Design Review Board Minutes
April 1, 2008
Special Meeting
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Dahlquist called the special meeting to order at 5:32 PM in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Kevin Gray, Charles Stephenson, John Carroll, Mark Naccarato, Anthony Drapelick, Richard Schoenhardt, William Gardner and Rita Bond. Also present were Mr. Hiram Peck, Director of Planning, and Alison Sturgeon, Commission Clerk.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
No alternates were needed. Chairman Dahlquist stated that the alternates would not be taking part in the vote tonight.
III. DISCUSSINO OF, AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON, APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO TOWN OF SIMSBURY ON FEBRUARY 19, 2008 BY INFINITY IV, LLC, OWNER, AND STANLEY GLANTZ, KONOVER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AGENT, ON A TEXT AMENDMENT - ADOPTION OF PDD ZONE.
Chairman Dahlquist stated that this is a continuation from the March 25, 2008 meeting. He stated that he has written a draft memo, which was distributed for the Board's review. He wrote this for the Board to follow in their discussions.
Commissioner Schoenhardt stated that he would like the Design Review Board to be proactive and positive regarding this recommendation rather than being negative. This process has been worked on for a long time and he feels that they should have a positive contribution to this process. He suggested that they modify language in a positive way instead of stating why each item is not sufficient. Chairman Dahlquist stated that the Design Review Board is being asked to evaluate "up or down".
Commissioner Stephenson stated that after reading all of the correspondence, he feels that Dwight Merriam's letter was a good analysis. He also feels that the 9/25/07 correspondence to the Zoning Commission from the Planning Commission also deals very well with the application. He feels that most everything has been stated quite clearly in these two correspondences. He does feel that there are some items that need to be resolved, although he is strongly in favor of having a regulation in place that allows mixed-use in Simsbury.
Chairman Dahlquist read each section of his draft memo and asked for comments, questions, additions, deletions or corrections from the Board members.
Regarding "sustainability", Commissioner Schoenhardt stated that he would like it to read, "that the proposed PDD shall assess the following long-term…" . He feels that all of these items should be converted to a positive direction to be made part of the PDD, which would be more beneficial.
Commissioner Gardner stated his concerns regarding the proposal, which he feels is very vague. The Board has a very limited understanding of how the whole thing fits together. He questioned how a PDD could be put together without a project, and how there could be a project without a PDD. He feels that they need to go together in order for an applicant to come forward with a total package.
Commissioner Schoenhardt stated he thought the design criteria section of the proposed PDD was very good in terms of outlining the criteria that would be used to evaluate whether the PDD should be approved or not. Chairman Dahlquist stated that a lot of those criteria came from a checklist that was developed by the Design Review Board in terms of the way of looking at mixed-use development from a Design Review standpoint. He stated that he feels the proposed PDD fails to make distinctions between different projects in different locations.
Commissioner Stewart commended everyone on their efforts, although he feels that more work is still needed to get Simsbury where they want to be. Although more work needs to be done, the ultimate goal is to have a document that can be applied to Simsbury.
Commissioner Gray made a motion that the Design Review Board finds the Konover Development Corporation Planned Development District Zoning Text Amendment, dated: February 19, 2008, incomplete and generally inconsistent with the objectives and standards contained within the Guidelines for Community Design and therefore recommends to the Zoning Commission that this Application NOT BE APPROVED as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gardner.
The Motion was upheld by a unanimous vote for the following reasons:
GENERAL CONTENT
Intent, Purpose and Process
" The proposed PDD in general does not offer sufficient specificity or clear regulatory language to adequately define the physical expectations for the development with predictability
" The proposed PDD does not draw correlations between a distinct physical settlement and its surroundings such as pre-existing commercial development, residential uses or open space used for agriculture, recreational or environmental protection purposes
" The proposed PDD does not reference specific measurements or benchmarks to clarify and facilitate evaluation of regulatory compliance for any of the parties involved in the process
" The proposed PDD does not identify a specific style or pattern of development considered appropriate in terms of density, scale and character by broad consensus for specific areas
" The proposed PDD does not reference public policy decisions as manifested in the 2007 Plan of Conservation and Development or recommended design standards in the Guidelines for Community Design
" The proposed PDD does not adequately define what "enhanced public participation" entails beyond a public hearing
" The proposed PDD does not adequately provide for additional referrals from Land Use Commissions and Boards to the Zoning Commission in the event of significant modifications to the approved Master Site Plan
" The proposed PDD does not draw adequate distinctions between Intent and Purpose but relies on generalized provisions that constitute "good practices" rather than regulatory requirements
" The proposed PDD does not attempt to assign any form of measurement or standards to determine degree of compliance within the Intent and/or Purpose sections
" The proposed PDD does not offer specific regulatory directives in lieu of undefined terminology such as "enhanced" or voluntary suggestions such as "encourage" when addressing "conservation of natural features" or "opportunities for energy efficient development"
" The proposed PDD does not specify the evidence required for approval or by whom when stipulating General Requirements such as "efficiency of land use" or "hierarchy of public space" to name only two of the fourteen items listed
" The proposed PDD does not address phased construction alternatives including requirements for a schedule that balances and maintains proportionality of approved mixed-use components
" The proposed PDD does not make provisions controlling the development outcome surrounding any zone change to a site if the project is not completed
Applicability
" The proposed PDD does not identify sufficient criteria for appropriateness and/or compliance in areas potentially designated for a "floating zone" landing beyond the five pre-determined locations
" The proposed PDD does not identify sufficient practical criteria for selection such as road access, utility services, topography, and locations to schools, shops, and services
" The proposed PDD does not identify applicability where there is a broad consensus that higher-density mixed-use development is both appropriate and desirable
" The proposed PDD does not establish a relationship between "Locational Criteria" and parcel size and/or build-out intensity
Uses and Use Areas
" The proposed PDD does not stipulate the range of uses maximizing the interactions among complementary uses and minimizing the adverse impacts of different uses upon each other
" The proposed PDD does not address the possible occurrence of nonresidential uses in areas designated for residential use either intentionally or unintentionally
" The proposed PDD does not adequately define what other "Prohibited Uses" may be beyond the vague reference to "only uses which are necessary and accessory to the permitted uses"
" The proposed PDD does not recognize any conditional uses that may be beneficial
" The proposed PDD does not draw distinctions between particular types of mixed-use development as a function of the percentages of the various components and development size such as regional centers, town centers, neighborhood centers or residential centers
Development Standards and Density Determination
" The proposed PDD does not address development standards that relate to mixed-use size and density to ensure a minimum mass for viability or prevent a larger development from failure until a successful track record in mixed-use design has been achieved
" The proposed PDD does not establish suitable land yield capacity or base development density by utilizing a formula such as Adjusted Tract Acreage or similar calculation
" The proposed PDD does not incorporate any discernible standards for retail, commercial, central residential, land conservancy or residential development
" The proposed PDD does not relate overall development size to a particular parcel size in terms of density and build out
" The proposed PDD does not adequately address the important relevancy for building configuration and disposition in a "floating zone" with a simple height cap of 45 feet or 4 stories or even the less definitive "lesser height … needed to protect abutting properties from adverse impact"
" The proposed PDD does not adequately define "coverage" or address the relationship between particular site soil and drainage conditions as referenced by accepted standards and the stipulated 60% as-of-right proposed
" The proposed PDD does not address placement of open space as a relevant and important design determinant in the site design
" The proposed PDD does not clearly define "Street and Block Metrix" nor allow for unambiguous interpretation of "external perimeter" as it relates to different mixed-use areas within the development such as storefront and residential
" The proposed PDD does not adequately address form and spatial conditions relating adjacent buildings when defining large retail format structures strictly in terms of surface treatments
Design Standards
" The proposed PDD does not offer specific and clear guidance to an applicant toward a desirable physical configuration with any degree of predictability
" The proposed PDD does not define the overall development form including:
" Siting new construction as to best preserve natural vistas and existing topography
" Designing to allow open space to follow the natural features whenever possible and to maintain an agricultural, woodland or countryside character
" Establishing a well-defined edge to the core center such as utilizing open space buffers
" The proposed PDD does not define "block" design sufficiently including:
" Requiring traditional net-like patterns of roads, alleys, and pedestrian ways to fit a particular scale of development
" Making distinctions between block sizes as relating to the use such as storefront or residential and not one maximum size
" Creating designs for traffic calming
" The proposed PDD does not specify retail, commercial, central residential, conservancy or residential standards for approval
" The proposed PDD does not address streets, sidewalks, shade trees, landscaping and parking standards for approval
" The proposed PDD does not sufficiently define the "density bonus" allowing one additional story of undetermined commercial floor area in trade for every story of structured parking
Community Impact and Integration
" The proposed PDD does not require impact assessments based on the proposed development intensity including but not limited to:
" Pre-existing (nearby or abutting?) residential developments
" Pre-existing (nearby or abutting?) business developments
" Existing infrastructure capacity, either existing or proposed.
" Existing (and or historic?) Town center(s).
" Future plans for connections and integration by vehicle, mass transit, bicycle or other method of transport.
Sustainability
" The proposed PDD does not assess the (foreseeable) long term impacts regarding:
" Local economic impact including standards and applicability
" Longer term community interests
" Long range, but quantifiable environmental impacts
Definitions and Illustrated Principles
" The proposed PDD does not include definitions of terms proposed for regulatory use
" The proposed PDD does not incorporate graphic information useful to illuminate complex requirements
" The proposed PDD does not reference any other sources as widely accepted textual and/or graphic standards
Commissioner Gray stated that, although he made this motion, he is in favor of a PDD, but the process is just not working.
Commissioner Stewart stated his concerns regarding an applicant having to go through this process. He does not feel that they are serving the community properly if they continue with this process in this way.
Commissioner Drapelick questioned if Konover answered all of the DRB's concerns, would they have a PDD. Commissioner Naccarato stated that he feels the applicant is half way there in terms of the minimum criteria they would need to address. He stated that there are also the site specific issues that also need to be addressed. As a concept, the PDD is something that Simsbury wants and will be beneficial to the Town.
The motion regarding not to approve the Konover Development Corporation Planned Development District Zoning Text Amendment was unanimously approved.
Commissioner Carroll stated that if he got a chance to vote, he would have voted with the majority. He stated that he has done a lot of research regarding this. At their last meeting, they decided that they would look at the Design Review area of responsibility. He has looked into this. All of the commentaries have been the same; that it is very difficult to put everything together to make it work. He stated that there are 3 documents that give the DRB the opportunity to look at an application for a multi-use property, which are: DRB Guidelines; Village Section of the Statutes; and the POCD. He stated that the reason this is so difficult is because they are concerned about a floating PDD.
Chairman Dahlquist thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and for all of their input. He stated that there would be more discussions regarding this. There is clearly an interest in Simsbury to have a mixed-use type of regulation.
Commissioner Bond stated that she is the newest member on this Board and does value everyone's comments. She stated her concerns regarding the Town not providing guidelines for developers, which is forcing the developers to put something together. She urged the Working Group to reconvene and write a PDD. She feels that the leadership should come from the Town. Chairman Dahlquist gave the history of the Town's involvement in writing the PDD and that the Town's work was suspended when the application came forward.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Gray made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:15 p.m. Commissioner Naccarato seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
| 
