PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES – APRIL 12, 2005
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman John Loomis called the regular 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: Secretary Ernest Gardow, Susan Bednarcyk, Ferguson Jansen, David Ryan, Gregory Piecuch, Carol Cole, Joan Howard and Brad Mead. Commissioners Mead and Ryan left the meeting at approximately 8:30 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. respectively.
Chairman Michael Bradley called the special meeting of the Zoning Commission to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Secretary Austin Barney, James Gallagher, Patricia Askham and Mary Jane Morris.
Also in attendance were William Voelker, Director of Community Planning and Development, Richard Harrall, consultant to the Zoning Commission for the re-drafting of the Zoning Regulations, as well as other interested parties.
II. WELCOMES AND INTRODUCTIONS
To begin, Chairman Loomis invited each of the individuals present from both Commissions to introduce themselves. Although there would most likely be little interaction between the Commissioners and the audience, aside from Richard Harrall, Chairman Loomis invited them to introduce themselves as well.
III. OPENING REMARKS
Chairman Loomis emphasized that all the work done to date bearing on land use in one way or another may or may not ultimately find a home in zoning regulations or thought. Chairman Loomis indicated the Planning Commission was looking for input in terms of clarity, expressing agreement or pointing out issues on what has been drafted so far. Chairman Bradley felt at this point it would be a good idea to go through the work that’s been done so far on the Plan and pick out those items that, at least in the view of the Planning Commission, are going to require if not direct action by the Zoning Commission then certainly some serious consideration. Further, he felt it would be beneficial to do this now before both Commissions got too far down the line that they would be beyond discussion. Chairman
Bradley sees the purpose of tonight as looking at ideas that are presented and having the Zoning Commission to react to them. The next steps will not necessarily be able to be known or taken tonight.
IV. 6:40 P.M. – DISCUSSION OF 2005 PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
a. Excerpts from the Plan that may require implementation or serious consideration by the Zoning Commission
Chairman Loomis referenced the 4/12/05 document outlining excerpts from the 2005 Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) that impact Zoning directly developed in cooperation with Chairman Bradley and Mr. Voelker and was distributed prior to tonight’s meeting. The first item, Policy 8, Objective E within Transportation suggested amending the zoning regulations to create development patterns emphasizing the importance of pedestrian and bicycle mobility (i.e., sidewalks and/or bike paths, linkages of open space, etc.). Secretary Barney agreed the Town needs to pay more attention to the idea of trails and bike paths in an effort to move towards the idea of villages and village centers and the connectivity between them. He continued by saying that the issue of sidewalks can easily be mishandled in
the sense that they can be very suburban and take away from whatever rural feel Simsbury may have. There are many other communities from which Simsbury can learn from on how to construct and maximize an appropriate system of pathways. Commissioner Jansen agreed, indicating that for example, one of the most blatant mistakes that has been made so far is that currently a child cannot ride safely from the Town Center to the Simsbury Farms complex. Commissioner Cole suggested narrowing the wider, faster roads through the use of shoulders and bike lanes. Chairman Bradley questioned whether it is within the purview of the Commissions to tell the Town that bicycle lanes will be put on the streets. In Mr. Harrall’s opinion, recommendation for a circulation plan, including bike paths and sidewalks, is clearly part of the POCD. In addition, land use tends to create traffic patterns and therefore creates a direct relationship between zoning, land use
and transportation. Mr. Voelker indicated the real direct implementation of specific standards for road improvements comes through the Subdivision Regulations, as well as through the 8-24 capital improvement referrals. Secretary Barney suggested the problem, in part, comes back to the fact that there has been no master view developed for the connectivity of the system of trails and paths. Chairman Bradley suggested that consideration of these paths and trails needs to be done on a site by site basis, although some ‘meat’ can be added to the Zoning regulations in order to encourage this connectivity more.
Commissioner Howard saw this as a good segue to the next topic, Preservation of Historic Resources. She encouraged seeing not only the bike trails as a destination and a means of getting from one place to another but also as a journey to be considered and focusing on the connection and corridor concept (i.e., Quarry Road area, Tariffville, scenic roads) that can foster increased tourism. Mr. Harrall suggested, and Chairman Bradley agreed, the way Zoning regulations can encourage preservation of the historic resources within Town is through some sort of density bonus or incentive to preserving those resources. Giving the example of Fiddler’s Green downtown and how that could have gone in a much more negative way (i.e., buildings torn down and new ones put up), Commissioner Piecuch indicated
the desire is for the system to encourage people to recognize the historical importance of particular buildings. In response to Commissioner Askham’s question as to how historic resources are actually defined, Mr. Voelker indicated there are benchmarks as well as a detailed inventory of the Town’s historical properties.
Moving on to the Environment topic, per the request of Chairman Bradley Mr. Voelker gave an overview of the Farmington Valley Biodiversity Conservation Area Map. He described it as a collaborative effort with groups such as the Farmington Valley Watershed Association to examine areas of communities within the Valley for such resources as vernal pools and habitat areas and identifying strengths and weaknesses in wildlife corridors. The results were a more formalized version of the information the Town already had, but is much better than before in that it is based on real field verified data. One of the major findings of the Study was the need to work towards the preservation of the East/West corridor within Simsbury. Mr. Voelker further stated the intent of the Map is to identify
and take into consideration these biodiversity areas and provide recommendations to developers in order to get an outcome on a property that respects the property’s specific biodiversity issues. Commissioner Piecuch sees the use of this information being on a spectrum, with one application being in the determination of the location of the 20% open space dedication requirement. Mr. Harrall also indicated that the Planning Commission can use open space requirements to protect stone walls. Mr. Harrall indicated such an adoption of the map and specifying some type of a developer checklist as part of the site plan submission can be incorporated into the Zoning regulations. Chairman Bradley characterized such a checklist as a great idea. Mr. Harrall indicated this could also include such things as more impact studies by the developer, of which Secretary Barney suggests there is a lack of currently in the system.
The second item within the Environmental topic dealt with implementing a dark skies ordinance. Chairman Loomis gave the most recent example of the Design Review Board’s handling of the high school field lighting. The ordinance would be directed at open areas, such as parking lots, where less spillage and more efficient focused lighting would benefit the neighborhood, and according to Chairman Bradley provide consideration to the developer’s needs as well. Commissioner Ryan encouraged specifying certain light levels rather than being as specific as naming manufacturers of particular fixtures.
The Housing topic included several policies and objectives for consideration. Chairman Bradley began by requesting clarification on Policy 1, which states ‘Sustain residential development as the primary use of land within Simsbury.’ Commissioners Ryan and Piecuch indicated it was more of a statement of fact, that residential is the character of the town and that large neighborhoods won’t be rezoned to industrial use. Secretary Barney indicated that other towns are rezoning because they recognize the tax drain on the Town from the residential component. In essence, Simsbury is and continues to be driven by the school budget. He would like to see the POCD, as well as the Zoning regulations, include some economic thinking as to what the net economic results are of the housing
policies. There needs to be a balance between commercial and residential development. Decisions made today by the Commissions have economic impacts. Mr. Harrall indicated from recent statistics that the State curve for enrollment is actually going down. The enrollment bulge is currently going through middle school, but the debt incurred from the improvements to schools to meet the past boom will stick with the towns for a good period of time. He further indicated school costs have not gone up necessarily directly related to enrollment. There is a disconnect between the current simplified method of figuring per pupil costs and the reality that every child added to the system does not incrementally raise the costs. The biggest costs in the schools today, just like in any business, are things such as healthcare and benefits. Commissioner Gallagher noted some feel increasing the number of 55 and older developments is a solution, however
he cautioned against allowing too many and questioned how the Town knows what the limit should be. Mr. Harrall indicated the market place will tend to regulate that as well as restrictions placed by the Town as to where those types of developments will be allowed within Town.
After input from the Zoning Commissioners, Chairman Loomis indicated more clarifying terms such as ‘mixed use’ and ‘design district’ would be somehow worked into Policy 1, Objective B, which suggests enacting zoning to enable appropriate housing development for Simsbury Center, Tariffville Center and other village areas. Chairman Bradley cautioned against regulating specific uses on particular properties but rather stressed encouraging outcomes favorable to the Town. Referring to the example of the Town of Vernon’s attempt at mixed use zoning, Mr. Harrall indicated that there was the suggestion of mixed use but where it fell short was the lack of reference within their Zoning regulations to particular site-specific requirements regarding minimum or maximum amounts of certain
uses. Mr. Voelker cautioned against setting those percentages in a vacuum and emphasized the site-specific aspect. Secretary Barney believes mixed use is a good way to try new things within the Town, such as apartments above retail operations.
Policy 1, Objective B:1 refers to considering the adaptive reuse of the Tariffville Mill. In response to Chairman Loomis’ question as to what the Zoning Commission could do with this recommendation, Chairman Bradley indicated it would be handled with each specific application. Mr. Voelker suggested there would be much discussion before an application even came before the Commissions. He would work with the applicant, along with Zoning and Planning, to structure it in a way to enable the project through such strategies as adaptive reuse of an industrial zone that permits additional development on the property. Secretary Barney cautioned against spot zoning and emphasized the value of the Mill in its context rather than in isolation.
In reference to creating design districts with mixed-use development appropriate to West Simsbury, West Street, Weatogue and Tariffville Mr. Harrall confirmed for Secretary Gardow that some of the principles from the Design Review Board’s Guidelines for Community Design have already been incorporated into the first draft of the revised Zoning Regulations. However, under State Statute the Zoning Commission cannot require some of the details that are in those guidelines. Commissioner Howard questioned whether the idea of a village design district can legislate scale, especially in the Center area. Mr. Harrall gave a brief history of the village design district in reference to the town of Brooklyn, CT where it was first adopted. He believes this type of district would create an additional layer
of regulation that would discourage investment within Simsbury. He assured Commissioner Howard that Zoning can clearly control such things as density, height and bulk.
Housing Policies 3 and 4 deal with creating regulations or promoting housing programs that enable multi-family age-restricted housing and housing that meets the needs of all economic circumstances. Secretary Barney questioned whether the Town wants to encourage apartments or rental properties. Mr. Voelker agreed it would be worth doing and that there may be some unfulfilled need. However, developers find it difficult to get the type of rents that will support the high costs of new construction. In Chairman Bradley’s opinion there is no clear benefit to the Town to encourage one way or the other.
Secretary Barney agrees with the suggestion in Policy 4 to encourage developers to include a particular percentage of units for low income families thereby dispersing the lower income units throughout the Town. In his opinion, this is an important policy and the Commissions should encourage affordable housing, but not through the use of State equations and programs. Chairman Bradley questioned whether imposing minimums to the number of low income units would devalue the property. He suggested achieving the goal through bonuses rather than imposing set minimums. He indicated that everyone is sensitive to the issue, it is just a matter of figuring out how to address it. He further noted that land costs in Simsbury are simply too high for developers to choose to include affordable housing. Finally, within Housing Policy 5: Objective 7 Chairman Bradley questioned why from an economic perspective would the Town want to encourage multi-family housing within the sewer service area.
Commissioner Mead confirmed Chairman Bradley’s belief regarding the huge impact such development would have on the schools. The Commissioners agreed this policy should be reconsidered. Mr. Harrall encouraged the Planning Commission to define multi-family housing in terms of density or units per acre.
Finally, within the Economic Development topic Chairman Loomis directed the Commissioners to note the revised Goal. Secretary Barney suggested that the criticism of the land use application process in reference to economic development projects may be somewhat undeserved. Chairman Loomis suggested it may be more of a formalization of some of what is already being done (i.e., the pre-application process). Chairman Bradley indicated the Zoning Commission has no control over the internal process. Commissioner Bednarcyk referred to the creation of a guidebook for developers by the Economic Development Commission incorporating all of the necessary steps to Simsbury’s process. Chairman Bradley thought that would be a great idea. Both Commissioners Piecuch and Jansen see the overall goal
as being more proactive and trying to speed up the application process for developers. Chairman Bradley indicated that much of the language here, as well as throughout the new Plan, may be too specific and require too much of a commitment that may or may not be possible or feasible. He suggested using such words as ‘encourage’ or consider’ here as well as throughout the Plan.
In the interest of time, Chairman Bradley suggested the Zoning Commission look at the rest of the material as they go through the regulations. In addition, upon completion of the Land Use draft Chairman Loomis would like Zoning to review that as well for input and dialogue.
b. Land use issues.
Chairman Bradley suggested the North and South Ends of town are similar in a way as they are gateways on both ends of town. The discussion all comes down to what uses would be tolerable there. Mr. Voelker gave an overview of the larger multi-owned North End property and the single-owned South End area. Due to the development constraints (i.e., power lines, overall parcel shape) and the multi-ownership, it is more difficult to see one distinct development occurring in the North End property. With the multi-tenant facility, including CL&P, dividing the South End it is more likely that the 2 parcels will be developed separately. There is the potential for access management to the commercial area to the south in Avon. Mr. Voelker continued by saying that whatever use is decided
upon to be tolerable there should and can have a good relationship with the residential neighborhood (i.e., through the uses of transitional uses, appropriate buffering, establishing functional public spaces). Mr. Harrall agreed traditional zoning tools could be used to codify those design standards and can be tailored to the specific area. Referring to Michael Goman’s recommendations, Secretary Barney cautioned against drawing away from the critical mass of development necessary, and yet currently lacking, in the Center Zone. Secretary Barney suggested the possibility of bonuses to attract businesses to fortify the Center. Chairman Loomis indicated the expansion of the perimeter of the Center Zone has been proposed, however methods of making the Center Zone more attractive have not yet been addressed. Commissioner Piecuch emphasized the concept of infill in the Center Zone and working towards more of an East-West connection there. Although
a specific master plan is not preferred due to the fact that investment comes primarily from private dollars, a unique feature of downtown is that much of the area along Iron Horse is controlled by the State and local government. Commissioner Piecuch stated he encourages proactively approaching the State regarding that land and infrastructure as well as encouraging development downtown, but not at the exclusion of other areas of Town.
V. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Chairmen Loomis and Bradley thanked everyone for attending and characterized the meeting as a productive time. Both proposed the Commissions meet again when they are further along in their own revision processes.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Piecuch motioned to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 9:04 p.m. The motion was seconded by Secretary Gardow and unanimously approved.
Chairman Bradley motioned to adjourn the Zoning Commission meeting at 9:04 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gallagher and unanimously approved.
|