PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 21, 2004
SPECIAL MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman John Loomis called the special meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:06 p.m. in Room 106 of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Secretary Ernest Gardow, David Ryan, Ferguson Jansen and Joan Howard with Carol Cole arriving at 8:35 p.m. Also in attendance was Lou George, Chairman of the Economic Development Commission (EDC).
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Chairman Loomis appointed Joan Howard as alternate.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 14, 2004
Secretary Gardow motioned to approve the minutes as amended for December 14, 2004. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ryan and unanimously approved.
IV. DISCUSSION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOPIC
On a side note with reference to the revised Plan, Chairman Loomis indicated completed introductions were still needed for the Environment topic, which is nearly finished, as well as the Housing topic, both of which Commissioner Piecuch will be working on.
Commissioner Jansen read his recent email into the record concerning his suggestions for editing the Economic Development section. He indicated he would like to see the Economic Development chapter be placed first in the revised Plan. He would like to see the 1994 facts and figures retained and put side by side with the more recent data from the last 10 years for comparison and trending purposes. Thirdly, he indicated he agreed with both Chairman Loomis and Commissioner Mead’s view of deleting some of the cautionary references to land use and environmental issues. Later on in the meeting, Commissioner Howard questioned removing that balance that historically had been included in this section as to qualifications and considerations to be made in reference to economic development. Chairman
Loomis responded that he felt that balance is included in other sections of the Plan such as Environment and Preservation of Historic Resources. Finally, as previously suggested by Commissioner Mead, Commissioner Jansen would also like to see put in place some type of follow-up mechanism to the application process to seek feedback in a professional, compulsory and routine manner.
Beginning with the goal, Chairman Loomis suggested it should describe in a realistic way what is desired as far as the Town’s economic development in the next 8-10 years. He referenced his email of 12/17/04 that included a draft of the goal as well as other ideas, although not an exhaustive list, for possible inclusion in the Economic Development section.
Commissioner Ryan raised the issue of needing to create more commercial/industrial land in order to increase the tax base, citing two areas in particular: the triangle of land formed by West Mountain Road and Bushy Hill Lane across from Simsbury Commons and filling in some of the land along Iron Horse Boulevard as previously suggested by Commissioner Mead. Commissioner Ryan was relatively sure that the Inland Wetlands Commission can give permits to fill in wetlands if they find it to be justified. Lou George agreed but indicated it was a highly regulated process and that Mike Goman may have more answers on that topic.
From an Economic Development Commission (EDC) perspective, Mr. George agrees that the southwest corner triangle area should be in the Plan as something that should be looked at in terms of a zone change (as suggested in Scott Barnett’s 5/04 memo). There would be a need for stringent requirements for the zone change but the area is ultimately heading in that direction and the Town probably would be better off to plan for it. According to Mr. George, the EDC has also suggested, through the larger Center Zone proposal, simplifying the zoning categories. Chairman Loomis questioned whether mixed use, as defined by permissible use that would offer flexibility, would be appropriate in the particular areas suggested by the EDC in the 5/04 memo (i.e., north end of Route 10, Center Zone, the southwest
triangle area). Commissioner Ryan suggested that if a mixed use zone is permitted the potential is there for half of the houses to get bought out for commercial development and that might not be advantageous to the remaining residents. Mr. George sees it as defining the zones to include more items than they do as opposed to just ‘mixed use’. For example, within the Center Zone proposal they took a larger boundary and simplified the definitions of what could be allowed there (i.e., some housing, some retail, some professional office, etc.).
Staying on the Center Zone topic, Commissioner Howard indicated she would like to be better educated on the up and down sides of creating a Center Zone with mixed use. Historically, in-town residential use was discouraged as being not so desirable but more recently there is a recognition of the vitality that can be achieved through such use. There are places to do residential mixed use and places not to. Mr. George indicated that the Center Zone proposal does suggest encouraging pedestrian traffic living within the Center Zone. Commissioner Howard agreed that mixed use is great in the design phase but sees it as problematic when it comes down to actual implementation in terms of zoning regulations (i.e., setbacks, parking, lighting, etc.). Chairman Loomis suggested the Commission make broad
recommendations within the Plan as to what the outcomes should look like in terms of health, safety, welfare and other considerations. Zoning, and others, will then be charged with the details in the Implementation Plan. Commissioner Jansen agrees with changing to the natural boundaries for the Center Zone as well as allowing appropriate mixed use, including residential, retail and professional office there. He feels it would create a dynamic downtown.
Stretching the mixed use envelope a bit and unsure of its advantages or disadvantages, Commissioner Ryan proposed the idea of considering larger, multiple story developments of multi-family housing in an area such as Route 44, versus just a village type of mixed use with one apartment above a small shop. Secretary Gardow thought the Commission could be as creative as possible in putting together a plan to permit various development, including within the Center Zone, with approval dependent on a case by case evaluation. Commissioner Howard sees the case by case basis as a potential problem in that developers may want some assurance before presenting a proposal. Commissioner Ryan agreed they do need some sort of comfort level to proceed. Secretary Gardow indicated the pre-application
process would help that and Chairman Loomis stated that the Design Review Board may already serve some of that purpose of review based on a specific set of guidelines.
Mr. George indicated the EDC does serve a current role in seeking feedback from applicants, both prior to going through the application process and afterward, as well as acting as a resource for communication between a developer and the Town. Chairman Loomis suggested, and Mr. George agreed with the possibility of the EDC serving the role of closing the feedback loop and providing more routine, timely and formal feedback to the Boards and Commissions. Commissioner Ryan suggested using comparative evaluations (i.e., have developers compare their experience in Simsbury to other area towns) in order to avoid feedback that may be colored due to the fact that that developer will probably come before the Commission again in the future. Commissioner Howard was not sure about the comparative idea as area towns
are all set up differently. In Commissioner Jansen’s opinion, more honest information would be obtained if the evaluation were to go through an independent party such as the EDC or the First Selectman. Mr. George believes the EDC is able to, and currently does, get precise, straight-forward feedback and can provide that feedback to the Boards and Commissions. Chairman Loomis felt that a formal survey process would be one of the more important tactical ways in appearing to be accessible in terms of feedback and he is comfortable with the EDC being the clearinghouse for that.
Commissioner Howard suggested that the clearer the Planning Commission is with their expectations of various areas in Town in terms of development the more comfort or security developers will have coming through the process and the less haggling there will be over Special Exceptions. Chairman Loomis agreed, indicating that may be even more fundamental than the feedback process. Mr. George agreed with including in the Plan the suggestion for some sort of formal feedback being added to the application process, as well as a some type of pre-application process. He indicated that the feedback he has received has not necessarily been on the positive or negative decision itself given to the developers, but more the time it has taken to receive that decision. Commissioner Jansen suggested the Design
Review Board also be involved in the pre-application process as well. Mr. George indicated that another way of enhancing the process would be the designation of predetermined areas (i.e., Center Zone) that are set up in a fashion to provide for a very quick, efficient process to avoid getting bogged down in special exceptions. Per Chairman Loomis, it is still to be determined what the parameters will be with respect to the pre-application process and how that will look in the Plan.
Mr. George agreed with Chairman Loomis’ suggestion of emphasizing the importance of infrastructure readiness, particularly in communication calling it crucial to bringing in the new businesses. The EDC has seen that lack of infrastructure, especially access to the Internet, as a stumbling block for prospective businesses to actually come to Simsbury. Mr. George noted there will be a Verizon representative at their EDC meeting on 1/13/05 meeting (8:00 a.m., Main Meeting Room, Town Hall) to discuss downtown wireless zones and the associated costs, roadblocks and feasibility. The EDC also recommends looking at the Plan more frequently than every 10 years to keep up with the rapid changes in technology. The towns that move more quickly in reference to technology tend to attract the
businesses.
Moving through his list of possible ideas to include, Chairman Loomis asked for feedback on giving appropriate recognition to the roles of historic resources in economic development. Commissioner Howard agreed, and more specifically suggested adding a reference to adaptive reuse and the importance of recognizing and retaining a sense of place. Chairman Loomis agreed suggesting it gets back to the character of the different places within Simsbury (i.e., Tariffville). Commissioner Jansen suggested adding the idea of ‘cultural tourism’ and Mr. George agreed. Commissioner Howard proposed using language such as ‘connections, clusters and corridors’, to the extent that you can make connections to such things as area school activities, consider mutual uses of certain areas and then
cluster different businesses that would work to make a destination stop.
In reference to recognizing and meeting the needs of first-time home buyers, Mr. George indicated that through more of his own personal observation rather than complete analysis, there is not a large demand for first-time buyers. The various reasons for that include prices that tend to keep first-time buyers out, lack of a large condominium or rental housing stock, as well as the fact that first-time buyers tend to be younger couples with no children looking for many more social activities outside of work than Simsbury can provide.
Rather than putting Economic Development first as suggested by Commissioner Jansen, Chairman Loomis recommended the lead-in introduction and the first chapter, in terms of the content and setting the stage and tone of design and planning, should be first in order to set the broad stage and present a different thrust to the Plan. Commissioner Howard advocated for, and the Commissioners agreed with, putting Land Use first but then having Economic Development follow that. The Commissioners agreed with retaining the data from the 1994 Plan as well as with Commissioner Ryan’s idea of possibly making projections of where Simsbury hopes to be 10 years from now.
Lastly, the Commission discussed the idea of increasing the non-residential tax base from its current level of 15.5% to 20%. Chairman Loomis questioned whether the Town can actually plan and be confident of reaching that goal within a particular time period and who would be charged with that action item. Mr. George suggested many different things would need to be done over a period of time to reach the 20% goal, including expanding existing businesses, bringing in new development with greater tax advantages to the Town (i.e., active adult communities) and setting up particular areas and a process to garner more commercial/retail space. Commissioner Jansen encouraged setting realistic goals and working toward them even if they are not fully achieved. Commissioner Ryan thought it may not be a
reasonable target and the numbers may be skewed due to the large number of home-based businesses that most likely get taxed on a residential basis. Mr. George indicated the EDC sees their role as providing the necessary resources (i.e., support to the Library Business Resource Center) and infrastructure to help incubate a certain percentage of those home-based businesses to possibly expand to a point of needing office space or a retail front.
Chairman Loomis requested the Commissioners begin to draft the policies keeping in mind both the tentative goal and some of the various thrusts emerging from the discussions up to this point (i.e., emphasis on pre-application process, combining or keeping separate Planning and Zoning Commissions, and expanding the size of the Center Zone and creating more of a mixed use area).
V. COMMUNICATIONS
a. Report on Charter Revision Commission Meeting
Chairman Loomis handed out a copy of the information he presented at the meeting, which included a summary chart from 4th Quarter ’01 through 2004 breaking out the number of Planning Commission meetings, actual applications and what the particular applications pertained to. In his opinion, Chairman Loomis sees that the Zoning and Planning Commissions largely do have different missions, including the Planning Commission’s role of checks and balances. Per Chairman Loomis, Town Attorney Robert DeCrescenzo commented at the meeting that it doesn’t make much difference whether the commissions are combined or not, but rather it’s the people that are on those commissions. At the CRC meeting, Mr. Tom Vincent also advocated for keeping the commissions separate.
Commissioner Howard expressed her opinion that if the commissions were combined there would be a substantial loss of the planning function. Chairman Loomis indicated Attorney DeCrescenzo voiced the same opinion at the CRC meeting. Commissioner Cole agreed and shared that in her experience with a joint commission most of the lengthy planning discussions were left to independent consultants. She indicated given the fact that the idea is to have combined pre-application meetings and presentations the debate could go either way. Commissioner Ryan couldn’t help but feel that a combined zoning/planning commission would be quicker and more efficient. On the other hand, he referenced Bill Voelker’s previous comments that maybe two separate boards with two separate leaders is important, creating a sort of positive contention from a creativity standpoint. Secretary Gardow indicated that once the revised Plan is completed an additional major
responsibility of the Planning Commission will be in the development and follow-through of the Implementation Plan.
b. Discussion of January 2005 Special Meeting schedule (tentatively 1/18/05)
The following is a tentative schedule for January 2005:
1/4/05 Special Meeting, 6 p.m. 1/11/05 Regular Meeting, 7 p.m.
1/18/05 Special Meeting, 6 p.m. 1/25/05 Regular Meeting, 7 p.m.
Chairman Loomis will check with Mr. Voelker to see when Mike Goman is scheduled to come in to speak. In addition, Mr. Voelker has informed Chairman Loomis that a request has been made for a second 90-day extension of the filing of the mylar for the Tracy subdivision at 34 Old Farms Road, which needs to be voted on prior to 1/10/05.
VI. STAFF REPORTS
None.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Ryan motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:01 p.m. The motion was seconded by Secretary Gardow and unanimously approved.
| 
