Simsbury, CT - Planning Commission Minutes

Chairman John Loomis called the special meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Cafeteria of the placePlaceNameHenry PlaceNameJames PlaceNameMiddle School. The following members were present: Secretary Ernest Gardow, Ferguson Jansen, Susan Bednarcyk, Carol Cole, Darren Cunningham, Brad Mead, and Charles Houlihan. Brad Mead left the meeting at approximately 9:10 p.m. Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Community Planning & Development, as well as approximately 10-15 other interested parties.

Chairman Loomis noted the discussion tonight would be to provide recommendations for use by the PDD working group, complementing what Design Review and the Conservation Commission has already submitted and providing as robust a baseline as possible for the working group to utilize going forward. Commissioner Mead suggested ensuring the audience know that the Konover PDD has been withdrawn. Mr. Peck confirmed and explained the events and conversations surrounding that withdrawal yesterday afternoon. He noted that this meeting would be good for the Planning Commission to formalize their comments on the PDD submitted and get all their concerns on the table. Once all of the ideas submitted by the various commissions have been boiled down to some common ideas he will attempt to reconvene the working group, probably within the next 2 weeks. Eventually a document will be produced addressing the concerns which will then be brought back before the commissions. Commissioner Mead questioned the 90-day deadline for producing a PDD draft as mentioned in Tom Vincent’s letter to Konover. Mr. Peck noted that timeline was not official, but there will be an attempt to at least get a draft together within that time period. He assured Commissioner Mead that once the draft is back to the commissions they can then debate the issues in front of the public. Only Zoning is mandated to hold a public hearing but other commissions can and probably will.

Commissioner Bednarcyk questioned where the Town was with the Charette study. She would like to see the previous Charette firmed up and then one done on both the Northern and Southern Gateways. Mr. Peck noted there has not been any money allocated for that as of yet and, although he’d like to see Victor Dover involved, he noted the high cost of him reviewing just one regulation. Mr. Peck suggested grants were hard to get and estimated a 12-18 months timeframe to even get enrolled. Commissioner Bednarcyk suggested paying for the study up front and then repaying when the grant comes through, but Mr. Peck noted nobody has said they want to do that. Mr. Peck indicated he is hopeful that the next draft of the PDD will address many different sites. He agreed it needed design expertise and, although the resources do not seem to be available, he will continue to try to see if Mr. Dover can be involved in some way.

Commissioner Mead questioned how important it was for Planning to adopt the 2007 Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) prior to approving a PDD. Mr. Peck noted it would be a good idea if the Plan were finished, but if not there would be a need to proceed on parallel tracks for a bit. He also noted that the PDD would not be based solely on the POCD. Chairman Loomis stated that although the primary reference for the PDD is the existing plan, the Statute notes that all relevant information can factor into the decision as well.

The Commission then reviewed a draft motion to put forth their recommendations and comments using a variety of sources, including excerpts from both the ’94 and ’07 Plans, Dwight Merriam’s 8/7/07 memo, highlights from the PC’s 8/14 meeting with Konover, and highlights from the 9/11/07 PC public hearing. Chairman Loomis called for the motion to be put on the table, however Commissioner Houlihan suggested going through the motion first. Commissioner Mead suggested instead to have a general conversation regarding the most important elements and concerns for the working group to discuss. Later in the meeting, Commissioner Jansen suggested the language in the draft motion was too flowery, ambivalent, and not specific enough. He agreed with Commissioner Mead’s idea of putting together 8-10 bullet points for the working group to concentrate on in drafting the PDD.

Commissioner Cole noted she had no complaints with the draft motion and documentation that went with it and suggested it go to the working group. However, as Commissioner Mead had suggested, she agreed with highlighting the most important points, principally from the 9/11 public comment. Commissioner Bednarcyk suggested the draft motion was comprehensive and had good references. However, she wanted to ensure that the issue of standards is addressed as to what the town is looking for and enable a clear message to be given so developers know what is expected and can come in with accurate plans. Chairman Loomis confirmed that she was looking for more complete standards and specificity for predictable outcomes. She reiterated the need for the Charette process.

Commissioner Cunningham thanked Chairman Loomis for the work put into the draft. In his opinion, it is the proper approach to providing information to the working group. However, in light of the public’s specific and new types of comments, he would like to see as much specificity be included in the PDD as possible. Later, Chairman Loomis noted there needs to be a recognition of not perpetuating the one-size-fits-all and recognize the differences within town and incorporate them into the PDD.

Addressing Commissioner Mead’s concern regarding the 90-day timeframe, Chairman Loomis noted that in his opinion, although the PDD may not be completed, there should be measurable progress by then. Commissioner Houlihan suggested the working group and commissions are not starting from a blank slate. He also noted that the Konover process was useful in that it added a sense of urgency and put a focus on the issues. Commissioner Cole suggested the task was difficult because there needs to be a balance between building in flexibility and yet protecting the character of the town and exactly how to define that character.

In reviewing the references to the ’94 Plan, Commissioner Houlihan noted that the Goal mentions the ‘established character’ of placeCitySimsbury. Commissioner Houlihan suggested that character is subject to change depending on the site in town. With the idea of mixed use and a PDD there is a movement away from separation of uses and so some of the language might conflict with the ’94 Plan. He suggested the town is trying to do something different with the PDD to enhance the choices to the town, but the PDD needs to be fashioned to take into account the diversity of various sites in town. Chairman Loomis noted that the PDD will not just be related to a specific parcel, but rather could have application anywhere in town. Commissioner Mead suggested referencing the 2007 POCD instead now that the statutory requirements have been lifted since the Konover PDD has been withdrawn.

In response to Commissioner Houlihan’s previous discussion regarding the character of the town, Commissioner Bednarcyk actually read the definition of the character of CityplaceSimsbury as drafted in the ’94 Plan. Mr. Peck acknowledged the work done on the draft motion and references, but encouraged the Commission to come up with 7-10 of the most pertinent issues they feel any PDD should address, such as architectural compatibility, impervious coverage, performance bonding, open space, etc. Chairman Loomis suggested the Commission first move beyond the ’94 Plan reference within the motion and on to other references.

Commissioner Houlihan noted that lot coverage seemed to be one of the biggest hot button issues at the 9/11 public hearing. Commissioner Mead emphasized the idea that the Southern Gateway is a Cityplacegreenfield, unlike the reference made by Konover at one of their presentations to a redevelopment of a place that had already been paved over. Commissioner Houlihan suggested some sort of grade system, either acreage or what is existing, needs to be developed to determine what is appropriate for coverage based on the site. Commissioner Mead referenced the FRWA testimony on 9/11 and noted the runoff to the river should be an issue of grave concern. Mr. Peck confirmed that the Conservation Commission discussed the coverage percentage extensively and noted a mechanism needs to be put into the regulation to evaluate whether or not to go above a certain percentage if the applicant proposes that. He also noted that, although there could be similar resulting effects, there is a difference between lot coverage and impervious area and they are different considerations. Commissioner Houlihan suggested citing the U.S. Green Building Council’s standards to help address such issues. Referencing a conversation he had recently with Howard Beach regarding the FRWA’s comments at the public meeting, he noted ensuring aquifer recharge quality is as important as the impact on the river. Commissioner Mead questioned whether specific coverage percentages should be suggested at this point and Chairman Loomis indicated that would be more appropriate at a later date.

With the Commission continuing to go through the draft motion, Commissioner Houlihan raised the issue of requiring guarantees for a particular project. He noted the need for performance bonds to ensure construction in a coordinated fashion with a balance of the mix of uses, especially when the development is to be done in phases. However, on the flip side, he also noted there needs to be a balance so as to not make the bonding coverage too onerous for the developer. Commissioner Mead agreed the bonding was a critical issue, referencing a conversation he had at the Konover tent during Septemberfest and their intent to not bond the entire project, to do the project in phases, and subsequent phases will be dependent on the economic environment. Commissioner Cunningham noted he was opposed to a developer using the mixed use concept to get in the door and then eliminating the mix of uses. Mr. Peck confirmed for Chairman Loomis that performance bonds can apply to both the phasing and completion of the project. Further, he referenced Emil Dahlquist’s use of the term ‘performance benchmarks’ in order to assure that the project constructed would be part of a benchmark system. Those assurances can be achieved through bonding, but also through such measures as withholding Certificates of Occupancy.

In response to Commissioner Houlihan’s question regarding the ‘wiggle room’ suggested in the Konover PDD with such items as floor area percentages, height, and bulk, Mr. Peck noted that it depends on the situation, and although the language needs to be improved so as to be better understood, there is some flexibility that is reasonably assumed (i.e., a proposed total limit of 10,000 sq. ft. on a project is set and met, but individual building sizes change by the end of the process). Commissioner Bednarcyk indicated standards such as square footage limits and setbacks also need to be addressed. Commissioner Houlihan suggested that developments over certain acreages could have specific standards on such items. He also suggested with the alternate zone being suggested in the ’07 Plan for the Gateways a PDD may not be necessary. Commissioner Bednarcyk suggested duplicating the references to those areas in the ’07 Plan. Chairman Loomis agreed with Commissioner Houlihan and suggested how the PDD relates to the ’07 Plan’s ideas for those Gateways should be addressed by the working group. Commissioner Mead again reiterated the need to use the ’07 Plan to draft the PDD, especially in light of all the time spent on it.

In reference to the highlights from the 9/11 public comment, Commissioner Cunningham suggested there was not an omission on the part of the land use boards to allow an applicant to write a proposed PDD Zoning text amendment. He was frustrated with the attacks on the Commission for hearing out Konover and suggested the public did not understand the process. Mr. Peck agreed, noting that everyone has a right to propose regulations and the commissions are mandated to address them. Chairman Loomis clarified that perhaps the intent of the public statements was more that the land use commissions should have written the PDD earlier and avoided Konover’s submission.

Commissioner Bednarcyk suggested there is a lot of anger in the air with the residents. Commissioner Cunningham characterized it as ‘misdirected’ anger. Commissioner Cole suggested the 9/11 public input was the perfect way for things to happen because the public was restricted to responding to a specific document and that allowed the anger to be channeled. She noted that their responses were intelligent, well researched, and made a difference. Commissioner Mead suggested doing more of that type of forum to listen to the informed public who have constructive comments. Commissioner Cunningham suggested perhaps the Commission could have done a better job of explaining the format, process, etc. with regards to hearing Konover’s proposed PDD. Commissioner Bednarcyk suggested there has been a lot of misinformation, as well, and referenced comments made by T.J. Donohue on SCTV misrepresenting the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Houlihan suggested a targeted list is needed of criteria that applicants need to meet (i.e., environmental, architectural, lot coverage, etc.) and how their plans relate to those items, but that would ultimately be a Zoning function. Chairman Loomis indicated ideally an appropriate PDD would be descriptive and prescriptive enough to ensure an acceptable outcome. Commissioner Houlihan noted the range of reasonableness would be hard to identify and there needs to be somewhat of a broad-based concept, rather than a ‘straight-jacket’, that will allow developers to be creative and responsive to the town’s desired outcome. Commissioner Mead indicated the challenge is finding that reasonableness.

Mr. Peck then reviewed what he proposed to be included in a cover memo to the draft motion which included the following items that need to be addressed in any PDD regulation: 1) clarify the intent and purpose; 2) lot coverage and impervious coverage; 3) architectural compatibility and desirability; 4) bonding and project phasing; 5) mix of uses (i.e., percent by purpose or intent to be developed); 6) performance benchmarks; 7) variable site standards (i.e., size, etc.); 8) clear definition of terms used (i.e., impervious, lot coverage, public areas); 9) references to other documents (i.e., design criteria, variable site standards, etc.); 10) open space as appropriate for the context of development; 11) specific environmental standards; 12) clear procedures, including public input; and 13) energy conservation techniques. In response to Chairman Loomis’ request for even more specific standards, Mr. Peck noted that being very specific in the front end of this process is very hard, but rather that will come after the process is established.

Commissioner Jansen also suggested including non-prohibited uses as referenced at the 9/11 meeting, (i.e., uses that are currently prohibited but actually might be desirable) such as light industrial. Secretary Gardow suggested finding out whether the town is even ready for the concept of mixed use and to what extent that is desirable to the residents. Commissioner Cole wondered whether the Preserve America process contained anything that would help guide the PDD. Commissioner Houlihan thought it would be worth mentioning.

Commissioner Cunningham questioned Mr. Peck if there were any existing PDDs in the state that are consistent with what CityplaceSimsbury’s boards and commissions are suggesting be included in a PDD. Commissioner Mead clarified that they would need to be similar to what Konover is proposing (i.e., building from a Cityplacegreenfield site). Mr. Peck indicated several similar PDDs have been approved but are not moving forward. He will research and provide information to the Commission. Commissioner Bednarcyk suggested Bob Sitkowski do a presentation to the land use commissions at some point regarding form-based concepts.

Chairman Loomis referenced the recent memo received from CRCOG regarding the Draft Plan. CRCOG positively recognized the form-based content in the Plan. It also had several recommendations, including consideration of greater residential density in areas where mixed use is desired, as well as consideration of a recent CRCOG publication regarding preserving farm businesses. Commissioner Bednarcyk noted the Planning Commission should take the lead on enlarging the amount of reference material (i.e., not just a map) on the agricultural resources in the state.