Members present: Chairperson Murtha, Susan Burnham, Edwina Futtner, Dwight Johnson, Donald Mercure, Marilyn Morrison, and James Murray
Members absent: Joseph Carino, Mark Lillis, and Krista Marchesseault
Alternates present: John Mitchell sitting for Mark Lillis
Roseann Williams sitting for Krista Marchesseault
Alternates absent: Michael Patitucci
Others Present: Craig Stevenson, Economic Development Consultant
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Chairperson Murtha called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Complete
3. NEW BUSINESS
Questions and Answers on Proposed Zoning Amendment for Multi-Family Housing at Evergreen Walk
Mr. Craig Stevenson, Economic Development Coordinator introduced Mr. Alan Lamson of FLB Architecture & Planning provided an overview of a proposed amendment to change the Buckland Gateway zone to include residential uses, (presentation Attached). Mr. Lamson discussed the evolution of the Evergreen Walk project and his client’s role. The concept envisioned by this zone change would allow for the development of a town square consisting of 70-75 thousand square feet of retail situated on one to two floors. Residential units would be available above commercial retail space, so called “live-work” units. One building would provide for an indoor recreational use. Retail shops, restaurants, café would surround a town green or town square that would have a gazebo as its focal point.
West of this town square area would be “brownstone style” residential buildings.
Mr. Lamson continued to explain that economically this type of development would further enhance the viability of the existing businesses and attract new ones. The target market for this residential market is young professionals either single or newly married without children. Evergreen Walk Associates LLC has paired with Bozzuto, a developer and manager of upscale Development Company and Bozzuto Homes, Inc.
Mr. Baum expressed that the company was excited to be part of this project and characterized it, as “this is what we do”. He described his company as a full services residential company that builds and manages upscale rentals units. Characterizing the communities as vibrant, he stated that the Town Manager and his staff have toured their properties and seen this first hand. Emphasizing the firms 20 plus year history, he noted that this type of mixed-use development works over the long term and based on their experience it can be successful in the Hartford area. The firm has already developed a project in Bloomfield at the former CIGNA site.
Mr. Lamson summarized the following points with regard to the proposed zone change language:
· A special permit would be required and enable the Planning & Zoning Commission (P & Z) to evaluate the merits of each proposed residential project, hold a public hearing and ask for special conditions.
· A maximum density of 11 units per acre would be set.
· Approximately 20% of the area would need to be reserved as open space.
· A minimum size of 25 acres is required but P & Z might desire a smaller number and the applicant is not opposed.
· A figure of 13.5% total land for residential in the Buckland Gateway Zone is in the language but this percent is expected to be less in the final language.
· All residential structure would need to adhere to the same basic design standards as the other uses in the Buckland Gateway Zone.
· Additional design standards would also be included such as the requirement to employ New England village themes and pitched roofs. Material would need to be clapboard, brick and native stone.
The approval process under the proposed language as described by Mr. Lamson:
1. Submit a preliminary plan for comment by P & Z and their staff.
2. Special Permit – optional public hearing.
3. Site Plan Approval.
4. Review of total number of units and phases in which these would be built.
Mr. Lamson stated that the fiscal impact evaluated and documented in a study prepared by Mullin Associates incorporated has been presented to the P & Z. The evaluation was conducted on a conceptual development of 25 acres, 378 units, 75 thousand square feet of retail space and 30 thousand square feet of recreational space. The study looked at various costs associated with the development including additional school children. It was estimated that the net tax revenue to the town, after costs, would be approximately $1.1 million. Mr. Lamson then concluded his presentation.
Mr. Mitchell inquired regarding the value of the land prior to the investment in real property. Mr. Lamson responded $10 million. He also inquired regarding the investment in real property. Mr. Lamson responded $83 million.
There was a question if the proposed project was bigger or smaller than the residential component for “Blue Back Square”? Mr. Lamson said it was bigger.
Ms. Burnham asked what percent of the residential would be in single use buildings? Mr. Lamson responded that of the conceptual 378 units, 92 would be in the “live-work” style or mixed uses. At Ms. Burnham’s request, Mr. Lamson explained that “live-work” units were shops on the first floor with the owner or operator living above.
Ms. Williams inquired about the number of stories and average size of each unit. Mr. Lamson stated that the building would be 3 stories or less and the average unit would be 975 square feet. The smallest would be studio type units. Costs for the rentals would start at $1400 per month. Ms. Williams wondered if the size would accommodate the needs of the target group. Mr. Baum assured that 40% of the units would be one-bedroom and larger units were not a plus for most in the target group.
Chairperson Murtha asked what is the square footage of a two-bedroom unit? The response was 1250 square feet. She also asked how many parking spaces there would be for each unit? The response was 1.75 spots on average for each unit.
Ms. Futtner asked about how cars would access the project? Mr. Lamson responded that driveway and curb cut would be extended to Tamarack Road.
Mr. Mitchell asked about the timing of the EDC’s recommendation and was told that any recommendation would need to come tonight to be helpful. Ms. Futtner noted that several Town Councilors have already taken positions as private citizens.
Ms. Morrison asked if there would be parking close by and elevators in the buildings? She was told parking would be close by and multi-story buildings would have elevators.
Mr. Mitchell asked if the proposed amendment covered the entire Gateway zone? This fact was confirmed and it was clear that both sides of Buckland Road could see residential development should be the amendment be adopted.
Chairperson Murtha stated that the Commission needs to discuss and make a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Craig Stevenson, Economic Development Consultant stated that the Commission should consider how this development will impact the community. Mr. Stevenson then explained that the project being proposed is a mixed use project which integrates business, retail and residential together. The key issue for success to this project is to have a strong pedestrian link between this project and Evergreen Walk. Presently the more viable projects are apartments versus condos.
Motion to: support appl. #06-42P – Evergreen Walk, LLC for a zoning amendment to section 5.8 to add multi-family residential use as a Special Exception use under certain conditions in the Buckland Road Gateway Development zone.
Was made by Commissioner Futtner
Seconded by Commissioner Johnson
The motion carried
The vote was as follows: 7 to 2 with Commissioners Murray, Mercure, Futtner, Mitchell, Johnson, Morrison and Murtha voting in favor of supporting this application, Commissioner Burnham voting in opposition of supporting this application and Commissioner Williams abstaining.
Mr. Craig Stevenson, Economic Development Consultant explained to the Commission that Mr. Peter DeMallie would like to come before the Commission to propose another amendment to the Gateway zone. This proposal is to develop a small retail grocery store. The Commission felt this could be discussed at the November meeting.
Motion to: cancel the October 25, 2006 regular meeting of the Economic Development Commission.
Was made by Commissioner Morrison
Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell
The motion: carried unanimously
4. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to: Adjourn the meeting at 7:39 p.m.
Was made by Commissioner Mitchell
Seconded by Commissioner Morrison
The motion carried unanimously
Respectfully Submitted,
_________________________________________
Deborah W. Reid, Recording Secretary
| 