Planning Commission Minutes 04/11/2017
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 11, 2017
MINUTES FROM REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman William Rice welcomed attendees and opened the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices; he thanked SCTV for recording the meeting. Also present were Jamie Rabbitt, Director of Planning and Community Development; Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
Chairman Rice led attendees in the Pledge of Allegiance
II. ROLL CALL
Commission members in attendance were: William Rice, Elizabeth Burt, Alan Needham, Robert Kulakowski, and Gary Lungarini
1. Appointment of Alternates
Chairman Rice appointed Elizabeth Burt and Gary Lungarini as regular members this evening.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the March 28, 2017 Special Meeting
Chairman Rice made a motion to accept the March 28, 2017 Minutes, as written.
Commissioner Kulakowski seconded the motion, and it passed with Commissioner Kulakowski abstaining.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Public Hearings
a. Application #17-01 of Dorset Crossing LLC, Owner, for the revision to the layout of the temporary cul-de-sac, resulting in the re-subdivision of the properties located at 115 Casterbridge Crossing (Assessor’s Map H04, Block 403, Lot 13A-G) and 130 Casterbridge Crossing (Assessor’s Map H04, Block 403, Lot 13A-D). Zone PAD. (public hearing must be closed by 05/02/2017)
Chairman Rice read Application #17-01 into the record.
Dave Zyacks, P.E., of F.A. Hesketh and Associates represented the Applicant. He described the proposed revision as a technical re-subdivision moving an easement and reconfiguring the roadway somewhat, with no lot changes. He showed a photo layout of the area, including: the Dorset Crossing public road constructed to Town standards with traffic light at Rte. 10, which comes to a temporary mini roundabout; Casterbridge Crossing public road extending southward past the special needs housing driveway; the Eastpointe apartment complex completed in 2016; the medical building built some years ago; and additional available PAD sites around the medical building. He focused for this meeting on the property portion south of Saxton Brook, which crosses back to River Bend’s property and back to Rte. 10 crossing under the highway through a culvert; and there two lots created by the right of way – 13A-D and 13 A-G. He recalled the master plan for this part of Town envisioned creating a new roadway across to Wolcott and cut across all the way through River Bend land. He indicated Casterbridge was built to Town standards as part of Dorset Crossing and they worked with Town Staff to upgrade its dead end building a temporary cul-de-sac allowing Town vehicle access; an easement put around the temporary cul-de-sac at the time was envisioned to be a temporary as the master plan calls for future extension of this road to Town standards with the cul-de-sac going away. He indicated developers have expressed interest in these lots, but the road is unattractive and not very functional; therefore, the Dorset developers would like to build the road to Town standards, extend sidewalks and utilities, change to a proper size box culvert, bringing everything up to Town standards. He continued this becomes a re-subdivision of lots A-D and A-G as they propose constructing the temporary cul-de-sac on A-D; extending the road to Town standards; putting in a new culvert at Saxton Brook; and moving the easement to this lot from the other lot, which they believe will be most attractive for the general layout of both lots. He noted approval was received from the Wetlands Commission for the crossing and culvert design; Staff reviewed the documents, and the Applicant is comfortable accepting the conditions for approval in the Staff reports. He indicated the advantage of flipping the cul-de-sac is that it opens up the lot much better, as it currently quickly necks down; this would simply flip the cul-de-sac to the other side and extend the road somewhat. He noted underground electric/communications stop at the special needs lot. The Applicant would like to the clean up these lots to make them more attractive to potential developers.
Commissioner Burt asked what is expected to be constructed on these lots and what their acreage is. Mr. Zyacks believed development would be mixed use – potentially more special needs housing and single buildings; and A-D is 2.84 acres and A-G is 4.54 acres.
Mr. Rabbitt reviewed Staff’s recommendation providing a draft favorable motion noting that the Commission can: 1) approve the subdivision; 2) approve the subdivision with modifications; or 3) approve the subdivision with conditions, which technically are modifications to an application. He continued that under the Statute the Commission is allowed to do a conditional approval and the primary purpose revolves around an Applicant’s ability to bond for the rating agencies; historically, the Commission would demand the Applicant have surety for the proposed public improvements, but about 4 years ago the Statute was changed to put that decision on the Applicant, who can choose to bond this project or not. He indicated that puts the Town/Commission in the position of approving a project with no surety the road would ever be built, but the land could transfer; therefore, Staff recommends a conditional approval, which allows the Applicant to receive Commission approval, but the mylars are stamped conditional, and until the conditions are met that conditional approval is not removed, and until it is removed the title to property cannot transfer; however, the Applicant can choose to post full surety for the public improvements and remove the condition, which protects the Town/Commission by assuring the public improvements are built prior to transfer. He noted a worst case scenario where both parcels sell and then someone asks when the Town will build the road for them. He understood the Applicant fully intends to build the road in a timely manner associated with potential property development, but the conditional approval protects the Town/Commission given the changes to the State Statute.
Chairman Rice noted the draft approval motion references the Town Engineer’s memorandum and asked about the Conservation Commission’s special conditions for their permit. Mr. Rabbitt responded that the Conservation Commission’s approval incorporated their standard conditions regarding pre-construction meetings, erosion/sedimentation control, grading, etc. and did not incorporate the Town Engineer’s comments. He explained the Town Engineer’s engineering minor technical drafting revisions are incorporated into this motion. Chairman Rice asked about the legal aspect of changing these lots. Mr. Rabbitt indicated that would be solidified in any land transaction when those plans are recorded, and along with them come easements and deeds. Commissioner Burt asked for clarification regarding who owns the road noting the property owner constructs the cul-de-sac. Mr. Rabbitt responded the Town owns the road in the present layout; the new layout requires the developer to give additional land to the Town to construct the road and there will be a title transfer with the road continuing to belong to the Town. He noted that for the Town to accept the new road layout under 8-24 the developer has to send it to the BOS and it will come back to the Commission to determine if the transfer of title is according to the POCD. Mr. Rabbitt clarified that the original road layout is within the existing deeded right of way given to the Town with a Q changing to a P, which is a slightly different shape resulting in a land transaction in the northwesterly quadrant. He explained the Town has already been deeded rights all the way to River Bend’s land; the new layout will provide the Town an easement for the purpose of this temporary cul-de-sac or to deed that land to the Town; it will likely be an easement because it is not intended to be permanent, but the Town would have rights to make improvements to it.
Chairman Rice invited public comment; there was no public comment.
Commissioner Kulakowski made a motion to close the Public Hearing for Application #17-01 of Dorset Crossing LLC, Owner, for the revision to the layout of the temporary cul-de-sac, resulting in the re-subdivision of the properties located at 115 Casterbridge Crossing (Assessor’s Map H04, Block 403, Lot 13A-G) and 130 Casterbridge Crossing (Assessor’s Map H04, Block 403, Lot 13A-D). Zone PAD.
Commissioner Lungarini seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
1. Applications
a. Application #17-01 of Dorset Crossing LLC, Owner, for the revision to the layout of the temporary cul-de-sac, resulting in the re-subdivision of the properties located at 115 Casterbridge Crossing (Assessor’s Map H04, Block 403, Lot 13A-G) and 130 Casterbridge Crossing (Assessor’s Map H04, Block 403, Lot 13A-D). Zone PAD. (decision must be rendered within 65 days of closing public hearing)
Chairman Rice read Application #17-01 into the record.
Commissioner Lungarini made a motion to use the verbiage from Attachment A of the draft motion of approval with conditions 1-8 in the text.
Commissioner Needham seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. Receipt of New Applications
a. None
2. Referrals
a. CGS 8-3a Referral to the Zoning Commission on Zoning Commission Application #17-13 of Andrew Quirk, Kratzert, Jones & Associates, Inc., Agent, for a proposed Text Amendment to Article Ten, Section E.3 of the Town of Simsbury Zoning Regulations, to permit the Zoning Commission to reduce the side parking setback by five (5) feet and require additional landscaping.
Chairman Rice read Application #17-13 into the record.
Mr. Quirk reviewed that they have been working with Staff on applications where there are particular parking area location regulations in the Zoning Regulations, and it was recommended they pursue a text amendment for review by this Commission and referral to the Zoning Commission. He continued that Article Ten, Section E.3 currently states that, “Parking spaces and circulation drives shall not be located within 25 feet of the front property line, or within 15 feet of the side property line, or within 10 feet of the rear property line.” He proposed inserting the text, “The Zoning Commission may reduce the side parking setback by 5 feet and require additional landscaping.” and would continue, “Where parking areas abut a residential zone, parking spaces and circulation drives shall not be located within the front, rear, or side yards.” He explained the purpose of the regulation change is only to the side setback, and does not apply to parking areas in abutting residential zones, but only where there are residential properties abutting each other on a common side property line; the 5-foot reduction would decrease the 15-foot setback to 10 feet and leave the Commission with the flexibility to determine how to handle additional landscaping, e.g. green space, screening or open space between properties, putting up a permanent fence, or the same quantifiable area be landscaped elsewhere on the property; it provides the Commission an option, but they do not have to grant it. He believed it could help with economic development of certain properties.
Commissioner Needham asked if this applied to commercial sites. Mr. Quirk responded it would apply to any non-residential zone; however, if it were a parking area abutting a residential zone, in addition to the 15-foot side setback, it would have to meet the more stringent side yard setback, which for general business is 25 feet from the property line, and this amendment would not allow for that reduction because it is abutting a residential zone. Commissioner Needham asked if a driveway at your residence abuts a residential property, whether it could be within 10 feet of a side yard. Mr. Rabbitt responded there are regulation inconsistencies; but the intent for a 40-acre commercial site with multiple tenants for setbacks within the site would mostly be a minimum of 10 feet between drive isles and parking spaces providing adequate space for a tree maturing to standard height. Mr. Rabbitt explained currently for an office complex it would have to be 15 feet from the property line, and the next property would have another 15 feet for a total of 30 feet, so for 2 small 2-acre sites with 100-200 feet of frontage there would be 30 feet between the 2 sites; however, for a larger parcel with multiple buildings, the code allows 10 feet. He indicated this amendment looks at a corridor, the nature of development, and what it abuts recognizing there could be 20 feet of landscaping between 2 properties, and if one landowner is required to put in street trees in his 10 feet, it does not negate the other landowner from putting in another row of street trees providing a double row of street trees. Mr. Rabbitt discussed the McKenzie Challenge which is consistency with any reduction of a standard having to be quantifiable; on the Zoning side they are trying to quantify where an applicant would be eligible for a reduction, which is difficult in Simsbury because there is no traditional landscaping standard – the Simsbury Zoning Code says, “The Applicant shall landscape their property.” – the difficulty is what does that mean, e.g. for a 1000-foot property line, an applicant is required to plant 50 trees and could be allowed a reduction if they planted 75 trees; the Commission would not be able to make the reduction without the support of something quantifiable; and as they rewrite the Zoning Code, they will attempt to make it more quantifiable.
Chairman Rice noted his experience that when text amendments are proposed, it is for a specific location. Mr. Quirk responded they began with a specific location at 1225 Hopmeadow Street; Mr. Rabbit noted that is the Wagner location with 5 paved difficult to identify property lines and owners sharing common asphalt. Mr. Quirk indicated discussions with Staff led to how to amend the regulation to make it more developable, e.g. for less efficient 45 degree parking, an additional 5 feet could provide more efficient 60 degree parking and improved traffic flow in the parking lot.
Commissioner Needham asked about aesthetics. Mr. Rabbitt noted that with 30 feet, you could have trees on each property; but if someone applied for a 5-foot reduction under the Code, they could be required to double the landscaping providing more aesthetics in 20 feet than for 30 feet; it would be in 5-foot increments and might be necessary for one property but not the other; the smallest reduction would be to 20 feet between 2 properties. Commissioner Burt noted that paving would be increased. Mr. Quirk responded that in this particular case it would be shifted with 2 solid end points, a building, and property line that would be maintained; existing parking would remain at 45 degrees and go deeper into the lot, but shifting to 60 degree parking would be more efficient with about the same amount of impervious area. Mr. Rabbitt explained that the regulation for impervious surfaces has a defined limit; this amendment potentially allows more efficient reorientation of a site.
Chairman Rice asked about potential negative affects if this text amendment is approved. Mr. Rabbitt responded it could be a Commission not requiring quantifiable increased landscaping for the 5-foot side yard reduction, or allowing a reduced amount of plantings, or not requiring understory or fencing; this relates to a Commission’s ability to follow through on regulatory requirements. Mr. Quirk commented it takes pressure off Staff having to look at a new building where there is existing paving and none of the regulations apply; this does not change the standard regulation, but provides the Zoning Commission with a flexible option.
Chairman Rice reviewed what sections of the POCD would apply; the consensus was that it should support community character and economic development. Commissioner Needham commented it makes some sense as a precursor to improving Zoning Regulations. Mr. Rabbitt’s experience was that most municipalities allow abutting commercial developments to put parking and drive isles within 1/2 a side yard setback with landscaping and/or screening between. He noted that for small sites the planned unit development of the regulations, which allow flexibility in the Zoning Code, cannot be used; planned unit development in the Code looks at larger sites. Chairman Rice expressed concern about allowing closer parking spaces on abutting non-residential properties, and the question is whether it impacts community character or economic development. Commissioner Burt was concerned about more parking resulting in more runoff. Commissioner Kulakowski commented and Mr. Rabbitt confirmed that this only affects the space between 2 parking lots and there is no change to maximum impervious space allowed on the site. Mr. Quirk commented for the particular site regarding community character, with the 5-foot option they may be able to keep/shift the building, whereas under the standard regulation it would likely result in taking the building down. Commissioner Burt suggested having wording to accent this would be an exception, and not the standard. Mr. Rabbitt noted in most commercial zone codes this type of regulation flexibility allows a reduction for 2 like venues and the Commission requires additional landscaping; this reduction maximum of 10 feet would be a fallback position for a site requiring better, not more, development.
Commissioner Lungarini asked if the quantifiable part would come from Zoning and they could require additional landscaping from the applicant. Mr. Rabbitt confirmed that and indicated “non-residential” is defined within Article Ten. Mr. Quirk added that the last sentence requiring parking areas to meet building setbacks would remain; parking spaces and circulation drives would have to be within the building setback framework, and for a business adjacent to a residential zone, the side yard setback is 25 feet from the parking field to the property line, but for a business zone, building and parking setbacks are less stringent. Mr. Rabbitt noted that the requested text amendment only affects side yard setbacks, or the space between the buildings parallel to the street. Commissioner Needham expressed concern about how this could be used in the future. Mr. Rabbitt explained if a building were placed sideways on a lot, its frontage would still be in association with the road; and if it were a corner lot, it would have two front yards; this text amendment only affects a building next to a building with a driveway and no street between them.
Chairman Rice made a motion of positive referral for Zoning Commission Application #17-13 that states that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development, if the Commission utilizes the new regulation to maintain or enhance community character or to improve economic development opportunities.
Commissioner Kulakowski commented that while he is not a big fan of text amendments, this should help the Zoning Commission by cleaning up some existing inconsistencies and provide them with flexibility regarding re-developing some existing Town properties; the proposed text amendment that they, “may reduce the side yard parking setback” allows them to say no; therefore, it is within this Commission’s purview to provide a positive referral. Commissioner Lungarini agreed.
Commissioner Kulakowski seconded the motion, and it was passed with 4 Commissioners in favor and 1 opposed.
VI. GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. POCD – Discussion of Draft (Glenn Chalder)
The Commission went into a general discussion with the consultant.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Kulakowski made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 pm. Commissioner Burt seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.