Planning Commission Minutes 05/27/2014 ADOPTED

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

MAY 27, 2014

REGULAR MEETING

I.          CALL TO ORDER

Ferg Jansen, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices.  The following members were present:  Alan Needham, Richard Cortes, Gary Lungarini, and Mark Drake.  Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Planning, Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk, and other interested parties.

Chairman Jansen thanked SCTV for filming the proceedings.

II.        SEATING OF ALTERNATES

Chairman Jansen seated Commissioner Lungarini for Kevin Prell and Commissioner Cortes for William Rice. 

III.       DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION

At 7:05 p.m., Commissioners William Rice and Robert Kulakowski joined the meeting.

A.       Referral of proposed new Form Based Code zoning for property located at 200 Hopmeadow Street

The 65-page Form Based Code was provided to the Commissioners for review.  Town Staff summarized that the current Form Based Code document is the product of last fall's Charrette and incorporates the parties' revisions.  The Form Based Code is very different from the Town Center Code.  Appendix A was described as an illustrative master plan showing a variety of zones with wetlands between the north and south portions of the site.  The large 641,000 sq. ft. existing building is called out as Special District and the Code would allow its continued current use, or for portions of the building to be modified.  Additionally, Appendix A provides for mixed use transition zones with a number of smaller structures constructed that could complement the existing building or be totally different; a neighborhood commercial zone is also shown located closer to Hopmeadow Street, e.g. Whole Foods or Trader Joes.  These illustrative plans would be governed by total site coverage, storm water runoff, and the normal DOT traffic process.  The plan goal was to facilitate re-use or re-development of the property providing as much pre-approval as possible, showing the types of things that could occur, and the ways they could be approved.  The DOT, DEEP, and the Department of Economic and Community Development participated in this process.  Appendix A also shows for the northern portion of the property a small amount of commercial development supplementing residential development.  The plan incorporates criteria from the current POCD and feedback from Charrette participants, including mixed uses, appropriate context, and appropriate building sizes. 

It is possible that the current business zone code for this property could continue.  However, if another usage plan is proposed there are 4 types of applications that could apply:  Types 1 and 2 are the simplest, Type 3 provides standard site plan review, and Type 4 provides for something new to be considered; it was clarified that mixed use is intended to include residential.  The Code anticipates following the Rte. 10 study calling for maintaining Rte. 10 as a 2-lane road, and orienting buildings onsite to maximize internal circulation to keep drivers from going back out onto Hopmeadow and re-entering another part of the site.  During the Charrette process, a potential pedestrian bridge across the low floodplain area on the site was discussed connecting different portions of the site allowing residents to walk from their homes to their work as part of a live/work/play concept.  Such a bridge would be at least a couple of hundred feet and could only minimally disturb the wetlands, would involve the Corps of Engineers and DEEP, and therefore be a long-term project. 

On page 17, is a Permitted Use Table showing a variety of committed uses for particular zones, e.g. commercial and agricultural uses could be combined as mixed use.  Regarding limitations on the square footage of future proposed buildings, Town Staff advised the Code follows the POCD including discussion of mixed uses, and sizes of buildings being in context with surrounding structures.  Regarding the Commissioners questions about the variability of the plan, Town Staff indicated there is a lot of flexibility in the plan but within its parameters, there are tight constraints.  It was explained there are specific pictures of building examples in the plan that would be appropriate for different zones.  The Commissioners expressed concern regarding the building example on page 45 and the statement that, "the neighborhood commercial zone is intended to provide", while on page 46 it says, "transition zone shall provide" and on page 47 "neighborhood zone shall provide".  The Commissioners were concerned about locking down the size limitations of a commercial building that could be built.  The Commissioners discussed the POCD metric for form based codes and asked whether the metrics in this plan are that detailed for commercial buildings.  Town Staff will provide an answer for the next meeting and explained they would like to see the existing large building re-used, but that remains an unknown.  The Commissioners noted that the existing large building could be sub-divided to include retail space and almost a small mall with mixed use office/residential and even six 100,000 sq. ft. buildings.  

The Commissioners asked whether the character zones shown on the illustrative master plan are fixed or could a developer propose a change.  Town Staff advised that would be a Type 3 or 4 application with a more rigorous review process.  The Commissioners believed the existing building does not have to be SD.  The Town Staff indicated if this current proposed Code is adopted, the existing building would be SD, and if that designation were proposed to be changed, it would go through the regulatory change process.  Town Staff indicated the current owner would like maximum flexibility for the property and that had involved a long discussion process.  From the Town viewpoint, if someone wanted to use a portion or all of the building as an office, that would be acceptable, as would using different portions of the building for commercial/industrial/residential; however, once a change to the building footprint is proposed, the more rigorous process under Type 3 and 4 applications would come into play.  Regarding the plan statement that "the way it is currently zoned will never be lost", Town Staff confirmed that is currently correct as the owner wanted to continue to maintain the ability to build another office building, but once a new use is established, and this zone adopted and a developer wants a particular zone in a certain location, they would be glad to do that. 

The Commissioners asked why the buffer on the north end is 100 feet and on the south end is 200 feet; Town Staff believed the property on the north end is about half as deep as the southern property and a more shallow buffer maintains that property's economic viability, but a developer could propose a site change that would go through the commission review process.  For the existing building campus on the southern parcel the Commissioners discussed that the plan suggests it would be almost 100% commercial use; all of the designations are mixed use, transition. neighborhood commercial and not residential, until you reach NT in the north parcel, which allows some residential component.  Town Staff confirmed that because of the existing building on the southern property the plan was for more non-residential use, but in Appendix C for the northern piece there is a lot of residential with a lot of open space and also potential for agriculture. 

The Commissioners asked about height restrictions and Town Staff reviewed on pages 27 and 31 the Development Standards which discuss 4 stories, 50 feet maximum, along with what they would like to preserve, neighborhood transition zones of 3 stories, and 40 feet maximum with peaked roof at 36-40 feet.  The Commissioners asked whether fast track Applications 1 and 2 would have any oversight.  Town Staff explained that the Commission would have a referral for zone changes and jurisdiction over subdivisions; Type 1 applications would be for re-use of the existing building; Type 2 applications would be for re-use of the existing building with site improvements and exterior remodel for buildings under 25,000 sq. ft.; Application 3 would be for a new master site development plan and would go to the Design Review Board, and Zoning and Conservation Commissions.  The Commissioners noted they would not be undertaking significant review until Application 4; Town Staff felt that would depend on how significantly different the new master site development plan proposed would be from what was originally approved; e.g. if a building in excess of 25,000 sq. ft. is proposed, Town Staff would refer it to all the commissions.  The current draft attempts to strike a balance between those who want as little review as possible and those who want to see everything.  Type 4 applications are similar to what is already done in Town Center. 

Regarding the height discussion on page 27, under Neighborhood Transition "up to 4 stories or 50 feet subject to the preservation of views of the ridge", the Commissioners asked for more clarification and why the language did not appear under Neighborhood Commercial.  Town Staff indicated a good view analysis was done with reasonable views to be maintained and the Commissioners discussed various building heights and locations.  Regarding parking, on the northern parcel there is access in and across it, but there would be no parking in front of the green space and parking would be set significantly back from the road; a moderate berm or some small plantings could provide screening.  Regarding the ridge view, the Commissioners noted that the current plantings near the road block much of the ridge view and a building only 30 feet off the road could block the view.  Town Staff discussed the potential effect of the length of the building blocking the view for a limited distance; there will be access to the site and green space in front of the property; the neighborhood commercial would be single-story set back 250-300 feet from the street.  The Commissioners discussed the previous master plan issue and how far to push the buildings back which is why the Hartford building is not visible.  Town Staff indicated that the Design Review Board has more authority to make recommendations on any Applications 2, 3 and 4 to the Zoning Commission which makes the final decision; the Conservation Commission could be involved in all 4 Applications; under Connecticut law, the Planning Commission would have  authority if a subdivision is involved in an application.  Town Staff believed it would be difficult to find one developer for the property and it may be split between 3-4 developers incrementally; it may be more realistic that the building will come down at some point.  As development proceeds on other portions of the property, it would make the tax loss less as well as increase development on the property.

Town Staff requested the Commissioners provide comments as soon as possible in preparation for the 6/16/2014 Public Hearing with the Zoning Commission.  The total cost of the report was $175,000 with the Hartford owner's portion of $145,000 reflecting their vested interest in the plan being economically feasible.  Town Staff confirmed there was no existing Master Site Development Plan for this property, other than the site plan for the existing building; the Form Based Code would be the Master Site Development Plan.  Any proposed subdivision under the law would go before the Design Review Board, Conservation Commission, Planning Commission, and Zoning Commission.  Town Staff's efforts to provide an interactive and streamlined process were discussed; applicants would be encouraged to have informal discussions at joint commission meetings to ask questions and raise issues.

B.        Referral of the proposed revisions to the Accessory Housing regulations, Article Four, Section B; Article Seven, Section C.9.

Town Staff reviewed that the Zoning Commission has had a number of accessory apartment applications recently.  While there is no regulatory requirement for a connection between the two parties for accessory dwelling units, there is a requirement that the property owner reside in one of the two units.  The size of the units cannot exceed 2/3 of the gross habitable finished/heated floor area of a single family dwelling or a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft.  The unit could be for an in-law, couple, or single parent with a child.  A special exception application is required for an accessory unit; this provides the applicant an opportunity to present their case and allows the neighbors to have input.  While there are no significant Accessory Housing regulatory changes, the proposed revisions further clarify requirements with the last section on Standards more comprehensive to assist the Commission's decision-making process.

Regarding section ix., if a new owner does not file a notice to continue with an accessory unit, it would revert to a single-family home; the remedy would be for the owner to request a permit or remove the kitchen.

The Commissioners asked about the difference between the definitions for Accessory Apartment under Article Four, Section B. and the Accessory Dwelling Unit in Article Four.  Town Staff responded the intent was that the Accessory Dwelling Unit could be in a separate building while the Accessory Apartment would be in the same building.  The Commissioners discussed the revised definition of accessory apartment which said, "a second dwelling unit in an existing single-family detached dwelling or added onto an existing single-family dwelling or located in an existing accessory building which may be expanded in accordance with the applicable regulations".  The definition of accessory dwelling unit was also read, "a separate self-contained living unit within and subordinate to an existing single-family residence or accessory with provision for additional kitchen and living area not common to the primary residence."  The Commissioners suggested adopting one or the other of these definitions and the definition of the word "accessory"; Town Staff will clear that up that language.  Regarding an existing structure on the property, the Commissioners clarified an accessory unit permit could be applied for. 

These proposed changes will be going to the Zoning Commission for Public Hearing.

IV.       UPDATES

Town Staff provided the Commissioners with a map layout of property at 8 and 10 Firetown Road on the curve near West Street.  The revised map changes the lot line to make the rear lot, which the owners would like to sell, more conforming.  Town Staff reviewed this change with the Zoning Enforcement Officer and Town Attorney; 8 Firetown Road would maintain legal frontage; 10 Firetown Road, which currently has no frontage, would have some frontage; and there would be an easement over the front piece to the rear lot.  No action by the Commission was required.

V.        COMMUNICATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS

Town Staff reviewed that the Economic Development Task Force has split into 3 groups:  process, programs, and marketing.  The Commission representative will focus on the programs portion; recent meetings focused on background information about housing and general economic development.  The focus for each group's monthly meeting is to work on making the economic development process more attractive with some streamlining of the process for applicants.  The completion date is in 2 years with people working on the website and marketing potentially to other states and countries; there should be some initial recommendations by the fall.

Town Staff summarized a recent informal discussion with the Zoning Commission regarding the Northeast Utilities property in the southern gateway with a variety of questions coming from the public, the Design Review Board, and the Zoning Commission.  No application is currently proposed but discussion for the southern portion included primarily residential and some commercial in front, with NU's existing commercial/industrial space remaining, and smaller commercial building(s) for the northern portion.  When the application is received it would be under the PAD regulation and go through the pre-application process and then to DRB and Zoning and potentially referred to the Planning Commission.  While the southern portion of the property is in Simsbury, it abuts Avon, and a referral would likely go to the Council of Governments which and then to a CCROG meeting to begin the zone change.  The parties involved include:  the residential developer, Garden Homes, which has built thousands of homes in the area; and Mark Greenberg, who owns both the NU property and the northern piece.

Town Staff reviewed there has been no further receipt of information on the Powder Forest PAD or their assisted living facility and that probably will not occur until the fall.

Town Staff received approval for funding to completely revise the Zoning Regulations from the Board of Selectmen; the next step would be to request transfer of the funds from the Board of Finance which process will take about 9-12 months. 

Regarding the Big Y, Town Staff understood the Town Attorney was working on revising final changes to the easement document and it is hoped the project will begin this summer with opening in 2015.

Commissioner Cortes was no longer seated as regular members had earlier joined the meeting.

VI.       APPROVAL OF MINUTES of April 22, 2014

On Line 26, a comma is added after the word "Schools" and the name of "Burke LeClair" is inserted.

Commissioner Rice made a motion to accept the April 22, 2014, minutes, as amended.

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

Commissioners Rice and Prell attended the recent CCROG Regional Planning Commission Meeting where the Regional Plan of Conservation and Development was recommended for approval and has moved on to the approving regulatory body.  There will be no CCROG meetings until September.

VII.     ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Kulakowski made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. 

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

_____________________________

Mark Drake, Secretary