PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 12, 2006
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman John Loomis called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Secretary Ernest Gardow, Susan Bednarcyk, Gregory Piecuch, Carol Cole, and Charles Houlihan. Also in attendance were Howard Beach, Conservation/Inland Wetlands and Zoning Compliance Officer, Hiram Peck, Interim Director of Community Planning & Development, Emil Dahlquist, Chairman, Design Review Board, as well as other interested parties. Mr. Dahlquist left the meeting at approximately 8:45 p.m.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Chairman Loomis appointed Carol Cole to serve as alternate for Ferguson Jansen.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES for August 29, 2006 and September 5, 2006
Secretary Gardow motioned to approve the minutes as amended for August 29, 2006. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Piecuch and unanimously approved.
In response to Commissioner Houlihan, Hiram Peck indicated that due to the time constraints to get the issue on the ballot for a vote all 3 options (i.e., fee simple, development rights, or conservation easement) for purchasing the Ethel Walker property needed to be put on the table. Presently, negotiations are continuing and hopefully more information will come forward prior to the vote.
Secretary Gardow motioned to approve the minutes as amended for September 5, 2006. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Houlihan and unanimously approved.
IV. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION ON ZONING REGULATION AMENDMENTS INCLUDING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PDD).
Chairman Loomis indicated his impression is that the Commission has reviewed, and either passively or actively agreed with the other proposed amendments. Tonight’s discussion would deal with the Commission’s recommendation on the PDD regulation pursuant to the CGS 8-3a referral, which needs to be provided to Zoning prior to the public hearing on 9/18. Chairman Loomis, Commissioner Piecuch and Emil Dahlquist met on 9/11 and distributed a working document for the Commission’s review tonight. The intention of the draft is to suggest certain criteria or standards to be included in the PDD regulation that would help define what the Town expects regarding mixed-use developments. The proposed elements would serve to assist the applicant, the Boards and Commissions, as well as Town Staff in terms of
outcomes that would reduce, yet not eliminate, the area of discretion.
Mr. Dahlquist expressed his excitement regarding the PDD and mixed-use and characterized it as a step forward for the Town. With the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD), the Zoning Regulations, and an elaboration on the Design Review Guidelines all happening simultaneously he sees a unique opportunity to align them and, to the extent possible, carry a similar vision right through. He agreed with Chairman Loomis that the less discretionary the better for all involved, including not only the Boards and Commissions, but the developers as well. To the extent the thoughts and visions of the Town are projected on paper the better understanding developers will have as to the expectations of the Town. However, recognizing the time constraints regarding the PDD Mr. Dahlquist suggested at least being as explicit as
possible in the Purpose in order to create a foundation by which to go forward, as well as discussing to what extent issues of scale and appropriateness should be included in the PDD.
Mr. Dahlquist noted several consistent principles that have emerged in the PDDs or Traditional Neighborhood Designs (TND) he has researched from other towns. He inserted 9 of those into the Purpose section, which deal with such issues as the mixture of complementary land uses, the creation of a design with flexibility to allow for market changes and the provision for transitions between high traffic streets and neighborhoods. He believes these criteria provide a starting point to ask objective questions regarding the appropriateness of a proposed project and attempt to eliminate decisions based on opinion (i.e., attractiveness, etc.). In response to Secretary Gardow, Mr. Dahlquist explained the TND was one of the first models of mixed-use where housing is one of the components and conservation and preservation are
key issues. He noted his intent was not to include the term ‘TND’ in the draft in order to avoid confusion. In Chairman Looms’ opinion, the PDD is also broader in scope than just the TND.
Chairman Loomis noted the difficulty distinguishing between the original 3 paragraphs that followed describing the purposes and established criteria for a PDD (listed as ‘a’, ‘b’, and ‘c’). The revised draft presents one paragraph that attempted to consolidate the ideas from all 3. Without giving the impression of defending the original language, Mr. Peck noted a lot of discussion went into the inclusion of the specific language. He agreed the new paragraph was more concise, but could not say whether it was an improvement or not. He indicated the intent of spreading the language through the original 3 paragraphs was to be as specific as possible without telling the developer exactly what materials to use, etc.
Mr. Dahlquist suggested the language in the 3 paragraphs identifies that there are design issues but does not address what they are. It does allow for a lot of flexibility to either accept or deny a project but, on the other hand, does not provide much guidance. One important note, according to Mr. Peck, is that this regulation is not the final regulation, but more of a shell or framework that will allow the specific regulation to be drafted and then reviewed and considered. He recognized the initial inclination to want to include more specificity and make it read as a detailed regulation should read.
Commissioner Piecuch agreed with Mr. Dahlquist in that the human scale will be different for different areas of Town and therefore drafting a general framework is difficult. He hopes these paragraphs will at least flag the issues (i.e., human scale appropriate to particular areas) for the developers. Chairman Loomis suggested populating the framework of the PDD with more specific criteria and standards so that the developer knows what to expect even prior to the initial informal meeting with Design Review. In light of the fact that DRB usually has limited time with the applicant in those informal meetings, Mr. Dahlquist explained a checklist DRB has been created for mixed-use development in order to more quickly identify the main issues of a project (i.e., scale, sense of place, connect uses, transitions, reduce parking
impacts, open space, etc.). He suggested that to the extent the PDD can be as definitive as possible that would also aid in getting to the main issues quicker. Not minimizing the suggestions, Mr. Peck’s opinion is that those issues may be best addressed later in the process by the DRB and Planning, and Zoning would then rely heavily on the input from those 2 entities. Commissioner Piecuch noted one of the strong points of the PDD is the multi-step process that includes independent reviews by several boards and commissions with all of the inherent discretion that comes with a zone change application. He suggested leaving terminology to raise the design issues. However, he cautioned against turning the PDD into a check-the-box scenario, but rather leave it as a loose enough framework that it can be appropriately applied to the various parts of town. Commissioner Houlihan notes the ‘Intent’ section (p. 9, #2) actually invests the Zoning Commission with a great deal
of discretion even if all of the elements have been met.
After discussion, the Commission agreed to keep the new ‘a’, which consolidated the old ‘a’ and ‘b’ and addressed parcel, lot and integration issues. The old ‘c’, which seemed to stand alone and included building design issues such as appearance, orientation, materials, landscaping, and scale, was retained and put as the new ‘b’. The old ‘d’, which raises the issue of ‘human scale’ and ‘unusual design merit’ was then labeled as the new ‘c’.
Secretary Gardow suggested, and it was agreed, to delete the reference to warehouses and the manufacture, processing or assembly of goods as a primary function from the prohibited uses list. Secretary Gardow noted he would not want to preclude a concept similar to Ensign-Bickford of integrating manufacturing with residential (i.e., employee housing within walking distance). Mr. Peck suggested the PDD may not be aimed toward the manufacture of goods as the primary function and that there are probably other zones where that would be more appropriate. New industrial operations as the primary function have been in the minority in towns that have used the PDD. Mr. Dahlquist suggested it comes down to an issue of scale and that, although it would not be desirable for the manufacturing plant to be the dominant feature,
there should be some workplace component. For clarification, Commissioner Piecuch suggested, and it was agreed, to add language stating that absence from this prohibited list does not imply that such use is permitted as of right. In addition, the Zoning Commission will review the proposed use for appropriateness both in terms of type as well as the percentage of the overall development.
Moving on to the Procedure section, Chairman Loomis suggested adding language that ensured the applicant be contacted in writing by the Zoning Commission with regards to the established standards, conditions and requirements associated with an approval. Mr. Peck confirmed for Commissioner Houlihan that those requirements will be physically attached to the site plan to ensure compliance throughout the process.
Mr. Dahlquist questioned whether the issue of context-sensitive design should be included in the PDD, and therefore flagged for developers, as it relates to particular locations in town (i.e., Character areas). He believes the original intent of the PDD was to adopt a one-size-does-not-fit-all way to approach design and development. To ensure that, he questioned whether certain standards and desired intensities should be put in that relate to each area of town. Given the time constraints, Commissioner Piecuch did not believe each area could be defined sufficiently in this document. However, he agreed some reference to issues of scale needs to be addressed. He also referenced language in the Purpose that ensures the PDD is to be consistent with the ‘character of the Town, the orderly development of the area’, as well as the Plan of Conservation and Development. Mr. Dahlquist encouraged the Commission to include in the Plan such standards and vision for each of the Character areas.
Commissioner Bednarcyk expressed her surprise that the architectural aesthetics and standards, such as square footage caps and setbacks, were not included in the new Design Criteria and Guidelines section. Mr. Peck noted they are included in the portion of the regulation that addresses the lot coverage calculation. Commissioner Piecuch suggested the PDD is a general framework that will apply to all parcels of town and specific square footage caps and setbacks would be addressed in the site plan approval process. After much discussion between Commissioners Bednarcyk and Piecuch, Mr. Dahlquist suggested, and it was agreed, to use the wording ‘building disposition and configuration’, therefore acknowledging that building size matters. Although there may be several definitions for ‘sustainability’ it
was agreed to also add that to the Design Criteria list as a valid concept, along with ‘diversity of housing choice’.
Mr. Peck confirmed for Commissioner Houlihan that a referral to the Design Review Board is part of the PDD process, as noted on Page 11, #8 of the draft amendments. The applicant is encouraged to submit their application to the DRB prior to Zoning, but upon receipt Zoning will immediately refer the Petition to the DRB, as well as the Planning Commission, for a recommendation.
Two additional types of reports were added to the Special Submission Requirements, both of which will be required ‘at the discretion of the Zoning Commission’ (which would address the issue of not being too prohibitive for smaller scale proposals) and ‘in a form acceptable’ to them (which would address any confusion regarding the definition of ‘comprehensive’). A comprehensive net economic impact statement is suggested with language added regarding ‘key elements to be considered’, in order to avoid the description from becoming too much of a mathematical equation. Language was changed to clarify that gross ‘real and personal property’ tax revenue should be included, as well as the ‘effect upon tax revenues from surrounding properties’ (i.e., the
appraised value versus the market value). Language for the second proposed report was changed to clarify that it would address the impact of such things as property values, traffic, crime, noise and light on ‘the Town in general and on adjacent properties in particular’.
Secretary Gardow expressed concern that increasing the complexity of the application may become a disincentive for developers to consider Simsbury. Mr. Beach indicated some financial analysis of a site is required currently. The proposed requirement would also protect the Town from the high cost of extensive financial analysis on the larger scale development proposals. Commissioner Houlihan suggested including as a key element of the report the impact of alternative uses on the property. Mr. Beach disagreed, suggesting it would be too onerous on the applicant.
Commissioner Houlihan questioned whether a negative net economic impact could be considered a sole reason for denial of an application. Commissioner Piecuch and Mr. Beach noted it would be at the discretion of the Zoning Commission, citing their responsibility for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town, as well as the protection of property values. Although that type of information is good to have, Mr. Peck cautioned against listing a negative net economic value as the sole reason for a denial.
Commissioner Piecuch motioned to send a report to the Zoning Commission, pursuant to 8-3a of the Connecticut General Statutes, with regard to the proposed Planned Development District set forth as proposed Article 10, Section L. The Planning Commission reports that the 1994 Plan of Development does not contemplate mixed-use development. As such, the Planning Commission is not in a position to cite the 1994 Plan, either in support or in opposition to the proposed Zoning Regulation. Nonetheless, the Planning Commission has discussed mixed-use concepts in great detail as part of the drafting of the update of the Plan of Conservation and Development. Based upon those discussions, the Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Commission adopt the Planned Development District regulation with certain suggested revisions.
These revisions are set forth in a revised draft regulation attached hereto:
ADD to ARTICLE TEN Note: Suggested revisions are on pp. 7-10.
Strike-through = deleted; blue italic = added
Section A. 1. g. Planned Development District (PDD) Zone as described in Article Ten Section L
(Insert the following in ARTICLE TEN, SPECIAL REGULATIONS as Section L.)
L. Planned Development District:
1. Purpose of PDD Zone: A Planned Development District (PDD) Zone may be established as required by these regulations for the purpose of: creating a development which may have multiple components including areas used for residential, retail and office and other purposes. The purpose of such areas being to provide for the development which would allow for a variety of uses within relatively close proximity to each other thereby reducing the need for unnecessary traffic generation from within the development, the provision of development which enhances the quality of life of the residents and occupants of the development and which is of benefit to the Town.
a. Allowing a mixture of complementary land uses including housing;
b. Providing for commercial and mixed-use development that is safe, comfortable and attractive to pedestrians;
c. Creating a design with flexibility to allow for market changes;
d. Reinforcing streets as public spaces that encourage foot and bicycle traffic;
e. Providing roadway and sidewalk connections to adjacent residential areas;
f. Providing transitions between high traffic streets and neighborhoods;
g. Facilitating compact, higher density development for efficient land use and minimizing land for surface parking;
h. Facilitating public transit;
i. Maintaining mobility along traffic corridors and state highways.
A PDD may only be established for [one or more of] the following purposes and only under the established criteria:
a. To permit a parcel of land to be developed with a mix of uses that constitute an integrated and harmonious design unit, which is consistent with adopted design principles, the character of the Town, the orderly development of the area, the purposes of this regulation regarding the adopted Zoning Regulations and Map, and the adopted Plan of Conservation and Development.
b. To permit the mixed use(s) of land, buildings and other structures and related site development, not permitted within the existing zoning district where the lot is located, but which would, in the Commission’s opinion and finding, be beneficial to and consistent with the orderly development of the Town and the neighborhood and consistent with the purposes of these regulations and the Plan of Conservation and Development.
a. To permit a parcel of land or lot to be developed with a mix of uses, uses that may or may not be permitted within the existing zoning district where the parcel or lot is located, that
constitutes an integrated and harmonious design unit which is consistent with adopted design principles, the character of the Town, the orderly development of the area, the purposes of this regulation regarding the adopted Zoning Regulations and Map, and the adopted Plan of Conservation and Development.
c.b. To permit the design and construction of a building(s) and other structures on a lot, in connection with a mixed use(s) not permitted within the existing zoning district where the lot is located. The components of the development, by virtue of their location, appearance, orientation, structure, texture, arrangement, materials, design, landscaping, scale or other
features would be an enhancement to the character of the neighborhood and the Town.
d.c. To allow a development of mixed uses which contains a human scale and which meets the goals and purposes of these regulations, the adopted Plan of Conservation and Development and which would demonstrate unusual design merit, as may be noted by the Design Review Board in their review of the application.
c.d. The following uses are prohibited in any PDD: [Absence from this prohibited list does not imply that such use is permitted as of right. The Zoning Commission will review the proposed use for appropriateness both in terms of type as well as the percentage of the overall development.]
Note: Suggest identifying list with roman numerals, for ease of reference.
Warehouses and the manufacture, processing or assembly of goods
as a primary function.
Warehouse, wholesale or storage.
Sale and storage of bulk fuel, building materials.
Sale and storage of bulk grain.
Contractor’s storage yards.
Truck terminals and warehouses.
Uses where waste, discarded or salvaged materials are brought,
sold or exchanged, baled, packed, disassembled or handled,
including wrecking, house wrecking and used lumber.
Restaurants with drive through windows.
Natural resource extraction and/or processing and/or storage.
Dry cleaners using any hazardous chemicals.
Abattoir, meat packing plants or the keeping of livestock.
2. Intent: It is the intent of these regulations to provide for the creation of high quality development which through the submission, review and discussion of the application and plans in accordance with these regulations are found to satisfy the purpose, intent and requirements of these regulations and when implemented will satisfy the needs and requirements of the Town as determined and found appropriate by the Zoning Commission.
3. Procedure: A Planned Development District (PDD) Zone may be established by the Zoning Commission only as follows:
· After submission of the PDD application to the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency and the subsequent issuance of the IWWA final report.
· After a public hearing held in accordance with these regulations and as required by the Connecticut General Statutes as they may be amended, the PDD Zone may be established only upon findings by the Commission that the application is complete, including the required General Plan and that the development will meet all established standards, conditions and requirements of this regulation and those imposed by the Commission and fully detailed in writing to the applicant as part of the approval of the PDD at the proposed location, and
· After the submission of a Detailed Site Plan, showing any and all proposed phasing of the project, which after review is found to be acceptable by the Commission or is able to be modified to be made acceptable.
4. Proposed location: A PDD may be proposed and may be approved by the Zoning Commission in any zoning district where it finds it appropriate and where it finds it complies with all the requirements of this regulation. Any PDD development proposed for any property abutting or including property zoned R-160, R-80, R-40, R-25 or R-15 must show that the proposed PDD will provide a logical and orderly transition from any existing residential uses in these zones and that it will not adversely impact the existing residential uses of these zones.
5. Design Criteria and Guidelines: PDD design guidelines and standards for new development and redevelopment are intended to reinforce the purposes of this district and also to serve as discretionary and flexible approval criteria:
Compact development
Mixed land use
Pedestrian access, safety and comfort
Street connections
Crime prevention and security
Parking and land use efficiency
Creating and protecting public spaces
Human-scaled building design
Building disposition and configuration
Sustainability
Diversity of housing choice
5.6. Special Submission Requirements: Applications for approval of a PDD for one or more of the purposes specified in Section L.1. shall be submitted in writing and shall be accompanied by at least the following:
a. Report: A detailed written report explaining all aspects of the proposed PDD, the purpose of the proposed PDD as permitted under this section and how the proposed PDD meets the criteria specified in Section L.1., including but not limited to consistency with the adopted Design Review Guidelines and Plan of Conservation and Development for the Town of Simsbury.
b. Report: At the discretion of the Zoning Commission and in a form acceptable to the Zoning Commission, a comprehensive net economic impact statement. Among the key elements to be considered are:
1. Gross real and personal property tax revenues,
2. Impact on town operating budget,
3. Impact on school annual budget,
4. Impact on capital budgets (both town and school),
5. Effect upon tax revenues from surrounding properties.
c. Report: At the discretion of the Zoning Commission and in a form acceptable to the Zoning Commission, a detailed written report of the impact on the Town in general, and on adjacent properties in particular, with regard to:
1. Property values
2. Traffic
3. Crime
4. Noise
5. Light
b. d. PDD Regulation: The application must also contain . . . .etc.
Note: No further revisions are suggested by the Planning Commission as of 9/12/06~.
The above motion was seconded by Secretary Gardow and unanimously approved.
Commissioner Piecuch suggested Mr. Peck send a memo to the Zoning Commission advising them that the Planning Commission has not made a report regarding the remainder of the proposed text amendments and the implications of that are that the Planning Commission approves of them. Commissioner Houlihan noted he still had concerns with the cost-sharing provision suggesting that it has the potential to raise a competitive issue with respect to other towns. He was assured that as an individual he would be able to give his input at the Public Hearing. Commissioner Piecuch also indicated he had some legal concerns with how to administer the cost-sharing, however, noted the Planning Commission as a whole has a role to review the amendments relative to consistency with the Plan of Development. In Mr. Peck’s opinion, the
competitive issue is not a big one due to the fact that the only time this would be applied would be to a fairly large project. He agreed the key is how it will be administered and he acknowledged those details still need to be resolved.
Chairman Loomis suggested not proceeding in any formal way with regard to the rest of the amendments.
V. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF THE PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
• Photographs
Given the late hour, Chairman Loomis acknowledged that photographs, as well as graphics, are needed for the Plan but would be discussed in greater detail at a later date.
VI. STAFF REPORTS
Mr. Peck handed out and requested the Planning Commission review a memo regarding the need to specify mapping details as soon as possible so that ‘the maps to be created and included in the POCD contain the details the Commission is looking for’. He believes the mapping vendor has been decided upon and wants to ensure the vendor knows what the Commission is looking for on the maps. The memo includes suggested categories for 2 key maps – Existing Land Use and Proposed Land Use (for ex., residential = single and multifamily; commercial = retail and office, etc.). After discussion, it was decided to use the 2003 subdivision information for the parcel base map due to the fact that getting new aerial photographs would be costly and difficult in the short timeframe. The Commission agreed to provide
a list of newer subdivisions they wish to be reflected on the map, which Mr. Peck will add manually. Mr. Peck also noted the Zoning map should be finished by week-end.
Mr. Peck handed out a second memo requesting the Commission to review, differentiate and clarify within the new POCD such terminology as TND, form-based zoning and transect concepts. In addition, Mr. Peck suggested the term ‘density’ be clearly defined and committed to writing.
VII. COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Peck noted the Board of Selectmen date for a presentation by Planning has been set for October 23rd. That date will be coordinated with both Glenn Chalder and Mr. Dahlquist. Mr. Peck did not think the delay would affect getting a draft Plan out by year-end. Mr. Peck has booked the High School for the 10/30 public informational meeting. He agreed to research the availability of Squadron Line, Tariffville and Latimer Lane Schools for the remaining 2 dates (11/1 and 11/2).
Chairman Loomis confirmed Saturday’s joint meeting with Zoning, starting at 8:00 a.m. to discuss the remaining Plan issues of Land Use and Special Areas. A special Planning Commission meeting would then be held on Tuesday, 9/19 to review the Zoning Commission’s comments and input.
Mr. Peck indicated he has been requested by Land Use special counsel to set up a joint executive session as soon as possible on the Meadowood matter. The tentative date is Monday, 9/25 at 7:00 p.m.
Chairman Loomis encouraged the Commissioners to continue the ‘rolling editing process’ by re-reading the current Plan draft and emailing any additional suggested edits or comments to the applicable stewards, as well as the rest of the Commissioners and Mr. Chalder.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Secretary Gardow motioned to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Piecuch and unanimously approved.
___________________________________________
Ernest B. Gardow, Secretary
|