Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2014 ADOPTED
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 23, 2014
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Ferg Jansen 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, William Rice, Mark Drake, and Robert Kulakowski Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Planning, Rachel Blatt, Assistant Town Planner, Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk, and other interested parties.
II. SEATING OF ALTERNATES
Chairman Jansen seated Commissioner Cortes as the alternate.
Commissioner Kulakowski made a motion to take up item V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of September 9, 2014, before item III.
Commissioner Rice seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of September 9, 2014
On Line 10, the name "Ron Locandro, Jr." is corrected to "Kevin Prell".
On Lines 34, 220, and 229, the name "Commissioner Locandro" is corrected to "Commissioner Prell".
Commissioner Kulakowski made a motion to approve the September 9, 2014, minutes, as amended.
Commissioner Cortes seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
III. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
a. CGS 8-3a for Zoning Application #14-37 of Robin Messier Pearson, Esq., for K & K Developers, Inc., Applicant; INFINITY IV, LLC, Owner; for a Zone Change from I-1 to I-1 and PAD on the property located at 34 Hopmeadow Street (Map E18, Block 117, Lot 001). Zone I-1. (continued from 9/9/2014)
Application #14-37 was read into the record.
Chris Ferraro reviewed that the referral from the Planning Commission is for how well the proposed plan conforms to the POCD. They have returned to the Commission to answer questions that arose at the last meeting. CCROG reviews zone changes adjacent to municipalities and issued a letter of positive response for this project, a copy of which was provided by Town Staff to the Applicant and Commissioners.
The Applicant's engineer provided an overview of the project for 2 parcels of land totaling about 60 acres. They applied for a PAD zone which was intended by the Town to encourage mixed use innovative development in non-residential zones as guided by the 2007 POCD. Since the 1950's, Garden Homes has developed over 40,000 apartments and 40,000 condominiums in a wide range of densities and styles conforming appropriately to the type of environment; examples of the homes were shown to the Commissioners exhibiting differences in texture and scale; they continue to own, manage, and maintain these apartments impeccably. In conformance with the POCD, this proposed mixed use neighborhood borders the bike trail which ties to both Avon and Simsbury; the area is surrounded by retail, conservation areas, and multi and single-family residences. Regarding parcel density, the previous River Oaks application was about double the density; this project was scaled back to provide 30% open space and mountain views. Fundamental tenets of the POCD were described as: open space with Hopmeadow Street greenbelt; preservation of mountain view corridors - described as not view in its entirety, but corridors left for those views; access to and integration of the bike trail; and connectivity to Nod Brook Wildlife Area and dog park/training facility; mixed use development of dwellings; and extensive analysis to retain the 2-lane capacity of Hopmeadow Street. Material from the POCD the Applicant believed to be directly applicable to the proposed plan was provided to the Commissioners and was part of the Application. About half of their residential parking would be on the street with the remainder located on the sides and rear of buildings; a variety of roofs would be used with traditional fenestrations for a variety of building types; there would be only 4 curb cuts on Hopmeadow Street; and there would be a sense of arrival with terminal views and vistas.
Their visual analysis was a prime component for the site and the U.S.G.S. map was used for master planning purposes. Voluntary setbacks were utilized for 1, 2, and 3-story buildings to determine how far back they should be placed to preserve the top slice of the mountain range. As a result, they have now reduced the height of the 1-story buildings from about 40 to 30 feet. A development diagram summarizing all of this information was provided to the Commissioners which they believed to be consistent with the POCD, PAD zone, and smart growth principles. If the zone change application is successful, the parcel would be subdivided and they would return with a site plan application and a subdivision application. Parcel 1A with about 51,000 sq. ft. of mixed use 2-story buildings is in the upper left-hand site corner; Parcel 1B would be 181 residential units comprised of a mix of townhouse units in front to 3-story units in back; Parcel 2 includes CL&P's facility and 191,000 sq. ft. of mixed use. Since the last presentation, they have added a proposed subdivision line which may be part of a subdivision application, if the PAD application is approved.
The Applicant's engineer reviewed that the Town's subdivision regulations indicated an applicant can be asked for 20% open space; other options included taking it in fee simple, conservation easement, or fee in lieu of open space. They have designated 39% of their site as open space and would need to show the Commission that the 20% open space requirement was met in their subdivision application should the Town decide to ask for it.
If the commercial areas were never developed, it is their fundamental understanding that this area could not be all residential in the future. The PAD application secures the future of this property from a character, density, and scale standpoint; any fundamental changes to the approved Master Development Plan would have to go back through the entire zone change process. In their opinion, this property is about all of these mixed uses and open spaces tied together and having a party interested in building the residential component starts the ball rolling; they projected the development would be built out in 5-10 years. A CBRE market analysis was provided to the Commissioners in support of and expanding their analysis.
Two terminal view shed graphics showed the edge of Hopmeadow Street, edge of Hopmeadow green space, and location of the first 1-story building. Their architect was directed to reduce the height of the formerly 40-foot tall 1-story buildings resulting in a cone of vision all the way to the ridge that provides a 200-foot view of the top of the ridgeline over the 1-story buildings based on U.S.G.S. mapping; it was also important that the buildings continue to meet design review guidelines. The 200 feet of visible mountain would run vertically from the top of the ridge. The Applicant reiterated they would not have control of the development of future pieces; however, this Application would set the tone for those future applications. Town Staff indicated that this Commission's work would be completed once the referral and analysis go to the Zoning Commission, and it would also go to the Design Review Board. But if a zone change were proposed for this development, it would come back to this Commission. Town Staff recommended pinpointing the elevations on the side of the ridge as a protection in case something in the future intrudes into the area. The buildings at about 100 feet long were done to stagger architecture and not block views from Hopmeadow Street.
Their marketing analysis indicated the residential component would act as a catalyst for this development. CB Richard Ellis was described as having a substantial Connecticut presence and their written analysis was provided to the Commissioners. They used 4 parking spaces per 1000 sq. ft. for a business like a restaurant. The Commissioners felt restaurants are typically in busier locations and discussed whether the existing traffic or the presence of businesses/apartments generates the traffic. CBRE's report indicated viability for coffee shops, fitness centers, book stores, upscale grocers, drug stores, medical and other small offices, and that, "The most important incentive for development in the third phase [commercial] will be the completion of the residential component and the presence of an approved Master Plan to help alleviate the uncertainty [and inefficiency] of the permitting process." The Applicant's engineer summarized approval of the PAD would lock in the future of the property and the next developer would have a straightforward site plan approval process, if they comply with the Master Plan. However, the Commissioners noted that they could still ask for a change in the Master Plan and architecture that Zoning could approve it. The Applicant's attorney indicated that a change in the Master Plan would require coming back through this process and Commission. Town Staff agreed and noted the numbers laid out in the proposed site data provide the framework acted upon; if a building were moved slightly, that would not be a major change, but if uses were to change or any important aspect, that would be a different matter; applicants can of course make requests. The Commissioners discussed whether heights of buildings would also be approved as part of this Application and if someone wanted to raise a building height from 30 to 40 feet. Town Staff confirmed they would perform an analysis to see if it impacted the view to the ridge; the Master Development Plan locks things in to a certain extent. The Commissioners discussed their lack of control over future changes to this development. Town Staff confirmed that if there is a major change, including for this Commission's concern about views to the ridge, e.g. if a building were proposed in front of the view corridor shown, it would receive extensive review by what this Commission recommends and by Zoning. Town Staff suggested pointing out the intersecting elevation lines on the ridge. The Applicant's engineer indicated their plan to return to the Commission with a subdivision application. Town Staff noted the Commission's two areas of jurisdiction include the POCD and subdivisions, and as the two existing parcels are subdivided, they would return to this Commission for approval, including for 3 lots on the southern parcel. This Application is for a referral to the Zoning Commission for the PAD.
Regarding how the Application complies with the POCD, the Commissioners discussed issues regarding future conformance, and placing trust with other Town Commissions, although the PAD allows the Zoning Commission to go ahead and make changes. Town Staff indicated responsible Commission comments are taken seriously in referrals and entire minute’s packages are consistently provided to participating Commissions. The Applicant's attorney noted that this Commission was part of the process to develop the PAD regulation which envisioned a comprehensive Master Plan would be in place only after Commission review to assure compliance with the POCD. Currently, the industrial zoned site could be developed without Commission review and this process allows much more Commission input with a Garden Homes subdivision application to follow. The Master Plan standards include height requirements and any significant deviation from the Master Plan would require comprehensive review. The Commissioners noted that reviewing both the residential and commercial components at the same time would be more desirable. The Applicant's attorney responded that the Master Plan provides much more control over the scale than currently is in place, as well as information on general commercial uses. The Commissioners noted the intent of the PAD to take an otherwise undevelopable portion of land and craft a plan to use that property. Several applications were received over the last year with similar residential and commercial plans with residential developed first and no commitment to develop any of the commercial properties. The Applicant's attorney felt that as soon as this project is approved, there would be significant commercial development interest in this property. The Commissioners expressed the need to have faith the Applicant will follow through and the need to list the Commission's concerns to Zoning in the referral.
The Commissioners asked whether the Applicant had considered 10-20% work force housing as part of their development. The Applicant's engineer indicated they could not make any commitment at this time, but would be willing to discuss it.
A question was asked about whether this project would have any impact on the Hartford site. Town Staff did not have any specific information on that, but noted that currently there is an active rental market in the Hartford area, and until residential apartments are present, commercial businesses are unlikely to come in. The Applicant's engineer asked the Commission to write a referral to Zoning regarding whether this Application conforms to the POCD.
The Commissioners discussed the potential of dealing with the open space in a conservation easement. The Applicant's attorney indicated the property owner's intent was to restrict development of that land in perpetuity, maintaining it in an attractive, natural way, potentially in a conservation easement.
Regarding a lack of surveyed site lines and only using the U.S.G.S. map, Town Staff confirmed that the elevations would be within one contour plus or minus, and that specific elevations could be recommended, or a certain amount of ridge be visible below the base of the Tower. The Applicant's engineer felt the POCD description of views did not say that a building could never be placed above the ridgeline, but rather to make the visual experience more about the ridgeline than the building in front of it, and that is how they interpreted it. The Commissioner's noted on page 95, "Predominant Feature: an unobstructed view of the Avon Mountain ridge and signature Heublein Tower across a predominantly undeveloped meadow currently used as agricultural fields."; on Page 96, "Preserve continuous view of the existing natural vistas, particularly as one travels along the Hopmeadow Street corridor...". The Applicant's engineer responded they did that by dropping building height from 30 to 40 feet. Town Staff added that on page 93, it states, "3. Protect scenic roadside vistas to the Avon Mountain Ridge, access to recreational activities, and other natural areas..."; in balancing with other Town Commission inputs, e.g. Design Review Board looks at buildings typically with peaked roofs, if a building was not allowed to encroach into a view area under the POCD, you could end up driving the architecture to a flat roof. The Commissioners noted that the Applicant's presentation appeared to primarily follow the POCD Objectives listed on Page 99.
Regarding how much change in building height would trigger further review, Town Staff indicated that it might be for 10-20 feet, but what was presented to the Commission and approved on the Master Plan would be evaluated by Staff and that information provided to the Commission; the PAD provides the Commission a more enhanced role than for a site plan. Regarding identifying a contour and elevation, it was noted the ridgeline elevation changes, although the mountain is fairly flat. The Applicant's engineer explained that a point was picked and a cross-section created at that point with an attempt to pick averages and provide a balanced solution while maintaining the tax base and desired POCD characteristics. Town Staff noted in Parcel 1A the commercial buildings are in front of an existing stand of trees that would be required to remain by the Conservation Commission and continue to block the view; all the other buildings on the proposed plan are farther away. The Applicant's engineer explained that the proposed 39,000 sq. ft. building would have a flat roof and be taller for a business like a grocery store, but placed further back in the site it would not impact the view; another 1-story building set back further in the site would not be visible because of CL&P's pine trees. They noted iconic views are available in only a few locations along Hopmeadow Street; they also have an application with Wetlands for disturbing 1400 sq. ft. of low-quality wetland for that terminal view.
The Commissioners complimented the Applicant on the extent of their effort and comprehensive information provided.
Commissioner Rice made a motion that the Planning Commission given a positive referral to Zoning Application #14-37 for the property at 34 Hopmeadow Street contingent upon the comments that come up in the discussion; the motion will be amended after the discussion is done.
Commissioner Kulakowski seconded the motion.
The Commissioners discussed comments, including: 1) not further impeding the ridgeline view and that it would have been better if a subdivision came in with the PAD; 2) that the Zoning Commission consider a workforce housing component to get Simsbury on the path to complying with State requirements; 3) that the Applicant did an exemplary job pointing out the POCD bullet items addressed in the Master Development Plan, although not all Commissioners agreed with what could ultimately be built on these parcels in the PAD referral as it relates to the POCD; 4) a fixed reference point was suggested, although the intent would be to see above the roofs in future applications; 5) drawing up a list of recommended changes to the Master Plan including for changes in building placement and height, e.g. on page 99 for southern architecture; and 6) the need to refer to the POCD in the referral with a strong statement.
The Applicant recommended the open space on Rte. 10 for conservation easement and follow up in the subdivision application. The Commissioners discussed the definition of open space and public access; Town Staff clarified public access depends on the function of the open space with one type allowing public access, e.g. in a park; other open space areas may be owned by the Town with no public access that would allow people to walk through someone's backyard in a conservation easement. The Applicant's attorney indicated regulations provide for many types of open space to protect wetlands, forests, agriculture, to connect existing open space areas, for suitable recreational use, or left in natural undisturbed condition; and many things are looked at. Open space can be designated to serve one or more characteristics; for subdivisions, it is either deeded to the Town, or reserved as a conservation buffer or vegetation easement, or deeded to a nonprofit conservation organization, or deeded to a homeowners organization, or reserved as an agricultural easement for exclusive use of crop production. They suggested a conservation easement might be most appropriate and would be asking for the Commission's recommendation.
The Commissioners also commented on: 1) the goal of maintaining a consistent setback all along Rte. 10 so the ridgeline would never be obstructed as an iconic view and representation of the Town, and that placing commercial spaces in Parcel 1A does not comply with that intent; 2) that the Applicant was only concerned with the residential component, and not the commercial component while the PAD was passed as a comprehensive plan that an applicant would complete and this Applicant is only interested in the residential component and no involvement in the other two pieces. It was suggested that when these projects come in, they should be a complete package and already vetted for a commercial developer with timing and participants identified. It is not desirable to build out residential while the remaining property sits until the economy changes. While there was concern about so many unknown details, this project is much better, more attractive, and more viable than River Oaks; however, the Commissioners remained concerned about developers holding to the Master Plan. Town Staff will transmit the draft referral to the Commission prior to final submission to Zoning.
Amended points the Commission considered to be very important included: 1) that the ridgeline be preserved in accordance with the Plan of Conservation and Development, as shown on the Master Plan with the new lowered heights of the front buildings, and it cannot be emphasized enough how important the ridgeline is; 2) that the Applicant be encouraged to designate 10-20% of the units as work force housing; and 3) recommendation that the open space portion be Conservation Easement, rather than open space.
The motion was passed with 5 in favor and 1 opposed.
IV. COMMUNICATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Town Staff indicated the housing analysis for this Commission and the Zoning Commission is close to completion. It includes a number of housing market trends and graphs for the Hartford area and around the country and provides a lot of interesting information. It will facilitate that housing proposed and built is a long-term credit to the community. In the Stanford area, a lot of housing was built and now retail is coming back in and typically could be what will happen in this area in the next couple of years. Developments done carefully and sensitively will ultimately attract retail and two projects are expected to come in shortly.
Regarding the Pride stations, they are moving forward and awaiting some State approvals.
Commissioners Rice and Kulakowski attended CCROG's meeting on 9/16/2014 with primary discussion about the regional planning commission's role and boundaries. Referrals received by CCROG were reviewed. CCROG has increased from 30 to 38 towns due to population and housing. The Commission’s rotating CCROG participation was discussed and Commissioner Rice volunteered to attend for the rest of the year for continuity; each town has one representative, except for Hartford which has 3 as the region center; this CCROG is the largest one in the State. CCROG sent correspondence to the Town Planner requesting a member be identified to receive emails; the Chairman offered to be the alternate member. Venue changes were also discussed as the meetings are usually held in West Hartford which is a distance for some of the Town representatives to travel and may be limiting the presence of a quorum, as 19 members are needed to attend for a quorum.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Kulakowski made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Commissioner Drake seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
_____________________________
Mark Drake, Secretary