MEMBERS PRESENT: Patrick Kennedy, Bart Pacekonis, Mario Marrero, Viney Wilson, Elizabeth Kuehnel
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Kevin Foley, Gary Pitcock
STAFF PRESENT: Michele Lipe, Town Planner
APPLICATIONS TO BE OFFICIALLYRECEIVED: None
PUBLIC HEARING/COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Kennedy called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner K. Foley to sit for D. Sorenson and G. Pitcock to sit for W. Carroll
Commissioner B. Pacekonis read legal notice.
1. PZC sponsored public hearing to review Section 6.5 Signs—to gather community
input as to effectiveness of existing regulations.
Michele Lipe gave a Planning Department Report regarding sign regulations.
“There are a couple of sign issues that recur with some frequency that we would like to bring to the PZC attention and should be addressed.
Areas where we encounter difficulties include:
Temporary signage for non-profit organizations. We currently allow temporary signage for non-profit organizations, up to 90 days before an event and temporary signs of any size are allowed provided they have the property owner signatures. We have run into issues where these signs are not really for an event – rather just advertising an organization and the signs end up on many street corners. We would suggest limiting these signs to 60 days – usually adequate time for announcing an upcoming event – and property owner signature acknowledging the location of the sign.
Temporary signage for businesses. We currently allow temporary signage for businesses on their property to advertise a special event. We allow this to occur 6 times a year, up to 15 days with each event. Often we find that the businesses put up multiple signs of multiple sizes – often covering the lawn with signs. We would suggest limiting these signs to a certain number of signs and/or limiting the total square footage of temporary signage allowed.
Building signage. With the 2007 signage update, the PZC reduced the size of building signage from 3 sf each linear frontage to 1 sf for most signs in the industrial and commercial zones. I have attached a picture showing what that size of sign looks like under the current regulation.
The PZC might want to consider increasing that to 1.5 sf or 2 sf per linear frontage or give some consideration to allowing the size to be increased for visibility based on a certain distance from the roadway, e.g. 25% increase if over 200 feet from roadway.
Sign embellishment provision. This is a section that was added in 2009 and we have found several businesses interested in taking advantage of it because it allows them to get more square footage of signage, and allows the sign to be taller. We have mixed success with the regulations and have not always been comfortable on signing off on some of them at the staff level. We would like to add a provision to refer such signs the Architecture and Design Review Board for review.
I have reviewed the types of variance request that we have seen over the few past years. One request had to do with square footage for a building sign. This business has only 16 linear foot of building frontage – and would only be allowed a 16 sf building sign. The applicant received a variance fro a 26 sf sign. The Commission may want to consider some minimum size sign allowed on a building to ensure visibility of the business (i.e. minimum of 24 sf building sign).
Other variance requests were related to allowing additional free standing signage on a property where there were multiple businesses operating out of multiple buildings. The current regulation only allows one free standing sign per lot.
The other type of signage the PZC will have to consider how they want to permit: Advertisement signs on bus shelters. The CT Bus Transit is proposing a bus-shelter program and the cost of the maintenance would be covered by selling advertisement on the side of the shelters. The current proposal would consist of (2) two 4’ X 6’ signs at each location that would be managed by CT Transit.”
Public Comment
Jim Throwe, 1330 Main Street, spoke in favor.
Peter DeMallie, 425 Sullivan Avenue, spoke in favor.
Cary Prague, 60 Krawski Drive spoke on the advantage of having temporary signs for business. He stated it increases business and suggested increasing days for temporary signs. Businesses need signs to remind residence the business that are available in South Windsor and the service they provide. He expressed concern about lawn signs because drivers cannot read everything put on them.
Dick Kelly, 49 Rosemary Lane, discussed the location of some businesses and because of the location being set in from the road they need signs along the road frontage. He stated the signs are affective and businesses need the help.
Sheryl Haraghey, of Frame Designs at 1720 Ellington Road, has been in town for 16 years. She stated having temporary signs makes a difference for her business. Instead of restricting temporary signage, she would like to see it more relax. Also, some locations need special consideration as to the height allowed because of the slope of the land.
Commissioner Pacekonis read letter, submitted by T. Berstene, into the record. (Exhibit A).
Commissioner Marrero recommended a subcommittee to review all the suggestions presented at the public meeting.
Commissioner Pacekonis would welcome a subcommittee to review the regulations; but stated he is also concerned with too many temporary signs being posted on a site.
Public Hearing Closed —8:05 PM
- PZC sponsored amendment for the Buckland Road Gateway Development
zone—amendment to the Definitions and Section 4.2.15 Specific Requirements for Multifamily Residential Use to modify the criteria for mixed use developments with this zone.
Commissioner B. Pacekonis reviewed the regulation changes proposed by the subcommittee. (Exhibit B)
Michele Lipe provided the following Planning Department report.
- Request for amendment to Section 5.8 of the zoning regulations to change the conditions under which limited multifamily residential use is allowed by Special Exception in the Buckland Gateway zone. The current regulations allow residential use; however, it must be contained within a building with commercial uses. The proposed changes allow for the mixed use to be proposed in separate building, but at the same ratios as previously required.
- The Future Land Use section of the Town Plan of Conservation and Development includes a statement that, “Mixed uses, designed to replicate a more traditional way of life, may be appropriate in some areas such as the Buckland Road Gateway Development Zone.” The proposed amendment is thus consistent with the Town Plan. A well-integrated housing component can add a number of valuable traits, including:
- the ability to walk to work, shopping, dining and recreation;
- “eyes on the street,” neighbors watching out for the area at all times, including after business hours;
- another type of housing choice that does not currently exist in South Windsor and will appeal to corporations that have a choice of prime sites to construct their offices.
The key to a successful housing component in a mixed-use area is the complete integration of the housing itself into the rest of the development, with very strong pedestrian interconnections throughout the site. It would not be particularly desirable to have scattered multi-family developments that are not part of a mixed-use community spread out over the Gateway Zone. Mixed-use by its very definition includes several different uses.
- If this amendment is adopted as proposed, there is no proposed change to the maximum of 200 residential units within the approximately 400 acres that comprise the Gateway zone. Staff note that, if the Commission does adopt this amendment and is then satisfied with the results after one or two projects are constructed, the cap could be raised similar to the raising of the SRD cap after the first successful SRD projects.
- The Capitol Region Council of Governments has reviewed the proposed amendment as required. CRCOG provided the following report:
The Capitol Region Council of Governments finds no apparent conflict. “The staff of the Regional Planning Commission of the Capitol Region Council of Governments has reviewed this referral and finds no apparent conflict with regional plans and policies or the concerns of neighboring towns.”
If this amendment is approved, the Planning Department has no recommended approval modifications.
Chairman Kennedy asked for public comments.
Public Comment:
James Throw of 1330 Mains Street spoke in favor of the upscale apartments as he feels it is important to Evergreen Walk to have the upscale apartment.
Chris Smith, attorney with Shipman & Goodwin LLP, presented a packet relating to the proposed modification of criteria for mixed use development on behalf of the Evergreen Walk, LLC. (Exhibit C) In May 2007, it was suggested mixed use developments in the Gateway Development Zone but changes must take place in order to move forward due to today’s economy. Attorney Smith reviewed the history of the housing amendments and current approval of housing for Evergreen Walk. He commented that the hearing tonight was about changes to the existing regulations that would make the housing component a viable project. He introduced Mr. Goman to discuss the economic impact of this type of project.
R. Michael Goman, CRE—Counselor of Real Estate, SCSM, SCLS Goman & York Property Advisors, LLC submitted an Opinion (Exhibit D) regarding a plan to locate commercial uses on the ground floor of certain residential buildings at Evergreen Walk.
His conclusion is that Buckland Road Gateway Development Zone does not possess the fundamental attributes necessary to support the successful development of such a configuration as currently approved (commercial uses on the first floor with residential uses above). The Gateway Zone does not possess the population density, vehicle traffic or daytime employment which is required for the successful development of this type of configuration. Additionally, it is unlikely that acceptable financing could be obtained for the configuration due to current market conditions. The lenders do not like to provide funding for mixed use projects.
Attorney Chris Smith asked Mr. Goman to compare the Storrs project and Blue Back Square to Evergreen Walk. Mr. Goman emphasized the differences were related to those areas having the necessary population density, traffic counts and employment centers. He also indicated that the Storrs project is helped with the amount of public financing that is being put into the project.
Matthew Galligan, Town Manager of South Windsor, stated that he has been working with the developer during these tough economic times. Economic development starts at town level not Federal or State. Towns can move developments forward and the Town of South Windsor has been very successful and is a leader in the State of CT. He finds that when trying to bring a national business into town, they often look for hotels and apartments to accommodate executives and/or temporary workforce. He feels the town has a real opportunity here and asked the commission to support this change. We need this energy and this will bring other types of development.
Peter DeMallie of Design Professionals, Inc was a member of the subcommittee and supports the proposed changes.
Cary Prague, 60 Krawski Drive, spoke in favor of the amendments. He supports the building of apartments and believes that apartments will not be slums in the future. South Windsor needs this type of housing and thinks it will help keep young people here.
John Pelkey, 81 Norman Drive, spoke in favor. He stated that he is a landlord of condo units and has been renting one of those units for 20 years. There is a demand in South Windsor for rental apartments. He has never been without a renter for more than a few days. It’s a good thing for this town. The town center will benefit.
Dick Kelley, 49 Rosemary Lane, spoke in favor of the amendments. He asked the commissioners to require sidewalks to connect South Windsor. There are too many sidewalks that go nowhere.
Alan Lamson, of FLB Architecture served on the subcommittee. He stated financing for mixed use buildings is not successful and supports the amendment that will allow residential buildings without commercial on the first floor. He stated the proposed regulation requires sidewalks and interconnections to be made throughout the site to support pedestrian and biking activities. He noted that the architectural requirements have not changed.
Joe Kennedy, member of the Economic Development Commission, strongly supports the Gateway Development proposed amendments.
Chairman Kennedy asked Commissioner B. Pacekonis to read into the record a letter submitted by Edwina Futtner, a strong supporter (Exhibit E). Commissioner B. Pacekonis also, read a letter submitted by Audrey Wasik in support of the zoning change (Exhibit F).
Commissioner Pitcock asked about a bus service. He also asked about the height requirement. Lipe responded that bus service is available along Buckland Road. She indicated that the current height allowance was 60 feet and was not proposed to be changed.
Commissioner Marrero asked about 4.2.2 definition. Lipe clarified that the definition is proposed to be added to the regulations.
Chairman Kennedy asked Goman about the economics of the financing. Goman stated that financing residential is not hard, but financing the commercial under residential is difficult. An attempt to have commercial on the first floor does not work. Without the population density these projects do not work. They are not successful.
Kennedy asked about the impact of the Manchester population being close to the area. Mr. Goman said that it’s not enough density.
Kennedy asked if this was the situation in 2007 when this project was originally approved. Goman stated in 2007, there was optimism about these types of projects, but now it does not work. Studies show that it will not work due to population density, traffic and daytime employment. He stated that the economists continue to learn and the industry continues to change how projects are financed.
Public hearing closed at 9:50 PM
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:
- Preliminary discussion regarding a potential zoning amendment to allow a residential care facility.
Jon Chuck was present to discuss creating a new regulation that would allow for a residential care home to be operated in limited residential zones. The idea is to take some of the large homes and/or small mansions which people cannot afford to live in and turn them into a residential care homes. He reviewed what services would be provided stating that it would be licensed by the State Department of Health.
Commissioner Pacekonis made a motion to extend the meeting after 10:00 PM; second by V. Wilson and passed unanimously.
The Commission discussed the proposal. They expressed some concern where these types of facilities might be located and suggested creating regulation criteria that would protect the residential character of the area.
Lipe stated that if the Commission is interested, she can work with them (the applicants) suggesting criteria that should be considered.
BONDS: None
MINUTES:
5/24/11 minutes and 6/14/11 minutes were adopted by consensus
OTHER BUSINESS: None
CORRESPONDENCE/REPORTS:
Commissioner G. Pitcock notes submitting a copy of the historic resources survey, Phase I and II, to the Planning Department and for the boards use.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner B. Pacekonis made a motion to adjourn at 10:25 PM. Commissioner V. Wilson seconded.
The motion carried unanimously
Respectfully Submitted:
Elizabeth Corriea
Approved PZC 7/26/11
| 
