MEMBERS PRESENT: Bart Pacekonis, Viney Wilson, Mario Marrero, Elizabeth Kuehnel, Billy Carroll, Kevin Foley
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Cody Guarinieri
STAFF PRESENT: Michele Lipe, Town Planner
SPECIAL MEETING / MADDEN ROOM
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Bart Pacekonis called the Special Meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
- Meet with PZC consultant Glenn Chalder of Planimetrics, Inc. to discuss drafts associated with South Windsor Center POCD update and South Windsor Center draft zoning regulations (see enclosed materials)
Mr. Glenn Chalder referred the Commission to the Key Recommendations in the Planimetrics report previously sent to the Commissioners in their packets. He recommended the Commission consider amending the South Windsor Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) to have an organizational concept for the South Windsor Center. Overlay zones can be enacted as well as form based coding, a graphic zoning code, which goes specifically into dimensions and requirements.
Chapter 9 of the POCD recommends the creation of a mixed use pedestrian friendly environment for South Windsor Center, an idea also supported by the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Chalder’s first recommendation replaces the restrictive commercial zoning district with a new zoning district with an intensity of development for the center area.
The ‘Center Core’ area is bounded by Buckland, Ellington, Clark and Deming Roads. ‘Center North’ is the area east, west and north of the Center Core.
The roads in the vicinity of South Windsor Center have significant traffic and make the area opportune for a center development. These major road corridors are called ‘capacity corridors’. Moving traffic volumes will continue to be the main focus of these streets. Some town centers have on street parking and narrow widths which may not work on these streets which will have to retain their function as capacity corridors for the foreseeable future.
‘Character corridors’ are areas which promote pedestrian friendliness and provide for more flexibility in terms of setbacks and the creation of a mixed use pedestrian friendly village type location. Existing driveways in the area can be built upon to create connections and sites consolidated for access and parking. In looking at opportunities for creating a type of street or grid system there is one location to consider where a building could be proposed for removal at the main shopping area to create a street or grid system. A key point in creating a pedestrian friendly environment is to create smaller blocks which are more intimate with buildings closer.
The main organizing theme in South Windsor Center at the present time is a double lane boulevard with uses building off of that. To create a town center a ‘main street’ is required which feels authentic and makes sense as an organizing element. A previous study from CRCOG looked at the site and came to a similar conclusion. A reason to consider this for the POCD is that property owners in the area may have ideas for future modifications and improvements which can then be incorporated.
The report includes suggestions for establishing and building character corridors. Dimensions for sidewalks and buildings adjacent to sidewalks, on-street parking, landscaping and lighting are critical in a village type setting. Diagonal parking is a better configuration for town centers because it doubles the amount of parking parallel parking offers and easier access for all. The relationship of buildings to the street and dimensions for sidewalks are important considerations to get into the plan.
Pedestrian sidewalks to connect all parts with all areas are important. Missing links to sidewalks create challenges in creating the type of environment the residents of South Windsor say they want for a town center.
Mr. Chalder spoke about building locations on the boulevard coming in off Ellington Road. Existing buildings fronting on a parking lot offer the opportunity to create the first street by infilling buildings on the other side and adding additional buildings to create a block system. It is very difficult to get something going in front of the Stop & Shop and their parking lot but there is an opportunity to frame the intersection and put in some buildings to create the streetscape and to create additional building opportunities going through to Deming Street.
The challenge in the north core area is in creating main streets and road connections because of the way the properties are configured. Properties are generally shallower with open space behind and without the same development potential. Property owners can suggest alternative configurations that may work for them provided the overall goal is the creation of a pedestrian friendly environment.
Mr. Peter DeMallie asked if the character corridors are meant for pedestrians and bicyclists or roads. Mr. Chalder replied character corridors are intended to be primarily interconnecting street-like ‘driveways’. Mr. DeMallie spoke at length about the area and suggested pedestrian distance goes further than what the core areas show. Mr. Chalder agreed and stated the existing regulation for Buckland Gateway already allows for this type of development so the situation is in place for connecting road going further south and connecting to other places. The town center is the place to create the core and focal point which is why there is more intensity and more flexibility with yard setbacks.
On the subject of new zoning for South Windsor Center, Mr. Chalder stated one approach the Commission can take is overlay zoning which means the restricted commercial district stays but new opportunities of reduced setbacks and increased coverage can be taken advantage of but are not mandated. If a new zoning district, which can be called the Center Core Zoning District, is created then everyone is mandated to comply with it. Town Planner, Michele Lipe, and Mr. Chalder recommend the overlay zone as a way to start initially. There is also the approach of a Village District which gives the Commission ability to deny a building because the design is not in keeping with what the town character should be. Town center zoning differs from regular zoning in trying to create a cohesive whole which may involve different property
owners who may have different ideas. A village district’s guidelines can be used for aesthetic results if the Commission wants stricter control of the designs.
The Buckland Gateway zone is a good foundation. The construction of any new building will require a special exception. Drive-up facilities need to be carefully managed in a village center area as they pose challenges to pedestrian friendly districts. They can be allowed there but as a secondary consideration to pedestrian use.
Multi-family residential uses can be permitted but only above the street level of the building. The concept of maintaining active uses at street level is important. Consolidated parcels are encouraged. Reduction of front yard setbacks from the street is recommended from 65’ to 25’ as a way to allow expansion and additional development in office areas in closer proximity to the street.
On internal streets a building shall generally be placed at the edge of the sidewalk. The Commission can modify side and rear yard setbacks on internal parcels down to zero to create a pedestrian friendly streetscape. It is recommended for building placement that the long dimension of a building be placed parallel to the street to maximize parking in front and back to support the building to create a continual streetscape.
Maximum building coverage of 50% is recommended and impervious coverage up to 80%. A minimum building height is recommended for consideration that does not permit one story buildings. There can be flexibility in allowing a one story building with a two story façade but if the goal is to add square footage in use and intensity to create a village center then one story buildings are useful for the tenant today but not necessarily useful for the village center overall.
Some appearance requirements are carried over from Buckland Gateway as well as the access and parking standards. It is envisioned that all internal streets would be privately owned and maintained. A blended parking rate of 3 spaces per 1,000 sf is suggested to support mixed use development where someone will park once and visit 2 to 3 businesses. If someone wants to offer more parking they can do so but it is not mandated. Parking will be provided along internal streets with additional parking behind the buildings with pedestrian and bicycle circulation encouraged.
Mr. Chalder suggested this opportunity could be used to encourage and allow housing in the town center area which also accomplishes the affordability component. Chairman Pacekonis asked if other town center districts use higher than a 10% of housing units for affordability. Mr. Chalder stated some town center regulations have no affordability requirements and others do. There are different thresholds in terms of affordability requirements. This is a suggestion not to meet State requirements or guidelines but rather to provide the opportunity for housing to meet needs and 10% could be the number for discussion.
Mr. Steve Wagner asked how bicyclists will be accommodated with diagonal street parking. Mr. Chalder replied there are no optimal situations but that prudence is the better form of valor in these types of environment. It may be beneficial to stripe a bicycle lane but it will not prevent cars backing out of parking spaces. He described the less ideal ‘back in’ parking which then creates challenges for the elderly to maneuver cars into the spaces.
Mr. DeMallie suggested in achieving affordable housing that smaller units (studios or one bedroom units) are much more affordable and by virtue of their size will always be more affordable than deed restrictive policies to meet A-30G requirements. He also spoke about 25’setbacks on the arterial roads in other towns and how development can be done here to enhance economic development.
Chairman Pacekonis asked about the maximum height of 3 ½ stories / 45’. Mr. Chalder stated there are examples in the center area of 3 ½ stories / 45’ today. The most important thing is the perception and feel of the pedestrian street and the ratio of building height to building separation. Commissioner Foley cited Glastonbury center as a similar feel to where South Windsor could go rather than Storrs’ town center or West Hartford’s Blue Back Square. Mr. Chalder used the phrase ‘gentle infill’ to allow the center to evolve over time as the best outcome for the community overall. Mr. DeMallie spoke about the importance of great architectural design to create an exciting center area. The Chairman continued on the subject of height restrictions and not wanting to limit heights at
the start but rather to be open to all design and to analyze other town centers in the area. Mr. Chalder suggested the best way to evaluate those areas will be to look at proportion of building height to the street and how it feels as a town center.
Mr. Chalder stated his goal is to offer regulations to the Commission for consideration however the Commission may elect not to adopt regulations at this time but only the amendment to the POCD which sets the stage for the dialog to unfold. Regulations can be available for consideration at a time of future developer’s proposals. This allows developers to propose and the Commission to react to those proposals. The number one thing to address now is to flush out the POCD by amendment to set parameters and put expectations in place about what the Commission expects for the area.
Vice Chairman Wilson described an ideal town center area she found. Commissioner Foley repeated the Hebron Avenue / Main Street area of Glastonbury is the type of development which could fit South Windsor best and what the Commission has the ability to do here. There is the opportunity to improve on what Glastonbury has done by adding diagonal parking in the front with parking to the rear of buildings like Evergreen Walk to create the destination. Mr. DeMallie agreed with the Commissioner that Glastonbury is a better model.
The north overlay zone allows for mixed use and multi-family residential use to provide living opportunities for people who will shop, frequent and enjoy the center. It allows for an opportunity for cohesive development to come together to strengthen the town center. This zone has the same setback requirements, sidewalks, impervious coverage at 65%, building coverage at 35%, density is 4 ½ units per net acre, and affordability requirement.
The wetlands, brook corridor and existing land use such as the cemetery have been used as appropriate zone boundary lines. Commissioner Carroll suggested using the low gully area instead. Mr.Chalder replied boundary lines were based on location of property lines in the area and wetlands and to avoid splitting a parcel with a zone however boundaries were used based on a planner’s overview which can be amended.
Mr. DeMallie spoke about the density of the multi-family area of 4 ½ units per acre as almost a rural standard. Previously 8 units per acre was the standard in town when all the condominiums were built. A 4 ½ units or 8 units per acre standard will not work in the center of town to create multi-family development. 15 to 20 units per acre in the center of town with multi-stories will be necessary. Mr. Chalder stated he is supportive of a higher density in the core center environment but would not want the housing on the peripheral north core areas to dilute the market for what will be the center.
Mr. Bob Urso stated Glastonbury’s regulations for their town center has 50 % coverage with one acre rezoned to have 40 units on an acre. Mr. Chalder stated he recommends no density limit in the core area. Coverage and the design and how it is configured are established but not to put a limit on volume on what a developer may propose. Mr. DeMallie suggested including the area around the Hartford Hospital building up to Ellington Road within the core area. Mr. Chalder stated the distance across the arterial road that surrounds the core is a stretch for the present time.
ADJOURNMENT:
Chairman Pacekonis adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lauren L Zarambo
Recording Secretary
| 
