Planning Commission Minutes 04/14/2015

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

APRIL 14, 2015

REGULAR MEETING

I.          CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Ferg Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Simsbury Town Offices, Main Meeting Room, at 933 Hopmeadow Street.  The following members were also present:  Richard Cortes, Alan Needham, William Rice, Robert Kulakowski, Mark Drake, and Ron Locandro, Jr.  Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Planning, Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk, and other interested parties.  Chairman Jansen thanked Chris and SCTV for taping the meeting.

II.        SEATING OF ALTERNATES AS NECESSARY

No alternates were seated.

III.       DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ANY AGENDA ITEM, INCLUDING:

a.         Informal review of a potential subdivision at 80 Climax Road

The Applicant's engineer reviewed that the 4.4-acre property on Climax Road located on the Avon/Simsbury town line to the south currently has a single residence  on the property.  The engineer indicated following meetings with Town Staff and extensive study to determine the best way to develop the property, they propose removing the existing house and utilizing the Town's workforce housing regulations, they would develop 18 single-family detached subdivision-style homes in a New England-style architecture, although regulations allow 26 homes.  The engineer indicated the public road meets Town standards of approximately 465 linear feet; regulation design standards for this type of subdivision require not exceeding 6 units per acre.  The engineer clarified for this subdivision they propose 4 work force housing units and 14 market-rate units on individual 58-foot wide lots with rear lots 20-feet wide, 15-foot minimum front yard setback, 7-foot minimum side yard setback, 25-foot rear yard setback, and maintenance of the existing 50-foot Climax Road setback. 

The engineer requested feedback from the Commissioners regarding:  1) the proposed dimensional standards given the flexibility provided in regulations;  2) what would be the appropriate regulations for this property; 3) they would like to use LID standards to reduce pavement as much as possible and have begun discussions with the Fire Department who appear agreeable to reducing the road to 24-feet wide; 4) also to reduce impervious site surface, they are discussing waivers from the Fire Department reducing the standard cul de sac to 40 feet for both pavement and radius to the right of way line; 5) the rear site portion is mostly wooded with lawn/grass areas  in front and they propose maintaining existing ground water drainage patterns toward some depressions prior to Climax Road, using both roof water storage for each unit to promote current infiltration patterns, and an underground water collection system releasing water at the current rate, with offsite improvements connecting to the Climax Road drainage system; 6) they would connect to available water and sewer; and 7) more landscaping and other details would be provided with an Application for this clustered New England-style development.

The Commissioners expressed concern about this higher-density development in an established R-40 long-standing neighborhood.  The engineer described the property as unique with a private drive serving 4 parcels on the perimeter and relatively self-contained.  Regarding input from neighbors, the engineer indicated there were conversations with neighbors to the north and east with no evident issues; a public hearing would be held for this proposed zone change.  Town Staff reviewed the process would be for the Applicant to file an application with the Zoning Commission which would be referred to the Planning Commission for comment; this preliminary presentation initiates the process to get questions on the table and is not binding.  The Commissioners noted work force housing overlay zone was to provide affordable housing for Town residents who meet certain income levels and assumed that housing would be closer to employers allowing them to ride bikes from home to work and this location does not provide that.  The engineer agreed there may be other developments in Town that meet that overall goal; 20% of the dwelling units in this development would be at 80% of area median income satisfying a small percentage of the goal.  The developer indicated their realtors indicate price points for the affordable homes at 1800-2500 sq. ft. would range from $280,000-285,000 and market rate homes would range from $450,000-500,000.  The Commissioners discussed whether people would purchase homes at these price points in a development of this density.  The developer indicated there is demand for new housing under $500,000 in the valley for single-family housing; given typical $4500 property taxes, condo/common fees would not be desirable because they reduce the affordable buyer's ability to purchase the unit; the units would look similar and you would not be able to distinguish affordable from market-rate units; the individuality of the units would be a positive; the market-rate homes would sell at a higher price than the existing surrounding homes and have a positive effect on their values.  The Commissioners indicated that changing the nature of the neighborhood by inserting this dense development could actually lower the value of surrounding housing.  The engineer noted 6 subsections in the work force house regulation including, mixed use for work force housing (20 units/acre), mixed housing combinations, multi-family (20 units/acre), town house (10 units/acre), duplex (10 units/acre), and single family; there would be many different styles to meet goals for a specific area and they believe this single-family development at 4 units/acre best applies to this area with no wetlands, watercourses, flood plains, or steep slope restrictions on this property.  The engineer believed having 4 more affordable homes in a village-type look is a step forward to meeting the workforce housing goal.  The Commissioners noted there were likely other properties in Town that could better accommodate a dense project.  The engineer indicated more aggressive setback standards would allow for architectural variety and larger home footprints; the developer indicated each home would be distinct, including different colors. 

Town Staff explained the Town only has about 3% of State required affordable housing, and under the 8-30G State law the developer could come back with more units on this property preventing the Town from having any say; that is why Zoning tried to create a regulation for affordable housing with standards for different types of developments, e.g. design, location, etc.  Town Staff clarified Town subdivision regulations no longer apply to this property once the affordable housing overlay zone is applied, the same as for 8-30G.  The Commissioners discussed the potential issues of applying overlay zones if a formal application is made, with the Zoning Commission deciding whether to change the zone and set conditions, including dimensional requirements, factoring in feedback from the Planning Commission.  Town Staff added the Planning Commission would receive and approve a subdivision application for this project.  The developer indicated they want to work with the Town on this subdivision application to provide a unique product, rather than using the State regulation allowing 6 vs. 4 work force affordable homes; he believed there would be a waiting list for the under $300K affordable single-family homes. The Commissioners reiterated their concern regarding high density; the developer responded that high density will be created wherever an affordable subdivision is created. 

Town Staff indicated there is a State 10% affordable housing requirement for the Town which is currently at about 3.1%, so the Town remains subject to 8-30G; existing deed-restricted affordable units lose that status after about 20 years and are monitored annually.  The Commissioners discussed differences between low-income and work force housing; the engineer believed this development on a more expensive public road would add more value to the individual homes with a better looking subdivision, but if it is affordable many of the regulation control mechanisms would not apply.  Regarding changes to the lot landscape and what people would see looking at this subdivision, the engineer showed a map of the area, described wooded and open areas, and indicated the existing setback would be maintained with a wider opening to the public road.  The Commissioners discussed reducing the existing setback and the developer explained the Fire Marshall prefers house sprinklers in order to waive reduced cul de sac size. 

Town Staff confirmed and public hearing would be scheduled.  The developer described some of the history of their decision-making process and their intent to submit a formal application; and the Commissioners indicated the need to at that time to set up a site walk.  Town Staff discussed the aging of housing stock and the need for public water and sewer for this type of dense project; the subdivision application and zone change for this project would also have to be reviewed by the Regional Planning Commission because it abuts another town, and the engineer indicated they have already met with engineers from both towns.

IV.       DISCUSSION ITEMS

            a.         Updates and status of ongoing projects

Town Staff will meet later this week with a highly-regarded consultant conducting the upcoming Town-wide survey; positive techniques/questions will be incorporated to sample about 400 people at random; there will be questions about the 32% of Town open space due to its maintenance cost.  Town Staff also indicated all Town open space will be reviewed during the coming year as to its value followed by a report to the Open Space Committee with recommendations of what open space should be kept/not kept.  Town Staff added another major survey issue will be questions seeking opinions/comments about the proposed Senior Center, e.g. location, size.

Town Staff is collecting opinions/feedback regarding what to do with the recently purchased Old Bridge property.

Regarding the definition of work force housing, Town Staff explained in Simsbury it is 80% of area median income while the State requires 30% of statewide median income in 2 categories:  15% at 60% of median income, and 15% at 80% of median income.  Town Staff noted the large Meadowood Development took a toll on the Town and an efforts continue seeking a balance throughout the Town.  The Commissioners discussed that the cost of the affordable housing at around $300K seemed high, how it is different from work force housing, whether invoking a work force housing overlay zone will be effective, prices of houses currently on the market, and the effect of the State mandate.  The Commissioners discussed the cost of housing and the income needed to qualify for a mortgage as opposed to renting an apartment/small house.  Chairman Jansen requested bullet points for discussion at the next meeting.  Town Staff noted that any application would need a market study to verify projected numbers; and another project is expected in about a month in another area of Town.

V.        APPROVAL OF MINUTES of March 24, 2015

On Line 137, following the words "Planning Commission", the name "William Rice" is inserted.

On Line 143 and 144, the words "The representative" are changed to "Commissioner Rice".

Commissioner Kulakowski made a motion to approve the March 10, 2015 minutes, as amended. 

Commissioner Needham seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

VI.       ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Rice made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m. 

Commissioner Kulakowski seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

_____________________________

Mark Drake, Secretary