 |
These minutes are for informational purposes only. For official minutes, please contact the Town Clerk's Office.
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 23, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
Pamela Katz, Acting Chairman, called the Regular Meeting of the Simsbury Planning Commission to order at 7:38pm in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Susan Bednarcyk, David Ryan, Ernest Gardow, Cynthia Carey, Ferg Jansen, and John Loomis. Also present was Richard Sawitzke, Town Engineer, and Leonard Tolisano, Senior Planner.
APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
None. Commissioner Katz informed the members that the First Selectman had asked Mr. Voelker for the calendar for the Plan of Development update. She said the next time she meets with Mr. Voelker, the calendar will be a topic of discussion, and must be finalized soon. Regarding the needed mailing lists, she said the Commission has the boards and commissions, and the PTO’s, and she will go to the Assessor for a list of property owner associations. The Town has the mailing information for the Watershed Association.
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN
Commissioner Gardow made a motion to nominate John Loomis for Chairman. Commissioner Bednarcyk seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Commissioner Gardow made a motion to close the nominations. Commissioner Bednarcyk seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, thereby electing John Loomis as Chairman. Chairman Loomis thanked the members, and thanked Commissioner Howard for her past service as Chairman of the Planning Commission. He expressed regret that she had chosed to vacate the postion of Chairman, yet he said he is looking forward to working together with the members and Town staff, stressing professionalism and cordiality in all proceedings. He stated his goal as Chairman is to provide a genuine sense of accomplishment for the Planning Commission, putting
together a Plan of Development that will do service to the town’s needs for the long run. Chairman Loomis asked Commissioner Katz for her assistance regarding certain procedural issues, and said he will lean on all the members’ experience, know-how and goodwill as he tackles the learning curve of accepting the position of Chairman. The members uniformly expressed their support and confidence in Chairman Loomis as he takes on this role.
REQUEST FOR 90 DAY FILING EXTENSION, WAYNE BURSEY 24 FERRY LN
Chairman Loomis said that two 90-day extension periods may be granted, and this would be the first for Mr. Bursey. It is a formality for Mr. Bursey to make the request and the Commission should approve it. Commissioner Katz made a motion to grant the request for a 90-day filing extension for Wayne Bursey, 24 Ferry Lane. Commissioner Gardow seconded the motion. Commissioner Gardow asked for clarification as to whether the extension was needed to meet the septic field requirements, and Commissioner Loomis said his understanding was that it was needed for the actual septic construction. The motion to grant the request for a 90-day filing extension passed unanimously.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 2002
Page 2
DISCUSSION OF PRE-PLANNING FOR PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
Transportation – 1994 Implementation Guide
Mr. Sawitzke began the discussion by providing some background information. He said the last 8-10 years have been characterized by modest to low traffic growth, with the traffic spreading out and travel patterns changing throughout the work day so that there is no significant “rush hour”. No new highway is needed to add lanes, but in the future they can look at other issues like placement of driveways, spot improvements at certain intersections, and alternative transportation. Simsbury has good express bus routes, and the town has maintained its commuter lots and acceptable ridership. There is a good transportation maintenance program (and pavement maintenance), but funding for this has been reduced recently due to reduced state grant funding. This may be an issue in the future. Virtually all highways have been repaved and maintained/improved with respect to things like drainage, etc. The town has done a good job on access management issues, which is positioning of driveways,
shared driveways, etc. This will continue to be a critical issue going forward. There is a good tree warden program, and there have also been some planting programs to maintain the tree cover.
Chairman Loomis then directed the discussion to a review of the 1994 Implementation Guide. He asked the members to consider if the goal serves its purpose as written or needs to be updated. He also suggested considering an economic development aspect to be addressed in the goal. This prompted consideration of how to improve Simsbury’s access to Bradley Airport, including improving the traffic flow through Tariffville, since access to the airport would strenghten economic development. The consensus was that the goal could be reworked to include an economic development element, which might affect future decisions regarding transportation. In Policy One, the Commissioners talked about proposing additional areas for stops/destinations for bus service. Commissioner Gardow pointed out
that Objective A says “expansion” of bus routes, and he suggested naming specific additional destinations at the end of the objective. Mr. Sawitzke suggested in Objective C to change the focus to special event parking and commuter bus pick-up points. Objective B was viewed as still valid, and in Objective D, it was suggested that the sentence should end after “car pools.” Objective E was viewed as redundant, and may be able to be eliminated from the new Plan. Objective F may also be eliminated.
Policy Two and its objective were viewed as being good with respect to grant applications, and should be maintained. Policy Three was generally discussed. Chairman Loomis pointed out that the section has no real mention or consideration for economic development all the way through Policy Three. He questioned whether it would be useful to include economic development aspects earlier in the section. In Policy Four, Objective A-1, the studies mentioned were reviewed. The West Mountain study has been done, and Mr. Sawitzke said the Great Pond study is not a priority and can probably be taken out. The Bushy Hill/Stratton Brook study has not been done and should be left in. The Hoskins/Ely/Hopmeadow study has funding pending and should definitely be left in. Mr. Sawitzke
suggesting adding the intersection of Rt. 185 and Nod Road to be studied since this is an important gateway area. Objective A-2 should stay, but should have “improve access to Bradley” added. Objective A-3 should stay, but A-4 is redundant and can be eliminated. Objective A-5 might be reworked to add something about a “digital corridor”,
Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 2002
Page 3
referring to high-speed cable lines, etc. Policy Four, Objective B, was viewed as a good place to address economic development. It was agreed that this objective should be examined more closely in the future to determine the exact language and how it should be reworked to relate to economic development. In Objective B, it was agreed that reference to the Griffin Line should remain. Objective C was considered to remain viable, since access management is a big issue and Hopmeadow Street is important enough by itself to warrant special attention.
Policy Five was examined. Objective B is in the Plan for funding purposes but should be updated since the items mentioned specifically have all been done. In Objective C, it might be useful to add regional commuter bus or rail service. Nothing has been done on Objective D since 1994, and should be examined in the future to determine its usefulness. Generally, all the objectives for Policy Five were seen to need updating to be done upon subsequent review. In Policy Six, Objectives D and E can be taken out. Objective F should probably say “support” rather than “study”. For Policy Seven, it was suggested that this might be a good place to insert some of the recommendations in the Charette document. Mr. Sawitzke is going to check on Charette
recommendations regarding median striping on Hopmeadow for traffic calming, etc. It was felt that Objective B was useful but belonged in another area of the section besides Policy Seven; it was suggested this objective could be added as an additional objective under Policy Four. Under Policy Eight, it was suggested to insert “and bicycle” with respect to sidewalks. For Objective A, it was agreed this should be strengthened and it should define specifics. Objective C should perhaps refer to the Charette document if it remains. The issue of sidewalks should be revisited in more detail later.
Report from Subcommittee on Invitation Letter
The subcommittee members presented copies of a draft letter for the Commission’s review. It was discussed as to whether there would be an initial letter and then a follow-up letter, and whether the calendar should be attached to any of the letter(s) sent. It was suggested that Boards and Commissions receive copies of the Land Use Map and Implementation Guide with the letter, and other individuals be instructed as to where to reference these items for their review. Commissioner Bednarcyk also suggested including the CRCOG definition of the Plan of Development with the letter. Chairman Loomis said the calendar and letter will be on the agenda for the next meeting to be held September 10, 2002. He said there needs to be progress made on the letter before that meeting. It was agreed
that the members would review the draft letter and provide comments within a week (by July 30, 2002). Commissioner Jansen will email the letter to the members so they can rewrite/review it and return their comments to him for preparation of another draft. Chairman Loomis said the Commission will need to approve the letter and calendar by/at the September 10th meeting. He said he will email a draft of the calendar to the members by the end of August.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner Bednarcyk said the July CRCOG meeting was cancelled, but she faxed the questions that were generated at the July 9th meeting, and is waiting for a response. She will bring the answers to the September 10th meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 2002
Page 4
STAFF REPORTS
None
CORRESPONDENCE
None
NEW APPLICATION(S)
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of June 25, 2002 and July 9, 2002
Regarding the minutes of June 25, 2002, on page 2, the last paragraph, line 8, the slang usage, “…into a couple concise…” should be replaced with the word several. On page 3, paragraph 1, line 11, “…there importance” should read their. Commissioner Gardow moved to approve the minutes of June 25, 2002 as corrected. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Regarding the minutes of July 9, 2002, Commissioner Katz moved to approve the minutes of July 9, 2002 as presented. Commissioner Gardow seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Jansen moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:44pm. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
____________________________
Pamela Katz, Secretary
| |
