping the design’. Attorney Donahue indicated they wish they had left that in. However, he referenced the very fair and open boards and the excellent public hearing process that exists currently. The new PDD would provide 2 public hearings on every final application and so the applicant felt the current regulations were adequate.

Chairman Loomis commented that the 4/20/07 working PDD document, from which Konover derived their proposed PDD, did not necessarily have the working group’s consensus on its merits (i.e., never even discussed the transfer of development rights section) before their efforts were temporarily disbanded. Attorney Donahue commented that Konover very respectfully took action to file this PDD. He noted how crucial time is in such a development process, but the applicant does not wish to stop any input. Rather they have started a process through the Zoning Commission where Planning has a statutory referral and a right to proceed with all comment and input. The applicant is hopeful this regulation will be refined throughout the input process.

Addressing the density issue, Commissioner Houlihan questioned how to take areas that are not urban, but rather that are today green space, and fashion some of these mixed use concepts. With the focus primarily on the northern and southern gateways he raised issues of runoff and absorption and effects on the river, as well as the need to retain some degree of openness, green space, and visual lines as compared to a proposed development for the revival of a downtown area. Attorney Donahue suggested those issues are the essential questions of planning. He noted green spaces are different throughout the town and development there is bound by precedent (i.e., historic zoning, infrastructure, investment town has made regarding sewer, etc.) and all spaces cannot be treated equally.

Commissioner Houlihan questioned the performance bond (i.e., the promise by a developer that is guaranteed by an insurance company that what is proposed will be built) and that the bond is limited to public space pieces as opposed to the development of the entire property as presented. He questioned the reasoning for not expanding the bond to cover the promise of delivering a mixed use development, rather than just a public use, which is likely to be of a smaller magnitude. Attorney Donahue referred back to the intent of all public open spaces to include, not only the public building or fountain, but also all of the public streets and sidewalks. He noted that the ‘guarantee’ was removed due to the fact the applicant was not sure what that meant. The applicant believes that the same type of bonding that is required today is appropriate to this and the applicant is totally in sync with having the Town get what is being proposed. The intent is for the phasing process to be tied to the 40 or so scaled drawings that will show specifically and exactly what is coming out, that the phasing will be done in a balanced manner, and the Certificate of Occupancies and building permits will be tied to that. Commissioner Jansen noted the importance of including the phasing in the PDD so that all uses can be done together. He noted his agreement with the 5-minute walk radius and ‘park once’ idea. He suggested the PDD should allow for some type of above and below ground parking. Mr. Chellman noted the economics are not there for structured parking yet but suggested they will come.

Commissioner Cole expressed her concern about the need to provide some mitigation between the urban and rural feel for the particular parcel in question. She does not feel that this PDD provides enough assurance that the development will be completed. If the intent is mixed use the primary emphasis needs to be on the people that live there and how they will be serviced, rather than having it be governed by the retail end of it. Attorney Donahue noted it is their hope that the process will serve the people well. However, at this point this PDD is non site-specific. The PDD should be refined to reflect her concerns. He assured her that the applicant and team have been focused on each of her concerns and will continue to work through them. Attorney Donahue confirmed for Commissioner Cole that this proposed PPD regulation would be a drop-in zone which could be applied to any qualifying site in town. The applicant has no objection to including some of the size, scale and other aspects that the working group had yet to determine. Once the PDD is adopted, a developer would then apply to have a particular parcel become an assigned PDD. Throughout that process, the land use commissions have very significant discretion to say what can specifically be on that site. Commissioner Cole expressed concern, however, if there is no requirement for completion a new developer can come along and not be held to completing the originally proposed project. Attorney Donahue disagreed with that interpretation and suggested that the phasing plan and the bonding will require that what is proposed to be built will be built.

Secretary Gardow noted the increase to 75% coverage is quite radical. He requested a comprehensive report by a water resources engineer as well as comment from the Farmington River Watershed Association regarding the effect of run-off to the river. Attorney Donahue agreed. In response to Secretary Gardow, Attorney Donahue indicated that with regard to the prohibited uses the applicant proposes to include a proviso that if there was a use prohibited on the site at the time that a PDD was adopted with a new plan that that use would be amortized within the period of the phasing, which they propose to be 5 years. Citing the historical context of industrial uses within placeCitySimsbury, Secretary Gardow questioned whether any consideration was given to include industrial use as a component of the PDD. Attorney Donahue indicated no, that the market is not showing the applicant that.

Chairman Loomis questioned where the emphasis is on specific criteria and guidelines to help assure that the long-term outcomes of the PDD can be achieved. Attorney Donahue noted the Design Review Board had the same question. The design team agreed that this area of the PDD should be supplemented to include a clear statement of intent. He noted the applicant, who has a time-sensitive opportunity, took where the town was with the PDD and has been pleased to sponsor it but they are also pleased to supplement it. Chairman Loomis suggested the concern is this is the golden opportunity to get the PDD right and that it will serve placeCitySimsbury well for decades. Further, Attorney Donahue agreed work needs to be done on the ‘PDD Purposes’ section, which Chairman Loomis described as a ‘huge and fundamental void’ to clarify the purpose is for mixed-use development and TND pedestrian-friendly design.

Commissioner Bednarcyk requested Attorney Donahue go through Attorney Dwight Merriam’s 8/7/07 memo and respond to his suggestions. In addition, she questioned the appearance of this PDD as a one-size-fits-all zone and why would that be valuable to the town. Attorney Donahue reiterated the opinion of the applicant that this is a significant opportunity that needs to be addressed as quickly as possible due to certain time constraints, but that the applicant also wants the best possible PDD and is willing to refine it. This PDD would theoretically enable the type of development as proposed in the previously filed application on one of the best parcels in town that would provide one of the most significant pieces of investment ever made in placeCitySimsbury.

Attorney Donahue then went through Attorney Merriam’s memo, addressing each of Attorney Merriam’s suggestions regarding the changes made by the applicant to the PDD. With regard to the transfer of development rights, Konover supports them but believes it is a concept worthy of significant review and consideration. The applicant included the increased coverage to 75% because they believe that it may be highly desirable on a site by site basis. Again, he reiterated Konover’s wish that they had not removed the statement in the Intent section regarding ‘creating opportunities for enhanced public participation’ and that their philosophy is to broadly share information with all involved and that the current regulations allow for sufficient public input. Attorney Donahue noted Town Counsel’s comment regarding the added provision for amortizing nonconforming uses (i.e., extinguishing them) but argued this would not be illegal where the nonconforming use to be amortized is upon the very parcel of land for which a new permit (PDD) is granted. Attorney Donahue reiterated the applicant’s opinion that there are certain areas where there is significant interest in the community in increasing the density (i.e., coverage) to achieve the goals of TND and connectivity. The Konover PDD altered the definition of impervious surfaces to exclude sidewalks and other public use space in order to make it consistent with the current regulations, Article 8, Section 8, which does not include those areas.

Regarding the provision that would seem to allow the combination of conceptual, master site and final site plans Attorney Donahue notes this was done only because the applicant is in front of different boards in a very short time span and puts information before certain boards that they don’t need or that are not applicable to their consideration. Chairman Loomis confirmed with Attorney Donahue that the applicant is flexible on this point.

With regard to the guarantee issue, Konover supports whatever legal and reasonable measures may be adopted to ensure what is proposed and approved is constructed, whether that be the existing bonding procedures or other suggested methods that are legal and reasonable. Konover felt that the change in threshold for cumulative changes to an approved PDD from 1.5% to 2.5% was an appropriate break point of consideration of Town staff versus consideration of the full boards for a project of scale and complexity. Finally, Konover is open to consideration of all the issues listed in Attorney Merriam’s memo that were being considered by the PDD Working group (i.e., additional review steps and locational criteria specific to large and complex PDDs, an expansion of the purpose to include ideas such as promotion of innovative development and architectural design techniques and conservation of natural features, and a sliding scale for lot coverage percentages).

In Commissioner Mead’s opinion, the PDD is a good idea. He noted the years spent on the Plan of Development where the Planning Commission moved slowly and deliberately with coordination between boards and commissions and public input. With regard to this PDD, Planning’s obligation is to get it right. He questioned Attorney Donahue’s and the applicant’s expectation as to a timeline for completion of this PDD review. Attorney Donahue noted all the partners in this process will work to get it right. The expectation is to finish this process, which is critically important for the success of the project Konover has been working on, by the end of the Fall of this year.

Commissioner Drake noted how this PDD draft would fit a town like placeCityPortsmouth, StateNH perfectly, which is an old industrial urban site that deals more with infill than open space. However, he questioned how the link was made of using CityPortsmouth as an example for development in placeCitySimsbury, which is more of a suburban town with much more open spaces. Attorney Donahue noted placeCityPortsmouth was not the model for this regulation, but rather they took what the working group had done so far and modified it in order to go forward. Commissioner Drake noted the percentages in the proposed PDD seem to fit an urban infill and questioned how that would fit with an open space suburban setting. Attorney Donahue agreed with the different areas of town where this would and would not fit. However, the ceilings on the ability to develop under the PDD are going to be governed by the land use agencies who are going to ascribe appropriate measures to the various sites within which they are.

In response to Commissioner Houlihan, Mr. Chellman provided a clarification to the capture data and how that could be used and relate to the PDD. A capture is defined as an automobile trip not made. The current Trip Generation Manual is pretty accurate in a suburban setting with regard to peak hour traffic at a large retail store or the difference between the rates generated by a drive-thru bank or a walk-in bank. In the study of placeCityPortsmouth, the mixed use area has captured a significant amount of trips or has a reduced vehicular trip generation rate that is significantly different than the same uses if they were assembled in a suburban manner. Commissioner Houlihan questioned whether it would be possible to make the same calculations for the large green space areas. Mr. Chellman suggested that is the $64 million question in planning right now. However, mixing uses, increasing density, and providing linkages at the street to being very pedestrian-friendly is how you get more capture and less auto-dominance. Commissioner Jansen emphasized the need to keep re-reading the proposed PDD draft and keep in mind other areas in town (i.e., Center Zone, North end) that this would have to apply to as well.

Chairman Loomis questioned how terms such as ‘appropriate scale’ and ‘unusual design merit’, as found in the PDD’s Purpose, are to be determined, as well as making those consistent with the overall character of the town. In addition, he questioned where the references were to the existing documents that deal with such design issues, including the Guidelines for Community Design, the existing ’94 Plan, and the proposed 2007 POCD. Attorney Donahue indicated that scale, design, and character all talk about the context of the site, as defined by the immediate and secondary surrounding uses, existing infrastructure, assessment and tax profile, etc.. The applicant is open to adding any other criteria the Boards feel are needed to serve as empirical standards for evaluation. A reference to the ’94 Plan is not necessary as it is incorporated via statutory reference. A reference to the DRB standards is appropriate but would be better if they were revised to take into account mixed use concepts (i.e., no buffering needed between dissimilar uses). Per the request of Secretary Gardow, Attorney Donahue agreed to put together a few statements regarding the proposed PDD and its compatibility with the ’94 Plan of Development.

Commissioner Bednarcyk again stressed the importance of public input. Citing the Charettes mentioned in Mr. Chellman’s presentation, she questioned whether Mr. Chellman sees the value in doing such types of studies with respect to the PDD. Mr. Chellman indicated he has used them and does find them valuable. However, in this case the team started with what the town had already in terms of the PDD. Admittedly, he would have written it differently, especially in light of the fact that right now the PDD is completely at the discretion of the Commissions. However, with some changes providing quantifications and specifics it can be improved. In his opinion, there needs to be a much clearer Intent section that describes what placeCitySimsbury wants. Due to the time constraints, he proposed letting the team take the comments that have been made tonight and come up with a revised version.

Commissioner Cunningham requested examples of ‘other public uses’ that have been excluded in the PDD from the definition of impervious surfaces. Attorney Donahue noted that language was included to prompt the debate of whether to incent a higher footprint for a public building (i.e., restrooms and pavilion for public gathering), as long as the drainage issues had been addressed.

In response to Commissioner Mead’s question regarding the procedure for Planning to make a referral to Zoning, Chairman Loomis indicated the Commission is to put together a recommendation with respect to this proposed PDD, which can be by way of merit or shortcomings or suggestions for change but not devising a new PDD. Chairman Loomis confirmed the Commission will have a vote with regard to the PDD but can provide recommendations whether the PDD has been voted up or down. Commissioner Jansen confirmed that the applicant could make changes and revisions based on the input over the next couple of weeks and provide an updated version of the PDD before Planning has to vote on 9/18.

Given that this PDD will have general applicability to the Town as a text amendment to the regulations, and not Konover’s PDD, Commissioner Mead expressed concern over the short timeframe in which a decision needs to be made. Referencing a previous zoning change that was not allowed to be tweaked or changed that drastically, Commissioner Bednarcyk questioned the level of change that can be applied to this and why would that be different. Mr. Peck noted that the Zoning Commission will take the recommendations given by Planning and will decide to incorporate them or not. Zoning still has the same burden as with Mr. Miller’s amendment to determine if the proposed regulation, with whatever changes have been made, is substantially different than what was proposed originally in the application.

Under ‘PDD General Requirements’, Chairman Loomis questioned the meaning of ‘efficiency of land use’. Attorney Donahue indicated it references Smart Growth and leveraging the infrastructure you have and being efficient. Attorney Donahue noted for Chairman Loomis that DRB also had questions with reference to ‘appropriate scale’. The applicant has no problem incorporating some type of empirical standards to determine that. Commissioner Houlihan suggested the scale issue is one of the basic problems that arise when adopting an ill-defined zone that can be used anywhere in town. Scale differs depending on the context of the area within town. Chairman Loomis agreed and questioned how one PDD can adequately address substantial differences in location and scope. Attorney Donahue noted the applicant has no resistance to discussing some type of sliding scales as discussed within the PDD Working Group.

Chairman Loomis questioned how the PDD criterion would be interpreted and applied regarding any proposed development not having a ‘substantial adverse impact’ on the residential uses. Attorney Donahue noted the adverse impacts with respect to residential uses are typically decline in values, imposition of noxious substances, etc. and are dealt with in the current regulations. He indicated the applicant absolutely subscribes to the goal of preventing adverse effects. Still on page 4 of the proposed PDD, Attorney Donahue agreed with Chairman Loomis that the PDD Standards need to be flushed out. Chairman Loomis cited an 8/06 presentation with regard to PDDs where it was stated that the PDD may specify in the desired degree of detail the standards, conditions, and requirements for development and suggested it is in that spirit that Planning is looking for more specificity.

In response to Chairman Loomis’s question regarding the deletion of the open space requirement, Attorney Donahue noted it is not lawful in the State of placeStateConnecticut to require that for commercial development. That requirement can only be found in the open space subdivision regulation. Chairman Loomis asked Mr. Peck to help the Commission explore that more fully.

Mr. Peck indicated copies of the Fees Ordinance have been provided to the Commissioners tonight. The Board of Selectmen accepted the most recent version and set the date for their next public hearing in early September. Planning has time to comment on the ordinance prior to the hearing. The basic change was the use of the State Traffic Commission’s definition for large and complex applications (i.e., 100,000 sq. ft. or 200 parking spaces). The Town Attorney decided a new hearing was required due to the change in this wording. In addition, the 110% figure was used, rather than the 150%, for any overages. Mr. Peck confirmed for Commissioner Bednarcyk that the wording regarding ‘independent studies’ are included in the draft and he encouraged her to attend the public hearing and present whatever questions she has regarding that issue.