PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 30, 2005
SPECIAL MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman John Loomis called the special meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Susan Bednarcyk, Joan Howard, Gregory Piecuch, David Ryan and Carol Cole, with Ferguson Jansen arriving just after the call to order and Brad Mead arriving at 7:10 p.m. Also in attendance were Howard Beach, Conservation/Inland Wetlands and Zoning Compliance Officer, Emil Dahlquist, Chairman, Design Review Board, as well as other interested parties.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Carol Cole was appointed as alternate for Secretary Ernest Gardow.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of August 2, 2005
Commissioner Ryan motioned to approve the minutes from August 2, 2005. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bednarcyk and approved unanimously, with Commissioners Howard and Piecuch abstaining.
IV. EDITS TO THE PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION AND COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DESIGN
Chairman Loomis began by introducing Emil Dahlquist and describing his significant contributions to both the Introduction and Community Planning & Design pieces as well as the current additions and changes he presents this evening. Mr. Dahlquist went through both documents citing the changes and the reasons behind them, indicating the majority of the revisions were in reference to Character Places within the Community Planning & Design piece.
Beginning with the Introduction Mr. Dahlquist explained the changes made to the first paragraph were to provide more elaboration. He wanted to emphasize more that Simsbury as a community is the way it is by choices, some through intelligent decisions and others by unintended results. Further, he wished to encourage and answer the question of ‘Why Plan?’ with the idea of being proactive and really working to create intended results. In the second paragraph he added the importance of Simsbury being unique in its variety – unlike many other communities – within its landscapes, neighborhoods, architecture, industry and commerce. Continuing on, Mr. Dahlquist elaborated on Simsbury’s planning challenge, acknowledging what Simsbury does have and being mindful of that, but yet
also recognizing the contemporary needs to be fulfilled. Chairman Loomis confirmed the Commission’s acceptance of these changes as well as their agreement to shelve this version of the Introduction.
Mr. Dahlquist moved on to the Community Planning & Design (CP&D) piece, starting with his extensive additions to the Quality of Life section (lines 24 and following) that suggest the ideas of sustainability and design integration at the scale of individual sites. Planning now doesn’t exist at 3,000 feet above the earth looking down as a typical zoning approach does. Planning begins on the ground, on the site and in a particular context. He went on to explain the reference made to an American Planning Association study done by Anthony Downs and the synopsis of the four most common principles among groups with similar development goals (characterized as “smart growth”). Those included preserving open space, redeveloping inner core areas and developing infill sites, removing barriers to
urban design innovation, creating a greater sense of community, and a greater recognition of regional interdependence. Commissioner Ryan expressed concern with the use of the term “smart growth” in the Plan, characterizing it as too politically live of a phrase to be used here with many different ideas as to what that entails. Mr. Dahlquist indicated the concept itself may not be the issue, but rather the label of ‘smart growth’ being used. Commissioner Howard advocated being associated in a positive way with such a concept and suggested the term “smart growth” be included in the Glossary to provide the necessary explanation to the reader. Mr. Dahlquist referred back to the 8/2 Introduction draft and indicated that although the term “smart growth” had not been used there, the 7 or 8 principles listed define the smart growth concept. Chairman Loomis confirmed that the Commissioners agree with
the four concepts listed. He agreed the term ‘smart growth’ should be in the Glossary and requested a note be put in the draft regarding the need for possible modification or elaboration.
Mr. Dahlquist referred back to the CP&D where he had inserted statements indicating these common concepts go beyond simple public policy. They are based on site-specific physical planning and design techniques; design that is not merely style, but more about planning utilizing widely accepted design principles. Chairman Loomis requested Mr. Dahlquist speak to the idea of building ‘places not products’ as stated in Line 47. Mr. Dahlquist indicated this serves as an introduction to the next section on Place and acknowledges that there is a difference between developing a place people recognize and simply building for development (i.e., quality versus quantity, building better not bigger).
Moving on, Mr. Dahlquist noted his change of introduction of ‘Character Place’ to merely ‘Place’ for the next section of the CP&D. In his opinion, ‘character place’ is more specific and belongs later on in this section after the overall idea of ‘place’ is further developed. Other small additions were made to the text from lines 52 to 72 leading up to the introduction of the idea of form into planning rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, as well as the major changes he has proposed to the character places concepts and definitions. Chairman Loomis suggested that lines 73 and following may need some illustrations, characterizing it as bordering on the academic. As a further explanation, Mr. Dahlquist then distributed and took the Commissioners
through several pages of a Florida architectural firm’s SmartCode. He described it as an example of a way to analyze towns using the measuring stick of urban (i.e., man-made impact on landscape) design features. Mr. Dahlquist confirmed for Chairman Loomis that this transect idea consists of transitioning through the various levels of urban design features thereby most likely creating a mosaic pattern through town, rather than completely segregating uses. He further suggested this transect concept also becomes an important tool in judging the merit or appropriateness of particular projects based on sound design principles and not simply opinion. In Mr. Dahlquist’s opinion, the introduction of these concepts in the Plan serves to lay the groundwork with the hopeful expectation of future elaboration and application, in conjunction with the Zoning Commission, for proactive planning appropriate within Simsbury.
Mr. Dahlquist introduced his new definitions of Character Places (i.e., rural areas, neighborhoods, villages and districts) using similar terminology from the SmartCode handout. Upon Chairman Loomis’ request, Mr. Dahlquist agreed to provide by the end of this week examples within Simsbury of each category, as well as providing a definition of ‘legacy’ as used with farmland and woodland under rural reserves. Commissioner Piecuch also suggested using some sort of inset box right in the text of the Plan with definitions and illustrations (i.e., difference between preserve and reserve).
In conclusion, Mr. Dahlquist characterized the changes made by the Commission to date as ‘terrific’, creating a ‘substantially better’ document than the original. Chairman Loomis denied an audience member a chance to ask questions of Mr. Dahlquist, explaining that in light of this being a Special Meeting he preferred not to do so. Commissioner Bednarcyk suggested Mr. Dahlquist participate in the public hearing for the Plan and take questions from the public then. Mr. Dahlquist was agreeable to that idea.
Finally, Commissioner Howard referenced p. I-13 of the ’94 Plan where a definition of the character of Simsbury was established. She questioned whether something similar should be included in the revised Plan as well. Chairman Loomis indicated it was his opinion that this new Community Planning & Design piece contains a good deal of that definition. Commissioner Piecuch emphasized Simsbury’s huge variety indicating it would be tough to over-simplify its character. In Commissioner Cole’s opinion, the introduction of Character Places allows for a changing and flexible definition while still respecting Simsbury’s history; restricting it to a concise definition makes it very static. Per Chairman Loomis’ request, Commissioner Howard agreed to draft a definition as to
the character of Simsbury prior to the next meeting.
V. CONTINUATION OF PLAN EDITS:
a. Review of prior editing
Commissioner Howard indicated she is still trying to connect with Anita Mielert to re-work the wording of Historic Resources Policy 2: Objective C regarding seeking linkages and connections using corridor concepts. In addition, she is waiting for information from Mr. Voelker regarding the exact designation of Simsbury Center (i.e., Town Center District, National Register District) as well as a map detailing Simsbury’s scenic road . Mr. Beach agreed to obtain that information.
With regards to the Environment topic, Mr. Beach had taken the work done at the 8/2 meeting and drafted a much more specific Policy 11. However, he was subsequently given the direction not to provide too much detail seeing as this is a policy and not a regulation. The regulations should include the more detailed analysis. Chairman Loomis suggested the Plan does make recommendations that may or may not find their way into regulations. Commissioner Bednarcyk also disagreed, indicating the Plan of Development is referred to when an application is denied or approved and it would be useful for that detail to be included. In addition, Commissioner Howard indicated the scaled down version of Policy 11 did not include how a particular site is assessed for contamination. In Commissioner
Piecuch’s opinion, this is far too important of an issue to scale down to three lines within the Plan. Mr. Beach agreed to work with Commissioner Piecuch on fleshing out this policy again to include the details.
Chairman Loomis then called a recess at 8:15 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
b. Housing
Starting with the Introduction to Housing, Commissioner Howard suggested paring down some unnecessary words in the first two lines. In addition, she recommended Simsbury is a place to live, raise ‘and educate’ a family as stated in line 5, suggesting education was one of the attractions to individuals moving out this far. Mr. Beach provided the updated technical data with regards to the variety of land uses as well as multi-family housing percentages. Moving down to line 20, Chairman Loomis questioned the appropriateness of the wording ‘mixed use design districts’. Commissioner Piecuch explained it as two adjectives defining ‘district’ – a design district that allows multiple uses. Chairman Loomis suggested including ‘design district’ in
the glossary and marking this for further review on the terminology. Within line 25, which suggests permitting residential uses be a primary element of a future development of scale, Commissioner Cole suggested adding ‘commercial’ before development for clarification. According to Commissioner Piecuch, this relates to keeping the primary use as residential within developments of scale (e.g., 20+ acres) but not at the exclusion of a small portion of commercial, retail or office uses (for ex., a small retail use – laundry, market, etc. – within the Powder Forest development).
Within line 19 in the Housing topic Chairman Loomis suggested adding ‘lighting spillage’ to the list of negative impacts to try to minimize on residential neighborhoods from non-residential development. Mr. Beach will confirm the exact terminology to use to describe unwanted but controllable light. Commissioner Ryan questioned the intention behind lines 27-28 and whether the policy is promoting cluster development as a default. In his opinion, it is imposing a design choice on the market rather than leaving it to those with the development ideas. Commissioner Jansen agreed, suggesting it is an economic and lifestyle decision by the property owner. Chairman Loomis suggested it was not too heavy-footed of an approach as the objective actually encourages the evaluation
of proposed developments for their feasibility as cluster development. Also in defense of the policy, Commissioner Piecuch indicated it may truly be advantageous in larger developments to lower the lot size (i.e., without impairing development) to create more contiguous open space. Commissioner Bednarcyk noted that recommendations can and are made at the Town Staff level very successfully. Mr. Beach noted that the trend of a larger house with a big lot is exactly what has caused suburban sprawl. The issue is trying to encourage a more efficient use of land and developers rarely come in with ideas for that on their own. Commissioner Cole suggested this objective merely gives the Planning Commission the option to suggest cluster development. Commissioner Mead noted the implication becomes the Commission will not support the opposite of that type of development should that be proposed in an application. Commissioners Bednarcyk and Piecuch disagreed, with
both seeing it as providing flexibility and allowing creativity. Commissioner Howard pointed out this particular objective is under a policy encouraging diverse housing patterns and agreed with Commissioner Bednarcyk that this attempts to avoid ‘cookie-cutter’ developments. Commissioner Howard noted that the residents of Simsbury desire the open space in town to be meaningful and this provides a way for that to happen. She also suggested, and it was agreed, to use the term ‘open space’ along with ‘cluster’. Mr. Beach offered to research any updated verbiage that might avoid the negative connotations of the word ‘cluster’. On a side note, Commissioner Howard suggested some type of informative open space development presentation be done for the Commission once the Plan is done.
Finally, per the request of Commissioner Cole, Commissioner Piecuch clarified Policy 4: Objective 2. He indicated that currently the Zoning Regulations provide for a minimum floor area; however, Mr. Voelker had questioned its necessity. Mr. Beach added that by establishing an absolute minimum floor space the theory is with the cost of square footage being fairly constant the price of the house is then increased, thereby excluding the lower income brackets. With reference to maximum floor area requirements, Commissioner Piecuch noted this was in an attempt to address the issue of tear-downs.
c. Economic Development
This item was not discussed.
VI. STAFF REPORTS
None.
VII. COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Loomis proposed a special meeting to be held on 9/20/05 at 6:30 p.m. in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings on 9/13 and 9/27. He requested Commissioners to inform him of their availability.
Chairman Loomis indicated a group of residents, referring to themselves as SHARE and with Duncan McKay as their spokesperson, has requested an opportunity to address certain parts of the Plan draft before the Commission. Chairman Loomis has requested they provide their proposed ideas, edits, and rationale in writing by 9/13 and then to make a 20-minute presentation on 9/27.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Ryan motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Piecuch and unanimously approved.
| 
