Planning Commission Minutes 06/24/2014 ADOPTED
PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTED MINUTES
JUNE 24, 2014
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chairman, Mark Drake, 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, William Rice, and Ron Locandro, Jr... Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Planning, Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk, and other interested parties.
II. SEATING OF ALTERNATES
Acting Chairman Drake seated Commissioner Cortes for Ferg Jansen and Commissioner Locandro for Kevin Prell.
Commissioner Needham recused himself from the meeting.
III. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
A. CGS 8-3a Referral of Zoning Application #14-30 of Christopher J. Smith, Esq., Applicant; Thomas Evans, Owner; petitioning for a Text Amendment regarding changes to Article Ten, Sections G(1) and G(2) of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Simsbury.
B. CGS 8-3a Referral of Zoning Application #14-31 of Christopher J. Smith, Esq., Applicant; Thomas Evans, Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment and Zone Change from I-1 to PAD on the property located at 155 Hopmeadow Street (Map F17, Block 201, Lot 002A).
Town Staff provided the Commissioners with the text for Connecticut General Statute 8-3a which provides that when Towns have separate Planning and Zoning Commissions that the Zoning Commission refer requests for zoning and text changes to the Planning Commission. Therefore, under 8-3a Applications #14-30 and #14-31 have been referred by the Zoning Commission to the Planning Commission for a recommendation prior to their Public Hearing, including comments on the requested changes with regard to the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD), as well as other pertinent comments. Town Staff provided the Commissioners with a summary that: 1) the Applicant has requested a text amendment regarding changes to Article Ten, Section G(1) and G(2) having to do with the distance of the service station facility from the synagogue or house of worship; and 2) the Applicant has requested a change of zone from I-1 to a PAD mixed use zone; no subdivision is requested. Information also provided to the Commissioners included: the size of the property; various uses proposed on the property with site plans; pertinent sections of the 2007 POCD, e.g. policies on pg. 94, desirable performance objectives on pg. 95-99 which discuss the southern gateway and refer to the 60-acre property on the east side of Hopmeadow Street but also may apply to this property; potentially applicable sections of the POCD that refer to economic development policies, housing population suggestions and the potential for a live/work concept. Another applicable document would be the 2007 Rte. 10 Corridor Study with its goal to maintain the 2-lane nature of Rte. 10 with proposed safe turning lanes, as approved by DOT. The potential impact on the bike trail that runs behind this property may also be discussed. While the Public Hearing will take place at the next Zoning Commission meeting on 7/7/2014, Town Staff can answer questions and obtain clarification from the Applicant in the interim. Members of the public can call Town Staff with questions, submit letters as part of the public record, and attend the Zoning Commission Public Hearing to provide comments.
The Attorney representing the Applicant summarized that three tests the Zoning Commission will look at include: 1) whether this mixed use proposal is consistent with the 2007 POCD; 2) whether it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which are the Zoning regulations and zone map; and 3) whether the proposal would have an adverse impact on public health and safety. Their PAD overlay zone mixed use proposal includes commercial retail, a gas station and convenience store, and residential. They also proposed two text amendments; one to reduce the distance requirement between a gas station and a church use, as long as it does not negatively impact public safety; and one to increase the driveway widths to provide safe turning radii.
The Commissioners were provided copies of material from Town documents. The Applicant referred to the page 77 of the POCD discussion of the importance of the gateway and businesses along Rte. 10. Regarding the adjacent bike trail, the Applicant has been approached and agreed to provide bike accessory repair kits, and rest rooms at the convenience store, and a shelter for bicyclists if the Zoning Commission approves the proposal. Historically, the pool barn was an approved manufacturing site and they believe this proposal would be an adaptive re-use of the property consistent with the POCD. On page 81 of the POCD, they noted that the 2nd paragraph states, "Some of these buildings may not be well adapted to current or future or manufacturing processes and it is possible that the existing buildings may be reused in the future for offices and other uses." as proposed with this PAD Application. They also noted that the PAD process requires applicants to come in with site-by-site proposals utilizing the overlay zoning process as they have done. On page 82, policy #2 for Hopmeadow was noted to, "encourage the Zoning Commission to consider overlay zoning or other techniques", and Policy #3 to, "create a comprehensive plan to address access management, pedestrian mobility in the corridor, and to tie into the Farmington Valley Greenway"; they believe the trail immediately adjacent to the property on the west side with immediate access to it would incorporate the trail and access that does not currently exist. On page 166, in the white box #3 says, "encourage the availability of a range of housing types and densities", and their proposal includes 4 residential market-rate units, that would not be single family housing, located within the pool barn of 1600 sq. ft. each (800 sq. ft. on the 1st floor and 800 sq. ft. on the 2nd floor).
The Applicant's attorney also cited from the Rte. 10 Corridor Study: On page III, re bike facilities in Town along Rte. 10 corridor are superb and a culture for biking can be an asset to the community; on page VI, re bicycle transportation that the study recommends enhancement measures including access points to the trail and installing bicycle parking facilities, and the Applicant is willing to provide a shelter.
The Applicant's attorney summarized that the proposed PAD and text amendments are consistent with the POCD and the Rte. 10 Corridor Study and requested the Commission make that finding with conditions discussed and make that referral to the Zoning Commission. They noted 3 gas stations near churches in Town where there have been no adverse effects on public safety and they provided for the record a letter from the Rabbi at the adjacent synagogue indicating no objection to the proposal at this time. They restated that having a wider driveway is a safety and efficiency issue that would allow wider turns for vehicles. Their attorney reiterated this would be a Planning referral to the Zoning Commission and is not a subdivision.
Regarding areas where the proposal would not be consistent with the POCD, the Applicant's attorney could not cite any. The Commissioners noted that the cited reference on page 81 refers to the northern part of Weatogue, and not the area for this proposal; also the POCD discussion of the southern gateway deals primarily with the 60-acre piece. Their attorney agreed with those distinctions, but believed the theme from pages 76 through 83 refers to mixed use and adaptive proposals.
Regarding the rear property line and whether bike path users would have to cross someone else's property, the Applicant's engineer showed a rendering of the proposed site and explained that the entire western property line abuts the DOT right of way and trail. The watercourse picks up state highway runoff with an existing culvert that provides a bridge; they would use the existing culvert and have a path from their property directly to the trail.
The Commissioners asked if variances could have been applied for and the Applicant's attorney believed it was best to deal with the Zoning Commission for the potential PAD zone changes and text amendments. CCROG was asked by Town Staff for comment and their letter indicating receipt of the request was read into the record; if a response is received from CCROG prior to the Public Hearing, it will also be provided for the record. The Commissioners asked about the variance process, and Town Staff confirmed that it would be an extraordinary method. The Applicant believed this to be the cleanest method with the Zoning Commission having total discretion over zoning regulations and in the future could potentially approve a reduction, if no adverse impact to public safety was demonstrated, rather than going for a variance to another commission, which would be the ZBA.
Beyond the apartments, the Commissioners asked what the rest of the mixed use for the building would be. Their engineer responded that beginning at the building front, a little more than half the building would be retail space on the 1st floor, and the 4 side-by-side townhouse units would be in the back portion with the 1st floor potentially their office space and their living space on the 2nd floor, and access from the sidewalk including a possible wheel chair access deck. The Applicant indicated those 4 units would be designated by the Zoning Commission as residential and any future change would require re-application to the Zoning Commission. The Commissioners were concerned that normal human home activities, e.g. decks, parking, etc. have not been taken into account here with vehicles entering/exiting for gasoline. The Applicant's attorney felt the proposal to be consistent with the mixed use PAD and POCD emphasis on diversity of housing and these could be starter homes or for people downsizing; and this proposal utilizes the pool barn in line with the Applicant's previous discussions with the Zoning Commission. Regarding having two egresses to the apartments, the architect was not present, but their design complies with ADA and all standards and will be discussed with the Zoning Commission. Regarding the 5LA-1 PDF, the Commissioners noted there appeared to be a walkout basement with the 1st floor above grade. Town Staff summarized the Applicant's request is for a referral to the Zoning Commission for their 7/7/2014 meeting; if the Commission made no referral, it would go to the Zoning Commission as a positive referral.
RE: B. CGS 8-3a Referral of Zoning Application #14-31 of Christopher J. Smith, Esq., Applicant; Thomas Evans, Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment and Zone Change from I-1 to PAD on the property located at 155 Hopmeadow Street (Map F17, Block 201, Lot 002A).
Commissioner Rice made a motion to provide a positive referral for Zoning Application #14-31 for a Site Plan Amendment and Zone Change from I-1 to PAD on the property located at 155 Hopmeadow Street (Map F17, Block 201, Lot 002A) citing the Applicant's explanation of adherence to the 2007 POCD; they pointed out salient points and would also like the referral to consider adding conditions for adding some type of shelter for bicyclists or pedestrians that are on the bike path.
Discussion:
Commissioner Cortes was concerned about danger if a tanker lost its load and felt it was not a good mix for residents. Commissioner Drake felt the PAD was intended to provide Town boards with options to evaluate the merits of proposals for existing industrial properties in Town, and did not believe apartments combined with a gas station was envisioned by the POCD for the future, nor for this part of Town.
Commissioner Rice believed the mixed use aspect of the PAD was satisfied with the housing and retail, regardless of the retail function. Commissioner Locandro also supported the zone change.
Commissioner Locandro seconded the motion, and a negative referral was provided with Commissioners Rice and Locandro voting in support of the motion and Commissioners Cortes and Drake voting to oppose the motion.
RE: A. CGS 8-3a Referral of Zoning Application #14-30 of Christopher J. Smith, Esq., Applicant; Thomas Evans, Owner; petitioning for a Text Amendment regarding changes to Article Ten, Sections G(1) and G(2) of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Simsbury.
Discussion:
The Commissioners discussed that other gas station sites in Town were grandfathered in with no regulations in place at that time. Regulations were subsequently put in for public safety. Town Staff confirmed that history and indicated the Zoning Commission would have to find there are no safety concerns in order to move this proposal forward; DOT will make the determination of radii, curb cuts, etc.
Commissioner Drake made a motion to not change the text which was put in in good faith for public safety and should be kept as is.
Commissioner Cortes, seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Needham rejoined the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
IV. COMMUNICATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Town Staff reviewed that at the Zoning Commission's last meeting the Hartford Code hearing was continued to their 7/7/2014 meeting and invited the Commissioners to attend; a similar presentation was made by Town Staff to the BOS at their 6/24/2014 meeting. Town Staff will confirm the meeting location to the Commissioners.
Town Staff is targeting September to complete the Weatogue Village District Study for a zone change.
Regarding the Big Y status, Town Staff indicated Big Y could apply for a permit any time and believed all issues have been worked out. If construction does not begin by August, Big Y would likely put it off until 2015; they indicated to Town Staff their funding allocations begin shortly for the next store, so for this store to move forward something needs to happen soon.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of June 10, 2014
On Line 18, the name "Kulakowski" is corrected to "Locandro".
On Line 154, the spelling of "Leonard Skinner" is corrected to "Lynyrd Skynyrd" and the spelling of "Alison Kraus" is corrected to "Allison Krauss".
Commissioner Cortes made a motion to accept the June 10, 2014, minutes, as amended.
Commissioner Rice seconded the motion, and it was passed with Commissioner Drake abstaining.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Needham made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Commissioner Cortes seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
_____________________________
Mark Drake, Secretary