PLANNING COMMISSION
(203) 797-4525
(203) 797-4586 (FAX)
MINUTES
OCTOBER 3, 2007
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Arnold Finaldi Jr. at 7:35 PM.
Present were John Deeb, Kenneth Keller, Edward Manuel, Joel Urice, Arnold Finaldi Jr. and Alternate Paul Blaszka. Also present were Associate Planner Jennifer Emminger and Deputy Planning Director Sharon Calitro.
Absent was Alternate Fil Cerminara.
Mr. Urice made a motion to accept the minutes of August 1, 2007, which were distributed at the previous meeting. Mr. Keller seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. Chairman Finaldi announced that they would be tabling the minutes from the August 15, 2007 & September 5, 2007 meetings.
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
PUBLIC HEARING:
7:30 PM – Sugar Hollow Road Assoc. LLC – Application for Special Exception to allow uses (Retail, Restaurants & Drive-thru Bank) generating in excess of 500 vehicle trips per day in the CG-20 Zone, “The Shops at Marcus Dairy”, 3 Sugar Hollow Rd. (#G17002 & #G17019) – SE #663. This application has not yet received EIC approval.
Mr. Keller read the legal notice. Attorney Neil Marcus spoke in favor of this application. He gave an extensive history (dating back to 1947) of how these two properties came to the configuration they are in now. He then spoke about how the family realized that the dairy has become obsolete and it is time to make some changes. The first step will be to eliminate the trucks and other manufacturing items from the site. Then they will demolish the existing buildings. He said it is pretty funny that the main thing that the public seems to be concerned with is that they rebuild the Dairy Bar.
Dainius Virbickas PE, of Artel Engineering, said they are looking to develop these parcels as a shopping plaza with 92,000 sq.ft. of retail, restaurant and bank uses. There are some development constraints on this parcel, the brook needs to be contended with and some sewer and drainage easements. They are working with Clay Smook of Smook Architecture to lay out the buildings around the perimeter with much of the parking on the interior. There will be 545 parking spaces and 11 handicapped spaces. They are fortunate to have the river to discharge to, since they are mostly impervious. They have worked out an underground detention system.
This will gather roof runoff and get the infiltration into ground before going into brook. EIC has required them to clarify this water using Vortechnic swirl separators, then this clean water will discharge to Kissin brook. He said an application has been made to Common Council for water service so they can put a hydrant on the parcel. There is existing sanitary sewer on property, so adding connections is relatively simple, they can even reuse one of the existing lines. Part of reason they are before the Commission with this is for trip generation. A Traffic Report prepared by Barkan & Mess has been submitted. The peak times are Friday afternoon and all day Saturday. All of the intersections are okay except for the one directly in front of the Mall. The trouble seems to be eastbound coming from direction of the Danbury Square Mall. The current conditions have an LOS of “E”, with this development the LOS would drop to an “F”. The City is looking into making signalization improvements which might make it possible to get to this to an LOS of “D”. Mr. Virbickas continued saying they have also applied for a Floodplain Permit, since portions of the property lie in the 100 year floodplain. It is a challenge to develop this without taking away floodplain storage. To compensate, on the northwestern portion, they are proposing to excavate existing soils to center of site and they will be able to increase floodplain storage by roughly 18 yards. The EIC had the Landscape Architect prepare a rough landscaping plan to show what they will remove from the site. He has an extremely ambitious plan for the new plantings. He said they have received comments back from the Building Dept. who suggests they divide up the handicapped spaces even more. The Fire Marshal has requested they add a hydrant north of Kissin Brook. They received a letter from Engineering today and they have already done some of the things they are requesting, it is just a matter of getting them to review the revised plans. Many of their requirements were already being required by EIC. They also received the Staff Report today and they will address that. There was great deal of back and forth questions and answers about the traffic issues. Mr. Virbickas attempted to answer all of the questions but also deferred to the traffic engineer who prepared the report. Attorney Marcus jumped in and said they could have him here for the next meeting. This discussion led to a rather intense session regarding the floodplain issues. Mrs. Emminger said she has requested additional info from the applicant regarding the floodplain permit and she will be working with the DEP on this matter. Attorney Marcus again came forward and said they were living on the property during the October 1955 flood and this property does not flood, probably because they did a good job when they designed Kissen Brook. He continued saying this property does not flood when the Mall floods. They don’t anticipate that the proposed parking lots would flood, since they are not changing this except to make it more pervious. They will design it in accordance with the 100 year floodplain regulations because they have to but it will not be a problem.
Clay Smook, Smook Architecture then spoke, he said this is a spectacular site for many reasons. He said there is a rich history with Marcus family having owned it for so long. He then said this is not a very big retail development. He described the buildings: the main building (which will be bigger on each end with one story stores in between) and three restaurant pads and a drive-thru bank pad. He said his starting point was the dairy; he wanted to keep it in the style of New England architecture. The buildings had to be 360 degrees because there is visibility on all sides. He said it is not only the buildings but also what happens between store fronts and curbs that is important. There will be plantings, trees, and trash receptacles. He said one important feature they would like to keep is the silo with the Marcus Dairy logo on it. He then showed them an image board they put together using other locations to give a sense of the proposed architecture. He described the materials and techniques that they will use to give the aura of New England wooden structures. He said they will customize the storefronts to allow tenants to have their own identity; to have some variety but maintain continuity. The overall pedestrian environment that links all of these pieces is intended to create a synergy. Restaurants do better when they are located in small groups. They are still deciding which building will house the dairy bar. He said they wanted it to be different than the Mall which is not necessarily an attractive structure. He added that they want this development to have a main street kind of feel. This concept, this type of shopping center really doesn’t exist much in Danbury at this time. He said there is enormous exposure on this site and they would like to create something that is a little different. He added that they are open to suggestions from the Commission. They left the biggest silo on purpose, so they can tie this to the historic past. This silo is 75 ft. high and they had to get a variance to put logo on it because it is a sign.
Attorney Marcus said they may have to tweak the architecture for a specific tenant but this is the basic plan. Mr. Keller asked about the motorcycle cruise days and nights. Attorney Marcus said if they build this the parking lot, it will be a lot better and could hold a lot more motorcycles, especially on Sunday morning or after 6 PM on Saturday night. These are both dead times traditionally for retail so there should be no conflict. He added that he hopes his tenants will be cooperative and they will be able to continue the tradition. This was followed by more traffic questions from the Commission members. Attorney Marcus said they will definitely have Allan Mess here for the next meeting.
Mrs. Emminger asked if they had thought of green roofs, and Clay Smook asked if she meant gardens or green sustainable life. He said they did not think of it because there is really no access to the roofs, what they are working on now is how to screen the mechanicals. He said a problem with green roofs is the weight on the structure. Mrs. Emminger then said she has evidence from the EIC that Attorney Marcus is wrong about the site not flooding. She will bring the pictures to the next hearing showing the flooding. She asked if they had considered phasing the project, since they are proposing multiple buildings. She added that is an issue that can be addressed down the road because of the Construction Permits. Attorney Marcus said they had not considered that because obviously it takes time to build a project of this scope. He did say they would discuss it. Mrs. Emminger said it is easier to do it at the site plan level. Attorney Marcus then said he would rather just build it all at once. They could have it done in a year, and sometimes the financing prevents doing it in phases. Mrs. Emminger said in her Staff Report she had requested additional landscaping in specific areas. She asked if there is adequate stacking for the drive-thru. Mr. Virbickas said they had made sure they had at least 100 ft. as required. He said there is a note on the site plan about them providing more than what is required. There was some additional discussion about proposed elevations with respect to the floodplain. Mr. Blaszka asked about something in the Staff Report regarding the trucks. Mr. Virbickas said this has been a struggle between the architect and the engineer, but they will be submitting a truck turning plan. Mrs. Emminger asked for the loading docks to be designated as part of the site plan. Mr. Virbickas said they are not designed yet. Mrs. Emminger said since the there is no information regarding the loading, the Commission has to assume there will be tractor trailers. Mr. Virbickas said they will submit additional information regarding this issue.
Chairman Finaldi asked if there was anyone to speak in opposition and there was no one.
Mr. Urice made a motion to continue the public hearing. Mr. Keller seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Karistos Associates General Partnership – Application for Special Exception for Cluster Development (“Glen Brook Estates”) in the RA-20 Zone –11 Pembroke Rd. (#G08033) – SE #660. This application has received EIC approval. Public hearing opened 8/1/07 – 35 days were up 9/5/07. 35 day extension granted to 10/10/07.
Keith Beaver, Didona Associates, submitted a letter granting an extension letter to October 17, 2007. He added that they have met with Mrs. Emminger about the taking line for DOT project and revising their plans to reflect the setback line. She said she had spoken to someone in design for the DOT project. There is funding in place and they anticipate starting in 2008 with a finish by 2010. She asked for their engineer to show full extent of the DOT improvements on their plans, since this project is predicated on these improvements being completed. She added that we are waiting for revised plans to come in from the applicant and once they get them, she hopes to have everything finalized by the October 17th meeting. Mr. Manuel asked if this means that if road improvements are not done this will not be approved. Mr. Keller asked if they need something from the State before they grant an approval. Mrs. Emminger said no their approval is going to be based on the DOT plans. She added that she is working with Corporation Counsel on the language regarding the issuance of the permits. Mr. Keller suggested this seems problematic. Mr. Urice asked if the applicant has agreed to not allowing a Certificate of Occupancy. Mrs. Calitro responded to Mr. Manuel’s question saying that if the Commission votes to approve this, he will have an approval based on the state doing the roadwork. Their traffic study was based on the State doing the road work. Baseline condition is that road improvements have to be in place. Option is for the applicant to either do the work or wait for the State to do it. Mrs. Calitro said she has been through this before on a similar project. She said she has informed the applicant of the conditions this could be approved under. He understands that the work must be done whether he does it or the State does it. The City will not be in the position that the commission is worried about. Mr. Urice made a motion to continue the public hearing. Mr. Manuel seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
OLD BUSINESS FOR CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION:
Regina K. O’Hara, Jose Alvarado & Holly Drew – Application for Special Exception for Cluster Development (“Hidden Glen”) in the RA-20 Zone – 33 Golden Hill Rd. (#H11133 & portion of #H11131) – SE #661. Public hearing closed 9/19/07 – 65 days will be up 11/23/07.
Mrs. Emminger distributed a draft resolution. Mr. Urice asked if it is clear that the road will never be a City road, that it will always be private. Mrs. Emminger said it is stated as number two in the resolution. She added that in the past if a development was approved with a private road, the City Engineer would never consider accepting it as a City road. And as far as we know the current City Engineer and the Director of Public Works still hold to the same policy. Mrs. Emminger said everything else is standard conditions. Mr. Urice made a motion to approve this per the resolution. Mr. Manuel seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
NEW BUSINESS:
8-3a Referral – Petition of the City of Danbury by Dennis I. Elpern, Planning Director, 67, 69, 71, 75-79 Newtown Rd., 1 Plumtrees Rd. & Un-numbered Road Widening Parcel on Newtown Rd.(#L11035, #L12032, #L12036, #L11037, #L11036, #L11033, #L12033 & #L11040) for a Change of Zone from CL-10 to CG-20 & IG-80. Zoning Commission public hearing scheduled for October 9, 2007.
Mrs. Calitro asked if they could consider this referral this evening. She explained the purpose of this petition is to rezone various parcels of land including Berkshire Shopping Center from CL-10 to CG-20 and one parcel to IG-80. It has long been an issue that this large a shopping center is zoned “light commercial”, since the applicant now wants to make some changes; he needs for it to be zoned general commercial. She added that this is in accordance with the Plan of Conservation & Development. Mr. Urice made a motion to give this a positive recommendation. Mr. Keller seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
MSW Associates LLC – Application for Special Exception to allow “Transfer Station and Volume Reduction Plant” in the IG-80 Zone – 16 Plumtrees Rd. (#L13144) – SE #664. This application has EIC approval. Public hearing scheduled for December 5, 2007.
Kaplan Realty Group– Application for Revision to Floodplain Permit – “Jay Earl Associates LLC”, 62-69 Kenosia Ave. (#F18002) – SP #72-16.
Chairman Finaldi said these would be on file in the Planning & Zoning Office.
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
REFERRALS:
8-24 Referral/February '06 CC Agenda Item #26 – Eagle Road Center LLC/Transfer of Property to City of Danbury. Tabled pending receipt of additional information.
Mrs. Calitro requested they move this to item #2 under Other Matters. Mr. Urice made a motion to do so. Mr. Manuel seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
8-24 Referral/September ’07 CC Agenda Item #9: Acceptance of Ann Drive/Petition by Ann Drive Condominium Association.
Mrs. Calitro explained that this has been a longstanding issue in both our office and Public Works. In 1976 the bond was reduced but the road was never finished. It went back and forth between the Engineering Dept. and the Developer until the Commission voted to call the bond in 1986. It seems it ended up getting bounced around and it just is not clear whether the City ever actually took control of the money. So now we need to resolve this. The City needs to figure out what work needs to be done to bring this road to City standards and then how much will it cost? Mr. Urice asked what exactly the Council is looking for from them. Mrs. Calitro said they need to be specific with this motion because we don’t want to recommend approval. Mr. Urice suggested giving it a conditional approval. Chairman Finaldi said he is more inclined to give it a negative because they don’t have the information necessary to make an informed decision. Mr. Urice made a motion to give this a negative recommendation because they don’t have the information necessary to make a recommendation. Mr. Manuel seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
8-24 Referral/September ’07 CC Agenda Item #10: Roadway Widening Parcels – 7 Long Ridge Rd, P & A Associates.
These two road widening parcels were a condition of approval for Subdivision application #06-03. Parcel A totals 1,021 square feet in size and Parcel B totals 3,819 square feet in size. Both parcels are adjacent to the existing right-of-way of Long Ridge Rd. The parcels are shown on the plan approved by the Commission on June 20, 2007. Mr. Urice made a motion to give this a positive recommendation because it complies with the conditions of the approved subdivision plan and the merger of the two parcels with the existing right-of-way will enable roadway widening by the City if deemed necessary in the future. This positive recommendation is subject to the submission of all required legal documents in form and content acceptable to Corporation Counsel.
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
8-24 Referral/September ’07 CC Agenda Item #11: Request for Sewer Extension/60 Shelter Rock Rd.
Mrs. Emminger said there was a revised site plan approved in April this year. It was not for any additional buildings, it was just to straighten out the parking and the sewer and water. The applicant is working with Engineering to come up with the final design. Mr. Urice made a motion to give this a positive recommendation because it is within the existing sewer service area as shown in the Plan of Conservation and Development. This positive recommendation is subject to (1) the approval of the final design, benefit assessment determination and financing provisions, construction, installation and inspection requirements of the City of Danbury and the Departments of Engineering and Public Utilities, and (2) submission of all required legal documents in form and content acceptable to Corporation Counsel. Mr. Keller seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
OTHER MATTERS:
Eagle Road Center LLC – Request for reduction in bond amount per Waiver to Subdivision Regulations approved on September 15, 2004 – SUB #89-12 (aka SE #588/Lots 1 & 2). Previous reductions granted September 21, 2005 & November 16, 2005 – request of January 9, 2006 was denied.
Mrs. Emminger explained that the City has not officially accepted the road because there is still outstanding work to be done. We received a letter from Bob Palmer requesting to reduce the bond to the minimum amount and then again down to $250,000. These requests were sent to the City Engineer for review and they response was that there is no objection to the first proposed reduction because that amount is still adequate to complete the work that is still outstanding. The Planning Dept. objects to the second request because in 2004, the applicant made an agreement with the Planning Commission that the bond will not be reduced to any less than $750,000 until the Common Council accepts the road. Mrs. Calitro said Engineering has been reviewing this and the applicant has long-standing punch list that they have been addressing rather slowly. Mr. Manuel said his feeling is that they should deny this request entirely. Mr. Blaszka suggested that since the costs keep increasing, maybe we shouldn’t reduce it at all. Mr. Keller said this is just too significant a project with too much involved for them to be casual about it at this time. Mr. Urice said in light of the history with this contractor, he made a motion to deny. Mr. Manuel seconded the motion. Mrs. Calitro asked them to clarify which request the motion is on. Chairman Finaldi polled the Commission and the motion is on the first request. He then called for a vote on the motion to deny the first request and it was passed unanimously.
8-24 Referral/February '06 CC Agenda Item #26 – Eagle Road Center LLC/Transfer of Property to City of Danbury. Tabled pending receipt of additional information.
Mrs. Calitro explained that this transfer was based on the road being completed and as we established in the previous discussion, it is not. Mr. Urice made a motion to give this a negative recommendation because the road needs to be completed before this can be done. Mr. Manuel seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
There was nothing under Correspondence and there were three applications for floodplain permits listed under For Reference Only.
At 9:40 PM, Mr. Keller made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Urice seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.